Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-25 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes � � � BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE January 25, 2006 � Councilor Attendance: Greene, D'Errico, Allen, Farrington, Grafinrick, Paimer, Hawes Staff Attendance: Barrett, McKay, Ring � Minutes �� 1. Executive Session — Economic Development— Economic Development Proposals— Union Place Community Development Project— 1 M.R.S.A. § � 405(6)(C) (Confidential Memorandum provided separately) � 2. Review of Proposal from lohn Karnes for Rehabilitation of 4 Unit Apartment House at 251 — 253 Union Street and Construction of 8 New Apartments � Committee members agreed that they preferred residential use in the redevelopment of the Union Place site. The Committee reached a consensus that � the City should not sell a significant portion of the Union Place property to encourage the redevelopment of the Law(er site to the point where the � � residential redevelopment becomes compromised. Emphasis should be on � residential redevelopment. The Committee also did not like using the Union Place street as a shared � driveway for the Lawler commercial and Karnes residential proposals. They felt it would not be compatible or appropriate to mix residential and commercial use � of a common drive. The Committee authorized staff to craft a Development Agreement and proceed with ]ohn T. Karnes, III's proposal to rehabilitate the City's property at 251-253 �� Union Street and build 8 additional new units on the site. The authorization did not include approval for a Residential Rehabilitation Loan or other financial � incentives requested by Mr. Karnes, that will come before the Committee at a later date. � 3. Presentation by Dublin5 LLC for Proposed Waterfront Hotel Development McKay indicated that stafF has been working with representatives of Dublin5 LLC � who are proposing to develop a waterFront hotel. The issue raised with the Committee at its December meeting was to reaffirm the Council's desire to keep � � � the space at the corner of Main and Railroad Streets open space. This was , relayed back to the developers who were asked to revise their site plan to reflect that reaffirmed interest of the City. � Andy Hamilton briefly provided a history of the proposal. The hotel will be a 150 room premium facility. It will likely be a brick-clad Hilton Garden Hotel. He � referenced the City's development of a conference facility and parking garage as contemplated by the City's Comprehensive Waterfront Master Plan and the two conference facility studies that have been the subject of the City's scrutiny. The � parties would negotiate in good faith for the City's financial contribution toward the design and construction of the conference and parking facilities and infrastructure necessary to support the development of the project in accordance � with the terms of the final development agreement. Hamilton introduced Tony Valley, Mark Eremita, Tim Woodcock, ]ohn Rohman, Mike Turnakey and Ray Bolduc. Discussions with City staff commenced in October of 2005 and have � continued for several months. Hamilton indicated the Dublin5 team has the experience, qualifications and local knowledge to pursue this specific project. � Merrill Merchants would finance the project. Hamilton presented the request for tentative developer status: Rohman provided a history on the progress of the efforts relating to siting and design. He also reviewed the sketch drawing of the � proposed building that will accompany the tentative developer status request. Hamilton credited City staff for its work on the project. The developer does have � � other alternatives and other sites. The developer has to make a deposit to Hilton � in order for market studies to be conducted. Farrington asked about green as well as the quality of the proposed hotel. Hamilton said the Hilton Garden is the upper end of a 4-star. Farrington is concerned that the hotel be a good fit for � the waterfront area and for economic development. Hamilton said the developer is realistic to the market and knows the market by currently operating a hotel in Bangor. Gratwick talked about the architectural standards under the guidance of � the Architectural Review Committee. Responding to Gratwick, Hamilton said the $10M reference for City investment came from the Carol )ohnson master plan � . and the conference facility study. Gratwick confirmed that the developer is committing only to the hotel and not the parking garage and conference center. Hamilton agreed. Regarding the stone sewer, Barrett explained it was the City's recommendation that nothing be built on top of it. Regarding the view easement, � it is described in the agreement with Ames as a plain that descends toward the river. There would be room for a single story structure along Railroad Street. � � Allen asked the size of the conference facility. Barrett said an estimated 20,000 sq. ft. but that needs to be further refined. Responding to Allen, Rohman said that the parking area can serve the hotel as well as the conferencing area. Allen � talked about the Folk Festival. Rohman said the only thing to be displaced would � � be the vendor's area near the railroad track. � � , � � � McKay said the City will need to determine the expectations of the developer in City investment in parking and meeting facilities. He referred to the hotel � feasibility study. D'Errico asked if other studies are available to answer questions raised at tonight's meeting. Hamilton referred to a company that will be participating in the hotel operation will make certain that the market is � estabiished and proven. The franchise fee, however, needs to be in place prior to the study by Hilton. � Paimer commended the local developers and architects for their interest. He spoke of the railroad tracks in association with the hotel needs; i.e. noise. Rohman said the actual lowest level of the hotel project is significantly above the �' railroad line. Hawes said that the City knows it has one shot to do the watertront in a right manner. The City needs to do its best to preserve the Folk Festival site. The City's involvement is crucial as far as money. She asked how � much and where it would come from in light of last year's budget discussions. She appreciates the developer's proposal. She mentioned another hotel proposal � that has been alluded to and thought that in fairness the City should look at the other proposal. City staff would work with both proposers. The Architectural Committee will not be making its recommendations back to the Council until April 21. Allen talked about the proposed walkway over the railroad tracks which � Rohman had mentioned. Rohman said it has not been shown on the current plan but other plans have always shown a walkway. Regarding the Architectural � Review Committee timeframe, Rohman said he would be surprised that if any developer's proposal could not be adjusted to standards set by the Review Committee. Allen expressed concern about LD 1's impact on the proposed � project. Barrett said it depends on how the City would fund whatever is requested of the City. Allen talked about phasing in parts of the project. Woodcock addressed Hawes' remarks. Dublin 5 and Eremita and Valley identified � a market opportunity that is not site specific and became very serious about it. The waterfront is a challenging site. The developer has already committed � substantial resources and has demonstrated a strong commitment ta work wi�h the City to accommodate the City's vision for the area. He thinks the Council should weigh these considerations. The tentative developer status allows the developer to go forward fully confident. Farrington said he likes the general � approach of the proposal. He asked if a hotel attracts individuals to the area or vice versa. Responding to Farrington, Barrett said the City is not going through a RFP process. It has done so on two previous occasions. The City has been � approached by two developers outside of the RFP process. Hamilton indicated . . that courting two proposals at one time might send a wrong message. Barrett � talked about tentative developer status. It does not force the parties to enter into a development agreement or to proceed. However, once entered into tentative developer status and developers start making investments, it becomes � much more difficult to change direction. Gratwick indicated he needs more information as to where the City's money will be coming from for this � � . . � development. He asked the appropriate procedure at this point. Barrett said � there has been an executive session posted for such discussion. McKay said the city has received a concept plan similar to Dublin 5's. By week's end, staff � expects a written response to the questions McKay has provided for Council consideration. McKay suggested the Committee review both proposals at its meeting of February 8"'. Hawes does not have a problem with the plan as presented but is not certain that the Council has a made a firm decision as to �. what it wants to see on the waterfront. Allen respectFully disagreed with Hawes. Palmer is hopeful the City wiil take the risk to succeed in this area. D'Errico supports the idea as well. Greene asked about the originally planned restaurant. � Rohman referred to the stone sewer. Responding to Greene, Rohman said the developer has a dollar amount range for each area. The conference center has � aiways been planned to be part of a city involvement and parking as well. In touring facilities, he found that hotels and conference centers work together and support each other. Hamilton thanked the committee for its thoughtful � discussion. A motion was made and seconded to go into executive session. No subsequent � action was taken by the Committee. � � � � � � � � � � �