Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-18 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Minutes Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Minutes Councilors Attending: Geoffrey Gratwick, Susan Hawes, Richard Stone, Frank Farrington Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, Jim Ring, Norman Heitman, John Hamer, Kate Weber, Dana Wardwell Others Attending: Representative from Habitat for Humanity, Dawn Gagnon Committee convened at 5:00 p.m. th 1. Disposition of City Land off 5 Street Councilor Gratwick starts meeting with welcoming of members and guest speakers and introduction of Jim Ring who will be presenting an overview of the disposition. Jim Ring presents update of activities regarding parcel over the past couple of weeks. Mentioned Monique had spoken at the last Council meeting in December. And also states that a vacant piece of City Land that lies on the interior of the block bounded by Third Street, Carroll Street, Fifth Street, and Vine Street, indicating on the map that it is an irregular shaped parcel, that does have frontage on Fifth Street. As indicated in remarks to the Council in December Jim has been working on contacting the property owners. About a year ago there was a Neighborhood Meeting. And at that time Habitat was considering doing as many as four or five housing units on this parcel, subsequent to that, looked into cost for extending infrastructure that appeared to be difficult in terms of feasibility, compounded by the irregularity of the lot including the narrow part, down the middle, and so forth. Subsequent to that meeting Habitat was able to find a site in Brewer to build last year, but they are very much interested in doing something on this parcel in 2005. It appears the most logical way to develop it, if the property is made available to Habitat, is to develop one or two lots utilizing the frontage off Fifth Street. The width of the property was thought to be about 140 feet and that was problematic for two lots, because you need a total of 125 to meet our zoning ordinances, and that would be to create one frontage lot of 75 feet, which is minimum, plus a flag lot that would encompass the rest of the area and would need an additional 50 feet for a total of 125. It appears that there is only 140 looking at our accessing records. One of the good things determined in the last couple of weeks, through some additional research and the registry of deeds, looking at some of the historic division of property and a plan filed in the registry, we found there’s actually 129 feet. So that would give us the room to create two lots. Jim states he has developed a map that would depict how that might be laid out. The other thing, if we were to provide land to create two building lots we have to figure out what to do with the remainder of the parcel. Jim states he has been working on a plan on how that might logically be divided 1 to abutters. Jim states he has not brought the plans but has shared it with Monique because we’re still working with some potential issues with some of the abutters. Hopeful that it can get done and in short order. Jim Ring stated he has been trying to contact all the abutters to the parcel and tell them generally about Habitat’s interest in the property and how to divide the property out and see what their feelings are in advance of a public meeting. And in hopes to present something to the Neighborhood Meeting to addressed most of the issues and concerns. He also stated that he has spoken to all but five of the property owners. Has not encountered anyone he spoke with that was opposed to the project with the understanding there would be a public meeting and an opportunity for them to speak prior to any final decisions being made. There were concerns by abutters at a specified end location pointed out by Jim Ring. He also states those are not insurmountable and how they would address those issues with Monique last Thursday. Property owner on the corner has a swimming pool, with a drain onto the property. States it’s an issue but can be handled. Ideas on how to do that. Property owner concern that he will lose the drain although he didn’t know it’s exact function. Suspected to be an emergency drain. But this is something that could be dealt with. On the opposite side some concerns about drainage that had occurred perhaps from the construction of a home not shown on the aerial photograph. Jim states that he also contacted that property owner and indicated that what would be needed is to first, verify if there is or is not a drainage issue there. Second, what could be done to correct it especially in conjunction with any other development, clearly identify who would do it and by what schedule. With those three perimeters met she didn’t project any problem. The final issue that is identified in the conversations with the abutters is the gentleman that owns the property, pointed out from the aerial photograph, has been using a large area for decades for a gardening. Notes it is important to him and understandably so, he’d like to continue to do that. Not just a matter of area, but that particular area, because he has worked it for many years and it is a very nice garden spot now. And he’s providing many vegetables for the neighborhood. Something he would like to see maintained or opportunity for him to do that. This can be something that can be provided for. Final Comment from several folks, expressing interest in back over decades in buying pieces of this, what frequently communicated whatever deal the City would do for one entity, being Habitat, they would expect the same type of treatment. If the City was donating land they would prefer not to pay for it if they were to get the remaining parcel divided up. In summary there is not strong opposition. Jim concludes with stating the need to have a public meeting to present this in a more formal way. Two, most folks are supportive, and three few issues or details need to be worked out with the final proposal. Jim leaves the floor open for questions and comments, then outline how we would propose to move forward to do this. Councilor Gratwick offers thanks to Jim and open up questions for the Council and return to the representatives for Habitat. Councilor Allen questions for the property with the swimming pool, if that would be possible to allow that to be drained into a sewer system. 2 Jim Ring states that the property has elevation to work with, this property tends to drop away the existing topography. Direct connection to drainage facility, or providing an easement and grading so if it needs to drain it will do so naturally along a different route then it does naturally now, to make sure accommodate that, either way need to include an easement the so the property owner can continue to have the right to drain by whatever means most logical. That’s insurmountable, just a technical issue to deal with. Councilor Allen asks with regards to exit of locations, asking where the entrance would be. Jim Ring indicated any lot would be a frontage lot having access by driveway. Not a construction of a road. To small a parcel to try to subdivide. Councilor Allen asks is one driveway longer than the other being the problem? Jim Ring states having a conversation with a developer of possibly using a shared drive. With a shared drive, it makes sense in economies, if you have changes in ownership then you have to distinguish what the shared maintenance responsibilities are. It would be a problem creating two separate driveways. One driveway longer than the other would not be an issue. That would depend on where the new homes would be placed on the parcels, which that has not been decided yet. Councilor Gratwick states recognize that we are talking about the conceptual aspects of this not the specifics, not without knowing where the houses are going to go, etc. Introduces the representative of Habitat for Humanity, Bob Cummel. Bob Cummel introduces himself from East Corinth, Maine, President for Habitat for Greater Bangor. Monique Gautreau with Habitat for Humanity, paid part-time staff person. Karen Kellerman, with Bangor Board of Realtors, from Enfield. Karen states that the meeting with Jim they had a tentative place to put the homes, so that they wouldn’t interfere with the neighbors concerns and could give them easement, where they have been using the land for so long. Also spoke with Baldacci’s office with regards to how to accommodate the gentleman that’s been working the garden. They could do an easement that would act as a life-estate. As long as he owns that property and works that garden he would have the continued use. If he sold the property or conveyed it later, that land would still continue to go with the new Habitat house. Councilor Gratwick this seems to meet current needs? Monique comments on Jim’s contribution to the on their behalf. And also indicates the concerns from the neighbors from a year ago and they don’t want change. Efforts are worth the City spending time and effort for, and the need for reasonable housing and thanks for the effort on the City’s part. 3 Councilor Gratwick specifics and time frame of neighborhood meetings. Concern rest of the land and how the city staff would propose to think about the perimeters. And writing down neighborhood concerns. Councilor Allen supports affordable housing. Room for new housing and beneficial. Also states concern with maintenance and lease of the pool. Establish a policy or something so these people can drain their pools at appropriate times of the year. Can go into an overflow, separate from the land. Gratwick turns to Jim requesting time-table and recommendations of the conceptual aspects of the land. Jim Ring mentions meeting with the individuals, and Habitat with their concerns, to have a more efficient meeting. In hopes to contact the remaining five neighbors. Also in hopes to have a public meeting to invite comments from the neighborhood. So that committee and council get direct formal input from the neighborhood. In hopes the Council from that the Council will be prepared to make a final decision, so that Habitat may have an answer in early March. Monique indicates they are in the process of doing the home visits. And in hopes to select the family in the beginning of March. Jim Ring states he has a working plan, on how to divide the rest of the land. Which would not presented publicly until that is worked out in more detail. Councilor Gratwick summarizes, with Jim meeting with the remainder of the abutters in the next to weeks and to share that information with the Committee at a meeting in four weeks. And shortly after that have a neighborhood meeting. So the overview can be submitted to the Council February, early March. Ed Barrett indicates Jim might be able to work out the details with neighbors through these meetings, suggest that depending on how things go, only one meeting might be necessary to invite the neighborhood. If there are out-standing issues then perhaps another meeting is necessary. Councilor Allen states her agreement. Mentioning these are issues that have come up in other parts of the City. And establish mechanism for future properties similar to this. Gratwick closes the discussion. 2. Council Ordinance 05-55, Enacting a Moratorium On Certificates of Occupancy For Chemical Dependency Treatment Facilities (Methadone Clinics) 4 Councilor Gratwick indicates that this item has been referred by the Council for this Committee for review and recommendation. And turns discussion over to John Hamer, Assistant City Solicitor. John Hamer explains that moratorium ordinances of short duration designed to restrict development. In this situation is the ordinate issue would restrict the issuance of certificate of occupancy. Which gives zoning clearance and the right to occupy certain premises by any business or any time a business is constructed you need to have a certificate of occupancy. Before the members are a Council Order to restrict the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for Chemical Dependency Treatment Facility, which the Methadone Clinic falls within that category of use under the Zoning Ordinance. Decide to recommend approval this to Council, which does have to go back to the Council for a vote. If deciding it is prudent, then the Committee will have to look at the Title 38 Section 43-56, which authorizes municipalities to enact moratorium. And find a basis for enacting the moratorium. Two reasons you could enact a moratorium: First, under Subsection 1A, to prevent shortage or overburden of public facility that would otherwise occur during effective period of a moratorium. Or set reasonably foreseeable as a result of any proposed development. Second, under Subsection 1B, because the application of existing comprehensive plans, land use ordinances, or regulations or other applicable laws, if any is inadequate to prevent serious public harm from residential, commercial, or industrial development in the effected geographic area. As you can tell both are designed to deal with effects of development and inadequate perhaps planning tools or overburdening public facilities to deal with those. So if you decide it is prudent, you’re going to have to find a basis for enacting it, having some discussion about one of these two basis or enacting the moratorium. If you find you can substantiate either subsection 1A or 1B to have a basis for a moratorium then you can go recommend approval to the Council. Part of the importance of this meeting is not only to make the recommendation to the Committee, but also to develop a legislative history. So if there is any question about the moratorium there will be a background to say why was it approved and what factors were considered in going into it. Councilor Gratwick refers to the phrase that states in order to base a moratorium on Subsection 1B, to identifying the serious public harm to be avoided or identify the geographic area. How is the committee required to interpret the serious public harm or in general there could be serious public harm. Gratwick request John Hamer to clarify. John Hamer states he will start with the geographic area, the way the moratorium order has been it written, it would cover the entire city, that’s really your geographic area. If you wanted to limit it I suppose you could to a more specific area. Right now that geographic area is already specified. In terms of 1B in order to provide the background to enacting the ordinance you have to show that the existing laws of the City of Bangor & comprehensive plans isn’t adequate to prevent serious public harm. The need to have some idea of what the problem is that the moratorium is designed to postpone while the City takes a look at the plans and upgrades it’s plans and zoning ordinances, and so forth. Councilor Gratwick request Councilor Allen make comments and say where you think we should go with this. 5 Councilor Allen states that she supports a moratorium. Councilor Gratwick asks for more specifics, would we be doing section 1B the entire geographic area the City the serious public harm you would classify as? Councilor Allen asks that before they even get to that point, even though there is such a thing as home rule or in this particular issue, does state law have the right to override the moratorium that may be we may put on this? John Hamer states yes it does, this section is a limit on the City’s home rule authority, with specific limitations the home rule authority and it requires they have a board of appeals, it’s a limitation so in order to enact a moratorium you have to fit in one of the two categories. Councilor Allen asks if the decision by the committee to decide on one of these two categories is in order to comply with the State Law. Councilor Gratwick states that if the committee doesn’t do that then any conclusion we could come up with could be contested in a court of law? John Hamer states that in order to have the authority to enact it, you have to qualify under section 1A or 1B. Otherwise you don’t have the basis to go forward with a moratorium. It could then be contested, or maybe nobody would contest it, but really you don’t want to enact something if it’s not going to be Councilor Gratwick states we’re trying to be appropriate and follow law. And asks Annie for further specific questions. Councilor Allen asks if we are open for discussion before we take an actual determination as to which way? Councilor Gratwick states most assuredly and would anticipate talking about this for finite period of time, then coming up with some conclusion. And invite other opinions from City staff, other Councilors. Richard Stone states that he supports the moratorium. And indicates the reason of serious public harm due to the reduction of property values, business, families, whole litany of things fit into that category. Gratwick opens the floor for other comments. John Hamer states that there are many types of public harms, which is not defined in the statute. Should make sure to link it to the harm from the actual development, being the catch phrase in the statute. All kinds of public harm, so if you can steer in that directions. 6 Councilor Farrington believes that there if they’re allowed to develop in certain areas, it will be a decrease in property values other people in that area, safety to people in that area, ability in the for businesses in the area to function appropriately. Gratwick brings up the families in this area. We don’t have the possibility of clinics going in to residential areas. Regardless of where they might end up going, there are families that commute, shop, congregate, eat and do different things as families, and need to be aware of that during this moratorium period to make sure that we’re not hindering the ability of any of these families to function safely. Councilor Allen feels that under the issue of undo harm while we’re dealing with the actual development, there’s another side to development. The unknown factor of statistical data that is evolving around this time of facility that is never been addressed. And that’s really where the harm comes in. As to the impact of how this type of activity, to what extend will they burden the businesses in this area, we don’t know, we’ve never been told any numbers, we never been given any type of plan. So I believe that’s all part of the harm issue that we have to look at as well. Councilor Gratwick states he would also put under that category the economic effect on business and property value, and that’s a real harm. Councilor Hawes indicates that she supports the use of subsection 1B. Besides the business that we have talked about being hindered by this, I think it will help us avoid setting a precedent. And if the whole purpose of the moratorium is to allow us time to pull back, look at what we have, what are we offering the businesses, what are we offering the citizens, do we want health care facilities and a strip mall, in a shopping mall. Part of that is going to be defining what clinics are. This is going to buy us the time to do that, as far as family value, if it’s in a strip mall do you want your children running through it to rent a video and having a line of people out there in the morning waiting for their methadone. I think we need to support the moratorium Councilor Gratwick asks Councilor Farrington if he has anything to say. Councilor Farrington states it seems, just trying to take it completely objective viewpoint, I think the purpose of this moratorium is to prohibit further such clinics in the area. I think that’s where we are all coming from. And I would not argue with that, my concern is whether we can come up with some specific enough reasons. I understand the not in my back yard thing, because we are all familiar with that. I don’t think it holds up. The geographical area, we’ve determined it’s the whole City on one statement earlier in this meeting, Councilor Hawes just said it’s just in strip malls. One or the other statement is correct, I think if we are going to make this thing go we have to be fairly specific. My concern Mr. Chairman is that we’ll go through a lot of activity, time and expense for something that, let’s assume we all want to do, and just have it shot down. We’ve got to figure out a better way to do it. That it will hold up and the public harm definitions seem to me to be too general. They need to be specific if they’re going to hold water. I think a clinic, it’s already been established that a methadone clinic is for 7 the common good. I don’t think we’re going to win that argument. I would love not to win that argument, I just don’t have the medical background to do it. But I think if we’re going to push this, we’ve got to come up with specific reasons that we can win it. My comfort with where people are going is one thing, but then I say we might end up doing it for nothing. I don’t want to leave it to legal, course you never know if it’s going to court if we do that, whether we have enough specific reasons to do that. I have a fear we haven’t been specific enough to make it fly. But that’s a personal opinion, and thank you the chance to let me comment, Mr. Chairman. Councilor Gratwick would like to let the rest of the people at the table comment. But the focus of this so far, this has no bearing at the current time with the current methadone clinic, which exists at Acadia Hospital. And has no bearing on Colonial because that is a done deal. Though we’re talking in one sense fairly theoretical vein for the next 180 days about third person who might want to come in. How I’ve interpreted this is that we’re trying to set the groundwork in one sense or another for a reevaluation of the City’s whole stance on this issue. The specific of what we do today is not so important as the larger perspective that Councilor Allen is talking about reexamining some of our City laws and ordinances. Norm Heitman states that this would actually dovetail with that because the special committee we’ve set up must look at all medical providers, and obviously a chemical dependency treatment facility is a medical provider. And the idea behind that committee is to evaluate what our current zoning ordinances provide, whether or not they are appropriate, if so fine, if not, why not, and what changes could we make. If they are not appropriate, it may very well be the committee makes recommendations regarding the location of these types of clinics in terms of the appropriate zone in any conditions. I don’t think anybody is suggesting that a municipality can ban chemical dependency facilities. The suggestion is whether the current zoning is sufficient to deal with the concerns that the community and this board have. Councilor Farrington is right, the more specific you can articulate the reasons, the better, that goes without say, anytime you enact an ordinance change or pass an order. I would encourage as much specificity as possible. But what I see is if this Council enacts a moratorium on chemical dependency clinics that that would be dealt with in the context of the special committee. And that Committee would make recommendations. The moratorium is only 180 days, by statue, it could be shorter but the longest it can be by statue is 180 days, with it’s not due for an extension. The Committee’s to have work done by the end of March so it might dovetail rather nicely. Councilor Gratwick asks when is that Committee due to start deliberation and when will it finish. Councilor Farrington states it was charged by the Government Operations Committee to go over a list of people, I would say about 60 to 70 percent of the list we had, have agreed to be on the Committee. Some turned down, didn’t have time to contact all the Committee members, I talked with the Committee Chair for some substitutes. And I think there were three left to go, and I have one I haven’t talked to that has agreed to be on the Committee. I thought it was at least courteous to describe the charge, two more know about it, and we just need to formalize it. So the Committee is about, I 8 thought I’d have it done today, I’ve got to talk to two more tomorrow. So I think it will be complete. Councilor Gratwick comments that it sounds like a basic consensus that this is a small part of this larger Committee, though they’re doing this thing and we may have a solution to a larger problem by middle to late Spring. Councilor Farrington said I think the charge of the Committee would encompass this. Councilor Gratwick turns the table to City Manager Barrett and other members for comments. And asks for a motion and turn to Council, if there are no further questions. Councilor Allen feels very strongly about looking at the issue of a moratorium and the location of these facilities, there was a lot of time spent to set up a methadone clinic. We set up in a hospital setting or a medical setting for a reason and now we’ve gone 180 degrees the other way and let a private enterprise come in to an area that’s caused controversy. And really before we even do this I also believe we have to ask of these facilities when they come in, whether it come from the state we need some actual data because of this addiction, because of this is this type of facility, what the clientele is out there. If somebody is going to open up a shoe store, they’re not going to open up a shoe store if everybody is wearing slippers. What exactly are we dealing with? So to me the moratorium is essential because we need to know what the needs are out there, especially in this one particular field. Gratwick asks if there should be a motion to return to City Council for action? Norm Heitman states it will be returned to City Council, I think it would be helpful for the Council there be a motion you recommend for or against passage. What I’m hearing hear is, I always encourage the motion be uniform. I say the motion should be in that form. That’s recommended for passage. Councilor Gratwick working together to get a motion scripted it’s basically going to be under Section 1B # 2 at the bottom, with the geographic area being the whole City and the serious public harm relating to safety, property value, and economic value. Norm Heitman states for the reasons as are articulated. And keep in mind at the Council meeting there can be more, there can be further reasons articulated as well. Councilor Gratwick this is where we’re trying to create a track record of what we’ve deliberated and thought about. Councilor Allen states along with that we have to look at the need. What is the medical need to support such a facility? That’s all part of the picture, I don’t believe we can escape that. Norm Heitman states if a moratorium is past, one of the things the City’s obligated to do is because the City sees a problem how do we solve that problem? And obviously one of the things you look at in solving the problem would be need. The need that any 9 business meets may be relevant to where that business should be located and any other restrictions or limitations through zoning you might want to place on it. That’s not an irrelevant consideration. That’s not necessarily a sole reason to do a moratorium but it’s a relevant consideration in the long run. As it is with all the other discussions about all the other medical providers. Councilor Gratwick states that he is unclear about that, but happy to pass this on for now. Because I’m not sure we’re going to come with any clarity about that particular aspect of need here, nor am I persuaded we need to do that at this time. I am supportive of this going back to the full Council and solicit a motion hopefully affirmative to that position from the other members of the Committee. Councilor Hawes asks if we approve this to go back to Council, if it’s based on just what we’ve said tonight, this will dovetail with the work of the other Committee are we putting ourselves in risk of trying to interfere with business relationships? Are we at risk of the state agencies coming back going no, no, no? Is this something that would become immediate upon the Council voting yes? Norm Heitman states that Ordinances, unless the statues state different, take ten days to take into effect. It will dovetail with the Committee’s work, because when you pass a moratorium, you don’t just sit back and then do nothing. When you’ve identified a problem hence there’s a need for a moratorium, then you have to strive to solve the problem. Which is what the Committee’s looking at with the recommended solutions. And in terms of the State saying you can’t do that, no that’s not going to happen. In terms of putting yourself at risk every time you pass an order or ordinance, you put yourself at risk some risks are greater than others. Certainly anybody can challenge anybody who has standing, who has a vested interest, can challenge the passage of the moratorium. As a practical matter in this situation where it’s relatively short, only six months, I would be surprised to see someone come forward. But someone could. Councilor Hawes makes a motion to send this back to full Council for their review and approval. Councilor Allen seconds the motion. 10 Proposed Mall Area Development District Councilor Gratwick states we are here to discuss the establishment of a Mall Area Development District to see if there is interest in pursuing this concept further and turns it over to the City Manager. Ed Barrett states that this suggestion came forward from Councilor Stone, and also indicates that the Committee has looked at this a couple of times in the past. However, up until 2001 we could not have a District established in the Mall because under State laws the only areas that could have districts established had to be to one extend or another blighted areas. In 2001 they expanded it to cover other commercial areas. The purpose of the district, from talking to Richard is to try to find a way to focus some effort and resources on aesthetic improvements in the mall area, particularly trying to upgrade landscaping, planting, screening other kinds of things. A way to address the fact that for years we may not have had as strict a buffering standard as recently, when we increased our buffering standards. He also suggests that if it is to go forward, we’d also include some other purposes, in particular the potential of covering or funding, a way to fund, or work through some of the recommendations that are likely to come forward to improve water quality in the Penjajawoc Stream. That certainly would be something that should be thought of and included, given that we are doing the project with the State to come up with some recommendations on how to improve stream quality. Knowing that is an issue that is likely to have some impacts on existing and future property owners in the area. Also we might want to consider including the possibility, for additional sidewalks and bikeways in the mall area, to compliment the work we’ve done recently on Stillwater Avenue. The purposes would be to improve landscaping aesthetics in the area, implement water quality improvement projects, and further develop sidewalks and bikeways. There are some constraints what we can do with the development district. The development district will be very similar to the downtown development district. It’s an add on tax, to the property owners in that district, with the proceeds of that tax designated for specific projects or activities that are identified in an annual plan that would be adopted by the Council. The limitation is that no single district can exceed 2% of the total acreage of the municipality and all of the districts together can’t exceed 5%. The mall area in terms of what we usually consider it, exceeds the 2% limit, it’s a little bit over 3%. One of the issues that’s confronting the Committee is it would have to look at mall area and potentially divide it into two areas, or three areas, dependent upon what would work. We haven’t actually sat down and tried to do that yet, but I think that would be one of the steps. You could then have a district in place, in a certain area for a period of time, then move that district or create a new district and eliminate the first district so that gradually you could work through the area. That would be one potential. That can be the issue however, as we go through the process of creating it, why are certain people in, certain people out. That could become more of a political issue for you folks to consider when going through this process. Establishing a district is not terribly difficult. We have to have ten days notice of public hearing, then there’s a public hearing, then, the Council can act to establish a district that requires identifying the district’s boundaries. It also requires that the Council then adopt a program from that district which outlines the activities that will be undertaking and also sets an assessment and a tax rate to develop the revenue for 11 the district. Also suggested, when going through that process, that something similar be done as with downtown. When establishing a district, have at least an advisory committee, if not a management committee for the district involving property owners and interested parties in the area so that they felt that they had some direct say and participation over what was being done in the area. There are a number of other things the City can do in the interim, or in addition to a district those are outlined on page seven in the packet, page two of the memo. Some of which have already started. To try to address Richard’s concerns about aesthetics and screening in the mall area, we’re taking an inventory of existing public landscaping, determining the extent to which we can increase our public plantings, in the mall area. A lot of planting was done in other parts of the community, particularly after the ice storm, a lot of planting was done in the residential areas. My understanding is that we are now in pretty good shape, although it’s going to take a long time for some of those trees to grow. There’s the potential for transplanting materials from some areas of the City with our own resources, where we have to do thinning. For example, at the Airport where we’ve done some significant reforestation, some thinning of the pine trees need to be done. Potentially that plant material could be relocated. Identifying appropriate areas for plantings in the mall, we do have to be careful where we plant things, we don’t want have to plant things and subsequently come back three years later and expand Stillwater and have to take the plantings out. One of the issues out there is that some of the best areas out there for doing landscaping improvements are probably on private property. Again, working with the landowners and trying to get them involved in the process, get their participation, and may be able to get their permission to do some of that work on their property. Maybe encourage them to do more than they have been in the past on their own. Do some landscaping plans in the mall area, not like we do in residential areas. Which is to not put trees in the esplanade, or in a straight line along the road, but to try to do something that would be a little bit more eye-catching and clustering planting and landscaping materials. It’s going to be hard to screen some of those buildings so it makes something catch your eye, other than the building. Code Enforcement has been asked to at do some spot checking in the mall area to see if and to what extend site plans are being complied with in terms of their existing landscaping requirements that they went in under. The issues and concerns that might come up, is one, the fact that we can’t include the whole area may be an issue. Why are we included and other people aren’t included. And maybe that that’s just going to be a function of State Law. The other issue is the Downtown Development District is not terribly controversial right now. It seems to have a great deal of support, which was not the case at times in the past. That largely depended upon what the tax rate was, when the tax rate for the Downtown District was at one point, a couple dollars, it was quite controversial with some property owners. With the current tax rate of $.50 people seem to feel that that’s a reasonable additional tax to pay for what their getting in terms of additional services. So that could be an issue as well. Putting this together is going to take some commitment of time and staff resources in terms of identifying the district and putting the paperwork together and making sure that the people in the area are aware of what’s being talked about. And having an 12 opportunity to come back and talk to the Committee at first and then, of course the Council. Before getting into that and given some of the other things going on, we thought we’d come to this Committee and ask whether this was something you felt we should pursue. Secondly, I’d like the Committee’s concurrence that it would have no objection to us trying to put a higher priority on directing some of our own planting and forestry work into the mall area, where we can. To try to at least do some fairly immediate improvements. Of course, most of our own tree planting in the spring. So plans for that program will be starting to gear up in the near future. Certainly, we all would agree that if we can find ways to address the aesthetic issues in the mall area and the water quality issues in the mall area, that’s to everyone’s advantage and benefit. And certainly additional sidewalks ought to be a priority in that area to make it possible for people to maybe leave their car and walk a little bit, and or tie something into some of our regional efforts to develop pedestrian walkways and bikeways. Richard, of course, is a big proponent of this so I’ll leave it him if he’d like to add anything. Councilor Greene states appreciation for what the mall area has done to the tax base for the City of Bangor. But also states concerned about what the mall area has done to the beauty of Bangor. Viewing this as an opportunity to start over and rekindle some of the beauty that we had out in that area, at one time. And also views this as an opportunity to set a development district and have it as a roaming district after a couple of years so it won’t burden somebody with that tax. When that area is done, shut the door and move on to some place else. It is a great opportunity from the water control aspect, from the sidewalk aspect, from all the areas that Ed outlined. Councilor Allen states full agreement. And comments that certain states, particularly Florida, when looking at their creation of malls or shopping centers, they’re done very tactfully and in such a way that they exist in their own entity. Yet, they interact between residential areas or other areas in such a way they blend in, which is important. Stating that concern is in dealing with this particular issue, why wouldn’t sidewalks that need handicap accessibility or special streets for all terrain vehicles be done under Federal funds or grants that are applicable as opposed to including them in a tax that would impact the business. Ed Barrett states that certainly will continue to be pursued, but there is always a local match required for those kinds of projects. Ed Barrett asks Jim Ring how much the local share was for the Stillwater project. Jim Ring states that it was 20%, which is typical of those types of projects. And states Councilor Allen raised a good point. If we were to establish such a district and generate X amount of revenue, we would have that available to do specific projects, particularly on pedestrian or multi-use type facilities. Or as Ed has already indicated, the local match could be used for a much larger project. The combined pedestrian bicycle facility that runs most the length of Stillwater Avenue, by the mall area is about a $700,000.00 project. Fortunately we didn’t have to come up with $700,000.00 locally. But we did have to come up with that local match. Staying with that particular concept, we had a bicycle pedestrian plan developed through the BACTS process several years ago. There 13 is a need for those larger projects, so we could do that. For instance, those larger projects could be done along Hogan Road, perhaps extending on Bangor Mall Boulevard from where it’s existing. And possibly some interconnects between Bangor Mall Boulevard and Stillwater or beyond, which of course involves private property. Two things need to happen. One is, if we want to pursue this, try to identify a budget, and the types of projects we could do. The beautification landscaping type projects may be a little easier to identify, but they not likely qualify for transportation related Federal dollars. But it’s something that would be visible and fairly rapid to implement so that those that are in the district subject to tax could see exactly what the benefits were. That’s a very important aspect, if the Committee and the Council want to pursue it, is to be able to speak or identify exactly what it could be used for so people could have a visualization instead of being too general. Councilor Allen asks, if this is a special tax, will this allow them the opportunity to seek foundation grants and a State grant separate from a Federal grant as their own separate entity? In order to create that type of an access or that type of environment? Ed Barrett states that typically the organization that would be structured under this would be considered an entity of the City of Bangor. So we could continue to apply for State grants or other forms of funding. As the parent of whatever was established. Councilor Hawes indicates she would be willing to support this, and agrees with Councilor Stone when driving out Stillwater Avenue it isn’t exactly what it used to be and there are many open holes and many mounts of dirt that could be much more eye appealing to our visitors. And would also support looking at forming a district and doing the ground work that is needed. Councilor Allen comments that if we create this special district, then what we are really doing is taxing the businesses out there. One is, are they supportive of this particular venture? And two, we’re talking about beautification, is this an avenue that would bring in Bangor Beautiful? Ed Barrett states that we don’t know yet. We haven’t gone out and talked to the businesses because we wanted to see if there was interest in pursuing this first. That would be a part of the process that we would be going through before we actually establish the district. The people would have to be informed of what we are looking at and try to get their opinions. Then there would have to be a public hearing where they could express their opinions. I’m not sure how they would react to that and suspect part of it is obviously going to be tied into what type of tax rate we would be looking at. Those are the things I think we need to start getting a handle on as we move this forward. The next step is what would be the boundaries of a district? Can we come up with an estimate of the need in that district for the kinds of projects we’re talking about? How many years do we want to take to meet that need and what kind of a tax rate would it require to do that? Some of that stuff would have to be done before you actually took action on the district. The actual first allocations of money would be after July, if it were going into landscaping, it most likely wouldn’t hit the ground until the following spring. 14 But that would give an idea of how that would work. But we do need to go through that whole process to make sure the people in the area know what we’re talking about, are aware of it, have a chance to express their opinions of whether they support it or not. Gratwick recognizes Richard Greene Greene comments that Ed brought up a good point, the timing of this, to get all the ducks in a row and the wheels in motion before the next fiscal year starts. Gratwick recognizes Frank Farrington Farrington indicates he has just two quick points. The district issue, he bought his building downtown about twenty-three years ago and one of the issues that he debated in whether or not he wanted to do that was because it was a downtown district. There was a tax that initially was a negative. And decided it was not enough a negative to stop him from doing it. Then shortly after that placed on the BCC Board because of being an owner of a small building. Stayed on that board about ten years, because we didn’t have any term limits and it kind of went on by it’s own momentum. It gradually improved, when he was there it wasn’t doing much. He thinks the BCC is a very effective unit of your B&ED. Largely because they’ve got some very good people on the Committees now and the staff does an excellent job with that. Initially reaction from the mall may be more negative than positive about a district. His feeling about the mall is it’s really scrambling to do well. They’re trying to attract businesses and advised to be aware that if it is a negative then to should be very careful about doing that. The second point, Councilor Stone’s purpose of this is to make the mall look better, and thinks everyone would like to do that. And it may well be we can do it in other ways, initially, and maybe then move into a district, because it’s been stated that the district needs more of a purpose than just beautification. There is traffic, biking, and so forth as the downtown district does now. It is all very inclusive, and has it’s own momentum now. Initially it’s a rocky going and whether we are at the point we can throw another expense out for that area and have sufficient sales reasons to do it. It should be considered as we move forward. James Ring states that Don from BDN is sitting back there probably taking notes. But, he thinks the reason this is on the Agenda as Ed has already presented is to see if there was interest in pursuing this further. A lot of questions have been raised in terms of how we might do it. It would seem that anybody that might be prospectively subject to it will ask two questions. One is how much is it going to cost me? And, what are you going to do with it? Depending on the entity unsure which question they’d ask first. So if this is pursued, it’s important to figure out what we might include in terms of area with limitations Ed’s outlined. Identify those things we think might make sense in that area, develop a budget for it and from that we can develop a perspective tax rate. Or it could be approached from the concept of at what tax rate. Or how much can we do with such and such a tax rate? There will be a number of iterations like that so we should not belabor this. There is quite a bit of work to do before presenting that and he wants to make sure people recognize that so someone won’t read how there going to impose a new tax. There are things that can be done out there that most everybody would agree would be attractive and beneficial. The trick to moving this along is to do a 15 presentation of what will be done so it will be seen by those that are paying for it as a real benefit for them rather than a burden. Need to do that skillfully. Councilor Gratwick states he has few comments and then we’ll decide where we go with this as a Committee. Overview one, are we trying in one sense or another, as Jim mentioned, to impose a new tax, and is this really the equivalent of optional, local optional sales tax, is that what we are doing? And states we have to be very aware of that. Second, cities which do have malls that are well planted, are really very attractive. Burlington comes to mind, one of their new malls have done a remarkably good job, and they really have, you can’t hide Filene’s, on the other hand they’ve really done good, and appreciate what they’ve done. Three, it would seem to be appropriate to tie this into an overall view for our malls and mall development. Requirements that there be some landscape architecture involved, for instance there’s a new potential development with Corbett, putting in six or seven hundred thousand feet of impervious surface do we have really up to date progressive criteria for landscape? Landscaping in an area like that, and should we not be including something like that in our City plans so that we have this done up front? This would seem like a larger issues that is very important, so that any new mall coming in will take care of this right up front. He states that he’s been very impressed by some of the new landscape architect by WBRC, they have some very imaginative plans. Whether or not this is truly going to come to pass in the Parkade where he’s been involved, we’ll know in five years, but still look forward to that. As a personal perspective he states he would have difficulty expending a lot of City resources, with trees, etc. without there being an approval by the property owners there to really reimburse the City. He comments that we’ve done a really good job with planting trees along the streets, and likes the appellation of Bangor as a tree city. He would love to have many, many more trees on our streets. And thinks our citizens would prefer to have their tax money spent there than beautifying the mall, and states the mall should undertake this. Finally, part of the issue of the water quality, is very important but this is just for Jim to keep in mind, there have been citizens committees, as he recalls that are working with him on the water quality, as we apply, or work with the State. And so this would indigitate with some of those committees he has been working with on water quality. Jim Ring states that in conjunction with the grant to develop an overall watershed management plan with DEP; there will be an establishment of citizen committees. That’s still in the formative stages, and they come in second half of the study. The up front part of that over the last few months have been some monitoring and data gathering. There will be that very direct involvement, that whole project will result in greater knowledge with what is really happening there with respect to water quality. In particular specific recommendations to undertake, which will dovetail with that, it will also dovetail with any mitigation fees that may be available to us from new development, because they can’t do absolutely zero impact. So the new stormwater regs provide for a limited amount of compensation fee to be paid. But that also requires any monies assessed at a State level to be managed, collected and utilized by the municipalities, so that will work very well with this in a comphrensive sense. 16 Councilor Gratwick comments there seems to be a general enthusiasm at least on this Committee and the other Councilors attending for this. He states he thinks we’re all going to smile and give it back to Jim who already has a significant overburdened plate, so my question is where do we best go from here? Councilor Allen asks why doesn’t this go to BED to formulate the committee? Ed Barrett states that at some point it may well go there. We might ask Rod McKay and his people to help put together an advisory panel and all those kind of things. At this point Planning is going to have to do some of the initial work in identifying the area to be covered. Yes, the thought has crossed that on an ongoing basis we set this up we already have someone on the staff that’s used to working with one of these groups, why not utilize that expertise or get them involved in a second group. I would not anticipate this group being staffed by Engineering or Planning. Councilor Gratwick asks if we give this a general vote of approval, this is going to go? Ed Barrett states that the next step is to put a Council Order on the Agenda for next Monday, authorizing us to proceed with the initial steps of investigating and establishing a development district in the mall. That would be the go ahead we could start the process of putting together all the stuff we would need to put together to come back get public input, to review the boundaries, the projects we might be looking at those kinds of things. Councilor Hawes states that she thinks that we have spent a fair amount of time, everybody’s had input in. It all seems favorable, at this point moves to send it in the form of a Council Order to the full Council so that they can at least start the planning process and then from there proceed as the Council desires. Councilor Allen seconds the motion. Gratwick notes passage. Council Adjourns 17