Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-05-07 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF MAY 7, 2002 MINUTES Board Members Present: Richard Fournier, Chairman Frederick Costlow David Clark Robert Guerette Robert Lingley Hal Wheeler City Staff Present: Katherine Weber James Ring John Hamer Peter Witham Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Ken Buckley Chairman Fournier called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Mr. Clark and Mr. Guerette were asked to alternate voting beginning with Mr. Guerette. CONSENT AGENDA As no one wished to remove the items for discussion, Chairman Fournier asked for a motion. Mr. Lingley moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Costlow seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The items approved are: Item No. 1: Site Location of Development Modification approval to revise a lot line in the Maine Business Enterprise Park located off Maine Avenue and Hammond Street in an Industry and Service District. City of Bangor, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan Approval to create a flag lot at 1097 Ohio Street in a Rural Residence and Agriculture District. John and Laurie Karnes, applicants. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 3: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the minutes of the April 16, 2002 meeting. Mr. Lingley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 14,950 sq. ft. storage addition at 22 Target Industrial Circle in a General Commercial and Service District. Automatic Distributors, applicant. David Hardy, M. D. Hardy, represented the applicant. He explained that the applicant was proposing a 14,950-sq. ft. addition to the existing building for use as warehouse space for their wholesale operation. Mr. Hardy noted that the loading area will remain the same with an access door to the rear of the building. Mr. Lingley asked if the sewer line and easement as noted in the Staff memo had been placed on the plans. Mr. Hardy indicated that revised plans had been submitted addressing Staff concerns. Mr. Hardy noted that the City Engineer’s Office is satisfied with the location of the easement and where the proposed development ties into the utilities. Chairman Fournier asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber explained that the revised site plan had been submitted that addressed the concerns of the City Engineer’s Office. The plan is now complete and compliant, therefore, Staff recommended Site Development Plan approval. Mr. Costlow moved to approve the Site Development Plan for 22 Target Industrial Circle. Mr. Lingley seconded the motion. Motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Mr. Lingley asked if it would be wise for the Board to spell out the reason for approval line by line under the Land Development Code. Planning Officer Weber indicated that when the Board does not approve an item, then the basis should be considered line-by- line. When Members approve an item, compliance with the Ordinance is implied, so this level of citation is not necessary. Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval to construct two mini-storage buildings (for a total of 7,200 sq. ft.) located on Hildreth Street North in a General Commercial and Service District. Joseph Cushman, applicant. Joseph Cushman, the applicant, told the Board that he was proposing to add two mini-storage buildings to his present facility located on Hildreth Street North. At the time the Staff memo was written, the City Engineer’s Office was still reviewing the application. Jim Ring, City Engineer, explained that there were two outstanding issues regarding drainage pond elevations and storage calculations, and on-site stabilization plans. The applicant had submitted revised plans addressing these concerns. The City’s Engineering Department recommended approval. 2 Mr. Costlow asked if the Board should attach any conditions to the plan. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the plans as submitted were complete. Mr. Lingley moved to approve the Site Development Plan as presented. . Mr. Guerette seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Item No. 6: Site Development Plan approval to construct an addition to the existing Sawyer Arena located on Thirteenth Street for use as locker rooms and concession space. City of Bangor, Parks and Recreation Department, applicant. Rob Frank, Mike Pullen and Jessie Hudson of WBRC Architects-Engineers represented the Bangor Parks and Recreation Department. Frank Comeau, Director of Parks and Recreation, was also present. Mr. Frank discussed the Site Development Plan, and indicated that new plans had been submitted addressing Staff concerns regarding the addition of a handicap parking space, and placement of additional shrubs. Mr. Lingley asked if the concerns of the neighbor regarding noise had been addressed. Mr. Pullen indicated that the proposed addition would be constructed out of concrete blocks that would extend upward 10 feet, thus mitigating noise from the arena. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that City Staff had met with WBRC Staff and reviewed the plan for consistency with the Ordinance requirements. After the Staff Memo was written, Staff received a revised Site Development Plan that meets ordinance requirements with the following conditions: (1) that the landscaping plans include shrubs to meet Ordinance requirements for buffer yards; (2) that a handicap parking space be added to the plan; and (3) that revised plans be submitted to the Planning Division Office. Mr. Wheeler had a question as to whether or not there was any leeway on the plantings as he felt that shrubs would be more easily vandalized than trees. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the Land Development Code specifies the planting of both trees and shrubs, and Staff would recommend the buffer standard as proposed in the Ordinance. After some discussion, Mr. Wheeler moved to table this item until a revised site plan is received. Mr. Frank asked that the Board make as a condition that no building permit would be issued until a plan is revised and approved by the City. The motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Costlow then moved approval of the Site Development Plan with the condition that, prior to a building permit being issued, a revised plan be submitted to the Planning Office that includes the handicap space and plantings as noted by the Planning Staff. Mr. Clark seconded the motion that passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Item No. 7: Planning Board Review of Findings of Fact – Widewaters Stillwater, LLC. John Hamer, Assistant City Solicitor, indicated that, as the Board was aware, the Law Court had requested that the Board do a “Findings of Fact” for the Widewaters Stillwater, LLC. project. Mr. Hamer recommended that Mr. Guerette vote on this item since he was present at the time the Board considered this application. Mr. Hamer indicated that he had come up with several “drafts” for the Board’s review. He told the Board that they could consider any of the drafts or ask that this be 3 sent back for further work. It is a question of what the Board wants to do and the reasons for the denial. Mr. Lingley indicated that one of his concerns in revisiting this issue was that the Board did not consider each criteria individually and make a specific decision on each item separately. He asked Mr. Hamer if it was his thought that the Board should now go through and make “Findings of Fact” on each issue. Mr. Hamer said that it is the Board’s decision. He noted that the evidence is in the record, and the only point is to explain the basis of the decision. Chairman Fournier said that he had not had time to read all of the draft versions since the latest draft had been forwarded to the Board that afternoon. He said that he did not feel comfortable voting on them without first reading all of the drafts in their entirety. Mr. Costlow noted that since Mr. Fournier did not vote against the project that he did not need to go through each criteria. Mr. Costlow said that only those Board Members who voted against the project needed to articulate why the applicant did not meet the burden of proof on three sections. He indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Kreitzer and Mr. Lingley who indicated which provisions that they did not feel that the applicant had met. Mr. Costlow said that he felt that what the draft attempts to do is to indicate the reasons why those members who voted against the project did so. Mr. Fournier asked the question “What is Court is looking for?” Mr. Hamer told the Board that it needs to adopt the “Findings of Fact” and the Chairman needs to sign it. Mr. Fournier indicated that he wished to read it first, and made a motion to postpone this item to the Board’s next meeting. Mr. Lingley said that he did not have any objection. Mr. Costlow seconded the motion. The Board discussed with Mr. Hamer the difference between Drafts 2 and 3, and the timeframe in which the “Findings of Fact” needed to be signed. Mr. Wheeler asked if he was entitled to vote on this since he was not on the Board at the time. Mr. Hamer indicated that the whole Board would be able to vote. He added that any Board Member could abstain if they did not feel comfortable voting on the issue. Chairman Fournier then asked for a vote. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion to continue this item to the Board’s next meeting. Item No. 8: Planning Board Discussion of Proposed Policy Changes in the Center Street, French Street, Broadway and Congress Street Area. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the City Council had asked that the Board consider the Comprehensive Plan policies in the study area between Broadway, Center Street, Congress Street and French Street. She explained that the Board could: (1) reaffirm the Comprehensive Plan 2000 as it is adopted for this area; or (2) consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that would involve going through a formal process of public hearings and discussions with the neighbors and St. Joseph Hospital to talk about an amended policy and plan for this neighborhood. Planning Officer Weber discussed with the Board possible scenarios for zoning policy for this area that would make changes to the current Government and Institutional Service and Residential zoning policy designations in the area. She went on to say that if the Board wished to reconsider a different policy for this area, it would not be recommending a rezoning of the area, but rather a 4 change in the policy for future rezoning requests that came before the City. She also noted that the Board needed to bring this issue to a closure and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Board discussed proposed scenarios for the future zoning designations of this area. Mr. Hamer indicated that the issue before the Board was whether or not to initiate the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan 2000. Mr. Lingley asked if the Board could add a policy statement rather than make an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hamer told the Board that that would not have any legal effect because zone changes are based on the Comprehensive Plan. If the Board felt that another policy has merit, then the Board would need to start the formal amendment process. Mr. Fournier did not feel that the Board should be considering this area on a lot-by-lot basis. Planning Officer Weber indicated that policy is not applied on a lot-by-lot basis, but rather as it relates to an entire neighborhood or area. Mr. Fournier also expressed his concern that this issue had been discussed and acted upon by the Board at a previous meeting. Mr. Guerette added that when the Board considered this before, they had taken into account testimony from both the Hospital and the neighbors. The Board saw the arguments for preserving the neighborhood and saw that the Hospital had no future plans for expansion. At that time, the Board was reluctant to propose an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. After discussing the different scenarios, Mr. Guerette indicated that he could see the merits of a policy change, and would be in favor of an amendment process. Mr. Costlow agreed in order to incorporate the views of the neighbors and address their concerns. The Board discussed the difference between zoning and future land use policy. Mr. Wheeler felt that the Planning Board had already voted on the question regarding a revision to the Comprehensive Plan 2000, and would not recommend any revision of the Plan at this time. Mr. Wheeler said that because the Comprehensive Plan is scheduled to be reviewed in 2005, the Board should wait since the present Plan is in “mid-life.” He was concerned that this request was centering around a specific community institution, and that any policy that “draws a line in the sand” for a future zone change request by the Hospital, might be opening the Board up to another legal challenge. He was opposed to making any different decision than the one that the Board made a few weeks ago. The Board also discussed the fact that if the policies for this area were opened up for review that the same scenario could happen elsewhere in the City within a matter of weeks or months. Mr. Fournier said that he felt that the Board should “stay the course” and address zone changes individually as they are proposed. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board take no action on this matter and await the review of the Comprehensive Plan in 2005. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion. Mr. Wheeler thanked the Planning Staff for the enormous amount of extra work involved with this request. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m. 5