No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-12-12 89-28 ORDINANCEwunm, Marron pato 12/20/88 Item No. ---9-28 hem/Subjado Amending Zoning Ordinance - LaSalle Drive - City of Bangor - C.O. A 89-28 Nmponaiam pepanmonL planning Division Commentary: . The Planning Board held a public hearing on the above zone change request at its regular meeting on December 19, 1988. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed to recommend the zone change to the City Council. . P. Andrew Hamilton, an attorney representing neighbors in the Judson Heights area, spoke in support of the_zone change. Property owners in the area including: Don Moore, Barbara Moore, Dennis Shubert, Pam Jackson, and Constance Bronson all spoke in favor of the zone change. Attorney Paul Rudman, representing Ralph McPherson the property owner, spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change Darrell Cooper, a Bangor real estate developer also spoke in opposition to the proposed zone change. �® m mrxaad Manager's Comments: Ciry.lbmger Associated Information: l�I Budget Appeovel: £ins ccD Legal Approval: c y saxnar InU uaM Far ©Passage 0 Fint Reading _ page _of_ []Referral 89-28 Assigned to Councilor Stove, December 12, 1988 CITY OF BANGOR (TITLE.) �T�IN:Ff11fRt Amending z n ng ord nce _............. _._. .........._ Be it ordmiasd by Me City CounoB of the City of Bagger. as fa e THAT the zoning boundary, lines as established by the Zoning Map -&f the City of Bangor dated September 23, 1974, as amended, be hereby further amended as follows: By changinga parcel of land located at 20V LaSalle Drive (Tax Map No.62, Parcel No. 195C)from Residential 5 Zone to Residential 3 Zone. Said parcel containing approximately four acres and being more parti- cularly indicated on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof. Iv City -Council December 12,1988 C:/uncilor Stone made a motion to Open for Discuselon Order was amended by the follosing Vote Voting yes Blancbette,Saxl, Sosnaud,Su111van,T111ey Voting No England,5auyer Abstaining Because of Conflict _ Shubert,5tone Amended and refered to Planning Board Amendment Attached ORDINANCE TITIE t Amending Zoning Ordinance Lasalle Drive Introduced and Nal by Btn Cwue iimmt t IN CITY COUNCIL December 28, 1988 Suspension of the the Rules Passed. 89-28 taken out of order and added first o Unfinished Business. Councilor ,'{y, stand made motion for Passage and amendment. Amended bydeleting amendment passed on December 12, 1988 and substitute Attorney Miller's amendment of December 28th by the following yes and no votes. Councilors votAng yes: Blanchette, Sawyer, Sosnaud, Sullivan and Tilley. Councilor voting no: England. Councilors abstaining: Shubert and Stone. Councilor absent: Sax1. Amendment attached to Council Ordinance. Passed as Amended by the following yes and no votes. Councilors voting yes: Blanchette, Sawyer Sosnaud, Sullivan and Tilley. Councilor voting no: England. Councilors abstaining: Shubert aik Stone. Councilor absent: Saxl. i 89-38 ' R1 LASALLE DRIVE R 1 4t O - NO Z R5 0 R5 t" O Cl2 C2 CONTRACT BROADWAY R5 TO 113- Q This Ordinance, 1£ adopted, shall he applicable to all pending proceedings, applications and petitions commenced a£te October 1, 1988. APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP AMENDMENT 88-28 - TO: THE CITY COUNCIL AND DATE THE PLANNING BOARD OF BANGOR. -MAINE: NO. 1. I 2. of y3 Harlow Street '2"' an or ME 04401341 Address ' - City or Pott Office Te ep one hereby petition to amend the zoning ordinance of the City of Bangor, Maine by reclassifying from R-5 zone to the R-3 zone the property Out ,e33n red on the maps attache eSeto, which are part of this application, and described as follows: - 1 3. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY (if any) 20V LaSalle Drive Total ,Area (acres or squarefeet) ovi arrest 4. PROPERTY LOCATION (General Description): Example - South side of State Street 400 yds. East of Pine Street 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY -Assessors Map No. 62 Parcel 195C 6. EXISTING USE: Vacant V. PROPOSED USE: Multi -family Housing E. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER OF RECORD: Name Ralph McPherson Address Union St..' Brewer, ME 04412 9. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACT OWNER (if Such): 10. SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR CONTRACT OWNER: 11. REPRESENTATIVE OF APPLICANT: Name/e/. RoberC E. Miller, Eeq. (if applicable) 12. ATTACH ANY CONDITIONS PROPOSED FOR A'CONTRACT ZONE REQUEST. RETURN FORM 6 DUPLICATE TO PLANNING DrVI9IOHr CITY HALLt BANGOR, M8. Application Fee: Processin0 Advertising Total Zone Change - $90.00 $ 50.00 Contract Zone Change _ 90,00 250:00* ,$340.00 $340.00 *Tiro Ads Required - - PLEADS BRAD PROCESSING PROCEDURE ON REVERSE SIDE 88-28 b. This project received ved preliminary plan approval on September 19, 1998 with thecondition that the City Engineer approve the stare drainage plan. The City Engineer has reviewed a revised storm drainage plan which meets with his approval. C. The Proposed subdivision involves one street, Fieldstone Drive, which s e the thirteen lots. All lots will be served by public water and sewer utilities. d. Staff would recommend final plan approval on the condition that the applicant post bond, or same other form of guaran- tee for the public improvements. .Item No. a: Zone Change - LaSalle Drive - City of Bangor - ` C.O. Y 89-28. a. Applicant requests a zone change from Residential 5 Zone to Residential 3 Zone for approximately four acres of land o LaSalle Drive. The property in question is presently before the Board far site plan approval of several multi -family buildings. b. The present zoning at this location has been in place since 1973. Prior to 1973 this a zoned agricultural. On May 30, 1973, the City Council rezoned this area to Resi- dence A, Residence C, and GeneralBusiness. (See attached Map.) When the 1970 Zoning Ordinance was adopted the zones were converted to R-1, R-5, and C-3. The 1979 Land Use Plan identified those a s low density residential, high density residential, and acommercial, consistent with the zoning and intended uses. C. Thm man n problem that Staff has with the zoning on LaSalle Drive is that it is generally o w that the Residential 5 Zone w not designed for n multi -family development but a rather was designed a e s holding area far very high-density existing residential development in the in -town areas. (That is, that R-9 zoning, for example, would be consistent with a land use policy of high-density residential in a such as this and would be the preferred zoning from our Point -view.) The question as to whether it is appropri- ate to zone the site R-3 has several facets to it: some of these have legal implications and some eimply n mal Planning and zoning c such a what is appropriate at this point in time inthislocations We will defer legal concerns to others at other times as we feel that it is appropriate for the City Solicitor's Office to comment o any questions that arise in this regard. (Also, many legal which a sed i argumentation before the Planning Board a" beyond the scope and the ability of the Board to deal with as well.) 88-28 The general rule in departing from zoning which I%, presum- ably: based upon prior land use and zoning policy in an a s that there are two reasons to change the zoning; either that there was an error made in the original zoning determi- nation or that circumstances in the area in question have changed since the original policies and z r zoning were put in place. Itn is possible to argue that 1 regard to the latter condition, that vacant areas have beendeveloped lalbeit i accord with the land u and zoning policy originally devel- oped) and that: therefore, conditions have changed in the ar- ea. This - This i , however, probably not a very reasonable nable conclu- sion. (Perhaps the only unexpected developmentin the past 15 years in this area would be the fact that the R-5 zone has not been developed.) Those favoring the zone change will argue the first point: that is that, the original Resi- dence C zoning which became translated into R-5 zoning was a mistaken classification to be applied to this a (Ne have already commented on the fact that R-4 zoning would in r view be m appropriate than R-3 zoning for this type of area.) However, the zoning to R-3 from R-5 is a matter of degree and the Board should consider whether such a car rection" to the zoning in place is appropriate. OLD BUSINESS Item No. 6: Site Plan Review - LaSalle Drive - Ralph McPherson a. Applicant requests site plan approval to construct three, 4ouruunit buildings, two, five -unit buildings, and five, nit buildings, to total 10 buildings and 48 units off Lasalle Drive in a Residential 5 zone. Id. This item was continued from the Board's December 5, 1988 meeting at the request of the applicant. The present plan has been revised from the original 11 fourplexes to 10 build- ings ranging from 4 units to 6 units, a total of 48 units. The revised c sed plan also includes screening along the property line onLaSalle Drive and Judson Boulevard. C. The proposal before the Board meets the setback, coverage, height, and open space requirements of the R-5 Zone. The plan provides 15 parking spaces in excess of that required by the Zoning Ordinance. III. The Planning Staff would find the proposed site plan to meet the requirements of Article 10 and Article 21, Section 10, (c) - Site Plan Approval Standards (e) thru (h). 69-28 MMRAti^%.St legal Depertment pme dreg[ -'12 -28-88 Aaendm Date December 28, 1986 ro: Bangor City Council FROM: Robert E. Miller, City Solicitor F£: Council Ordinance 89-28 -- LaSalle Drive wane Change The current proposal before the Council has been amended for purposes of e5tablfshin9 a retroactive "applicable" date as of Cetober 1,' 1988. For clarification purposes, and to eliminate question of a possible "regulatory taking", I suggest that the amendnentbe further amended as follows: "This ordinance,--ff-admted- shall �e-eppHeable-apply re _ all pending proceedings, applications and petitions relating t ----- to the sub jact "proceetY ca:menced after October 1, 1988-; 'aed Iv h dinance shall not apply to pending proceed' 9 1' a i for an level enc project n b for wnrch a arc nas aeq... ea legally -re ll a>3nizerl vestea rr nt to nave nrs pro3ect reviewed under the zo for the sublsct PLyin,,...... vof the effective date or this o - Because the proponents of this lone change are apparently seeking it primarily to stop or cause a modification in a proposed multi- family housing project by Ralph McPherson, I thought the Council members might like to review briefly the enabling legislation under which municipal zoning ordinancesmay he adopted or amended. Enclosed please find a copy of the pine, isions of 30 M.R.S.A. S 9961-A. The provisions relating to zoning ordinances are found in Section 1. Your attention is drawn to the re9uirarents of Paragraph B that the ordinance "must be pursuant to and consistent with a cauprehensve plan adopted by the mu crpality's legislative body." ,(Note: The enabling legislation for land use moratoriums is found in Section S.) R.E.M. tc Enclosure CC: Edward A. Barrett John Lord 's. m M7 'l G-,, _W �il L� Y I ry .tr "All cA C�sj