HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-19 Planning Board Minutes
Approved on 2/6/07
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2006
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Miles Theeman
Laura Mitchell
Allie Brown
Jeff Barnes
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. In the absence of Board
Member Wheeler, Associate Members Mitchell, Brown and Barnes were asked to alternate
voting.
CONSENT AGENDA
As no one wished to remove any of the items for discussion, Chairman Guerette asked
for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Theeman seconded
the motion which passed unanimously. Associate Member Mitchell voted. The items approved
are as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan and Developmental Subdivision approval
of revisions to enlarge the floor plan of each unit on the
approved plan of a 32-unit attached residential housing complex
located at 932V and 954V Finson Road in a Low Density
Residential District. Stan MacMillan, applicant.
Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to create a flag lot at 543
Kenduskeag Avenue in a High Density Residential District. Ralph
McPherson, applicant.
2
Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval of a revision to the approved
plan for construction of a convenience store with gasoline sales
at 387 and 395 Maine Street in an Urban Service District to
increase the size of the proposed convenience store by 269 sq. ft.
and relocate the proposed loading area, dumpster pad and storm
drain line to the canopy. Dead River Petroleum Company,
applicant.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of
land located at 913 Broadway from Low Density Residential
District and Government and Institutional Service District to
Contract Government and Institutional Service District. Said
parcel containing approximately 2.13 acres. Atlantic
Investments, Inc., applicant. C.O. # 07-38.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the
applicant. Attorney Andrew Hamilton of Eaton Peabody noted that Bill and Brenda Varney, the
applicants, were also present at the meeting. Mr. Hamilton explained that the applicant is
requesting a zone change for the rear portion of the property from Low Density Residential
District to Contract Government and Institutional Service District and the front portion from
Government and Institutional Service District to Contract Government and Institutional Service
District. The contract zone change is for the entire parcel and the reason for this is that they
are proposing a contract condition that will apply to the entire parcel. The front of this
property was rezoned to G & ISD in 1998 and the rear of this property abuts the G & ISD
zoned Bangor High School property. Mr. Hamilton addressed the contract zone change
standards indicating that this proposal is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Concepts Map and Zoning Policy Map which call for G & ISD zoning. The proposal is
consistent with existing zoning the in area as it abuts Bangor High School. The proposal only
includes those conditions and restrictions that relate to the physical development or operation
of the property. Mr. Hamilton indicated that proposed condition is to limit the principal access
to Hobart Street which is a side street perpendicular to Broadway. The condition is designed
to manage access onto Broadway which was recommended by both the City Engineer and the
City Planner.
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was stumbling over the language of the contract
condition. He asked if access would be limited even if a structure was built that was less than
4,500 feet. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the benefit of this condition is that it institutionalizes
the Staff’s proposed approach of having vehicles come off Hobart Street to access this
property. The applicant felt that they needed some flexibility because they are talking with
people who may use the entire parcel and also with people who may need the opportunity to
provide two buildings on this property thus creating a need to provide some limited access off
Broadway. Mr. Hamilton said that he felt that this condition makes it clear that coming off
Broadway is going to be an uphill climb as part of site plan review. Mr. Hamilton indicated
that it is not to absolutely shut out access onto Broadway but to suggest that the preference
should be for access onto Hobart Street.
3
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was in agreement but said that it wasn’t clear that if a
structure less than 4500 sq. ft. is constructed, what contract provision applied. Mr. Hamilton
indicated that the first clause that is set off by a semicolon would apply in any event. What
they are saying is that access to the premises shall utilize access onto Hobart Street as the
principal access. Mr. Hamilton explained that principal access infers that there could be a
secondary access so the second clause is necessary so that if there is more intensive
development on the parcel, which would tend to generate more traffic, that the ability to use
Broadway is going to be limited.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if they were proposing “limited” or “eliminated.” Mr. Hamilton
indicated that the Staff would argue eliminated.
Mr. Theeman asked if this is the case why not simply eliminate any reference to square
footage and have the section read “construction of any structures on the subject premises
shall result in access. . . .” Mr. Hamilton indicated that one of the jobs of counsel is to
preserve flexibility and options for the development client. Mr. Theeman felt that the access
should be dealt with now. Mr. Hamilton indicated that he couldn’t, as counsel for the
developer, eliminate it 100 percent. He noted that the front half of this property was
approved as G& ISD with no limitation on access. The applicant has come forward and said
that the City is right and principal access should be onto Hobart Street. If they have a more
intensive use of that parcel they wish to have the flexibility of limited access onto Broadway.
Chairman Guerette indicated that he also felt that the language was loose in terms of
making a definite commitment for primary access onto Hobart Street. He said that he would
like to see the language more iron clad and would condition his support of this contract
language upon changing the wording to make it more definite that the primary access would
be onto Hobart Street, only. On an extremely busy thoroughfare as it is here with some major
curb cuts already serving the High School and the Orchard Hills area he felt the need to be
careful about access or even secondary access onto Broadway when there is a well aligned
and well planned out street available for that.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There were none. Chairman
Guerette then asked for comments from opponents. There being none, Chairman Guerette
entertained comments from the applicant’s representative.
Mr. Hamilton, after speaking with his client, indicated that the word that Chairman
Guerette and perhaps Member Theeman was reaching for is the word “limited” being changed
to “prohibited” at the very end of the condition. He asked if that would clarify the language.
Chairman Guerette indicated that it did not address the square footage issue. Mr. Hamilton
said that that is as far as he could stretch and that if they totally prohibit Broadway access,
they would be sending a signal to the market that is premature now. He noted that because
this is at the zone change phase and not at the site plan review stage that they needed a bit
of flexibility.
Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from the Planning Officer. Planning
Officer Gould indicated that this application is for a zone change from G & ISD and LDR to
4
Contract G & ISD for approximately 2.13 acres of land on Broadway that is adjacent to Hobart
Street and the Orchard Hills residential development. This property has some history back in
the late 1990’s when the Land Use Plan indicated it as low density residential use and there
was a request to rezone it commercially for office use that was denied. A subsequent request
was for G & ISD for the front half of the project as the concept at that time was a mixed use
of residential and office at that location. Subsequently, two different site plans were
submitted and approved by the City but they were never built. Through the Comprehensive
Plan Update in 2005 the Board looked at the Bangor High School property (which is zoned G &
ISD), a church, the Orchard Hills property and a small island of LDR that sat out there by
itself. Staff felt that there was little likelihood that half of this parcel would be developed as an
LDR property or a single-family house. So, it was designated for G & ISD use on the Land Use
Policy Map right out to Broadway such that when this applicant came to us and talked about
what the potential was to rezone the whole property to G & ISD Staff indicated that the
potential was very good. Because of the work that has been done regarding access
management and traffic issues on major arterials, Staff felt that rezoning the rear of the parcel
to G & ISD with a contract zone change dealing with the access management for the whole
property was appropriate.
Mr. Gould indicated that the language as proposed sends a strong message to the
property owner and to the Board that when somebody comes back to develop this site that it
is the clear that the intent is that there be no primary access off Broadway. Depending on the
development there may be a right-in, right-out access but it was Staff’s intent that the primary
access would be off Hobart Street. The proposed condition enforces that. The client’s
attorney is doing his job trying to give some wiggle room and it is Staff’s job to take it away.
Mr. Gould said that G & ISD zoning is what the City anticipates this property to be and this
request is consistent. The access management aspect is an added benefit. Staff
recommended a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that this is a very good example of how the use of contract
zoning makes sense. Given the history of the parcel and half of it is already G & ISD, that the
rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the concession on the part of the
applicant with respect to changing that last word, he would support that language as revised
by Mr. Hamilton as he felt that it makes sense.
Mr. Theeman asked when they get to the site development process, what latitude will
the Board have if the applicant comes before the Board with a primary entrance and exit off
Broadway for a building that is less and 4500 sq. ft. Mr. Gould indicated that there are two
ways that this can be approached relative to how to structure the language. He said that he
was not uncomfortable using a floor area standard as one of the triggers. In the G & ISD
there are a number of uses that could occur on the site that would be considered low traffic
generators such that the Staff’s concern about access directly to Broadway may be much less.
The applicant picked the exact floor area. Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that what will
probably be built will be 2 to 3 times that floor area. The other point is safe and necessary
access and the Board’s ability to deal with multiple accesses. He noted that when the
applicant comes in for site development plan review it will be pointed out that this is a G & ISD
with a condition and that is going to make it clear.
5
Mr. Theeman asked if the applicant comes back with a 4300 sq. ft. building with
primary access onto Broadway as part of this Site Development Plan review does the Board
have the prerogative to deny that plan. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board has that same
right as with any other site development to evaluate their access points as to whether or not
they are safe and necessary. The Board could limit any access to Hobart Street without any
contract language.
Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. He indicated that he was comfortable
with the zone change request. It is an extremely useful safety and planning issue to consider
access onto Hobart Street with the condition that attorney Hamilton has proposed changing
the last word in the sentence from limited to prohibit and he indicated that he would support
that. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Brown to vote on this issue and then he
asked for a motion.
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the Board needed to vote up or down on the language as
proposed. He indicated that he would make a motion to recommend approval but would vote
against that motion. Assuming that that motion failed he would plan to make another motion
using Attorney Hamilton’s language. Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that that was
appropriate.
Mr. Rosenblatt then moved to recommend that the City Council approve the contract
zone change for the property at 913 Broadway as set forth in C.O. # 07-038. Mr. Theeman
seconded the motion. The Board voted none in favor and five opposed, therefore, the motion
failed. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve a
contract zone change for the property at 913 Broadway, Atlantic Investments, Inc., applicant,
as set forth in C.O. #07-038 with the condition of changing the last word from “limited” to
“prohibited.” Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Item No. 5: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct 36
condominium units (18, 2-unit buildings) located at 606V Essex
Street in a Low Density Residential District. Maine Capital
Companies/Scott LaLumiere, applicant.
Chairman Guerette indicated that this item was continued from the December 5, 2006
Meeting as an opened Public Hearing. Chairman Guerette declared the Public Hearing open
and asked the applicant to review any changes that may have been made to the original plans.
Mr. Al Hodsdon, of AE Hodson, represented applicant Scott LaLumiere who was also
present as was Rick Perskin of AE Hodsdon. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that they have addressed
some issues that were brought up at the previous meeting. Several of the notes that have
been added to the plan refer to the maintenance of the existing tree line between the
proposed road entrance and Mr. Murray’s property, moving the road itself five feet to the
west, moving the water main so as not to hit the roots of trees, and reestablishing any trees
that get damaged or die. Also, the applicant is proposing to add additional plantings behind
the houses that are located on Lancaster Avenue to separate them from this development.
6
Mr. Hodsdon indicated that the plan now shows the walking trails coming around the border of
the property. Mr. Hodsdon noted that Mr. LaLumiere has talked with the David and Lori Dunn,
abutting property owners, and they have come to an agreement as to the amount of area that
would be transferred to the Dunns. They have agreed on a price but there hasn’t been time
to draw up the purchase and sale papers. (Their garage was four feet over the line and this
land transfer would place it 16 feet from the line.) He indicated that the applicant would be
willing to mark the road as a private road with no thru-traffic from both ends. The have also
agreed that they would provide the City with the same assistance in upgrading East Broadway
that the earlier project had. The one thing that has remained the same is that they still
propose two entrances. With this many units and this being a development for those 55 and
over they still feel that it is very important that two entrances be allowed. Work being done
on one part of the road could interfere with access to the rest of the site.
Chairman Guerette indicated that Mr. Hodsdon should be commended for the
improvements that they have suggested as it shows a real interest on their part in working
with the neighbors and with the City in getting some of these small things accomplished and
helping some people. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents or
opponents.
Mr. Buddy Murray, a property owner adjacent to the development, offered his
appreciation to the applicant for his response to a number of the issues that were raised and
for working with the neighbors to address those concerns. He noted that he spoke with Mr.
Gould about the access points and also talked with the applicant who had responded. Mr.
Murray urged the Board to approve only one access through the East Broadway entrance.
Mr. Murray cited Section165-114 C which says that it is the applicant’s burden to show that all
proposed access drives from the site to a public right-of-way are reasonably necessary and
safe. Mr. Murray indicated that the Board has the opportunity to limit the numbers and
location of such points at its discretion and he felt that the applicant has not demonstrated the
reasonable necessity of that second access point. Mr. Murray noted that the prior proposal for
this site had limited access along East Broadway and that proposal involved more units than
what is being proposed this time.
There being no other comments, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and
asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that most of the details that Staff
wanted clarified in the plan such as additional traffic information and improvements to East
Broadway have been provided. Staff would suggest that if the Board finds the application in
order for conditional use and site development plan approval, and developmental subdivision
approval, because there are public improvements involved, that the Board include a standard
condition that the applicant provide the City with a suitable improvement guarantee for those
public improvements in East Broadway within 120 days of approval. Another outstanding
issue is that of the two proposed access points. The applicant needs to demonstrate and the
Board needs to conclude that by proposing a second access onto Lancaster Avenue that is not
going to create some unsafe condition on Lancaster Avenue by nature of vehicles coming and
going at that location. Mr. Gould indicated that it was Staff’s view of this whole project that it
is a low traffic generator and Lancaster Avenue is not a major arterial where the City would
look at limiting of access for access management issues. This is really an issue of does the
single-family neighborhood want to have other traffic access at that location. Mr. Gould
7
indicated that this is a decision that the Board needs to review. Mr. Gould also pointed out
that this property does have frontage on Essex Street which is a less desirable location in
terms of access but certainly one that an applicant could pursue. He said that he thought that
Mr. Murray is correct that the Board has the latitude to make a decision as to whether this
access or the other access proposed represent an unsafe condition or unnecessary access, or
that for good planning purposes it ought to be eliminated.
Mr. Gould discussed the applicant’s proposal to enhance pedestrian access with full
understanding on the Staff’s part that the applicant has had some limitations and they are
trying to stay within those limitations relative to total impervious area on the site. To create
sidewalks throughout their development potentially would put them over that threshold. They
have proposed a walkway to try to accommodate a concern of the Board in a way that won’t
put them into a position where they need to file a Site Location of Development Act
application. With the condition relative to improvement guarantees, Staff finds the application
in order.
Mr. Theeman asked if this were a public street what the width requirements would need
to be and what requirements would there be relative to sidewalks. Mr. Jim Ring, City
Engineer, indicated that if this were to be proposed as a public street it would have to have a
minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet and for public uses the City would want to see a
travelway width in the order of 26 to 30 feet. Currently, there is no requirement for a
sidewalk.
Mr. Gould read the Ordinance requirements of Chapter 164-114 C relative to driveways.
Ms. Brown asked when saying “safe” is this just in terms of car traffic or safety in terms of the
ability for ambulances, police, or fire trucks to be able to access a site. Mr. Gould indicated
that it would include access for emergency vehicles, as well. With the volume of housing
proposed here in terms of safety for fire engines, for police and ambulances she felt that that
would demonstrate the necessity for two entrances.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked why this application proposes two entrances when the original
plan only had one. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not think the prior applicant had any desire
to have an outlet to Lancaster Avenue. From the beginning it was known that the surrounding
neighborhood would have concerns about access and development on a piece of property that
has been undeveloped for a long time. The City has not been aggressive about multiple
access points for properties but there are many communities that have standards. For
example, the Town of Hampden requires that if you have 14 or more lots there should be a
second outlet. Staff looked at Walden Parke where there is considerable length of street with
one outlet to Essex Street. Stillwater Gardens has one outlet to Stillwater Avenue. Often, it is
a cost issue for the developer and they don’t want to build any more street than they need to.
Mr. Theeman was concerned about the proposed accesses indicating that he could
support a 26 foot roadway with no sidewalks or a single access for a 20 foot road but he
would need to see either of those before he could support this application.
Chairman Guerette indicated that he liked the design of the two access points and he
felt that it would increases the safety features of the development. Chairman Guerette asked
8
Associate Member Barnes to vote and then asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the
Board grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed development at 606V Essex Street –
Maine Capital Companies, Scott LaLumiere, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4 to 1. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Site
Development Plan for the proposed development at 606V Essex Street – Maine Capital
Companies, Scott LaLumiere, applicant. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt
indicated that he struggled with the Site Development Standard regarding access but
concluded that he was not persuaded by the applicant and planned to vote against this
motion. The Board voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant
Developmental Subdivision Plan approval to the proposed development at 606V Essex Street –
Maine Capital Companies, Scott LaLumiere, applicant on the condition that the applicant
provide improvement guarantees for the work to be done on East Broadway in a form
acceptable to the City within 120 days. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion
passed by a vote of 4 to 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
There were no Minutes for Board consideration.
Other Business
Chairman Guerette indicated that there were a few items of new businesses to bring to
the Board’s attention. He noted that there was a document called “Findings and Conclusions”
with regard to the Wal-Mart Project which is a formalized set of minutes restating the
conclusions that were drawn by the Board. Chairman Guerette indicated that without regard
to how Board Members personally voted, the document reflects what the Board as a whole
took responsibility for and he asked the Board to take a vote on these.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff had done a full word for word transcript of
that meeting, which run some 60 pages, and will probably will be given to the Board in lieu of
the standard abbreviated minutes that will go with the Findings of Fact should the Board’s
decision end up in the court system.
Mr. Theeman indicated that he submitted a number of recommendations regarding the
use of the word conclude and asked that a vote be switched around. Mr. Gould indicated that
Assistant City Solicitor Hamer reviewed those notes along with some changes submitted by Mr.
Rosenblatt and incorporated some of these changes into the revised Findings of Fact before
the Board. Mr. Gould noted that if the Board felt that they should be revised further, and
because time is of the essence, they could make those changes tomorrow.
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was happy with the final product and moved to adopt
the Findings of Fact as presented. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
9
Chairman Guerette indicated that there was a long list of items that the Board is
interested in dealing with in a workshop and he wanted to have those on this agenda this
evening but was persuaded because of the previously long meetings and the proximity to
holidays that the Board should defer this until next month. He wanted to thank the Board for
its hard work especially in dealing with some really significant issues for the City of Bangor in
the last month. He said that he wanted to thank everyone that contributed as well as Staff
and Jim Ring for their involvement. He also wished everyone a happy holiday season.
Mr. Theeman wanted to make sure that the Members of the Board were aware that the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee discussed the zone change on Kenduskeag and
nd
they were going to discuss it again on January 2.
Chairman Guerette noted that neither he nor Member Rosenblatt would not be present
nd
at the January 2 meeting. Mr. Gould explained that there are three alternate members
such that three regular members could be absent and a meeting could still be held.
Mr. Gould indicated that it is important to point out that this has been an extremely
productive year with the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Mall Marsh work, and marathon
meeting sessions. He said that the Board could look back at 2006 as a year of tremendous
accomplishments and they should all be commended for that.
Mr. Gould asked if there were any Members who still wished a copy of the Planning
Board Manual from Maine Municipal Association. All Members requested a copy. Mr. Gould
noted that there was a workshop was held at Eastern Maine Development Corporation by
NEMO. Some City people attended and thought it was of great value. He asked if the
Planning Board might be interested in rehearing that same discussion much of which revolves
around the benefits of cluster development relative to stormwater and other things. He noted
that should the Board want, NEMO offered to come back and do a one hour session for the
Planning Board. It was the consensus of the Board to set up such a meeting on a night other
than a regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting night.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2006
Transcript
Excerpt of Discussion – Findings and Conclusions
Wal-Mart Decision
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Miles Theeman
Laura Mitchell
Allie Brown
Jeff Barnes
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.
* * * * *
Other Business
Chairman Guerette: That was the last official item on our Agenda. We have a few other
items of new business just to bring to your attention. I don’t
believe we have any minutes for approval this evening but we do
have a document called “Findings and Conclusions” with regard to
thth
the Wal-Mart Meeting of, well December 4 and December 19 and
this is more or less a formalized set of minutes, if you will, restating
the conclusions that were drawn by the Board on those meetings.
So without regard to how you might personally have voted on
these items, this reflects what the Board as a whole took
responsibility for, on, during those meetings. And we’d very much
like to have those approved this evening. Do you want to say
anything else about that David?
2
Mr. Gould: The only thing I would say about Minutes is as you know, we had a
lot of suits in the audience that evening. We’ve done a full word
for word transcript of that meeting which probably will be in lieu of
our standard abbreviated minutes which runs, I believe, 60 some
pages long that will go with this Findings of Fact should the Board’s
decision end up in the court system.
Mr. Theeman: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I did edit the first set and I did not have
an opportunity to look at this set today but I’ll certainly defer to the
recommendation of the Chair. I just, David did we, I had
submitted a number of recommendations regarding the use of the
word conclude and switching a vote around.
Mr. Gould: Mr. Hamer reviewed your, your notes and made some changes
then we resubmitted, I think Mr. Rosenblatt also submitted some
changes that was amended, that was resent out. What they have
suggested because time is of the essence, if there’s still further
tinkering that Board Members would like to do we’d like to able to
get Mr. Guerette to sign this thing and then we could make those
tomorrow if you specifically have other issues.
Mr. Theeman: No, I’m fine.
Chairman Guerette: Nat?
Mr. Rosenblatt: I had a chance to review the initial draft and I did have a couple of
edits that I transmitted to Mr. Hamer. They all are in here and I’m
perfectly happy with the final product. I guess I’d move that we
adopt these.
Mr. Theeman: Second.
Chairman Guerette: Well in light of the comments I think it would be important for me
to know that everyone has had at least had a chance to see this
and feels somewhat comfortable with, they taking a vote on it.
Mr. Theeman: Mr. Chairman I have not, but I am comfortable with, with the, I
don’t have a problem.
Chairman Guerette: Okay, Thank you.
Ms. Brown: I have not had a chance to read them.
Mr. Clark: I read the first draft but I haven’t seen the final one .
3
Chairman Guerette: Okay, So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
All in favor? And that passes unanimously. Thank you.