Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-02 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2018,7:00 P.M. THIRD FLOOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL MEETING MINUTES Board Members Present: John Kenney, Chair Charles Boothby Nelson Durgin Dora McCarthy Chuck LeBlanc, Assoc. Member City Staff Present:David Gould, Planning Officer Paul Nicklas, Asst. City Solicitor Sean Gambrel, Planning & HPC Officer John Theriault, City Engineer Chair Kenney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 1.Text amendment –Parking in Neighborhood Service District–To Amend Chapter 165, Land Development Code, Section 165-72, by removing the requirement that Neighborhood Service District Parcels be previously established in order to benefit from relaxed parking restrictions as is presently requested under the City Code. C.O. #18-064. Paul Nicklas, Asst. City Solicitor presented the text amendment. He explained that roughly a year ago the zoning ordinance was amended to reduce parking required for NSD parcel ifit was apreviously existingparcel. Staff would like to remove that requirement for NSD parcels in the future. Chair Kenney opened up the public hearing. No member of the public spoke for or against the amendment. Chair Kenney closed the public hearing. Chair Kenney asked for the staff report. Planning Officer David Gould stated that the original reason for thischangewas that becauseNSD zones are largely grandfathered, the parking exemption was to be only for existing grandfathered NSD uses. He noted that there is some concern that this exemption without the grandfathering stipulation could be used in the future as a loophole to get out of parking requirements. Mr. Nicklas remarked that the Board will have to keep this in mind for future rezonings. Chair Kenney asked if this loophole couldbe remedied through contract zoning. Mr. Gould advised that it could be done through a contract zone. Member Durgin stated that because rezonings go through the planning board and council, there are points of review and that approval wouldn’t be automatic. Mr. Gould noted that this is not an uncommon problem, and that there are spots like this throughout the city because the comprehensiveplan and zoning identify most of these parcels as residential.Mr. Nicklas advised that we’re trying to encourageneighborhood service uses and many of these uses have been difficult to redevelop because options are limited based on their being grandfathered. Member McCarthy asked what the parameters of NSD arenow. Mr. Gould indicated that NSD is fairly restrictive-no drive-thru’s, no alcohol service, limited to 2000 s.f. commercial space. Typically, these are not uses that will generatea great deal of traffic or parking. Chair Kenney confirmed that because zone changes are public hearings, neighbors would have an avenue to voice concerns to the board, and that this would provide flexibility for appeals. Member LeBlanc moved to recommend the text amendment as presented by staff. Member Durgin seconded the motion. The motion waspassed -5 voting in favor, 0 voting in opposition. NEW BUSINESS 2.1000 State Street –Molly Pitcher –Land Development Permit for Site Development Plan Approval–proposal toadd one residential use to the property and includes existing grandfathered commercial building, which is 1,990 s.f. The development would encompass three principal use structures and is requesting the Planning Board approve exceptions to the required setbacks under a Cluster development plan. No site improvements are proposed at the propertylocated at 1000 State Street, in a Low Density Residential (LDR) district. Jim Kiser, engineer forthe applicant presented the project. He stated that this is a pre-existing situation that the applicant is trying to bring into compliance. The existing commercial use was grandfatheredandthe small accessory residential unit was previously a workshop. This unit currently has a living space and bathroom but no kitchen, so it is not truly a dwelling unit. The applicant would like to have ability to put in kitchen so that this could be considered a separate dwelling unitand available as use as a rental. Member Durgin asked if the three areas shown on the plan would be separate saleable parcels. Mr. Kiser advised no, it would be set up to be single ownership. Chair Kenney inquired if they were requesting any exceptionson the property. Mr. Kiser responded that the only exceptions requested were interior building setbacks. Chair Kenney asked Mr. Gould for the staff report. Mr. Gould reported thatthisconfiguration has existed for some number of years and essentially there are several unapproved primary uses on one parcel. The only option is to make this legal is through a Planned Group Development (PGD). Staff had some concerns with vehicle circulation, but the applicant has addressed the concerns by making the driveway a one-way loop. He suggested that ifthe board hadany conditions to approval, the applicant may be agreeable. Member Durgin statedthat because any modificationto the PGDwould requirethe owner to return to the Board for approval, he had no concerns. Member LeBlanc moved to approve the Land Development Permit for Site Development Plan Approval, seconded by Member Boothby. The motion was passed–5 votingin favor, 0voting in opposition. 3.28 Somerset Street –John Bapst Memorial High School -Land Development Permit for Site Development Plan Approval–proposesto construct new 15,640 s.f. gym/fitness center and associated parking and site improvements. New building will serve as the primary space for John Bapst Memorial High School physical education department and sports team practice use, at property located at 28 Somerset Street, in a Government & Institutional Service District (G&ISD). Andy Hamilton, attorneyrepresenting applicant, presented the project. Theapplicant is requestingPlanned Group Developmentapproval fora new building containing apractice gymnasiumand fitness center, as well as additional parking. There are several members in the PGD; Seven Islands, Vance Gray, Latsch & Cooper, and other John Bapst properties. The new gym is needed because the existinggym in the basement of the school is unsafe. Mr. Hamilton introducedMel MacKay of John Bapst Memorial High School. Mr. MacKay statedthat there have been no major renovations at the school in approximately 90 years, and that these changes were long overdue. He noted that portions of the PGD are in a historic district and that the architecthas attempted to be sensitive to the surroundings. Mr. MacKay indicatedthat the existing building on site cannot be renovated to this use in an effective, economical way, so theschoolwould like to build new. Member Boothby expressed concernsabout students crossing Somerset St.several timesper day, and the danger itpresents. He observed that when school opens and closes, students are not often attentive to trafficon Broadway and is worried about potential vehicular injuries. Mr. MacKay said that theschoolhasconsidered this, and that the plan includes a mid-block crosswalk with differentiated materials to increase safety. The school has done a traffic study on Somerset St, and in the past eleven years, they have had no vehicular injuries. Member Durgin asked how much parking wouldbe added. Mr. MacKay advised that this PGD adds a significant amount of parking thatwill hopefully reduce pressure on the neighborhood. This PGD will total53 spaces, roughly 30 of which will be new. Member Durgin felt that in terms of safety concerns, the mid-block crosswalk,if well-lighted, would be safest. Additionally, one large central parking lot is beneficial over several individual smaller lots. Chair Kenney asked how the Board wouldgo about approving this project. Mr. Nicklas stated that generally these PGDs are approved with a condition that the reciprocal easement agreement,approved by all parties, is forwarded to the city. He advised that any additional conditions that the Board wished could also be added. Member LeBlancmoved to approve the Land Development Permit for Site Development Plan Approval, with the condition that the executed Reciprocal Easement Agreements are provided to staff prior to construction, and that additional lighting me provided at the mid-block crosswalk on Somerset St. Member Durginseconded the motion. The motion waspassed-5 voting in favor, 0 voting in opposition. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS th 4.Planning Board Approval of Minutes–Minutes from the December 19, 2017 meeting were unanimously approvedwith minor changes. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.