South Portland Public Meeting Public Feedback

May 9th 2013

Sticky Note Feedback

The public was asked to review the posters depicting the refined ideas and comment on them by placing sticky notes with their thoughts on the posters. Each bullet is a separate sticky note.

Poster 1: Phase One Ideas

  • Don’t do street improvements until development is designed.
  • Use the Right of Way space to create a barrier between cars/bikes/pedestrians. Focus parking in parking lots.
  • Don’t like the combination of angled parking next to bike parkway, requires one-way circulation.
  • This is a good start. Focusing on public infrastructure that is in the control of the city. Design Standards are necessary so that new development sets a tone.
  • Get these power lines buried! NOW (in reference to the high tension wires)
  • Probably still more parking than is needed. A lot of existing pavement doesn’t get used.
  • Like points 1 and 2, 3 is Ok. The façade bit is unclear.
  • Where is the connection to the park?
  • Make Market St. more of a primary street. Look at an entrance to the bridge from Market St.
  • Point 3 is a great idea and can be done easily, try it!
  • The Pedestrian cut through the Mill Creek Shopping Center is a good idea. It can bring in bike traffic off the trail.
  • Erskine Dr. is now directing traffic to Shaw’s instead of distributing to all retail.

Poster 2: Longer Term Ideas

  • Do something with Shaw’s. Re-invent the big box.
  • The parking is underutilized – good to fill it in. Most uses in area are quick trips rather than a car parking for an entire day. Strong, cheap public transit would be needed to avoid new demand for parking. Provide strong access to water to maintain livability. I’d live here. (on two sticky notes)
  • I like, but oldest buildings should be spared if they are strong enough.
  • Eliminate all parking. All pedestrian in core/Market St./E St.
  • Increasing residential and not have commercial space increase proportionately seems upside down. 
  • Would adding trees and sidewalks on Market take away from parking at Mill Creek plaza?
  • In Point 3, I like the mixed use adjacent to the pocket park by the roundabout.
  • What about Burlington, VT model without personal cars, only delivery vehicles?
  • Yes but look heights to be consistent with the neighborhood.

Poster 3: Potential Full Build Out Scenario

  • Run new light rail transit in center of Bridge.
  • Sea of parking! (on the rending over a parking lot)
  • Remove big box.
  • Detail: mixed use next to sewer treatment plant… | overall this is a perfect site for higher density, a little Portland.
  • Need title as to time, 25 years and beyond??
  • Mark time lines on posters better.

Flip Charts

The public was asked to write their thoughts on the strengths and weakness of the ideas as well as the barriers and aids to the ideas moving forward.

What could prevent this plan?

  • Inertia – too many unused plans on the shelf. Who fights for “committee” plans?

Proponents needed

  • Image problem with Knightville – too much traffic, perceived as degraded over time so not worth saving
  • This is not a place where people live

What could help this happen?

  • Housing first – ownership, not rentals
  • No, both ownership AND rentals
  • Design Competition: New vision and ideas
  • Create incentives for property owners, such as reduced parking requirements and higher building heights in return for a desirable type of development
  • Start preserving strip of land along the water by either acquisition or allowing taller building in return for moving buildings back from water
  • Capital investment – money
  • How can local businesses make a profit?
  • More WiFi coffee shops
  • Better public access to water – fishing pier?
  • More nightlife, interesting hip bars
  • Include light clean manufacturing as a use-we’re good at making things

Like:

  • Everything, looks great
  • Good start RE: Mill Creek Park
  • Trees on Waterman – pretty!
  • Add light rail up Waterman Drive over bridge
  • You need the owners

Dislike

  • Too much traffic, not pedestrian friendly except on Green Belt
  • Reinvent Big Box- Too much Big Box still there
  • Too much pandering to existing owners
  • Too auto-oriented

Suggestions

  • Move solid pathway from Mill Creek Park through Mill Creek Link
  • Transit is important, must be available
  • Need a little more sidewalk width
  • Proximity to Old Port/Portland is big
  • Initial streetscape improvements not sufficient
  • Need Façade improvements
  • Incentives: Parking requirements, heights

End Discussion

After the review of the posters the public and the study team engaged in a short discussion about the ideas presented.

Evan Richart asked for participants reactions to the posters.

One participant noted that while the first phase looked good it would not fix the underlying problems. They cited the recent Cottage Road improvements. The road looks good but the buildings still need attention. They posited that maybe the town could out some pressure on property owners to do more upkeep.

Another participant agreed and mentioned the façade improvement program that Portland has for its downtown.

Evan talked a little about façade improvement programs, noting that they are usually in downtowns and that they often draw on Community Development Block Grant funds. South Portland does receive some of these and so there is no reason that they could not start a façade improvement program.

An audience member mentioned that they had heard a major property owner on Cottage Road was thinking of improving their building to bring it up to the level of the road improvements.

Evan agreed that street improvements cannot just be aesthetic. They must add utility in terms of increasing activity and ease of use.

A property owner commented that they would like to see some incentives from the town to encourage property owners to enact the ideas presented. They felt that incentives would be better received and more effective than punishments. They specifically mentioned lowering parking requirements in exchange for taller buildings.

A resident of the Knightville neighborhood noted that they liked the plans because they reflected the work of the previous workshop that they attended.

The State representative for the area, Terry Morrison, spoke about how he was very glad to see this work and that he would love to see South Portland have more of a town center. He mentioned that the state house has been working on a workforce development bill and it has had them concerned with thriving downtowns. It is not about building a building but about working creatively with the resources that you have.

An audience member felt that market rate apartments would be a great thing to build in the area. They felt they would be a great driver of activity in Mill Creek.

Evan noted that someone had written “housing first” on one of the flip charts. Housing is a big thing that can help make a center. He mentioned that the Mill Creek is different from Portland and severs a more local role than Portland. It has a fairly good population base which has been what allowed it to succeed so far but by building into it addition residential you create a new, expanded, and captured market.

A participant felt that the demand for such housing was there so that if it could be built it would be successful.

Evan agreed and noted that that is one of the lessons emerging from the SSM Pilot Community process. Residential developers often do not think of putting residential in areas like this as they are seen as solely commercial and yet the market is there.

Another audience member remarked that the Mill Creek area is very convenient. It is close to many things. They noted that it may even be a shorter walk to the old port from Mill Creek than from parts of the West End. They felt this made it a great place for housing.

A participant mentioned that he neighborhood has all these amenities and is also surrounded by water which they enjoyed. They felt that access to the water could be improved though.

An audience member felt that a strong linear park system connecting through Mill Creek from Mill Creek Park to the parks in Knightville would be desirable. They felt strongly that the park element was key and that just sidewalks would not be enough.

Evan agreed that while there was a good amount of park land in the area the connections between them was lacking.

An audience member asked if the study team felt that any of the automobile dependent uses would be modified to be more compact and less automobile oriented.

Evan replied that the presented ideas do show some of that trend but that current market forces do not warrant major changes. People are very dependent on their automobiles and banks and restaurants respond to that. The team has been trying to find sweetspots that respect this automobile use while still allowing more density. They have been trying to build places where you can own a car but you don’t have too. This will respect the fact that many people will continue to own cars for some time while still appealing to the market of people that want to drive less or not own a car at all. These plans do reduce the required amount of parking for commercial use from 5 spots per 1000sqft to 3 spots and that is based on the parking counts that we did as part of the study as well as larger trends.

Carol Morris noted that they did not want to make anything too restrictive as even if it is still a viable option it may never be built due to developers not wanting to take the risk and the team wanted to be conscious of that.

Tom Meyers, the director of South Portland’s bus system, noted that the Mill Creek / Knightville area is well serviced by busses with 40 trips a day going to Portland, the Mall and elsewhere. Regionally the number of cars registered has gone down in recent years and anecdotally he saw a lot of people factoring in transportation costs when choosing where to live.

Evan agreed and noted that if the area could be moved into something resembling the presented Phase 2, with its increased residential, the market for transit would be improved. He noted that as density increases it will improve these services and that will in turn drive more density. However it can’t be made to happen. To some extent it must progress on its own.

Tex Haeuser, the director of South Portland’s Planning Department, noted that second phase calls for moving buildings closer to the street. He asked if people thought that this and the scale of the buildings shown in the renderings were appropriate for the area.

An audience member said that they moved here from New York City. In contrast to that this whole area, including Portland across the water, seemed rural and as such the buildings in the rendering seemed appropriate. When they moved here they could not understand why the Mill Creek / Knightville area was not more developed. They thought that the infrastructure improvements would help to draw attention and development to the area.

Another participant felt that while up tot eh street was good there should be enough room for wide sidewalks and outdoor seating at restaurants.

Another audience member agreed and felt that the first step was till to get more people in the area.

There was some discussion about the areas proximity to the old port and the rest of the Portland Peninsula. It was felt that despite the mental barrier of the bridge that causes many people to perceive the two areas as far apart they were in actuality quite close.

At this point the meeting ended.