Loading...
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.