Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-05 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5, 2008 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Jeff Barnes Allie Brown Laura Mitchell Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman City Staff Present: David Gould Bud Knickerbocker Jim Ring Peter Witham Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Member Clark, Associate Members Brown and Barnes were asked to alternate voting. Mr. Rosenblatt asked that Item No. 1 be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to fill and grade property located at 913 Broadway in a Contract Government and Institutional Service District (G&ISD Contract). Atlantic Investments, Inc., applicant. Mr. Scott Braley of Plymouth Engineering spoke on behalf of Atlantic Investments. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he understood from the Staff Memorandum that stockpiling of material had already taken place and he asked how much and where on the site that is. Mr. Braley indicated that he could not answer that question because he had not visited the site since he found out about the stockpiling. He noted that the applicant had hoped to be before the Board two weeks earlier but paper work and other issues prevented this from happening. The owners had spoken with Code Enforcement asking to begin stockpiling materials from the Merrill Bank branch site as they needed to remove it from their site. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the plan depicts an area of wetland and asked if the stockpiling had affected that area. Mr. Braley indicated that he did not know if that area was affected but that the contractor had a copy of the plan, there are DEP Stormwater and Wetland alteration permits in the application, and the contractor would have to follow them. 2 Chairman Guerette indicated that he had concerns regarding what impact this would have on the neighborhood. He understood there had been numerous telephone calls to the Planning Office from the abutting neighbors and it was pointed out to Staff that the activity was occurring in advance of any permits being issued. He thought when citizens point that out it makes the City look bad. Chairman Guerette noted that the application was listed as being on Broadway and any access to the site has to be from Hobart Street. Mr. Braley explained that the DEP listed the application as being on Broadway but the plan clearly depicts access off of Hobart Street. Chairman Guerette asked Planning Officer David Gould for the Staff report. Mr. Gould explained the particulars of the site plan application, the controlling contract zone, and the requirement that applicants apply for Site Development Plan approval from the Planning Board for filling and grading activities over 10,000 square feet. He noted that because this site is adjacent to the Orchard Hills Condominium Development the City’s notice standards required the Planning Office to send notices to 154 abutters. With that many neighbors watchful of their surroundings on a daily basis and put on notice of this particular site, the Planning Office would expect to receive a large number of inquiries especially if the activity were already occurring. He indicated that the details of the plan were fairly standard for this type of application. While the existing piles are quite high the end result of the grading would not be significantly different. The Engineering Office reviewed the plans for assurance of the minimal effect of stormwater on surrounding properties and the plan depicts a new culvert under the site entrance on Hobart Street. Brief observation of the site shows that silt fences are being used and details of the plan are consistent with fill and grading operations. The process is expected to be short-term and the Planning Office was not concerned that it would be an ongoing operation. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff did not have concerns regarding the plan and it was placed on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Gould noted that the Board does not have enforcement authority. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he realized that the Board does not have enforcement authority, but asked what the mechanism was by which the City could be sure that the plan is followed if the Board were to approve the plan and the City issue the permit. Mr. Gould responded that it was through periodic inspections of the site during construction. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the actual standards for the fill and grade were. Mr. Gould indicated that they are the same standards in 165-114 as for any Site Development Plan, although some might not apply to the particular operation. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Brown to vote. Ms. Brown was concerned about the hours of operation and felt that a 6:00 p.m. ending time may not be appropriate in this residential area. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer explained that with many construction projects in the City contractors may have a need or desire to begin activities earlier or later. Unless there was a strong objection to a particular residential neighborhood he thought the hours were fairly reasonable. He also noted the concern expressed about an illegal fill and grade having 3 occurred. He explained that in his view and interpretation there is a distinction between the temporary deposition of earth materials known as “stockpiling” and a permanent “fill and grade” operation of depositing earth materials and then moving them around into a final resting state. Mr. Theeman asked what the proposed use of the site is. Mr. Braley responded that the current intent is the transfer of excess earth materials from an existing construction site to this site with the added preparation of the site for some future construction and use. The applicant had a conceptual layout for the site but has no definite proposal. Chairman Guerette invited comments from the audience. Ms. Sally Reed, a resident of Cortland Circle indicated that she felt that this activity exceeded the limit of what was acceptable for a stockpile. She indicated that she was relieved to know that there will be no access on Broadway because there probably would be 150 irate residents calling as it is difficult to get out onto Broadway now especially between 7:15 and 8:15 in the morning. Mr. Guerette indicated that his concerns were with the neighborhood in the area from Rite-Aid to the bottom of the hill near Burleigh Road. He thought that it was still a viable residential area and it is mixed use. He thought there had been commercial encroachment into the area and in order to keep it a viable residential area it needs to have a critical mass of residential properties. He indicated that he would feel more comfortable making a decision on this application after visiting the site to see what was going on as he sees it as a sensitive multi-use residential site. Other Board Members agreed. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to postpone consideration of the application until the Board could visit the site. Member Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 approving the motion. Member Mitchell asked Mr. Gould if he had any documentation of the neighbor's comments. Mr. Gould responded that he did not, but it seemed to him that because a lot of people received notice and then saw activity it generated a lot of calls and visits to inquire what was going on. Some seemed to think that the activity was occurring before the approval. Ms. Brown said a site visit is warranted because if the stockpiles are as high as reported, then the plan doesn’t show them. Mr. Gould said that any plan will not show the state of the site during construction but only the final result. The whole point is to review the final site grading. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2: Amending Chapter 165, Sections 165-6(D); 165-9(B)(5); 165- 113 (C)(1); 165-126; and 165-128 – to amend the majority of affirmative votes needed for Planning Board approvals. City of Bangor, applicant - C. O. #08-070. 4 Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for comments. Mr. Barnes asked if both Associate Members could vote on this item as it was not a project. Staff indicated that Section 165-6 D does not address how many Board Members have to vote. Chairman Guerette said that because it affects the Board’s By-laws on amendments he would allow all members to vote unless there was opposition. Planning Officer Gould indicated the proposed language was developed to compliment the expanded membership of the Planning Board to seven full members. The amendment includes both Land Development Code changes as well as, changes to other City Codes. Mr. Gould noted that he was in support of increasing participation of the public in development review via expanding the Board’s membership. Mr. Gould noted he only had a slight uneasiness about having no back-up members to maintain a quorum. Lastly, Mr. Gould noted he thought it might be difficult for applicants to understand if five members were voting, a vote of three in favor to two opposed would in fact be a denial. There were no proponents or opponents to the proposed Land Development Code amendments. Associate Member Barnes indicated he was strongly in favor of the proposal as written, he did not feel associate members should invest a large amount of time month after month and not be able to participate and vote on important development issues. Member Rosenblatt noted while he was in support of an expanded membership he was not comfortable with the proposed changes in quorum or voting. Requiring four votes for an approval from a five member quorum would likely deny some projects that otherwise would obtain approval. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated he did not want to see the approval process become more difficult for applicants as a trade off to a larger Board. Member Theeman indicated he also supported the expansion of the membership to seven full members but did not support the changes in quorum or voting standards. Member Mitchell indicated she had been an associate member for some time but was in favor of expanding the Board to seven full members. She did have concerns about requiring four affirmative votes from five members present. Associate Member Brown inquired if there was some governing statute or case law that may provide guidance. Planning Officer Gould noted that Site Plan Review is a choice the City makes under its home rule authority. The review and approval is not required at all and as such, the City’s Code could set the voting standard at any number it saw fit so long as the decisions were not arbitrary or inconsistent with the Ordinance provisions. Chairman Guerette indicated he thought it would be less than business friendly to deny applications that receive three affirmative votes from five members present and voting. 5 The Board did discuss the proposed alternative drafted by the City Solicitor’s Office and procedurally how the Board should deal with the two choices. Planning Officer Gould indicated that there is technically only one amendment before the Board that contained in C.O. # 08-070. It has been advertised and sent to the Planning Board for recommendation. The Land Development Code provides (165-6 E) a proposed amendment that has been disapproved by the Planning Board may be enacted only by a two-thirds vote of the City Council. Member Mitchell asked if the Board did not support the original version did it imply that they supported the alternative. Mr. Gould indicated it did not. The Board should act on what is in front of them and if they desire to provide guidance on some other alternative they may do so. The Board voted one in favor and five opposed to the proposed Ordinance Amendment (C.O. # 08-070). The Board then voted in support of an alternative option that would set the quorum at four members and set required votes to the majority of those present and voting. The Board voted four in favor and two opposed to the alternative language drafted by the City Solicitor’s Office. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to construct a loading dock for existing retail space at 1003-1169 Union Street (Airport Mall) in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Airport Mall Associates, LLC, applicant. Mr. Guerette asked for the applicant or representative to present the application. Mr. Al Hodsdon of AE Hodsdon Engineers represented the applicant. Mr. Nick Largay, a staff member of WP Realty who manages some of their properties was also present. Mr. Hodsdon explained that this project is for the construction of a 15’ x 30’ loading dock on the back side of the Airport Mall building. The actual structure other than size has not been determined, but will be submitted before the Building Permit is issued. The prospective tenant is a retail tenant who he could not name. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the loading area would affect cars that drive around the back side of the building. Mr. Hodsdon responded that there would be little impediment to traffic as the loading dock will be arranged so that trucks will be parallel to the building. He added there is one electric transformer that will be relocated away from the side of the building to a pole on the outer edge of the parking area. Mr. Theeman asked for confirmation that the trucks would be parallel and not perpendicular to the face of the building. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that this was correct and would be just as the existing loading dock is. 6 Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. Gould explained that this is straightforward application for a small addition to a small area of the Airport Mall. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board should limit the approval just to that area of the plan and not the entire Airport Mall site. As the plans were in order, Staff recommended Site Development Plan approval with the condition that the approval be limited to the details related to the proposed lading dock. Mr. Rosenblatt moved approval of the Site Development Plan with the note that the Board’s approval is limited to the details related to the proposed loading dock. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted 5-0 for approval. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the September 4, September 18, and October 2 of 2007 were ready for Board approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved approval of all three sets of minutes. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Guerette said it was a vote unless doubted for approval and asked if there was any other business. th The Board agreed to schedule a site visit at 913 Broadway on Monday, February 11 at 4:15 p.m. Chairman Guerette asked if anyone had looked at the tower amendments. Mr. Theeman said he was comfortable with the current condition. Mr. Barnes concurred. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would confer with the Planning Officer. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about when it would appear on an agenda. Mr. Gould indicated that the amendment would go to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting before the Board’s next meeting. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.