Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-06 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JANUARY 6, 2009 MINUTES Board Members Present: Alice Brown, Chairman Nathaniel Rosenblatt Jeffrey Barnes Miles Theeman John Miller City Staff Present: David Gould Bud Knickerbocker Peter Witham City Councilors Present: Hal Wheeler Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Chapter 165, Section 165-63 – City of Bangor Amending Land Development Code Chapter 165-63 Building Setback on Planned Streets and Interstate Highways. City of Bangor, applicant - C.O. # 09-027. Chairman Brown opened the public hearing. As no one spoke, she closed the public hearing and asked for the Staff report. Planning Officer Gould noted that this change will allow development abutting the Interstate to reduce the setback along this public way. Recently, several projects have had difficulty with their sites when confronted with two or more front yards. It should be noted that given time these applicants were able to adjust their site plans to fit. This new section deals only with setbacks along the Interstate and no other dimensional requirements will change. Adding a new section is easier than amending every section of the ordinance that deals with front yard setbacks. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what section drives setbacks as a front yard. Mr. Gould noted that the Code Enforcement Office has interpreted a front yard as along any public way including the Interstate. It is possible that a given site could have four front yards. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that other dimensional standards are not changing. Mr. Gould agreed with this. The City does not want to change all the dimensional requirements 2 along the Interstate because this might create the possibility of large display yards and other potential abuses. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the setbacks in various districts. Mr. Gould noted that the setbacks in some districts will be the same. The current zoning concepts still reflect how setbacks were established in the past. Mr. Theeman asked if setbacks start at the right-of-way. Mr. Gould indicated that they do. Mr. Theeman noted that the Shaw’s site is absent of buffers and wondered if this would be a time to look at buffers. Mr. Gould pointed out that the only remaining trees are in the MDOT right-of-way and the applicant couldn’t cut these down. The City’s bufferyards are minimal and the City has tried to address buffers a number of times. Mr. Theeman noted other communities have greater standards than Bangor and seem to have no difficulty with development. As no one else spoke, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to recommend approval of C.O. # 09-27 to the City Council. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion which passed 5-0. Item No. 2: Chapter 165, Section 165-126; Section 165-128; Section 165-112 – Table B. City of Bangor Amending Land Development Code Chapter165, Section 165-126 – Minor Subdivision, Chapter 165-Section 165-128 – Major Subdivision; and Chapter 165, Section 165-112 – Table B – Submission Requirements for Land Development Permits. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 09-029. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing. As no one spoke, she closed the public hearing and asked for Staff comments. Mr. David Gould noted that this change is simply to allow for an additional copy of site plans to be submitted to the City. The additional site plan is for the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Department has been making comments through the Code Enforcement Office and this gives them the opportunity to comment on a site plan as part of site plan approval process. The Planning Department has asked for comments from the Bureau in the past and has had good success. Chairman Brown asked if this still allowed for the copies needed by the Planning Board. Mr. Gould stated that this allows for one additional copy and will not change the number of copies coming to the Planning office. The City has good records of plans going back 30 years and having three copies assures the records will be intact in the future. Mr. Theeman asked what it costs to add this additional set. Mr. Gould indicated that it should be approximately $12 a sheet, but in the context of a large project, this is a small additional cost. 3 Chairman Brown asked if six copies are enough. She noted that some communities require a copy for each board member. Mr. Gould noted that the plans are kept at the Planning Office for the Board and public to review. We have not seen a need to have each Board member receive their own set of plans. Should that become necessary asking for additional copies could be addressed at a later time. Mr. Rosenblatt noted a spelling error in the first line of the second page. As no one else spoke, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of C.O. #09-029. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion which passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 3: Planning Board Discussion of Future Ordinance Amendments, procedural changes or other innovations. Mr. Gould pointed out this was an item discussed at the last Planning Board meeting for discussion this year. He asked if the Board had thoughts or ideas about changes to the planning process they would like to pursue this year. Chairman Brown noted on a number of occasions members of the public who attend meetings do not know about items in a timely fashion. The Planning Board should be a positive conduit for development and should not have to rely on the public reading about agenda items in the newspaper. Mr. Theeman felt that the length of time for notice is not too short and was concerned about slowing the planning process down. Mr. Rosenblatt discussed different methods for notifying the public including web based notices. Mr. Gould noted that the Code Enforcement Office does post applications on the web, but the property owner’s mail box is still the best way to notify them. Only a small portion of the public shows up to look at plans or comes to Planning Board meetings. Word of mouth by neighbors is also a very good way for the public to find out about development in their area. Chairman Brown asked about State requirements. Mr. Gould said that the State only sets minimums and the City could be more inclusive. The Informed Growth Act sets notice at 1000 feet and would encompass a significant number of properties in an urban area. Setting different standards for urban and rural could be a possibility. Mr. Theeman thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the issues surrounding notification. Mr. Rosenblatt asked that during the next few months that the Planning Board look at the other communities and their standards for site plan approval. He also asked about looking at projects approved by the Planning Board. He stated that he is particularly concerned over traffic and how traffic is viewed by the Planning Board when approving a site plan or approving a conditional use. A site plan for a large permitted 4 commercial development does not require traffic review, but a small bank with a drive- thru would require conditional approval and a traffic review. Mr. Theeman stated concern with the process for approving a preliminary subdivision plan. The public can comment on the preliminary plan, but cannot comment of the final plan. He also wanted to address buffer requirements and sidewalk requirements. Chairman Brown asked about the preliminary and final plan requirements from the State. Mr. Gould noted the City can be more restrictive and can hold a hearing on a final plan decision with public comments. Chairman Brown noted in other states if a board member was not at the hearing for a preliminary plan the board member could not vote on a final plan. She also noted that it could take three months to get a plan approved in other states. Mr. Theeman noted a preliminary plan can be turned down by the Planning Board. The Board should expect applicants to do a better job and should be close the first time the Board sees the plan. He also noted the public should be able to comment on the final plan. Mr. Gould noted amending the Code to have preliminary plan approval with conditions and a public hearing for final plan approval is possible. Mr. Theeman indicated that he would like to see this in our procedure. Mr. Gould stated that the process is cumulative and it does not make sense to move on to final plan review if the details of a preliminary plan are not approved by the Board. If the Board wants to look at holding a public hearing at final, Staff will look into how to do this for the Board. Mr. Barnes stated that Staff does a good job of working on application before the application comes before the Board. He noted that the Board had recently turned down a preliminary plan twice. He would like to have the minutes of previous Board meetings in a more timely fashion. Mr. Theeman noted the Board has received minutes sooner when needed. Mr. Rosenblatt is concerned with the buffers and how buffers are preserved. He has looked at projects the Board has approved while driving around the City. He has seen some commercial projects along our major streets that looked good and some that the Board approved that are not working. The amount of space a project has relates to how the site works. Mr. Gould noted that developers want to maximize the space they have. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that lousy development will suffer regardless of how space is used. He asked if it would be possible to look at plans over time to see which ones work well and which plans do not work well. Mr. Theeman said the Board should be able to evaluate how well a project works. Chairman Brown asked if development is ever reviewed by an outside independent source. Sometimes peer pressure can work to assure good development. Mr. Theeman felt that the process should be changed if the process is not working. Chairman Brown said that she wanted to believe the information being presented by 5 the applicant’s representative but this is hard to do at times when mistakes are being found. Mr. Theeman noted we should look at the site plans to see what development is working. Mr. Theeman welcomed Mr. Miller to the Planning Board. Mr. Miller stated he was glad to be on the Board and the discussion of Board processes was good for his first night. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Brown noted that the Minutes of the September 2, and December 16 Meetings were in order for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the September 2 and December 16, 2008 Meetings. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion which passed 5-0. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.