Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-03 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 3, 2009 MINUTES Board Members Present: Alice Brown, Chairman Jeffrey Barnes David Clark Douglas Damon John Miller Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman City Staff Present: David Gould Norm Heitmann Bud Knickerbocker Paul Nicklas Peter Witham Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Zoning Amendment to the Land Development Code – Amending Chapter 165, Land Development Code, Section 165-13 Definitions of Nightclub, Dance Hall or Disco - City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. #09-040. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked a representative of the applicant to make a brief presentation. Mr. Norm Heitmann, City Solicitor, provided the Planning Board an overview of the proposed definition change. Currently, a nightclub, dance hall or disco is any eating or drinking establishment serving 300 or more people and this change to the definition lowers the threshold from 300 to 80 seats. The City Council has become concerned about establishments in downtown with seating capacities smaller than 300 seats. In the past, the downtown had one large night club that concerned the City Council and this is why the definition was put into the Land Code. The downtown has grown with more than 500 residences located in downtown 2 mixed with many different commercial uses. The City Solicitor’s office consulted the Fire Department that noted the seating capacity 100 is a customary. The seating capacity was then set at 80 to keep applicants from adding a wall to reduce the seating capacity to 99. Mr. Theeman asked if these changes only related to a nightclub or disco and no other type of facility and if this meant that a 200 seat restaurant would be closed at 1:30 a.m. Mr. Clark noted that he did not like this change and wanted to know if this was limited to downtown only. If so, it appears this will limit the size of businesses in downtown. David Gould, Planning Officer noted that this item relates to the definition and the definition would apply to the entire City. Mr. Heitmann stated that the definition isn’t limited to downtown. In 1993, when this was added, 300 seats were set as a threshold. If a club had 299 seats, the additional rules didn’t apply. The conditional uses will now apply at 80 seats. This does not limit the capacity of a facility, but adds another level of rules an applicant will have to meet. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had problems with reducing the capacity from 300 to 80 seats and with the ambiguities of the definition. By this definition, any restaurant including a McDonalds would be included and this appears to cover more than was originally intended. He asked if a restaurant in the Downtown Development District with more than 80 seats would be included under this definition. Mr. Heitmann stated that it would and noted that the intent is to limit late hours. Mr. Rosenblatt wondered if this will create non-conforming uses in other districts. Mr. Paul Nicklas, Asst. City Solicitor, noted this should not be an issue in other districts and existing facilities would be included if they have a seating capacity of over 80 seats. Mr. Damon noted that the City wants businesses to come downtown. This is where the City wants to grow and more people are moving into the downtown area. Having a vibrant growing downtown is one way to fight sprawl. Noise is a problem downtown, but it is expected. Mr. Damon didn’t think it was possible to look at this definition without looking at the next item on agenda. He added that he didn’t think that there are restaurants in the downtown with seating capacities that are less than 100 seats. Mr. Heitmann noted that businesses that will fall under the new land use code will have to close at 1:30 a.m. and can open at 7:30 a.m. There is only one business that is open past 1:30 a.m. in the Urban Service District and it would be grandfathered. Chairman Brown wanted to understand the data supporting the change in the number of seats. Mr. Heitmann said that to understand the link between building occupancy numbers and complaints he talked with the Fire Department and the Police Department. Some of the smaller establishments in USD were averaging 150 3 complaints a year. The intent of lowering the threshold to 80 seats is to prevent issues such as noise and bad behavior. With businesses being allowed to stay open past 1:30 a.m. an additional demand is created by people leaving a place that has closed and going to one of the late closers. Mr. Barnes indicated that he has lived in the downtown for 15 years and hears the fire trucks and police cars every day. He felt that this definition is not anti-business and supported the definition as written. Mr. Theeman indicated that he would be more comfortable with the definition if it excluded restaurants and made the intent clear that this only covers nightclubs and discos. He would like to see that restaurants and theaters are excluded from this definition and was concerned that other uses not considered would be affected by this definition. Chairman Brown asked Mr. Gould how the Board could look at the definition. Mr. Gould reminded the Board that their action is a recommendation on the proposal in front of them to be forwarded to the City Council and that the Board cannot change the definition. He also noted that the Land Development Code does not define eating and drinking establishments or restaurants, but uses the terms in various Districts. Mr. Heitmann looked at the possible consequences of changing the definition and tried to measure where the split should be between restaurants and bars. He didn’t want to end up with a very narrow definition. Mr. Miller noted that part of the problem with the definition is treating all beverages the same and not mentioning alcohol. He said that there are many kinds of restaurants and several types of liquor licenses and indicated that he felt that the existing definition is too vague. Chairman Brown asked for any other proponents and opponents. There being none, she closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Theeman asked that the recommendation to the City Council reflect the Board’s hope that the Council will modify the definition to identify restaurants, theaters and non-alcoholic beverages. Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to recommend approval of C.O. # 09-040 to the City Council. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which failed by a vote of one in favor and six opposed. 4 Item No. 2: Zoning Amendment to the Land Development Code – Amending Chapter 165-92D Downtown Development District Conditional Uses and 165-93D Urban Service District Conditional Uses - City of Bangor, Applicant - C.O. # 09-041. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked a representative of the applicant to make a brief presentation. Mr. Norm Heitmann, City Solicitor, provided the Planning Board of an overview of the proposed change. By adding the Urban Service District (USD), all of the current facilities fall under these guidelines and all of the facilities located in the downtown area will now be covered by the zoning amendment change. Mr. Rosenblatt noted he doesn’t have any problems with changing the closing time in DDD, but why permit this in USD if this is a problem. Mr. Heitmann noted that the uses in this amendment are already allowed in USD. Had the City Council been able to look ahead, they would have probably added USD when the original use was created. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how many additional parcels would be covered by this change. Mr. Gould stated there are a number of parcels in the two districts that would permit this use. Based on the 1991 Land Development Code most of the City inside the Interstate was defined as the “urban area.” The commercial Districts were Neighborhood Service District (NSD), Urban Service District (USD), and Downtown Development District (DDD). Most parcels in NSD, USD, and DDD are smaller parcels with limited space. In the developing areas, the lots are larger and uses can be spaced farther apart to reduce noise and impacts. There is greater separation from residences than would be found in the urban districts. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Heitmann why Hollywood Slots was allowed to develop under one set of standards while across the street a different set of standards is applied. Mr. Heitmann stated that the nature of zoning has a variety of districts with specific boundaries. Streets are often used as boundaries. The Waterfront District is a unique geographic area and the City wants to insure its optimum development. Mr. Damon asked how the noise level of 65 dB was established. Mr. Gould noted that this relates to a typically accepted sound level. With sound sources there are two important elements; how close you are to the generator (sound) and what is the level of background noise at the time. At night background noise is very low some even fairly low sound levels are heard from a ways away. Many noise regulations have a daytime level and a night time level to adjust for that perceived change in sound levels. Mr. Heitmann noted there is nothing in this amendment that will remove a pub from the downtown. The main effect of this amendment is to close this use in DDD and USD at 1:30 a.m. Mr. Theeman asked if the current businesses are grandfathered. Mr. 5 Heitmann said they would be. Mr. Clark reminded the Board that downtown Bangor was a popular place while he was growing up with a variety of night spots and a lot to do. This is not how the downtown is viewed by university students now. As no one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zoning amendment, Chairman Brown closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to recommend approval of C.O. # 09-041 to the City Council. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-1. The Board thanked Mr. Heitmann for his background information and explanation. The Board’s consensus was if the basic definition was improved they found the proposed change acceptable. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Brown noted that the Minutes of the January 6, 2009 Meeting were in order for approval. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the minutes. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion with the conditions that changes are made to: (1) remove “site plan” on the “subdivision” approval on page 3, last paragraph; and (2) replace “under” with “and” also on page 3. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:03 p.m.