Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-03-01 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Ryan King Nathaniel Rosenblatt Patricia Cummings Bill Masters Laura Hoovler Mitchell City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham News Media Present: None Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed Ms. Laura Hoovler Mitchell to the Planning Board as a new Associate Member. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Preliminary Subdivision Plan – Church Road – Lavallee & Ide, Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the applicant. Chairman Guerette also explained the public hearing process in that the proponents would be asked to speak first, then opponents, then the Public Hearing would be closed and Staff would be asked for their comments. Mr. Andrew Sturgeon of Ames A/E, Architects and Engineers, spoke in favor of the proposed preliminary subdivision plan. Mr. Sturgeon explained that the applicant is requesting preliminary subdivision plan approval to create a 15-lot addition (Phase II) to the Church Woods Subdivision in the Rural Residence and Agriculture District. Mr. Sturgeon noted that the applicant’s site evaluator provided copies of the on-site soil tests as evidence of soil suitability, and for on-site waste disposal. He noted that the freshwater wetlands have also been delineated on the plan and that all of the lots demonstrate suitable upland building locations without the need for wetland disturbance. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that the proposed roadway will cross the wetland in a location that will have minimal impact. The proposed 6.69 acre open space is largely wetland and part of an area defined as a “deer wintering area” (deeryard) by the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Some portion of Lots 20 and 26 may include development restrictions to preserve the existing habitat. Because of the size of Phase I and II, the project will require a Site Location of Development Act (SLODA) Permit. Mr. James Manzer, Ames A/E, told the Board that the proposed lots are close to 2.5 acres in size and over the minimum lot widths, surveyed for septic systems, wells, and nitrogen analysis. The applicant is proposing 6.7 acres of open space to be connected with a 20-ft. wide strip for a trail connection between the Phase I and Phase II open spaces. The Skyline Road extension is designed the same as Phase I, two 12’ wide travel ways, with 2 foot shoulders. Also, the lots are to be designed not to drain onto neighboring lots. Mr. Manzer said that with large lots, impervious surface is more controlled than on a smaller lot layout. Chairman Guerette asked about the lots that appear to contain areas of wetlands, the characteristics of those wetlands, and measures proposed to mitigate any effects that septic systems may cause. Mr. Sturgeon explained that the largest wetland affected is to be crossed by Skyline Road at almost its narrowest point, but will mostly be included in open space area. Wetlands at the rear of the first few lots on the right going into the subdivision expansion will not be affected. One lot with wetland in the front may be accessed in the rear by a driveway along a road reservation strip until another subdivision expansion occurs. The two lots that are affected the most are beyond the wetland crossing and will have restrictive covenants protecting those areas of the lots. That area has been identified as a deer yard corridor and the developer has been working with Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) to protect that area. The lots are large and still contain about 1.5 acres of upland each. Chairman Guerette asked about the characteristics of the wetland. Mr. Sturgeon explained that they are forested wetlands and that no covenants were planned for those first few lots because they are deep, and there are regulations regarding development in wetlands. Mr. Rosenblatt asked for more detail on the deeryard and what is being done to protect that. Mr. Sturgeon said that the specific concern that IF&W had for this subdivision was to maintain a corridor where the open space is depicted. The bigger 2 concern was with all land holdings of Lavallee and Ide. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that they are beginning to develop an overall plan of the entire holdings to protect the deer habitat and corridors and to coordinate with neighbors. He said that the plan should be more detailed by the time of a Final Subdivision Plan submission. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if it is known where the deer habitat is located. Mr. Sturgeon said that the mapping of it is subjective in location, but generally it is in low-lying areas. Site visits are occurring now to verify the area. Mr. Masters asked Mr. Sturgeon about the details for the road shoulders and if they would be paved, and if they would be elevated or level with the road. Mr. Sturgeon explained that the First Phase has gravel shoulders and that the Second Phase Plan would be built to match the first although the Preliminary Plan does not specify that. He said that the detail would be worked out before Final Subdivision Plan submission. Mr. Masters explained that he has reviewed the State Planning Office’s model subdivision ordinance and it appears that the applicant’s inclusion of open space satisfies this model ordinance as well as the City of Bangor’s requirement. Mr. Masters indicated that it also does not satisfy the sidewalk requirement in the model subdivision and that looking at the potential expansion of all of the holdings, a system would be beneficial. However, the curvilinear streets may help to slow traffic down. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that the street layout is also affected by wetland locations. Mr. King asked Mr. Sturgeon if the proposed construction in the Second Phase would be consistent with that done in the First Phase. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that it would. As there were no other proponents, Chairman Guerette asked for comments from opponents. Mr. Everett Palmer, an abutting owner of 46 acres, explained the location of his house on Broadway. Mr. Palmer said that at one time he lost the water in his well and had to drill another one. He said that he was concerned that this proposal might force him to drill a third well and that he would prefer an extension of the sewer system as was done for Judson Heights. Palmer described other features of the neighborhood and indicated that he is not opposed to the subdivision, but is concerned about possible contamination to his water system. Seeing no other opponents, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a report from the Staff. Planner David Gould explained the Preliminary Subdivision Plan application for this particular development, and described the lots as meeting the City’s standards along with required improvements. He explained that the State Department of Environmental Protection has delegated Site Location of Development review to the City for this project. The City asks applicants to coordinate that approval with the City’s Final Subdivision Plan approval in order to avoid a second review if changes are needed with the Preliminary Plan. The deeryards are generally 3 wooded and low, but delineation requires on-site visits and when first identified by Staff, the applicant and IF&W were in initial discussions. He indicated that there was an error in Staff’s memorandum regarding the shoulders on the plan and that they are proposed to be gravel. The plan only has minimum items to be changed for Final Plan and that Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the City would be hearing from IF&W in regards to the deer yard. Mr. Gould said that he requested through Mr. Manzer some confirmation from IF&W indicating acceptance of the proposed plan. Mr. Rosenblatt also asked if the water quality concerns of Mr. Palmer, the abutting property owner, could be addressed. Mr. Gould said that there are two elements regarding water quality. One is the City’s standard that the applicant demonstrate for each lot in the subdivision that it meets the State of Maine’s plumbing code for soil suitability for on-site waste water disposal. Also in the Site Location of Development Act application there is a section that asks the applicant to demonstrate suitable water supply. The SLODA application will be reviewed with the Final Subdivision Plan application. Mr. Masters said that he had heard that there might be a possible re-write of the Subdivision Ordinance that would include a change in the philosophy on the requirement of sidewalks in subdivisions. Mr. Gould indicated that he had not heard any discussion to that effect related to sidewalks. Mr. Masters emphasized that at the Comprehensive Plan Update workshops there was much interest expressed in sidewalks. Mr. Gould added that after that process is complete, the Planning Board would need to decide what action it should take on a number of issues including sidewalks or trails. Mr. Gould did not think that the Council or Staff had proposed an amendment at this time. Mr. Masters asked if the Planning Board has the authority to propose any legislation such as that or was it only the Council or Staff that may do that. Mr. Gould explained that if the Planning Board had an idea of an amendment that it would like Staff to put forward into the process, that Staff would look at that. Chairman Guerette asked for any other comments. Mr. Clark asked if the applicant’s agents had addressed Mr. Palmer’s questions regarding private septic systems. Mr. Sturgeon explained that while he was not a licensed soil scientist, the process that they use and used on this project examines soils to see that they meet criteria including the ability to hold the sewerage and not leach onto neighboring properties. Mr. Manzer added that the distance from the proposed lots and Mr. Palmer’s house is approximately 4,500 feet, which is a long stretch of woods. Areas closer to Bomarc could be sewered and that the subdivision actually straddles a drainage divide and only part of it drains toward the Kenduskeag Stream. Also the SLODA requirements ask for information regarding water quality and the well yields are more prolific near Broadway. He believed that would address Mr. Palmer’s concern. Mr. James Ring, City Engineer, added that the SLODA process does ask for information that would satisfy Mr. Palmer’s concerns. He indicated that the State 4 Plumbing Code requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and that what is proposed here is significantly larger. Also, the State Plumbing Code has a long-standing minimum distance of 100 feet between a septic system and a well owned by someone else. Chairman Guerette asked what the long-term prospects are for extension of the sewer system and water systems. Mr. Ring said that there are no plans for extensions to this area and asked Mr. Gould for confirmation that this area is beyond the Primary Service Boundary, which is the extent to which services might be extended in the near future, on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Masters asked if there is a scientific method to determine if there is adequate water supply for this expansion and for possible future expansions. Mr. Ring indicated that he was not sure of the answer to the question, but has not known of subdivisions such as this one that have had problems in water supply. Mr. Ring added that on individual sites, a well is drilled and water may be found at varying depths. The applicant will have to address the issue in the SLODA application. Chairman Guerette then asked for any other comments or questions. There being none, he asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Planning Board grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for the subdivision on Church Road to Lavallee and Ide, Inc. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5-0 in favor of the motion for approval. Item No. 2: Preliminary Subdivision Plan – Essex Street – Walden Parke LLC, Applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing for a proposed subdivision off of Essex Street and explained that the same format would be followed as in the previous application. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he felt that he needed to recuse himself from this item because his firm represents the applicant. He also felt that he should not participate. Also, the Maine State Bar Association rules also direct that he should not and that it would be unethical for him to participate in this item. Mr. Guerette asked if there were any questions about Mr. Rosenblatt recusing himself. Hearing none, he asked Mr. Masters to vote on this item. Chairman Guerette then asked for a presentation from the applicant. Dr. Frederick Oldenburg, Jr. introduced Walden Parke, LLC as a partnership composed of himself and three other partners, including his wife Caroline, and Dennis and Jane Shubert. He described the reason for his move to Maine as being able to ski outside his office door and that was his concept for this subdivision. He indicated that it would have been relatively easy to do this project in several stages, but the concept includes land preservation. Because the project is strategically located near the Penjajawoc Marsh, the former Veazie railroad bed, and the City Forest the hope was to 5 plan the whole area and preserve as much as possible. He described the area through use of maps and the location of proposed roads, lots, and areas to be preserved. In 1993 the property was heavily timbered by the previous owner where the proposed subdivision will be located. In discussions with Inland Fisheries and Wildlife they indicated that in that area there is no possibility for it to be a deer wintering area. Part of the concept then is to preserve as much area that was not cut, for habitat and recreational access use. The realistic issues are that they would need 82 lots, for a return, split into two phases. The First Phase would be the entrance road and there will be an emergency access over a woods road from Forest Avenue in Orono. Bangor Land Trust will have a small parking lot at one end of one of the roads. Dr. Oldenburg added that all properties will have restrictive covenants, as it is a rural subdivision, including the amount of cutting on the property. He estimates 18 to 20 years for finishing the project and hopes that the City will look favorably on this project with its long term land preservation intent. Mr. Wheeler asked Dr. Oldenburg if he could address the concerns outlined in a letter to him dated February 14, 2005, from Caroline W. and Lawrence Ellis. Dr. Oldenburg explained that there is a stream running through his property and that of his neighbors. There was a dam built in the 1950’s with Fish and Wildlife funds that was in disrepair when the Oldenburgs bought the property. They consulted with DEP and received a permit to repair it and maintain the water level that it historically had. They built an elaborate system for drainage. Throughout the watershed, beavers are present and build dams where they can. Dr. Oldenburg explained that he has had to obtain permission to remove the dams and beavers on his property repetitively. The Ellis property upstream from his property has beaver dams and ponds on it. He did not know for how long they have had that problem, but depending on how long they have been there, they may not be able to remove them. Mr. Wheeler asked Dr. Oldenburg if he had been in contact with Ms. Ellis. Dr. Oldenburg responded that he sent a letter to her and a copy to the Planning Office. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he had not seen the letter. Dr. Oldenburg said that what he had written to Ms. Ellis essentially was the same information that he had just explained to the Board. He said that she would be able to have access. Mr. Clark asked about the e-mail message from Leo Cummings and Julie Esp, abutters who have no legal access, but do have historical access for logging. Dr. Oldenburg said that he offered a 20-foot strip from one of the new roads in his subdivision to their property, but that they had responded with a request for a 66-foot right-of-way. He indicated that his response was that with the great expense he was incurring to reach their property, he would be willing to share the expense proportionately with their 55 acres, one-fifth the size of his. Dr. Oldenburg added that he did not think it fair that he be required to give them the 66 feet that would allow them to return to the Planning Board for a subdivision application. Also, the City has 6 given him a specific number of lots that he may develop on the proposed roads and if they were to develop their property at a lower cost due to his donation, they would effectively be in competition with lower priced lots and reduce the number that he could develop. Chairman Guerette asked if the dark-shaded areas were wetland, if open or wooded, and if located on proposed lots how he proposed to protect them from future owners. Dr. Oldenburg said there are restrictive covenants regarding wetlands on lots and that most of the wetlands will be in the Land Trust, including an area of open water. Mr. Masters asked Dr. Oldenburg how he felt about sidewalks. Dr. Oldenburg said that he disagreed with Mr. Masters about sidewalks in rural subdivisions such as this. He said that he felt that in this neighborhood where the lots are large and far apart, the added impervious surface would be extensive. Mr. Masters said that he would like to see some area of refuge along the roads and that this subdivision only has 2-foot gravel shoulders with 26-foot travel ways, which do not seem enough and are less than the 3 feet proposed in the previous subdivision on the agenda. Chairman Guerette asked for any other proponents. Mr. Andrew Sturgeon spoke as a neighbor from Fox Hollow in support of the proposed subdivision and land preservation. He said that he had walked the roads in his subdivision and did not feel threatened by traffic because there are no sidewalks and he contrasted this area with some of the denser neighborhoods in Bangor. Ms. Lucy Quimby spoke as President of the Bangor Land Trust and resident of Bangor. She spoke of the value of the proposed land preservation in relation to the Beginning with Habitats program. It will help to consolidate a large unbroken area of open space that is necessary to some wildlife. Recreational use is a benefit, too, as could be seen by a recent traffic jam in the Bangor City Forest. Mr. Wheeler asked Ms. Quimby for an explanation of wildlife watching. Ms. Quimby gave examples. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from opponents. Ms. Julie Esp introduced herself as a co-owner with her father, Leo Cummings of abutting property. She explained that her 55-acre parcel was created in the early 1800’s and the original subdivision proposed a road from Stillwater Avenue to Essex Street. She indicated that she was unaware of the proposed subdivision until six weeks ago when Dr. Oldenburg contacted her. She was not able to answer him because she had a lot of questions and research to do. One question she had was regarding the dispersal of rights in the “proposed road” on the 1800’s era map. Ms. Esp asked questions regarding emergency access to Merritt Lane, and that her historical access has been by way of logging roads. None of the plans show where those logging roads were. She has concerns that without a 66-foot right-of-way 7 required under City’s ordinances that any future development possibilities would not be possible, including even building a single family house. In reading the Comprehensive Plan there is a goal for arterial street standards integrated into a network for local streets. She did not feel that she should be further landlocked by this development. She requested that the Planning Board require that there be a 66-foot right-of-way to her lot. Also, she requested that the potential for connections for other landlocked parcels be made and that there should be a loop road system rather than a dead end system. Chairman Guerette asked for any other opponents and seeing none asked for Staff comments. Mr. Gould summarized the proposal for creation of another residential subdivision in the Rural Residence and Agriculture District. He contrasted the 70-lot Rolling Meadows Subdivision on 40 acres with this subdivision of 82 lots on 241 acres and its preservation of an additional 449 acres. Mr. Gould indicated that this project is larger than the City is authorized to review under the Site Location of Development Act, so the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will review this application. He noted that there are significant wetlands within the total 241 acres and 36,000-sq. ft. will be filled for road construction thus requiring a Tier 2 Permit from the Department of Environmental Protection. Mr. Gould indicated that there will be two standards for roads, the more-traveled entrance road will have a 30-foot travel way and the less-traveled sections will have a 26-foot travel way with 2-foot shoulders. Because of the subdivision’s location in the Penjajawoc watershed, stormwater quality standards will require the removal of 80% of suspended solids. Several areas in the subdivision are proposed as buffer areas for the discharge of stormwater. Mr. Gould indicated that the concept of phasing is something that the Board should discuss. Staff has suggested to the applicant to obtain Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval of the entire project, then Final Subdivision Plan approval in two phases. Also, there was discussion with the applicant about an alternate access to the subdivision from Forest Avenue, because of the significant length of roadway into this subdivision and only one access point on Essex Street. The City would like to see an alternative access for emergencies. There are other minor details on the plans that Staff believes may be addressed at the time of Final Plan approval. The other major item that needs to be addressed is the creation of lot remnants at the entrance to the subdivision on Essex Street. Other issues such as the legal interests of other parties are not part of the subdivision standards. There may be some other detail items that the City Engineer may want to address. Mr. Wheeler requested that the Staff give guidance on the framing of the motion that appears to cover a multitude of issues. Mr. Gould said that Staff did not want to preclude the Board from considering all of the issues that have been discussed. What Staff would like to see is a resolution to the creation of lot remnants as shown on the plan and that the City be provided with an 8 alternative emergency access, the details of which should be worked out with the City Engineer and City Solicitor. Associate Member Cummings asked where the emergency access road would be and its proximity to the land-locked parcel. City Engineer Ring indicated the location on the map of the parcel and the emergency access road. He explained that the lot was traditionally accessed from logging roads off of Forest Avenue in Orono. He indicated that in discussions with the current owner and the previous owner, he would not be in favor of a development that had only one access point. Mr. Ring indicated that he would like to see an assurance of an emergency access route, but said that he would not be in favor of an unrestricted access road because people might use it as a short cut thru the subdivision. Ms. Cummings asked what alternatives there are for the property owners of land-locked parcels. She indicated that it was her impression that considering the investment that Dr. Oldenburg has made to gain access to his property, that it would be a similar investment for people who have land locked parcels. She noted that an owner might have to purchase a lot in order to get a right-of-way. Mr. Ring indicated that he had talked with Ms. Esp and followed up on that conversation with the City Attorney about her concerns. The City Attorney indicated that the matter of access is not up to the Planning Board to decide but will need to be sorted about by the parties or their attorneys. Access is one thing and development access is another. There is a minimum requirement for street widths to develop a parcel and that is different from access for timber harvesting. This also needs to be sorted out by the parties. The City Attorney indicated that the Planning Board does not have the authority to require access to parcels that do not otherwise have access. This issue will need to be addressed between the parties prior to Final Plan approval. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Ring to discuss crafting the motion for approval with this contingency in it. Mr. Ring asked the Board to consider a motion with the condition that the applicant satisfactorily provide a secondary access in a form that is acceptable to the City Solicitor and City Engineer. He indicated that the City will need an instrument to insure that access. Mr. King asked Mr. Ring to discuss the two phases. Mr. Ring indicated that this is a large project that will likely be built in two phases. What the applicant is seeking is preliminary approval for the whole layout and the Final Plan will most likely be only for Phase I. Mr. Ring indicated that it is beneficial for the City, the abutting property owners, and the Planning Board to see the whole project. Chairman Guerette had questions regarding stormwater management and asked if this project would have storm detention ponds. Dr. Oldenburg responded that the project has been designed with buffer zones. The project has a series of buffers that 9 will be reserved areas so that in the low spots, the water will run down, run off and filter through the buffers. Because of the marshland, the applicant is required to clean 80 percent of all of the particle materials. Dr. Oldenburg added that this is a very simple system but is much better than a detention pond. Chairman Guerette closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Masters moved to approve the preliminary subdivision for Walden Park, LLC. Chairman Guerette asked if Mr. Masters would like to include the two conditions noted by Staff. Mr. Masters indicated that he did not think that they were a legal necessity. Mr. Wheeler moved to amend the motion to add the two conditions that the applicant secure a guaranteed alternative access to the subdivision and that the issue of the possible creation of lot remnants be addressed by the applicant. Mr. Masters said that he had no objection but added that there was no requirement for this in the Land Development Code. Mr. Ring explained that because of the length of the proposed access off of Essex Street and its location, it is important for long-term safety to have an alternative access road rather than relying on one road for emergency services. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. He noted that he has concerns about single entrances and exits. Mr. Wheeler asked which motion Mr. Clark was seconding. Mr. Clark indicated the main motion. Mr. Wheeler pointed out that the amendment motion did not have a second. Mr. Clark seconded the amendment to the motion. Mr. King ask for a clarification on what the Board is voting on. Chairman Guerette indicated that there was a motion to approve the preliminary subdivision plan for Walden Parke LLC with an amendment to that the motion to add conditions that the applicant deal with remnant parcels in the vicinity where the roadway intersects with Essex Street, and conditioned upon the creation of an alternative access for emergencies. Mr. Wheeler noted that the Chairman had combined both motions and that Board needed to vote on them separately. Mr. Masters indicated that his motion had not been seconded and he would withdraw his motion. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he did not feel that it was necessary for Mr. Masters to withdraw his motion but felt that the Board needed to follow parliamentary procedure. Mr. Wheeler asked the Chair to call for a vote on the amendment to the motion. Chairman Guerette noted that Mr. Clark’s second was to the amendment to the original motion. The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed to approve the amendment to the original motion to include the conditions. Mr. Wheeler then seconded Mr. Masters motion, as amended. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion, as amended. 10 Mr. Masters indicated that this may be a good time to look at the ordinance for an amendment to address the issue of another access or egress. Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code Chapter 165-128 (C) (11), Street Right-of-Way Widths, to Reduce Minimum Right-of-Way Widths in Certain Subdivisions. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 05-87. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. James Ring, City Engineer, represented the applicant, City of Bangor. Mr. Ring explained that this application is for an amendment to the City’s Land Development Code Chapter 165-128 C, (11) Right-of- Way Widths. Mr. Ring explained that the Land Development Code currently does not make a distinction on the size of commercial or industrial type roadways. It just has one requirement of 80 feet as a minimum. In looking at the number of commercial or industrial park type rights-of-way there is a great variation ranging from 50 feet up to 100 feet of right-of-way width. In cases where there are large developments or high traffic generating developments it would be understandable why one might see more than 80 feet. There are a couple of places in Bangor where the right-of-way is only 50 feet in a commercial or small industrial park. At the time they were constructed, the requirement was only 50 feet. Mr. Ring explained that an applicant had approached the City regarding a proposed subdivision located off of Mecaw Road who felt that the 80 foot right-of-way created a hardship for his proposed subdivision. The applicant asked the City to take a look at this requirement. Staff reviewed the request and with some limitations saw no reason to require an 80-foot right-of-way for smaller developments. Mr. Ring indicated that Staff would recommend the proposed amendment contained in C.O.#05-87 to change the Ordinance to make a distinction for small commercial or industrial service type rights-of-way for a reduction provided that: the right-of-way terminates in a cul- de-sac and serves no thru traffic both presently and in the future; that the cul-de-sac serves no more than 10 lots; and that the City Engineer issue a written report that the reduced right-of-way width will be sufficient to accommodate the projected traffic generation and utility needs of the proposed development served by the street. Mr. Masters asked for a definition of right-of-way. Mr. Ring explained that a right-of-way, in terms of public streets, is actually the land that will be owned by the City. It is not an easement. A right-of-way is not just the street pavement it is the full width within which the City or public utilities can locate their facilities. In the case of a 66-foot right-of-way that the adjacent property abuts, that would be in public ownership. For quite a number of years now when public streets are dedicated and accepted there is a requirement that the City receive a deed to the land so that the City owns this land in fee. Within a 66-foot wide street, there might be a 30-foot wide travelway of pavement that leaves 18 feet on either side which would allow open 11 ditching, which is typical on these types of streets, and where over head utility poles, etc could be located. Mr. Masters asked if the streets were centered within the right-of-way. Mr. Ring noted that most street pavements are constructed to be centered within street rights- of-way, but not always. There may be topographical issues that might support off setting the street slightly. Mr. Masters asked if the entire 66 feet is the City’s responsibility. Mr. Ring indicated that it is. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had concerns about this amendment due to the recent concerns regarding traffic. First, the proposed language talks about the 66-foot width where the cul-de-sac serves no more than ten lots. He asked if the entire street would serve 10 lots or the cul-de-sac section of the street would serve 10 lots. Mr. Ring indicated that it would be the entire street. Mr. Rosenblatt asked with respect to each lot, if there could be more than one commercial or industrial use on that lot. Mr. Ring said that that was possible. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that there was no mention as to the length of the road. Mr. Ring indicated that the size would be dictated by the number of lots and would service any thru traffic. Mr. Ring indicated that Staff worked with the Legal Department to provide some parameters that the Staff could be comfortable with. For example, in a situation where a piece of property was to be developed such as the proposed subdivision located off of Mecaw Road, if that subdivision could be extended to serve future commercial land, then in reviewing this as the City Engineer, he would have reservations. In instances such as this where there is a physical limitation such as a deep ravine and gully there is no logical way that a street could be extended to serve more than the area proposed. Mr. Ring noted that this is similar to residential cul-de-sacs where the street right-of-way is less than those rights- of-way for thru streets. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the City Engineer knew what specific uses are being proposed in a subdivision when he issues that report? Mr. Ring indicated that all of the uses allowed would be considered. He added that the current industrial park roads may serve several side streets and are 66 feet or less. When the requirement was changed to 80 feet, a number of years ago, the concern was that we wanted to make sure that we had a street that could potentially serve a very large area to allow for enough right-of-way width. Mr. David Moyse indicated that the request is a result of a subdivision project that he will be seeking approval of. He indicated that he is proposing a 1,000-foot street with a cul-de-sac. Only four of the proposed lots are located in the City of Bangor the other lots are located in Hampden. Mr. Masters indicated that he though it was nice to put this amendment forward to help the applicant, but asked if there was a way that the City Council could provide a waiver in this particular instance without amendment the Ordinance. Mr. Ring noted 12 that he could not think of any instance where the City Council has done this, particularly on a zoning issue. Mr. Moyse noted that Assistant City Solicitor Hamer had indicated that this was the only solution to this problem. Chairman Guerette closed the public hearing and asked for questions from the Board. Mr. Wheeler said that an exception cannot be made to an ordinance on the books. It either has to be repealed or amended. He asked what the Planning Board’s legal authority in this is. Mr. Ring indicated that an ordinance change can only be accepted or rejected by the City Council. Ordinances that relate to Land Development Code issues, zoning, etc. are introduced at City Council and then referred to the Planning Board. The Planning Board, like in cases of a zone change, would make its recommendation that would go back to the City Council for action. This is referred to you for your consideration and recommendation. Planner Gould indicated that Staff had no issue with the adequacy of a 66-foot right-of-way. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend approval of this zoning amendment to the City Council. Mr. Gould indicated that he would like to see the City adopt a set of road standards that would deal with the length of roads, width of streets, etc. He noted that Staff does a lot of these things in-house as we have a very capable Engineering Staff, but it would be nice to have them written down as a code. Chairman Guerette moved to recommend to the City Council that the zoning amendment contained in C.O. # 05-87 to reduce minimum right-of-way widths in certain subdivisions, be approved. Mr. King seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt outlined the reasons why he would be voting against the motion. First, the proposed amendment has no length limitation, only a limit on the number of lots. Secondly, the requirement that the cul-de-sac serve no more than 10 lots, as currently worded, some could argue that the reduced width applies so long as the cul- de-sac portion of the street serves no more than 10 lots. Thirdly, streets are often extended past their initial cul-de-sac. The Planning Board has seen this in their experience. He was not sure what would happen then. Fourth, he had concerns about the report from the City Engineer in cases where changes in usage, which inevitably will occur, and the traffic associated with those changes. He said that the Board is dealing with any industrial or commercial use and there could be a large variance in the amount of traffic associated with those sorts of uses. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he is fearful that as those changes take place, there will be inadequate street widths. Mr. Wheeler said that he is in agreement with most of Mr. Rosenblatt’s points. Principally he would not be supporting this amendment because it is being passed through the Planning Board for opinion and recommendation only, and not for final disposition. He said that while he agrees with the Planning Staff that a lot of 13 Ordinances need to be updated and revised, he did not feel that a piecemeal approach is the appropriate way to do it, particularly at this time with the Comprehensive Plan Update already upon them. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would vote against this amendment as a matter of principal, only. Mr. Guerette asked for a motion. The Board voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed to recommend to the City Council approval of C.O. # 05-87. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Minutes of the February 1, 2005 Meeting had not been approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the February 1, 2005 Meeting. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to approve the Minutes of the February 1, 2005 Meeting. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 5: Comprehensive Plan Update Project. There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 14