Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-16 Business and Economic Development Committee Minutes , � BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE , TUESDAY, December 16, 2003 Meet�ng Mmutes � Councilors Attending: Gerry Palmer, Dan Tremble, Peter D'Errico, Frank Farrington, � Richard Greene Staff Attending: Ed Barrett, T) Martziai, Rod McKay, Tony Caruso, Jim Ring , � Others Attending: Brian Ames, Mo Fer, Chip Hutchins, Bob Baldacci, Fred Forsely, Mike Pullen, John Rohman � The meeting convened at 5:00 p.m. � 1. Consent Agenda a. Lease Agreement—Joseph L. Beal — 39 Florida Avenue � This item was approved. , b. Lease Agreement—Turbine Specialists L.L.0 — 498 Maine Avenue ' This item was tabled for further information. The partnership involving Bangor Metal Works, the current tenant in the building, is being dissolved. Both partners have indicated an interest in leasing the property to continue a similar operation. ' 2. Airport Monthly Passenger Statistics � Tony Caruso presented the Bangor International Airport passenger statistics. November was a good month, with overall passenger levels increasing by 16% from November 2002. Daily seat capacity was also 2.4% higher than the same month in ' the previous year, while the percentage of unsold seats declined from 44% to 37%. Year to date, passenger levels are down by less than 1%, a positive result given the traffic lost when the runway was closed for resurfacing and the impact of the � beginning of the war in Iraq. � 3. Review of Draft Union Place Request for Proposals Staff presented the Committee with a draft of a request for proposals for the ' redevelopment of Union Place. Martzial noted that 16 existing residential units were eliminated to make room redevelopment. The request, as written, limits redevelopment to residential uses. Barrett indicated that the City has received an � ' ' � expression of interest from the owner of adjacent property in submitting a proposal; however, that proposal may cail for rezoning a portion of the Union Place property , to allow for non-residential use. His plan appears to be to demolish and existing commercial building adjacent to the City owned property and propose rebuilding on the property and adding additional residential units as well. Barrett indicated that � the following language could be inserted into the request to allow the City to entertain such a proposal: "The City may also consider proposals from the owners of adjacent non-residentially zoned properties that will expand the area to be � redeveloped to include additional parcels. Such proposers may request that the zoning of"a portion of the City owned property be changed to the extent that such change will provide the City with certain benefits, such as but not limited to � improved access to the current non-residential property, elimination of nonconformities, and improved traffic movements in the area. Such proposals must � be structured in such a fashion as to be compatible with adjacent residential uses and should limit, to the extent possible, the amount of city owned property to be rezoned. Should such a proposal be received and be viewed favorably by the City, a � rezoning request will be required. Such proposers should not assume that the rezoning will be granted and must recognize that the rezoning process is separate from and governed by separate rules and procedures from this request for proposal � process." McKay discussed the standards for the zoning in this area as well as the history of the property and project. Farrington made a motion to insert the suggested language that would allow for consideration of a commercial use in light � of the proximity of this property to the downtown area. The Committee approved issuing the request for proposal with this language included. 4. Develo ment A reement— Penview Associates — Waterfront Condominiums ' P 9 McKay noted that the City owns a development site off Summer Street, and the City ' had issued a request for proposals in May. In response to the RFP, Penview Associates submitted a proposal for up to 40 condominiums. McKay said that the ' proposed development agreement is for a minimum of 28 residential units. McKay outlined the specifics for the development agreement. He noted that construction would begin by September 1, 2004 with a completion date of June 30, 2005. , Heitmann outlined the most important conditions of the agreement, including the request for exclusivity for condominium development. Tremble asked about Penview's letter and their request to have any further development curtailed, and � whether this pertained to the Front Street development project that the City is currently considering? Heitmann indicated that it did. Barrett noted that an executive session is scheduled to discuss some of these development issues. Brian , Ames outlined the development proposal based on the Carol R. Johnson Plan for the waterfront and indicated that the limitation on further condominium development and the proposal to protect the project's site line to the river are vital to the , marketing of this project, which is based on the condominiums'view. Mo Fer said ' � , , that from a marketing point of view, this is the type of quality project that the city � was (ooking for and that there is a limited market in Bangor. Farrington questioned the discrepancy between the purchase price listed in the memo from Rod McKay and the proposal from Penview Associates, the exclusivity of the condominium project, � the restricted view of the condominiums, and the Carol Johnson plan being definitive versus prospective. Heitmann said that the Carol R. ]ohnson plan is definitive in the locations for development and that the terms for the condominium project should � not be setting any precedent as most developers reasonably request exclusivity for their project. Heitmann said that his biggest concern is that we don't know what other development will look like, and that we need to be careful that we don't create ' a situation where we can't accommodate a change in respect to the view restrictions that have been requested. McKay said that the developers have now proposed a higher purchase price of $64,000, an increase from the $40,000 offered in the � Penview letter provided to the Committee. Farrington noted that the Council will be in a meeting in Washington in the days before the March 10, 2004 deadline for , preliminary plans to be reviewed by the BED Committee, and wondered if this would be a problem. McKay discussed the possibility of a land swap with the Hutchins to accommodate parking for the project. Chip Hutchins noted that his father paid over ' $200,000 for the corner piece of land that is in question. He noted that the first proposal was for 16 parking spaces, and now we are at 22 maximum. He said that losing these spaces afFects the value of his property. Hutchins said that this � proposal would force him to reevaluate his property and the parking situation. Greene said that in the original Carol Johnson plan, Summer Street has been eliminated, and this proposal includes Summer Street, and he wanted to know if the ' intention was to keep this a through street. McKay said that if Summer Street is eliminated due to the Cedar Street bypass, then the street would be discontinued and the street would be divided down the centerline and ownership would go to the ' abutting property owners. Greene wanted to know that if Summer Street was discontinued, would the land that Penview would receive provide enough space to , accommodate parking and emergency vehicle access. Ring said that it should, that there is a large right of way in this area. Greene questioned what could be done to the property during a property option. Heitmann said that this would eliminate � further options on the property. Tremble wanted to know the Summer Street discontinuance timeframe, and whether it is essential to the project. Heitmann said that this is not crucial to the project. Tremble asked what the units might sell for. ' Fer said that the starting price would be from $200,000 for the 1,200-sq. ft. units up to $600,000 to $700,000 for a larger penthouse level unit. Tremble wanted to know what the City paid per acre for the land that the police station will be built on. 1 Barrett said that it was a combined price for the entire parcel, including the buildings. He said that the appraised value on the waterfront is $200,000 per acre. Fer said that he spoke with Ben Birch about the assessed value of the property, � because they did not want price to be an issue. He said that Birch agreed that the value of the land as is would be their ofFered price; however, when the excavation , , ' , i of ledge is completed, the value would increase. D Errico wanted to know if Hutchins and Penview have been communicating about the parking situation. Ames ' noted that there have been several meetings; however, most of the communication is through Rod McKay. Hutchins noted that this is city properly. Barrett said that it would be helpful to have an executive session to provide guidance on the issues that � ' Rod has highlighted in his memo to the Committee in order to continue to negotiate toward a development agreement. Palmer suggested meeting with the next group and then going into executive session. Greene wanted to clarify that the request to ' restrict condominium development only pertains to property owned by the City. Fer said yes, for a specific period or until all units haVe been sold. Greene wanted to know when the two-year period would start, and Fer said that Heitmann mentioned ' two years from start of construction. Palmer discussed the timeframe for the request from Penview Associates for exclusivity. McKay indicated that the � - November 14"' letter was the first request for this. Fer indicated that they became concerned about this issue when it became public that other condominiums were - proposed along the waterfront. McKay said that the other condominium project that � concerns them most is the one on Front Street, which is quite a different project than this one. Fer said that they were hoping to reach a conclusion tonight so that they could bring it before the council on Monday. He noted that they have been at ' this for a very long time, and they want to be able to start construction in June. Palmer said that they will go into executive session at some point and may come out with a decision. ' 5. Executive Session (if needed) — Land Disposition — Penview Associates— Waterfront Condominiums. ' Tabled until after Item 6. 6. Shoreland Zonin Amendment— Develo ment Pro osal — Bob Baldacci and Fred , 9 p p Forsely —Waterfront Mixed Commercial/Residential Development ' McKay said that the City of Bangor has adopted shoreland zoning regulations as required by the state. The City ordinance requires a minimum of 30,000 square feet ' of lot space per each residential unit in a shoreland zone with 150' of frontage. The city and state ordinance would have to be amended to allow for Baldacci's and , Forsely's proposed development on Front Street. McKay outlined the procedure for ' an amendment to the ordinance. Barrett said that if the Council gives direction to go ahead and make the zoning adjustment, then they should consider if they wish to allow residential development in this area of the waterfront. Greene wanted to know � the time line for the amendment procedure, to which McKay replied approximately 12 weeks. Tremble wanted to know if the amendment to the ordinance would be general or limited to this project. Barrett said that this would be something for us to , consider and to try to determine what the state might find acceptable. Bob Baldacci ' ' , ' introduced his team inciuding Fred Forsely, owner of Shipyard Brewery and Seadog Restaurant. Baldacci indicated that they added the condominiums in order to � stabilize the project. Pullen of WBRC discussed the mixed-use requirement of the waterfront guidelines. Forsely discussed his background and his concern with the ' returns of his current Bangor restaurant versus his other two restaurants in the state. He said that the condominium component would limit some of the risk associated with a restaurant. Baldacci indicated that parking was discussed at a , recent meeting at which some members of the Council were present. He said that he understood that the City couldn't provide on-site parking or designated parking , spots; however, they would issue permits for parking. Baldacci said that he first � heard of the shoreland zoning requirements two weeks ago. He discussed his meeting with a representative from the DEP regarding shoreland zoning. He pointed out that the RFP asked for mixed uses, which this project is, and that they are not ' asking for exclusivity on any aspect of this project. Greene wanted to know if the condos were rental or purchase. Baldacci replied that they were for purchase. Greene wanted to know the approximate price range, to which Baldacci replied , $250,000 to $300,000. Farrington said that the waterfront was never intended for residential uses, and the reason for that is that residential zoning brings certain protection for residents. He expressed his concern that the residents of a condo may , be subjected to certain risks such as noise and lack of neighborhood amenities. Baldacci said that this housing is certainly not for families, rather more for business , executives, empty nesters, etc. Forsely said that he is planning on selling the units before construction, and that he is not a speculator. Patmer wanted to know the square footage of the condos, and the nature of the restaurant. Forsely said that ' this is going to be a first class high-end restaurant with the condos to subsidize it. Forsely said that the units are 1000 to 1300 square feet. Farrington wanted to know what the attraction would be for a restaurant owner to want six condos above him or ' for a condo owner to want to live above a restaurant. Forsely gave him a real life example involving his restaurant in Kennebunkport, and that it is just a way of life for some people to be where the action is. D'Errico asked how shoreland zoning ' affects this development site. McKay said that the site we offered for development is 13,000 square feet, and the shoreland zoning ordinance requires 30,000 square feet for each residential unit. Baldacci said that the request today is to request an ' amendment for shoreland zoning to include residential. , The Committee voted to go into executive session. The Committee returned from executive session and voted to recommend to the full � Council that an amendment be considered to the City's Shoreland Zoning Ordinance that would allow the proposed use. The Committee then considered whether a new request for proposals should be issued in light of this change. After discussion, the , Committee voted 3-2 to recommend to the full Council that a new request for proposals be issued. � �