Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-18 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JULY 18, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Nat Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Laura Mitchell 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. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Guerette, indicating that he had been asked to explain what a Consent Agenda is, said that items placed on the Consent Agenda have been determined by the Planning Staff to meet all requirements of the Land Development Code. Unless someone wishes to request that an item be removed for discussion, all items on the Consent Agenda can be approved with one motion. Planning Officer Gould noted that it is largely a decision that Staff makes about certain applications that they feel meet a certain level of completeness and consistency with the Ordinance and do not warrant the Board taking a great deal of time in discussion. Any Board Member that has a concern or a question and wants to debate an item can remove the item from the Consent Agenda. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff also likes to make the same notice to neighbors and abutters. Sometimes neighbors will attend a meeting on a particular item which will be on the Consent Agenda and in some cases they may see the item approved before they are aware that it is up for consideration. Staff provides the same notice as other applications to neighbors but it is important to understand that items that do get placed on the Consent Agenda will be approved as a block and won’t be brought up for discussion. As no one wished to remove either item on the Consent Agenda for discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda. 2 The motion was seconded by Mr. Rosenblatt, and it passed unanimously. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval for construction of a 38-space parking lot expansion at 248 Odlin Road in a General Commercial and Service District and an Airport Development District. Dorks R Us d/b/a The Ground Round Restaurant, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct two entry canopies totaling 344 square feet at 40-60 Summer Street in a Waterfront Development District. Harmaney Realty Limited Partnership, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code by changing part of a parcel of land located at 1379 Hammond Street from Urban Industry District to Government and Institutional Service District. Said part of a parcel containing approximately 1.7 acres. Brookings Smith Funeral Home, applicant. C.O. # 06-260. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Attorney Andrew Hamilton, of Eaton Peabody, represented the applicant. Mr. Hamilton noted that Mr. Gary Smith and Mr. Jim Fernald both from Brookings Smith Funeral Home and Attorney Mike Clisham also of Eaton Peabody were present in support of this application. Mr. Hamilton indicated that this project will be a crematorium facility on a parcel of land located immediately adjacent to the Pine Grove Cemetery. It is presently buffered on two sides, if not three sides, by vegetation the height of which in some instances is 20 feet high. He indicated that they could not find a more natural and appropriate setting for this type of use. Attorney Mike Clisham indicated that the applicant requests a rezoning of 1.7 acres located on outer Hammond Street to facilitate the construction of a crematorium. In recent years there has been an increase in the numbers of families opting for cremation services. However, State Statutes require that a crematorium meet two standards. First, it has to be located in a cemetery of at least 20 acres that has been used for burials for at least two years and, second, that it be organized as a non-profit entity. Pine Grove Cemetery is approximately 23 acres and has been used for burials for more than two years. Brookings-Smith has formed Pine Grove Crematorium, a non-profit entity, to operate the crematory and will transfer the property to the City as part of a development agreement. As part of this process, Brookings- Smith has worked with City Staff and a joint agreement was approved by the City Council on June 26, 2006. However, before the property can be transferred, the zone needs to be changed to Government and Institutional Services District (which is what the cemetery is currently zoned as). This parcel is located just above the existing Martel’s Mobilehome Park and west of the cemetery. Mr. Clisham indicated that both the Code Enforcement and Planning Offices view a crematory as a permitted use in the Government and Institutional 3 Service District. The current zoning (Urban Industry District) would permit almost any commercial use and would also permit a crematory. Because of its proximity to the Pine Grove Cemetery Mr. Clisham indicated that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Guerette asked if they proposed to access the crematorium through the cemetery. Mr. Clisham indicated that there would be an 800 foot private easement that will go along the western side of the cemetery. Mr. Theeman asked about the nonprofit status of the crematorium. Mr. Clisham explained that it is position of the Maine Attorney General’s Office that a crematory has to be a non-profit entity. Mr. Hamilton added that while the Attorney General’s Office requires that it be a non-profit entity as part of the agreement, Brookings-Smith intends to pay a fee in lieu of taxes. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what is located directly to the south of the parcel that is proposed to be rezoned and how close it is the nearest residence. Mr. Clisham indicated that Martel’s Trailer Park is located to the south and there is an existing 20 foot hedge along that common border. While the mobilehomes are very close in the park, there is at least the 20 foot hedge that exists now preventing it from being on the property line. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what impacts would result from the operation of a crematorium on the neighborhood, and asked if a crematorium is a cemetery use or an accessory use to a cemetery. Mr. Clisham indicated that neighborhood impacts would be very slight. There will be traffic going in and out of the site and the building will be designed to resemble a residence and have a family area for families to pay their last respects. It would not be more appreciable than a burial in Pine Grove Cemetery. There will be no visible emissions or odors coming from the facility. Regarding the use, Mr. Clisham indicated that the argument could be made either way as a cemetery is not a defined term in the Land Development Code. However, because State Statute requires that it be in a cemetery of at least 20 acres it could come within the definition of a cemetery as State law contemplates that. Ms. Brown asked if the 20 foot hedge was on the mobilehome park property or on the property under consideration. Mr. Clisham indicated that it is on the property under consideration and that as a condition of the purchase the buffer is to be maintained. He said that Brookings Smith wants to provide the families they serve with a peaceful and quiet environment. Ms. Brown asked what they propose for signage. Mr. Jim Fernald indicated that they propose a small, unlit sign that labels it as the entrance to Pine Grove Crematorium. Mr. Theeman asked where the cremations are being performed now. Mr. Fernald indicated that they use the facilities at Mt. Hope Cemetery. He noted that there are 5 such facilities across the State in Presque Isle, Bangor, Lewiston, Portland and Biddeford. Chairman Guerette then asked for proponents. Mr. Martel, owner of the Martel’s Trailer Park, indicated that he was neither in favor of nor in opposition to the request but had several questions. He asked how one could place a for profit business into a not-for-profit zone, how 4 the utilities would be brought into this site, if this operation would require licensing, if there be a smoke stack and if it is poor planning to carving out a piece of property for rezoning. Mr. Martel said that his trailer park is not the greatest one in town but he tries to keep it clean and keep it going as there are many poor people who live there. He said that 20 years ago there was a proposal to put in a medical waste burning facility there. He asked if this was a stepping stone for another such project where there might be a 50 foot or 75 foot stack there for Eastern Maine (Medical Center) or another facility to burn waste. He was against that type of use then and is against it now. He said that he respected the applicant but having this type of facility next door would be like having Sawyer’s dump next door. He said that even though the property (Sawyer’s) is dressed correctly and looks beautiful it is still a dump. Mr. Martel was concerned that this might affect his property value. He asked what the duration of the lease with the City was going to be and who would be responsible for the emissions compliance. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for rebuttal remarks by the applicant. Attorney Hamilton, in answer to Mr. Martel’s questions, indicated that he did not see a more appropriate zone (the Government and Institutional Service District) for this proposed use. The Attorney General has indicated that he is of the view that the crematorium be operated by a non-profit entity. The Pine Grove Crematorium has been established as a non-profit entity. The development agreement between the City and Brookings-Smith requires that Brookings Smith Funeral Home be the applicant for the zone change. The property will become City property as part of the Pine Grove Cemetery and Pine Grove Crematorium will be a nonprofit entity that will be controlled by Brookings Smith. There is a right-of-way that will extend from the side line of Hammond Street to the property and is specifically structured to allow utilities to be brought in from Hammond Street extension to the site. Electric service will be above-ground. Regarding air quality, the DEP has licensed the five crematories across the State and they are required to have an Air Emissions License. Mr. Hamilton explained that there will be two combustion chambers and the second one combusts the particulate residue. It is fired at a temperature that is 500 degrees higher than the 1500 degree temperature for the primary combustion chamber. Particulate emissions will be virtually zero. In regard to the question is it poor planning to carve out a property in a zone, Mr. Hamilton said that this 1.7 acre parcel will be an adjunct to the Pine Grove Cemetery which is currently zoned G & ISD. The remainder of this property will be left in its current zoning which is Urban Industrial District. He did not feel that this was spot zoning. Mr. Hamilton indicated that there will be two stacks and that they will have to meet air emissions requirements. The primary issue is mercury particulate emissions and odor. It is projected that this facility will produce less than ¾ of a pound of mercury a year (primarily from amalgam used in dental fillings). The limit imposed by DEP is 35 pounds and it will be further reduced to 25 pounds by January 1, 2010. From the design of the facility and the existing vegetative buffer, it will not create a stigma. There will be no requirement that cannot be met by this facility. Pine Grove Crematorium, the licensee, will be responsible for the emissions. In terms of property values, the existing zoning of this entire parcel is zoned Urban Industrial District and the risk for potential property devaluation has existed for a long time at that location. Mr. Hamilton felt that the way the property will be sited, constructed and operated it should be an amenity at this location. 5 Ms. Brown asked what approximate height of the stacks will be. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the stack height is 30 feet and one of the reasons why emissions is not a issue and why stacks are designed to be this minimum height is that the first draft out of the stacks is 20 feet per second and that essentially pushes emissions higher into the atmosphere. This means that you are not going to see a draft down onto the Martel Trailer Park. Ms. Brown then asked what the facade of the chimneys would be. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the stacks will look like the stacks on a residence and the design will be subject to site plan review. Mr. Theeman asked about the proposed utilities. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the requirement of Bangor Hydro is that utilities be above ground unless you can establish to their satisfaction both based on engineering and on dollars that you can go underground. The cost is considerable for underground utilities and this is a site plan consideration. Mr. Wheeler noted that the first crematorium in Bangor was at Mt. Hope Cemetery some 30 years or more ago, and he witnessed a cremation at that operation. Because this deals with a very sensitive subject, it is quite natural that individuals would be concerned. In view of the manner of operation of Brookings Smith, in view of the fact that all of the environmental and aesthetic issues have been satisfied with the DEP and the City of Bangor, and in view of the fact that the Board does not carve up parcels of land as a stepping stone to future operations that may be less than desirable, he had no hesitation in supporting this application. He said that he felt that it will be done in good taste and that all concerns of neighboring properties and neighbors will be met whatever and whenever they may arise. Planning Officer Gould explained that the applicant, Brookings Smith Funeral Home is requesting a zone change from Urban Industry District to Government and Institutional Service District for 1.7 acres of a 29-acre parcel. It is located on the old portion of Hammond Street, As far back as the 1979 Comprehensive Plan this area has been designated for heavy commercial and industrial uses. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan envisions a split of approximately 500 feet back from Hammond Street for heavier commercial uses with industrial uses to the rear. Mr. Gould explained that existing uses in the immediate area are the mobilehome park, which is a nonconforming use, a number of older single-family homes that are along Hammond Street, large vacant acreages to the rear mostly zoned industrial, and the City’s 24 acre Pine Grove Cemetery which is approximately three quarters occupied with burial sites. The Government and Institutional Service District provides for cemetery use as a permitted use in the district but does not define specifically what a cemetery is. There was a great deal of discussion between the Planning Office, Code Enforcement Office and Legal Office as to whether crematorium was part of cemetery use. The Code Enforcement Office indicated that they had no concern relative to crematorium being accessory to a cemetery. As this developed and with the agreement between the City, Brookings Smith and Pine Grove Crematorium as the non-profit entity, it actually became two choices relative to the Government and Institutional Service District. The first being as a non profit entity and the second as a cemetery. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this use would fit in the current Urban Industry District zoning as it could be treated as any other commercial or industrial use without any change. It has been the applicant’s intent and as indicated by the agreement, the City sees this as an expansion of the Pine Grove Cemetery. Given the Planning Board’s 6 discussion in the Comprehensive Plan update to specifically identify cemeteries within the City as areas of G & ISD this is a logical expansion of a City cemetery. The other potential uses that could go in the existing District are all loosely regulated industrial operations. The Urban Industry District is one of the least restrictive districts in the City and does not require specific buffering, lot coverage, or impervious surface standards. Mr. Gould said that he did not feel that one could make the argument that this rezoning somehow is going intrude or interfere into the neighborhood and create some awkward, adverse impact. Those uses would potentially have more of an impact than the uses in the G & ISD. Given the Comprehensive Plan Update, the adjacency of this proposed request to the Pine Grove Cemetery, and the intent of the applicant to establish this is as a non-profit operation, the Planning Staff finds this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning policy and would recommend that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was troubled that the lot line did not go all the way down to Hammond Street and he was concerned about its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if this rezoning and this use might impact the Comprehensive Plan’s visions that this area be Urban Industry. Mr. Gould indicated that this is not a situation where the rezoning is going to cause the Board to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Spot zoning is a situation where it is providing a zoning district or uses to one property owner that you would not provide to other property owners in the same situation. If any of the property owners abutting Pine Grove Cemetery made the same request, Staff would come to the same conclusion that they are eligible for G & ISD zoning. It is not uncharacteristic to say that that is a flexibility that the Comp Plan can allow. Had there been single-family residential zoning next door the resulting decision could be different. Given all of the things that have been put together, the agreement with the City, and the fact that it will be a non-profit operation expansion of the Pine Grove Cemetery, Staff felt that it was completely consistent. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the potential effect on development in the surrounding area. Mr. Gould noted that industrial use in this area has been the City’s plan for 30 years or more. This is an area that has not seen a lot of development pressure to date. There is property out there known as the Hirshorn Property which the City has acquired for a new industrial park for industrial expansion. As other areas get developed, this area will see more development. However, the properties have been held by a small number of property owners who have existing residences there that date back to before the Airport was expanded. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the buffer requirements in the industrial area abutting this crematorium are. Mr. Gould said that it would be minimal as the Urban Industry District has little or no heavy restrictions. It was originally created to deal with old, nonconforming industrial uses that were in downtown Bangor and on the waterfront. There being no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council adoption of the change from UID to G & ISD at 1379 Hammond Street for the applicant, Brookings-Smith Funeral Home as indicated in C.O. # 06-260. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Minutes of the Meetings of June 6, 2006, June 20, 2006 and July 5, 2006 were in order for approval. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Minutes of the June 6, 2006, June 20, 2006 and July 5, 2006 Meetings. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 5: Planning Board Discussion of future Ordinance Amendments, Comprehensive Plan Priorities, and City Council Coordination. Planning Officer Gould updated the Board on the progress on the Comprehensive Plan Update noting that it was referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (TIC) who had nothing but good things to say about the hard work of the Planning Board and that the City Council has subsequently adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update. Mr. Gould noted that at the TIC meeting there was a good discussion as to the potential and the interest of the City Council in working with the Planning Board to deal with some of the bigger planning issues such as sidewalks, traffic and things that are not simple ordinance amendments but bigger policy issues. Mr. Gould discussed the list he created in early May of ten items that he felt that the Board should consider reviewing and possibly updating. The items deal with industrial districts, buffer standards, parking lot design standards, and drive-thru uses. Requirements for streets, sidewalks, and open space are other issues that need to be addressed. Another issue is that of conditional uses. There are instances where one can bring to the Board a building that is 200,000 sq. ft. that is a permitted use. If they add a drive-up window, it then becomes a conditional use and then there are other standards that come into consideration. Whether that always makes sense is something the Board should look at in terms of what things require a public hearing and what things do not. Mr. Gould indicated that another item on the list is flag lots. The Land Development Code that talks about the parameters which one must meet to get a flag lot approved but then it needs Planning Board approval. Because there is little if no wiggle room, there basically is no decision for the Board to make in this review. Another concern is allowing someone to create a flag lot on a new street in a new subdivision because a flag lot is a situation where someone on request and upon approval by the Planning Board, can create a lot with less than the standard frontage. Mr. Gould discussed the Site Location of Development Act processing procedure noting that the City has delegated authority form the State of Maine to review Site Location of Development Act applications for the State. Since the City has been doing this (1989) the process has operated as a separate, independent function thus requiring two votes. Mr. Gould 8 indicated that he was not sure that this was the intent of the State of Maine to have this duplicative process. He noted that there are rules in the Land Development Code for minor revisions but there are no provisions in the Site Location of Development requirements. This is another area that needs to be looked at to make sure that it is as efficient as possible. Another item on the list is that of the Bomarc Industrial Park. At one time this was a missile base with no other development in that area. In 1989 it was the City’s point of view to scale down and eventually eliminate Bomarc Industrial Park. Presently, there is a lot of residential activity occurring along Bomarc Road. Mr. Gould suggested that it would be timely to make plans to phase out Bomarc Industrial Park and to relocate the industries there to a better place and discourage new industrial uses. Mr. Gould discussed Mobilehome Parks noting that it was the theory in the 70’s and 80’s for mobilehome parks to be located at the outer edge of residential areas. In the Comprehensive Plan of the late 1980’s and the Zoning Ordinance of 1991 the City’s policy was to recognize them as high-density residential land uses. Most of the existing mobilehome parks were developed in the 1980’s in the Agricultural District and are now nonconforming uses. Because they are high density residential uses they should have access to water and sewer utilities and there should be some middle ground for those existing parks (which were made nonconforming) to expand or enlarge. Chairman Guerette then opened the floor for discussion. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he would like to bring the Board’s By-Laws back on the “to-do” list. He also indicated that he felt that it was important to review conditional uses and it would also be useful to look at site plan standards at the same time. He noted that the three big items that citizens wanted the Board to consider at the time the Comprehensive Plan Update was reviewed, were open space, traffic, and a pedestrian, trail or bike system. While the Planning Board cannot exclusively deal with these issues he asked if they were being considered by the City. Mr. Gould indicated that the only issue that he is aware of is the on-going effort for a trail system. There have been groups that have been actively soliciting citizen input about trails. As discussed at a recent Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting, the thought was that there needs to be a group that is bigger than the Planning Office and the Planning Board of, perhaps, representatives of different users such as Parks and Recreation, any snowmobiling interests, horseback riding interests, etc. They all need to be brought together. Mr. Theeman noted Councilor’s Stone request that all new subdivisions have sidewalks. Mr. Gould indicated that the discussion that the City require that all new subdivisions provide sidewalks was initiated by Councilor Stone to get that discussion rolling. Chairman Guerette noted the draft of By-Law changes should be a priority as this is the governing language for the operations of the Board. Mr. Wheeler indicated that there is a need for clarification of terminology which he had been working on. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would not oppose consultation and more frequent communication with the City Council regarding certain issues such as the Land Development Code. However, they should keep in mind that while the Planning Board is a creature of the 9 Council, they are not an adjunct of it. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that the basic principal of separation of power is very important and that the Planning Board needs to be very alert to any possible danger of seeking Council advice on issues pertaining to this subject that may come before them. It is part of the checks and balances system. He asked the Planning Officer if he had any recommended language to address this list of ten issues that should be reviewed and updated as he wished to hear from the Staff before he heard from the Board. He said that the Board’s purpose is oversight and guardianship of the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan not initiation of ordinances or standards. He said that the Board needed to be careful about those two issues. Mr. Gould indicated that he wanted to make sure that if there is any other topic that he has not covered that should be covered that it be added to the list. Ms. Mitchell asked if Mr. Gould’s list came out of the Implementation Plan and if the Board went through and prioritized these issues. Mr. Gould indicated that the list did not and the Board did not prioritize these issues. The next item discussed was the definitions of townhouses and multi-family apartments. Mr. Gould indicated that the proposed terms that are used in the residential districts are not defined. As an example, in the High Density Residential townhouse complexes and multi-family apartments have different densities and development standards but no where in the Land Development Code does it explain which is which. Mr. Gould felt that if they are going to have different densities and development standards they should have different definitions. In regard to zero lot lines, Mr. Gould indicated that in the late 1980’s when the Comprehensive Plan was updated the concept of zero lot line was added as a unique way to do development. However, no one has ever done a zero lot line development. The idea is if you have limited amount of land and instead of putting your house in the middle of your narrow lot you place it to one side creating a more usable space on your lot. This needs to be defined. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the difference is between a townhouse complex and attached residential. Mr. Gould indicated that typically townhouses are two story buildings. Mr. Rosenblatt asked why is there a need to have a concept of townhouse when there is a definition for attached residential. Mr. Gould indicated that townhouse use is listed as a use with separate densities and development standards than that of attached residential. Mr. Wheeler said that the issue was the number of stories. There are a number of one story attached residential units that are not townhouses. Mr. Gould said that the Land Development Code provides for the use of townhouse development but it does not tell you what it is. Mr. Theeman felt that this should be simplified. Mr. Barnes suggested that they strike out “55 or receiving disability” from the proposed definition. Mr. Wheeler said that he did not see how the two terms multi-family housing and townhouses could be combined. Mr. Gould said that the feeling is to keep townhouse and define it as two-story building because this is the common perception of what a townhouse is. 10 It was the feeling of the Board that it ask Mr. Gould to do more research on the townhouse definition and come up with some language that the Board would like to see again for review. th Chairman Guerette noted a letter of May 9 from Community and Economic Development was forwarded to the Board. Mr. Gould noted that there were questions raised by Board Members when the Technology and Service District was before them as to who developed this language and how it compares to the old language. This Letter from Rod McKay, the Community and Economic Development Director was provided to the Business and Economic Development Committee to explain the two different districts. Staff felt it was appropriate that it be provided to the Board. The letter also talks about the private covenants in the Maine Business Enterprise Park. While not part of the Land Development Code they are part of what Economic Development is doing relative to uses in the Maine Business Enterprise Park. Mr. Theeman asked if the Technology and Service District has been created. Mr. Gould indicated that is has been created but it has not been placed on the ground in any location and this gives the Board an opportunity to do some fine tuning to the District before it has any impact. Chairman. Guerette said that the Declarations of Covenants Conditions and Restrictions creates a body of standards in the Maine Business Enterprise Park that really apply to the Technology and Service District. In his opinion, he felt that these standards should be part of the Land Development Code under the Technology and Service District. He said that to have a district that refers to another body for guidance is confusing. Mr. Gould indicated that this has been the case since 1991 when the park was created. A number of the City’s industrial parks have private covenants. Ms. Brown asked where they fit with site plan review. Mr. Gould indicated that they are totally unregulated by the Land Development Code, they are separate private covenants, and there is a Design Review Committee which is made up of the Planning Officer, the Economic and Community Development Director and the City Engineer that separately review facades and design of businesses that go into the Maine Business Enterprise Park. Ms. Brown asked if they adhered to the requirements of site plan review. Mr. Gould noted that some elements of the covenants are more restrictive than the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he highly supported the recommendation that the Bomarc Industrial Park be gradually eliminated as it is not an asset to the City, and those tenants could be much better served and do better business in a more appropriate location. Mr. Gould asked the Board to look over the new definitions. Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that Staff should identify the major areas that need to be addressed and the Board could help prioritize the list. As there were no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.