Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-18 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 2003 MINUTES Board Members Present: Richard Fournier, Chairman Bob Guerette Dave Clark Fred Costlow Hal Wheeler Ryan King John Hanson Bill Masters City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham Katherine Weber News Media Present: None Chairman Fournier opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board Member Wheeler, Associate Members were asked to alternate voting as follows: Associate Member Hanson, then Associate Member King, and then Associate Member Masters. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 1: Site Development Plan Approval to construct a 1,556-square foot addition to the existing Arby’s Restaurant building located at 57 Bangor Mall Boulevard in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Robert Smith, DSW Corp, applicant. Mr. Guerette indicated that he did not feel comfortable approving the Arby’s expansion next to the Penjajawoc Stream as a Consent Agenda item. He felt that the Board should review the plan and discuss any water quality issues. Chairman Fournier asked for a representative of the applicant to step forward. Mr. Richard Hartford, PE of Carpenter Associates, indicated that they had prepared the site plan, and that it did not contain any significant increase in impervious areas or create new drainage flows to the Penjajawoc Stream. Mr. Hartford indicated that his office had met with the City Staff on several occasions to make sure that the project was consistent with the site development standards. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the proposed expansion had limited impact on the stream. She told the Board that, while the project does expand towards the stream, it is set well back and out of the Stream Protection District. The plan will add additional seating, but will not alter the existing drive-thru operation. Ms. Weber indicated that the project is an expansion of the existing Arby’s, and not a new development. City Engineer Jim Ring indicated that his office carefully reviewed the potential stormwater impact. Mr. Ring indicated that the building expansion is on existing impervious area and the parking lot expansion is a .05% increase over existing condition. Mr. Ring added that the plan proposes to direct parking lot storm water flows to rip-rapped areas and vegetated areas which should help reduce particulates from getting to the stream. Mr. Costlow moved to approve the Site Development Plan for 57 Bangor Mall Boulevard, DSW Corporation, applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Guerette, and it passed by a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct a 3,136-sq. ft. addition to the existing animal hospital located at 1648 Broadway in a Rural Residence and Agriculture District. Peter J. Richie, DVM, applicant Chairman Fournier noted that Mr. Wheeler had arrived, and that the Associate Members would not need to vote. Mr. Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked if a representative of the applicant would make a brief presentation. Mr. Fred Marshall, of Plymouth Engineering, indicated that he represented Dr. Richie who is seeking Conditional Use and Site Development Plan Review. Mr. Marshall explained that the animal hospital is in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District, and that the building was originally approved and constructed in 1982. The new addition will double the size of the building to allow for more staff and another veterinarian. Chairman Fournier asked for any other proponents. There being no other proponents, he called for opponents. Mr. James Leonard an abutting property owner at 1488 Kenduskeag Avenue, indicated that he had several unresolved issues with the proposed expansion of the use. Mr. Leonard had concerns regarding the impact from cremation/incineration, impacts on on-site waste disposal, and buffers around the dumpster enclosure. Chairman Fournier asked Mr. Marshall if he could address Mr. Leonard’s concerns. Mr. Marshall indicated that there would be no incineration or cremation on-site. He explained that the existing septic system had no history of malfunctions, and should have adequate design capacity for the proposed use. Mr. Marshall noted that the dumpster enclosure is a fence that will act as a buffer. The plan was designed to meet the minimum buffer standards of the Land Development Code. 2 Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing, and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the proposed use is a Conditional Use, and needs to meet specific standards in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Ms. Weber explained that, in addition, all Conditional Uses need to meet the Standards in Section 165-9. She indicated that the Board needed to take two votes, one on the Conditional Use and one on the Site Development Plan. Ms. Weber indicated that the specific Standards in the Rural Residence and Agriculture District are that the facility be 100 feet from a residential district, and 150 feet from a residential structure. Staff found that the proposed application meets or exceeds these standards. In addition, Staff finds that the proposed application meets the standards of Section 165-9, Conditional Use Standards. Ms. Weber asked City Engineer Jim Ring to address the remaining stormwater drainage issues. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the applicant had not provided any stormwater analysis in their initial application. However, the Engineering Staff had received a package of information today. The analysis indicates that new impervious areas increase the 25- year storm flows to .57 cfs. Unfortunately, the analysis did not review detailed impacts on downstream drainage structures, specifically, a 30” culvert. Mr. Ring added that the City Engineer’s Office reviewed the details and found that they did have adequate capacity. He noted that the Engineering Office is now comfortable with the result. Mr. King asked if there would be any impact upon residential areas, and if there was adequate buffering proposed. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the project meets minimum standards and it is up to the Board if more buffering is desired. As there was no further discussion, Mr. Costlow moved to approve the Conditional Use for Dr. Peter Richie, 1648 Broadway to expand the existing animal hospital. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 to 0 to approve the proposed Conditional Use for an animal hospital at 1648 Broadway. Mr. Costlow moved to approve the Site Development Plan for Peter Richie at 1648 Broadway. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 to 0 to grant Site Development Plan Approval. Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code by changing two parcels of land located at 318 Broadway and 524 French Street from Urban Residence-1 District to Government and Institutional Service District. Said parcels containing approximately .30 acres. M & J Company, applicant. C.O. # 03- 73. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked if a representative of the applicant would make a brief presentation. Mr. Thomas Devins, of St. Joseph Hospital, indicated that the hospital was seeking to rezone two parcels it recently acquired from Urban Residence-1 District to Government & Institutional Service District. The Chairman asked for any other proponents. There being no other proponents, or any opponents, Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing, and asked for Staff comments. 3 Planning Officer Weber indicated that the application was for two parcels, one located at 318 Broadway and the other at 524 French Street. Ms. Weber indicated the location of the parcels on the Staff Exhibit. Ms. Weber highlighted the existing zoning in the area. Ms. Weber explained that the Comprehensive Plan 2000 “Land Use Concepts” and “Zoning Policy” Map designate these areas for future Government and Institutional Uses. Therefore, the Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed zone change. As there was no further discussion, Mr. Guerette moved to recommend that Council Order # 03-73 be adopted by the City Council. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of recommending approval of C.O.# 03-73 - Zone Change for 318 Broadway and 524 French Street from Urban Residence-1 District to Government and Institutional Service District, M&J Company, applicant. Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 100 Linden Street from Urban Residence-1 District to Contract Urban Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 1.92 acres. Frank J. Farrington, applicant. C.O. # 03-74. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked Mr. Farrington to make a brief presentation. Frank Farrington, 8 Montgomery Street, indicated that he was requesting a zone change to Contract Urban Service District. The contract zone change includes 9 conditions to limit the impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Farrington indicated that he organized his points in three areas: (1) why he was moving his business; (2) why he chose Linden Street; and (3) what his business is about. First, Mr. Farrington indicated that he is downsizing his business, and no longer needs a large Downtown building. The building will be available for an expanding business that might otherwise move to Brewer. Secondly, Mr. Farrington indicated that the basement of the building at 100 Linden Street would be very close to his residence, so that he could walk to work (he has lived at 8 Montgomery Street since 1978, and loved the neighborhood). He said that, if in the future he wanted a smaller home, he could relocate to the upstairs portion of 100 Linden Street. Mr. Farrington indicated that he was a City Councilor and anticipated running for another term and would like to continue working while on the City Council. Lastly, Mr. Farrington indicated that his business was insurance, investments and retirement planning. He has been in that business for 32 years. Most of his client contacts are done by phone, fax, or email. He estimated that he had 2-3 customer visits a week as many customer visits are at their homes or offices. At his business location, he would have his Service Manager, his wife and himself. Any other associates would be housed elsewhere. Mr. Farrington went on to say that he felt that 100 Linden Street has adequate parking for that workforce, with only one space required because he could walk to the office. The only signage would be a name plate sign. Mr. Farrington added that once the office use is terminated, then the property would revert back to the URD –1 District designation. Mr. Costlow asked what was the next closest commercial business. Mr. Farrington presumed Center Street, although once his doctor operated at 212 Kenduskeag Avenue. Mr. 4 Wheeler questioned whether it was fair to consider the professional use is commercial use since zoning makes a distinction between commercial uses and professional office uses. The Chairman asked for any other proponents. There being no other proponents, Chairman Fournier asked for any opponents. Ed Gould, of Gross, Minsky & Mogul, representing Dean and Elaine Beaupain and Leonard and Rita Minsky, indicated that there was no adjacent commercial activity near this site. He said that this is a large contiguous residential neighborhood, and that this proposal places a professional office smack in the middle of it. Attorney Gould went on to state that the Contract Zoning provisions had two mandatory conditions; one that they be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and two, that they be consistent with existing and permitted uses in the original district. He told the Board that this proposal is inconsistent on both counts. In comparison to a home occupation, he noted that this proposal has no residency requirement since it allows non-family members be employed in the business. Attorney Gould noted, based on the comments he heard, that at least 3 to 4 parking spaces will be required at the site. Attorney Gould anticipated that there would be no benefit to the neighborhood, and that the only benefits derived from a zone change would be to Mr. Farrington’s advantage. Mr. Wheeler asked the Planning Officer to clarify the definitions of professional and commercial. Mr. Wheeler noted that the property once had large radio antennas that were less than consistent with the residential neighborhood. He also noted that these antennas are now gone thereby improving the appearance and consistency of the property in the neighborhood. Ed Gould indicated that the removal of the radio antennae was a step toward consistency but to rezone the property would be to increase the intensity of use at the property. Planning Officer Weber indicated that there is no definition of commercial in the Land Development Code. Assistant City Solicitor John Hamer read the definition for Business or Professional Office: “Any office setting in which professional or business services are carried on including but not limited to finance, real estate, accounting, data processing, legal, insurance, counseling, design engineering, architectural but expressly excluding repair services, retail sales, chemical dependency treatment facilities or clinics.” He indicated that commercial is not defined. Mr. Wheeler noted that commercial is typically separated from professional in the application of the City’s Land Use Ordinance. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the intensity of use was being exaggerated. According to the applicant, traffic would be limited to one car, far less than would be generated at Mr. Farrington’s existing residence should one or two of his children come to stay. He indicated that he felt that the proposal is being made into something that it is not. Mr. John Branton, 194 Nowell Road, told the Board that the terms “Business and Commercial Use” are Mr. Farrington’s own language used in the contract. Mr. Branton indicated that he resides two buildings away from 100 Linden Street. He indicated that the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Concepts map designates this area as “Low Density 5 Residential.” The closest commercial activity is Center Street. Mr. Branton said that the Planning Board and City Council’s job is to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and that Little City is one of the finest neighborhoods in the City. He expressed his concern that high property values may decline with commercial/professional encroachment and the contract conditions are ambiguous, and may allow a wide array of uses. Mr. Branton went on to say that the lack of sidewalks and uncertain traffic generation represented a public safety hazard, and that the creation of commercial zones in neighborhoods is not the path to sound economic development. Mr. Branton told the Board that this proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and a dangerous precedence in a solely residential neighborhood with no positive benefits to the City or the neighborhood. He urged the Board to recommend denial. Ms. Dorothy Croall, 242 Nowell Road, indicated that she had letters from many of her neighbors (Susan Reardon, 243 Nowell Road; Regina Miler, 237 Nowell Road; Sally Sweet, 176 Nowell Road; Hope Brogunier of 60 Leighton Street; and James Elmore of 67 Congress Street) who could not attend. All of these individuals expressed their opposition to the proposed zone change. Mrs. Crowell said that any use of the property in the neighborhood that is nonresidential is inappropriate. Mr. Liam Riordan of 149 Fountain Street, was concerned that the proposed zone change would change the potential future use by someone. Mr. Riodan told the Board that Linden Street is a fairly busy street, and expressed his concern regarding a possible driveway onto Fountain Street, and the provision of adequate off-street parking Dr. Striar, a Linden Street resident and a pediatrician who retired in 1990, noted that he had built his home in the neighborhood 40 years ago. He indicated that this is a well-established, single-family residential neighborhood. Dr. Striar told the Board that he was opposed to a spot zone, or any change that would impact traffic. He noted that Mr. Farrington indicated that he wanted to downsize the business, but his existing residence was not large enough to house his office. Dr. Striar mused that Mr. Farrington’s home on Montgomery Street was 3 stories and twice the size of the Linden Street property. Dr. Striar noted that Mr. Farrington’s estimates of client visits varied from 1 client per day to 2 to 3 visits a week. He said that he felt that it seemed that there will be more traffic than anticipated within the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. He also said that the condition that calls for “adequate off street parking” is vague as to what is adequate, and questioned where any tenant upstairs or employees would park. In a survey of the houses around 100 Linden Street, Dr. Striar observed that they were mostly single-family dwellings, and 2 duplexes. Dr. Striar further noted that 6 of the 8 of the retired couples had lived there 40 years or more. Most of the people in the neighborhood were professional people. He added that Linden Street has high traffic volumes and no sidewalks that poses an existing hazards to students, walkers, pet walkers and others. Dr. Striar also inquired if the change would be permanent, and what future uses would be allowed if the zoning were changed. 6 Mr. Paul Shapero, 104 Poplar Street, indicated that he would recommend denial of the application. He noted that the width of Linden Street does not accommodate on-street parking. Ms. Carolyn Jentzer, 89 Poplar Street, indicated that, based on a discussion with the Planning Office, 8 spaces would be required for use of the full basement. She said that there were many other uses that could occupy the building based on the contract conditions. Chairman Fournier read the nine contract conditions. Mr. James Kaplan, 187 Clyde Road, told the Board that many of the other neighbors could not attend. Mr. Kaplan noted that the reuse of Mr. Farrington’s downtown building should not be linked to this rezoning request. Mr. Kaplan also noted that there was interest in further development of the parcel that Mr. Farrington owns. He told the Board that the residents of Little City pay substantial taxes to live in this area, and do not want businesses located here, additional traffic congestion, or commercial uses. Mr. Kaplan noted that the second contract condition limits the sale of goods or services, but insurance is a retail service. Mr. Kaplan noted that Mr. Webber’s ham radio use did impact adjacent television reception. He also said that he was concerned that once you start down the road to commercial zoning districts, more will soon follow. Mr. Scott Rasker, a Clyde Road resident, noted that he, too, was in opposition. He said that he would be less concerned if Mr. Farrington would reside at the property, and indicated that he selected his property because of the excellent neighborhood. Mr. Charlie Heinonen, a 23-year resident of 71 Poplar Street, figured that he was a short timer. Mr. Heinonen stated that this rezoning request starts a bad precedent. Mr. Joel Keller, 176 Fountain Street, also spoke in opposition. He told the Board that a business does not fit in the middle of the residential neighborhood. Ms. Molly Stern, 9 McKinley Street, told the Board that she purchased their home based on the great reputation of the neighborhood. Ms. Colleen Forshee, 118 Poplar Street, said that they also purchased their house due to the lack of business properties around it. Mr. Tom Hardy, 77 Linden Street, and a 51-year resident, indicated that they didn’t need businesses in the neighborhood. Ms. Elizabeth Patches, 106 Linden Street, indicated that she was happy to have the Farringtons as neighbors, but was not in favor of the proposed change. There being no further opponents, Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing, and asked Mr. Farrington if he wished to respond to any of the concerns raised. Mr. Farrington rebutted by noting that while the parking at his residence with family is packed, at his business there would be only one car since he and his wife would walk. Mr. Farrington clarified that subdivision of the Neally property occurred on the adjacent property, not his. He also noted that he has no interest in further developing his residential property. Mr. Guerette asked how many clients the applicant has, and if they would continue to be served. Mr. Farrington indicated that the number will not change, but he had no estimate of numbers of clients. 7 Chairman Fournier asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that this was a contract zone change from Urban Residence-1 District to a Contract Urban Service District. The City’s Land Use Plan indicates this as a low-density residential area. The City’s Zoning Policy is for Urban Residence-1 District. Therefore, the proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She indicated that a straight zone change would not be appropriate. However, the contract conditions preclude retail sales, overnight accommodations, and many other uses of the Urban Service District. Ms. Weber noted that the conditions do run with the land, and are not based on Mr. Farrington’s ownership. Ms. Weber indicated that Contract Zoning requires that an agreement be signed and includes a reversion provision. Assistant City Solicitor John Hamer explained that the reversion clause allows standing to petition to seek rezoning back to the original zoning designation. Ms. Weber indicated that the conditions are the key issue for the Board. She indicated that Staff finds the conditions very restrictive, and could recommend approval. Mr. Wheeler noted that five or six business offices may well be in the neighborhood already. He noted that he could cite multiple examples of professional service businesses in residential neighborhoods that operate without detection. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would prefer the application if Mr. Farrington would occupy the building. He noted that many times professional offices can be conducted without adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties. Mr. Wheeler also stated that City Councilors should have all the privileges and opportunities as any other citizen, and it was unfair to attack Mr. Farrington based on his desire to serve the City. Mr. Costlow said that one of the conditions is void on its terms because insurance is a sale of services, so his intention is in violation of the standards. Mr. Costlow said that he felt that personal benefit was not a value to the greater neighborhood. He noted that it was the Board’s charge to consider the land use policy. He asked what if all the professionals residing in the neighborhood decided to operate out of their residence. It would totally change the character of the area. He indicated that he would vote to deny this application. Mr. Guerette indicated that while the use seems benign, the terms are generous. In his opinion, insurance seems to be a service business, and could possibly bring many clients to this location. Mr. Gurette noted that, while Mr. Farrington can be trusted, the request was inconsistent with the neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan. He said that he felt that the application fails to meet the zone change standards, and that he could not support the change. Mr. Clark indicated that he had been through this neighborhood on many occasions. Further, he believed that in some communities such an office may be allowed without zoning changes. It may even operate without being noticed. The proposal based on the wide spread concern by the neighbors should be rethought. As there was no further discussion, Mr. Wheeler moved to recommend that Council Order # 03-74 be adopted by the City Council. Chairman Fournier seconded the motion. The Board voted 1 in favor and 4 opposed to the adoption of C.O. # 03-74 - Zone Change for 100 Linden Street, Frank Farrington, applicant. 8 Chairman Fournier asked each member to elaborate on their votes. Mr. Wheeler noted that his reasons for voting against the motion were non-residency and the fact that it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Clark noted it was the fact that it was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Guerette felt that since the proposal includes sales and service, the use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the existing uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Costlow agreed with Mr. Guerette, and added that he felt that the contract was void on its terms. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Fournier noted that the Board had just received the Minutes so they will be continued until the next regular meeting. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 6: Site Development Plan Approval to construct a 7,000 square foot pool and a 2,400 square foot bathhouse located at Hayford park in a Park and Open Space District. City of Bangor, applicant. Mr. Richard Hartford, PE of Carpenter Associates, representing the City of Bangor Parks and Recreation Department explained the proposed Site Development Plan to the Board. The project consists of a 7,000-square foot outdoor pool and 2,400-square foot bathhouse. Mr. Clark asked if the project was scaled back from the original 11,000 square foot pool he had heard about. Mr. Carpenter indicated that the project budget did not accommodate such an extensive project. Chairman Fournier asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the proposed pool was a permitted use in the Park & Open Space District. The pool will replace the existing pool off of Union Street. Ms. Weber noted that the plan was consistent with the requirements for site development plan approval with the exception that it was missing one additional handicap parking space. Staff would recommend Site Development Plan approval with the condition that a revised plan be submitted with the additional handicapped parking space noted. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Site Development Plan for the Elizabeth Pancoe Aquatic Center. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion, and the Board voted 5 to 0 to approved the Site Development Plan with the condition noted by Planning Officer Weber. There being no other items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. 9