Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-21 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 21, 2013 5:15 PM City Council Chambers MINUTES Councilors Present: Chair Sprague, Civiello, Blanchette, Nealley, Durgin, City Staff Present: Cathy Conlow, Rosie Vanadestine, Paul Nicklas, and Jeremy Martin. Chair Sprague called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m. He announced that the Committee would take Item No. 4 – Ordinance related to On-Premises Provisions for Window Signs and Flag first on the Agenda. 4. REFERRAL – ORDINANCE 13-155, Amending Chapter 260, Signs, of the Code of the City of Bangor, By Reorganizing on-Premises Provisions and Loosening Restrictions on Window Signs and Flags Rosie Vanadestine explained that this issue has been discussed for quite some time. Staff solicited input from the downtown businesses and has taken a comprehensive look at the Sign Ordinance to bring several needed changes forward. Jeremy Martin and his Staff, Jason Bird, Business Development Officer and Downtown Liaison, the Downtown group and Paul Nicklas have been working on this. Assistant City Solicitor Paul Nicklas explained that contractors and others have complained that the Sign Ordinance is difficult to understand if you don’t use it very often. Staff has prepared an amendment to reorganize certain sections in an attempt to make it more user friendly and to organize things by zoning district. Most of the regulations related to the Downtown Development District are all in one place. Also, they removed a few contradictions within the code. Some of the more substantive changes include: no permit would be needed for a window sign that would cover up to 20% of the space (that would apply to all districts) that would not be included in the overall sign area that you were allowed. Also an additional flag would be allowed in the Downtown Development District (DDD). Presently either a projecting sign or a flag is allowed. This amendment would allow a business to have both in the DDD. Staff did receive additional information that afternoon from the business community and who made a few more suggested changes to the Ordinance. Anything done at this point would have to be an amendment by substitution. One of those suggestions was rather than having just one flag any downtown business would be allowed one flag and additional flag(s) depending upon the length of the frontage of the building. Another question arose regarding “open” flags. These were removed and will not be counted as part of the total sign 2 area. Another question was how far flags can extend out into the sidewalk travel way. This would be calculated using a formula that is based upon the height of the flag above the sidewalk. Chair Sprague indicated that he is in favor of loosing the restrictions in order to have a more festive and more open attitude towards business owners who want to decorate their store fronts through signage or flags for publicity in the downtown. Councilor Nealley applauded this effort to loosening these restrictions as it will help downtown business in their marketing efforts. He asked if there was thought give to perpendicular signs. Code Enforcement Officer Jeremy Martin indicated that businesses are allowed to have a projecting sign and a horizontal wall sign. In the past they were allowed one or the other now you will be able to have both. Councilor Durgin asked if there is a definition for “sale” flags. Nicklas indicated that if would depend on how many signs the business already had. Councilor Blanchette suggested that businesses be made aware of the fact that they need to remove their signs when they go out of business. She suggested that it would be a good service when someone comes in to rent a building if they were told this as part of their rental lease conditions. She also indicated that she would like to put this into the ordinance. Martin indicated that this would be easy enough to do for signs that needed permits. Some signs such as political signs don’t’ need permits. Councilor Blanchette asked if this be covered at the time that they issue occupancy permits. Councilor Blanchette asked if the Historic Preservation Commission was aware of the proposed changes. Martin indicated that they are aware of the proposed amendment for window signs. Councilor Blanchette indicated that she was in support of the amendment. She said that this will indicate that downtown is open for business. Chair Sprague invited members of the public to speak. George Kinghorn, President of Downtown Bangor Partnership indicated his appreciation for Staff efforts. Blue Heron and Mexicalli Blues talked with the Downtown Bangor Partnership about the importance of flags for them in attracting customers to their businesses. However, the proposed amendment would not allow Blue Heron to have the three flags there now. Because of it’s location which is somewhat away from the core of the downtown, they feel it is important to have these flags to point out their business. Kinghorn said that Downtown Bangor Partnership would like a more business friendly environment downtown as people are trying to create energy in the downtown and the City needs to do all that they can to support them. 3 Chair Sprague asked if this could be incorporated into the Sign Ordinance. Martin indicated because of the many different sizes in store fronts and the possibility that with many flags in close proximity, it could become very cluttered looking. In drafting this amendment, staff proposed allowing multiple flags based on store frontage. He said that at some point there needs to be a limit and this is what they came up with. A business would be allowed other sign for frontage over 50 feet and another sign for each additional 50 feet of frontage. Carol Epstein, Epstein Commercial Real Estate, felt that this was a good idea. Many of the local businesses in the downtown are competing with national businesses that have the most sophisticated sign designers in the country. Downtown needs some vibrancy and this will allow for that. Councilor Blanchette asked her to work with Paul Nicklas to come up with a solution for abandoned signs by businesses that close. Councilor Blanchette also suggested a deposit much like a security deposit to take care of abandoned signs. Epstein didn’t think that the typical market practice would charge an extra fee to an incoming tenant. She said that small businesses are having enough trouble getting their initial capital. They can’t afford an additional deposit. Heather Bass owner of Blue Heron expressed her gratitude for the Staff’s work in adjusting the Sign Ordinance. She indicated that she was disappointed that her three flags will not be allowed. She said that the three flags let people know that something is happening at her business. The flags more than signage have brought in customers. She asked if there was any possibility of a waiver. Chair Sprague suggested instead of every 50 feet a flag could be allowed every 33 feet and that way a 68 foot storefront would hit that 3 flag threshold. Martin indicated that Staff would double check the exact frontage of that space. Nicklas indicated that currently there are no provisions for a waiver. Councilor Nealley suggested making the regulations more lenient for those storefronts that are further out of the central area of downtown. It was moved by Councilor Blanchette and seconded by Councilor Durgin to recommend that an amendment to the Sign Ordinance be passed on to the full Council. All in favor. Motion carried. 1. Executive Session – Economic Development – Land Disposition – 1 M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(C) (Confidential Memo provided separately) Conlow indicated that there were people who wished to speak on this issue even though it was an executive session. Vanadestine’s Staff has been working on a guideline for land disposition of City owned property. Staff has reached out to some of the commercial brokerage 4 people to discuss this and we are trying to come up with a fair solution that works for those who are leasing that want to purchase property and procedures on how to go about selling our property. Carol Epstein with Epstein Commercial Real Estate and Epstein properties indicated that this has been an issue for decades. She applauded the committee and staff for dealing with this in a different way. The policies and practices proposed will make it much more practical for people and the City will end up having a different reputation on this. She said that in the past they have they have felt that policies and practices discriminated against existing developers in favor of the new person. She felt that Staff came up with some great ideas and left some discretion on how to make it work but being equitable and fair to existing developers. She indicated that she is totally in support of this and encouraged the Committee to support this. Councilor Blanchette moved to go into Executive Session under MRSA 405(6)C) Nealley seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. It was moved and seconded to end the Executive Session. All in favor, motion carried. 2. Committee Action on Above Item Councilor Nealley moved Staff recommendation. Councilor Blanchette seconded the motion. Heitmann indicated for the record that the staff recommendation is that this Committee recommend to the full Council that the Council pass two orders that will be on Monday night’s agenda, approving a revision to the Land Disposition Policy and the other to send out an RFP for commercial brokers to assist us in selling City property. All in favor of the motion, motion passed. 3. Pickering Square Park Designation Vanadestine gave an overview on the discussions of the pocket park behind the Standard Shoe building and Nocturnum. She indicated that Staff has met twice with the abutting property owners regarding the pocket park. Staff is recommending that the pocket park be undesignated as a park. In meeting with the property owners they want different things in that back area. Staff has asked them to get together in a separate meeting without staff involvement for them to work out some of the issues that they have (some want grass, some don’t want gass, they want it all brick, they want the wall, some don’t, they want a fence, some don’t). They have been asked to come up with a solution that they can all agree to and bring that back to us. She said that Staff anticipates 5 that happening in the next few weeks. At that time Staff will come up with an agreement of what to do with the property. Heitmann discussed the legal issues with undesignating this park. This pocket pack has not really been used as traditional park. The first thing to do is to take it off the list of City parks through an ordinance amendment. This will be brought to the Council’s next meeting for first reading. Councilor Civiello asked how things were going in Pickering Square. Vanadestine indicated that their first meeting was approximately a week after Mr. Ruhlin removed “spice” from his store shelves. All of the owners in attendance at that meeting have noticed a sharp reduction in the number of undesirable people hanging out there. Gail Hipsky said that she and her husband Marty own the Standard Shoe building which backs up to the Pickering pocket park. She said that it is like a light switch went off and it has been a whole change since the gentleman stopped selling “spice.” She indicated that she was in favor of “un parking” the park and maybe making it a courtyard to have better control over it. She expressed her appreciation for everything everyone has done. Councilor Nealley moved to recommend to the full Council the amendment to remove the pocket park from the list of City parks. Councilor Blanchette seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion passed. 4. University of Maine Request for Release of Deed Restriction Heitmann explained that in the 1970’s the United States gave to the City and the University land out off of Maine Avenue. Since that time additional land was also deeded from the City to the University in 1996. There have been a number of real estate dealings with the University over the years to undo some of the complications created by the military when they left. The University is now looking to sell the Chapel (Dow Chapel). When they reviewed the deeds and title they discovered some unusual restrictions in the 1996 deed which included that it could only be used for University purposes; that the City could go in at all times and inspect not only the land but the buildings; and then finally that they have to have security forces and that our Police Department can’t go on the property including the buildings without liability for trespass as we wish to do. In trying to do this deal, the University has asked that those three restrictions be released and they have prepared a deed for our consideration to release those restrictions from that 1996 deed. Heitmann indicated that he did not see any benefit to the City to retain those restrictions in the property and he would recommend that the Council authorize the execution of this deed to release those restrictions for the University. 6 Nealley are there any other restrictions to the property by default or are they basically entitled to reuse the property for any purpose that they see fit. Bill Hanson, Esq. from Rudman & Winchell representing the University indicated that there have been several conveyances between the City and the University. He indicated that this parcel is still subject to the Land Development Code and other planning tools that the City has but this proposal brings it more in line with the other conveyances that have been done. There are other restrictions that remain that were under that original 1996 deed. These include protections for aberration rights for the Airport, etc., compliance with laws, and other things. Basically this is an effort on the part of the University not to have to seek consent every time that we do something out there. Councilor Blanchette moved the Staff recommendation. Councilor Nealley seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. 5. Executive Session – Economic Development – Parking Enforcement – 1 M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(C) (Confidential Memo provided separately) Councilor Blanchette moved to go into Executive Session under M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(C). Councilor Nealley seconded the motion. All in favor, motion passed. 6. Committee Action on Above Item Councilor Blanchette moved to bring a full detailed proposal back to the BED Committee for consideration. Councilor Durgin seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting Adjourned at 6:55 p.m.