Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-08 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes ' BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE , February 8, 2006 Minutes � Councitor Attendance: Greene, Farrington, Hawes, Allen, Cashwell, Gratwick Staff Attendance: Barrett, Ring, Heitmann, Bates � 1. F�cecutive Session — City Manager's Office - 1 MRSA Chapter 13, § 405 (6)(C) — Land Disposition — Negotiations with Penn National on Permanent � Gaming Facility Location A motion was made and seconded to go into executive session. � 2. Designation of Larry Springer as Tentative Developer of Parcel 2 on Front ' Street in the City's Waterfront Redevelopment Area Ring said the City worked with Springer last June. More recently, staff has met � with Springer, who is interested in Parcel 2. Springer wishes to start the larger building in the spring. Tentative developer status will provide him the assurance that the city will work with him exclusively through April 10, 2006. Ring showed � a sketch of the proposed building. The proposal is for a 2 1/2 story building with a total building area on two floors of approximately 23,500 sq. ft. Responding to Gratwick, Ring said the current proposal would not require separate dedicated ■ parking. The proposed uses for the space are restaurant and retail on the first ■ floor with office on the second floor. Gratwick said that parking should be looked at as part of the whole package. Cashwell asked the timeframe and if the , project would affect this year's folk festival. Heitmann said the agreement is to have it in place by April 10 with summer construction. The agreement would � contain a provision to prevent construction interfering with the festival. Allen asked if the proposed building fits in with the Carol R Johnson plan. Allen spoke about the bulkhead and walkway. She asked if construction would preclude use , of these two areas. Ring said it would be part of the construction agreement. Gratwick talked about the highest and best use of the site. He said this coufd be one of the most important buildings in Bangor. He spoke about the Architectural � Design task force and asked if the committee would be reviewing the proposal. Responding to Gratwick, Springer said he welcomes the City's input into the actual design and appearance. The cost per square foot is between $110 and � $120 per square foot. Hawes moved that the tentative developer status be recommended for approval by the full Council. The motion was seconded. 2. Review of Final Plans — Penview Waterfront Condominiums � Ring indicated the Planning Board approved both the revised site plan for the � currently proposed project as well as the developmental subdivision approval � , , ' which is required. Ames and Rock, the architect, were in attendance and presented color renderings of the proposal. They reviewed the details of the ' proposed structure. Allen asked if this proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Task Force. Cashwell said the Task Force's deadline to establish architectural guidelines is April 1�. Barrett said in the developer's agreement the � approval of the design of the building is the responsibility of the Business and Economic Development Committee. The Task Force has been asked to prepare non-binding advisory guidelines for future developments. For this project, � Barrett said the Committee could table action and ask for input from the Task Force. Allen suggested the delay. Heitmann indicated that both parties are signature to a binding agreement and any delay has an impact on both parties � meeting their respective obligations. Farrington said the process has been lengthy to date. He is in favor of keeping on track with the strict schedule in place. Gratwick asked if the Committee's role is to give final design approval. � Heitmann said the final design plans are presented for Committee review and approval. Gratwick indicated that both he and Cashwell are voting members of � the Committee. Barrett said that the Committee could vote for one of the non- voting members to be a voting member. Gratwick asked if the Task Force could be called back into session next week regarding this proposal. In order to vote, � he felt the need for expertise advice. Hawes said it is not fair to hold this project as it has already gone through a lengthy process to date. Responding to Hawes, Ames said that construction would commence in June and approximately half of � the units would be sold at that time. Hawes spoke about the windows on the back of the building being an outstanding issue and asked if this would be a delaying point. Heitmann said the City has a contractual contract. The contract ' was executed prior to the Architectural Task Force's formation. The Task Force is not a reason to delay the process. The reason to the delay the process would be if the Committee felt there were some necessary and appropriate revisions to , this plan. If so, the revisions/changes would need to be submitted within nine days and the Committee needs to make a decision within 20 days. Allen said the � nine days are not mandatory to be followed. Heitmann said that technically the nine days are mandatory unless the Committee agrees to waive them. It is the City's obligation to approve the revisions within 20 days of when the revisions � are submitted. Allen asked if the Task Force could be asked to intervene and work with the developer. Heitmann said yes but the Task Force is not obligated to do so. Allen said the Task Force was created to oversee architectural designs , on the waterfront. If not bound by this project, she questioned if future projecks be bound by the Task Force. Heitmann said the City and developer have a binding contract. Barrett said the Task Force is basically to form criteria to be , presented back to the Council and has not been charged to perform a function on a particular project. Cashwell summarized that the issue is with some staff and Councilors not being satisfied with the back of the proposed building. Up to , 0 days, the Committee might have an opportunity to look at the issue without denying but asking for consideration for thought to go into the back of the � � , building's appearance. Heitmann said that the committee would need to be , specific with suggested revisions. Greene clarified that voting members in attendance were: Hawes, Allen, Greene, Farrington. Heitmann said that the � Committee could vote to elect an additional Council member in attendance for the voting process. Hawes asked if the windows in question are in a haliway. Ames indicated yes. It is a hallway that serves the units. Barrett said that all , units front on the riverside. Responding to Farrington, Ring said the proposal is to reroute tra�c from Summer Street up to Cedar Street, the street in question will be discontinued as a public street but open to local traffic. Farrington , doesn't think the windows are an issue. Hawes made a motion that Gratwick become the fifth voting committee member for the evening. The motion was seconded by Allen. Allen disagreed with Farrington. She is concerned about the � windows and the back side of the building. The building structure sends an invitation for people to come into the waterFront area. Hawes agreed the , rendering at this meeting is much improved over the one presented at the last Committee meeting. Hawes made a motion to move the question. Greene asked for a vote for all those in favor and those opposed to the plans as � presented. Three in favor, two opposed. The motion passed. 3. Review of Recommendations from the Commission on Cultural � Development Bates said the Commission was empowered by Ordinance to make , recommendations to the City Council for awarding grants to qualifying organizations. Most grant recommendations have gone directly to City Council. , Because of two large requests, the Commission asked to come before this Committee. One is from the River City Cinema Society for $5,000. The Commission is recommending $3,000. The second is from the American Folk , Festival which requested $7,500 and the Commission is recommending $7,200. The worthiness and quality of the requests were not questioned. Commission Chair Rohman spoke about the reasoning for the Commission's recommendation. � $100,000 was originally provided to the Commission by the Council. The Commission would like to use $5,000 for a cash contribution for an application to the Maine Arts Commission for $15,000 for discovery research. Barrett said � there will be three actions on Monday's agenda: two are the grant awards to River City and to the Folk Festival. The third is an authorization to apply for the Maine Arts Commission and to use the $5,000 for the application. A motion was , made and seconded to move the item to full Council for final approval. 4. Communiry Development Property Rehabilitation Loan — 207 Grove Street , Mar�ial explained the details of the loan. A motion was made and seconded to approve staff recommendation. ' � � M , 5. Preliminary Briefing by Staff on a Proposed Downtown Bangor Tax Increment Financing District , Barrett indicated that the staff and Council have talked for some time about placing the downtown development district, waterfront, and Main Street � commercial corridor into a TIF District to capture some of the new value that will be produced in the area associated with the racino and other waterFront development. Staff provided copies outlining the proposed area. Projects to be 1 undertaken in the district need to be identified. Staff is still working on a capital investment plan which includes such items as replacement of downtown sidewalks, parking improvements, and a mechanism to partially fund the new � arena if necessary. A financing plan also needs to be in place and staff is developing it. It will project over a 20 year period of time the new incremental value created in the district and tie that back to the extent of the projects to be ' undertaken. Details will be available in two weeks and would need to be acted on by the end of February. It would need State approval prior to April 1�. The � City will be applying as a Downtown TIF District, which will not bring it under State imposed caps as to percentage of value and land area. When this returns to the Committee in two weeks, Bates indicated it would be in the form of a � massive document. It will require the Council's approval of the TIF program, which includes its own set of project plans and financial forecasts. Before that, the municipality needs to approve a downtown redevelopment plan. Responding � to Allen, Barrett said the TIF would be for the entire area. A TIF district can be overlayed on a development district. A TIF district will capture additional taxes generated by new development or upgrading of existing structures. Once � adopted, the plan can be amended. Barrett said that staff is looking at the percentage of the TIF. If new revenues are set aside from the TIF and identified for projects within the district, those new taxes revenues are not available for � City operations. Allen asked if this would place a burden on individuals within the downtown district. Barrett said it would be a huge benefit for them as their tax dollars will be spent within that district for the benefit of that district. Allen ' expressed concern about the actual activity within the district. She also spoke about Bass Park. Barrett said that Bass Park was included because there is a � potential at this point that it will be one of the locations for a new arena. Because there is a desire to move the project as quickly as possible, he said the City needs to be in a position to borrow money. Allen said she understood but ' she is concerned about the original legislation passed by voters which indicated that a certain amount of funding would go into Bass Park itself and to support the harness racing industry and not necessarily to build a new arena. Barrett � said that Council has the option to use a portion of racino revenues for other projects at Bass Park. Bates said that none of the revenues from the TIF district will be designated for general Bass Park projects other than the arena. Some of ' staff's suggestions are parking to support development, refurbishing streetscapes, parking garage and decks, improving the park and open space on � , ' the waterfront. Barrett said that any captured assessed value in a TIF does not � count against the State adjusted state value which is the basis for State Revenue Sharing and State Aid to Education. Allen questioned the City moving on two � separate issues at the same time. Bates pointed out that the area in pink shown on a chart is the area with the extra special assessment. Allen talked about upcoming activities associated with Penn National. She asked if Penn has been , provided a tax incentive. Barrett replied no. She asked how the new district would impact Penn. Barrett said Penn will be part of the district. When they build their new facility, a portion of their taxes will go into the TIF District � improvement fund. It does not solely benefit Penn. Allen asked about money going to the harness racing operation. Barrett said it is over and above what I Penn is paying to the City. Responding to Cashwell, Bates said the percentage � set is for the tife of the TIF. Richmond and Augusta have created such districts. , i � �!i 1 �' 1 � ! � 1 �'�� , I'I � I, ' ��I � ��, � � , �' �