HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-03-05 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF MARCH 5, 2013
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Andy Sturgeon, Chairman
Paul Bolin
Charles Boothby
Doug Damon
Wayne Mallar, Alternate Member
John Miller
Julie Williams
City Staff Present: David Gould
Jen Boothroyd
City Councilors Present: Councilor Civiello
Councilor Longo
Chairman Sturgeon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of
Board Member Kenney, Alternate Member Mallar was asked to vote.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 1: Site Location of Development Modification approval to
construct a 4,574 sq. ft. building for use as a restaurant
with a dual drive-thru located at 665 Hogan Road in a
General Commercial and Service District. McDonald’s USA,
Inc., applicant.
Mr. Damon moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Miller seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 2: To amend the Land Development Code by changing two
parcels of land located at 1049 Broadway from Low Density
Residential District to Shopping and Personal Service
District. Said parcels containing approximately 3.1 acres.
Leadbetter Realty Trust, applicant. C.O. # 13-094.
2
Chairman Sturgeon opened the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to make
a presentation.
Mr. Sean Thies, PE with Civil Engineering Services representing Leadbetter Realty
Trust indicated they were seeking to rezone 3.12 acres from Low Density Residential
District to Shopping and Personal Service District. Mr. Thies indicated the property was
located between two commercial properties on Broadway and they felt their request
was consistent with other commercial zoning around them.
Dr. Bran Brozman of 45 Woodland Drive indicated that he had concerns with the
last rezoning request as it abutted his property; and, while he found this application
better, he was concerned about whether this would set about other changes that may
come in the future.
Planning Officer Gould read into the record an e-mail from Mr. John Rebar of 39
Woodland Drive indicating that he was much more comfortable with the revised
rezoning that left a 3-acre parcel Low Density Residential which would offer some
buffer to his residential property on Woodland Drive.
There being no others who wished to speak, Chairman Sturgeon closed the
Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould noted that he
had met with the applicant and reviewed various development options with them. The
City’s Land Use Policy for this portion of Broadway has been low density residential for
several decades, to depart from that development policy needs to be done very
carefully. Mr. Gould noted that if the Board comes to a different conclusion as to land
use policy it should state clearly those reasons such that the Staff and Board will be
consistent with the next applicant.
Ms. Williams asked if the rear lot, which is not being considered for re-zoning at
this time, could be developed as residential property. Mr. Gould indicated that it could.
Alternate Member Mallar asked how long the abutting parcels had been zoned as
Shopping and Personal Service. Mr. Gould explained since 1978 this stretch of
Broadway has always been planned as commercial land use. There has been
opposition to commercial development from neighboring residential landowners but the
commercial policy has generally been followed. He cited the Gifford’s ice cream stand
and the adjacent convenience store, as examples.
Board members noted the property was in between two existing commercial
zones, property fronting on Broadway should be given preference to commercial zoning,
and the two lots proposed to be changed were unlikely to be developed as single-family
homes. Mr. Gould noted the importance of stating reasons for how the Board makes its
decision.
3
Mr. Damon indicated that it is the job of the Planning Board to look at how zone
changes affect the areas around them. He indicated that because this proposal abuts
commercial development and provides a parcel between residential and proposed
commercial development that he would be in favor.
Mr. Bolin noted that he did not feel that the two parcels were suitable for
residential development as they are sandwiched between commercial lots.
Mr. Mallar pointed out that there is a portion of HDR zoning that directly abuts
the commercial development. Mr. Gould noted that any development will need to
comply with buffer regulations for approval.
Mr. Damon moved to recommend approval to the City Council of the zone
change request located at 1049 Broadway from Low Density Residential District to
Shopping and Personal Service District as contain in C.O. # 13-094. Mr. Miller
seconded the motion. The Board voted six in favor and one opposed.
Item No. 3: Public Hearing on proposed revisions to the Comprehensive
Plan 2010 Update – Comprehensive Plan 2012.
Chairman Sturgeon opened the Public Hearing and asked Mr. Gould to make a
presentation. Mr. Gould gave a brief history on the City’s Comprehensive Plan and its
approval and consistency status since the early 2000s. Currently, several additions have
been made to the most recent version of the Plan to meet consistency standards for the
State. These additions are now before the Planning Board for approval and will be
forwarded to the City Council for adoption.
Mr. Gould summarized the seven changes and additions:
Vision Statement-The City Council’s vision statement was added to the
plan.
Demographics and Population-This information was updated to include
data from the 2010 Census. Mr. Gould noted the relatively stagnant
growth in wages, the aging of the population, and the increase in the
percentage of residents living in poverty in recent decades.
Natural Resources- This chapter and the habitat map were updated to
reflect the most current data from the State.
Agricultural and Forestry- The chapter was updated with new tree growth
and farm and open space data from Assessing
4
Implementation Plan was added.
List of Appendices was added.
Evaluation Plan –This was required by the State. Mr. Gould has proposed
a yearly report to the Planning Board that will summarize certain relevant
factors from the past year (such as the number of housing units, etc.)
Mr. Gould reminded the Board that, under the City’s Charter, the Comprehensive
Plan is an element of the Planning Board only. However, the State’s Growth
Management Act requires that it also be adopted by the City Council. Mr. Gould
recommended that the Board approve the summarized changes to the Comprehensive
Plan and recommend to City Council its adoption.
Chairman Sturgeon asked for comments from the audience. Lucy Quimby. a
member of the Comprehensive Plan Committee, urged the Board to respect the many
hours of work and discussion that have gone into the production of the document.
Councilor Civiello asked when a copy of the Comprehensive Plan would be
available for review. Mr. Gould indicated that it is currently available on-line, and that
the members of the Council will be given copies before it is presented to them for a
vote. Councilor Civiello asked when the Growth Management Act was enacted. Mr.
Gould explained that it was enacted around 1989, and briefly summarized the history of
the City with the Growth Management Act. Councilor Civiello asked if there is a
financial benefit to having a comprehensive plan. Mr. Gould said that funding from state
grants is often tied to having an adopted, consistent comprehensive plan. He also
mentioned the potential costs associated with litigation regarding zoning decisions
where a city’s zoning is not based on an adopted consistent comprehensive plan.
As no one else spoke, Chairman Sturgeon closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Bolin thanked everyone who worked on the Comprehensive Plan, and asked
when the Board should vote on it. Mr. Miller asked if the plan was complete or whether
changes were on-going with the document. Mr. Gould indicated that the plan before
the Board has been accepted by the State. Additional changes made from here on
would require further hearings and resubmittal to the State for approval.
Mr. Miller asked when the Comprehensive Plan will be revisited. Mr. Gould stated
that he was not sure. Currently, this plan will be adequate for the State for 12 years.
However, evolving changes in the City, such as the study being proposed in the
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area, may result in land use changes that should
be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan.
5
Board Members discussed the next step in the approval of the document.
Ms. Williams added her thanks to those that worked on the plan, and stated that
she has found it to be a very valuable document. Mr. Damon echoed the thanks
mentioned by other members, and especially thanked the City Staff who spent time
coming to Board meetings to answer questions and offer explanations during the
drafting of the Plan. He mentioned that he would like to see additional details about the
Bus system included in the Fiscal Plan on page 171. Mr. Gould stated that the staff
could look into that, and that the Bus funding involves some federal cost-sharing.
Chairman Sturgeon asked if the data proposed to be presented in the evaluation
reports is available now. Mr. Gould stated that staff could begin compiling the data as
soon as the Plan becomes official.
Mr. Damon indicated that he is in favor of passing the Plan. Mr. Boothby said
that he thought a vote should be made as soon as possible, but not before each Board
Member has had a chance to thoroughly review the document. He recommended voting
on the plan during the first meeting in April. Ms. Williams said that given the previous
approval of the Board and the summary of the additions, she was comfortable voting at
this time.
Mr. Damon moved to approve the Comprehensive Plan as written and forward it
to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Ms. Williams seconded the
motion. The motion passed by a vote of six in favor and one opposed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Sturgeon indicated that the Minutes of the January 15, 2013 meeting
were in order for approval. Mr. Boothby made a motion to approve the Minutes as
written. Mr. Bolin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:11 P.M.