Waterfront Working Group — Portland, ME
Date: 2019-05-16
Time: 15:00

Waterfront Working Group
 12th Meeting Agenda
 May 16, 2019
 Room 24, City Hall
 3:00pm to 5:00pm




 *************************************

1. Welcome and Introductions:


2. Review Meeting Notes from Meeting 11


 a. 05­02­2019 Meeting Notes attached

 Debrief on Results of City Council Workshop and Planning Board
3.
 Public Hearing


 Working Group discussion on Work Plan and Schedule moving
4.
 forward.
 A draft work plan will be distributed at the meeting

Waterfront Working Group
 12th Meeting Agenda
 May 16, 2019
 Room 24, City Hall
 3:00pm to 5:00pm




 *************************************

1. Welcome and Introductions:


2. Review Meeting Notes from Meeting 11


 a. 05­02­2019 Meeting Notes attached

 Debrief on Results of City Council Workshop and Planning Board
3.
 Public Hearing


 Working Group discussion on Work Plan and Schedule moving
4.
 forward.
 A draft work plan will be distributed at the meeting
 Agenda 2, Meeting 11 Notes
 5-2-19



City of Portland
Waterfront Working Group

Meeting #11
Thursday, May 2, 2019 -- 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Attendance:

PWWG: Mike Alfiero, Togue Brawn, Bill Coopersmith, Steve DiMillo, Cyrus Hagge, Keith
Lane, Charlie Poole, Willis Spear, Becky Rand, (Dory Waxman absent)

Staff: Jon Jennings, Bill Needleman, Matthew Grooms, Christine Grimando


Meeting Summary:

The focus of this meeting was the explanation, clarification, proposed changes and parsing of the
Operations and Access Management Plan Performance Standards amendments. A draft of
proposed language changes was distributed to the group, with proposed language changes in
bold. The opening paragraph of the draft is the guiding principle, subsequent sections enforce
this principle.

Mr. Needleman stated that the group may make edits by consensus.

John Jennings has asked the members of the PWWG to submit suggestions for editing the
language in the draft (as well as questions or concerns) no later than Monday, May 6 in order
that the document can be finalized for submission to the Planning Board by Friday, May 10. Bill
Needleman will send an e-mail to the group on Friday, May 3 to facilitate the group’s
submissions.

Mr. Grooms explained that an added section to performance standards amendments is to explain
the purpose (as requested by the Planning Board), which is that any development in the zone
must comply with principles as they set strict guidelines as to what can occur in the zone.

There appeared to be some question about the broad application of the proposed performance
standards regarding shared use properties and small projects. Several group members questioned
whether submitted plans for new developments required compliance on an entire pier, or
compliance only for the new use area of a pier. Matthew Grooms explained that use demand
metrics are applied in cases where marine use exists (example -- if you have 25 parking spaces
for new development and use demand statistics identify that 4 marine use spaces are needed, then
there need to be 4 of the 25 new spaces dedicated for marine use). These questions and concerns
may be submitted to staff, so that language may be added or clarified in the proposed Operations
and Access Management Language. (See Dialog for specific questions.)

Submission Requirements:

This section is new language and replaces existing performance standards language.
 Agenda 2, Meeting 11 Notes
 5-2-19



Any changes the PWWG may make during the meeting will be circulated and there will be time
for comments and changes before it goes to the Planning Board.

Mr. DiMillo asked if these requirements apply to the whole zone, inside and outside the nmouz
(which is now the CSOZ) and Matthew Grooms confirmed that they do.

Sandra Guay (attorney/member of the public) expressed concern over the lack of language
concerning the future.

The implications for a single applicant on shared use property were questioned; Christine
Grimando and Matthew Groom both expressed that “reasonable expectations,” will be exercised.

Charlie Poole believes that the bold language in a(i) “showing the entire pier” should end with a
period to eliminate confusion. Mr. Needleman suggested “the pier” might be better changed to
“the lot, within the context of the entire pier.”

It was concluded that, in the interest of time, language contributions/edits from members of the
PWWG will be sent to City Staff no later than Tuesday, May 7 (preferably Monday, May 6) in
order that these contributions may be included in the proposal put forth to the Planning Board on
Friday, May 10.

There will be no meeting next Thursday; the next PWWG meeting will be Thursday, May 16 at 3
p.m. in Room 24 at City Hall.

Abbreviated Dialog Regarding language questions:

TB: “Showing the entire pier,” a(i) what does that mean?

MG: The context of what happens on the entire pier must be accounted for.

TB: What is the public process? Does everyone have to be notified of the change of use and site
plan?

MG: In the context of entire pier, yes.

BN: But if it is a very small project, it’s a small amendment to that plan (the existing plan
of pier owner).

SD: What’s the CSOZ?

Commercial Street Overlay Zone -- it replaces nmouz.

SD: Long Wharf is actually now 4 parcels. How is that affected?

BN: Under common ownership -- that’s how the lot is defined.
 Agenda 2, Meeting 11 Notes
 5-2-19



CH: At Holyoke -- does 55/45 apply to both owners?

BN: It’s common ownership -- 55/45 applies to only your own project.

SD: There’s piers and there’s wharves.

BN: Piers and wharves are interchangeable.

SD: Regarding signing spaces -- snow removal is an issue for sign posts.

BN: Merrill’s Wharf example works pretty well.

BR: Is the parking 55/45 too?

BN: Yes - by use (square footage has to reflect plan use).

MG: The 1st standard is for off-street parking. Reasonably practicable to reasonably possible.

KL: Is that applicable to CSOZ and down the wharf?

MG: Yes.

KL: Does b (ii) apply to a building in CSOZ?

BR: All of this applies to CSOZ and down the wharf?

BN: Out of the overlay the 55% rule applies.

MA: If you have a non-marine tenant in the overlay they can have 100% non marine parking?

BN: There is no requirement for marine use in the overlay, but if there is marine use in the
overlay, the plan has to accommodate that use.

MA: If I have a building that has 125 feet and is 100% non-marine, but there is marine use in the
submitted plan, I have to take parking from the overlay to accommodate marine use?

BN: Yes.

MA: How do you show there is enough parking for marine?

MG: If you have marine use that requires 4 spaces -- and you have 25 spaces, 4 spaces must be
allocated for marine use.

CH: The whole concept is that new building parking has to show that it is not impacting marine
parking down the wharf.
 Agenda 2, Meeting 11 Notes
 5-2-19



BC: The object is to make marine use parking a priority.

JJ: There is a fundamental conversation to be had here -- 125 gives you the opportunity to have
non-marine use.

TB: Should we extend 55/45 to include the overlay? (Grumbles from group)

SD: In the zone, there is no parking requirement?

BN/MG: Right.

CG: The Planning Board asks applicants to demonstrate how they will accommodate use
demands.

SD: If there is proposed parking, even though there is no requirement for parking, you have to
adhere to performance standards for that parking?

BN: Yes….but the language is extremely difficult to get through.

CP: Regarding b(v) the language states “loading or unloading,” we might want to change the
language to “access.”

KL: Some of us have almost no pier side access -- we’re going to have a long talk about that one
someday.

CH: This is for projects moving forward for new development new projects; existing things are
not part of what we’re doing today.

BN: Someone might build a new building on the pier with garage doors on both sides where
loading and unloading can take place…..development cannot displace marine use.

KL: I’m all for that, but it’s unrealistic.

MG: The last standard is a carryover from existing language -- new buildings need to take into
account whether there is access to the pier edge to accommodate moving of goods from berthed
vessels (through the building, around the building, or however it is to be done).

BR: Who is it submitting the application? The property owner?

MG: Yes.

BR: What about a pier owner who doesn’t care? Who checks to make sure what is supposed to
happen actually happens?

JJ: Inspectors and much more. It is a multi layered process.
 Agenda 2, Meeting 11 Notes
 5-2-19



CP The word “internal” is confusing in b(vi).

BN: We can eliminate it.

CP: Regarding b(vii) -- we took a hit. I understand why it’s there, but it does take away...

MA: Regarding b(vii) Why is that (pedestrian walkway) is required for non-marine but not for
marine?

BN: Clients/retail need it.

MA: They’re not as astute on the waterfront as marine users-- this is really about density/ egress,
etc.

JJ: 5 feet seems somewhat onerous.

JJ: When will you have final draft to circulate?

MG: Monday at the latest. BN: It would be great if we could have them tomorrow.

JJ: Plan on receiving an e-mail from Bill tomorrow, so final comments can be sent by Tuesday.

BN: Schedule -- we can reconvene after the Planning Board meeting on the 14th. We’d like to
get away from weekly meetings.

No meeting next week, but we’ll meet on the 16th.