Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-07 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Harold Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Laura Mitchell Alice Brown City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Developmental Subdivision Plan approvals for construction of a 28- dwelling unit building located at 84V Summer Street in a Waterfront Development District. Penview Associates, LLC, applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt asked to recuse himself from consideration of this item as the applicant is a current client of his office. Mr. Wheeler moved to recuse Mr. Rosenblatt from voting on this item. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Associate Members Mitchell and Brown were asked to vote on this item. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation from the applicant. Mr. Brian Ames, a partner and developer, spoke in favor of this application. Mr. Ames explained the site development plan and indicated that they are requesting approval of a 28-unit housing complex located at 84V Summer Street. The 2 proposed four-story building will have 7 units per story with 56 parking spaces below grade and 23 spaces above grade. Mr. Ames indicated that this site development plan is somewhat smaller than that previously approved by the Planning Board (originally there were 32 units and now 28 are proposed.) The building will be of the same size and scale of adjacent buildings in the area, the project will generate little traffic, and it will not create additional run-off. Mr. Clark asked why the project had been scaled down to 28 units and when they proposed to start construction. Mr. Ames indicated that this was due to marketing, and that they planned to start the project towards the end of June. Ms. Brown asked what the applicant was proposing for the open space. Mr. Ames indicated that there was not a great deal of area, and it would be lawn and required landscaping. Mr. Guerette asked if the small amount of open space would be owned by a condominium association. Mr. Ames indicated that it would. Ms. Mitchell asked if the applicant had provided for any overflow parking. Mr. Ames indicated that they had provided for 2 parking spaces for each unit. If there is a need for additional parking, Summer Street is proposed to be closed off as part of the overall Waterfront Plan and this would provide them with more parking. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Ames, given what he knew in regard to the general concept of the Waterfront Development, if he could foresee the possibility that there would be any kind of development proposed for the waterfront area that he would consider in conflict or incompatible with the residential life of the condominium tenants or owners. Mr. Ames indicated that to the extent that they are aware of what might be development there, they are comfortable with the projects that have been identified to them. The types of projects that are contained in the Carol R. Johnson Master Plan and the projects that they have seen presented to the Economic Development Committee are appropriate to their project. Mr. Wheeler added that this could very possibly be the first development to take shape of any size and consequence. He asked Mr. Ames whether he would feel as through he had some priority position when it came to public hearings over other proposed developments. Mr. Wheeler said that many times when a commercial project or an expansion of an institution is proposed, the opposition usually comes from abutting neighbors, especially those who own residences. Mr. Wheeler asked the applicant if they considered the possibility of future conflicts of usage. Mr. Ames indicated that they did not see a conflict at this point. 3 Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant was applying for site development plan approval as well as developmental subdivision plan approval of the project. Both applications met the requirements of the District and the Land Development Code requirements and Staff recommended approval of both applications. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to grant approval of the Site Development Plan and the Developmental Subdivision Plan for Penview Associates to construct a 28-dwelling unit building located at 84V Summer Street in a Waterfront Development District. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 1: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the November 15, 2005, December 6, 2005, and December 20, 2005 were in order for approval. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve all three sets of Minutes. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed to the motion approving all three sets of Minutes. Other Business Chairman Guerette indicated that the next discussion item in the Comprehensive Plan Update process is the Implementation Plan. He opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the items in yellow implemented residential development policies through new land use regulations, and what are included as yellow items that are not included in the proposed red items. Planning Officer Gould indicated that some of this has been done already through the Land Use Plan and is not necessarily anything that needs to be written as an action statement. Locations for high density and low density residential districts have been identified. Mr. Gould indicated that at the conclusion of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, it was his wish to sit down and talk about goals for the coming year as there are many items that he would like to see looked at and revisions made to things that need fixing. Ms. Mitchell asked about the new approach to open space in subdivisions that are being approved. Mr. Gould indicated that this concept is located in the Community Services Section. Ms. Mitchell said that she felt that this was more of 4 a housing issue than a community service issue because it is the management of the open space within the subdivision. She indicated that she did not want this concept to be lost when being put under such a broad plan as an open space plan for the entire City. Ms. Brown said that in the discussions, she felt that this was a two-fold problem, one to preserve open space and the other to come up with an equitable way to have quality open space. Subdivisions in the rural area still have a need for open space but they don’t really fall under parks. They are a protection zone within a subdivision. She said they need to look at how to protect the structure of the land while at the same time allowing the developer to develop the land. Mr. Gould indicated that the language is broad and a lot more thought is going to need to go into these concepts before they become reality. He was trying to highlight the things that need attention. For open space that is derived from subdivision development (under the Subdivision Regulations) the developer has a burden to provide a certain percentage of the land as open space. The meeting of that provision can be by a whole host of different things. It can be by dedicating a park to all of the citizens of Bangor, or it can be done by putting a conservation easement over a wetland or a wildlife area to meet the requirement. It is not to say that a large subdivision on the edges of the City couldn’t create a dedicated park space for the City so that people from Pine Street and French Street would go and use it. The potential is there with every development but the key to doing this is to work through all of the options and then try to have a guiding policy to deal with them case by case. Every development presents unique opportunities and they are not all going to lend themselves to active recreation or specific wildlife protection. There needs to be more guiding principles than there are now. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the HDR and URD-2 Districts are highlighted as needing work. Mr. Gould indicated that the HDR District lists some housing types that are undefined in the Ordinance and could be a potential nightmare for Staff. The URD-2 is an urban residential district that allows multi-unit buildings. It was thought at one time that if someone had a large acreage zoned as URD-2 they could build multiple buildings on it as long as the density would work. Recently, the Code Enforcement Office and the Legal Office have determined that that this is not the case and if you have frontage for one building, that is all you can build. This language needs to be amended to make it clear that if you have 10 acres of URD-2, you can do more than one building. Chairman Guerette asked about the proposal for a Business Park District. Mr. Gould indicated that the concept of a Business Park District is largely based around the Maine Business Enterprise Park off of Maine Avenue which houses the Bangor Savings Bank Technology Center, Northeast Cardiology and Sunbury 5 Medical. This is basically an Industrial Zone which is really a zone that is intended for the industries of the 1950’s such as manufacturing, assembling, and compounding. The existing tenants in the Maine Business Enterprise Park would not likely want a factory next door to them. This is an example of what would be a business park type of district. Mr. Gould indicated that the current Industry and Service District and Urban Industry District are both outdated and do not serve the needs of the City. Draft language has been developed and the Business and Economic Development Committee has said that this is the direction that they want to go. Planning Officer Gould explained that the Implementation Plan is for specific tasks to be done as opposed to goals that are broad and nebulous that everyone says is a good idea but there is nothing specific that can be outlined to do. Ms. Mitchell asked why Item 8A chose the Airport rather than the Waterfront. Mr. Gould explained that there was a direct initiative on the part of the City to try and green up parts of the Airport as an economic development project. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what is envisioned, as far as land use regulations go, to assure future compatibility of Airport activities and adjacent land uses. Mr. Gould indicated that under the Airport Development District there are no development standards. In other words, whatever the Planning Board approves on a site plan is a suitable standard. It is questionable whether or not this is a legally binding standard. Initially, it was the City’s concern to offer the ultimate in flexibility in terms of Airport Development. The Airport is now covered by the Maine DEP Site Location of Development Act Law and there are rules and regulations that apply to the Airport. It might be a good time to talk about setbacks, lot coverage and impervious surface ratios. Chairman Guerette asked if one of the concerns was about making sure that the increased development that has occurred along Union Street is compatible with the long-range development of the Airport. Mr. Gould indicated that there were discussions, in terms of potential conflicts of land use, about Union Street and its proximity to the Airport. Mr. Wheeler said that Union Street is a very good example of a very discernable, evolutionary process that has taken place without, necessarily, any proactive participation by the City except to approve the newer developments that have come into that area. In the early to mid 1980’s there was great desire, on the part of the City, to be, particularly with the Airport area, as open and flexible as possible. At that time, manufacturing was still in the picture and it was still expected that the City would attract some factories, some assembly 6 plants, and some manufacturing facilities. During the last 10 to 15 years, this picture has changed, entirely. Even in the personal service businesses that existed on outer Union Street we are now seeing a gradual fading away of some of those businesses due to the desire of long-term owners to retire. There are going to be parcels of land available out there that will come under the new land use policies and concepts which would not have been thinkable 20 years ago. Mr. Wheeler said that they need to give credence to the natural evolutionary process of development as much as they do the specific goals and objectives that they may lay out in 2006 for the next 5 or 10 years in Bangor’s growth. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Gould to explain business park complexes. Mr. Gould indicated that the City is constantly seeking areas for new industrial parks, and in particular, for example, the Maine Business Enterprise Park. With the relocation of the University’s Chancellor’s Office downtown, there are plans to expand this park. Also, the City has acquired land on Outer Hammond Street and is now looking at the potential to develop that as an industrial park. One of the great strengths of the City of Bangor, when compared to some of the surrounding communities, is that the City has several industrial parks with several intended uses. When a development entity comes to the City, the right location for that type of project can be found within the City. In a community that has only one park, either the project goes there or it does not work. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were any changes to the Primary Service Area boundary from 2000 and 2005. Mr. Gould indicated that there were no changes. While he had some reservations as to the extent of the boundary and while it is technically feasible, it is an issue of timing. Mr. Gould said that it is optimistic to think that the City will get utilities out to Church Road any time soon. The next item discussed was Transportation. Chairman Guerette asked what is meant regarding the addition of No. 5 calling for review of a pedestrian system impact assessment. Mr. Gould explained that if there is new subdivision development and it is not warranted to establish new sidewalks within that subdivision directly, the City may want to consider an assessment on the part of the subdivision, on a per lot basis or some means such that that would fund off- site, pedestrian improvements, elsewhere. This would be in situations where sidewalks might be more warranted on the collector roadway and not on the minor access roadway within the subdivision. Chairman Guerette noted the cumulative effect of traffic on some of the areas in the City that are less accustomed to having high traffic volumes. This is where there are high traffic volumes and the cumulative effect of increased traffic can sometimes create bottlenecks and difficulties. He asked if it would be appropriate to discuss under this Transportation section. Mr. Gould indicated 7 that the question is, if one can develop an action statement or an implementation tool to deal with cumulative impact of traffic issues. If so, then he felt that there is a place for it. Regarding the Physical Development Section, Mr. Gould indicated that there are no specific implementation actions to undertake in this section. Chairman Guerette noted that he sensed that some of the items that Mr. Gould had already mentioned will require the Board to review and revise the Land Development Code. It was his recommendation to leave No. 4 in this section so that it would not be totally void of action steps. Mr. Gould noted that the adoption of new Zoning Policy and Land Use Policy Maps are in fact Physical development changes. The next section discussed was the Natural Resources section. Ms. Brown asked if the information on storm water runoff was the result of the new State Regulations to bring it into compliance. Mr. Gould said that that is certainly something that needs to be done under the DEP regulations and the Land Development Code needs to be looked at as well. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Jim Ring what role he envisioned the City to have on a continuing basis in this area given the new DEP regulations dealing with stormwater. Mr. Ring indicated that the new regulations are much more comprehensive and while there are provisions in the Ordinances that refer to the DEP stormwater regulations, he felt that they could be beefed up and provide the City’s own focus on this. He said that stormwater, because of its importance, needs a better place in the City’s regulations. Mr. Rosenblatt had questions regarding wetlands. Mr. Gould indicated that there is a dilemma relative to someone who proposes to create a 12,000 sq. ft. lot, or a 2 acre lot where 50% of it contains freshwater wetlands. The question is, is this a suitable, buildable lot or not. Mr. Gould indicated that the City now operates on the theory that if there is reasonable upland on the lot to build on then it would be passed as acceptable. Mr. Gould said that he felt that this concept is going to be pushed and there needs to be clarification as to the City’s position on this issue to subdividers so that the City does not have to struggle with this every time it comes up. An example, if there is a development that has questionable lots in it and the City does not proactively deal with the wetlands, then years down the road the regulatory agencies that review those impacts could require that the City look at off-site mitigation. Mr. Gould noted regarding the Mall Marsh Commission, that Staff has finalized the language that they would like to see the City adopt to implement some of the Commission’s goals and objectives. It has been the intent all along 8 that before the amendments get formally put into the process, that the draft language be shared with the Planning Board to make sure that everybody is on the same page. If there are issues to be discussed and language to be modified that it be done before the point of a public hearing. While there is no immediacy, Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that waiting until the Comprehensive Plan Update was completed was not really timely enough, and said that he did not feel that it would take long to go through this. He said that he would forward a copy of the draft language along with a memorandum discussing it. Mr. Gould asked when the Board would like to meet with the Mall Marsh Commission to go over that language. It was suggested the following Tuesday. Mr. Wheeler asked if the language developed by the Mall March Task force was available for the Board. Mr. Gould indicated that it is and that he was in the process of noting the proposed language, the existing language, what is proposed to be added, and what is proposed to be deleted. Mr. Wheeler asked what stimulated these proposals. Mr. Gould indicated that it was from the initial gathering of the Task Force in trying to find a meeting of the minds of the development entities, the environmental groups, and the property owners to find a middle ground that everyone could agree on. That resulted in the Task Force Final Report that was presented to the Council, then came to the Planning Board, and was ultimately adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. As in all planning, there is a planning phase and then there is an implementation phase. Part of the Mall Marsh Task Force’s goals and objectives are to include writing additional ordinance language to deal with development around the Mall. This is what will be brought to the Board to look at. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.