Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-10-16 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nathaniel Rosenblatt David Clark Miles Theeman Laura Mitchell Allie Brown City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Zoning Amendment to the Land Development Code – Amending Chapter 165, Section 72 R – Parking Requirements - City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-321. Chairman Guerette declared the Public Hearing open. Planning Officer Gould explained that the Bangor City Council recently enacted a moratorium on development in the waterfront area bounded from Lincoln Street, Main Street to Union Street. This action was due to growing concerns of Councilors that there was a potential for incompatible development that might detract from the City’s vision for that area. After the moratorium was adopted, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (TIC) of the City Council looked at a number of areas where they thought the ordinances should be amended to afford more protection. Three amendments to the Land Development Code are on this Agenda. Another amendment proposed is to the Sign Ordinance which would direct that the Waterfront Development District be treated the same as the Downtown Development District relative to signage. Another proposal is to include the design review standards to developments in the waterfront as the Business and Economic Development Committee 2 applies to City properties. These standards are presently contained within the Bangor Center Revitalization Area Ordinance and are the same design review standards that the Historic Preservation Commission currently applies to downtown projects. At the Board’s next meeting there will be a proposal to rezone three existing blocks of land currently zoned General Commercial and Service District to Waterfront Development District. This is being proposed so that there will be a homogenous Waterfront Development District (WDD) in the areas of Railroad Street and Summer Street down to the Waterfront. Mr. Gould indicated that this amendment is one that deals with parking in the Waterfront Development District. For the past three decades the City has had varying strategies in dealing with parking in the downtown. Historically, there were provisions where the Planning Board could waive the requirement of parking based on the applicant’s demonstration of a certain economic hardship and on the availability of other parking within the area. There was a time when the City charged a per space fee. When the Waterfront Development District was created in the 1980’s there were parking exemption standards similar to those in the downtown. This was later changed to the present standard which is a blanket exemption which does not carry with it a burden of proof that the applicant has to apply. The concern in the Waterfront Development District is that as it develops, that new development may out pace the City’s ability to keep up with the parking demand. While there is plenty of parking available now, future development could use up the available parking thus creating a shortage in the area. Mr. Gould explained that the proposal before the Board to amend the WDD deals with three standards. The first is what is the requirement of the use. The amendment suggests that if the requirement is less than 25 spaces and there is available parking on-street then that parking would be exempted. It also suggests that if the parking requirement is more than 25 spaces and there is some other City parking lot or parking garage within 1000 feet of that use then it would be exempted. The last standard is if the use demands greater than 25 spaces and the City is then committed to building a parking lot to suit that need then that parking requirement would be exempted. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the City’s experience has been in the Downtown Development District where there is no parking requirement. Mr. Gould indicated that generally there haven’t been any problems but this is something that the City is always watching. Many of the development parcels were existing parking lots and when they were developed there was concern about the loss of parking and the increase in demand for parking. As a result, the parking garage was built and has since been expanded. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the major parking resources are along the waterfront. Mr. Gould noted the recently created 80-space parking lot on the waterfront, and the huge supply of on-street parking space on Railroad Street. Also, there are plans to add additional parking on the river side of the Railroad Track and there has been some interest of building another parking structure. As no one wished to speak either in favor of or in opposition to the zoning amendment, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed 3 changes to 165-72R set forth in C.O. # 07-321. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Item No. 2: Zoning Amendment to the Land Development Code – amending Chapter 165, Section 107 – Park & Open Space - City of Bangor, Applicant - C.O. # 07-322. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this amendment to the Park & Open Space District is really a precursor should the City wish to rezone the riverside of the waterfront parcel to Park & Open Space to solidify its intent not to be a development parcel. The Park & Open Space District has had a standard that says that a parking lot in the P & O District cannot exceed 50 spaces. As has been pointed out, while you can limit the size of a parking lot it may not provide for green space within the parking lot. What is being proposed in this amendment is to substitute a space specific standard with a performance based standard such that a parking lot in the P & O Zone, potentially in the waterfront area, could exceed 50 spaces with some direction as to how it would be laid out and designed to provide that green space. Chairman Guerette asked what types of standards the Board would have to address for a parking lot that exceeds 50 spaces such as buffering, traffic calming, greenery, stormwater runoff and treatment. Mr. Gould indicated that water quality is going to be whether it triggers some other standard. Staff likes to see bio retention cells within a parking lot. It is not required but a lot of the area that they are treating is runoff from surface asphalt. In the last amendment for the buffer yard standards there were standards that dealt with green space within parking lots based on the size which meant that the greater the number of spaces the larger percentage of internal green space required. The other element is something that the Board would look at and review in terms of pedestrian crossing and green space within the parking lot. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Board would be facing a situation where someone could come in with parking lot proposed in a P & O District that is not located within the waterfront area that was designed well but where the Board would prefer that it be left as open space. Mr. Gould indicated that parking is allowed in the P & O District now. It just has a standard that a single parking lot should not exceed 50 spaces. He did not feel that this amendment would be encouraging people to place parking lots in P & O Districts. They are already allowed and it is just a matter of how they are laid out. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this zoning amendment and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. As no one else wished to comment, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed changes to Section 165-107 as set forth in C.O. #07-322. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 4 Item No. 3: Zoning Amendment to the Land Development Code – amending Chapter 165, Sections 94 C and D (4) and Schedule A – Development Standards - City of Bangor, Applicant - C.O. # 07- 323. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Guerette. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this amendment to the Waterfront Development District tries to target three areas of concern that may occur in this District. Some of them are currently a concern in the Downtown Development District relative to bars and clubs that have late night activities. Within the WDD the Council has attempted to deal with that issue by setting an absolute timeframe at which those facilities should close and that is in Section C, 4 which provides for a very specific time of closure. Noise standards, parking distance standards, thresholds for proximity to residential properties were discussed and it was thought that places should close at 1:00 a.m. The other element that the Council talked about was how to deal with activities on the first floor of buildings. They were very concerned that someone would acquire a waterfront property and then use it as residential or an office building that may not have the level of activity the Council would like to see on the waterfront. This proposal provides a very specific limitation to properties within 200 feet of the Penobscot River (essentially all of the development parcels along Railroad Street to Front Street). If a redevelopment occurs there, there will be a specific prohibition as to office use or residential use on the first floor of those buildings. Upper floors could be residential or office use but active retail or restaurant uses on the first floor would be encouraged. The last element was the discussion of drive-thru businesses or other retail activity (that would occur or presently can occur in the Waterfront Development District (WDD)). The Downtown Development District (DDD) only allows drive-thru banking facilities. It does not allow any fast food drive thrus, or any pharmacy chain with a drive up window. Within the WDD there has been interest in a property on Main Street to do that. The Council discussed opening up the potential to accommodate a drive-thru bank or a pharmacy that had a drive-up window provided that it was located on Main Street, that there were adequate buffers, and that access points would be off of side streets so that the traffic issues wouldn’t be a problem. Also, this could lead to the potential for other types of drive-up facilities in the Downtown Development District if this works in the Waterfront Development District. The main intent of the Downtown Development District and the Waterfront Development District is to be pedestrian oriented. Mr. Gould pointed out that the moratorium has been done on a very short timeframe (180 days). The Council intends to try and do this very quickly and has expressed an urgency in getting this done. Chairman Guerette asked which streets within the Waterfront Development District are considered major arterial streets and if this amendment affected existing businesses. Mr. Gould indicated that Main Street is the only street classified as a major arterial street. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the public. Mr. Steve Ribble, a 17 James Street resident, said that he did not want a major street to get confused or contorted into something other than Main Street. He indicated that while drive- in uses are appropriate along Main Street he felt that it would be counterproductive to put them anywhere else. 5 As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he felt that a drive-in use runs counter to the notion of a pedestrian friendly waterfront area. Mr. Gould indicated that one has to look at the history of banking institutions in the downtown and if they have lessened the pedestrian environment. He did not think that anyone would suggest that they have. There was the concept of a national pharmacy chain being located in the waterfront and that caused some concern. In discussions it was suggested to the Committee that it may be possible that this use could be designed and operated in a manner that one would not find objectionable. Ms. Mitchell asked if being located on a major arterial street would mean on both sides of Main Street. Mr. Gould indicated that this would only be within the Waterfront Development District which presently does not cross Main Street. Ms. Mitchell felt that just referring to this as a major arterial could get confusing in the future. Mr. Gould indicated that a major arterial street is a defined in the Land Development Code so there is no room for interpretation to occur. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Ring to clarify what the requirements are for a roadway to be designated as a major arterial. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, explained that the definition and listing of arterial streets in Bangor are included in the Ordinances. They are based upon a Federal functional classification. Requirements include more than just the amount of traffic on a street but that it has to actually be an artery to connect to other major collector streets. He added that not only would a drive-thru use need to have frontage on a major arterial street but that the drive-thru aspect would need to have access from the rear or the side on one of the secondary streets. Mr. Theeman indicated that the Board was told that they would have involvement in the amendment process once the moratorium was announced. He did not feel that bringing the Board three ordinances for passage met the test of being involved. For the record, he would encourage the Council to invite the Planning Board to participate in discussions now and in the future. Mr. Theeman asked if the racino was considered to be in this district. Mr. Gould indicated that it is in a Contract Waterfront Development District but has a contract standard relative to parking. Mr. Theeman indicated that he was more concerned about the provision relating to the serving of alcohol after 1 a.m. Mr. Theeman was concerned that the racino would have to close at 1:00 a.m. if this is passed and indicated that he could not support this amendment. Mr. Gould said that it would be subject to interpretation as to whether or not the racino is an eating and drinking facility and not some other land use. Ms. Brown indicated that she was not sure that the Board wanted to take that chance. If there is even a question about this then she felt that the Board should table it until a determination can be made. Mr. Theeman agreed. Mr. Theeman moved to table Item No. 3. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell asked when Summer Street is realigned if that portion would be considered a major arterial street. Mr. Ring indicated that Summer Street does not now meet the definition and 6 would not meet the definition of a major arterial street after the realignment. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to table this item. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Final Subdivision Plan approval of a two-lot subdivision located at 1331 Essex Street in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. John Andrew and Jean Strom Benson, applicants. Chairman Guerette indicated that this item has been taken off the Agenda because of a moratorium on all development in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Ms. Jean Benson asked to explain what she is trying to do. Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not want to deny her the opportunity to speak before the Planning Board but it could not entertain her application. Ms. Jean Benson indicated that she has lived there for 26 years. About 3 or 4 years ago she sold off a portion of land to an individual on Essex Street. Now she only wishes to sell her primary residence. Because they sold off a portion of the property less than five years ago, she needs Final Subdivision Plan approval in order to sell her residence. Ms. Benson indicated that she is currently working with the Bangor Land Trust to see if she can put all of the wetland area plus some of the upland area into green space in perpetuity. Ms. Mitchell disclosed that she is a Bangor Land Trust Member but has not been involved with this property. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board cannot make a decision on this at this meeting because the Bangor City Council adopted a moratorium which states that the only things exempted from that moratorium in the RR & A District are permits for single-family dwellings, accessory structures and telecommunications towers. The Legal Office has pointed out that subdivisions are under the moratorium. Mr. Gould noted that there will be a special Council Meeting on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 for the purpose of reconsidering the moratorium that has been adopted. Item No. 5: Site Location of Development Modification approval to construct a 37,789 sq. ft. addition for use as 40-units of elderly congregate housing located at 302 Husson Avenue in a High Density Residential, Contract High Density Residential District and a Contract Low Density Residential District. First Atlantic Corporation, applicant. Mr. Theeman asked to be recused from voting on this issue because the parent corporation that owns Affiliated Health Care Systems (his employer) also owns Ross Manor. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that Mr. Theeman be recused from voting on Item No. 5 due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Associate Member Brown was asked to vote. Mr. Steve Ribble, a Landscape Architect with Ames A/E, represented the applicant who is requesting Site Location of Development Act Modification 7 approval for an expansion to the Ross Manor facility located on Husson Avenue. The Planning Board approved the Conditional Use/Site Development Plan applications for this project last November. Mr. Ribble briefly highlighted the project indicating that it consisted of 40 beds for assisted living. The applicant has provided 7 times the required open space for the parcel as a whole; has increased the site parking requirements by 14 spaces; and the stormwater mitigation has been designed to handle quality and quantity meeting both City Ordinances as well the Department of Environmental Protection requirements. Mr. Ribble noted that this project is within the Arctic Brook watershed and they have paid fees to the City as required through the Site Law process. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there have been any changes since the time of Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals. Mr. Ribble indicated that the plans are the same and it is their intent to get the parking and circulation improvements built this fall and start construction of the building in the spring. Ms. Brown noted that at the time of the site plan consideration there were concerns about drainage and whether this was going to interfere with drainage issues on Husson Avenue. Mr. Ribble indicated that at that time an under parking lot system to detain and release water was designed. Since that time, the neighboring property owner has allowed them a drainage easement and they plan to construct ponds to retain that water as opposed to releasing it at a greater rate. This should mitigate any potential problems. Chairman Guerette asked if these ponds were the older style detention ponds or if they are designed to slowly dissipate water through absorption. Mr. Ribble indicated that they do slowly dissipate water both through absorption and the ponds are underlined with drainage pipes. Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Site Location of Development Act Modification approval. He said that the applicant has done a good job putting together all the details under the criteria of the Site Location of Development Act application. Staff noted in the Memorandum the applicant has already provided the City with a check for payment of a stormwater compensation fee. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff recommended that the Board note this as a condition of approval so that it gets documented within the Board Order. Staff recommended that the Board grant the applicant Site Location of Development Act Modification approval with the condition that they provide for the stormwater compensation fee. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould what conditions were attached to the Conditional Use and Site Development approvals. Mr. Gould indicated that there was a condition of approval regarding the provision that says that they can have more than 50 units in the building provided that they met the standards within the Ordinance. Because that is a City of Bangor Land Development Code provision and not a Site Location of Development Act standard, he did not think that the Board needed to include this condition within this approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Location of Development Act Modification approval to the proposed 40 unit elderly congregate housing project proposed to be located at 302 Husson Avenue, First Atlantic Corporation, applicant on the condition that the applicant pay the required stormwater compensation fee. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette indicated that there were three sets of Planning Board Meeting Minutes that were ready for approval, those being the June 5, June 19, and August 23, 2007 Meetings. Mr. Theeman moved approval. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Other Business Chairman Guerette indicated that he had received a request from Volunteers of America to hold a special meeting to a proposed site plan. They wish to demolish the old Noyes Tire Building and construct senior housing. They have indicated that they need to th receive their approval prior to the Board’s next regular meeting on November 6 because they have a tax credit application which allows them to receive points in their ability to rdth secure federal loan financing. The Board discussed meeting on either the 23 or the 30. It was the consensus of the Board to check with Volunteers of America to see which date would work better for them. Mr. Rosenblatt asked for an update regarding the rezoning of property located on Broadway and Husson Avenue. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant provided the Council with additional contract language relative to access management. The language was very specific as to where the driveways on Broadway would be such that there would be one full signalized access aligning with Husson Avenue, the existing driveway that serves the dental office will be closed, the existing residential driveway would allow to remain but should that property change use in the future it would be required to be a right-in, right-out entrance only. This was approved by the City Council. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.