Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-07 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Wed., Sept. 7, 2011, 5:30 pm City Council Chambers Minutes Councilors: Blanchette, Bronson, Durgin, Longo and Nealley Staff: Conlow, McKay, Wallace, Heitmann and Martin Others: Carol Epstein of Epstein Commercial Real Estate Councilor Durgin sat in for Councilor Weston (Chair of BED) in his absence. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Community Development Residential Rehabilitation Loan – 207 Grove Street 2. Community Development Residential Rehabilitation Loan – 42 West Street A motion was made by Councilor Nealley and seconded by Councilor Bronson to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Unanimously approved. REGULAR AGENDA 3. REFERRAL – ORDINANCE 11 271, Amending Chapter 148, Historic Preservation, § 148-5, Designating 107 Court Street as an Historic Landmark Rod McKay introduced this item stating that the owners of this property, Prentiss and Carlisle, have requested that it be designated as an historic landmark under Chapter 148. This amendment will accomplish that designation. Jeremy Martin, Acting Code Enforcement Officer, further reviewed this item for the Committee. He stated that Prentiss and Carlisle are looking to do an expansion at this property and will be requesting a zone change to facilitate this expansion. Several months ago both the City Planning Board and the City Council approved some changes to the City’s zoning code for multi-family service district properties. The amendments that the Planning Board and Council approved then will allow designated historic properties and zoned Multi-family and Service District (M&SD) to expand beyond a certain foot print. Prior to this change the foot print allowed was a maximum of 3,000 sq. ft. of office on a historic property zoned M&SD. The HPC approved (in August 2011) Prentiss & Carlisle’s request to list their property at 107 Court Street as a local landmark. Now it comes to this Committee for their information and action. Staff stated that this item has been on the City Council agenda for a first reading and a referral to the BED Committee. Staff now requests that the BED Committee make a recommendation that this item go back to the City Council for adoption. Councilor Bronson made a motion to recommend this item to the City Council for passage Seconded by Councilor Longo. Unanimous Committee vote. 4. Approval of Revised VOANNE Amended and Restated Intercreditor Agreement and Maine State Housing Authority – Amended and Restated Assignment of Credit Enhancement Agreement City Solicitor Norm Heitmann reviewed this item for the Committee stating that Volunteers of America (VOANNE) and lenders to its Harlow Street project have proposed amendments to the agreements between the parties involving the City’s $18,228 loan to VOANNE. The new proposed agreements don’t materially change the agreements previously approved by the City Council, but require Council approval. Councilor Nealley made a motion to approve this request as presented. Seconded by Councilor Bronson. Unanimous Committee vote. 5. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 260, Sign, of the Code of the City of Bangor, Regarding Signs for Industrial or Commercial Parks Rod McKay reviewed this item for the Committee stating that the City’s sign ordinance allows off-premise signs displaying the name of industrial or commercial parks. These signs are owned by the City, but built and maintained by the park occupants. The signs allow for a directory of park occupants on panels of equal size, shape, and color. Only one directory panel is allowed for each lot in the park, which becomes a problem if one of those lots has multiple occupants and each wants a panel. This can happen when a large tenant leaves and the lot owner fills the vacant space with multiple smaller tenants. Signs are limited in size to a maximum of 300 sq. ft in size; panels are allowed on these signs, 1 panel for each lot in the subdivision, to advertise a business located on those lots. This has not been a problem in any of the City’s industrial parks as typically there is only one occupant per lot. However, on the retail commercial subdivisions such as the Christmas Tree Shop Plaza subdivision (where Shaw’s Plaza was formerly located), where a large tenant leaves and several smaller business tenants occupy the space, each business naturally wants the maximum amount of signage and desires its own panel. The size of the Shaw’s building in this plaza is approximately 80,000 sq. ft., with the Christmas Tree Shop occupying about 30,000 sq. ft. Carol Epstein of Epstein Commercial Real Estate, stated that she is working with a prospective tenant for 20,000 sq. ft. in that plaza who would like their own panel sign. Under the current City ordinance that is not allowed. Staff is proposing an amendment. With the amendment, there would still only be one directory panel allowed per lot, but a lot owner would now be able to agree to give up its directory panel to another occupant of the park. For instance, a business next to the entrance of the park might consider its on-site signage adequate, and be willing to give up its right to a directory panel in favor of a business that shares a lot with other businesses. Any such agreement would be recorded in the Registry of Deeds. This amendment also requires agreements regarding responsibilities for maintenance costs of a sign to be recorded. If someone who owns a lot in a subdivision (and therefore entitled to one panel) is willing to give up that panel to another business in the park that it would be allowed with this ordinance change. Staff is proposing that an agreement be set up amongst the owners of lots in the park whereby they could in effect allow one owner to relinquish their panel to another business in the park. The owners in the park are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the sign as well as for all costs associated with the sign but the signs are erected on City right-of-ways so the City becomes the owner of the sign. Staff does not see any objection to the various owners in the park in swapping their rights to the panels but staff does not feel the City should get involved in deciding whose going to have a panel and who isn’t. This amendment would leave it up to the lot owners to decide who is going to have the panels for that lot. Carol Epstein also spoke to the Committee on this issue of signage in the market place. She finds that the proposed language to be effective and that it will do what it needs to do. Discussion followed. Councilor Nealley brought up the issue that if the existing ordinance says one panel for each lot is allowed and lots are going to be subdivided, should we be looking at that as having some flexibility since one sign per lot doesn’t actually put us in an archaic position. Rod replied that in a 12-lot subdivision, for instance, you could have a 300 square foot sign on each side and you could have 12 panels; you have more than one business on a panel but the panels all have to be uniform in size and no more panels then the number of lots. Staff feels it’s important that there be some restriction as to the number of panels and to the size of the sign – that’s the main interest of the City. If more panels were allowed and there became 25 businesses in that 12-lot subdivision then you have 25 panels, the panels would get smaller and smaller and at some point it could be a safety issue – this would be the City’s concern. Norm Heitmann stated that the proposed amendment before the Committee tonight deals with an immediate issue that was brought to the City’s attention; it deals with what solves the problem that has been identified. Signage seems to be an involving issue - Code and other City staff is always aware that we need to keep an eye on sign issues and the changes as deemed necessary. Jeremy Martin added that MDOT would not approve or allow us to ramp these off-premises signs up any larger than they are. Councilor Bronson inquired if some of these lots are large enough to be subdivided into two lots and thus we would have more lots in the park then we began with. Jeremy Martin replied that it would be possible for an entity to come in to do a developmental subdivision where a lot line would be along the interior wall of a building. Norm’s comments are right – signs are an ongoing issue. Jeremy added that he is also starting the process on how we can better deal with non-conforming signs – size, setbacks, etc. Will bring this issue to the Committee in the future. Councilor Nealley further expressed that he hopes this conversation evolves and that the City is going to be sign friendly as much as possible for those who invest capital and decide to open businesses in Bangor. He added he understands the DOT issues and other issues in terms of size and height with the signs and easements but if the businesses are back in off the road the only way they can capitalize on the heavy traffic is that people know where they’re located. City staff has come up with a good solution for now but he would like staff to keep checking on this issue periodically. Councilor Blanchette made a motion to forward this item on to the City Council. Seconded by Councilor Nealley. Unanimous Committee vote. Meeting adjourned.