Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-16 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2010 MINUTES Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman Paul Bolin Doug Damon John Kenney John Miller Miles Theeman Julie Williams, Alternate Member City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Lynn Johnson Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board Member Sturgeon, Alternate Member Williams was asked to vote. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Kenney asked to be excused from voting as he is employed by the applicant’s agent who prepared the Site Development Plan for this item. Mr. Theeman moved to excuse Mr. Kenney from voting as he has a conflict of interest. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damon and it passed by a vote of 6 to 0. Chairman Brown indicated that the Board would be voting on the items, separately. Item No. 1: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approvals to replace the existing chain link back stop with a masonry and netting back stop located at 1 College Circle in a Government and Institutional Service District. Husson University, applicant. As no one wished to remove the item from the Consent Agenda, Mr. Theeman moved to approve Item No. 1. Mr. Miller seconded the motion. The Board voted 6 to 0 in favor. Mr. Kenney returned. 2 Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approvals to construct a 2,350 square-foot addition to the former Saturn building and add a 60 square-foot canopy to the existing Jeep building at 293 Hogan Road in a General Commercial and Service District. QV Realty Trust, applicant. As no one wished to remove the item from the Consent Agenda, Mr. Theeman moved to approve Item No. 2. Mr. Miller seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 80 Broadway from Urban Residence 2 District to Government and Institutional Service District. Said parcel containing approximately .32 acres. John Bapst Memorial High School, applicant. C.O. # 11-008. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Attorney Jonathan Pottle with Eaton Peabody, was present representing the applicant, John Bapst Memorial High School. Also present in favor were Attorney Tim Woodcock with Eaton Peabody, David Leen, owner of the property, and Mel MacKay of John Bapst Memorial High School. Mr. Pottle indicated that under State law a zone change must be consistent with the municipality’s Comprehensive Plan. He discussed various elements of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update indicating that this request for a change in zoning from Urban Residence 2 District to Government and Institutional Service District is consistent with that plan. Mr. Mel MacKay indicated that John Bapst Memorial High School will be starting a boarding program for international students in 2011 and is proposing to use the building at 80 Broadway to house those students. Mr. MacKay indicated that the building has been used as a business property (law office) for many years and has its own on-site, 16-space parking lot. While the students living at the facility will not be using cars, the parking spaces will be utilized by the school. This will take pressure off of the on-street parking in this area. Mr. MacKay discussed historic features of this building and its proximity to the school. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the request and Chairman Brown closed the Public Hearing. Board Members had questions regarding student supervision, the number of students anticipated, and where the parking lot is located on the site. Mr. MacKay indicated that the parking is located behind the building, the students would be supervised by house parents who would be members of the John Bapst Faculty, and they anticipate 14 students with a maximum number of 20. 3 Planning Officer Gould indicated that the primary test of a rezoning application is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The primary tool the City uses is the Future Land Use Plan and Zoning Policy maps. As has been discussed previously institutional uses are largely zoned by the ownership of the property by a nonprofit institution. It is extremely difficult for us to predict where future expansions of such facilities might occur. The Zoning Policy and Land Use Policy Maps rarely anticipate geographic locations or expansions of G&ISD use when in separate ownership. However, there are other guidelines within the Comprehensive Plan that give us guidance as how to review such a request. It is the City’s intent to support our local institutions and to help them grow and thrive in the appropriate locations. In considering the question of where housing for John Bapst should be located it makes the most sense to be in close proximity in a serviced, central location. In addition, there are a few other elements that make this a logical choice. The existing law office is in the same Broadway Historic District as the high school. The proposed site has sufficient on-site parking to support alternate uses of the property should the dormitory use not work out. The Board needs to be aware of all of the other uses allowed within the G&ISD should the school’s plan fall through and the property be sold. For these reasons, Staff recommended that the Board recommend approval to the City Council. Mr. Theeman was concerned that while the plan to use the building as a boarding facility was reasonable, without some contractual contract conditions the actual use of the building could be quite different if rezoned and reused in some other way by John Bapst or another subsequent owner. Mr. Bolin moved that the Board recommend to the City Council approval of the zone change request from Urban Residence 2 District to Government and Institutional Service District at 80 Broadway for John Bapst Memorial High School as contained in C.O. # 11-008. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted six in favor and one opposed to the motion. Item No. 4: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals to reuse the existing building located at 650 Broadway as a restaurant with a drive thru use in a Shopping and Personal Service District (Chapter 165-101 (4)) – GAND, LLC, applicant. Alternate Member Williams indicated that her uncle is one of the applicants and asked the Board to make a determination as to whether or not she had a conflict of interest. Mr. Theeman asked if Ms. Williams had any financial interest in this project. Ms. Williams indicated that she did not. Mr. Theeman moved that Ms. Williams does not have a conflict. The motion was seconded by Mr. Damon. The Board voted two in favor and four opposed to the motion. The majority of the Board voted that Ms. Williams has a conflict of interest. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Mr. Dan Tremble, one of the Partners of GAND, LLC, explained that the only change to the site is that they are removing the glass atrium on the front of the building and replacing it with a stick built addition. Mr. Tremble distributed to the Board Members photos of neighboring 4 establishments to support the conditional use requirement that the proposed addition to the building is compatible with neighboring structures within 500 feet. Mr. Tremble indicated that they are proposing a food business and wish to continue to use the drive-thru. The square footage is the same and the lot layout is identical. The only change is to the atrium. Mr. Theeman noted that this is an “after-the-fact” application. Mr. Tremble indicated that the restaurant use in this building is allowed. However, because they wish to use the drive-thru, they needed to obtain conditional use approval. Planning Officer Gould explained that one of the conditional use review criteria is that the architecture of the building (roof pitch, siding, etc.) is consistent with the architecture of other neighboring buildings within 500 feet. When the Board approves a conditional use they approve it with the proposed architectural design of the building. If any changes are made to the building, the applicant needs to obtain conditional use approval from the Board again for architectural compatibility with other structures within 500 feet of it. Mr. Ring indicated that the applicant is requesting conditional use approval for the drive-thru. The atrium was replaced with a stick built addition which is allowed under the Ordinance and would not need Planning Board approval. The issue before the Board is that of the use of the drive-thru. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Brown closed the Public Hearing and asked for staff comments. Planning Officer Gould explained that the site is presently approved as a conditional use drive-thru restaurant. Because the applicant has changed the architectural façade of the building, they need to obtain conditional use approval of this change. All of the other conditional use aspects such as impervious area, setbacks, screening, parking, queuing spaces, etc., have already been approved. Mr. Miller asked if a new traffic study would be required as this drive-thru has not been used for over a year. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not think that MDOT would require a Traffic Movement Permit as it is the same use that was there, previously. Mr. Gould indicated that another similar situation as this is the car wash on Stillwater Avenue where the appearance of the structure was changed and the Board reviewed only the change to the building and not all of the other conditional use aspects. Mr. Bolin indicated that he planned to vote in favor of this application but expressed his concern about situations where an applicant makes changes and then comes before the Board for approval. Mr. Damon moved that the Board grant Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to reuse the existing building located at 650 Broadway as a restaurant with a drive thru use in a Shopping and Personal Service District (Chapter 165-101 (4)) – GAND, LLC, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted four in favor and two opposed to the motion. 5 NEW BUSINESS Item No. 5: Walden Park Phased Development. Dr. Fritz Oldenburg, Managing Partner of Walden Park, LLC., explained that in discussions with Mr. Gould regarding the fact that they have received several extensions to the preliminary plans for this project, that he should come before the Board and discuss the project and the proposed time frame for development. Dr. Oldenburg explained that the original 702 acres was purchased in 2004. The subdivision has been developed in phases. The first phase was for 41 lots of which 25 have been sold. The second phase is to develop another 41 lots. Of the 702 acres, Bangor Land Trust has received 205 acres, they or another similar organization are proposed to receive another 205 acres, the City of Bangor in lieu of fees received approximately a mile of the railroad bed and 39 acres was added to the City Forest. Because of the nature of this type of subdivision it is anticipated that there will be a 15-18 year build out. Because of the amount of gifting and the DEP process, it is highly unlikely that such a “high end” could be developed in five years. The partners are planning to proceed and do Phase II and would like the Board to consider approving it for another one year extension. Mr. Gould indicated that this extension can be done at the Staff level but Staff wanted to make sure the Board was comfortable with this as none of the Board Members were around when the first phase was approved. Because the Land Development Code does not have clear guidelines on how to do phased development, and the updated Comprehensive Plan has language that indicates that it is not in favor of sprawl development, the subdivision standards may change. If this were to take place then extensions would not be granted. An extension is granted when the details in the neighborhood are the same and the City’s standards are the same. If standards change and this development were to come back before the Board, it may not meet Ordinance standards. Staff wanted to make Board aware of what has been happening with this development because none of the Board Members were on the board when this was originally approved. Mr. Theeman indicated that he supported this extension request. Mr. Bolin indicated that he would not be opposed to granting a two year extension. Mr. Gould indicated that the dilemma here is that if the City’s policies should change direction, the City’s position would be they would not want to grant a two-year extension as they feel that one year would give the applicant adequate time to either complete the project or come back for approval. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. There were no minutes for Board consideration. 6 Other Business Mr. Gould indicated that the Board had a request from Lane Construction Company to hold a Special Meeting to consider a Site Development Plan. They indicated that they are under an urgent time constraint to complete their project as the asphalt processing plant closes on November 24, 2010. , It was the consensus of the Board to hold a special meeting on Monday, November 22 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Staff presented a tentative 2011 Meeting Schedule for review. The Board Members asked that the second meeting in April be eliminated due to the Passover holiday and that the first meeting in July also be removed. Staff noted that a copy of the revised meeting schedule would be forwarded to the Board. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.