Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-05-10 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR WORKSHOP MEETING OF MAY 10, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Nat Rosenblatt Ryan King Jonathan Siegel City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Lynn Johnson Chairman Guerette opened the workshop and indicated that the purpose of this meeting is to continue discussion of the Housing Element. Chairman Guerette noted that at the previous workshop, the Board discussed housing through the first five Transition Areas. Mr. David Gould, Acting Planning Officer, indicated that Staff followed up on the Board’s request for background on each of the Transition Areas. Staff went through the list of development that has occurred in the last few years and looked at the issues of each area and noted the land use policies for these areas, and prepared a proposed narrative text that could be included in the update. (Note: The narrative for each Transition Area discussed is included.) # 6 Griffin Rd & Kenduskeag Ave Transition area 6 was largely impacted by various expansions at Husson College. The College facilities went through a moderate amount of growth and new development of campus facilities. The most neighborhood reaction came from the use and development of Husson’s Winkin Sports Complex for professional baseball. Traffic lighting and sound impacts were all key concerns to area neighbors. Just beyond Husson a number of multi-unit housing projects were constructed on High Density Residential lots off of Husson Avenue. The Planning Office has long held the development policy of increasing the intensity of development (density) as you move out from the Kenduskeag stream. The area immediately adjacent to the stream should be high value open space and protected from intensive development. Moving out from there, areas should be developed as low density residential housing and low density attached housing. Further from the stream, crossing Ohio Street or 2 approaching Broadway is where the development should transition to a higher density housing type. This may be in the form of small residential lots or townhouses or multifamily housing projects. Discussion Mr. Gould discussed Transition Area No. 6, the area from Griffin Road to Kenduskeag Avenue, from Broadway back to Griffin Road on to the Kenduskeag Stream. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what this area is currently zoned. Mr. Gould indicated that the Husson College area is primarily zoned G & ISD with a portion of HDR contract zoning remaining, some RR & A, and some LDR that borders the Kenduskeag Stream. There is no commercial zoning in this Transition Area. Chairman Guerette asked where City-owned parcel of land was located. Mr. Gould indicated that it is located along Griffin Road and Kenduskeag Avenue. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Husson College still owns the property along Griffin Road and if the HDR zoning was a remnant from an earlier time. Mr. Gould indicated that Husson College still owns this property and the HDR remnant at one time was proposed for a nursing home facility in conjunction with the Husson College nursing program. Mr. Gould noted that most of the development in this area has been Husson College related. He indicated that the Land Use policy is one that the City has had for a long time and should indicate LDR zoning along the Stream, and as you get away from the stream toward Broadway, the zoning should be High Density Residential. Chairman Guerette, reading from the narrative, noted that the area immediately adjacent to the stream should be high value open space and protected from intensive development. He asked if this land was privately owned. Mr. Gould indicated that it is but that it is zoned Resource Protection and will not be redeveloped. Chairman Guerette asked if there is sewer service in this area. Mr. Gould pointed to the areas that have public utilities noting the sewer runs along Ohio Street to “Old Capehart” and out to Judson Heights. Not all areas have sewer due to the terrain. A question was raised as to how deep the City’s parcel located on Griffin Road is. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that it is close to 300 feet in width and contains 25 or 30 acres. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if this was indicated for Low Density Residential and if it would make sense to change that Land Use concept for that area from LDR to something else given the ownership? Mr. Gould indicated that G & ISD would be logical. Mr. Ring noted that the land is in reservation for when the need arises. Nothing will happen right off and it is very unlikely that it would be sold off for private 3 development. He indicated that it would be appropriate to extend G & ISD. The Board discussed how far to extend G & ISD in this area. Chairman Guerette discussed the many multi-family developments on Glenwood Drive, Valley View Lane and Kenduskeag Avenue. Those areas are not necessarily encompassed in Area # 6. Mr. Gould indicated that the way the Area was drawn, it is not; but, if the Board wanted to they could either extend it or talk about it. Chairman Guerette asked if the buildings were all apartments in that area or if there are condominiums or multi-family rental units. Mr. Ring noted that originally this area was proposed for single-family development. However, the zoning allowed multi-family and while there is some single-family along Glenwood Drive there were several multi-family units built. It changed the character of this area. Husson Avenue is a mixture of single family and multi-family uses. Chairman Guerette asked if there were any concerns over what has been happening there. He discussed the Staff recommendation that: “The area immediately adjacent to the stream should be high value open space and protected from intensive development,” and that development should transition to high density development further away from the Stream. Mr. Rosenblatt questioned that given Husson College’s ownership of the area south of Griffin Road, would it continue to make sense to show the small area of hdr designation on that side of Griffin Road. He asked if the College had plans to use this land. Mr. Ring indicated that Husson is considering this area but it is not actively being pursued at this point. Chairman Guerette asked if the Board wished to recommend a new zoning policy for the City owned parcel on Griffin Road across from the Fire Station. Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that this made sense to make it blue (government and institutional) and he would also include that area on Griffin Road to Kenduskeag Avenue as the Fire Station is located there and Husson College lands. Then the Land Use Concepts Map would match the Zoning Policy Map. Chairman Guerette indicated that Kenduskeag Avenue beyond Griffin Road and close to Kenduskeag Stream would be low density residential and further towards Broadway it would be high density residential. Mr. Gould indicated that this would be consistent with the existing policy. The only change would be to add the G & ISD Area. # 9 Outer Union Street The portion of Union Street beyond the Penobscot Job Corps is presently unserved by both water and sewer utilities. Should the availability of both sewer and water utilities become available a low to moderate density residential development would be a sound policy. In keeping with a 4 policy of directing more intense development to fully serviced areas in the center of the city, outer fringe areas should be developed as low-density housing. Discussion Mr. Gould indicated that in Transition Zone # 9 there has not been much development here. Mr. Clark asked if this went all the way out to Capehart as the Board has approved several multi-family housing units in this area. Mr. Gould noted that Transition Area 9 goes out Union Street to the nursery. It presently is not serviced by water and sewer and that is why there is not a lot of activity in this area. Mr. Clark noted that there was talk of putting soccer fields in this area. Mr. Gould noted that there has been talk of additional land acquisition and an airport expansion in this area. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there is potential for adjusting the boundary for the Primary Service Area here. Mr. Gould indicated that he would recommend that the Zoning Policy Map match the Land Use Concepts Map. The zoning policy calls for high density residential use and given the lack of services in this area, LDR is a better approach to take. Mr. Siegel asked how it is decided where utilities are to be extended. Mr. Gould indicated that most all utility extensions are requested by and paid for by a developer. They make a request to the City for an extension. It is unlikely that the City is going to bring these utilities out there. Mr. Ring indicated that there is some water service there already but it is very marginal in terms of size and capacity because of topography. When a developer looks at what costs there are going to be, most often there area other areas in the City that are easier to develop. The areas along Ohio Street such as Yankee Avenue all have tied into the sewer system that was original extended to service Capehart. Along Union Street beyond the Airport there is an elevation of land here. It is not an easy matter to extend the utilities out there. There could be some extension but when a developer looks at the cost they may not want to. Another issue is does the City want to encourage more intense development, and in particular residential development, out there next to the Airport. That can become a problematic issue. There has been quite a bit of interest by a group of folks developing a recreational facility in this area. Residential development might be more suited beyond old Capehart rather than along Union Street. The City bought lands off of Downing Road as a buffer to protect the Airport. Chairman Guerette questioned if in the narrative the Board should say that we have concern or reservations about development on the west side of Union Street in this area because it puts residential development in close proximity to the Airport. Regarding the 5 recreational area, in concept, would not require utility service. Utility service could be extended from the Guard complex as opposed to the general public water and sewer on Union Street. In the last sentence “outer fringe areas should be developed as low density housing,” Mr. Guerette said that he felt that this was somewhat limiting. So, we not necessarily say that housing is really the best thing. but other development that would not require extensive utility service. Mr. Ring added low intensity housing. Mr. Gould suggested low intensive, open space and uses. Mr. Ring suggested language that would indicate that more intensive uses should be on the outer fringe area and low density housing considered near the Airport. # 11 State Street Hancock Street Otis Street and Vicinity Development in Transition area 11 was largely customary alterations and expansions at EMMC. Some projects of note were the Webber III Building consisting of 91,000 square feet of new medical office space. The building and its attendant parking needs required the hospital to look at several remote locations for parking for its daily staff needs. Those locations include the downtown parking garage and a shuttle lot off of Sylvan Road. The Hospital developed a unique housing project for medical students on Spruce Street causing some concern about EMMC expanding across Hancock Street Extension. The Hospital has Planning Board approval to construct an electrical cogeneration facility next to the existing heating plant. The residential properties adjacent to Eastern Maine Medical Center are in a similar situation as those next to St. Joseph Hospital. The intent of the City’s Land Use Policy is to try and anticipate that activity and guide it in a direction that will benefit both the Hospital and the adjacent neighborhood. EMMC has already found it necessary to move some facilities to other locations within and beyond the city. The integrity of adjacent neighborhoods to the north across State Street and west across Hancock Street should be preserved. Discussion Mr. Gould noted that most of the Hospital property is zoned G & ISD. The parking lot across the street is located on Otis Street. The Board discussed the existing zoning and uses in this area. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the area along State Street toward Hancock Street is still residential. He asked if there are issues or conflicts or complaints. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not know of complaints but that there are always, at the edges, people looking to move the edge. Anytime a house is for sale, there are people who call asking if they can rezone it to commercial for a doctor’s office or move the G & ISD one more lot down the line. The Board discussed the location of single-family homes in this area and other commercial and office uses, and multi-units in the area. 6 Mr. Siegel asked what the City envisioned for State Street. Mr. Gould indicated that long ago there were residences. Times change and when you go and up and down State Street you can see where from the 20’s to the 60’s we built gas station after gas station. Now it’s almost a smorgasbord of how we have reused those old gas stations into something new. Mr. Gould pointed out that there are unique development pressures associated with being near a big hospital. The hospital will not stop growing. They have had to do satellite operations. Mr. Clark noted that both Areas # 11 and #13 mention State Street and asked if Area 11 stops at the hospital and 13 picks up at Hogan Road? Mr. Gould indicated that Area 11 is a tiny little circle around Hancock Street extension and the Hospital. 13 is up by State Street and Hogan Road. Mr. Guerette said that in the second paragraph he would like to try to make that more definitive and say that the intent of the City’s Land Use Policy is to guide activity in a direction that will benefit the Hospital and the adjacent neighborhoods and then go right on to say that the integrity of adjacent neighborhoods to the north and across State Street to the west are to be preserved. Mr. Guerette indicated that the sentence that says that EMMC found it necessary to move facilities within and beyond the City is an important point. He suggested that maybe it could be moved up in the paragraph and add language about the pressures on development or the pressures on an area that come from being located next to a large medical facility, making it clear that it is the intent of the City’s Land Use Policy is to guide that activity in a direction that would preserve those neighborhoods. Everything along State Street and a lot of uses on those little streets have already been rezoned to accommodate office uses or parking. Mr. Clark noted that many of the houses along Hancock Street and York Street are being renovated. Mr. Ring said that he thought that the Hospital owns most of the properties along Spruce Street and asked if it was realistic to keep that yellow area on the map. Does this really mean that the Hospital should not expand anywhere in that area. Mr. Guerette said that he did not feel that it should be that strong. Mr. Ring indicated that there was more need to protect the area across State Street rather than the triangle along Hancock Street. Mr. Guerette noted the Low Density Residential area that is to the north of Hancock Street. He indicated that the area at the end of the tree streets is really a residential neighborhood and that he did not feel that the Hospital development should spill over down that far. Chairman 7 Guerette felt that something should be noted about the triangle as a place for potential development. Mr. Siegel said that by the time you get to St. John’s Church and the new Boyd Place housing there are some older houses that are clearly a very solid neighborhood. For at least a couple blocks beyond St. John’s Church up towards the Hospital that this is residential gets progressively more deteriorated as it heads towards the end of the triangle. Mr. Gould said that this is similar to what was discussed in the area of St. Joseph Hospital and Broadway. Chairman Guerette felt that there are some homes there and if the Board made a statement that this is an area that would encourage hospital expansion, the people who live there might be up in arms about it. On the other hand, If the Hospital came along and made them a nice offer to buy their home they might be upset if not to allow to sell. Mr. Siegel felt that the language should be to a guide for the benefit of both the hospital and the adjacent neighborhood. Chairman Guerette indicated that the language might read like the hospital and those adjacent properties that remain in residential use. Mr. Gould indicated that if there is a general idea Staff can work with the wording. Mr. Ring felt that the Board needed to be careful not to be so specific with the language that it can be subsequently interpreted so that it is misinterpreted. Mr. Guerette said that when you read the last paragraph, last sentence, the integrity of adjacent neighborhoods to the north across State Street and west across Hancock Street (the small triangle where State and Hancock converge – those two blocks). Mr. Siegel said that going back to the sentence to guide in a direction to benefit both the hospital and adjacent properties leaves it quite open. Mr. Clark asked if the last sentence could be eliminated. Chairman Guerette said that it could be eliminated as when you talk about these neighborhoods that takes us out of Transition zone. # 13 State Street & Hogan Road Development in this transition area includes the expansion of the Maine Veteran’s Home on State Street, the development of a car wash on the corner of State Street and Hogan Road, and the development of a building with multi-unit hotel suites for corporate rentals at the Sites property on State Street. This portion of State Street and Hogan Road has commercial development along the frontage and single-family housing on Hogan Road. The Sites property is a mixture of retail apartments and motel efficiency units. The residential development on Meadowbrook Road should be protected from encroachment. Low-density residential development in this area is desirable. Properties on 8 Hogan Road may be more suited to multi unit complexes to try and overcome some of the limitations of the steep terrain. Discussion Mr. Gould said that an adjustment was made for the Sites property for the construction of the last corporate unit. Chairman Guerette asked if that area behind the Sites apartment site could be considered low-income housing. Mr. Gould indicated that he thought they were market rental units and there is a motel in the front end and apartments in the back end. Mr. Clark asked how far up Hogan Road the Transition Zone goes. Mr. Gould indicated that it goes up to the Levensen Center and includes BMHI, a little bit of the Veteran’s home, the Ronald McDonald House, the Car Wash and the Sites property. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Land Use Map indicates this corner where the car wash and the lot where the executive apartments are being constructed as institutional. He indicated that he would be in favor of making a change to make it consistent with the Zoning Policy Map. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Chairman Guerette if he was thinking that this should be institutional rather than high density residential. Chairman Guerette said that he was saying to take the block out of institutional and recognize that it is more widely used for high density residential use. Mr. Rosenblatt note that there is some commercial use there as well. Mr. Ring indicated that there has been commercial activity there for decades with one or two houses in between along the frontage. Chairman Guerette asked where Meadowbrook Road is. Mr. Siegel noted that it is the first road beyond Hogan Road and is a very nice residential area. Chairman Guerette indicated that the properties on Hogan Road maybe more suitable to multi-use complexes due to the steep terrain. In this area, State Street is a magnet for commercial development and so is Hogan Road. Because of the terrain, further development of this kind may be limited leaving the area suited to low density residential and perhaps multi-unit complexes. Mr. King said that he would like to see some sort of protection along the waterfront and added that there could be the idea that like in the downtown area that this section could be developed into a higher residential use along that way. Mr. Siegel asked if the area being talked about included the Ronald McDonald House property. Mr. Ring said that the Ronal McDonald house is further down State 9 Street and Mr. King was talking about another site further out State Street, up past the Site’s property. There is a sizeable residence up the hill in the woods. Mr. Siegel asked what the City’s position would be if someone wanted to construct condominiums there. Mr. King expressed his concern that they are recognizing a lot of the commercial activity and higher activity along State Street in that section and he did not want that to be part of the argument why we need a high density residential zoning change there beyond the red (that borders on Meadowbrook Road). Mr. Siegel said that Mr. Kings concern is that someday someone might want to construct a high rise condominium there and he is saying that a lot of people in Bangor perhaps the majority of people would like such a development there. He said that he did not know how the Board should indicate what they think is appropriate and that they do not look favorably on this type of development. Chairman Guerette asked if someone wanted to put a condominium complex in the Low Density Residential area what kind of zone change would they be asking for? Mr. Gould indicated that it would depend on what they wanted to do. Most condos are in the Low Density Residential District. Chairman Guerette felt that they could kill two birds with one zone by saying that the residential development on Meadowbrook Road and the surrounding low density residential zone should be protected from commercial development. That would not preclude multifamily or multi-unit housing. Mr. Gould indicated that in the LDR if you had a 5-acre parcel you could do some attached residential. It’s not necessarily going to be a high-rise. Chairman Guerette said that it might be like that out at Orchard Hills. Mr. King felt that the waterfront was the most sensitive area of Bangor. Mr. Siegel said that he agreed but did not feel that it was the sentiment of the majority of the people. Mr. King said that he would like to make sure it stays as it is. He indicated that the language that he proposed addressed the residential development on Medowbrook Road and the surrounding low density residential zones should be protected from commercial encroachment. Mr. King said that this area could be of local historical significance. # 14 Outer Ohio & Griffin Road Two projects were developed in this area recently, the Sunbury Village retirement home consisting of a 115-unit building in the High Density Residential District and the Bean Estates single-family subdivision in the Low Density Residential District. This development area has the same development policy as Transition area #6, a development policy of increasing the intensity of development as you move out from the Kenduskeag Stream. The area immediately adjacent to the Stream should be high value open space and protected from intensive development. Moving out from there areas should be developed as low density 10 residential housing and low density attached housing. Further from the stream crossing Ohio Street or approaching Union Street is where the development should transition to a higher density housing type. This may be in the form of small residential lots or townhouses or multifamily housing projects and mobile home parks. The Bean Estates and Sunbury Village retirement development showcase the development types and densities consistent with that policy. Discussion Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the current zoning to the northeast of Ohio Street is Low Density Residential and the current policy is High Density Residential. Mr. Gould indicated that this needs to be looked at. Staff would not recommend someone apply for high density residential zoning on the stream side. Mr. Siegel asked about the suitability of small residential lots, townhouses, multi- family housing projects and mobilehome parks. He also asked what the regulations and statutes are regarding mobilehome parks and if they have to be maintained and if structures are allowed within them, and noted that there are some hideous mobilehome parks around and some of them are quite nice. Mr. Gould said that he would guess that the ones you find hideous are very old and not under our current standards. Up in Birch Hill Estates it is immaculate. Older parks such as the Rainbow Trailer Park would not be allowed to exist under the new statutes and is presently a nonconforming use. There are four older parks in the City. There are some newer ones such as Cedar Falls off of Finson Road and Holiday Park off of Essex Street. Mr. Guerette said that he did not have many comments on Transition Area 14 and told Mr. Gould that it did a great job at capturing the essence. The Board Members agreed. # 15 - Main Street & Thatcher Street The relocation of Beal College to a new location on Farm Road opened up the opportunity for the growing Manna Ministries to occupy their former building on Main Street. There is a small concentration of single-family homes along Olive, Thatcher and Dillingham Streets. The homes are surrounded on all sides by commercial and industrial developments. Changes to more intensive zoning types should be undertaken carefully such that adequate buffers and transitions can safeguard the remaining residential properties. Several properties in this area are civic and institutional uses, such as Bangor Parks & Recreation, and the Manna Ministries. Discussion Mr. Gould indicated that the Board talked about this when the Bass Park area was discussed. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had a question as to what to do about 11 when the Land Use Policy is industrial and does not seem appropriate, and the zoning policy is a little bit more nuanced. Mr. Gould said that this is an area that should be looked at in more detail and focus. When you look at the zoning map and you see that there is yellow on there and have industrial surrounding it wedged in by commercial that that area has a lot of wholesale distributors in this area. We ought to look at it on a parcel by parcel basis and look at what the existing uses and the zoning are and then figure out what to do. Mr. Siegel said that he did not feel that this area lent itself to residential use. He agreed with Mr. Gould that this area needed to be looked on a parcel by parcel basis. Mr. Gould indicated that he would be happy to do that. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the Parks and Recreation facility. Mr. Gould indicated that it is shown as blue (G & ISD) on the Zoning Map and is the old Armory Building. Mr. Siegel said that the area of Dillingham was no so bad but Olive Street is. Mr. Guerette said that Mr. Gould wrote this narrative very well. He said that although we might not want to elect to live there, there are a lot of homes that have been there for a long time. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the wording is good but the coloring on the maps could be improved. #16 Curve Street In anticipation of redevelopment the City acquired and razed 8 dilapidated houses. After exploring several redevelopment opportunities the City has redeveloped the site to provide parking for Penquis Cap’s building on Harlow Street. Curve Street and the surrounding property is a site in transition. In 2000, the City acquired and cleared several very small residences along Curve Street. The adjacent neighborhood properties are a variety of multi family structures and commercial development along Harlow Street. Some other older commercial uses are intermixed. The Curve Street development policy has been to maintain the mix of residential and commercial land uses. This would be an ideal site for a mixed use or assisted multi-family project. Discussion Chairman Guerette asked what the City is planning to do on Curve Street and are there plans to construct low to moderate income housing. Mr. Ring indicated the City did acquire and demolish several buildings there and after the land exchange the City did not end up with a large land area. At this time, there are no plans to redevelop this area. Mr. Gould indicated that as noted in the narrative that the parking there now may be just a temporary development plan. There was a need for that but in the future if that need goes away, then redevelopment of that area may occur. 12 Mr. Ring noted that the building occupied by the ambulance company is going to be vacated in the near future. This sizeable parcel could be used for something else. Chairman Guerette asked if what was being suggested was mixed residential and commercial use. Mr. Gould pointed out that this was a viable site for a significant development such as the Court House. Mr. Guerette said that he felt that this is a marginal transition area and is not very large and nothing is going on there. Any development there is going to be dependent upon what goes on, on the surrounding properties, whether or not it will end up for residential or commercial use. In a broad sense you have residential and if it is not residential then it is commercial. # 17 Union Place The Union Place redevelopment razed six buildings in anticipation of an assisted multi-family housing project. Development interest in a mixed-use commercial project only received partial support and the agreements were never finalized. Union Place is similar to Curve Street and it’s surrounding properties. In 2000 the City acquired and cleared several properties. The adjacent neighborhood properties are a variety of multi family structures and commercial development along Hammond Street. The Union Place site is somewhat different in its proximity to two major arterials, Hammond Street and Union Streets. The existing policy is to support multi family development at a lower density than originally existed. It may be more likely that this site be developed as a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Both sites should be careful to not let commercial development overwhelm existing adjacent residential properties though design and buffering. Discussion Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the current zoning was a bit of a patchwork. Mr. Gould indicated that the zoning is M & SD and URD2. The M & SD will allow apartment buildings as well as certain office reuses. What Mr. Lawler has done as far as the office reuses goes is a great job and very fitting for that area. The part that the Planning Staff could not go along with is the retail aspect of this project. Mr. Guerette said that he like the narrative except for the last line of the second paragraph. Mr. Gould indicated that he was trying to compare and contrast Curve Street with Union Street. Curve Street is a different situation in terms of redevelopment than Hammond Street and Union Street. He said that he did not feel that expect the same results. Mr. Guerette said that when the zone change for the Lawler proposal came before the Planning Board it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Was this 13 earmarked for residential and not high density residential? Mr. Gould noted that the intent was to lower the density from what was there before. Mr. Lawler’s property was split. The Union Place owned by the City is zoned URD-2. Mr. Gould said that he agreed with some of the points that the Planning Board made at the time and thought that the Board should get out the parcel maps and look at some areas that are in the Land Use Plan that talk about high density residential that are actually commercial properties. The Land Use Plan does not reflect the existing reality in that neighborhood. Mr. Guerette said that he thought that what Mr. Lawler was proposing was appropriate for the area because it is surrounded on three sides by different multi-uses. To say that that spot which is right there in the middle of it is limited only to residential is too restrictive. He said Mr. Gould stated it very well that that site should be developed as a mix of residential and commercial land uses. The Board understood that and made the proper changes on the Land Use Concepts Map and if that same matter came before the Planning Board again, it would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gould said that what the Board needs to understand is that the Planning Board and the City Council can make their own independent assessment of what is consistent. It is not black or white, yes or no. It is an interpretation of the details. It is a site that bears more scrutiny like Broadway, like Thatcher Street and Staff will look at it more closely as to what the existing uses are, what the existing zoning is, and derive from that what makes sense for good land use and zoning policy. Chairman Guerette noted that there was no need to make changes to the policy maps. Mr. Gould said that thee is a need to look at this more closely. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the maps are inconsistent with what was articulated. Mr. Gould indicated that there is a need to look at some inconsistencies with existing land use and land use policy and with existing zoning and land use policy. #19 Rural Frontage Development along unserviced rural portions of the City occurred in all locations; Outer Stillwater Avenue, Outer Ohio Street, Outer Essex Street, etc. Most all of the development was single-family detached housing. One property was rezoned to Contract Neighborhood Service District to allow for a Bed & Breakfast use at an existing residence. Home Occupation standards have allowed nursery, forestry, and tree surgeon uses. Dog kennels and veterinary clinics are conditional uses in the RR&A District of which there were a few new projects and one expansion. The development of rural land based on the density of .5 to .66 units per acre has worked fairly well. More properties struggle with the necessary road frontage than with minimum areas required. Bangor should continue to direct multi family and other more intensive development to 14 more urban locations. While the district is residential and agricultural very little land area is devoted to agriculture. Some consideration should be given to design options that promote or encourage preservation of open space as natural rural areas protected from development. Cluster design or transfer of development rights options should be considered. While not a housing issue accessory and customary non-residential rural uses should be considered. Existing home occupation language has allowed moderate size landscape businesses in rural locations while not specifically indicated. Open space uses such as tree farms, U-pick agricultural operations, riding stables, golf courses all can aide in preservation of “open” space. Discussion The next area discussed was Rural Frontage which includes the area along the roads out-of-town. Mr. Rosenblatt pointed out that this is largely that area that has no sewer connections. Mr. Gould indicated that the area does not have public water service, either. Mr. Ring noted that these areas are the most expensive ones to develop such as Fox Hollow, the Church Woods developments that fall within these areas. Mr. Siegel asked if Mr. Ring was talking about transfer of development rights options? Mr. Ring indicated that in talks with the Task Force this was discussed. He said that he did not know whether we want to treat that separately or not. That particular focus area has most or many of these types of land uses in it. Mr. Ring said that it was his hope that that will be addressed separately by incorporating some of the recommendations of that focus group for that area. Even through some of that area falls within that rural frontage definition, there is a separate set of recommendations for a defined area around the marsh Mr. Siegel asked about Fox Hollow and cluster developments. Mr. Gould explained that Fox Hollow is not a cluster development. The intent of cluster development is to allow a smaller individual lot size with a corresponding larger dedication of open space. Mr. Siegel asked what an example of that might be. Mr. Gould explained that while not a cluster development the new Edgewood development on Outer Essex Street is a development where there is a significant open space set aside. They did not make the lots any smaller. Under the standard open space, the developer is required to set aside 5% of the area for development and all the lots have to meet a certain size. With cluster development you can make the lots half that size but in turn you need to set aside 5 times as much open space. The idea is that you cluster the building lots on the good parts of the site and the other areas are surrounding the open space. Mr. Siegel asked what is meant to transfer development rights. Mr. Gould explained that Transfer of Development Rights is a concept where a developer would say I’ll forgo developing in the Penjajawoc Marsh but you give me development rights to build somewhere else in the City to build to a higher intensity development. 15 Chairman Guerette asked if the Task Group was going to expand their review area to areas down off on Essex Street as it affects the marsh or is it just in the Stillwater corridor. Mr. Ring indicated that the Task Force identified a boundary and it does include land on Essex Street. Mr. Siegel asked, in reference to a transfer of development rights option, if people would building in the Essex Street area instead of somewhere else. Mr. Gould said you have an area where you give up rights and that there is a place where you receive them. The intend of putting that in there (the narrative) is a broader intent to try and preserve open space in rural areas so that the whole outer City doesn’t get lotted up into two acre and five acre parcels. Chairman Guerette discussed the narrative language and asked what can be done to encourage the preservation of open space. He said that the suggestion of clustering and the transfer of development rights option are two of the things that could be done to do that. Chairman Guerette asked what can be said in this narrative to express a mild concern, if there is one, about this kind of sprawl and this kind of chopping up into small parcels this larger rural undeveloped area. Mr. Ring explained that the in Task Force Study area the recommendations would require this type of approach as opposed to saying that you can’t do that. He said that he thought that this is not something that has been done in Bangor. An example would be taking a 15-acre parcel that divides into ten 1.5-acre lots. What the Task Force is recommending is to do 10 one-acre lots and save 5 acres as open space. Some property owners and developers may realize that this is a more economical type of development and it might catch on. A statement to encourage those as tools to preserve larger portions of open space should be mentioned. To assure it is to make it mandatory, and he was not sure that that is what the Board wants to do. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would recommend some stronger language about our concern about this development along the rural frontage. He said that they could say something that might be defined as sprawl and, as a City, there area some concerns about it and that alternate means of accomplishing rural development such as cluster design, or transfer of development rights would be encouraged. Even though words may not prevent anyone from starting a small subdivision on Outer Essex Street or building a house on outer Stillwater Avenue, it will at least identify a concern that the Board has. Chairman Guerette said that he felt that the Board needs to be smart about this. This type of development on the frontage does break up large parcels of rural and agricultural land and it does create an impression of sprawl. He said that they would be remiss not to put those warning signs out there a little bit more clearly. It should be stated from a municipal point of view that these are things that are happening and come with some concern. 16 Mr. King said that it might be easier to have these other abilities to preserve open space so that a detention pond is not offered for open space. Chairman Guerette indicated that it would be more desirable to have an 82 one- acre lot development than five houses located 3 miles apart. It would be much easier to service the larger development. Chairman Guerette said that the Board would take a second try at this language. Mr. Gould noted that there is a lot of written material on the preservation of rural areas. The rural areas are difficult areas as there are many uses and things going on such as gravel pits, dog kennels, and houses and it all has to work together. Where in the LDR it is homogenous, it is housing. Chairman Guerette noted that that fact that the narrative does not talk about spaced out development along roads is an area that is of concern. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if it is anticipated that there will be additional applications for bed & breakfast uses. He said that there should be an ordinance amendment to either have them as a permitted use or a conditional use and not do spot zone changes to allow them in these zones. Mr. Gould indicated that there has not been a great demand for this type of use. # 20 & 21. Mount Hope Ave The Pilgrim Presbyterian Church was granted a contract zone change to allow for a moderate expansion of the existing facility. Hampden Home Builders obtained approval of a 70-lot residential subdivision on Mount Hope Avenue just beyond the Evergreen Woods Office Park. These Transition areas identify two areas of Mount Hope Ave that are undeveloped or just being developed. The existing development policy is for low-density residential housing. There does not seem to be any reason at this time to alter that development policy. The Hampden Home Builder’s 70-lot residential development confirms this location as a marketable site for housing. With its proximity to Hogan Road commercial development pressure occasionally looks at this as a potential site. The large site bounded by Howard Street, Mount Hope Avenue, and Garland Street is presently zoned Urban Residence 1 and offers less development options as would Low Density Residential. This is largely based on whether one views the parcel as an older urban parcel or a parcel in the developing area. Discussion Mr. Gould indicated that he grouped these Transition Areas together as they both deal with vacant land along Mt. Hope Avenue as both are low density residential areas. There is a significant distinction between URD1 single-family and in the LDR where there are some other choices like duplexes and attached residential. Mr. Ring asked if Staff was suggesting that a distinction between URD-1 and LDR should be made in these areas. Mr. Gould indicated that there should be a distinction as there is a big difference in what can be developed. 17 Mr. Ring indicated that water and sewer are available to both of these areas. He said that he felt that when the time came to do a residential development this could make for a very attractive development. Chairman Guerette indicated that the concept is residential. Should there be some specific recommendations for things like open space, sidewalks, and the length streets. A 2,500-foot long street with no sidewalks that is totally uninterrupted. There is no way to control traffic speed. He asked if this is that the type of development that we want to approve in the City? Would this have happened if development standards said that you have to have a turn in the street or needed sidewalks. Mr. Gould noted that there are no sidewalks in Judson Heights but there is a curving street system. They may discover down the road they may have a marketing problem with this design. Mr. Ring indicated that he would prefer a curving street design but that there are no requirements that say that a street cannot be straight. Mr. Siegel felt that this should be looked at and he did not feel that there would be any major objections to that other than from the developers because it might cost more money. Mr. Siegel also felt that the City Council should put the burden on the homeowner. This is the case where he grew up the cost of a snow removal and tree roots is billed to the homeowner in new developments. Mr. Ring said that this needs to be discussed further this year. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed that the issue of sidewalks needs to be discussed as well as the provision of open space within new subdivisions. Mr. Ring indicated that it was his feeling that those subjects should be the focus of other separate workshop sessions. . Chairman Guerette asked if it was appropriate to say in the narrative, in the housing section, that there have been issues that have been of concern to the Planning Board in the last five years that deal with the requirement or the nonrequirement for sidewalks in large developments and the design of streets and allocation of open space. These will continue to be concerns and will continue to be addressed at a later point. Mr. Ring felt that it would be a good idea to identify and reference it in Comprehensive Plan as something that needs to be work on. So that 5 years ahead that nothing has been done about it. # 25-28 Hammond, State, Garland Streets and Mount Hope Avenue These locations were identified due to a significant number of nonconforming developments both in terms of use and in terms of lot sizes and physical development nonconformities. These streets once connected various neighborhoods together and provided the neighborhood services of their day. Corner markets, barbershops, etc; largely have given way to other retail and office activities (most all of which require parking). A second wave of development that followed later added neighborhood filling stations every 200 yards. Traveling down State Street today, one can 18 see a wide variety of reuse options that these old filling stations have been put to. The Land Development Code provisions relative to the reuse of nonconformities should be reviewed to ensure residential reuse as multi-unit structures or mixed use buildings would not be excluded as an option. Discussion Mr. Rosenblatt asked what are the day-to-day or week-to-week tussles are in these areas. Mr. Gould indicated that there continues to be older nonconforming structures along these roadways that have few reuse options. Few in terms of something that they can bring to the Board, others you would have to have a rezoning or a contract rezoning. It is an uncertain process that not always has predictable outcomes. The question is should there be some other means to facilitate this? For Example, Dave Lawler’s video store. In theory, these nonconformities are supposed to go away but they don’t always. There are many older industrial or semi-industrial uses scattered throughout the City such as the old ice cream plant, or the coca-cola bottling plant, and with some of them, the City has done incredible reuse of their old building. Grant’s Dairy is another example. They moved out and now it is a Brooks. Mr. Nat indicated that there is not much in the Comprehensive Plan language to effectuate this. Mr. Gould indicated that it there needs to be a vehicle to do this. One of the things that happened in the last round of the Land Development Code is the step down provision where you could change from one nonconforming use to another one as long as it is a lesser intensity use. But under the URD-1 District there is no such option. The only choice is to be a single-family home. We have older garages and buildings that cannot change uses. This was taken away. Mr. Gould suggested that an option would be to allow a step down across the board with language that is it is the intent of the City to try to find other uses for nonconforming uses rather than just go away. Chairman Guerette asked if Staff would like a recommendation for a text amendment. Mr. Gould indicated that in the Comprehensive Plan the Board share that intent that there ought to be this option in the future. He added that if there was language in the Comprehensive Plan that encourages the reuse of these nonconforming sites, then Staff could justify that this was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Guerette indicated that these streets are within this Transition Zone and have many nonconforming uses along these. Neighbors are usually concerned. We should say in the narrative that flexibility should be done with a measure of concern for the effect that these developments might have on existing residential uses. Mr. Gould indicated that this might be the same kind of language used with EMMC or St. Joseph Hospital. 19 Chairman Guerette noted that the next Workshop Meetings will be held on May thst 24 and May 31. At the next workshop meeting the Board will be discussing the Economic Development Element. The workshop meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.