Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-15 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 2008 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Allie Brown David Clark Laura Mitchell Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman City Staff Present: David Gould Bud Knickerbocker Paul Nicklas Peter Witham Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approval to construct a 70’ x 60’ paved storage area pad and access drive, reorient 6 parking spaces and add 18 spaces and a paved access drive at 1 College Circle in a Government and Institutional Service District. Husson College, applicant. Chairman Guerette noted that Husson College requested that their application, Item Number 1, be moved to the next regularly scheduled meeting in February in order to meet with abutters for discussion of additional questions and concerns related to the application. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification to construct a 450 sq. ft. addition for use as a waiting room and to construct a walkway to the addition at 268 Stillwater Avenue in a Government and Institutional Service District. Acadia Hospital, applicant. 2 Member Theeman felt that he had a conflict of interest and asked to be recused. Member Rosenblatt moved that the Board find that Mr. Theeman had a conflict and that he be recused. Member Mitchell seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to approve the recusal. Mr. Guerette asked that Associate Member Brown vote on the item. Mr. Vinal Applebee of Applebee Engineering represented the applicant and noted that Mr. Michael Bradstreet, Director of Facilities at Acadia Hospital, was also present to answer questions. Mr. Applebee outlined the applicant’s proposal to enlarge the existing substance abuse program’s waiting area by 450 square feet. It will provide another entrance so that the incoming and outgoing patients will be separated. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) mandated the addition. There will be no increases to sewer, water, and traffic as it is for existing clientele. The project also includes construction of a short walkway to the existing sidewalk along the nearby entrance drive. Mr. Applebee explained that the plan shows the entire campus and there a few revisions to bring the plan up to what is existing. The hospital converted a 24-space parking lot to a basketball area and slightly changed the outline of a low ropes exercise area. A temporary storage shelter in the parking lot was moved elsewhere and that spot turned into 2 parking spaces. Although there were changes, the campus still has parking spaces in excess of the required number. Mr. Rosenblatt asked for an overview of the differences between the existing and proposed on-site parking and pedestrian access. Mr. Bradstreet indicated that there would be no changes in the location and use of parking spaces. The only change to the program will be a new entrance only into the area and use of the existing entrance/exit as an exit only. Chairman Guerette said that he appreciated the explanation of the plan changes to bring it up to date with changes to the site from what was previously approved. He said that although this application was simple, the applicant has had a history of not doing what they said they were going to do, based on previous approvals. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould explained that the project was relatively straightforward and this plan had features included on the plan to bring the site up to date and in compliance. Mr. Gould added that once a project has Site Location of Development approval any changes other than maintenance require the applicant to seek approval for modifications even if changes are considered minor by the City’s standards. He indicated that all of the details were in order and that Staff recommended approval. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to approve the Site Development Plan and Ms. Mitchell made a second to the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve it. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to approve the Site Location of Development Modification and Ms. Mitchell made a second to the motion. The Board voted unanimously to approve it. 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 3: Planning Board Approval of Minutes Chairman Guerette indicated that the only other item on the Agenda was the approval of the Minutes of the August 28, 2007 meeting, but that he was not present at that meeting. He asked for a motion to approve them. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the August 28, 2007 Meeting. Mr. Theeman made a second to the motion. The motion carried unanimously by the three members present at that meeting. Other Business Chairman Guerette welcomed and introduced to the Board the new Assistant City Solicitor, Paul Nicklas, who was attending to observe the Planning Board proceedings. Chairman Guerette asked if anyone had any comments on the documents prepared and distributed by Mr. Gould on Radio, Television, and Cell Towers since the Board’s workshop meeting on January 8, 2008 regarding that topic. Mr. Theeman indicated that he had already submitted written comments to Mr. Gould and had no others. Mr. Rosenblatt said that it was complicated and it would be useful if the Council was generally in accordance with the Board on the Matrix before spending time on details. Mr. Guerette said that an inquiry could be made informally on the opinions of the Council. Ms. Mitchell said the number one issue she was interested in hearing was from a qualified engineer if the 100% setback was needed based on safety considerations if the tower should fall. She also wanted more feedback on the rules on highly encouraging, though, not forcing, co-location on existing towers. She did not think that the language around co-location was strong enough in the statement. Chairman Guerette noted that in the industrial districts the cellular towers and cellular equipment were not listed as permitted uses and asked if they should be. Mr. Gould said that he would like to work with the definitions such that cellular towers would be covered and allowed anywhere radio and television towers were permitted, but not necessarily the reverse. That way both would not need to be listed. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould to review the changes in the materials. Mr. Gould said his impression of the Board’s discussion was that if the appearance of radio and television towers was bothersome in a district then so would cellular towers. So if the radio and television towers were allowed in a district, then why wouldn’t cellular towers be allowed. It seemed that one could be a subset of the other so the code is not redundant and cellular towers could be anywhere radio and television towers were allowed, but not the reverse. 4 Mr. Theeman asked for clarification on the setbacks in the sections regarding where the specific towers were allowed. Mr. Gould said the setbacks would be in the district standard, not in the definitions. There was discussion of the setbacks. Mr. Theeman said the goal should be to keep it simple and not finesse it so each location is different in different districts. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the matrix showed radio and television towers allowed in the G&ISD district and he thought the decision was not to permit them there. Mr. Gould explained that if a non-profit wanted a tower it might fall under the accessory use. Ms. Mitchell said her impression was that the G&ISD was widespread and that the Board did not want to permit them in that district. Mr. Gould said that the majority of applications for them have been for schools and churches in that district. Mr. Theeman said that applicants could have one, but not in that district and that the discussion was to allow them only in the industrial district. Chairman Guerette said that was too restrictive and that Bangor as a service center should be more flexible to allow them as accessory uses. Ms. Brown was troubled by the move to have language that tower applicants must allow co-location on their towers. She thought that it infringed on private property owners. Ms. Mitchell said that there was no way to encourage co-location if the developers of new towers were not forced to allow them. Ms. Brown said that as a capitalist nation the regulations do not require Home Depot to allow Lowe’s use of their parking lots and carts and that it was a private property issue. Ms. Mitchell said that she understood from developers that they are already required to allow co- location and this reiterates what was already required outside of the city ordinance. She said that is why she had asked to have input on this issue. Ms. Brown said she was questioning if the language could be allowed. The Board decided that advice on the legality of having the language was needed and if there were existing mandates on the issue. Chairman Guerette’s impression was that the developers so far have indicated that they are interested in tenants for antennas and that the towers are expensive, so the issue may not be as large as it seems. Mr. Rosenblatt had questions on two items. He asked about the reference to Section 165-60, on tower heights and if that section can be relied upon given that it has been troublesome. He did not think that any additional standards were going to be imposed. Mr. Gould said that he needed to clarify the process, so that the section doesn’t return to cause problems. Mr. Rosenblatt referred to the setback language, 100% setback, and the residential district. Mr. Gould explained that the it should refer to the property line of a residential district, because it has been a problem in the past. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the height limits for cellular towers in RR&A was only going to be unique to that district and he thought it would be limited everywhere to 195 feet. The board discussed how high the heights needed to be and the previous discussion called for different height limits for each, so that in the UID a 400 foot radio tower would be permitted, but only a 195 cellular tower would be allowed. The Board discussed how those heights were derived from recent applications and what they needed to be. Mr. Guerette said the real question was if the Board wanted two standards in one district for two towers that may look alike and the Board agreed that there should be one standard. 5 Ms. Mitchell said that she was against allowing larger cellular towers in G&ISD and was against adding that district anyway, although that was another issue. Mr. Gould said that there was no problem in keeping them at 195 feet in G&ISD and Mr. Guerette added as well as RR&A. Ms. Mitchell said that was another problem. Mr. Rosenblatt said he opened the can of worms. Mr. Gould asked if the Board was comfortable with cell towers at different heights in different districts and the only ones where they could be 400 feet would be in the UID and I&S because they would be a subset of radio and television towers. In other districts they would be 195 feet because radio and television towers would not be allowed in them. The Board continued to discuss whether radio and television towers would be allowed in G&ISD. There was some agreement that they should only be allowed to be 195 feet and as an accessory use. There was discussion and explanation of buffer yards and transition yards as they would be required in the matrix. Ms. Mitchell said that in the previous discussion cell towers were not allowed in G&ISD, and wondered why they were being included now. Mr. Gould said that they already existed on water towers in the G&ISD. Ms. Mitchell thought that was covered under the cellular equipment, but she did not think towers should be allowed. Other members did not mind that towers be allowed in G&ISD. The Board asked to see the maps with the zones colored on them and discussed where some of the districts were. There was more discussion on buffer yards and where they should be placed, near the project or near the observer and line of sight. Mr. Gould said that he did not mind adding language to allow the applicant to rearrange the plants, but what he would like to do is develop the standards so that every item does not require a judgment before the Board. Mr. Rosenblatt said that a revised matrix could be developed to go before the Council committee to get an opinion if the direction is right. There was more discussion on how the matrix should be set up and because G&ISD is a special district that it might need a separate column in order to accommodate the special consideration for them. There was agreement that the TIC Committee had said that there would be a special tower meeting for the Board and the Committee. Mr. Rosenblatt then noted that there were two other items on the January 8 workshop agenda that were not discussed and that he did not want them to slip by. The items were on the topic of Notice Standards sent by the Planning Office for projects going before the Board, and, the other issue was Open Space. Mr. Gould explained the process and current requirements for sending out notices. There are specific time periods for Preliminary Subdivisions and Conditional Uses that are sent out earlier than for Site Development Plan. There was discussion about the number of 6 complaints occurring regarding notices and it was generally noted that it was related to anyone not happy with a project was not notified early enough. The discussion about technical difficulties in sending out notices earlier was that there was generally none from the office’s perspective, but that it related more to the applicants who submit their information and expected it to be on the next agenda. The current decision on when they go on the agenda is the week before. Ms. Brown was pleased that the whole process currently helps the project evolve to the point where it becomes acceptable and that she did not want the notice process to stymie that process. Mr. Theeman agreed. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he has always been dissatisfied that the items evolve so close to the meeting and that notices go out so close to the meeting. Also he noted that the radius of the written notices is very small and that it seems that the system has been designed to minimize notice and to get applications processed. He thought there might be some applicants who prefer the least amount of process time in order to get their projects through. He thought it would be better to set the agendas and send the notices out earlier, maybe not three weeks, but somewhere in between. It might be a favor to the office to set a time limit and not allow the applicants to go before the Board unprepared. Ms. Mitchell echoed the sentiments. Ms. Brown thought there was no problem while she has been on, but that a tentative agenda might be published. She thought that setting the agenda might turn development away. Mr. Gould said that the issue is what applicants and agents are used to. The office can send them out at anytime. He said that there are enough meetings that an applicant would not have to wait that long if they miss a meeting. Ms. Brown said that it could cause problems with applicants coordinating with banks and other entities for their approvals. Mr. Gould agreed. Mr. Rosenblatt said there must be a way to notify the community about what applications arrive at City Hall. He had noticed some mention of the Code Enforcement Office posting some applications. Mr. Gould said there are legal ramifications about when the Code Enforcement office posts them, such as when the appeals period begins. Chairman Guerette thought another matrix was needed to outline the time periods for projects. Projects affect neighbors and as people become more attuned to providing input it is important to develop the process so that it is not unfriendly to applicants as well as abutters. He noted there are five weeks this month and an opportunity to meet again. Ms. Brown asked if the agenda was put in the News and it was discussed that it was sometimes put into the paper, but an advertisement was not placed. She said that would be the best way to educate the whole public and that more people read the newspaper. It is put on the website on the Friday before the meeting. The Board agreed to hold another workshop meeting on January 29th. Mr. Guerette asked if the Board was aware of the issue and Council Order going before the TIC committee and eventually through the Council referral/Planning Board Public 7 Hearing/Council approval process. Mr. Gould clarified what the changing voting rules would be. Chairman Guerette noted that he had attended the City Council’s retreat on January 14, 2008. He indicated that one item was the City Manager’s idea of a separate Comprehensive Plan Committee that would deal with the revision of ongoing work to deal with Land Development Ordinance, but that idea was met with opposition by some Council members who wanted a definite beginning and ending time. However, on the subject of open space the Planning Board was lauded for working on the idea of an open space plan. Time ran out on the item that was actually on the agenda regarding communication between the Council and the Board. He related some discussion on affordable housing and there should be a separate committee on that issue. He said that there was discussion about the Waterfront, but the consensus was that they would hold out for quality projects even though it might take ten years. One councilor asked if there was interest in bringing forth charter changes to have an elected mayor. He invited Mr. Gould for input, who relayed the suggestion of possible offices where increased staff might be needed. He said regarding the Comprehensive Plan it is his opinion that it relates to how development is accomplished, which really is more of an implementation process. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.