Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-02 Planning Board Minutes Revised August 15, 2005 PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette Hal Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Ryan King Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Peter Witham Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Rosenblatt asked to be excused from voting on the Consent Agenda, as the applicant under Item No. 2 is a client of his office. Mr. Wheeler moved to honor Mr. Rosenblatt’s request. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote on the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove either item from the Consent Agenda, Chairman Guerette called for a motion. Mr. King moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval of a fill and grade at 1110V Stillwater Avenue in a General Commercial and Service District. Epstein Rhode Island, LLC, applicant. 2 Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan Revision to amend Lot 24 in Phase II of the Hillbrook Subdivision located on Fox Hollow. Frederick Oldenburg, Jr., and Cynthia Kubetz, applicants. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval for an outdoor recreation use located at 1017V Union Street (behind Wendy’s) in a Shopping and Personal Service District. The Fore C’s Corporation, applicant. Chairman Guerette noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this Public Hearing be continued to the next meeting. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that in order to eliminate the need to re-advertise this item, the Board would need to open the Public Hearing and then continue it. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Wheeler moved to continue the Public Hearing to the Board’s next meeting on August 16, 2005. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion to continue the Public Hearing. Item No. 4: Amending the Land Development Code- Chapter 165-113 – Starting and Completion Date Revisions – City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 05-250. The Public Hearing was opened by the Chairman, who asked for a presentation by the applicant. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that this is an amendment to the Starting and Completion Date regulations under Chapter 165-113 of the Land Development Code. The purpose of the amendment is to streamline the process relative to applicants providing starting and completion dates and extensions. Presently, the Land Development Code allows for an applicant or the Planning Board to state specific dates to commence and complete construction. Applicants are required to specify starting and completion dates on the Land Development Permit Form. These dates become a part of the record as to the legal obligations the applicant has to complete a project. Staff continually finds themselves in the situation of advising applicants to give themselves enough time to complete their projects. Many times the applicants are very optimistic and do not give themselves enough time. In these situations, it becomes necessary to come back to the Code Enforcement Office for a 60- day extension and for further extensions to come back before the Planning Board. These requests go on the routine Planning Board Agenda. The intent of this amendment is to eliminate the process of having an applicant provide a date certain (by automatically giving the applicant 1 year to start and 2 years 3 to complete as provided for in the Land Development Code). It also would defer further extension requests to Staff to be handled as a Minor Revision. After the Board’s previous discussion of this proposed amendment in July, Board Members felt that extensions should not go on indefinitely without being brought back before the Board for consideration. Staff added language that after two extension requests, an applicant would then need to reapply to the Planning Board for any further extensions. Staff feels that this amendment will streamline the process, eliminate the Board’s unnecessary role in a purely administrative function, and save some Staff time processing starting and completion dates. Staff would hope that the Board would support this amendment and make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosenblatt discussed the amendment noting that an applicant could get two years (default) plus six months (Code Enforcement Officer extension) plus 12 months (Minor Site Plan Revision # 1) plus 12 months (Minor Site Plan # 1). That would equal 54 months for a total of 30 months of extensions to complete a project. Mr. Gould indicated that was correct and this language is the result of the Board’s discussion at the July meeting. Mr. Wheeler had a concern with the grammar within the amendment especially regarding the wording of substantially complete. Mr. Gould said that in this instance, substantially is modifying the word commencement and this particular requirement is a judgement. Chairman Guerette asked if this amendment would in fact, really give an applicant 3 extensions when including the 6 month extension by the Code Enforcement Officer. Chairman Guerette indicated that he is not opposed to this but wanted to make sure that it is clear. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that a 6-month extension by the Code Enforcement Officer would not come under the Minor Revision process. Mr. Gould added that a 6-month extension would be solely at the discretion of the Code Enforcement Office. This amendment would extend the Code Enforcement Office’s 60- day extension to a 6-month extension. A reason for doing this, for example, is that if an applicant applied in January, a 60-day extension would lapse in March. This would not give an applicant time enough to complete projects requiring warm weather. Mr. King asked if an applicant has to inform the Code Enforcement Office in writing about why he needs an extension. Mr. Gould indicated that he presumed that the Code Enforcement requires this as the Land Development Permit process requires this. Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that applicants should be required to specify why they are requesting an extension and not be allowed to submit one line letters without any explanations like some of the requests that he has seen in the past. 4 No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Section 165-113 as contained in C.O. # 05-250. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of five in favor and none opposed. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Guerette confirmed that the next Comprehensive Plan Update th Workshop session would be on Tuesday, August 9. In other business, Chairman Guerette asked the Board Members if there was interest on their part in sending an amendment through the process to change back the Zoning Amendment regarding chemical treatment facilities. The City Council recently passed this amendment after the Planning Board unanimously recommended that it be denied. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board Members that ultimately these amendments are approved by the City Council, that this issue has been decided, and at this time, they did not wish to pursue this further. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Minutes of the June 20, 2005 Meeting. Mr. King seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt asked when the meetings to discuss improvements to West Market Square were to be held. Mr. Ring noted that there were two meetings rd scheduled for August 3. One from 10:30 a.m. to noon, and the other from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Gould said that there has been interest for more than 10 years to spruce up this space and make improvements. Mr. Steve Ribble of Ames A/E has gone out and looked at Westmarket Square and has come up with a plan for a facelift. The meetings are an opportunity for people to come and see the plan. The City is very interested in obtaining comments from the public. Mr. Gould also noted that at the next Planning Board Meeting there will be a public hearing regarding consideration of the adoption of the Penjajawoc Mall Task Force Study as part of the Comprehensive Plan. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette Hal Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Ryan King Laura Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Peter Witham Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Rosenblatt asked to be excused from voting on the Consent Agenda, as the applicant under Item No. 2 is a client of his office. Mr. Wheeler moved to honor Mr. Rosenblatt’s request. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote on the Consent Agenda. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove either item from the Consent Agenda, Chairman Guerette called for a motion. Mr. King moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval of a fill and grade at 1110V Stillwater Avenue in a General Commercial and Service District. Epstein Rhode Island, LLC, applicant. 2 Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan Revision to amend Lot 24 in Phase II of the Hillbrook Subdivision located on Fox Hollow. Frederick Oldenburg, Jr., and Cynthia Kubetz, applicants. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval for an outdoor recreation use located at 1017V Union Street (behind Wendy’s) in a Shopping and Personal Service District. The Fore C’s Corporation, applicant. Chairman Guerette noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this Public Hearing be continued to the next meeting. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that in order to eliminate the need to re- advertise this item, the Board would need to open the Public Hearing and then continue it. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Wheeler moved to continue the Public Hearing to the Board’s next meeting on August 16, 2005. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion to continue the Public Hearing. Item No. 4: Amending the Land Development Code- Chapter 165- 113 – Starting and Completion Date Revisions – City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 05-250. The Public Hearing was opened by the Chairman, who asked for a presentation by the applicant. Acting Planning Officer Gould explained that this is an amendment to the Starting and Completion Date regulations under Chapter 165-113 of the Land Development Code. The purpose of the amendment is to streamline the process relative to applicants providing starting and completion dates and extensions. Presently, the Land Development Code allows for an applicant or the Planning Board to state specific dates to commence and complete construction. Applicants are required to specify starting and completion dates on the Land Development Permit Form. These dates become a part of the record as to the legal obligations the applicant has to complete a project. Staff continually finds themselves in the situation of advising applicants to give themselves enough time to complete their projects. Many times the applicants are very optimistic and do not give themselves enough time. In these situations, it becomes necessary to come back to the Code Enforcement Office for a 60-day extension and for further extensions to come back before the Planning Board. These requests go on the routine Planning Board Agenda. 3 The intent of this amendment is to eliminate the process of having an applicant provide a date certain (by automatically giving the applicant 1 year to start and 2 years to complete as provided for in the Land Development Code). It also would defer further extension requests to Staff to be handled as a Minor Revision. After the Board’s previous discussion of this proposed amendment in July, Board Members felt that extensions should not go on indefinitely without being brought back before the Board for consideration. Staff added language that after two extension requests, an applicant would then need to reapply to the Planning Board for any further extensions. Staff feels that this amendment will streamline the process, eliminate the Board’s unnecessary role in a purely administrative function, and save some Staff time processing starting and completion dates. Staff would hope that the Board would support this amendment and make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Rosenblatt discussed the amendment noting that an applicant could get up to 36 months to complete a project. Mr. Gould indicated that was correct and this language is the result of the Board’s discussion at the July meeting. Mr. Wheeler had a concern with the grammar within the amendment especially regarding the wording of substantially complete. Mr. Gould said that in this instance, substantially is modifying the word commencement and this particular requirement is a judgement. Chairman Guerette asked if this amendment would in fact, really give an applicant 3 extensions when including the 6 month extension by the Code Enforcement Officer. Chairman Guerette indicated that he is not opposed to this but wanted to make sure that it is clear. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that a 6-month extension by the Code Enforcement Officer would not come under the Minor Revision process. Mr. Gould added that a 6-month extension would be solely at the discretion of the Code Enforcement Office. This amendment would extend the Code Enforcement Office’s 60-day extension to a 6-month extension. A reason for doing this, for example, is that if an applicant applied in January, a 60-day extension would lapse in March. This would not give an applicant time enough to complete projects requiring warm weather. Mr. King asked if an applicant has to inform the Code Enforcement Office in writing about why he needs an extension. Mr. Gould indicated that he presumed that the Code Enforcement requires this as the Land Development Permit process requires this. 4 Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that applicants should be required to specify why they are requesting an extension and not be allowed to submit one line letters without any explanations like some of the requests that he has seen in the past. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Zoning Amendment to Section 165-113 as contained in C.O. # 05-250. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of five in favor and none opposed. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Guerette confirmed that the next Comprehensive Plan Update th Workshop session would be on Tuesday, August 9. In other business, Chairman Guerette asked the Board Members if there was interest on their part in sending an amendment through the process to change back the Zoning Amendment regarding chemical treatment facilities. The City Council recently passed this amendment after the Planning Board unanimously recommended that it be denied. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board Members that ultimately these amendments are approved by the City Council, that this issue has been decided, and at this time, they did not wish to pursue this further. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Minutes of the June 20, 2005 Meeting. Mr. King seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt asked when the meetings to discuss improvements to West Market Square were to be held. Mr. Ring noted that there were two meetings rd scheduled for August 3. One from 10:30 a.m. to noon, and the other from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Gould said that there has been interest for more than 10 years to spruce up this space and make improvements. Mr. Steve Ribble of Ames A/E has gone out and looked at Westmarket Square and has come up with a plan for a facelift. The meetings are an opportunity for people to come and see the plan. The City is very interested in obtaining comments from the public. 5 Mr. Gould also noted that at the next Planning Board Meeting there will be a public hearing regarding consideration of the adoption of the Penjajawoc Mall Task Force Study as part of the Comprehensive Plan. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.