Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-05 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 2010 MINUTES Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman Jeff Barnes Paul Bolin, Alternate Member Doug Damon John Miller Nathaniel Rosenblatt Andy Sturgeon Miles Theeman City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Paul Nicklas Bud Knickerbocker Peter Witham Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Amending Chapter 165, Section 165-72 – L. – Required Number of Spaces – Retail or Service Business City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 10-038. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Planning Officer David Gould explained that the proposed amendment was intended to add a specific parking standard for furniture and large appliance retailers. Historically, the Land Development Code treated all retailers with the same standard of one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area. It was brought to our attention that furniture stores tend to have about half the parking demand as general retail stores. The amendment would add that use to the off-street parking requirements section of the Land Development Code. There were no proponents or opponents from the public in attendance. 2 Planning Board Members had no concerns with the proposed amendment. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend the amended parking standard for furniture and large appliance retailers to the Council as contained in C.O. #10-038. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 7 to 0. Item No. 2: Amending Chapter 165, Section 165-101D and Schedule B Shopping and Personal Service District – to add Manufactured or Modular Homes to the list of Conditional Uses in the Shopping and Personal Service District. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 10-039. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Planning Officer David Gould explained that the proposed amendment was intended to add Modular and Manufactured homes to the list of items that could be displayed as a Conditional Use in the Shopping and Personal Service District (S & PS). While S&PS is not the best district for outdoor display and storage the Code does allow a limited amount of outdoor display where no service is undertaken and the display area is limited to 50% of the primary building’s floor area. While the Board had previously discussed this amendment and considered eliminating the floor area limitation, concerns were raised that the S&PS District was not intended for extensive outdoor display and storage. Mr. Theeman wondered if the limitation would be practical and if not, then there would be little use for the amendment. There were no proponents or opponents from the public in attendance. Planning Board Members reviewed the locations of the General Commercial and Service Districts and the Shopping and Personal Service Districts. The majority of the Board agreed that outdoor display in the S&PS District would be limited but should be allowed where the applicant desired to do it and could meet the applicable performance standards. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend the proposed amendment to add Manufactured and Modular homes to the list of items available for outdoor display as a Conditional Use in the Shopping and Personal Service District as contained in C.O.# 10-039. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted six in favor and one opposed to the motion. Item No. 3: Amending Chapter 165, Section 13 Definition of Auxiliary Public Utility Structure and Section 165-30 – Auxiliary public utility structure. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 10-040. 3 Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing. City Engineer Jim Ring explained the history of the provisions for Auxiliary Public Utility Structures, how they are defined, and the present proposal to add additional flexibility to their siting and processing. Mr. Ring illustrated an example of a sewer pump station that was located off Perry Road. Due to the increased sewer flows and need to upgrade the pump station a larger building would need to be constructed. Given its proximity to the right- of-way typical setbacks of the Industry and Service District could not be met and the expanded structure would exceed the current 200 square foot limitation. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zoning amendment. Planning Board Members were concerned that the provision to exempt these structures throughout the City from site plan review would eliminate the abutter notification process that occurs as part of the Planning Board review process. The Board generally agreed that the proposed flexibility was warranted in the Perry Road pump station example but were concerned that other support facilities that may be located in residential districts could occur without notification to abutters. Planning Officer David Gould noted that the parameters of the existing standards were designed around the needs of New England Telephone’s switching huts back in the 1980’s. More recently, the Perry Road pump station has caused Staff to take another look at the provisions to see if it was reasonable to extend them to cover this slightly larger project. The facilities are fairly small, unoccupied structures which generate few traffic trips and would in most instances not warrant much review. The Board members indicated they had few concerns with installations in industrial or commercial areas but such facilities while small, could generate noise or other concerns that abutting neighbors would want to weigh in on. The Board discussed potential changes to the proposed language that would fit the needs of the Perry Road example and not open the door to other installations where the impacts might be adverse to the abutting properties. As was noted, the Planning Board needs to make a recommendation on the amendment before it and the concerns of the Board would be forwarded on to the City Council with that recommendation. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City Council that the proposed amendment to the definition and changes to Auxiliary Public Utility Structures language as contained in C.O. #10-040 be approved. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The 4 Board voted one in favor and six opposed. Therefore, the Board voted not to recommend the proposed zoning amendment. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to construct two, 2,304 sq. ft. buildings for retail use located at 620 Odlin Road in an Urban Industry District. Wayne A. LeBreton, applicant. Mr. Vinal Applebee represented the applicant who is seeking site development plan approval to reuse an existing building and construct two 2,304 sq. ft. buildings for retail use at 620 Odlin Road. Mr. Wayne LeBreton was also present in support of this application. Mr. Applebee gave a brief history of the zoning of the parcel noting that the zoning was recently changed to Urban Industry District. The applicant wishes to conduct his electrical business in one of the new buildings, rent the second one and create office space in the existing building for one or two tenants. Mr. Applebee discussed the site development plan. They are proposing two curb cuts and tried to put as much space between them as they could. Each curb cut will serve the two separate structures and one will also serve the existing building. Mr. Applebee indicated that the on-site septic system can handle the demand of a two-bedroom residence. The usage by the 10 envisioned employees would be less than that of a two-bedroom residential use. He noted that at the time the Staff Memorandum was written, Staff had concerns regarding the turning radii and the square footage of impervious area that was indicated on the plan. Mr. Applebee indicated that the site development plan had been revised to adjust the turning radii as recommended by City Engineer Jim Ring and to correct the indicated amount of impervious area. Mr. Sturgeon asked how close the proposed curb cuts will be to any existing curb cuts on adjacent properties. Mr. Applebee indicated that the curb cut on the adjacent property to the west is approximately 300 feet away. Mr. Sturgeon asked what their plans are in regard to the on-site septic system if they exceed 10 employees. Mr. Applebee indicated that they will either expand the existing septic system or design a pump station. Mr. Theeman asked what the buffer requirements are. Mr. Applebee indicated that it was a “B” buffer where parking is adjacent to the street. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about stormwater runoff and if there were provisions made for quality and quantity of water. Mr. Applebee indicated that there were no provisions for water quality or quantity. The lot is 1 and 1/4 acres and 40% of it is impervious. It also drains in four different directions most of which runs off toward I-95 which does not create an impact upon the area. 5 Planning Officer David Gould indicated that this application is for Site Development Plan approval for retail and office use in Urban Industry District. This district allows most all commercial and industrial uses. Mr. Gould indicated that this lot is unique in that it does not have sewer service. The Land Development Code has a standard that says if you don’t have access to sewer you have to have a minimum of one acre of land to support a business. In regard to the proposed on-site waste disposal, the Code Enforcement Office concurs that the three buildings proposed would be no different if there was one building. Should the uses change to something that is a high water user then there likely will be problems. If this occurs, the owner and the Code Office will have to deal with this. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff finds that the revised plans meet all Ordinance and submittal requirements and recommended approval. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the stormwater provisions were satisfied. Mr. Gould indicated that because this site drains in all directions there is no adverse impact on adjacent properties from this development. Mr. Sturgeon moved that the Board approve the Site Development Plan to construct two, 2,304 sq. ft. buildings for retail use located at 620 Odlin Road in an Urban Industry District for Wayne A. LeBreton, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item No. 5: Final Subdivision Plan approval to add one lot to the Stillwater Gardens Molly Lane Extension Subdivision located on Molly Lane Extension in a Low Density Residential District. L.T.I., Inc., applicant. Mr. John McCormack with CES, Inc. represented the applicant who is requesting Final Subdivision Plan approval to add one lot to the Stillwater Gardens Molly Lane Extension Subdivision. He noted that they had several meetings with City Staff and also met with the Marsh Mall Commission to review the project. Mr. McCormack indicated that all Ordinance and City requirements have been met. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the plan incorporated the three points of concern noted in the Staff Memorandum. Mr. Gould indicated that the arrangement of the open space as proposed is designed to encapsulate those areas identified as wetlands. Mr. McCormack noted that the Marsh Mall Commission had suggested that the open space be revised to cover some wetlands along the edge of the lot and the latest plan reflects that. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were changes made since the time the Staff memorandum was written. Mr. McCormack indicated that the open space was changed and they added a couple of notes to the plan. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision was started in 1980 and has been constructed in phases. In 2005 when the Penjajawoc 6 Marsh Mall Overlay District was created, any new subdivision that occurs within the overlay district must meet the cluster subdivision standards which require that 35% of the total area be set aside as open space. This end of the subdivision was done in 2003 and it was not required to be a cluster subdivision at that time. In the 1990’s most of the open space relative to this subdivision was taken from a 12 acre piece of property which the owners dedicated to the City. At that time the City wasn’t aggressively seeking open space subdivision by subdivision but a 12 acre piece was provided with the feeling that it would be adequate open space based on a 5% standard. Planning Officer Gould indicated that when the Molly Lane north subdivision was proposed the Marsh Mall Commission was adamant that they wanted to see new open space provided. The creation of a new lot down at this location falls within the Penjajawoc Overlay District which requires a provision of 35% for open space. The plan is to take the area of wetland and Resource Protection on the back of the lot and let that be protected as open space by a conservation easement and give the City rights of enforcement. The plan was amended to add a note to clarify who is going to own the open space and how it is going to work. Presently the applicant has not produced a conservation easement. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant provided the City with a new delineation of wetland. The Marsh Mall Commission was concerned that there was additional wetland there that was not mapped. Field work was done and a map was provided that shows some additional forested wetlands that previously were not mapped. The Marsh Mall Commission questioned if the Shoreland zoning should be readjusted on this lot because there is new wetland mapping. Planning Officer Gould indicated that it is the Staff’s view that any wetlands that are forested do not need to be protected by Shoreland zoning and the Resource Protection line would remain as it is even through there is additional wetland because it is forested wetland. The Commission recommended that the Planning Board try to seek specific clarification from the Department of Environmental Protection Shoreland Zoning staff as to whether a portion of the wetland that would be forested would not be Resource Protection. Staff did some additional research and found details regarding forested wetlands on the DEP’s website. Mr. Gould indicated that if the Board would like to have clarification on this from the DEP, Staff could do so. Mr. Theeman noted that the conservation easement does not appear on the plan. Planning Officer Gould indicated that there is a note on the new plan that clearly says that the open space will be held by the property owner (new lot owner) of Lot 83 and that there is a conservation easement with rights to the City. The Board had questions regarding where the side yards would be measured from. Planning Officer Gould discussed the various scenarios. 7 Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Final Subdivision Plan for the proposed one-lot subdivision on Molly Lane Extension, for LTI, Inc. on the condition that applicant submit an executed conservation easement governing the open space that is acceptable to the City. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The Board voted 7 to 0 in favor of the motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Brown indicated that the Minutes of the December 15, 2009 meeting th were before the Board. Mr. Rosenblatt had a correction on page 2, 5 line from bottom, noting that the word “deed” should be omitted. Mr. Theeman moved the Minutes as amended. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The motion to accept the Minutes as amended passed unanimously. Mr. Barnes moved to approve the Minutes of the December 15, 2009 Meeting as amended. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Other Business The 2010 Meeting schedule and a copy of the Amended Planning Board By-Laws were distributed to the Board. It was the consensus of the Board that the Planning Board By-Laws were in order and should be placed on the next Agenda for action. There being no further items, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.