Waterfront Working Group

Waterfront Working Group 8th Meeting Agenda April 4, 2019 Room 24, City Hall 3:00pm to 5:00pm ************************************* 1. Welcome and Introductions: Jon Jennings, City Manager, Chair 2. Review Meeting Notes • Notes from Meeting 7 3. Working Group discussion on unresolved zoning issues. • Continued discussion of Permitted Uses • Lot Coverage and Building Size Status review of Zoning Issues, in preparation for Planning Board 4. submission by April 12. • See Summary Table of Issues and Approaches, attached and Zoning. 5. Working Group discussion on Schedule moving forward.  Agenda 2 Meeting 7 Notes 3-28-19 City of Portland Waterfront Working Group Meeting #7 Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Attendance Becky Rand, Mike Alfiero, Bill Coopersmith Willis Spear Dory Waxman Charlie Poole Steve Dimillo Cyrus Hagge Staff: Jon Jennings, Bill Needelman, Matthew Grooms, Christine Grimando (2nd half) Meeting Summary: The focus of the 1st half of the meeting was zoning and an explanation of specific waterfront zone performance standards (presented by Matthew Grooms). Matthew Grooms presented slides (now posted on the WWG website) showing how these standards are designed to stem rampant development and unplanned commercialization of the waterfront while simultaneously preserving the fishing/maritime industry of Portland’s waterfront. Bill Needelman also stressed the need to clarify zoning issues prior to the expiration of the moratorium on waterfront development. A report will need to go the Planning Board that will likely include where agreements (from the WWG) are in place but also where agreements have not been reached. The extent of WWG consensus or disagreement will accompany staff recommendations to the Planning Board. Again, parking and access were the primary zoning issues discussed at this meeting, with fishermen expressing frustration about difficult or no access due to commercial parking and restricted access during working day hours. Mr. Needelman stressed that all sides of an argument will be presented to the Planning Board, so that the Board has as much information as possible to make zoning decisions. E-Mail/Letter from Sandra Guay, Esq. was distributed and addressed. Ms. Guay’s e-mail presented suggestions for new marketing strategies to lease unoccupied space in wharf buildings (specifically 1st floor space that is vacant and requires marine use tenants). This idea was discussed with many WWG members agreeing that better marketing would help attract marine use tenants to first floor wharf building space. It was also put forth that a longer marketing 1  Agenda 2 Meeting 7 Notes 3-28-19 period -- maybe even six months, consistent with “Pedestrian Activities Districts” -- would help the marketing requirement succeed as intended. Ms. Guay’s e-mail also expressed her concern about wharf owners meeting separately from the WWG to discuss waterfront zoning issues/requirements and specifically addressed her concern about any interested persons claiming to have no voice in proposals put forth to the Planning Board. A suggestion was put forth to restrict all unoccupied space to marine use only (including upper floor space). This suggestion was rejected by the group as a whole. Permitted and non permitted uses were also addressed -- the entire list is published at the WWG website; Mr. Needelman stressed that residential use is not permitted, even on boats. The proposed upcoming schedule of WWG meetings was discussed and distributed. John Jennings has invited a speaker from the Maine DOT to speak with the group at a date to be determined. The speaker will hear from the WWG the need for state and federal funding options for dredging and other issues. Abbreviated Dialog: Matthew Grooms -- (City Planning Dept). discusses 3 performance standards: Off street Loading and Parking; Compatibility of Non Marine Uses; and, Functional Utility of Piers and Access to Water’s Edge. BN: Waterfront zone parking is not required, it is regulated (managed through performance standards) -- see table at website Suggested change: Rewrite sentence so that all applications include off street parking. BN: As it’s been applied in the past, when there has been vacant space in the building, they still needed to accommodate marine parking assuming vacancies would fill up with marine use. The language clarification intent is to supply sufficient parking for marine use, describing the relationship for percentage split and allowance for non marine parking. KL: Any access you can provide will help. MG: There seems to be a need for clarified language BN: We’ll have time to come back to group with something specific before we go to the planning board. NOTE: Sarah’s on-line editing is interrupted here as her internet connection failed. The off- line editing function also failed, so the continued performance standards dialog is interrupted. Mr. Groom’s power point presentation is at the WWG website. 2  Agenda 2 Meeting 7 Notes 3-28-19 The WWG made no specific objection to consolidation of performance standards for Parking, Marine/Non-marine Compatibility, and Pier Function. Fishing interests expressed desire to retain the provision that requires exclusive use of parking, loading, and circulation areas by water dependent uses – where identified for that purpose. New discussion: Permitted uses Restricting some uses from areas subject to marine use requirements (outside of more permissive overlay areas) Permitted uses: Marine: 1. Marine products 2. Marine repair 3. Tubboat, fireboat, pilot boat, etc. 4. Harbor and marine supplies and services 5. Marine industrial 6. And more 19. fishing and commercial vessel berthing Conditional uses: Fish by-products Prohibited uses: Residential uses, hotels, motels, boatels, auditoriums, meeting facilities, drinking establishments, ground mounted telecommunication towers, drive-up services, etc. Full list is at WWG website. Mr. Needelman posed the question of whether all types of restaurants and retail should be allowed outside of the Overlay? Seafood and marine supportive only? CP: With some permitted uses you’re going against the grain -- retail goes against the grain of what we’re trying to do BN: What is the metric for to determine “marine supportive”? MA: A combination of gross receipts and square footage. BN: Luke’s is there, but under the 45% rule. BN: If it were “marine supportive”, we would look at how you contribute to the marine economy. 3  Agenda 2 Meeting 7 Notes 3-28-19 Luke’s vs. Denny’s. ( Luke’s is marine supportive, Denny’s is not). BN: That’s why there are performance standards in this zone. It’s hard to put a chain restaurant in when you have performance standards. It is difficult to keep up with incremental changes. KL: How did Scales get in? BN: They demonstrated that they met the standards…they have a dedicated pedestrian pathway, access to berths is through the buildings. KL: We’ve lost 70% of the working waterfront, we’re trying to keep the 30% we have left. Anything that impedes marine use is a problem. WS: Any time you have non marine use it diminishes our ability to use the wharfs. CP: Defends compatible uses WS: Does not defend compatible uses. WS: We noticed in 2010 when we changed to 45/55 we started to be negatively impacted. Some wharfs could control it, some couldn’t, for the record the wharves don’t have a bridge at the end to go to South Portland. KL: I support WS argument, but Custom House Wharf has always been that way. MA: I think 2nd floor should be allowed non marine use. I’m not going to concede that point. But, I’ll make sure that everyone who needs parking for marine use has parking. SD: It is a step in the wrong direction not to be able to use the upper floors. We can’t leave the waterfront as derelict as it has been. JJ: I think what I’m hearing is that we need to think more about restaurant use -- parking is clearly a problem. CP: Comment on upper floor thing -- when appropriate and non-interfering, upper floor use should be non-marine as well as marine. JJ: Upper floor use is off the table -- upper floors can have non marine use tenants. BN: We will use work from this group to draft language to take to the Planning Board. Additional Item brought up by Becky Rand: Angelo’s Acre, what will happen there now that Council is considering a shelter? WS: we think it’s best used as parking. 4  Agenda 2 Add to Meeting 7 Notes Letter from SG to JJ Email to Jon Jennings, Bill Needelman, Willis Spear, Bill Coppersmith March 26,2019 Good Afternoon Jon and Bill: You had asked me to send this idea to you via email, so here it is: The Development Corporation Commercial Loan and Grant Program is available for small marine related businesses that may want to locate or expand on the Portland waterfront, and in particular, in the WCZ. The program has apparently been available for some time however it is an as yet unknown resource to potential small marine related businesses who may wish to locate in available vacant space on the wharves. Meanwhile, there has been a requirement that in accordance with the 45/55 requirement, wharf owners must advertise first to potential marine related businesses. This requirement has apparently been unsuccessful for a couple of reasons. First – 60 days is just not long enough (it appears that the task force group was amenable to a 6 month requirement at the last meeting); second, again, the potential users may believe they will be priced out and do not know that there may be resources to assist with that. Another issue of course is monitoring the rental fees being advertised to make certain they are in line with rental fees for other marine uses. My suggestion is two-fold. First, the City should start promoting the loan/grant program in marine-related publications so that the word gets out. The City can develop some sort of catch phrase that would promote both the City and the program in the advertisements/notices. Second, wharf owners who have vacant first floor space in the WCZ should have to use the information about the City’s loan/grant program in its rental advertising - and in addition to other sources, should have to advertise in the same publications that the City uses to promote the program. One other suggestion – I was of course dismayed to hear at the last task force meeting that wharf owners have been meeting with other property owners without including any of the WWG in these discussions and then springing it on them at the meeting. I do have concerns that there may be an effort to have other property owners show up at planning board and council meetings complaining that they did not have a voice in any negotiated decisions that the task force may reach – which may delay things even more. My suggestion is to make it clear at the meetings and on the published agenda, that anyone from the public is able to write a letter or email Bill with any comments and that Bill will make certain that these comments get relayed to the members of the task force. They may still show up at the planning board and council meetings and try to derail things, but better to be able to say that they had an opportunity to have a voice in the proposed amendments. Thank you – Sandra SANDRA L. GUAY, ESQUIRE Partner WOODMAN EDMANDS DANYLIK AUSTIN SMITH & JACQUES, P.A. 234 MAIN ST., P. O. BOX 468 BIDDEFORD, ME 04005 T: (207) 284-4581 F: (207)284-2078 slg@woodedlaw.com www.woodedlaw.com  Agenda 3 Fishermen Suggested Zone amendments from the sea; and all personal service establishments. . Moreover, in the entire WCZ, Cconvenience stores with gas pumps, minor businesses with one or more gas pumps (except those used in fueling and/or bunkering of vessels), major auto service stations and minor auto service stations, private recreation facilities, indoor amusement and/or recreation centers, and family amusement centers, and laundry and dry cleaning services shall not be permitted under this section; 3. Restaurants provided that full course meal food service and consumption shall be the primary function of the restaurant, and full course meal service shall be continued up until the hours of closing, but only if located in the Non-Marine Use Overlay Zone. Drinking establishments shall not be permitted under this section. 4. Banking services without drive-up services, but only if located in the Non-Marine Use Overlay Zone; 5. Laundry and dry cleaning services; (included as not permitted, above) 6. Cabinet and carpentry shops, studios for artists and crafts people; 7. Intermodal transportation facilities; 8. Cold storage facilities; 9. Museums and art galleries; and 10. Outside accessory activities (c) Public: 1. Landscaped pedestrian parks, plazas and other similar outdoor pedestrian spaces, including without limitation pedestrian and/or bicycle trails; (d) Other: 1. Accessory uses: [see ordinance for interior accessory uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the location, function and operation of permitted uses, and interior meeting or classroom space accessory to marine research, education, and laboratory facilities] 2. Street vendors licensed pursuant to chapter 19. 3. Wind energy systems, as defined and allowed in Article X, Alternative Energy. Sec. 14-308. Conditional use. Delete 14-308 (b) in its entirety, which allows one residential living space per wharf, limited to occupancy by the primary owner of a marine business, limited to 1,000 square feet (including exterior porches and decks) for year-round use (the “McAleney amendment”). Suggestions from Portland’s Working Waterfront Group for limitations on uses in the WCZ April 3, 2019  Agenda 3 Fishermen Suggested Zone amendments Sec. 14-309. Prohibited uses. Uses which are not enumerated in either section 14-307 or 14-308 as permitted or conditional uses are prohibited. Those uses that are prohibited shall include, without limitation: (a) Except as provided in section 14-308, residential uses (not in existence on May 5, 1987), including but not limited to dwellings, living units, rooming units, emergency shelters, short term rentals, long term rentals and similar residential uses; (b) Hotels, motels, hostels, bed and breakfasts, inns, lodging houses, tourist homes, or and boatels; (c) Auditoriums, civic centers, convention centers or other meeting facilities; (d) Drinking establishments, private clubs, or nonprofit social and recreational facilities; (e) Ground mounted telecommunication towers, antennas, and/or disks; and (f) Drive-up services for any use other than a permitted use listed under 14-307(a) or 14- 308(a)(1). (g) Marina intended primarily for berthing of non-commercial vessels (not in existence on May 5, 1987). Suggestions from Portland’s Working Waterfront Group for limitations on uses in the WCZ April 3, 2019 Waterfront Working Group Summary Table of Zoning Issues, Approaches, and Status DRAFT 4-3--19 Zoning Issue Approach Status Next Steps Contract/Conditional Eliminate option for site specific Resolved. The WWG will Staff to recommend Rezoning zoning within the WCZ likely not have complete to Planning Board agreement on elimination of the tool Non-marine Use Revise line to 125 ft offset from Likely to Remain Staff ready to Overlay Zone Commercial St with 300 ft at Long recommend to Wharf Un-Resolved. The Planning Board WWG will likely not have complete agreement. 55% first floor and Separate open areas from first floor. Apparently Staff ready to open area Marine recommend No % Resolved. Percentages changes to Planning Use Requirement Lobstering group suggests 70/30 discussed by WWG on 3-7- split for open areas 19 and 3-21-19. General Board Require marine use occupancy as a support for the status quo. No resolution on condition for non-marine occupancy Lobsterman’s letter suggests marine use occupancy 70/30 requirement First floors marketed Eliminate the requirement, subject Rejected by the Staff ready to to marine use as a to agreement that the Marine/N-M recommend to use split has been adequately WWG on 3-21-19 Planning Board condition for non- addressed marine use extending the Strengthen the requirement Resolved. Extend marking time from occupancy marketing time to 180 days 60 days to 180 days Marine Use Replace with annual report of General agreement Staff ready to Inventory “significant development.” Add recommend to periodic broad “assessment of the Planning Board marine economy” Parking Some issues to be covered with the To be considered Non-zoning issues Performance Standards need a dedicated with performance meeting Consider “marine use parking” as a distinct use. See below. (NEW Standards and Use Use approach to be APPROACH) discussed on 4-4-19 Permitted Uses Restricting some uses from areas Under Discussion. WWG discussion on subject to marine use requirements From 3-28, Consideration of 4-4-19 (outside of more permissive Overlay prohibiting restaurants from areas) areas outside of Overlay Consider “marine use parking” as a Not yet discussed distinct use (NEW APPROACH) Performance Combine NM parking, functional General agreement Confirm on 4-4-19 Standards utility, and Marine/N-M from discussion on 3-28 compatibility standards under a single standard. Create a submission requirement for an “access management plan” Retain ”exclusive use” provision General agreement Lot Coverage, Suggestion to limit both Not yet discussed WWG discussion, 4- Building size 4-19 Enforcement Likely, no ordinance changes, but Not yet discussed WWG discussion, , 4- will explore better reporting and 4-19 education Non-zoning issues to be addressed separately