Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-05 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JULY 5, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler Nathaniel Rosenblatt 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. In the absence of Board Members Clark and Theeman, Associate Members Mitchell and Brown were asked to vote. 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. Wheeler seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval for reconstruction of a gasoline island canopy and site improvements at 395 Main Street in an Urban Service District. Dead River Petroleum Company, applicant. Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan approval of revisions to existing lot lines within the Fairways Subdivision located at 47 and 51 Fairways. Michael and Joan Roberts and James and Anne Wholly, applicants. Item No. 3: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act Modification approvals to expand two parking lots located at 1 College Circle in a Government and Institutional Service District. Husson College, applicant. 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 4 To amend the Land Development Code by changing six parcels of land located at 251 Union Street and 7, 8, 12, 14, and 16 Union Place from Urban Residence Two District to Contract Multi-Family and Service District. Said parcels containing approximately .832 acres. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-246. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Planning Officer Gould explained that this is an application to rezone six parcels of land from Urban Residence Two District to Multi-Family and Service District with specific contract zone change conditions. The proposed conditions limit the uses to those that are permitted within the Multi-family and Service District, contain specific density standards, and limit no more than six units in any individual building. The Board may recall that in 1999 Rite Aid proposed to develop this as a commercial site. At that time, there was concern with the condition of buildings and properties in the Union Place area. The commercial request was not adopted, the City went in and acquired multiple buildings, tore down and relocated residents, and then sent out an RFP looking for proposals to redevelop the property. There was a request by the City to put all of the properties within the same URD-2 District so that it would be a uniform zoning district for which to seek development proposals. There also was a development proposal that included a mixed use of commercial and residential uses that was supported by the Board but the development agreement fell through and was never constructed. At this point in time, the City has entertained proposals again and has a proposal that will require that there be more than four units in any individual building. This requires a zone change from URD-2 to Multi-Family and Service District. Mr. Gould indicated that the proposed contract zone change conditions will maintain the density at more of a URD-2 density level. Chairman Guerette asked if this proposed zone change would create any nonconforming properties. Mr. Gould explained that the City looks at this as a unified piece so it will conform to the standards. While there are adjacent nonconformities around this parcel but relative to the rezoning, it does not create a nonconformity. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what exists on the properties and if the primary impact between the two districts is that under Multi-family and Service District the density would be higher as it would allow six units per building as opposed to four per building. Mr. Gould indicated that presently there is only one building on the property which is a four-unit building located on the corner of Union Place and Union Street. In answer to the impact between the two districts Mr. Gould said that the Multi-family and Service District (M & SD) allows for more than six units per building. There are two details that are important, one is that there is a minimum lot width standard that changes from URD-2 to M & SD, and for each building you have to have the minimum lot width. In URD-2 the ability to do multiple splits of the property is limited. The contract conditions allow the City to maintain a density that is more of a middle density than a high density. One of the development objectives of Community Development is to lower the density of Union Place. Mr. Rosenblatt said that lot sizes and the setbacks appear to be smaller in the M & SD. Mr. Gould pointed out that the M & SD is intended for slightly high densities. While it would not be allowed here because of the contract conditions it does open the door to office uses and other 3 conditional uses. The Community Development Staff is only interested in provided housing at this site. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for opponents. As no one spoke in opposition, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the Board Members if they had any questions. Planning Officer Gould added that this is an area that the Board looked at in the Comprehensive Plan Update. There was support on the part of the Board, and it was reflected in the Comprehensive Plan Update, for the potential for mixed uses in this area. While not in this proposal, there may be other property owners in the area that are still thinking mixed use. The Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Policy and Zoning Policy do support this change so it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code set forth in C.O. # 06-246 relating to a contract zone change at 251 Union Street and 7, 8, 12, 14, and 16 Union Place from an Urban Residence Two District to a Contract Multi-Family and Service District. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and it passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 6: Final Subdivision Plan approval of a 7-lot, commercial subdivision located at 1387-1495 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Judson M. Grant, Jr., applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Ms. Shelly Lizotte, Ames A/E, Vinal Applebee, Vice President of Ames A/E, and Michael Longo representing Judson M. Grant, were present in support of this application. Ms. Lizotte indicated that the applicant was requesting Final Subdivision Plan approval for a 7-lot commercial subdivision. This plan received Preliminary Plan approval on April 18, 2006 and following that several meetings were held with the Planning Division Staff and Jim Ring, City Engineer, to iron out some of the concerns. Ms. Lizotte said that they feel that the Final Subdivision Plan, as submitted, meets all of the concerns of Staff. Since the time of preliminary plan approval, one change made to the plan includes the elimination of a new pump station as they plan to use the existing pump station located off Lot 1. Ms. Lizotte indicted that they will be able to serve all seven lots with that existing pump station by running everything to it by gravity. The other change is to shorten the proposed road, at the request of the Planning Staff. Ms. Lizotte noted that the applicant has submitted a Site Location of Development Modification to the Department of Environmental Protection because it is part of an existing Site License. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that Staff suggested to the Board that they condition approval on two things – first that suitable improvement guarantees are filed and second that deeds for lots in the subdivision include specific language stating the grantees responsibility with respect to the operation and maintenance of the private pump station and the force main sewer system. He asked if the applicant had any problems with those conditions. Ms. Lizotte indicated that the 4 applicant was agreeable to this. Mr. Longo indicated that they do have one lot committed in this subdivision. Grant Trailer Sales will take on the responsibility of the pump station and as the lots are all sold they will have an agreement between all of the lot owners, if this is acceptable to the Planning Division. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the suggestion to the Board was that the deeds for the lots in the subdivision include language stating that it would be the responsibility on the part of the party who acquires the property. Mr. Longo indicated that that was fine but as a practical matter Grant Trailer Sales will maintain the pump station and this can be worked out amongst the various buyers of the lots. Ms. Lizotte indicated that there is a note on the Final Plan that states that there will be wording included in the deed. This language has been reviewed by the Planning and Legal Staff and everyone is in agreement. Ms. Brown asked why the driveways were not put on the lot line. Ms. Lizotte indicated that one reason is for simplicity in dealing with having the entire easement on one property and having the rights to the neighbor to go onto that property. Another reason is to provide adequate distances between the entrances so that they are not right next to each other. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould explained that this is an application for Final Subdivision Plan approval for a 7-lot, 14.8 acre commercial subdivision on Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. This was previously before the Board and at the time of Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval, there were a number of issues discussed relative to roadway access, sewer access, the proposed new roadway, and some traffic issues. Staff is comfortable with the fact that this is a 7-lot commercial subdivision has only three access points for traffic on Broadway. This is directly in line with the City’s access management policy. There is a fairly significant wetland area that straddles both this development and the Judson Heights residential subdivision expansion and the developer has set aside a large portion of this as a permanent open space to maintain a buffer or separation between the commercial and residential developments. There is a short segment of new commercial roadway which is an 80 foot right-of-way and is proposed to be extended into the residential subdivision. The layout of it provides for one common access way to serve the back three lots. The City’s policy relative to pump stations requires that they be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners association or some other means. In this instance, Staff is happy with language being put into the deeds of the lot buyers. While this subdivider is in front of the Board today, years down the road that entity may sell off the whole subdivision. There needs to be some permanence and some notification to the lot buyers that when they buy one of these lots that the City is not going to maintain the pump station and that the lot owners are responsible for that upkeep and maintenance. Mr. Gould indicated that this application will need to go before DEP for a Site Location of Development Modification. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff feels that all of the other details are in order and recommended that the Board grant the applicant Final Subdivision approval with two conditions: 1) that deeds for the proposed lots include specific language as to the responsibility towards the operation and maintenance of the private pump station; and 2) that a suitable improvement guarantee be provided to the City within 120 days of this approval. 5 Mr. Wheeler asked if in view of the applicant’s statement that he will assume the cost of the operation and maintenance of the pump station and the force main sewer system, if at some time in the future what effect would such a change in ownership possibly have legally on existing deeds and could those then be nullified or subjected to a later change. Mr. Wheeler asked if the present developer is willing to assume the full cost, if a condition was really necessary except as a safety or a precautionary measure. Mr. Gould said that this condition is certainly a precautionary measure. What Staff is trying to make clear is that the improvements that are not going to be taken over by the City, and that there needs to be some means of permanence and some means of putting on notice to all of the buyers that there is a private pump station that will need to be maintained. Staff suggested it be done through the deeds as the property is conveyed. This puts each property owner on notice that they have a responsibility for the maintenance of the system. Who actually pays for it in the end can be their agreement. Staff wants to make it clear that it is not the City s responsibility. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Final Subdivision Plan approval for the proposed subdivision at 1387-1495 Broadway – Judson M. Grant, Jr., applicant, with the following two conditions: first, that a suitable improvement guarantee be provided to the City within 120 days from today; and, second, that deeds for lots in the subdivision include specific language stating the grantee’s responsibility with respect to the operation and maintenance of the private pump station and force main sewer system. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. There were members of the audience who asked if they could speak. Chairman Guerette explained as this was not a public hearing and proponents and opponents were not called upon to speak. However, when someone wants to make a statement during these non public hearings he usually recognizes them. Chairman Guerette explained that this previous item had already been approved and any comments they may wish to make would not influence their vote but that they could enter their comments into the record. Mr. Chris Vafiades, 136 LaSalle Drive, indicated that he had no knowledge about the proposed retail establishments or other commercial establishments potentially going in here when he bought his property. He expressed his concern about the effect this could have on the aesthetic value of the homes looking out over Broadway. He asked how much of a buffer zone is really going to be set apart and will there be a tree line or other type of buffer device that would enhance the property. Chairman Guerette suggested that Mr. Vafiades might want to talk to the applicant personally. Mr. Paul Jacobs, 106 LaSalle Dive, said that Bangor has a huge vacancy of commercial property and he asked if this development would help the aesthetics or the quality of life for its citizens and visitors. Mr. Jacobs said that he felt that it would make Bangor look a little bit worse with more vacant buildings. He noted that like the other residents along LaSalle Drive they bought their properties with the understanding that there would be no development behind them because of the wetlands. He said that he felt that it was the seller’s Real Estate Agent’s responsibility to notify them of this. He did not know about the meeting when the preliminary plan was discussed and the first notification that he received about this was a note from the applicant indicated that there would be an application at the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. He expressed his concern about his property values five years from now. 6 Mr. Jacobs indicated that he had no problem with development on Lots 1 thru 5 and added that if it looks anything like Dr. Benson’s office it would be an attribute to the area. Mr. Jacobs discussed the wetlands saying that it is not a grassy area but a swamp with deer, beaver, muskrats, coyotes, and killdeer. He also noted that there was a snapping turtle laying eggs on his lawn. Because of this huge habitat of wildlife he questioned the development of Lots 6 and 7 as they abut the wetland. He also had a concern about runoff from salt and chemicals used to maintain the parking lot areas of this development as it will go down hill into the swamp. Mr. Jacobs felt that there needs to be a better buffer zone than what is being proposed. He said that when he bought his property he felt that he was doing the right thing for his family and bought it with the idea that they could sit out on their back porch and overlook the swamp. He said that this is a wonderful place to live and he did not see the purpose of building something that isn’t going to be filled. He said that he did respect the Board for looking at what is going in there and making sure it is something that is useful and something of quality to the residents of Bangor but if this is going to be just another strip mall it would be damaging to the City. Mr. Jacobs presented photographs of the wetland area to the Board. Chairman Guerette thanked Mr. Jacobs for the photographs. He explained that the land that borders Broadway has been zoned for commercial uses for many years and has been supported by the Comprehensive Plan. He said that it is unfortunate that he had no knowledge that this was zoned commercially and that the Board hopes that they will be developed as to the same caliber as those existing commercial establishments on Broadway but, the Board does not have that type of control. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that there is 200 feet to 250 feet of width between the buffer and the land behind the lots to the wetland. He noted that this application is for a subdivision of land only, and that the Board and the public will have another opportunity to comment on and review any development that goes on there through the site plan process which is reviewed for the specific building proposals. Mr. Jacobs asked if they would have an opportunity to speak at that time. Chairman Guerette explained that as each of these lots gets developed there will be an approval process. He suggested that Mr. Jacobs check the Planning Division’s website, give the Planning Division a call, check out the news, or talk with Mr. Grant to find out when these lots are going to be developed so that he can have the appropriate voice in those issues. Ms. Brown commented that in the site review process the Board and Staff will be looking at stormwater management. The State of Maine as well as Bangor has some fairly stringent regulations regarding what they can do to that swamp and given the Board’s past history they are looking at preserving wetlands and not destroying them. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that these comments are after the fact and he thought that the suggestion has already been made that as individual developments occur abutting neighbors will have the opportunity to make their comments known. He indicated that he felt that the Board should move on rather than engage in a discussion that is fruitless at this point because the vote has been taken. 7 Chairman Guerette said that he understood that the vote has been taken but in light of the fact that some of these individuals did not know there was an opportunity to raise a comment while the developer was here he was interested in making sure their questions were answered. Item No. 7: Final Subdivision Plan approval of a 29-lot subdivision located at 2730 Broadway in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Vaughn Smith, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Vaughn Smith, 54 Pine Ledge Road, indicated that he had received Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval from the Board. At that time, the Board made suggestions to the preliminary plan and Mr. Smith felt that the Final Subdivision Plan submittals satisfied all of the items that were requested by the Board. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Final Subdivision Plan approval for a 29-lot subdivision, Elden Heights, located in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. This project was previously approved by the DEP under Site Location of Development Act which consisted of both Phase I and Phase II. Phase II is what is under consideration. This applicant received preliminary plan approval on June 6, 2006 and at that time there were a number of issues raised relative to identification of the abutting industrial parcels, maintaining a vegetative buffer on those lots that do abut the industrial districts, the limitation or clarification that two of the lots would not have direct access to Broadway, and a location for the septic system for Lot 14. The applicant has addressed all of these issues. This development is approximately 83 acres and 6.19 acres are proposed for open space which is more than the required 5% minimum. There are some wetland impacts and the applicant has obtained an NRPA Tier II Permit for these. Some of the lots utilize a shared driveway to minimize wetland impacts which is something that the City encourages everyone to do. All of the essential details are in order except for the standard condition for approval relative to the submission of suitable improvements guarantee within 120 days of approval. Mr. Gould pointed out that there was some discussion back in June regarding the value and importance to the residential property owners to maintain good buffers where there are conflicting land uses. In the previous discussion (Item No. 6, above) the commercial zoning was in place prior to the residential development. This is a situation where residential houses get built and the residents come back and ask why there isn’t more of a buffer between our property and the pre-existing commercial zone. What Staff is trying to do in this case is to be proactive. Ms. Brown felt that the note that indicates that Lots 1 and 2 must be accessed from Hornbeam Way is not the same as requiring that they do not or cannot at some time get access from Broadway. She felt that it was the Board’s intent that there be no access from Broadway and the language as proposed would be a difficult to uphold. Mr. Smith indicated that because Broadway is a State highway he did not believe that the State DOT would ever entertain a driveway permit for either Lots 1 or 2 because that would be access to Broadway. Ms. Brown indicated that she would like to see on the Plan that Lots 1 and 2 have no access from Broadway. Mr. Smith said that if you put no access from Broadway that means that no one can walk onto the site from Broadway. If the language said no driveway to Broadway he would have no issue with that. 8 Ms. Brown moved to approve the Final Subdivision Plan for 2730 Broadway for Vaughn Smith, applicant, with the condition that on the Final Plan it be noted that there will be no driveway access to Broadway for Lots 1 and 2 and that the applicant provide the City with a suitable improvement guarantee within 120 days of approval. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. Item No. 8: Site Development Plan Revision approval for construction of four, 6-unit apartment buildings, two, 2-unit apartment buildings, and a community center located at 222V Griffin Road in a High Density Residential District. Penquis CAP, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to make their presentation. Mr. Randy Bragg of Carpenter Associates and representing the applicant explained that the Board reviewed and approved this plan last November. They were back before the Board with a few revisions that include replacing two of the approved units with two handicap units, eliminating 10 parking spaces, and rearranging and regraded slightly the detention ponds (primarily due to the new stormwater rules that they have been working on with the Department of Environmental Protection). A couple of minor changes, due to the handicap units, were to add some walkways to the units and to add ramps. The building envelope has slight changes because they relocated the boiler rooms within the building envelope thus increasing the building size of the entire project by 230 sq. ft. To facilitate snow removal they replaced the guardrail at the bottom of the turnaround with large boulders. They also removed a retaining wall behind Building # 7 and they are proposing a “C4” Buffer in its place. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were any changes proposed down toward the stream. Mr. Bragg explained that the only modification was that previously they had a note on the approved Plan stating that they would bore the sewer line or use another method approved by the City Engineer. They now propose that the sewer line will be bored so as not to disturb the Resource Protection Zone. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this a straight forward plan. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would have approved a large number of these details as a Minor Site Plan Revision which is done in-house, but because they are proposing to eliminate parking spaces, they not longer qualified for that permitting process and the only avenue they had to receive approval of their amended plan was to come back to the Board. The number of units, the layout of the site is virtually identical to the originally approved plan. Mr. Gould also indicated that project was a conditional use relative to this type of project in this District. Given that the nature of the project has not changed, the number of units has not changed, nor have the elevations of the building changed from what the Board approved before, Staff is comfortable in bringing to the Board this amended site plan. Mr. Gould indicated that there was language initially on the plan saying that the sewer would be bored under the Stream or other method. Staff is uncomfortable with what “or other method” might be and feels that if the original concept was that they could bore the sewer under the Stream to avoid any kind of open cut in the Resource Protection, then that would be a better way to handle this. Mr. Gould noted that all of the details of the amended plan are in order and Staff is comfortable with the submittals. As with the original approval there were two conditions: 1) that the applicant obtain a Stormwater Permit from the Maine 9 Department of Environmental Protection; and 2) that the proposed public sewer be made via an underground boring method. Staff recommend approval with these conditions. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant approval of the proposed revision to the Site Development Plan for the project at 222V Griffin Road – Penquis CAP, applicant, on the following two conditions: 1) that the applicant obtain a Stormwater Permit from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and 2) that the proposed public sewer connection be made using an underground boring method. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the April 18, 2006 and May 16, 2006 Meetings were ready for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved approval of both sets of Minutes. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Guerette noted that the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update was before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (TIC) of the City Council at a meeting prior to the Board’s meeting. The Plan Update received some very favorable comments along with a unanimous motion to bring it before the City Council for approval at the Council's next meeting on Monday evening, July 10th. He encouraged any Planning Board Member who wished, to attend and show support for the Update. He noted that that meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Gould indicated that at that TIC Committee meeting there was discussion as to where the Comprehensive Plan Update goes from here after it is adopted. There was discussion of the implementation plan and for setting out priorities. Mr. Gould noted that previously Staff distributed to the Board a list of Land Development Code amendment items that he felt ought to be on the Agenda. Subsequent to that, some housing definitions were also distributed. At the Board’s last meeting, there was a great deal of discussion about the proposed Technology and Service District and Staff provided the Board with some back-up information from the Economic Development Office, as well as, some proposed definitions that might suit the Board’s needs. Mr. Gould encouraged the Board Members to provide feedback and suggested that, if the Board would like to have discussion of those items as an Agenda Item, he would add it to the Agenda. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.