Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-07 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JULY 7, 2009 MINUTES Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman Jeff Barnes Doug Damon Nathaniel Rosenblatt Andrew Sturgeon Miles Theeman City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Bud Knickerbocker Lynn Johnson Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Amending the Land Development Code – Chapter 165, Section 13 – Definition of Building Height. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 09-220. Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer David Gould provided an overview of the proposed Land Development Code Amendment. Mr. Gould explained that this amendment to the definition of Building Height changes the location of the baseline elevation when determining building heights as it changes the point from which to measure the elevation from the street curb line to the elevation of the ground adjacent to the proposed footprint of a structure. Mr. Gould indicated that while not perfect, this amendment will provide a better method of measuring building heights where the street grade is different from an adjoining land grade. He indicated that Staff looked at other ordinances from around the State and found that there are a variety of ways in which this is handled. In reviewing the reason for height limitations Staff felt measuring the height of a building from the original grade at the building footprint would be a truer measure of the actual building height. Mr. Gould gave examples of places in the City where this would apply such as along the interstate, along the Kenduskeag Stream and places where there are dramatic changes in topography. 2 No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed zoning amendment. Chairman Brown closed the Public Hearing. Planning Board Members expressed concerns as to how this new language will affect development. The Board discussed a recently approved development along the waterfront and how that particular building height was determined. Some concern was raised as to when the initial elevation grade would be established. Mr. Damon felt that this amendment was an ordinance for the sake of legislation and it could require a small business person to have to come before the Board twice, once seeking to fill their site and secondly for building approval. He felt that it was common sense to fill a property to the street line and this amendment would be an inducement to work around the requirements and be a step backward for the City. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that in comparison to the existing language to use street grade this amendment may represent a better solution than what presently exists. The Board discussed what other options might provide more flexibility in determining how height might be measured so as not to adversely impact projects. Mr. Gould noted that the present definition has benefits to structures located below street grade but disadvantages to structures that would be constructed above street grade. The change is to use the existing elevation at the footprint in lieu of the street grade. Mr. Theeman moved to recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Amendment contained in C.O. # 09-220 amending Chapter 165, Section 13 – Definition of Building Height be approved. Mr. Sturgeon seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and one opposed to recommend the proposed language to the City Council as contained in C.O. # 09-220. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 54,000 square foot gravel area for material storage and equipment parking at 203 Hildreth Street North in an Urban Industry District. Dunbar and Brawn Construction, Inc., applicant. Mr. Travis Noyes with CES Inc. representing the applicant, explained that this application is for a request for a 54,000 sq. ft. gravel area for material storage and equipment parking. 15,000 sq. ft. will be new disturbed area for stormwater drainage ditching, and a soil filter with an under drain system. The applicant has applied for and received a State Stormwater Permit to do this. Mr. Noyes indicated that they have submitted revised plans addressing Staff concerns. Planning Officer Gould indicated that in 2006 the applicant received approval to create a gravel area and is now seeking approval to increase that area to 54,000 sq. ft. This parcel is located on Hildreth Street North in an Urban Industry District which allows a variety of heavy industrial uses. This parcel is also in a non attainment watershed and requires additional work to meet the State’s stormwater requirements for stormwater quality. He noted that because of the large amount of wetlands, use of the site is limited. At the time that the Staff memorandum was written, Staff had some outstanding issues with the 3 submittals. The applicant has submitted revised plans addressing those issues and Staff recommended approval. Mr. Damon asked if they proposed to store tall structures such as cranes on the site. Noting that the site is right beside the runway, he asked if the Federal Aviation Administration had been asked to look at this to make sure that any tall equipment did not interfere with the flight path. Mr. Gould indicated that this lot is not near the glide path and that a crane would likely not be tall enough that the FAA would have a concern. Mr. Ring indicated that this is a valid concern but because this parcel is near a hill and, in fact, well below it, he did not feel that there would be any height issues. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Site Development Plan for Dunbar and Brawn at 203 Hildreth Street North. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item No. 3: Update on Activities of Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning. Mr. Rosenblatt, Chairman of the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning, gave an update of that Committee’s activities to date. Mr. Rosenblatt gave a history of the origin of the Committee and outlined the various topics discussed since its inception last September and outlined future topics for discussion. The current Comprehensive Plan is very heavy and data detail oriented. Sometimes, the thicker the document the less likely one would read it. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the focus of the Committee is to develop a document that is short and readable that will focus on policy recommendations as opposed to a type of encyclopedic presentation. Mr. Theeman asked what the timeframe was for presenting a document. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the charge to the Committee is to have a draft document presented to the Planning Board and City Council by December 31, 2010. However, the Committee has discussed possibly shortening that timeframe to September 2010. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that prior to that, the Committee will be seeking citizen input and comments. Mr. Rosenblatt also indicated that it was his intention to make quarterly reports of activities to the Board and City Council. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Brown indicated that the Minutes of the June 16, 2009 Meeting were in order. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Minutes of the June 16, 2009 Meeting. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Other Business Mr. Gould noted past discussions about the concept of adding back an alternate Planning Board Member. Also, there has been discussion as to whether or not any such amendment would come back to the Planning Board for review and recommendation. 4 Technically, the City Charter that establishes the Planning Board and the Members is not a Land Development Code element so that it is not referred to the Board as an amendment that the Board makes a recommendation to pass on or not to pass on. The present proposal is to add one alternate member to the Board such that when attendance is down there will be someone available to fill in. Mr. Gould indicated that there hasn’t been an issue relative to quorum in terms of five members, but on multiple occasions there have been meetings where there have only been the five Members present. Adding an alternate member would be a way to insure that a full group of Board Members would be available to vote on every application to avoid delaying someone’s approval. Mr. Gould indicated that the City Council has proceeded with the process with an Ordinance Amendment scheduled for the next City Council Meeting (July 13, 2009) to add an Associate Member to the Planning Board. Mr. Theeman felt that the membership of the Board was right before the City Council changed it. He did not see any merit in adding an eighth member to fix the action that the Council took. He did not feel that burden should be imposed on another member of the public. Mr. Gould noted that in the past there were five regular members and three associate members. At the time, the Planning Board Chairman had the dubious job of trying to figure out who would vote on what and when. There were three people sitting in the wings waiting to see who would get to vote on which item. The Board went from three alternates to none. Seven members with five for a quorum and the potential that if three people are absent means that there won’t be a meeting. Mr. Gould noted that this has only happened on one occasion but routinely not all seven members are present. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not think it would hurt to have one person as an associate when they apply knowing that’s their role to fill in when there is a conflict or there is an absence which is very different than having three people that come and sit by the wayside. Chairman Brown did not feel that the issue was that there were alternate members or that it didn’t always seem fair as to who was chosen to vote. She felt that the issue was more that typically when you have alternates the assumption would be that they are in training to move onto the Board when people move off. She felt that being an alternate member was a great learning experience. She agreed with Mr. Theeman that had the composition of the Board not changed, that things would have been fine the way that they were. Mr. Barnes agreed that an alternate member position is a great learning experience, and indicated that adding an alternate member should be tried to see how it will work. Mr. Theeman said that he was an alternate member, it does provide an excellent training ground, and it did serve a useful purpose. Mr. Theeman indicated that he felt that it should be left as it is. He said that the process worked well before the membership of the Board was changed and he did not see any reason to amend it. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.