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.