Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-06 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Alice 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. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove any of the items for discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 4,300-square-foot, 14-space parking lot in a Government and Institutional Service District at 58 Court Street. Bangor Y, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Location of Development Modification approval for a vegetated buffer and changes to the stormwater management system. Husson College, applicant. Item No. 3: Site Location of Development Modification and Site Development Plan approvals for a 4,539 square-foot addition to Peabody Hall and related site improvements. Husson College, applicant. 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 4: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval to construct a 6,058 square foot building for use as a credit union with a drive-thru use located at 671 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Maine Savings Federal Credit Union, applicant. Chairman Guerette indicated that this Public Hearing was opened and continued at the th Board’s May 16 Meeting. Because the application was not ready for consideration by the Board, he asked for a motion to continue. Mr. Theeman moved to continue this item. The motion was seconded and it passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Item No. 5: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval for a quarry and earthmoving activities in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District at 1545 Union Street. Harvey Sprague, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Jim Tower, P.E., of Engineering Dynamics represented the applicant. Mr. Tower explained that for many years there has been an existing but inactive quarry at this location and the materials taken from here were used to help construct the Airport runway when Dow Air Force Base was constructed. This application seeks to expand that quarry by about 5 ¼ acres to the same depth that the original quarry was excavated. The existing quarry has been backfilled with 7 or 8 feet of common fill that has been brought in from other jobs, and it is the intent that once the quarry has reached its limit, 6 to 8 feet of fill will be brought back and put in the bottom of the quarry. The applicant is proposing a fence around the quarry to prevent the inadvertent entry of small animals and wayward people on snow sleds or four wheelers, etc. Mr. Tower indicated that this site is also subject to the Department of Environmental Protection’s quarry mining requirements and those applications have been sent and abutters have been notified in that process. The actual permit is not yet in hand but it is anticipated within a few days. Mr. Guerette asked what it will sound and feel like to be a neighbor to a quarry and what kind of activity will be going on there during what hours, any blasting activity, and creation of dust, noise, or vehicular traffic. Mr. Tower indicated that there will be blasting but it will not be a daily event. It will be used in sequentially detonated charges over a period of time so that the neighboring properties are not damaged (for example, a three second delay between the detonation of charges for every blasting event so the blasting may last 15 seconds). This approach to blasting will minimize peak particle acceleration which is the force which can cause structural damage. Each home in the vicinity will be subject to a pre-blast inspection, if the homeowner will accept that, and under that procedure chimneys and foundations are videotaped from the inside and the outside to document any structural damage that may occur prior to that. A blast monitoring device which measures sound pressure level and peak particle velocity in three dimensions will be placed adjacent to the foundation of the closest structure in the area. Any 3 crushing operation requires an air emissions license from the Department of Environmental Protection so if there is any dust that is generated in the crushing or screening operation it does has to be subdued and mitigated by a spraying mechanism that coats all of the aggregate and prevents fugitive dust from escaping. They estimate that during the busiest times that there will be 5 to 10 loaded trucks coming and going from this site at any given time. Mr. Tower explained that the volume of traffic anticipated from this development is considerably below the City’s standard and the standards of the Maine Traffic Low. The applicant proposes a 100’ long crushed aggregate surface on the driveway entering and leaving this site adjacent to Union Street and that will be for the purpose of cleaning the truck tires before they get on Union Street so that that trucks won’t drag mud as they accelerate. Mr. Guerette asked if there will be a subterranean excavation, if it will create a hole in the ground or if it will all be above ground level. Mr. Tower indicated that it will be below the surface that exists now because of the 7 or 8 feet of materials that have been back filled on top of the floor of the existing quarry. As such, there will be a cavity 7 or 8 feet deep as the quarry goes down to match that existing elevation. If that fill were not there, then the bedrock elevation would come to the surface elsewhere on the property. Ms. Brown asked Mr. Tower if there would be a six foot pond. Mr. Tower indicated that she was correct but that the contours were based on aerial photography flown. When you look at this general area this is virtually at the top of a hill and at the top of a watershed. This means that you won’t have a lot of water that drains from uphill and keep the area wet for a long time. After the initial spring event, the ground water table subsides fairly rapidly. They won’t be trying to pump water but will wait for the spring water table to subside. Then they will be able to go in and work on a dry floor. Ms. Brown asked if they were going to do any activity as long there is ground water evident on the surface, what the hours of operation would be, and the amount of truck traffic entering and exiting the site. Ms. Brown also asked how iron clad the proposed 10 truck estimate is and what would prevent them from adding more. Mr. Tower indicated that City Enforcement would limit them and if the traffic volume is greater than they believe it to be, they will need to come back to the Board seeking an amendment to a permit for increased traffic and if that increased traffic exceeds the City’s thresholds or the State’s Traffic Law threshold, additional permits will be required. Ms. Brown expressed her concern about the proposed Saturday operation as this site abuts a residential development because of the noise and asked if there would be some flexibility. Mr. Tower said that the hours chosen that they thought would be broad enough to allow a reasonable operation of a quarry. The walls of this quarrying operation are going to screen all of the closest neighbors by having a vertical wall that is going to tend to reflect sound away. Mr. Clark asked where the trucks would be taking this material. With fuel prices on the increase that certainly swings the weighted economic assessment of how to haul something in favor of a shorter distance and this favors on-site aggregate production. It is anticipated that this material will be used for projects within the City. Mr. Clark asked if they anticipated going a full five years or less. Mr. Tower indicated that it would probably 2 to 3 years. They are looking at 275,000-300,000 yards which is small by most quarrying standards. 4 Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had concerns about whether the use that is being proposed is seriously detrimental to the neighborhood. He asked how often they would be blasting, what would happen after blasting it appears that there has been some damage to a residence, and how close is the nearest residence. Mr. Tower indicated that this is a very difficult question because they don’t know who will be the company that will actually do the blasting so the frequency of blasting is going to be dependent upon their rate of use. He did not think it would occur on a daily basis and added that a blasting company has to carry a liability insurance policy that will cover any such damage. The cost of blasting insurance premiums, if there is damage, will increase accordingly so blasters are extremely cautious about setting off any charges that come close to the peak particle velocity standards. The nearest residence would be at least 200 feet. Mr. Wheeler asked what the typical level of decibel units would be for the blasting activity and what kind of explosives would be used. Mr. Tower indicated that he would expect that the blast would be over 100 decibels. In the noise permit applications that they have participated in blasting, because of the fact that it is not a regularly occurring event, is an incidental event and is not monitored and held to the same hourly working standard that a crusher or a front end loader would be held to. He did not have an answer for the types of explosives to be used. Ms. Brown asked if the explosives would be stored on-site. Mr. Tower indicated that by Law they are required to be stored in a remote location in a locked magazine and only brought to the site for each blasting event. They have no intention to have a locked magazine on-site. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for comments from opponents. Florence Connolly, 1517 Union Street, had concerns about whether or not there would be more truck traffic and how long this will go on. She said that there are trucks going in and out of there all day now. No one else spoke and Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould explained that this application is for a Conditional Use and Site Development Plan for a quarry located at 1545 Union Street in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. He noted that the Rural Residence and Agricultural District is the only district within the City that a quarry operation can take place. This location is in a developing area of the City where the a rural district abuts some of the developed urban districts on Ohio Street and Union Street. This is a fairly significant size parcel of 59 acres of which was an existing quarry. Some Board Members may recall that there was a request for a fill and grade permit some years ago for material that came out of an Air Guard project looking for a close place to dispose of excess materials. The extent of the new quarrying activity is about 5 ¼ acres of area where they would go into the existing rock and blast out that material. There are a few places within the Land Development Code that discuss guidelines for quarrying. He noted that the much of the information that Staff provided to the Board was from the State guidelines that have more regulations for quarrying than the City’s Land Development Code does. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant has offered to stay 100 feet away from adjacent properties and in many instances 5 the distance is greater than that. Within that 100 foot setback, 75 feet of that which is presently vegetated would remain. This means that 25 feet of the 100 foot setback might get a loss of its vegetation relative to the operation. Their application proposes to save 75 feet within that 100 foot setback. Mr. Gould indicated that traffic levels from this operation is not a high number. It will be a busy site, but in terms of generation the MODT High Level standard is 100 trips and the City’s standard is 35 trips. The applicant is projecting 20 or below when equated to a passenger car equivalency. Staff asked for information regarding how the applicant proposes to secure this operation so that people won’t wander through there and fall into the excavation. Mr. Gould said that the applicant is proposing fencing to deal with this. Planning Officer Gould indicated that there was discussion about the groundwater issues and Mr. Ring reviewed this and was not concerned that that was going to be long-term problem. Mr. Gould discussed the standardized construction entrance, erosion control which provides an area for the mud on the truck tires to have a path to run out over gravel so that it will not track onto the nearby roadways. Mr. Gould indicated that the City has its own Blasting Ordinance in which anyone within the City, whether a quarry operation or doing a sewer project or a construction project, that needs to blast has to obtain a Blasting Permit from the City Engineer’s Office. The insurance regulations that deal with blasting and the provision of liability insurance is what motivates the blasters to do the pre-blast inspections and this is all part of limiting the liability such that people cannot make claims afterwards that cannot be substantiated. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff is confident that this application meets all of the guidelines that the City has relative to conditional use and site development plan approvals. Staff suggested that if the Board is comfortable that this is not seriously detrimental to the neighborhood, that the Board grant the application with the condition that the applicant get a Blasting Permit prior to any blasting activity. Mr. Wheeler asked if it is already a requirement that they need to obtain a Blasting permit why the Board would need to attach this as a condition. Mr. Gould indicated that it is similar to what would be done if someone needs an MDOT Traffic Permit. It would be some additional assurance that that step does not get over looked in the multitude of different permitting agencies. It is required anyway but puts the applicant on notice through this approval that we do have that standard and it is required. Mr. Theeman asked why Staff said that this “generally” meets the requirement. Mr. Gould explained that Staff was not adamant about this initially because at the time the Staff Memorandum was written there were still were a number of issues that the City Engineer was looking for feedback on. Mr. Ring indicated that those issues involved the water level elevation, peak hour traffic generation, anticipated duration of the operation, the amount of material and volume per truck, security around the area, and on a non-paved road that potentially could track a lot of material out onto Union Street. Since the time of the Staff Memorandum, the applicant’s engineer provided updated information addressing his concerns. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the noise level requirements of DEP and if any information had been received from Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the Historic Preservation Commission or the Wildlife Conservation Commission as Staff indicated that typically people will write for a response 6 from those agencies. Staff was not aware of any significant wildlife areas or historic resources but suggested that the applicant ought to write to those agencies and see if there were any responses back. Mr. Tower said that it is routine on most projects that they write to the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife and the Dept. of Conservation where they keep a data base to identify areas that might be of concern to any of those agencies. Mr. Tower indicated that they did not do it early in the project because of its conspicuous past history. He noted that they have received some letters back he did not know if they had received letters from all three agencies. Mr. Theeman asked if the excavation was going to be contracted out to an outside group and should they assume that throughout the life of the operation that there will only be one subcontractor and thus only one permit required. Mr. Ring gave a brief overview of the blasting permit process noting that anyone who does blasting activity of any sort with in the City of Bangor is required to obtain a blasting permit from his office. The longest the permit can run for is for one year. Any new blasting contractor will need to get a different permit. The City has very specific requirements that he reviews very carefully as to the experience, as well as, the insurance that the blaster carries. In addition, the City cites both State DEP blasting regulations by reference as well as Federal Mine Safety blasting regulations. There are also specific requirements for notification and performance. Mr. Ring said that if these regulations are not adhered to, he has the right to rescind permits. Ms. Brown asked about the fill that was previously placed on the site and if the applicant is going to disturb this. Mr. Tower indicated that the crushing and screening operation will most likely be set up on top of that fill and blasted aggregate will be excavated and brought to the crusher. Mr. Gould added is that the most recent filling and grading permitting that the Board did was material that came out of an Air National Guard project across the street where they had excess material. In terms of material transportation costs the closest place you can get rid of it is where you want to do this. They had an old quarry, an old hole in the ground that they could fill up so it was filled and graded. At that time it probably was not anticipated that they were going to be back to request approval to quarry here. Ms. Brown expressed her concern for the ground water table and noted that this is a requirement that the Board needs to consider. Mr. Tower said that he believed the fill materials to be mineral earth elements and did not think that there were any building material parts. Those are the materials that will be brought in from this point forward. As no one else had questions, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Conditional Use request for a quarry at 1545V Union Street currently zoned Rural Residence and Agriculture. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Wheeler moved to grant approval of the Site Development Plan for said quarry with the condition that the questions raised by and concerns expressed by the City Engineer be 7 satisfactorily met by the applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Wheeler if he would condition his approval to add in the absence of any objections from the Historic Preservation Commission, the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commission and the Conservation Commission. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would like to add that condition to his motion. The motion with the condition passed unanimously. Item No. 6: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for a 29-lot subdivision located at 2730 Broadway in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Vaughn Smith, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Jim Tower, representing the applicant, indicated that this is an application for Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for a 29-lot single-family residential subdivision in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. This subdivision is adjacent to the existing Pine Ledge II Subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board. Since that time the Department of Environmental Protection requirements for Site Location of Development Act Permit approval have been met for a total 135 acres. This subdivision consists of 83 acres and the applicant feels that they have met the open space requirements, the roadways have been designed to minimize grades and fit harmoniously with the land while at the same time minimizing the impact of wetlands that are on the site. 3 roads are proposed in the project, soil tests have been provided on each lot, and the subdivision will not be served by City water or sewer as it does not extend to this part of the City. Mr. Tower indicated that all permits including an NRPA have been obtained from both the DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Tower commented on the Staff recommendation and discussed the question of allowing driveways from Broadway. Mr. Tower indicated that MDOT would not grant an additional driveway entrance onto those lots from Broadway and it was the applicant’s intention that Lots 1 and 2 be accessed from the roadways in the subdivision. He noted that this will be a deed requirement or they would do whatever restriction that would please the Board. Mr. Tower indicated that the property does abut some commercial areas and the lots that do tend to be fairly large, deep lots. One of the Lots is proposed to have a repository for land clearing (stump dump) debris within the roadway right-of- way. There will be a mound on one of those lots and in all probability a wooded area to the rear of those lots. Mr. Clark asked which lots abut the industrial areas and if they were active sites. Mr. Tower pointed out those lots on a map and said that he did not think that there was activity on the industrial sites. Planning Officer Gould indicated that by the railroad bed is the operation of Bangor Metals which is a metal recycler. He did not believe that the larger lot to the south was developed or operating industrially. Mr. Theeman asked if the roadways are wider than the minimum required and if there are sidewalks adjacent to the roadways. Mr. Tower indicated that the primary roadway is going to have a 30 foot wide paved surface. No sidewalks are proposed but with those widths there is essentially a five foot wide paved shoulder on each side of a 10 foot travel lane. 8 Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the main access road (Hornbeam Way) is 30 feet of pavement width. This is consistent with what has been proposed on a number of subdivisions and is the trend that the City has encouraged. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the proposed lot that indicates two septic systems, one for itself and one with an easement to serve the abutting lot. Mr. Tower indicated that it is the applicant’s intent to address the issue of placing septic systems on the lot that they are going to serve. Ms. Brown noted that on Lot 16 the plan shows the septic system in the setback and asked if this acceptable and if it would be feasible for the developer to move this in case there is a mistake in construction and it is placed over onto Lot 14. Mr. Gould indicated that the setback standards apply to structures. Mr. Tower indicated that it could be moved and explained that the septic systems that are depicted on the drawings are generically sized at 20 feet x 60 feet. In all probability the system design, giving the very well drained soils on this site, is more likely to be in the range of 32 feet in length. If that actual design, when it is completed, is for a dimension that is smaller than that it will be constructed at a location that favors a greater separation from the property line. Mr. Brown noted that on Lots 11 and 13 there is a open space area that appears to be encumbered with a stormwater drainage easement and a stormwater quality buffer on it and asked if this is acceptable: Mr. Gould indicated that this is an ideal place for those features because if they are put in someone’s lots it is more likely that they are going to trampled on and cause problems. The common open area is not going to be developed so the likelihood that someone is going to get in and disturb what is a stormwater buffer strip is less. Mr. Vaughn Smith, the applicant, indicated that he wished to point out that for the size of this project the soils are so good that the DEP did not require any ponds. In other words there was no amount of water that required them to have a detention pond. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from opponents. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is an application for Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for the Elden Heights Subdivision which is really Phase II of the prior Ledgewood II Subdivision which abuts this and is located off of Ohio Street. The two developments merge with a common open space strip that runs in-between them. This subdivision consists of 83 acres and proposes a little over 6 acres of open space which is well above the 5% standard within the Land Development Code. The main roadway is off of Broadway. In the Rural Residence and Agricultural District minimum lots size is 1.5 acres with 200 feet of frontage at the setback line. The lots in this subdivision are closer to 2 acres in size with some even larger than 3 acres. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff has been working with this development for quite some time since the extension of Pine Ledge Subdivision. The applicant has received DEP approval and they are now coming before the City for Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval of the Elden Heights Subdivision. Mr. Gould indicated that one of the reasons why there are two septic systems on one lot is because the original concept included a flag lot which Staff was reluctant to recommend that the Board approve in a new subdivision development. They were able to go back and rework the 9 lotting to eliminate that flag lot but did not have time to readjust the septic systems. Relative to on-site waste disposal, the City’s standard is fairly simple and just requires feasibility on each and every lot that it will support on-site waste disposal. The City does not go into the specific of the design of a system or whether one could have a system off of their lot. In the past, there have been some issues where people didn’t want to provide us with soil test pit data and just gave us a letter to say that they met the standard. In this instance, it is very clear that they will be able to meet that on every lot and will provide that information prior to final plan review. Staff pointed out that they would not want individual lots to have direct access to a major arterial such as Broadway and this is an item that needs to get stated in the details of the final plan. Staff also noted that two sides of the subdivision abut industrial zoning districts, which is somewhat unusual in the rural area. The subdivision plan does not note that there is an industrial district next door. Staff feels that this is an appropriate notice to be on the plan for anyone buying a lot in this subdivision. Staff brought this to the Board’s attention as they have done in some other residential subdivisions as to whether there ought to be provision made within the residential development to maintain any vegetation against that industrial development. Mr. Gould indicated that the subdivision has obtained a Tier II Permit for less than one-half acre of wetland impact. Staff supports the design that includes the use of a shared driveway such that two lots will have a common access of a right-of-way to get to their upland building site which helps reduce the total amount of wetland that is impacted. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff recommended Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval which the conditions relative to lot access to Broadway, septic system issues and, if the Board shares Staff’s concern relative to the neighboring industrial zone, any buffers that might be included as part of the plan. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that it would it be his suggestion that the plan include notice of the location of those industrial areas. Mr. Gould said that at the very least said that the plans should indicate the surrounding zoning so that when someone goes to the Registry looking at a lot they can see that the adjoining property is in an industrial district. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if a notation should be on the plan about no access from Broadway, about the relocation of the septic system and the issue of buffers along the industrial borders. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would suggest that a note be placed on the plan that Lots 1 and 2 not have direct access to Broadway and noted that the applicant will have to get a site evaluator to go out and do a new location. Regarding buffers, the question is whether the Board wants to be pro active as to regulate that at the time of subdivision approval. Mr. Gould said that this would protect someone from what they might do to themselves. Mr. Vaughn Smith, the applicant, indicated that he had no issue with this except that he wanted to make sure that the Board understands that there is a railroad bed that separates any active industrial area. He noted that this is an inactive area that is a forested lot that has no permanent access unless the railroad gives it. Mr. Wheeler did not feel it was necessary to include a non deforestation condition as he saw it as an unnecessary enlargement of government regulation. Mr. Clark asked if at some point the applicant could construct a vehicular connection between the two subdivisions so that people could exit onto Ohio Street by cutting through Pine 10 Ledge Subdivision. Mr. Gould said that the applicant he wanted to build a street to do that he would have to come back to the Board for approval. Mr. Gould noted that Staff looked at this very early on and the topography doesn’t seem to suit itself to making that connection. Mr. Smith added that the covenants that go with the lots in the Pine Ledge Subdivision say that no portion, lot or any piece of a lot can ever connect to any road so there will never be another lot that will enter onto Pine Ledge Road. The only thing that the two projects share in common is that they share one homeowner’s association and the entire 42 homeowners will own the open space land. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for the proposed development at 2730 Broadway for Vaughn Smith, applicant with the four conditions: 1) that the plan be amended to depict the location of industrial areas abutting the proposed subdivision; 2) the plan indicate that along the parts of the proposed subdivision that abut industrial areas that a buffer be maintained by way of maintaining the existing vegetation within the setbacks that are required anyway for development; 3) that the plan indicate that there would not be access from Broadway for the Lots that have frontage on Broadway; and 4) that the applicant further work up the location of the septic field on Lot 14 so that ideally it can be located on Lot 14. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Item No. 7: To amend the Land Development Code by changing multiple land parcels and parcel portions between Stillwater Avenue, Essex Street, Kittredge Road, and Interstate 95 to add the Penjajawoc Marsh Overlay Zone. Said area is approximately 1,870 acres. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-188. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the over the last 18 months the City has been looking at issues that have historically been problematic for interest groups and for the Board on certain projects in the area bounded by the Penjajawoc Marsh. The Marsh-Mall Task Force was established to try to come up with a process or a set of standards that would balance traditional property owner rights for development and use of their property with increasing protection for natural resources around the Marsh. The Task Force, through exploring ideas on how to achieve this, came up with the idea of an overlay zone – an area within which additional regulations or different requirements would be superimposed over the underlying zoning regulations. Last year the City Council appointed the Marsh-Mall Commission which was basically the successor of the Task Force and one the charges of that Commission was to work with City Staff to develop actual regulations to incorporate the concepts the Task Force developed. About two months ago, the Planning Board and the City Council considered a series of Land Development Code amendments that actually defined those specific requirements and regulations that were proposed by the Task Force and the Commission. Among those was C.O. #06-138 that defined the Penjajawoc Marsh Overlay Zone. The one remaining piece that needs to be done to finalize this whole effort is to make a zone change amendment to identify on the City’s Zoning Map the limits of the overlay zone. 11 Mr. Ring explained that the overlay zone does not change the underlying zone for each individual parcel but it does make all of those parcels within the overlay district subject to the additional regulations. Mr. Wilbur Worster, 603 Essex Street, asked if his property was within the overlay district because when he looked at the map he was not sure. Mr. Gould indicated that it is. Mr. Worster asked what this will mean tax wise, or otherwise, for obtaining building permits or selling his property within this zone. Chairman Guerette indicated that it would change the standards for new construction to allow for cluster development in the zone but with regard to an existing parcel of land he did not know of any changes. Planning Officer Gould explained that there are several different layers of regulations. A large part of this deals with new development and subdivision development. There are impacts to single-family residences but to be impacted those residences or properties would likely have to be within 250 feet of the Penjajawoc Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that Mr. Worster’s property is in a different watershed than the Penjajawoc Marsh. There are limitations as to how close to the Marsh you can build a house, and how much impervious surface you can have next to the Penjajawoc Marsh. Where Mr. Worster’s property is located the relative impact would be minor (as with a lot of the properties within the overlay). If he proposed to subdivide his property some of the additional standards would come apply. Mr. Worster asked if this rezoning would in lower the value of any of the property in the area. Mr. Gould indicated that this is really a question for the City Assessor. Mr. Worster asked if there was a list of the changes. Mr. Gould indicated that a copy of the overlay district and its regulations were mailed to the abutting property owners. Mr. Worster asked if this was more regulation and how it would affect him. Mr. Gould indicated that it is more regulation to everyone within the overlay district, depending on what they wanted to do with their property or where they are located relative to the Penjajawoc Marsh makes a difference. If you have 50 acres that you are proposing to develop this will have a big impact, if you have a single small lot on Essex Street that is a single-family house it probably has very little impact. Mr. Robert Spencer, representing his children who are property owners within this zone under the name of Three Rivers Development, Corp, asked if this would affect commercial properties that are already developed and if it would affect the Widewaters development and other vacant parcels. Planning Officer Gould indicated that most of the details of the overlay district deal with residential development and do not provide specific standards for commercial development. They deal with a requirement for cluster residential subdivisions and for residential setbacks from the Marsh. Within the overlay district it does repeat the function of the Penjajawoc Marsh/Bangor Mall Commission which actually has a review and comment authority that was given to it by the Bangor City Council. For clarity it was put into the overlay district but is a separate enactment by the City Council that gave the Commission input into development review. It is not a regulatory function it is a review and comment function. There are no new commercial setbacks or commercial lot sizes. What this does do is add a layer of specific standards largely based on residential development in the overlay. 12 Mr. Spencer asked if the portion southeast of the old bicycle path is considered a part of the Penjajawoc Marsh or does it end at that old railroad bed. Mr. Gould indicated that the Marsh area is on both sides of the old Veazie Railroad bed. Mr. George Parke, a Fox Hollow resident, asked if the regulation is passed first and then if the land affected is identified by the regulation. Mr. Gould explained that it is a multi-step process. A report submitted by the Commission and adopted by the City Council back in 2005 delineated what the boundary would be. The City then developed standards that would direct development within the overlay. The first step was to enact the standards, the second step was to then do a map amendment to define which parcels they would apply to. If we didn’t have standards we could not apply them to the parcel. Mr. Parke said that the first notice that he had received was ten days prior to this meeting. Mr. Gould indicated that the City and the Mall Marsh Commission have held public hearings for over the last year relative to this issue. In the Planning Office a text amendment is advertised but it is not an amendment that is mailed to every homeowner. Staff understood that when they did a map amendment written notice would be sent to every single property owner within the district and every single property owner within 100 feet of the district. So there may be people who had never heard of this before. The City Council has adopted this at least three different times with the Study, the adoption of it as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that the Planning Board considered and through countless hearings and public sessions. Mr. Parke, as an away landowner indicated that he had no idea that the boundary line would go out to Fox Hollow so the first official notification he had was ten days before. He asked if notice have been done before to any landowner. Mr. Ring indicated that it had about a year ago and at that time the Task Force outlined the recommendation policies and procedures and the boundary lines were the same. An abutter list was formulated with over 400 names of landowners who were sent notices about what was being proposed. Mr. Parke asked if there was anyway to get one’s property exempted from this. Chairman Guerette asked if he had anything planned for this land that he felt would be impacted by the new restrictions of this overlay zone. Mr. Parke indicated that he did not know what the regulations are. He asked how far away his property is from the Marsh and if there had been discussions to tax landowners in this district or abutting this district to support the Marsh. Mr. Gould indicated that he is significantly away from the Marsh. Mr. Gould said that there is a proposal within the Marsh-Mall Task Force Report to do an impact assessment of new commercial development to raise funds for preservation and enhancement of the Marsh area. There currently is no mention of doing that for residential. He suggested that Mr. Parke read a copy of the report. Mr. Parke asked if that was mailed out to landowners. Chairman Guerette noted that there were numerous public hearings on this and meetings where people could learn about what this Task Force Report was and have a chance to comment on it. This has been going on for 18 months. Denise Commeau, another Fox Hollow resident, asked if she could construct a tennis court on her property. She was concerned that they might not be able to and was opposed to adding more regulations to her land. Mr. Gould indicated that the building setback standards and impervious standards only apply 250 feet from the Marsh. The regulations would impact her if she 13 had 3 to 5 acres and wanted to subdivide this land. To build a garage or tennis court she would be under the same standards that she is now in the district that her property is located. The overlay restrictions are relative to new impervious or structures that would occur within 250 feet of the upland edge of the Marsh. Ms. Gwethalyn Phillips, a South Park Street resident, said how proud she is of the City, the landowners, the people on the Task Force, the interest groups, and the work that the City Staff, Council, and Planning Board have put into this. She urged the Board to pass this as the final step. Mr. Shep Harris, 100 Linden Street and Chairperson of the Marsh/Mall Commission, indicated that they spent many, many hours making sure that people’s properties were not devalued. Ms. Jaylynn McCue asked why there was a shaded area on the map that was not included in the overlay. Planning Officer Gould indicated that that is an area that is not included within the overlay district and the reason for this is that, if included, the overlay district would render these parcels worthless. Mr. Arthur Potter, 296 Kittredge Road, asked how this would affect any proposed roadways. Mr. Ring responded by saying that the overlay district does not apply to roads. In terms of the overall Task Force recommendations there were specific recommendations about the form that transportation improvements, as well as, other things would occur in the future. That is not a part of the overlay zone. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould explained that the proposal before the Board is a zoning request to add the Penjajawoc March Overlay zone to the Zoning Map of the City of Bangor. This overlay encompasses over 400 parcels, and approximately 1800 acres of land that is bounded by Stillwater Avenue, Kittredge Road, Essex Street and I-95. The uniqueness of the overlay district is that it does not change the base zoning of the property but it adds an overlay of additional standards within those existing zones to the properties within there. This is similar to the Shoreland Zoning overlay. The boundary of the overlay zone is something that was developed and decided on by the Task Force early on. Mr. Gould also noted the various approvals that this process went through beginning with the creation of the Task Force, to the Planning Board and City Council adoption of the Task Force Report; the inclusion of the Report in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the adoption of the regulations for the Overlay District to the present request for a zone change to add those properties within the overlay district to the City’s Zoning Map. As the Task Force’s Final Report is a part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, this request is 100 percent consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to Mr. Parke’s question as to whether or not a property owner could request that their property not be included in the overlay zone, Mr. Gould explained that it could be considered like any other zoning change request in that the property owner could request that his property be rezoned and it would be considered like any other zone change as to its consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 14 Planning Officer Gould indicated that given this request’s consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the Overlay District as presented in the attached exhibit. Mr. Wheeler noted that this is a process than has been going on for nearly a year and a half but he was not surprised to find a hornet’s nest in this final step of the process. He wanted the property owners and citizens who have expressed their concerns to know that he is entirely understanding and sympathetic with the fact that they feel that they didn’t have adequate information soon enough. Mr. Wheeler said that it is not the City’s fault, its not the Planning Board’s fault, the fault lies with the fact that in this community our so-called news media pays so little attention, and in particular the radio and television stations, to issues of this magnitude that it is not at all surprising, given the limitation of space that the newspaper can devote. The newspaper has covered this process consistently, objectively, and fairly. Mr. Wheeler added that there is just not much space available in a newspaper column. Mr. Wheeler also expressed concern on the part of the detachment of the general citizenry of this community to what goes on within City government and the planning process. He did not feel that they were given enough information through the media. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that the City, which is on the verge of a economic upswing, needs to have greater involvement and participation by every single taxpayer and citizen of voting age and younger in the processes of governing the community. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Zoning Map by adding the Penjajawoc Marsh Overlay Zone to multiple parcels of land located in between Stillwater Avenue, Kittredge Road, Essex Street and I- 95 as set forth in C.O. # 06-188. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, and it passed by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 9: Site Development Plan approval to reconstruct a parking lot and add 55 spaces in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District at 1195 Ohio Street. The Rock Church of Bangor, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to step forward and make a presentation. Mr. Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering, represented the Rock Church of Bangor. Mr. Marshall noted that Mr. Bernard Doak from the Church was also present. Mr. Marshall indicated that the proposal is to reconfigure the existing asphalt and grass and gravel parking lot at the corner of Finson Road and Ohio Street. Currently, the majority of the congregation parks on the street because the parking lots that are on site are not large enough. They propose to expand the parking lot on the apex of the triangle of the intersection of Finson Road and Ohio Street and add two parking lots one that parallels Finson Road and the other to parallel Ohio Street. The reason for this configuration is due to the fact that the Church is considering expanding at some point in the future and this would allow them the maximum flexibility to do this. The proposed improvements include paving the parking lot and creating 55 additional parking spaces. The net increase in impervious surface to this site is limited and there are no specific stormwater controls other than 15 the water sheet flowing into the existing woods and existing grass and lawn and eventually going into a drainage ditch that divides the two parcels that the Rock Church of Greater Bangor owns. Mr. Marshall explained that the site currently has access from both Finson Road and from Ohio Street. They are proposing to continue that and create another entrance at the end of the parking lot that parallels Ohio Street (which will line up with a new entrance that goes to a housing development). There are no new lights proposed because there is existing lighting on the side of the building. Mr. Marshall indicated that he felt that this proposal met all of the submittal requirements for approval. Chairman Guerette asked why the cars are parking on the street and were not using this land. Mr. Marshall indicated that this area is presently a grassed area and the applicant is proposing to create formal parking to discourage people from parking on the street. Chairman Guerette asked if the applicant was proposing to construct a stadium on this site as it is a permitted use in the Zone. Mr. Marshall indicated that the applicant has no plans to building a stadium. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that Staff had concerns about the creation of the second access point onto Ohio Road and suggested either eliminating the access point closest to the intersection or at least limiting it to a right-turn only. Mr. Marshall indicated that while the applicant is willing to do that they did not think it was necessary. Mr. Bernard Doak said that they could make one of the entrances a one-way but they would prefer to keep both entrances so that people could enter the site, drop people off, and then park their cars. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Ring to elaborate on his concern about the third curb cut. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that he did not have a concern about the third cub cut that is being proposed further out Ohio Street but it looked to him like it would be an attractive opportunity for someone who wanted to slip by the traffic at the intersection to pass through this site. Mr. Marshall pointed that they were decreasing the width of the existing curb cut on Finson Road and they felt that this would discourage pass thru traffic. No one else spoke and Chairman Guerette asked for the City Planner’s Report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Site Development Plan approval to expand an existing parking lot at 1195 Ohio Street and reconfiguring parking on the site in a Government and Institutional Service District. The applicant has a property that is in two different zones. The church and the majority of the development are in a Government and Institutional Service District and the new proposed driveway actually crosses the boundary line in to the RR & A District. Staff is pleased to see the applicant take a site that is not generally in conformance with the City’s current development standards which require paving and buffering of parking lots from the public street so that this will bring their parking into compliance with the Land Development Code and give some uniformity and structure to it. Relative to the curb cut, Staff mentioned this to the applicant early on in the process. Mr. Gould noted that the Board, through the Comprehensive Plan update process, had discussed the importance of access management on major collector and arterial roadways. In this instance, it appears that the applicant has created a short cut from one road to another for the traveling public to slip through the church’s parking lot when it is 16 unoccupied. The Land Development Code standards clearly give the Board the authority to deal with the limitation of access, curbs and driveways. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feel that the plan as submitted meets the standards of the Land Development Code but felt it important to bring up the issue of access management for the Board to make a judgment as to whether or not all three access points are required for this site development or if the City and Ohio Street would be better off, overall, if they just had one access point further out Ohio Street. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould about the right-turn only option that is mentioned in the memo and the applicant is amenable to. Mr. Gould indicated that this still would allow someone to pass through the site. Mr. Theeman said that his concern was not with the existing cut through but with building a third curb cut further up Ohio Street. He said that this would create a race track when there is no church activity on the site. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Doak to further explain the current flow of traffic. Mr. Doak explained that now if you come off of Finson Road you go straight thru to Ohio Street. With the new curb cut further up Ohio Street instead of going out onto Ohio Street there you could make a right turn and go through the new parking lot and come out back onto Ohio Street. Mr. Doak explained that this is a parallel road. Ms. Brown noted that with the configuration of the angle at the entrance one cannot accelerate there and it has been designed such that one cannot make a sweep turn. Mr. Clark suggested the installation of some speed bumps or a gate on one end. Mr. Theeman asked what the distance was from the first Ohio Street exit to the second exit. Chairman Guerette indicated that it was 285.75 feet and said that he felt that the newly proposed access to Ohio Street didn’t cause problems by itself. He said that he would be reluctant to disturb the status quo with what already exists as it seems to have been working. Because they propose to narrow the entrance on the Finson Road side he felt it was in the church’s own interest to control high volumes of traffic going across their front doorstep and perhaps they would consider some traffic control mechanisms such as speed bumps, signs, or something to that effect. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about taking advantage of the fact that there is now the second access point and making the existing access point on Ohio Street a right-turn only to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection from left hand turns. Chairman Guerette said that it is restrictive but less restrictive than closing the curb cut altogether. If that motion was made he would probably vote in favor of it. As there were no other comments, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Site Development Plan for the proposed development at 1195 Ohio Street the Rock Church of Bangor, applicant, on the condition that the existing access point on Ohio 17 Street be restricted so that traffic exiting that access point turn exclusively to the right. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Item No. 10: Site Development Plan approval to reconstruct the existing building with 4,500 square feet of floor area and make changes to the parking lot at 339 Griffin Road in a General Commercial and Service District. AAA of Northern New England, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. James Smith, Architect for the project and agent for the applicant, explained that the property presently consists of two occupied office areas connected by a corridor. It was initially intended for rental space on one end and served that purpose for a number of years. At this point the applicant has moved into both ends of the building and has found it less efficient. They now would like to consolidate the areas, remove the bulk of the structure that is there, utilize a portion of it and construct a new portion. Chairman Guerette asked if any thought had been given to expanding the breezeway to be fully incorporated office space. Mr. Smith indicated that it has been discussed but the area that they need is less and the cost was rather high to renovate the space at this time. The new building will be slightly smaller than the two combined. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were two completely separate parking areas. Mr. Smith indicated that the northerly one will be for employees and the southerly one will be for clients. No one spoke in opposition and Chairman Guerette asked for the Staff report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is a request for Site Development Plan approval to replace the existing AAA Northern New England business office which is in a General Commercial and Service District. When the original building was constructed it was in an Airport zoning district which did not have the setback requirements that the General Commercial and Service District has. Also, this property fronts on two streets – Union Street and Maine Avenue. When you apply the setback standards there is very little room to expand the building. What they have come up with is a compact, smaller office space. The applicant submitted revised plans addressing Staff concerns regarding elevation drawings of the building, defining what the building would look like, where the access doors are, some lighting details, some pavement markings, and a detailed planting schedule. The applicant defined on the plan the landscape symbols and noted that the plantings proposed will meet the City’s minimum standards. As the plans are now in order, Staff recommended a positive recommendation from the Board. As there was no further comment, Chairman Guerette asked for motion. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Site Development Plan at 339 Griffin Road for AAA Northern New England, applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and it passed unanimously. 18 Other Business Mr. Wheeler indicated that he wished to reconsider Item No. 9 to restate the motion so that he could change his vote. He said that he was not in favor of the right-turn only condition. The Board’s By-laws state that any Member can move for reconsideration and he wished to go on record as being opposed to the motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to reconsider the motion on Item No. 9. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that a vote in favor of the motion will be to bring the previous motion back upon the table. The Board voted 2 in favor and 3 opposed therefore the motion failed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette indicated that the March 21, 2006 Minutes were in order for approval noting that there was a correction to the year for 2006 and not 2005. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the March 21, 2006 with the year corrected from 2005 to 2006. The motion was seconded by Mr. Theeman and it passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.