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.