Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-01 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2003 MINUTES Board Members Present: Richard Fournier, Chairman Frederick Costlow Robert Guerette David Clark Hal Wheeler Ryan King Bill Masters John Hanson City Staff Present: Katherine Weber James Ring John Hamer Peter Witham David Gould Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Fournier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Hanson was asked to vote on the Consent Agenda in the absence of Board Member Costlow. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove either of the items from the Consent Agenda, Chairman Fournier asked for a motion. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: To consider a request to extend the starting and completion dates for construction of a 16-unit apartment complex located at 1160 Ohio Street. Jean Nadeau d/b/a/ Nadeau Carpentry Service, applicant. Item No. 2: Final Subdivision Plan approval for a developmental subdivision of the existing development at 1010 Union Street in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Hilltop Inn, Inc., applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 83 Essex Street from Urban Residence-2 District to Multi-Family and Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 9,450 square feet. Luke MacFadyen, applicant. C.O. # 03-217. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. James DuFour, Esq., representing the applicant, Luke MacFadyen, spoke in favor of the proposed zone change request. Mr. DuFour indicated that the residence currently has two apartment units upstairs and the downstairs area of the building was previously used as a dentist’s office, but has been vacant for more than a year. The applicant is requesting a zone change from Urban Residence-2 District to Multi-Family and Service District in order to use the building as a 3-unit apartment building. Mr. DuFour explained that, while a 3-unit building is a permitted use in the Urban Residence 2 District, it would not be permitted on this particular lot due to its size of 9,450 square feet. In order to establish a 3-unit building and meet lot area requirements, the applicant needs Multi-Family and Service District zoning. Mr. DuFour also noted that the applicant was before the Board in November 2002 with the same zone change request to enable him to reuse this building as a 4-unit apartment building. The Planning Board recommended approval of the zoning request at that time. However, the City Council voted to not approve the requested zone change. Mr. Wheeler asked if the concerns regarding the original request were for use as a 4- unit building. Mr. MacFadyen indicated that parking was the concern. He noted that, at that time, he was under the impression that he would need to provided 1½ parking spaces for each unit when, in fact, he needed two parking spaces per unit. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the Minutes of the Council Meeting for the requested zone change indicated that Wayne Mallar, a resident of 103 Essex Street, had objected to the zone change. The City Council voted six (6) no and three (3) yes to not approve the zone change request. As no one else spoke in favor of the proposed zone change, Chairman Fournier asked for opponents. Mr. Wayne Mallar, 103 Essex Street, told the Board that he was concerned 2 that there would not be enough parking or open space on this lot. He also said that because he had not seen a plan, he did not know if the applicant would have enough setback area for parking or the required open space. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the Code Enforcement Office Staff had met with Mr. MacFadyen, and reviewed the open space requirements of the Multi-Family and Service District for a 3-unit building. Mr. MacFadyen was issued a demolition permit on June 26, 2003 to demolish the existing barn to allow for additional open space and parking above and beyond what exists on the site. The Code Enforcement Office Staff determined that there was area available to meet the Land Development Code requirements for 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit and the open space requirement of 200 square feet per dwelling unit, plus 200 square feet in excess of one bedroom. Mr. Mallar said that if the Code Enforcement Office had done its study the first time around, then they would not be there. He said that, without seeing a site plan, there was nothing to base a denial on. He said that he would prefer that the Board table this until he saw the information regarding the distance from the side lines. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the Planning Staff recognizes and supports the Code Enforcement Office’s determination. Ms. Weber reminded the Board that the request before them was for a zone change request, and not site planning issues. Chairman Fournier indicated that the Board had a Memorandum from the Code Enforcement Office indicating that the proposal meets all of the requirements. He added that this is an existing building, and nothing is being added. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the applicant will have to come back before the City for any modifications to the site. Mr. Costlow added that the zone change is for the use, but lot configurations will be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Mallar said that he felt that this was putting the “cart before the horse.” He said that this is a residential zone, and he would like to keep it a residential zone. He was concerned that a change would be detrimental to the area, and might devalue the properties in the area. Mrs. Sonya Mallar, 103 Essex Street, also spoke in opposition. She told the Board that when Dr. King had his dental office on the first floor of this building, he retained an apartment on the second floor. She said that she would like to see those big old houses kept as residences, and not split into small apartments. She noted that the first floor area of this residence would create a huge apartment that could be rented to many people, thus creating traffic concerns. Mr. Wheeler asked Mrs. Mallar why she felt that three apartments would adversely affect the area, and if she had considered buying the property. Mrs. Mallar replied that she and her husband had bought a two-apartment building and turned it back into a single- family home, as have other people in the neighborhood. She said that this would create multiple cars on the street. Mrs. Mallar indicated that, since there would not be adequate 3 parking on site to park all of the cars, they would end up parking on the street. She also noted that they had considered purchasing this building. Mr. DuFour distributed photographs of the property for the Board’s review. He indicated that this property was very difficult to heat throughout the winter. Mr. MacFadyen wishes to maintain this property and is proposing a 3-unit residential use. Mr. DuFour said that he did not feel that three units would over burden this property considering the historical use the property has had (as a dentist’s office and two apartments). He told the Board that site issues will need to be addressed before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued by the City. The demolition of the barn in the back of the property will address the open space issues. Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing, and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber noted that the request before the Board was for a zone change from Urban Residence-2 District to Multi-Family and Service District. The building presently has two units on the on the upper floor, and the applicant is proposing to add one unit to the first floor. This proposal did not meet the URD-2 zoning district requirements for three units because the parcel lacks 1,050 square feet in area. With a change to Multi-Family and Service District zoning, the minimum lot size will actually be in excess of 1,950 square feet for three units. Ms. Weber told the Board that the Comprehensive Plan 2000 recognizes that this is a mixed-use area with single family, multi-family and professional office uses in the State Street corridor. There is a need to reutilize and redevelop these very large buildings. In order to do so, many times additional uses or mixed uses are needed. The use for the proposed building is and will continue to be residential. For these reasons, Staff recommended that the Board recommend adoption of C.O. # 03-217 by the City Council. Chairman Fournier then asked for comments. Mr. King had a question regarding the difference in the intensity of uses between the URD-2 District and the Multi-Family and Service District, and if commercial uses are limited in some fashion to arterial streets. Planning Officer Weber said that the proposed use and the current use is for residential. In the Multi-Family and Service District, the commercial uses are encouraged to be on arterial streets. The URD-2 District allows for single-family use up to 4 units while the M & SD District allows more than 4 units. Chairman Fournier asked for a motion since there were no further comments. Mr. Guerette moved to recommend to the City Council that the zone change request contained in C.O. # 03-217 from Urban Residence-2 District to Multi-Family and Service District at 83 Essex Street be approved. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to recommending adoption of the zone change request by the Council. 4 Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 460 Stillwater Avenue from Low Density Residential District to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 18-acres. Grant Trailer Sales, Inc., applicant. C.O. # 03-218. The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Fournier who asked for comments from the applicant. P. Andrew Hamilton, Esquire, represented the applicant, Grant Trailer Sales, Inc. Mr. Hamilton noted that Kelly Disley, paralegal of Eaton Peabody, Mike Longo, Vice President of Grant Trailer Sales, Inc., John Toic of New First Hartford Realty Corporation, Cynthia Orcutt, Landscape Architect, Tim Woodcock, Esquire, of Eaton Peabody, and Vinal Applebee, P.E., of Ames A/E were also present to answer questions of the Board. Mr. Hamilton started his presentation by noting that they had taken a very deliberate approach to rezoning this challenging property. Mr. Hamilton showed the Board a map indicating the existing commercial zoning in this area. He also explained that the applicant was proposing a 150-foot buffer to run between this parcel and the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision parcel (from the westerly property line). This buffer consists of an area of approximately 5.5 acres or 30% of the proposed development parcel to provide a very effective buffer between the commercial zoning and the residential neighborhood. Mr. Hamilton discussed the existing commercial properties in the immediate area of this parcel in question, noting two parcels owned by Mr. Grant, a day care facility, and an office building. Mr. Hamilton said that this application is uniquely different from that filed by the applicant in 1999, which was denied, in that it was now a contract zone change request offering 14 use and site development contract conditions, as well as, the 150’ buffer. The applicant was also proposing that a 150-foot conservation easement be established. Mr. Hamilton explained that this contract zone change request before the Board was the result of two neighborhood meetings with the residents of the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision. At those meeting, the neighbors raised concerns regarding traffic, a buffer, hours of operation, lighting, improved pedestrian safety, drainage, and storm water retention areas. The residents also had concerns with traffic and lane improvements along Stillwater Avenue because it is very difficult to get out of Drew Lane onto Stillwater Avenue. There was also concern over the height of any buildings, overnight accommodations, and drive-thru restaurants. As a result of these meetings, the contract conditions proposed were designed to address the neighbors concerns. Mr. Hamilton discussed the proposed contract conditions noting that drive-thru restaurants would not be permitted, there would be a limit on the height of any buildings, and there would be no overnight accommodations that would eliminate a high-rise hotel, 5 motels or inns. They were also asked to consider increasing the buffer area between the two properties from 75’ to 150’. Mr. Costlow asked what limitations would be placed on the hours of operation. Mr. Hamilton said that in addition to restricting overnight uses, there would be time limits on garbage pick up and tractor trailer deliveries. Mr. Costlow noted that nightclub uses were not prohibited. In answer to Mr. Costlow’s question regarding nightclubs, Mr. Hamilton told the Board that the applicant would be willing to amend the contact conditions to exclude nightclubs, and offered to amend Condition No. 9 that no entertainment centers for profit or nightclubs would be allowed. Mr. Hamilton also discussed with the Board the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan regarding development in this area, and said that the 14 contract conditions had met the burden of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wheeler asked about traffic, and if any impact studies had been done. Mr. Hamilton noted that the applicant would need to secure a traffic permit from the Maine Department of Transportation as part of the site planning process. Mr. Hanson asked if the applicant anticipated that there would be any change to the traffic movement on Stillwater Avenue in the area of the Stillwater Avenue Interchange that presently has a right-hand turn only. Mr. Longo indicated that they had no intention of advancing a request for a left- hand turn. Mr. Clark asked what an enclosed recreation center would be. Mr. Hamilton used as an example, Great Skates. Ms. Cynthia Orcutt addressed the 150’ buffer, and the types and numbers of trees and shrubs to be placed within this area. She noted that because there were many existing white pines, none would be planted as part of the new plantings in the proposed buffer. Mr. Tim Woodcock, Esquire, and Mr. John Toic of New First Hartford Realty Corporation, also spoke in favor of the proposed change. Mr. Woodcock stressed that this area is in transition and that the proposed contract zone change will run with the land. He noted that he was unaware of any buffer anywhere of the magnitude proposed by the applicant. He said that the applicant was trying to develop this area as a commercial undertaking while providing long-term predictability for the neighbors. With the proposed buffer, it will be defined. He thanked the neighbors who came to the meetings and expressed his appreciation for the exchange of ideas they had. Mr. Costlow had concerns about who would be the holder of the proposed easement. It was noted that this issue would be addressed at the site plan stage. Mr. Wheeler asked for a 10-minute recess. After the recess, Chairman Fournier asked for opponents. Mr. Bill Murphy, of 114 Drew Lane, told the Board that he was before them speaking on behalf of a resident community of 50 individuals, as well as, additional individuals whose signatures were in opposition to the proposed commercial development. (See the attached written comments of Mr. Murphy.) He indicated that there would have been more signatures had they had the time to go door-to-door. He said that he found the neighborhood response overwhelming. He asked that those who were present at the 6 meeting and in opposition to the proposal, to stand up. Many people stood in opposition to this zone change request. Mr. Murphy started his presentation by indicating that the proposed 150-foot buffer was not adequate protection for the neighbors from noise, traffic, or commercial infringement. He also expressed the neighborhood sentiment that the proposed contract zone change request was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Development Goals in that it would not be free from noise, pollution, and visual clutter. Mr. Murphy said that the proposed zone change would harm the quality of life in the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision, it would lead to increased air pollution, motor noise, vehicle traffic, and the increased lighting would infringe upon their ability to enjoy the evening sky. Mr. Murphy said that the applicant is proposing a 1,000-space parking lot. He said that there is already a tremendous amount of land zoned for commercial development and he did not feel that it was necessary to intrude into the residential areas of Stillwater Gardens. He said that it was a violation of sound zoning principles, and a betrayal to homeowners. He noted that in 1999, the Planning Board and City Council voted to keep this parcel residential, and he urged the Board to vote accordingly. Ms. Pam Taylor, 74 Jennifer Lane, indicated that she was one of the people that Mr. Murphy did not get a change to speak to. She told the Board that she had lived there for 12 years, and was in opposition to the zone change. She asked that the Board not approve it. Mr. John Ryan, 25 Jennifer Lane, told the Board that he and his wife had driven down Stillwater Avenue that afternoon, and had found an overabundance of vacant commercial property, as well as, vacant storefronts. He told the Board that he felt that the City had more than enough commercial space to meet the demand, and that the City needs to look at how to balance commercial use and residential use. He said that the City does not have a great deal of residential properties for new families to build on, and those that are available are not within the salary reach of everyone. He noted that the lots in a subdivision on Ohio Street are going for $60,000 a lot. He said that the City does a great job of supporting education, and Bangor’s is above any system in the State. He said that, if the City continued to build for commercial while shrinking the area for residential purposes, people will not build in Bangor. He would hate to see Bangor turn into another Portland. He said that he had been looking at the City’s Vision Statement that denotes a “family- focused community,” and felt that the type of development proposed seriously compromised that part of the City’s Vision Statement. He urged the Board to vote against this application. Ms. Pam Wilder, 29 Jennifer Lane, said that she was unable to attend the two neighborhood meetings. She expressed her concern regarding the buffer area indicating that she did not feel that 150 feet was very far as her lot is 120 feet deep, and she can hear her neighbors. She asked what is more important - to get the biggest bang for their buck, or is it better to provide a good environment for her son to grow up in. 7 Mr. Jim Nadeau, a Stillwater Gardens resident, told the Board that when he moved into this neighborhood, the trailer park was there, and he accepted it. He said that Mr. Grant decided to vacate the park for future development, and asked why he should have to put up with this problem now. Mr. Hamilton rebutted by discussing the Comprehensive Plan’s Goals, and said that the applicant could not have done a better job at complying with these goals and objectives. Mr. Hanson asked if the proposed 150’ vegetation buffer would provide greater buffering, about the same, or less buffering than if the trailer park continued to exist. Ms. Orcutt told the Board that the proposed buffer would have a greater “denseness” because it will be filled in to create a more solid buffer. A question was raised regarding the issue of noise and lighting. Mr. Hamilton indicated that these issues would be subject to Site Location of Development requirements and standards. As no one else spoke, Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing, and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the applicant, Grant Trailer Sales, Inc., is requesting a contract zone change for 18-acres of land located at 460 Stillwater Avenue. The requested zone change is from Low Density Residential District to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Mr. Grant is offering a contract zone proposal that includes fourteen operational and site development restrictions including a 150-foot buffer in perpetuity on the site to provide a transition between the residential neighborhood and any future commercial use. Ms. Weber offered some insights on the Comprehensive Plan stating that, in 1989, this parcel was clearly low-density residential and in the Comprehensive Plan Update in 2000 it was still the Queen City Mobile Home Park. She explained that prior to any Comprehensive Plan approvals there are a set of public hearings held. The Plan is updated as a draft and is brought before the public and a series of Public Hearings are held. The Public Hearings for the 2000 Plan Update were held in 1998. The mobile home park still existed on the site at that time and there would be no way that any policy other than residential would have been appropriate for this parcel in 1998. After public hearings are held, the Plan cannot be amended unless there is another set of public hearings. The Public Hearings in 1998 established the zoning policies for the 2000 Comp Plan, which was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The Plan reflected the current land uses that existed in the late 90’s. Ms. Weber went on to say that the Comp Plan certainly has strong goals that support the residential development side of the issue calling for the preservation of existing neighborhoods, and the quality of life for our residents. The Comprehensive Plan also promotes balanced growth. The Comp Plan is a guiding document that is based on existing land uses. This is the reason why the Comp Plan is updated every five to ten years because 8 land uses do change. There are a number of areas in the City that are clearly in transition. Staff has identified over 20 areas that will be looked at carefully in relation to policies in the 2005 Update of the Comprehensive Plan. This area is clearly one of those areas in transition. Ms. Weber indicated that the proposed conditions that are being offered are clearly more restrictive than a straight zone change. The 150-foot buffer accounts for 30% of the lot, or 5.5 acres. There are 14 conditions proposed to reduce the impacts on the surrounding areas. The new interchange was built, and the mobile home park has closed, thus the land is now vacant. This presents the opportunity for looking at the land use policy anew for this area. The applicant is essentially asking for the shift in the policy line for this area. The Stillwater Gardens Subdivision is clearly residential, and will remain residential. Ms. Weber pointed out that there are other commercial properties along the Stillwater Corridor with the Mall area itself, and there are contract zoned parcels further in- town from Stillwater Gardens and on the other side of the Interstate, making this a mixed use area. Ms. Weber said that the area is not all residentially zoned and it is not all commercially zoned. There is no firm dividing line that one side is residential and one side is commercial. Ms. Weber advised the Board that the Planning Staff is recommending that the Board recommend to the City Council adoption of the contract zone change request contained in C.O. # 03-218 as it is in a transition area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2000. She said that the proposed contract zoning conditions are more restrictive than a straight zone change and will serve to mitigate commercial development on the site. The 150-foot buffer creates a reasonable transition from the existing residential to any future commercial development, and the changed conditions in the area indicate that the current policy may not be the most appropriate. Mr. Costlow asked if the basis for the Staff’s position was that the buffer is better as it is more restrictive, that contract zoning is better than a straight zone change, and that the conditions of the area have changed. Planning Officer Weber indicated that it was. Mr. Guerette asked if Staff felt that, at the next Comprehensive Plan review in the year 2005, this area would most likely be targeted as a commercial zone. Ms. Weber indicated that it would certainly be a strong option to look at. Mr. Hanson said that this was troubling to him because of the fact that this is not an old residential neighborhood, and that plans were drawn up, permits issued, building inspections took place, people engaged in either constructing or purchasing new homes in a residential area that was defined residential, and it had an adjacent area that was defined as high density residential. He said that the proponents to this application had talked a great deal about the highest and best use, and had specifically drawn attention to offering security and predictability to the residents in this area. 9 Mr. Hanson asked the Planning Officer if such a plan offers greater security and predictability to these residents who in good faith built and purchased homes in what they believed was a residential area surrounded by a high density residential area, or, would keeping this as a residential area, and not authorizing a zone change provide them the measure of security and predictability that both proponents and opponents seem to feel is critical in this 60 or so single-family residential area. He noted that, for most people, if not all, the investment in their home is probably their largest single economic investment. He asked if the there will be an increase, or will they be afforded an increase in their home security and predictability with things staying as they are, or with the Board granting a zone change. Planning Officer Weber noted that the subdivision would remain residential and that Mr. Grant’s property is no longer a residential use but, rather, vacant land. She said that these policies may remain the same or they may change because that is the nature of vacant land. Mr. Wheeler raised a point of order. He apologized to Mr. Hanson for taking issue, but said that he did not feel that it was appropriate for a Member of the Board to ask a Staff member to go beyond the recommendation that was submitted in support of an application. Mr. Clark said that, while he realized that the people who live on Drew Lane figured that the trailer park was going to be their buffer, when the park vanished, the “writing was on the wall” that the Mall was coming. He said that he was weighing whether there would be little or no buffer if it were redeveloped into another mobilehome park, apartments or houses right up to the back yards of existing houses, or, to go with what is proposed. He said that he didn’t want the Stillwater Gardens residents to feel that they are being short changed, but he did not want to deny the fact that there is a commercial basis and balance for the City Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Longo what development could be placed there if the zoning were not changed. Mr. Longo indicated that only those permitted uses allowed in the LDR District. He also indicated that the applicant had no alternative project in mind at this point. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that a mobilehome park would not be allowed in the Low Density Residential District. Mr. Hamilton added that at the time of the zone change request back in 1999, the applicant had examined what could be developed on this parcel. The setback was 35’ under the LDR District (which is how close housing could be constructed to the rear yards). Also, a road would need to be constructed in order to access new homes. Mr. Hamilton expressed his feeling that, because comprehensive planning is a vehicle that is subject to change over time, zoning is intended to be flexible, particularly in the transition areas. This is what the applicant has tried to address; the very concern of security. He stressed that 10 the applicant was proposing an open space easement in perpetuity, and the buffer would be preserved, which means forever, and subject to no change. In their opinion, he said that this represents a superior proposal to what exists on the ground today. Mr. Guerette had a question regarding the 150-buffer, and whether it is proposed to provide a zone that is impenetrable to the visual contact between the residents and any commercial development that may occur on this parcel of land. Ms. Cynthia Orcutt explained that in Note No. 2, the proposed buffer requirements indicate that there can not be any gap wider than 18 feet, and that would be the maximum opening that would be allowed along the 1,300-foot length of the buffer. Ms. Orcutt also noted the number and types of trees and shrubs proposed within the 150-foot buffer. She indicated that it is their goal to provide a solid visual screen. Mr. Guerette asked the Planning Officer if it was an Ordinance requirement for applicants to conduct neighborhood meetings. Planning Officer Weber indicated that it was not required, however, Staff does encourage applicants to do so. In this case, the applicant’s team took it upon themselves to meet with the neighbors. Mr. Costlow asked if the entire area of the buffer zone is going to be vegetation, or if it was proposed to be a detention pond area. Mr. Hamilton responded by saying that there is a possibility that there would be some detention within the buffer area, however, no structure, parking or driveways would be allowed. Mr. Hanson said that the residents may feel the highest and best use is something totally different from that of the applicant. He said that, since he has been on the Board, he felt that residential uses have been given up for the sake of the commercial uses. He could not recall a case in which it had gone in the opposite direction (where something had been rezoned from commercial to residential). He asked the question of where does the transition end and where does commercial sprawl end, especially, when Bangor has already designated a very significant portion of its boundaries for potential commercial development. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that in order for any community the size of Bangor to survive, there needs to be a broader tax base than we presently have. He agreed with a comment made by one gentleman at the meeting that the City had a lot of vacant commercial space on Stillwater Avenue. However, Mr. Wheeler said that he did not feel that because there was vacant commercial space, that the opening of another commercial enterprise should be denied. In response to another comment that more people would not want to move to Bangor because of all the commercial development taking place, Mr. Wheeler said that they needed to look at this issue in a much broader perspective than just their own back yards. He said that no one respects the feelings of “proprietary feelings of ownership of your own home” any more than he does. 11 Mr. Wheeler said that he drives round the City in all areas of it every week, and he has never seen a City in New England outside of some of the more beautiful small towns in Vermont and New Hampshire, the size of Bangor that has more trees, more open space, more running water, more beautiful natural landscape, more recreational trails, more parks, more cultural assets, more of everything that improves the quality of life than we have. He said that to state that this proposed development would seriously compromise the quality of life is a little bit extreme. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt that the City was established on, grew, thrived, prospered, and became the community that it is today not because of the beautiful houses that were built on West Broadway and Broadway and other sections of the City where those old homes stand, but because of commercial enterprises. He also said that he has never seen as many restrictions placed on a contract zone proposal as this one. He said that if the developer has agreed to them, and if the prospective business for this parcel of land is willing to go along with them, he did not see any overridingly persuasive reason why the Board should not make the recommendation that the City Council approve this zone change Mr. Costlow said that he would like to have seen evidence on the actual effectiveness of the buffer and, in his opinion, the contract conditions could have been more restrictive to provide for a limitation on the hours of operation, or a limitation on the square footage of the building to bring more “meat” to the application. Mr. Costlow said that he believed that the buffer was certainly a good idea, and without it, he did not think that they would have stood a chance of success. He said that he could assure the residents that there would be attention paid in the site development review portion of this development process where future mitigation factors come into play. He said that, while this is not the best of both worlds, he felt that this was a transition area. Mr. Guerette added that he was particularly concerned about the preservation of the integrity of residential neighborhoods. He said that if this was a proposal to create a thru- way through this neighborhood to access a commercial development, or if this was a proposal to even establish a corner store, he would probably look at it much differently. He said that he thought that it was inevitable that this piece of land will somehow, someday, become a commercially zoned property. He indicated that he was impressed with the effort that the applicant has made in extending the buffer, and working with the neighbors to insure the least possible amount of disruption to the neighborhood. Like Mr. Wheeler, he also felt that the City is responsible for creating economic opportunity, as well as, fine neighborhoods. Mr. Costlow added that he would also recommend that a condition be added regarding who the holder of the proposed easement would be. Planning Officer Weber indicated that this was a site planning issue. Mr. Guerette asked if the condition of no bars or nightclubs could be included in the motion? Mr. John Hamer, Assistant City Solicitor, indicated that this action was a clarification, and not a substantive amendment. He said that, if the applicant agrees to it, it could be incorporated into the Ordinance, and then it could be substituted by amendment at the Council meeting. Mr. Hamilton, for the record, 12 indicated that the applicant proposed the additional language, and was willing to accept it. Mr. Hamer indicated that this was the applicant’s formal amendment to the application to include a condition that nightclubs would not be a permitted use. Mr. King expressed his concern about the neighborhoods around the City, and the encroachment of commercial development. He indicated that if he were voting, he would vote to deny this application on the basis that he did not feel that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Fournier then asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council approval of the requested zone change for the parcel of land located at 460 Stillwater Avenue from Low Density Residential District to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District, with the stated condition as accepted by the attorney for the developer, for C.O. # 03-218 (As Amended). The motion was seconded by Mr. Guerette. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to recommending that the City Council adopt C.O. # 03-218 (As Amended). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes The Minutes of the June 19, 2003, Planning Board Meeting were unanimously approved as printed. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 6: Final Subdivision Plan Approval of an 11-lot expansion (Phase II) of the Serenity Acres Subdivision located at 1530 Stillwater Avenue in a Rural Residence and Agriculture District. Joseph Reinzo/Sunset Development, applicant. Mr. Oscar Emerson of Down to Earth Professional Land Services, represented the applicant, Joseph Reinzo. Mr. Emerson explained the details of the proposed 11-lot expansion (Phase II) of the Serenity Acres Subdivision located at 1530 Stillwater Avenue just north of Chase Road and south of the Orono-Bangor town line. Mr. Emerson noted that new plans had been submitted addressing Engineering staff concerns regarding construction details for the proposed roadways and cul-de-sacs. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the plans were now in order for approval with two conditions. First, that executed easements be submitted for buffers, drainage easements, open space area, and deeds for the proposed rights-of-way; and, second, that the applicant provide the City’s Legal Office with a suitable Improvement Guarantee within 120 days of the Final Subdivision Plan Approval. 13 Mr. Guerette asked if natural flows into the wetland was an accepted practice. Mr. Jim Ring, Director of Infrastructure and Development Support, indicated that it was not inconsistent with the regulations for natural flows into a wetland. Chairman Fournier asked for a motion. Mr. Guerette moved to approve the Final Subdivision Plan with the two conditions noted by Staff. Mr. Costlow seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Adjournment Members of the Board expressed their appreciation for the thoughtful consideration on the zoning issues, and the information provided to them by the Planning Staff. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. 14