Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-20 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Laura Mitchell Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Allie Brown Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Site Development Plan Revision to move the approved Bass Park stormwater detention pond to be within the Bass Park boundary, construct a 2-year temporary construction staging area at the former roundhouse site on Dutton Street, and construct a temporary construction sedimentation basin at the river end of Dutton Street in a Parks and Open Space District and a Waterfront Development District. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., and City of Bangor, applicants. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Ray Bolduc, from WBRC Architects-Engineers, representing the co-applicants, explained that the project received Planning Board approval in December 2006. The applicants are now before the Board for approval of some minor revisions to that approved plan. One revision is the relocation of the detention pond within the Bass Park complex. Originally the detention pond was located on Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) property. The applicants have decided that they would move the entire pond onto the Bass Park property thus eliminating the need for an easement with the MDOT. The pond size is exactly the same as what was originally approved it is just being moved to a different location. Another revision would be 2 for a temporary staging area near the roundhouse site down by the existing trestle. The applicants propose to use this within the two-year period and after that the area will be restored to its original condition along with providing additional fill and some loam and seed in that area. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the temporary construction area encompassed the former roundhouse facility. He noted that the area does have some environmental issues associated with it and asked if the plan for the use of the area involved any excavation or any disturbance of the soil. Mr. Bolduc indicated that the majority of what is being done is to level off the existing piles of soil that are in the area. The only spot where there would be some excavation would be for some underground conduit for lighting. The contractor asked to have the conduit underground to avoid the possibility of having the heavy equipment hitting the overhead wires. When they are all done, they will remove the conduit and put it back to the way it was originally. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was a Voluntary Remedial Action Plan (VRAP). Ms. Helen Edmonds, Esq., of Pierce Atwood, representing Bangor Historic Track indicated that there is VRAP and at the end of this process the site will be covered over consistent with VRAP. She indicated that the Department of Environmental Protection is aware that this is how the City is going to proceed. The City was already subject to VRAP to cover over that area so basically the applicant is going to take over that obligation after the lot is used for the staging. Chairman Guerette then asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the application is for a revision to the Site Development Plan for Bangor Historic Track and the City of Bangor that was approved in December, 2006. The only two things that have changed is the relocation of the pond to within the Bass Park property. The other amendment is the idea of a temporary staging area. Most projects that get built have an area on site where they bring in equipment, have an office trailer and a place to stage materials. Because this project is of such a size and that they are going to be working on their whole site they won’t have part of it to use to store equipment, construction trailers, etc. The roundhouse site became a nearby, adjacent location where they can bring in equipment and materials and just bring it across Dutton Street to construct the project. It is an extremely handy location for this project. Staff wanted to ensure in the approval that when they are done that everything gets cleaned up, the material gets taken out of there, and it gets reseeded and revegetated. Mr. Gould noted that the original plan was approved with conditions. Staff noted that the condition that they get an easement from MDOT was not longer needed. The other conditions are still in place and Staff would suggest that a condition be added that after two years has expired that all materials and equipment be removed and the site be revegetated. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the proposed temporary sedimentation basin. Mr. Bolduc indicated that the temporary one be the one located lower near the Penobscot River for the sediment that is collected from the Main Street site and the satellite parking lot behind the Irving site. The one near the roundhouse site the DEP felt that providing that sedimentation pond should be permanent to collect run off from the site within the roundhouse area. 3 Chairman Guerette asked if Mr. Bolduc saw that permanent detention pond on the roundhouse site as an improvement to the site if that pond remains. Mr. Bolduc indicated that he saw it as an improvement. Currently, most of the water coming off the roundhouse site goes in that direction and then goes over to a retaining wall where the trestle is so the water meanders down the walls. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Barnes to vote on this issue. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Planning Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed development at 480, 500 522 and 532 Main Street and 76 Dutton Street, Bangor Historic Track and City of Bangor, applicants with the following conditions: 1) that the applicant’s provide acceptable evidence of right, title and interest to the Planning Office for stormwater improvements in the Chamber of Commerce leased area; 2) that the City Planning and Engineering Offices shall review and approve the final design of off-site roadway improvements; 3) that the facility shall not be open to the public until all of the required off-site traffic improvements are in place; and 4) that all equipment and materials be removed and the roundhouse site be revegetated within two years of approval. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed. Item No. 2: Planning Board Discussion of Proposed Amendments to Development Schedules. Chairman Guerette indicated that Item No. 2 is a draft Zoning Amendment to the Land Development Code dealing with Schedule B. He asked the Planning Officer to review this with the Board. Mr. David Gould explained that there was a small glitch in the Low Density Residential (LDR) acreage standard. In one part of the Code it said you had to have a minimum of 5 acres and in another part it said 3 acres. It was the consensus of everyone that that should be fixed. As Staff looked at Schedule B a few other items came up. Staff felt that this should be looked at more comprehensively to see if there are any other Districts, yards or buffer standards that needed to be adjusted at that same time. Mr. Gould indicted that one that had been discussed previously by the Board was whether the existing set backs for attached residential when there is a new project next to existing housing ought to be greater than the current minimum standard. The Code Office had brought it to Staff’s attention that there has been a number of instances where property owners in LDR looking to locate a garden shed or a small detached garage would like to have an opportunity to locate it closer to the side line than the principal structure. Staff has provided some guidelines to deal small accessory structures and not just any accessory structure. Other items looked at were townhouses, zero lot line attached residential, side yards, group housing, nursing homes, and places of worship. A change was made to the Industry & Service District which now uses a standard for side yards for 30 feet on one side and a sum of 90 feet for both side yards given some recent interpretation of a corner lot which would put the two remaining yards both as side yards. This has made a number of existing buildings nonconforming with this alternate interpretation. What would work to clean that up is just to set a single side yard and rear yard standard without this one side being one number and the sum of both sides being something else. 4 Mr. Gould also pointed out that when the chemical dependency category was created no land use standards were provided in the Ordinance. Staff wanted the code to set out a specific standard for that use. Chairman Guerette asked where these concepts came from. Mr. Gould said that he did not think there is a magical planning book that gives standards. Bangor’s standards have been conservative relative to what you might find in suburban areas which would ask for much larger side yards. Mr. Theeman asked if there was any advantage to making all minimum side yard the same number or all rear yards the same number in every district and if decks would be considered detached residential accessory buildings. Mr. Gould indicated that a deck, if attached would not be considered a residential accessory building. In regard to a standard minimum yard requirements, Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that it is important to have some flexibility so you don’t have a situation where you have a 50,000 sq. ft. three story nursing home next to a single-family residence with only a 10 or 20 foot setback. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was having problems with the proposed five foot setback for accessory structures and he felt it is very, very small. Mr. Gould indicated that this proposal is something that the Code Office asked for without any limitation at all and if the intent is to allow somebody to have a small garden shed there needs to be a limit. An accessory building could be a two-story, 5 car garage that could raise the issue of shadows. The issue is how big is too big. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he felt that the minimum lot area of 12,000 sq. ft. seemed to be quite small for places of worship and nursing homes and suggested that it should be something larger than that. Mr. Rosenblatt had a question regarding the side yard provision in mobile home parks where 5 feet is allow between adjacent mobile homes. Mr. Gould explained that in a mobile home park you can put one mobile home as close as five feet to its lease line but the next one would have to be over 15 feet. Mr. Rosenblatt asked in regard to living quarters for security is there was an error as it notes a 20 sq. ft. lot. Mr. Gould indicated that this would be in addition to the lot already being there and it should be written so that someone wouldn’t conclude that you need to add another 20,000 sq. ft. to have security personnel on the property. The idea is that you have an existing business that meets the minimum lot standard then you can add this as a conditional use. Chairman Guerette asked what the present setback in the LDR is for accessory buildings. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the setback is the same as that of the principal structure. Mr. Theeman indicated that he felt that the Board needed more time to look at this. After considerable discussion regarding types of accessory structures, different provisions in different districts, and a description of the size of an accessory structure, it was the consensus of the Board to continue review this and give any further input before it is passed 5 along as a change for approval to the City Council. Planning Officer Gould asked the Board to forward their concern, comments and ideas to Staff. Other Business Planning Officer Gould reminded the Board of the Special Meeting scheduled for the following Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. with guest LaMarr Cannon. There being no further items for discussion the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.