Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-19 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nat Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler Dave Clark Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham James Ring News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board Member King, Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Guerette asked if any one wished to remove the item for discussion. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had some questions regarding this project and asked that it be removed from the Consent Agenda. Chairman Guerette indicated that this item would be moved back to New Business. Mr. Wheeler indicated that as a point of procedure that he had referred to Roberts Rules of Order which states that it is not necessary to remove items from the Consent Agenda in order to ask questions. He made this point in order that it might spare one step in the process. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would like to stay within the spirit of the Planning Board By-Laws which indicates that the item can be removed and reviewed under New Business. 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2: Preliminary Subdivision Plan Revision approval to increase the lot size of 9 lots and eliminate 2 lots located along Virginia Lane and to reconfigure an approved detention pond in the existing Rolling Meadows Estates Subdivision located off of Mt. Hope Avenue in a Low Density Residential District and a General Commercial and Service District. Hampden Home Builders, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and explained that the applicant would be asked to make a presentation, to be followed by comments from proponents, opponents, and then Staff. Mr. Fred Marshall, of Plymouth Engineering representing Hampden Home Builders, noted that Patricia Quirk, President of Hampden Home Builders as well as and Dick Day, of Plisga & Day Surveyors were also present to answer questions. Mr. Marshall explained that the Board has reviewed several different versions of this subdivision plan. The previous modifications have included land acquisitions on the Mt. Hope Avenue side of the property. This modification includes two parcels purchased on the west side toward the Meadow Brook. Mr. Marshall explained that the applicant is proposing to change the configuration of lots located along Virginia Lane and to reconfigure the proposed stormwater detention pond. By doing so, it eliminates 3 lots and rotates the detention pond 90 degrees. The lots along Virginia Lane are now wider and have more depth thus creating larger lots. Mr. Rosenblatt expressed his concern about the portion of the added land that is in a different zone and asked if the applicant is considering any options. Mr. Marshall said that the applicant could request a zone change to residential zoning and eliminate the General Commercial and Service District zoning or the Planning Staff suggested that another way to handle this would be to add deed covenants to those lots that have commercial zoning. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the buffer identified in the previous submittals. Mr. Marshall indicated that previously a buffer was proposed at the rear of the lots abutting the commercial zoning. The applicant is now proposing to keep the vegetation that presently exists and use that as a buffer between the two properties. Mr. Marshall indicated that this existing buffer would be similar to what was approved before. Chairman Guerette had a question as to whether the remaining land area that is zoned residential on the lots that also have commercial zoning would 3 leave enough buildable space. Mr. Marshall said that there would be enough buildable space and added that while it is true that the Land Development Code allows for 10,000 square feet of area for permitted uses and 20,000 square feet of area for conditional uses in the General Commercial and Service District, he did not believe that the applicant had any plan to market these lots for commercial use. Mr. Dick Day, of Plisga & Day, spoke on behalf of Hampden Home Builders indicating that the lots are the same size as originally approved but with the additional land to the rear that is currently zoned as General Commercial and Service District. The applicant is almost doubling the depth of the lots. Mr. Day indicated that ultimately they will need to be rezoned to residential or have deed covenants. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that it would make more sense to rezone this strip of land rather than impose deed covenants. He noted that in the State Subdivision Regulations Criteria No. 9 requires that subdivisions conform to the Land Use Policy adopted by the municipality. He said that he did not think that deed covenants would satisfy this requirement, and, in his opinion, the area would need to be rezoned before the Planning Board can grant Final Subdivision Plan approval. Ms. Tricia Quirk, of Hampden Home Builders, indicated that the primary purpose of extending the back lines of these lots was to add privacy to those homes. Mr. Stan MacMillan, also of Hampden Home Builders, noted that it was their intent to make sure that the area remains residential. He noted that they had purchased land from Webber Oil Company who had been before the Planning Board for approval of an extensive fill and grade (quarry). He said that they had gone to a great expense to expand these lots and it was not their intent to put commercial uses in there. As there were no opponents, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Acting Planing Officer Gould indicated that this was a revision to the prior approved plan to expand the land area. Staff felt that it was appropriate to consider this as a preliminary subdivision plan in order to allow the neighbors to have an opportunity for public input. The subdivision now has crossed the boundary into the General Commercial and Service District (GC &S). The expansion also allows for the reorientation of the stormwater detention pond. Those lots with a split zoning between residential and commercial zoning may be of concern to some buyers. Without controls, a commercial development could be constructed in the rear of those lots. A Deed restriction could control that. Mr. Gould also noted that another solution is that the Planning Board and the City Council have the authority to rezone the property or the applicant could also apply for a zone change. 4 Mr. Gould indicated that when the subdivision was originally proposed it abutted the commercial zoning. At that time, it was suggested that it would be a good idea to provide a buffer along the backs of the residential lots so that when the commercial land was developed, there would be a buffer. The applicant has indicated that they still intend to have a buffer on the rear of these lots and the Planning Staff felt that this is a good idea. Mr. Gould pointed out that while the adjoining property is presently owned by the applicant, this application runs with the land and that the applicant could sell it next month to someone else. The Planning Board does not have any control of that. The only control the Board has is the application before them. Mr. Gould indicated that the City Engineer has reviewed the new pond design, associated calculations, and details and finds them acceptable for Preliminary Plan approval. Mr. Gould noted that the Department of Environmental Protection has delegated review authority to the City so Staff will bring the Site Location of Development Act Modification to the Board at the time of Final Plan Approval. Staff finds that the application is complete and consistent with the Standards for Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval and recommended Preliminary Plan approval if the Board is satisfied that the issues of split lot zoning and buffers are adequately addressed. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he agreed with Mr. Rosenblatt that it would make more sense for the applicant to rezone the commercial land to residential rather than to run the risk that it could be sold tomorrow without any recourse. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he intended to vote in favor of the Preliminary Plan. Chairman Guerette asked if a zone change to residential should accompany the Final Plan or if it should be done separately. Mr. Gould indicated that they are separate processes and that a zone change application is not a long process. There would not be much of a delay to rezone this area. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan at 780 Mount Hope Avenue for Hampden Home Builders, LLC with two conditions: 1) that the land proposed to be included that is presently zoned General Commercial and Service District be rezoned as Low Density Residential District prior to Final Subdivision Plan approval; and, 2) that the Final Subdivision Plan depict the buffer areas that were described in the applicant’s presentation at this meeting. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed to the motion approving the Preliminary Subdivision Plan with conditions. 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 3: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. As there were no minutes for consideration, this item was continued to the Board’s next meeting. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Site Development Plan Approval to add a second story to the existing building located at 458 Main Street in an Urban Service District. Sleeper & Thareja, LLC, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, represented the applicant. He explained that this project is located at 458 Main Street and is the current offices of Realty of Maine. The site was approved back in 1988 for the existing facilities with the exception of a small buffer or landscaped island adjacent to the McDonald’s property and Main Street. The applicant is proposing to add 1,600 square feet to the building to complete a partial second story into a full second story. The only modification to the site plan is to add the landscaped island near Main Street and some additional paving along the back property line to accommodate the additional parking spaces that are required for this addition. Also, the applicant proposes to construct a small retaining wall to accommodate some slopes on the back of the property that will be part of the site improvements. The total number of parking spaces that are being proposed to satisfy the parking requirements for the entire facility including the new addition is 22 parking spaces on-site. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how many parking spaces are presently on site. Mr. Kiser noted that the 1988 approved plan provided for 15 spaces. With the exception of some additional striping to accommodate some smaller spaces those parking spaces still exist or could be recreated on the site. Mr. Guerette noted that the site plan as submitted did not include a lot of detail about the retaining wall and he asked Mr. Kiser if that has been furnished. Mr. Kiser indicated that characteristically with those structures the suppliers of the retaining wall will supply an engineered drawing as part of their submittal. The applicant would be willing to provide engineering plans as part of a condition of approval before work starts on the site. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that the applicant is 6 requesting Site Development Plan approval for a 1,600 square foot second story addition to the existing building located at 458 Main Street. This building has historically been used as a drive-up bank, and later expanded and converted into office space. The last approval on record is in 1988 when a 4,480 square foot addition was approved. Mr. Gould noted that some on-site parking (15 spaces) was grandfathered with no setbacks. Staff does not wish to grandfather any more of the site than what was approved. It has been determined that there is a demand for additional parking and it can be accommodated at the rear of the building where the retaining wall is proposed. Staff is confident that this proposal will meet Ordinance standards. Mr. Gould noted that the City Engineer’s Office prefers to review the design of any retaining wall and approve those engineering details prior to construction. Because of the limited information submitted as to the height of the wall and some of the grades, Staff feels that these details should be submitted and approved prior to construction. Staff recommended that the Planning Board approve the site development with the condition that engineering details stamped by a professional engineer for the proposed retaining wall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer’s Office prior to construction. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were other items that the Planning Staff had requested additional information for. Mr. Gould noted that after the Staff Memorandum had been prepared, revised plans were submitted addressing those last issues. Mr. Rosenblatt asked the Planning Officer to expand on the aspects of the site that are nonconforming. Mr. Gould indicated that the front yard setback is nonconforming and the building was pre-existing at the time of the last approval. Chairman Guerette then asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Site Development Plan at 458 Main Street for Sleeper and Thereja, LLC, applicant, with the condition that prior to said construction the applicant will provide the City Engineer for his review, plans for the proposed retaining wall and that those plans carry the stamp of a professional engineer. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion to approve with condition. Item No. 1: Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Act Approval of a 12,600 square foot expansion of the existing distribution facility located at 91 Dowd Road in an Industry and Service District. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Northern New England, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Shelly Lizotte, Ames Corporation Architects/Engineers, represented the applicant. Ms. Lizotte explained that the site plan is to add a 12,600 square foot addition to the 7 existing building at 91 Dowd Road. The plans also include additional paving to allow the trucks to drive around the building to enter one side and exit on the other to facilitate loading the trucks that open from the side. Ms. Lizotte indicated that the applicant proposes to construct a detention pond that was previously designed but not completed to handle the stormwater runoff. Mr. Rosenblatt asked where the outlet was for the detention pond. Ms. Lizotte indicated that it goes off to the north and adjacent to the Bangor Steel building and runs down behind that property. The plan, as originally designed, show a drainage ditch running at the end of Dowd Road with a cul-de-sac that goes towards the railroad tracks. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about a previous expansion of the paved area on the side yard of the site and how that is being handled. Mr. Lizotte indicated that when the surveyors went out on the site they located the current paving that is too close to the property line on the south side of the lot. The applicant is proposing to remove that paving within the setback in order to be consistent with today’s Ordinance requirements. Chairman Guerette wanted to make sure that the applicant is aware that this approval also makes it conditional that the landscaping and plantings previously approved are to be done. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that the application before the Board is for both Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act Approval. The proposed 12,600 square foot addition and the additional expansion of the paved areas for parking and maneuvering put this site into the category where it requires Site Location of Development Act approval. When previously approved sites come back before the Board for additions/modifications, Staff compares the site with what was originally approved. Staff requests that any omissions be added and asks that the applicant make the plans consistent, not with today’s standards, but with the standards in effect at the time of original approval. Mr. Gould noted that the applicant has agreed to restore those items back to when the Board approved it, originally. The applicant proposes to remove the pavement to provide a buffer yard of 10 feet (a C-4 buffer) that will be planted at today’s requirements which is much more significant than back when originally approved. Mr. Gould indicated that the plan submitted meets all Land Development Code standards, as well as, Site Location of Development Act standards and recommends that the Planning Board grant both approvals. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant approval of the Site Development Plan for Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern New England at 91 Dowd Road. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, and the Board voted five in favor and none opposed to approving the Site Plan at 91 Dowd Road. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved to approve the Site Location of 8 Development Act application for Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern New England at 91 Dowd Road. Mr. Clark seconded the motion and it also passed by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. Open Discussion Mr. Wheeler explained that there was no reason for removing items from the Consent Agenda in order to ask questions. Mr. Wheeler noted that more and more frequently items are being removed for questions. What happens is that when a Member has a question, the item drops way down to the end of the Agenda. Out of courtesy and consideration of the applicant, he would like to suggest that the Board stop this practice and simply take it off the Consent Agenda and then deliberate it immediately. Mr. Guerette indicated that this was certainly a point worth considering. Chairman Guerette discussed the on-going Comprehensive Plan Update process. He noted that he had written out some suggestions as to how to proceed with the update process and passed them out for discussion. Chairman Guerette noted that first of all, that he would suggest that the current Comprehensive Plan be left as written. In looking over the document it was clear to him that it is a compilation of information that was put together by some of the municipal departments in the City and crafted with a tremendous amount of information interceded in it. He said that it leaves one with an immediate need or urgency to want to delve into it and rewrite it. Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not think that that was the Board’s charge for this year and that the Board is only responsible for an update of the plan. The Board could accomplish this through an addendum entitled “Year 2005 Review and Update.” This review and update would be a narrative section of information that reflects the Board’s deliberations over things that have happened over the last five years and it could be attached to each of the Planning Elements of the current plan. Chairman Guerette noted that for example, housing was identified in 18 of the 28 Transition Areas that were identified as part of where planning activity has taken place in the last five years. He said that he felt that it was incumbent upon the Board to look at each of the transitions areas that involves something to do with residential or housing and discuss what has happened or transpired in that section of the City and whether or not the Board has any recommendations to make, concerns to express, or words of wisdom that may be used as a guide to the next five years. Chairman Guerette noted that several years ago, St. Joseph Hospital had requested a zone change in the quadrant of land between Center Street and Broadway in order to create extra parking space. There was a public hearing held and many citizens of the Broadway, North Park Street and Center Street neighborhoods came to the public hearing to express concern about the possible encroachment of St. Joseph Hospital’s development on their 9 neighborhoods. In reviewing the zoning map today in the Planning Office, he came to the conclusion that the Board may not want to recommend any zone changes in that area but because this activity took place, it is important for the Board to have some narrative description of what transpired there and how the Board might see future development to occur in that area. If the Board is not going to be making any zone changes, then it would be within the Board’s purview to say something to the effect that in the future the Board would look at development requests in this area on a case-by-case basis, which is the Board’s charge, and give the utmost attention to preserving the quality and integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods. Chairman Guerette indicated that what he had written was only a suggestion and he was certainly open for critique. Once the 2005 review and update are completed, he suggested that the Board send that information to each of the municipal departments that have oversight of these elements such as housing, transportation, and natural resources and ask them for their comments. Once their comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the update and narrative, then a rough draft could be prepared to be discussed at a Public Hearing and then, ultimately, for a recommendation to the City Council for approval. Chairman Guerette said that he did not think that the Board should shy away from some of the global planning issues that exist not only in our State, but across the country such as mitigation of sprawl, concern for green space for citizens to enjoy, smart growth, and all of the input received at the neighborhood meetings. All of this can be incorporated into the narratives. If the Board follows this model, it could be demonstrated as a thorough and clean understanding of the planning activity that has occurred since 2000, and that the Board would provide some determination, whether by opinion or by minutes of the Board’s discussion or actions, that the Board takes about the appropriateness of these developments and whether or not they should be continued for another five years. This information would provide some guidance for the Planning Boards of the future between now and 2010 and might be a useful tool in updating the Comprehensive Plan in a more comprehensive manner in the year 2010. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the model is a very useful overview of how the Board might move forward. As an example, using housing as the Planning Element, that a lot of the housing issues are dictated by factors that are entirely outside of the Board’s control. Many are market driven. If it could be demonstrated that the City does not have sufficient multi-family residential properties because of the manner in which the City is presently zoned, that might be something the Board might want to look at and potentially recommend changes to. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how the Board might work that through the proposed model. 10 The Board does not have that kind of impact in the work that the Board does. The Comprehensive Plan has been used to develop two items that are useful to the Board – the Zoning Map and the Land Use Policy Map. It is those two items that he is most concerned about updating in terms of taking a look at what has occurred in the last five years, and deciding whether or not it is in keeping with the board policy statements of those maps. It is also up to the Board to determine whether or not they are appropriate and whether the Board wishes to make some mid-stream corrections to those maps. Ms. Mitchell, in looking at the transition areas, asked if the Board was looking backwards rather than forwards. She asked what was the intent of these areas. Mr. Gould indicated that the transitions areas are looking forward and are not just problem areas. For example, outer Broadway beyond Judson Heights is identified as a transition area. Anything that the City deals with in this area is forward thinking. it is an area that has yet to have urban services, yet to see lots of development, and is still an area where the Board can have quite a bit of influence as to which way it develops. Mr. Gould noted that in the built-up areas, the area will not be drastically changed but in outlying developing areas there is a great deal of influence that the Board can have. The transition areas go from one end of the City to the other and look at urban corridors along major streets and collector roads where there may be a vacuum of development policy. The Board could be very effective in what it envisions for the future of these areas. Mr. Gould noted Union Place indicating that the Board took a very proactive stance when it came to the redevelopment. At the time, the proposal was inconsistent with the current Land Use Policy. There are places were the Board can be proactive, if it chooses to be. Mr. Wheeler commended the Chairman for a remarkable piece of work in taking a project that could be so totally mind boggling that it would be impossible and boiling it down to the most pertinent and appropriate elements. He noted that he has driven to almost every area of the city including residential, retail, commercial, industrial parks, the waterfront, and the Airport. Any time he was within easy access to those areas he would take the time to drive around and look at what was there and tried to look at it as if he were a stranger. After doing so, Mr. Wheeler indicated that was impressed. Mr. Wheeler said that in the last five years there has been movement, development, and progress made in the City that has been so subtle that it probably escapes the attention of most people who have lived here for as many years as he has. He looked at the downtown and he is far from satisfied that that area has even begun to realize its potential for redevelopment and it is going to be a significant component of the City’s future and he feels that it is tied to the waterfront development. He looked at the various residential developments. He said that he sees a City that is growing in essentially a logical fashion and he feels that this is a product of the collective instincts, insights, wisdom and experience of the City Staff, elected 11 officials, and appointed officials such as the Planning Board. Mr. Wheeler said that the one thing the Board should not be is fearful that Bangor’s growth is widely out of control. Another factor that came to mind that the Board and the community at larger are far more aware of factors and concerns that were not so evident five years ago. One factor is the protection of the natural habitats, open space, green space, sidewalks and the environment. Bangor is the epicenter of a metropolitan service district that comprises about 129,000 to 130,000 people. The Board’s concern is the land mass that is home and the place of business for about 32,000 people. The population is probably not going to be much more than that in 2010. Mr. Wheeler said that as far as the task of updating the Plan is concerned, the Board needs to keep in mind that this is an update. This means that it reflects things that have happened and what the impact that those happenings may have on the next five years so that when the Comprehensive Plan is actually revised in 2010, nothing will come as a surprise. As far as looking into the future is concerned, no one has a crystal ball but they do have eyes to see what we have, what we are, and what we are going to be and what we can be. Mr. Wheeler said that he is especially impressed with the model in that it is sensitive to the need to make this a collaborate effort between the Planning Board and those various municipal departments who have the day-to- day responsibility of making recommendations, refining development plans, and enforcing codes. Because without their input and their collaboration, the Board is operating in a vacuum of eight people who have four different opinions as to how Bangor should grow and what it should be. The consideration of public input before any update is submitted to the City Council is also very important. Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Guerette for the time and effort that he had put into this model. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the next approach would be to select transition areas to look at and then look at each of the planning elements with respect to that transition area. Chairman Guerette said that he envisioned that it would be easier to do it the other way around to look at each Planning Element and then look at the transitions areas to see how that element may have taken place within the transition area. Each transition area could be looked at a multitude of times depending on the type of activity that took place there. Chairman Guerette said that there is a great inventory of what has happened within each quadrant in terms of development, a great history over all of the land use projects and zone changes, etc. that have been made over the last five years. The Board would simply evaluate those with regard to housing, transportation, natural resources, public infrastructure, etc. Chairman Guerette asked for Mr. Ring’s comments. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, said that the objective is to update the Comprehensive Plan and he felt 12 that Chairman Guerette’s approach is a reasonable way to go about it. The idea of focusing on land use policies and issues are the key aspects of the plan and the things that the Planning Board does. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from Staff. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that he is very encouraged to see the proposed model. He noted that in the beginning the focus was on looking at the transition areas and dealing with those issues. The concern, after the last meeting, was that there might be an interest on the part of the Board to rewrite the Comprehensive Plan page after page. Ms. Weber had envisioned dealing with the transition areas and how they may have changed the Planning Elements. Mr. Gould indicated that the model is fine with what the Staff has envisioned. Chairman Guerette said that he would like to come to an understanding as to how the Board is going to proceed, as there is a workshop meeting next week th (Tuesday April 26). Mr. Gould indicated that Staff is preparing to identify those transition areas that deal with housing. Staff also intends to bring back to the Board a listing of what some of the issues that Staff that feels should be the development policy for these transition areas relative to housing. Staff is planning to go through the implementation schedule and give the Board an update as to what the current status of this is. Chairman Guerette indicated that he is optimistic that the Board will be able to make quick work of this. For example, the Bass Park Area, the current uses are institutional, recreational and residential. At the neighborhood meeting citizens were concerned about the affect of the racino development would have on traffic in their neighborhoods. The Board may not be able to do anything about that but may be able to say in our narrative that the Board is sensitive to law enforcement of traffic laws in those areas. He felt that that would be a great recommendation to make. Mr. Wheeler said that this is a perfect example of how things can change in a very short period of time. Since the meeting of last week, the plans by Penn National have taken a significant broader direction with the purchase of Millers Restaurant and placement of the slots there. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Board had any homework to do. Mr. Gould encouraged the Board to do as Mr. Wheeler has done to go out and see Bangor. It was agreed that Chairman Guerette’s model would be used as a guide for the next workshop meeting. Ms. Mitchell asked who would be writing the narratives. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would provide the Board Members with a brief policy narrative about each of these areas and it would be up to the Board to either agree or ask that Staff go back and refine them. Mr. Gould 13 indicated that some of the areas are rather easy while other areas will be rather difficult. Staff will work through them one by one to determine how to handle conflicting uses and issues. Mr. Gould noted that these narratives need to be short and concise. Chairman Guerette said he agreed and noted that the narrative will need to be drafted in two parts, the first part being the preliminary portion provided by the Planning Staff summary of what has happened. The second part will be crafted from the Board’s discussions. The Board will need to decide if it is good for Bangor, should it continue, or are there red flags to be taken into consideration. The Meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m. PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nat Rosenblatt Hal Wheeler Dave Clark Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham James Ring News Media Present: None Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. In the absence of Board Member King, Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote.? CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Guerette asked if any one wished to remove the item for discussion. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had some questions regarding this project and asked that it be removed from the Consent Agenda. Chairman Guerette indicated that this item would be moved back to New Business. Mr. Wheeler indicated that as a point of procedure that he had referred to Roberts Rules of Order and indicated that it is not necessary to remove items from the Consent Agenda in order to ask questions. He made this point in order that it might spare one step in the process. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would like to be in keeping with the spirit of the Planning Board By-Laws which indicates that the item can be removed and reviewed under New Business. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2: Preliminary Subdivision Plan Revision approval to increase the lot size of 9 lots and eliminate 2 lots located along Virginia Lane and to reconfigure an approved detention pond in the existing Rolling Meadows Estates Subdivision located off of Mt. Hope Avenue in a Low Density Residential District and a General Commercial and Service District. Hampden Home Builders, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and explained that the applicant would be asked to make a presentation, to be followed by comments from proponents, opponents and the Staff. Mr. Fred Marshall, of Plymouth Engineering representing Hampden Home Builders noted that Patricia Quirk, President of Hampden Home Builders as well as and Dick Day, of Plisga & Day Surveyors were also present to answer questions. Mr. Marshall explained that the Board has reviewed several different versions of this subdivision plan. The previous modifications have included land acquisitions on the Mt. Hope Avenue side of the property. This modification includes two parcels purchased on the west side toward the Meadow Brook. Mr. Marshall explained that the applicant is proposing to change the lot configuration of lots located along Virginia Lane and to reconfigure the proposed stormwater detention pond reconfigure. By doing so, it eliminated 3 lots and rotated the detention pond 90 degrees. The lots along Virginia Lane are wider and have more depth thus creating larger lots. Mr. Rosenblatt expressed his concern about the portion of the added land is in a different zone and asked if the applicant is considering an option to this. Mr. Marshall said that the applicant could request a zone change to move the residential zoning and eliminate the General Commercial and Service District zoning or the Planning Staff suggested that another way to handle this would be to add deed covenants to those lots that have commercial zoning. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the buffer issue identified in the previous submittals. Mr. Marshall indicated that previously a buffer was proposed at the rear of lots abutting the commercial zoning. The applicant is now proposing to keep the vegetation that presently exists and use that as a buffer between the two properties. Mr. Marshall indicated that this existing buffer would be similar to what was approved before. Chairman Guerette had a question as to whether the remaining land area that is zoned residential on the lots that also have commercial zoning would leave enough buildable space. Mr. Marshall said that there would be enough buildable space and added that while it is true that the Land Development Code allows for 10,000 square feet of area for permitted uses and 20,000 square feet of area for conditions uses in the General Commercial and Service District, he did not believe that the applicant had any plan to market these lots for commercial use. Mr. Dick Day, Plisga & Day, on behalf of Hampden Home Builders indicated that the originally approved lots are the same size as originally approved but with the additional land to the rear that is currently zoned as General Commercial and Service District. The applicant is almost doubling the depth of the lots. Ultimately they will need to be rezoned to residential or have deed covenants. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that it would make more sense to rezone this strip of land rather than impose deed covenants. He noted that in the State Subdivision Regulations Criteria No. 9 requires that subdivisions conform with the Land Use Policy adopted by the municipality. He said that he did not think that deed covenants would satisfy the requirements and it was his opinion that the area would need to be rezoned before the Planning Board can grant final plan approval.. Ms. Tricia Quirk, of Hampden Home Builders, indicated that the primary purpose of extending the back lines to these lots was to add privacy to those homes. Mr. Stan MacMillan, also of Hampden Home Builders, noted that it was their intent to make sure that the area remains residential. He noted that they had purchased land from Webber Oil Company who had been before the Planning Board for approval of an extensive fill and grade (quarry). He said that they had gone to a great expense to expand these lots and it was not their intent to put commercial uses in there. As there were no opponents, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Acting Planing Officer Gould indicated that this was a revision to the prior approved plan because it has expanded land area. Staff felt that it was appropriate to consider this as a preliminary subdivision plan in order to allow the neighbors to have an opportunity for public input. The subdivision now has crossed the boundary into the General Commercial and Service District (GC &S). The expansion also allows for the reorientation of the stormwater pond. Those lots with a split zoning between residential and commercial zoning may scare some buyers. Without controls, a commercial development could be constructed in the rear of those lots. A Deed restriction could control that. Mr. Gould also noted that the Planning Board and the City Council have the authority to rezone the property or the applicant could also apply for a zone change. Mr. Gould indicated that when the subdivision was originally proposed it abutted the commercial zoning. At that time, it was suggested that it would be a good idea to provide a buffer along backs of the residential lots so that when commercial land was developed, there would be a buffer. The applicant has indicated that they still intend to have a buffer on the rear of these lots and the Planning Staff thinks that this is a good idea. Mr. Gould added that this application runs with the land and that the applicant could sell it next month to someone else and the Planning Board does not have any control of that. The only control the Board has is the application before them. Mr. Gould indicated that the City Engineer has reviewed the new pond design, associated calculations and details and finds them acceptable for Preliminary Plan approval. Mr. Gould noted that the Department of Environmental Protection has delegated review authority to the City so Staff will bring the Site Location Modification to the Board at the time of Final Plan Approval. Staff finds that the application is complete and consistent with the Standards for Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval and would recommend Preliminary Plan approval if the Board is satisfied that the issues of split lot zoning and buffers are adequately addressed. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he agreed with Mr. Rosenblatt that it would make more sense for the applicant to rezone the commercial land to residential rather than to run the risk that it could be sold tomorrow without any recourse. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he intended to vote in favor of the Preliminary Plan. Chairman Guerette asked if a zone change to residential should accompany the Final Plan or if it should be done separately. Mr. Gould indicated that they are separate processes and that a zone change application is not a long process. There would not be much of a delay to rezone this area. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan at 780 Mount Hope Avenue for Hampden Home Builders, LLC with two conditions: 1) that the land proposed to be included that is presently zoned General Commercial and Service District be rezoned as Low Density Residential District prior to Final Subdivision Plan approval; and, 2) that the Final Subdivision Plan depict the buffer areas that were described in the applicant’s presentation at this meeting. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed to the motion approving the Preliminary Subdivision Plan with conditions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 3: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette deferred the Minutes to the last item on the Agenda. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Site Development Plan Approval to add a second story to the existing building located at 458 Main Street in an Urban Service District. Sleeper & Thareja, LLC, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Jim Kiser, represented the applicant. Mr. Kiser explained that this project is at 458 Main St. and is the current offices of Realty of Maine. It was approved back in 1988 for the existing facilities with the exception of a small buffer or landscaped island adjacent to the McDonald’s property and Main Street. The applicant is proposing to add 1,600 square feet to the building to complete a partial second story into a full second story. The only modification to the site plan is to add the landscaped island near Main Street and some additional paving along the back property line to accommodate the additional parking spaces that are required for this addition. Also, the applicant proposes to construct a small retaining wall to accommodate some slopes on the back of the property that will be part of the site improvements. The total parking spaces that are being proposed to accommodate the entire facility including the new addition is 22 parking spaces on-site. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how many parking spaces are presently on site. Mr. Kiser noted that the approved plan provided for 15 spaces back in 1988. With the exception of some additional striping to accommodate some smaller spaces those parking spaces are still existing or could be recreated on the site. Mr. Guerette noted that the site plan as submitted did not include a lot of detail about retaining wall and asked Mr. Kiser if that has been finished. Mr. Kiser indicated that characteristically with those structures the suppliers of the retaining wall will supply an engineered drawing as part of their submittal. The applicant would be willing to provide engineering plans for those as part of a condition of approval before work starts on the site. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that the applicant is requesting site development plan approval for a 1,600 square foot second story addition to the exit building at 458 Main Street. This building has historically been used as a drive-up bank, and later converted into office space and was expanded at that time. The last approval on record is in 1988 when a 4,480 square foot addition was approved. Mr. Gould noted that some on-site parking (15 spaces) was grandfathered with no setbacks. Staff did not want to grandfather any more of the site than what was approved. It has been determined that there is a demand for additional parking and it can be accommodated at the rear of the building where the retaining wall is proposed. Staff is confident that this proposal will meet Ordinance standards. Mr. Gould noted that the City Engineer Office prefers to review the design of any retaining wall and approve those engineering details prior to construction. Because of the limited information submitted as to the height of the wall and some of the grades, Staff feels that these details should be submitted and approved prior to construction. Staff recommended that the Planning Board approve the site development with the condition that the engineering details stamped by a professional engineer for the proposed retaining wall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer’s Office prior to construction. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were other items that the Planning Staff had requested additional information for. Mr. Gould noted that after the Staff Memorandum had been prepared, revised plans were submitted addressing those last issues. Mr. Rosenblatt asked the Planning Officer to expand on those aspects of the site that are nonconforming. Mr. Gould indicated that the front yard setback was nonconforming and the building was pre-existing at the time of the last approval. Chairman Guerette then asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Site Development Plan for 458 Main Street – Sleeper and Thereja, LLC, applicant with the condition that prior to said construction the applicant will provide the City Engineer for his review, plans for the proposed retaining wall and that those plans carry the stamp of a professional engineer. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion to approve with condition. Item No. 1: Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Act Approval of a 12,600 square foot expansion of the existing distribution facility located at 91 Dowd Road in an Industry and Service District. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Northern New England, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Shelly Lizotte, Ames Corporation Architects/Engineers, represented the applicant. Ms. Lizotte explained that the site plan is to add a 12,600 square foot addition to the existing building at 91 Dowd Road. This also includes additional paving to allow the trucks to drive around. The trucks will be allowed to enter one side and exist on the other to facilitate loading the trucks that open from the side. Ms. Lizotte indicated that the applicant proposes to construct a detention pond that was previously designed but not completed to handle the stormwater runoff. Mr. Rosenblatt asked where the outlet was for the detention pond. Ms. Lizotte indicated that it goes off to the north and adjacent to the Bangor Steel building and runs down behind that property. The original plans, as originally designed, shows a drainage ditch running at the end of Dowd Road with a cul- de-sac than goes towards the railroad tracks. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about a previous expansion of the paved area on side yard of the site and how that is being handled. Mr. Lizotte indicated that when the surveyors went out on the site they located the current paving that was close to the property line on the south side of the lot. The applicant is proposing to remove that paving within the setback in order to be consistent with today’s requirements. Chairman Guerette wanted to make sure that the applicant is aware that this approval also makes it conditional that the landscaping and plantings previously approved are to be done. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that the application before the Board is for both Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act Approval. The proposed 12,600 square foot addition and the additional expansion of the paved areas for parking and maneuvering puts this site into the category where it requires Site Location of Development Act approval. When previously approved site come back before the Board for additions/modifications, Staff compares the site with what was originally approved. We request that any omissions be added. Staff asks that the applicant make the omissions consistent not with today’s standards but with the standards in effect at the time of original approval. Mr. Gould noted that the applicant has agreed to restore those items back to when the Board approved it, originally. The plans proposes to remove the pavement to give a buffer yard of 10 feet (a C-4 buffer) that will be planted at today’s requirements which is much more significant than back originally. Staff recommends that the plan submitted meets all Land Development Code standards, as well as, Site Location of Development Act standards and recommends that the Planning Board grant both approvals. Chairman Guerette called for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant approval of the Site Development Plan for Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern New England at 91 Dowd Road. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, and the Board voted five in favor and none opposed to approving the Site Plan at 91 Dowd Road. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved to approve the Site Location of Development Act application for Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Northern New England at 91 Dowd Road. Mr. Clark seconded the motion and it also passed by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 3: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Open Discussion Mr. Wheeler explained the reason for requesting that items need not be removed from the Consent Agenda in order to ask questions. Mr. Wheeler noted that more and more frequently, items are being removed for questions. What happens when a Member has question, the item drops way down to the end of the Agenda. Out of courtesy and consideration of the applicant, he would like to suggest that the Board stop this practice and simply take it off the Consent Agenda and then deliberate it immediately. Mr. Guerette indicated that this was certainly a point with considering. Chairman Guerette discussed the on-going Comprehensive Plan Update process. He noted that he had written out some suggestions as to how to proceed with the update process and passed them out for discussion. Chairman Guerette noted that first of all, that he would suggest that the current Comprehensive Plan be left as written. In looking over the document it was clear to him that it is a compilation of information that was put together by some of the municipal departments in the City and crafted with a tremendous amount of information interceded in it. It leaves one with an immediate need or urgency to want to delve into it and rewrite it. I did not think that that was the Board’s charge for this year that the Board is responsible for an update of the plan. The Board could accomplish this through an addendum entitled “Year 2005 Review and Update.” This review and update would be a narrative section of information that reflects the Board’s deliberations over things that have happened over the last five years and attached to each of the Planning Elements of the current plan. Chairman Guerette noted that for example, housing was identified in 18 of the 28 Transition Areas that were identified as part of where planning activity has taken place in the last five years. He said that he felt that it was incumbent upon the Board to look at each of the transitions areas that involves something to do with residential or housing and discuss what has happened or transpired in that section of the City and whether or not the Board has any recommendations to make, concerns to express, or words of wisdom that may be used as a guide to the next five years. Chairman Guerette noted that several years ago, St. Joseph Hospital had requested a zone change in the quadrant of land between Center Street and Broadway in order to create extra parking space. There was a public hearing held and many citizens of the Broadway, North Park Street and Center Street neighborhoods came to the public hearing to express concern about the possible encroachment of St. Joseph Hospital’s development on their neighborhoods. In reviewing the zoning map today in the Planning Office, he came to the conclusion that the Board may not want to recommend any zone changes in that area but because this activity took place, it is important for the Board to have some narrative description of what transpired there and how the Board might see future development to occur in that area. If the Board is not going to be making any zone changes, then it would be within the Board’s purview to say something to the effect that in the future the Board would look at development requests in this area on a case-by-case basis which is the Board’s charge and give the utmost attention to preserving the quality and integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods. Chairman Guerette indicated that what he had written were only suggestions and were certainly open for critique. Once the 2005 review and update are completed he suggested that the Board send that information to each of the municipal departments that have oversight of these elements. For example, housing, transportation, natural resources and ask them for their comments. Once their comments have been reviewed and incorporated into the update and narrative then a rough draft could be prepared to be discussed at Public Hearing and ultimately for a recommendation to the City Council for approval. Chairman Guerette said that he did not think that the Board should shy away from some of the global planning issues that exist not only in our State but across the country such as mitigation of sprawl, concern for green space for citizens to enjoy, smart growth, and all of the input received at the neighborhood meetings and all can be incorporated into the narratives. If the Board follows this model, it could be demonstrated as a thorough and clean understanding of the planning activity that has occurred since 2000 and that the Board would provide some determination whether by opinion or by minutes of the Board’s discussion or my actions that the Board takes about the appropriateness of these developments and whether or not they should be continued for another five years. This information would provide some guidance for the Planning Board’s of the future between now and 2010 and might be a useful tool in updating the Comprehensive Plan in a more comprehensive manner in the year 2010. Mr. Rosenblatt said that this is a very useful overview of how the Board might move forward. As an example, using housing as the Planning Element, that a lot of the housing issues are dictated by factors that are entirely outside of the Board’s control. Many are market driven. If it could be demonstrated that the City does not have sufficient multi-family residential properties because of the manner in which the City is presently zoned that might be something the Board might want to look at and potentially recommend changes to. How would the Board work that through the proposed model? Chairman Guerette indicated that the comprehensive plan represents something that every major department in the City has an input in terms of having a vision in trying to give direction to how the City will unfold in the future. The Board does not have that kind of inpact in the work that the Board does. The Comprehensive Plan has been used to develop two items that are useful to the Board – the Zoning Map and the Land Use Policy Map. It is those two items that he is most concerned about updating in terms of taking a look at what has occurred in the last five years and deciding whether or not it is in keeping with the board policy statements of those maps and whether or not those are appropriate and whether the Board wishes to make some mid-stream corrections to those maps. In doing this, he would choose not to delve into the content of the Comprehensive Plan that comes from these other municipal departments in terms of what their vision of the City in the next 5 or 10 years. Ms. Mitchell, in looking at the transition areas, asked if the Board was looking backwards rather than forwards. She asked what was the intend of these areas. Mr. Gould indicated that the transitions areas are looking forward and not just problem areas. For example, outer Broadway beyond Judson Heights is identified as a transition area. Anything that the City deals with in this area is forward thinking. it is an area that has yet to have urban services, yet to see lots of development that is still an area where the Board can have quite a bit of influence as to which way it goes. Does it stay rural, should commercial be encouraged, should it be residential. Mr. Gould noted that in the built up areas, the area will not be drastically changes but in outlying developing area there is a great deal of influence that the Board can have. The transition area go from one end of the City to the other and looks at urban corridors along major street and collector roads where there may be a vacuum of development policy where the Board could be very effective in saying that this is what we see for the future of these areas. Mr. Gould noted Union Place indicating that the Board took a very proactive stance when it came to the redevelopment which was at the time inconsistent with the current Land Use Policy. This is a place were the Board can be proactive, if it chooses to be. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she liked Mr. Guerette’s model but added that her one concern would be that the Board, at the end taking a look at the City overall and making some overall recommendations and policy that come out of reading and understanding all of them. Mr. Wheeler commended the Chairman for a remarkable piece of work in taking a project that could be so totally mind boggling that it would be impossible and boiled it down to the most pertinent and appropriate elements. In the last five years, in his view, has driven to almost every area of the city, residential, retail, commercial, industrial parks, the waterfront, the Airport. Any time he was within easy access to those areas he would take the time to drive around at look at what was there as if he were a stranger. He was impressed. In the last five years there has been movement and development and progress made in the City that has been so subtle that it probably escapes the attention of most people who have lived here for as many years as he has. He looked at the downtown and he is far from satisfied that that area has even begun to realize its potential for redefinition its going to be a significant component of the City’s future and it is tied to the waterfront development. He looked at the various residential developments. He said that he sees City that is growing in essentially a logical fashion and he feels that this is a product of the collective instincts, insights, wisdom and experience of the City Staff, elected officials, appointed officials such as the Planning Board, and that the one thing the Board should not be is fearful that Bangor’s growth is widely out of control. Another factor that came to mind that the Board and the community at larger are far more aware of factors and concerns that were not so evident five years ago. One is the protection of the natural habitats, open space, green space, sidewalks and the environment. Where the epicenter of a metropolitan service district that comprises about 129 to 130,000 people. The Board’s concern is the land mass that is home and the place of business for about 32,000 people. It is probably not going to be much more than that in 2010. As far as the task of updating the Plan is concerned, the Board needs to keep in mind that this is an update which means it reflects things that have happened and the impact that those happenings may have on the next five years so that when the Comrpehesive Plan is actuaoly revised in 2010 nothing will come as a surprise. As far as lookin into the future is concerned, no one has a crystal ball but they do have eyes to see what we have, what we are, and what we are going to be and what we can be. If there is one element of the model that he is especially impressed with it is that he is sensitive to need to make this a collaborate effort between the Planning Board and those various municipal department who have the day to day responsibility of making recommendations, refining development plans, and enforcing codes because without their input, their collaboration, we are operating in a vacuum of eight people who have four different opinions as to how Bangor should grow and what it should be. The consideration of public input before any update is submitted to the City Council is also very important. This is a pill that he can swallow whole. Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Guerette for the time and effort that he had put into this model. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the next approach would be to select transition areas to look at and then look at each of the planning elements with respect to that transition area. Chairman Guerette said that he envisioned that it would be easier to do it the other way around to look at each Planning Element and then look at the transitions areas as to how that element may have taken place within the transition area. We would revisit each transition area a multitude of times depending on the type of activity that took place there. We have a great inventory of what has happened within each quadrant in terms of development. Great history over all of the land use projects and zone changes, etc. that have been made over the last five years and the Board would simply evaluate those with regard to housing, transportation, natural resources, public infrastructure, etc. Mr. Guerette as for Mr. Ring’s comments. Jim Ring, City Engineering, said that what the objectives are to updating the Comprehensive Plan, he said that this approach is a reasonable way to go about it. The idea of focusing on land use policies and issues are the key aspects of the plan and the things that the Planning Board does. For example an area that has conjured up a great deal of debate is the Mall area and the Penjajawoc area. The Task Force of stakeholders and are going to have some very specific suggestions/ recommendations which, as an example, might be something the Board would want to make a recommendation or take a specific action, text change, etc. Where the Board has a detailed recommendation that will be different from place to place, those types of things can be incorporated into the update. This will be very useful and whatever form this Board does in the final update will be very useful and helpful. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from Staff. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that he is very encouraged to see the proposed model, if you remember in the beginning it was very much focused at looking at the transition areas and dealing with those issues. The concern was after the last meeting there might be an interest on the part of the Board to rewrite page after page of the existing Comprehensive Plan where what Kate Weber had lined out lets deal with these transitions areas and what you put down is really by going through the Planning Elements is dealing with the identified transition areas. This model is fine with what the Staff envisioned. Chairman Guerette said that he would like to come to a rough understanding as to how the Board is going to proceed as there is a workshop th meeting next week (Tuesday April 26). Mr. Gould indicated that Staff is preparing to identify those transition areas listed that deal with housing and intend to bring back to the Board a listing of transition area by transition area of what are some of the issues that Staff that feels should be the development policy for these areas relative to housing. Staff is also going to go through the implementation schedule and give the Board an update as to what the status of this is currently. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if roads in rural areas what would be the housing issue there? Mr. Gould noted outer Stillwater Avenue our land use policy would be to be maintained as rural residence and agriculture for single-family residential development. Another example would be the Waterfront area. There are very specific recommendations as to how the City envisions residential use there. While the Board has not had to deal with this, the City has. Chairman Guerette indicated that he is optimistic that the Board wlil be able to make quick work of this. For example, the Bass Park Area, the current uses are institutional, recreational and residential. We hard at the neighborhood meeting that citizens are concerned about the affect of the racino development on traffic in their neighborhoods. The Board may not be able to do anything about that but may be able to say in our narrative that the Board is sensitive to law enforcement of traffic laws in those areas. That would be a great recommendation to make. Mr. Wheeler said that this is a perfect example of how things can change in a very short period of time. Since the meeting of last week, the plans by Penn National have taken a significant broader direction by the purchase of Millers restaurant and placement of the slots there. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Board had any homework to do. Mr. Gould encouraged the Board to do as Mr. Wheeler has done to go out and see Bangor. He noted that a former Planning Officer used to put the Planning Board Members on a bus and drive them around so they all could see the development looks like. so that they can relate to development on the face of the earth which is different from what is on paper.