Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-14 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR WORKSHOP MEETING OF JUNE 14, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler, Vice Chairman Ryan King David Clark Nat Rosenblatt Laura Mitchell Jonathan Segal City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He noted the evening’s workshop was to review the Penjajawoc Mall/Marsh Task Force Committee’s Final Report. Chairman Guerette noted task force members Shep Harris and Cindy DeBeck were in attendance. Mr. Guerette turned over the proceedings to Jim Ring, City Engineer, to review the Task Force Report. Mr. James Ring, City Engineer explained that there has been a lot of public discussion and opportunity for public participation in the work of the Task Force. It was an effort to bring public interests together to deal with some of the issues, in particular, in the northeast area of the City. This area has been a concern to landowners, conservationists, naturalists, environmentalists and developers alike. The outcome of the Task Force’s effort is the Final Report, which is a series of recommendations that could be used or offered to develop future development policy on land use including conservation, development intensity, and setbacks. 2 The final report and recommendations are a negotiated package of items which balance competing interests. Mr. Ring noted the first task was to: Define the Study Area It runs from Stillwater Avenue to Kitteridge Road to the Bangor Hydro Easement, across to Essex Street and to the Interstate then back to Stillwater Avenue, to the point of beginning. The next issue was Land Use: The Task Force further refined the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Concepts Map in mall area. The Task Force refined the area on the south side by the Widewaters parcel and included a small area next to Gilman Road. The wetland setback is 250 feet. On the north side the setback is 600 feet from the wetland extending to Tom Davis’s parcel to 1450 feet. The land between the wetland edge and the commercial development will remain Rural Residence and Agricultural. Mr. Ring noted that new Rural Residential house lot sizes were proposed. While the existing Resource Protection (RP) Zone would be maintained a no building zone of 125 feet beyond RP would be in place. Subdivision development would be required to be clustered beyond 250 feet. Where acre and one-half size lots are required now 1 acre lots would be allowed. Where a lot width of 200 feet is allowed now a lot width of 150 feet would be allowed. In this way a developer could get the same number of lots but no increase in gross density would occur. Most all development would occur outside the 250-foot setback area. This cluster design further reduces construction and maintenance costs. Further consideration would be made for documented suitable subsurface systems or common systems on lots as small as 10,000 square feet and 75 feet of lot width. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Ring to clarify the boundary. Mr. Ring reviewed the details around the Widewaters parcel on the south and the 600-foot setback on the Averill property north to the Davis property. It was noted that four existing lots were exempted from the new density standard and wetland setback. Mr. Wheeler asked where the 600 feet came from? Mr. Ring noted it was part of the Averill rezoning agreement. Mr. Wheeler asked if a cluster development could be further than 250 feet by design? Mr. Ring noted that it could. Chairman Guerette questioned why it was a requirement, and would it have an economic impact due to smaller cluster lots. Mr. Ring indicated that that may be a 3 result. Mr. Shep Harris indicated that the market may value the common area open space which may increase the value of the lots. Mr. Clark asked if property buyers could rely on land use boundaries proposed and not be concerned about future commercial expansion which occurred by Drew Lane. Mr. Ring explained that the existing general boundaries in the Land Use Concepts Plan are vague and the Mall Marsh boundary is absolute providing more certainty. Mr. Rosenblatt followed up and asked what would happen to a commercial expansion request. Mr. Ring noted with the better defined area the outcome would be more certain. Mr. Ring went on to explain the concept of connection of developments with road linkages where developable. Mr. Ring noted that existing commercial properties on Stillwater would not change so that they would not become nonconforming. A Tax Increment Financing Fund is proposed for new commercial development where 25% of the gain for ten years would go to numerous Marsh improvements; land acquisition, easements, management planning, and water quality improvements, etc. Priority areas for acquisition would be grasslands, wooded parcels and other areas extending back from marsh. Ms. Mitchell asked if only commercial development would be included in the TIFF. Mr. Ring indicated they had not considered residential development. Mr. Wheeler asked if any analysis had been made of the potential income. Mr. Ring speculated that at build out, $1,000,000 per year might be derived. Mr. Wheeler noted that tax income would not fund schools and other municipal uses. Ms. Lucy Quimby noted that her recollection was that it was much less $2,000,000-$3,000,000 over ten years. She did note that uncertainty of application outcomes are a motivation of the developers. If agreement exists they are exposed to less risk. Mr. Ring went on to explain Traffic Improvements The Parallel Service Road concept was approved in 1998 as a means to deal with long-term traffic congestion and circulation. A new Stillwater corridor study has been done with alternate build-out scenarios and the parallel service road is key to making it all work. As an alternative, several things were reviewed; optimizing existing signals, access management, combining entrances, widening Stillwater to five lanes, a Kittridge Road realignment, connecting Wide Waters to the WS property across the stream at the existing crossing. Further, the Hogan Road on/off ramps could be reconfigured. By 4 eliminating the left-hand turns there are capacity benefits. The Parallel Service Road would still connect to Gilman Road and a connection from Kittridge to Ridgewood Drive is proposed. Would these improvements replace the Parallel Service Road? When the Traffic engineers were asked that question they responded that those improvements could handle the additional development and improve on existing capacity issues. Mr. Rosenblatt how the improvements would stay ahead of development expansion. Mr. Ring noted that the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) traffic permitting process should insure that significant projects will address any traffic improvements required. Mr. Ring also noted that the improvements are listed in order of priority. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the impact on southern Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Ring indicated that since the off ramp volumes have dropped on Stillwater Avenue, the corridor analysis has recommendations on reducing congestion and improving the residential feel of that section of Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Ring went on to explain Public Access and Management Mr. Ring noted there is a Watershed Management Study ongoing with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the State Planning Office and other interested parties. A database of existing conditions is being collected and options for improvement will be reviewed. A public access plan for the marsh area would be developed. While the Veazie railroad bed is the desired route, other alternatives may be needed. The Task Force recommended the establishment of a conservation commission to develop the access and management plan, and review development proposals. Finally there was an interest to develop language to control invasive plant species. Mr. Wheeler asked about the existing water quality conditions. Mr. Ring noted they are poor and below state standards. Mr. Wheeler inquired what might be the cause of the poor water quality. Mr. Ring noted it was largely development; parking lot runoff, roads, temperature changes cause by impervious surfaces, suspended solids, and contaminants. Ms. Cindy DeBeck indicated that the poor water quality is the impact from the old landfill off of Kittredge Road and warm shallow water is very foul. She suspects the poor water quality is not based on development. Mr. Wheeler asked how can wildlife survive and seem to thrive if water quality is as poor as it’s purported to be. Mr. Ring noted that various plant, animal, and fish species can tolerate different conditions so some can survive in warm water and low oxygen and some cannot. Mr. Ring noted that testing in various locations showed different problems - Stillwater to Hogan dissolved oxygen was poorest, at Mt Hope Avenue problems are suspended solids. A storm water management plan builds a database and we will have a better plan to improve water quality. 5 Mr. Wheeler asked about the Conservation and Management Commission’s legal role and authority relative to review projects and its impact on planning. Mr. Ring noted that this is being reviewed by City Council Committee and it is intended to be advisory. It was thought that early input might forestall later problems. Mr. Wheeler requested that the details of the Council action to establish the Commission be shared with the Planning Board prior to its adoption. Chairman Guerette noted he was impressed with the outcome of the Task Force Report as it seems the marsh is a much larger impact area than has been studied. Mr. Ring noted that the Audubon Report submitted to the Task Force did look at a much larger habitat area but was balanced with property development rights such that the area within the scope is limited. The package is based on a balance of interests. Chairman Guerette questioned the inconsistency with four house lots getting special treatment. Mr. Ring indicated it was a potential taking of all value. Ms. Cindy DeBeck noted that for parcels to be “mitigation parcels” they need to have environmental value, as well as, be under some potential development. The proposed status allows the parcels to have value as mitigation parcels. Chairman Guerette asked what the Board should do next. Mr. Ring noted that it was envisioned that the Task Force Report be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and that the City adopt certain use regulation changes. Chairman Guerette asked if it should it be part of the ongoing update, just getting going, or a separate action. Mr. Ring noted the sooner the better, but that’s up to the Board. Mr. Wheeler recommended any action be deferred to a regular meeting and likely with the entire update package. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated the Task Force report seems to stand alone and could be acted on separately. Mr. Siegel agreed and asked why wait? Mr. Clark wanted a clear plan for the future and agreed it ought to be at a regular meeting but waiting for the update/revision may be a long way away. Ms. Mitchell indicated the sooner the better as it shows support for Mall Marsh Task Force. Mr. King was in support but urged caution in any hasty action. Chairman Guerette thanked Mr. Ring and the Task Force Members present for their efforts and noted that the Board would take it up at their next regular meeting. The Workshop was adjourned at 8:30