Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-07 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 MINUTES Board Members Present: Nat Rosenblatt, Vice-Chairman Jeff Barnes Doug Damon Laura Mitchell Miles Theeman City Staff Present: David Gould Bud Knickerbocker James Ring Peter Witham In the absence of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman Rosenblatt opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt explained that because there were only five members present and voting and the fact that approvals require four affirmative votes, the applicants would have the option to continue until there are more Board Members in attendance. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Theeman indicated that he had a potential conflict with Item No. 2 on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Mitchell moved that Mr. Theeman had conflict. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion which carried. Mr. Theeman recused himself from consideration of Item No. 2. As no wished to remove Item No. 2 from the Consent Agenda, vice chairman Rosenblatt asked for a motion. Ms. Mitchell moved approval of Item No. 2 on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4 to 0: The Item approved was: Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act Modification approvals to renovate 9,000 sq. ft. of the existing warehouse building, upgrade utilities, and transfer Site Location of Development Permit at 70 Bennett Street in an Urban Industry District. Penobscot Logistics Solutions, LLC, applicant. 2 As no one requested that the remaining items on the Consent Agenda be removed, Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for a motion. Mr. Barnes moved approval of the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 to approve Item Nos. 1 and 3 on the Consent Agenda. The items approved were: Item No. 1: Developmental Subdivision Plan approval of a 15-unit housing complex located at 125 Fern Street in a Contract Multi-Family and Service District. Bangor Steam Laundry, applicant. Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to relocate the existing driveway from Kittredge Road to the proposed Hogan Road Extension at 936 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Austin Hotels, Inc., applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 4: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval of a 14-lot cluster subdivision located off Briarwood Drive (Woodridge Subdivision Phase IV) in a Low Density Residential District. Woods of Maine, applicant. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant or its representative. The applicant’s civil engineer, Mr. Don Becker of CES, presented a summary of the project and indicated that he would welcome questions or comments from the Board. Mr. Theeman citing the Staff Memorandum asked if the proposed open space would meet the required 35% of the subdivision if wetlands were subtracted. Mr. Becker indicated he did not think it would and that the result would be about 25%. They discussed the locations of the wetlands and uplands in the open space and debated whether wetlands should be included or not. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for an explanation of the proposed buffer areas on the plan. Mr. Becker explained that the project is large enough to have DEP requirements for Stormwater runoff. He indicated their locations on the plan. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the City Engineer’s concerns cited in the staff memorandum. Mr. Becker said that he had seen and answered them in a narrative, but had not met with the City Engineer to discuss them. Mr. Theeman asked about access to lots 56, 57, and 58. Mr. Becker explained that there would be a shared driveway and access easement for all lots over lots 56 and 57. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for comments from proponents. Mr. Rick Reardon of 66 Briarwood Drive had several questions. Although he indicated he was happy with his 3 house and neighborhood he would like to hear from the developer regarding style, size, construction, price range, and covenants for the proposed houses. He added that his biggest concern was in regard to the sewer system. He believed that the City forced the private system onto the developer, who then has passed the burden of maintaining it onto citizens who they are supposed to be serving. He said he would like the City to take over the sewer system serving all phases of the subdivision. Mr. Reardon indicated that he also spoke with a half dozen of the residents who shared similar concerns and noted that a week and a half was not enough time to gather concerns from all residents. He would like the Board to amend the regulations to allow 30 days from notification for abutters to gather information about developments. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt indicated that the applicant and City Staff would respond to pertinent questions, but the format of the Public Hearing would not allow Mr. Reardon opportunity for a rebuttal. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Reardon about his concern regarding construction. Mr. Reardon responded that it was related primarily to property value. With the current downturn in the real estate market and difficulty to obtain loans, he was concerned about use of the term similar, which was vague, for houses that would be constructed. Similar houses could include those of a lower value that might affect his property and desirability of the neighborhood. Mr. Damon asked what the current homeowner fee is for being in the private sewer system. Mr. Reardon indicated that Mr. Wood, the developer has been paying for it and that he did not know yet. He did know that Phase IV before the Board is the final phase and when that is complete, it will be turned over to the residents. He related that the system had problems during the summer and was running on one pump but that Mr. Wood had it repaired. Mr. Reardon indicated that there has been no estimate of what the homeowner’s fee will be. Mr. Theeman asked if there is a homeowners association or if there was a related covenant in the purchase and sale. Mr. Reardon indicated there is no association yet, but there was a covenant regarding it. Ms. Irene Haskins of 57 Briarwood Drive indicated she would be affected by the development. She agreed with Mr. Reardon regarding enjoyment of the neighborhood and would prefer no more construction, but realized there would be more. She stated concerns regarding the proposed houses and their consistency with existing houses in order to maintain values. She wondered if the area would seem different when passing from the public street to a private street and what the increase in traffic would be. She is also concerned with the sewer equipment as an alarm went off in the night when there were problems during the summer. Even though residents knew about the private system going into the development, she indicated that she is apprehensive about the homeowners taking over the system because she did not know how that would work. Ms. Emily Ellis of 92 Forest Avenue spoke in favor of the application. Having recently opened a real estate office she addressed the Board as a local business owner and related her professional involvement with the applicant of this item, the next item, 4 and previous projects during the past seven years. She described the local real estate economy, the applicant’s provision of affordable housing, and itemized various steps, parties, and finances involved in the development and creation of a subdivision and the resulting property values and taxes. Mr. Theeman indicated appreciation of the economics lesson, but hoped Ms. Ellis was not suggesting approval of every application based only on economics and not on merits including effects on surrounding properties and compliance with city regulations. Ms. Ellis responded that it was not her intention to imply that, but to review the applicant’s previous projects as examples of compliance with regulations, demand for the applicant’s products, and the economics involved. Mr. Rosenblatt asked for opponents of the project. Seeing none, he asked for the applicant to address the concerns that were expressed by neighbors. Mr. Becker addressed the value of the homes. The term “similar” referred to the range of values in the existing homes. Homes at the end of the road tend to be more valuable than those near the beginning, so these will likely be more valuable. The sewer system design included all of the phases, so the addition of phase four will not be a strain on it. With more households connected to the system, the cost will not be great. He estimated that the current cost might be 5 to 10 dollars a month per household. Even if the City were to operate it the alarm would still go off, but the City might not be able to give it the attention that a homeowners association would. He indicated his availability for homeowners to discuss the sewer system. Regarding size of houses, he estimated the range to be from 1,600 to 2,600 square feet. The size of existing houses is larger than what they had anticipated. He said construction would be stick-built with as much Maine dimension lumber as can be found. As far as consistency with the existing development, it would be a little different, more like a village. The entry would appear as a driveway off the existing cul-de-sac with a group mailbox. He indicated that the paperwork for the homeowners association exists. Existing homeowners are members who have all of the details except for costs. The developer has not initiated the process and is taking care of the costs until everything is done. Open space and sewer system associations are separate. Mr. Michael Wood of Woods of Maine spoke and said that in the Site Location of Development process through DEP they did have to establish the Homeowners Association and obtain signatures from 95% of the owners. They decided to determine homeowner fees after completion of the development because they would need to be recalculated after each house is sold. He added that he lives in one of the existing houses and plans to keep the proposed houses in the same range of values. Ms. Mitchell asked why homeowners did not have to sign off for the addition of this phase as they did for the townhouses in Phase 3 and asked if they signed on without knowledge of the costs. Mr. Wood responded that it was required because four of the acres of Phase 3 were added to the original parcel and the operation of the pump station currently is only electric. 5 Mr. Theeman added that while the cost will go down as more participants are signed on and there is only an electric bill so far, there would have to be added an amount into escrow for future expenses. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments from the Planning Officer and the City Engineer. Planning Officer David Gould presented an overall summary of the project and noted that only the Preliminary Subdivision approval was before the Board. It made sense to seek Site Location of Development Modification at the time of Final Subdivision approval in case there were any changes required by the Board. This phase is different from the previous two detached single- family phases as it is a cluster development with a private road. Approximately 50% of the land included in this phase is open space where 35% is required. It fills in a perimeter open space from a previous phase. Relative to construction details the City Engineer was concerned with some areas where grades were to be in excess of 8%. Staff would work with the applicant on those to minimize them if possible. The City has been clear and consistent that it would not oppose a developer proposing a pump station or private road. However, the City requires that it be extremely clear at approval and to any buyer that they were buying into a pump station and private road that the City would not be taking over. If the pump station had been proposed for the City to take over, then likely the development would not be approved because the City is not going take on another pump station. The way this development was approved was by the developer agreeing to take on the responsibility of creating an association for the sewer that all lot buyers would pay into from the beginning. He did not anticipate that the City would see that changing, though foreseeing the day when the developer or lot owners would ask why the City was not taking it over. The City’s position is that other areas exist with potential for gravity service and that they should be developed instead. This was the developer’s choice and arrangement and all of the buyers were on notice from the beginning. The City does not dictate details of value, size, and style of buildings, but only those details that relate to the lots meeting the ordinance standards. The developer might put deed restrictions in, but that is their choice, too. The Board needs to consider the open space and its arrangement, the issues of the private street need to be clear on the final plat to indicate that it is the homeowner’s responsibility and not the City’s. Likewise, the pump station issue needs to be clear that the homeowners are responsible for maintaining it. City Engineer Jim Ring addressed the Board with additional comments. He said that it has been the City’s policy not to take on additional pump stations although they can work because of their added maintenance and expense. When a private road is proposed, it needs to be clear at the outset that it will not be the City’s responsibility, but there are minimum standards for construction such as grade and fill. Ms. Mitchell asked if the road grade is significant to require work. Mr. Ring indicated that Mr. Becker is willing to work on making some changes where the grade is a bit steep and other areas where it might be too flat. Ms. Mitchell indicated that it was disconcerting to hear of a pump station in a new development having problems and asked if it was able to handle the development. Mr. Ring explained that pump stations are common, but being 6 mechanical and having more working parts than gravity systems will require more attention. That is why the homeowners association is setup in order to anticipate maintenance and costs. Mr. Damon asked if there was enough room to turn around at the end of the road. Mr. Ring referred to the memorandum where that issue was mentioned and needed to be considered. Mr. Damon asked if the required dimensions for a private street were the same as for a public street. Mr. Ring indicated that the sizes proposed here were similar to public streets, but primarily the review needs to consider access by emergency vehicles whether it is public or private. Mr. Barnes asked if there were fire hydrants proposed and Mr. Ring indicated that there were. Mr. Barnes related a similar project in Eastport that he was involved in but with a common treatment plant that broke down after ten years. If the costs of this project were transferred to taxes, then the costs would be spread among other members of the community. Either way the owners will pay. He thought it was difficult to dictate in a democracy what the value of a house should be, but that market values will take care of it. He indicated that he was in favor of this plan. Mr. Theeman asked that the open space wetland description be clearer on the Final Plan. Mr. Becker asked Mr. Theeman what amount of wetland would be acceptable in the open space. Mr. Theeman indicated that wetland, as open space is not acceptable to him but that he could not dictate how it was arranged. Mr. Becker asked if this particular wetland was more acceptable in that it was walkable. Mr. Theeman indicated that it was still wetland if classified so. Vice Chairman noted that the Board may approve the plan under the State and local regulations regarding subdivisions, but they do not include whether members like a project or not, or if they think it would be good for the City. He then asked for a motion. Mr. Theeman moved approval of the preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The Board voted in favor of the motion to approve the application. Item No. 5: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval of a 16-lot subdivision located off Ohio Street (Lyons Ledge Subdivision Phase II) in a Low Density Residential and a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Woods of Maine, applicant. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant or it representative. The applicant’s civil engineer, Mr. Don Becker of CES, presented a summary of the project to the Board as the second of three phases. There will be sidewalks on the roads. They are providing stormwater treatment improvements though they are not required to do so at this stage. He explained the areas on parcels proposed to be part of the system that will be protected by easements. He indicated that the applicant is also asking to provide fee in lieu of open space. He welcomed comments from the Board. 7 Mr. Theeman addressed the open space issue and asked if the eventual open space would be calculated based on the area of all three phases. Mr. Becker indicated that although the Board could not expect that the applicant knows what they will or will not do in the third phase they intend to provide more than is required for the final phase because that can increase the value of the parcels next to it. Mr. Becker explained that if the Board would not grant fee in lieu then he hoped it would add a condition to provide actual open space not in drainage or wetland area, whose location he has in mind that are not particularly suitable for development, but have upland area. He said that while he has been talking about future open space it is not part of this application. Ms. Mitchell asked about engineering comments in the Staff Memorandum on stormwater treatment that may not have considered the clear cutting of the site. Mr. Becker responded that Mr. Ring’s comments were based on submission of insufficient information and he realized that he needed to provide that. He explained that the trees that were cut were not suitable to be left as individuals because they were spindly as they were tightly spaced and had been planted on thin soil. Earthworking will be done to provide better planting areas and direct the stormwater to treatment areas. Mr. Damon asked about if the sewer was in Ohio Street and if there would be a pump station. Mr. Becker indicated that the applicant had already crossed Ohio Street to the previous phase and will extend the gravity system to the proposed lots of this phase. He indicated that the future phase would require more discussion to see what the options will be. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked if he considered a cluster design for this subdivision. Mr. Becker indicated he had worked on thirty different plans on this site. The site is upland, but with much ledge and clustering did not result in any higher value. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt then asked for comments from proponents. Mr. David Moyse of Parkview Avenue spoke on behalf of the Beacon of Hope Church of God at 1612 Ohio Street who was in favor of this development. As no one spoke in opposition, Vice Chairman Rosenblatt closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff report. Planning Officer David Gould presented a summary of the Staff’s review of the project. He emphasized that the City Engineer wanted to be sure that the utilities to be installed would handle the future phases. He indicated that the small first phase was so small that cash in lieu made sense. This phase is small also though slightly larger and while they are also asking for cash in lieu in order to plan for a larger open space at the third phase, could provide some for this phase if the Board preferred. He related that he would agree with Mr. Becker because the back half of the property would lend itself more to a large area of open space and would be in favor of cash in lieu for this phase. He pointed out the easement areas for stormwater treatment that are being proposed on two of the lots for sale. One in particular seemed to be almost half of a lot, though the lot was much larger. The primary concern is that while the lot is large enough for a house, the easement area, an invisible protection, may become forgotten over time 8 and successive owners who might someday build an outbuilding or driveway in that area. Staff noted that pavement might be extended in front of the last lots on road segments in case extensions do not occur soon. Mr. Theeman asked if the stormwater and cash in lieu would be considered in Final Plan. Mr. Gould said that should be stated in any approval. Mr. Theeman indicated he was not in favor of this application. His concern was approving this in little phases. Also, he was not in favor of cash in lieu without knowing what the final open space would be recognizing that the developer did not have to present the future open space. Ms. Mitchell indicated she was not in favor of cash in lieu, but would prefer open space banking and a view of what the future open space would be. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould to review the concept of open space banking. Mr. Gould explained a newly adopted open space provision is that a developer can set asked more than the 5% required open space for a phase and return to use the excess as credit for a future phase. The intent would be that it serves the build-out, but would not have to abut the current phase, though it would be desirable to have a connection. The banking would also allow rearrangement of the open space location in the future. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt indicated that banking might be a good option for this development. He was concerned with the stormwater easement areas on the lots and how they could be resolved. Mr. Gould responded that there is no policy of easements on the proposed lots. In the past, they have been accepted in open space. The questions are if it is better to protect the treatment area when it is on its own land area and not on a private lot and if it is better to offer a parcel to an owner without that restricted area on it. Mr. Theeman and Ms. Mitchell both preferred that the easement areas not be on the parcels. Mr. Becker indicated that a homeowners association would be responsible for maintaining them and putting them on a private parcel would put property owners on notice. Mr. Damon thought it was a good place to locate it, but that it should be placarded or marked somehow so that it could not be disturbed. Mr. Theeman preferred that it be a separate lot owned by the homeowners association. Mr. Gould explained that it would not be a buildable lot so would not need to meet lot standards and it would make it clear whose it is. There being no further comments, Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for a motion. Mr. Theeman moved approval of the application with the conditions that, (1) banking of open space is provided instead of cash in lieu of open space, and (2) that the proposed stormwater treatment areas are separated from the parcels for sale. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion and it was approved by a vote of 5-0. 9 Item No. 6: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 14,496 square foot building for use as a pharmacy with a drive-up window located at 97 Oak Street in an Urban Service District. The Richmond Company, applicant. The Public Hearing was opened by Vice Chairman Rosenblatt. Ms. Maureen McGlone of Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers introduced the applicant’s owner and another associate from Gorrill-Palmer. She presented a summary of the project, which is a redevelopment of a 1.34-acre existing commercial site surrounded by Oak, Hancock, York, and Pine Streets. Currently almost 100% impervious, the redevelopment will reduce it to 80% with proposed buffer areas helping to reduce stormwater flows. The number of curb cuts on all frontages will be reduced two, a right-in and right-out on Oak Street and a two- way on Pine Street. Sidewalks will be rebuilt around the parcel. She indicated that she was available to answer any questions. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked her to review the entrances and the road configuration. Ms. McGlone indicated that the Oak Street driveway is an entrance from both directions on Oak Street and a right-turn only exit to Oak Street. Mr. Peter Hedrich of Gorrill-Palmer described the lane configurations on Oak Street in front of the proposed driveway and expected that the Pharmacy traffic would be light. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked about a letter in the file regarding a current tenant’s long-term lease on the property. Mr. David Latulippe of the Richmond Company indicated that he believed the issue had been recently resolved between the tenant and the current owner. Mr. Bill Riley of Maine Commercial Realty, involved in the transaction, indicated that the person who wrote the letter is in the audience and could speak about it, but that he understood the legal issue has been resolved. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for comments from proponents. Mr. Larry Springer, the owner of the property, indicated that the issue of the lease was settled ten days before and he did not understand why it was an issue. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt responded that there was nothing submitted indicating that it had been resolved. As no one else spoke in favor, Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for any opponents. Seeing none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff’s report. Planning Officer David Gould summarized the site and the Staff’s project review. He indicated that the existing zoning district is appropriate for this use and the agent had designed the site to the applicant’s proposed use. The drive-thru use is a conditional use, which the Board could review to meet the criteria for that. Building renderings are provided. He noted the large challenge of the grade changes requires retaining walls and noted the pedestrian crossings nearby across Oak Street and Pine Street parallel with Hancock Street. The applicant had obtained a Traffic Movement Permit from the MDOT and other issues had been resolved by the time of the Staff Memorandum. The tenant/owner issue was something that had appeared and had needed resolution by the owner, but staff had received proper right, title, and interest by the applicant and the criteria that Board approves the project was in order. 10 Vice Chairman Rosenblatt agreed that the standards of approval are what the Board is reviewing the applicant’s project by and the owner/tenant issue was not something for the Board to review. As there was no further comment, Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for a motion. Mr. Theeman moved Conditional Use approval of the project. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0 to approve the project. Mr. Theeman moved Site Development Plan approval of the project. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion and the Board voted 5-0 to approve the project. Item No. 7: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals to construct a building for office and warehouse use as part of a recycling facility located at 2630 Broadway in an Urban Industry District, Contract Urban Industry District and a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. One Steel Recycling, applicant. Mr. Al Hodsdon of AE Hodsdon Engineers introduced himself, Brian McEvoy Manager of the facility for One-Steel, and Gary Violette representing the contractor. Mr. Hodsdon explained that the project is currently operating and the intended proposal is to replace an existing 21,000 square foot building that does not work with the current process with a 17,500 square-foot building in two phases. Parking spaces on-site will be readjusted to their setback requirements at the north end of the site. At the south end of the site where land in RR&A was acquired but not rezoned for this use, the uses will be pulled back onto the UID zoned land. Other areas will be paved. 11,000 square feet of additional impervious surface will be increased. He noted that the site has been a railroad siding area for over 100 years. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt noted some aerial photographs in the file that seem to show materials going outside of the UID zone areas. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that the plan is to put barriers along the boundary line between the two zones. The applicant will be in later to request rezoning of another acquired area in RR&A District. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked if the recycling operation was in compliance. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that there was a DEP license issued for the facility. Mr. Theeman asked about the operation, costs of the facility, and hazardous wastes. Mr. McEvoy spoke about the finances involved in recycling automobiles and pointed out the location of a building on site where hazardous substances such as mercury and oil were stored. He indicated that MDEP inspects the site for HazMat. As no one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this application, Vice chairman Rosenblatt closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould reviewed the site’s recent history with Bangor Metals when there was some rezoning activity. There was a contract with conditions requiring a berm and hours of operation. The applicant could only rezone areas over which they had right, title, or interest. With the new application, it was discovered that some activities had strayed over 11 the boundaries into zones where it is not permitted. Mr. Gould explained that the plan before the Board proposes to mark the zone boundary with concrete barriers. In addition, parking spaces that had drifted closer to the property line will be corrected. He indicated that the plan is in order for approval if the Board finds the standards for Conditional Use acceptable. Mr. Damon asked if there had ever been any complaints from neighbors. Mr. Gould responded that notices to abutters were sent out and none was heard from for the recent project. City Engineer Jim Ring noted that in 1991 there was one neighbor who had many comments about the Industrial Metals project. Mr. McEvoy also agreed there were problems in the 1990’s, but the current owner has no problems. As there were no further discussion, Vice Chairman Rosenblatt asked for a motion. Mr. Barnes moved approval for the Conditional Use and Site Development Plan. Ms. Mitchell seconded motion and both were approved by a vote of 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. There were no Minutes for consideration. The Board went on to Other Business. Other Business Ms. Mitchell announced that she was resigning from the Board and indicated that she appreciated working with everyone on the Board. Board members thanked Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Gould noted that he had draft copies of the Bangor Trails report for the Board. He also noted that the Legal Office had reviewed the draft changes to the Board’s By-Laws to reflect changes to the size of the Board. Mr. Gould indicated that it was still a draft and should be discussed at a future meeting. Vice Chairman Rosenblatt noted that at the Board’s next meeting it should discuss replacing Ms. Mitchell on the Special Comprehensive Plan Committee. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.