HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-02 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2010
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman
Jeff Barnes
Paul Bolin, Alternate Member
Doug Damon
John Miller
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Andy Sturgeon
City Staff Present: David Gould
Jim Ring
Bud Knickerbocker
Lynn Johnson
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Alternate Member Bolin was
asked to vote in the absence of Mr. Theeman.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he did not want to remove this item from the Consent
Agenda but asked if the Board was being asked to approve the existing building on the site
that lies within the right-of-way. Planning Officer Gould indicated that it is part of the site
and with this Site Development Plan the Board is approving the site, pavement, existing
buildings, as well as, a new building. If the Board does not approve this Site Development
Plan the existing the building will stay.
Mr. Sturgeon indicated that he had a conflict of interest regarding Item No. 1 and
asked to be excused from voting. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board found that Mr.
Sturgeon had a conflict of interest in Item No. 1 on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Barnes
seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6 to 0.
2
Chairman Brown asked for a motion on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Barnes moved to
approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 in
favor and 1 opposed. The item approved is as follows:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 28’ x 72’ single-
story storage building located on Bomarc Road in an Urban
Industry District. Woods of Maine, Inc., applicant.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 2: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of
land located at 213 Ohio Street from Contract Urban
Service District to Contract Urban Service District (to amend the
conditions). Said parcel containing approximately 14,000 sq. ft.
Webber Oil Company, applicant. C.O. # 10-062.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant had withdrawn this request.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3: Site Development Plan Revision and Planned Group
Development approvals to construct a 139,978 sq. ft. Lowe’s
building, a 31,811 sq. ft. outdoor garden center, and a 35,175
sq. ft. retail building located at 70 Springer Drive in
a Shopping and Personal Service District and a General
Commercial and Service District. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.,
applicant.
Mr. Paul Cincotta with Packard Development, Rob Jess with Lowe’s Home Centers, and
Jamie Lowery with Sebago Technics were present in support of this application. Mr. Cincotta
gave a history and chronology of previous approvals for redevelopment of this site which is
the site of the former Wal-Mart. In 2007, the applicant received approval to build a larger
139,978 sq. ft. Lowe’s building with two 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant buildings. The applicant
subsequently received approval of a smaller 121,000 sq. ft. Lowe’s building with the two
6,000 sq. ft. restaurant buildings. The applicant later received approval of a 121,000 sq. ft.
Lowe’s building with one larger 35,000 sq. ft. retail building with the entrance being shifted
further north on Springer Drive. The application before the Board is for approval of the
larger 139,978 sq. ft. Lowe’s building and the larger 35,000 sq. ft. retail building with the
entrance being shifted northerly on Springer Drive.
Mr. Sturgeon asked how many plans are approved for this site and how many have
expired. Mr. Gould indicated that with minor in-house revisions and those that have been
before the Board, that there have been seven different iterations and some approvals only
give them an extension to extend their timeline. The original approval done some years ago
is still valid and in the City’s view they have started the project as they have started
3
demolition of the former Wal-Mart building. Mr. Gould explained that they can only build one
of these plans. They cannot pick and choose different elements from different plans.
Mr. Cincotta indicated that Lowe’s has begun work on the site and the property has
been transferred. They intend to build the larger buildings.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Traffic Movement Permit covers the different scenarios.
Mr. Cincotta indicated that MDOT issued their Traffic Movement Permit based on the most
intensive use on the site. Mr. Damon asked if they are proposing to construct a turn lane on
Springer Drive. Mr. Cincotta indicated that they do and this is one of the requirements in
their Traffic Movement Permit.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that the conditions of the Traffic Movement Permit for
off-site improvements have not changed. They are still required to widen Springer Drive and
are required to provide an escrow account for future improvements. The intersection of
Springer Drive at the Target and old Home Depot entrance is to be monitored for three years
after they have occupied their building and if traffic volumes warrant, then the escrow
account will be available to pay for improvements, if needed. Staff has reviewed Planned
Group Development documents for both scenarios.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff feels that all of the requirements have been
met and recommended that the Board grant approval subject to the same conditions as the
prior approval (conditions of the traffic movement permit regarding off-site improvements).
Mr. Rosenblatt asked when the applicant needed to declare which plan they are going
to construct and what happens if not all of the site gets constructed. Mr. Gould indicated
that when they pull their building permit will determine which plan that they will be
constructing. When they go to occupy the site it needs to comply with an approved plan.
Regardless of whether or not they construct the larger Lowe’s building or the smaller retail
buildings, before they will be allowed to occupy the site they will need to construct all of the
infrastructure, buffers, parking spaces, etc.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval to
construct a 139,978 sq. ft. Lowe’s building, a 31,811 sq. ft. outdoor garden center, and a
35,175 sq. ft. retail building located at 70 Springer Drive in a Shopping and Personal Service
District and a General Commercial and Service District - Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., applicant
with the conditions that the project not be opened to the public until the off-site traffic
improvements are in place, and all conditions of the MDOT Traffic Movement Permit are met.
Mr. Barnes seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 7 to 0. Mr. Rosenblatt then
moved that the Board grant Planned Group Development Approval for the same project. Mr.
Barnes seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
4
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 4: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
thth
Chairman Brown indicated that the Minutes of the January 5 and 19 meetings were
in order. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the January 5, 2010 and January
19, 2010, meetings. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 7 to 0 in
favor.
OTHER BUSINESS
Item No. 5: Planning Board Discussion of Bed and Breakfast uses in the
Rural Residence and Agricultural District.
Planning Officer Gould discussed a proposed amendment to the Rural Residence and
Agricultural District (RR & A) to add bed and breakfast uses as a permitted use in the district.
Mr. Gould indicated that the point of this discussion was for the Board Members to review the
proposal to come up with language that they felt was appropriate for this use.
Mr. Bolin felt that the provision that it be a 50 year old home was not an issue.
Chairman Brown indicated that she shared that same concern and added that someone could
build a new structure to look like an older home.
Mr. Damon felt that this was a great application of common sense for neighborhoods
because bed and breakfasts generally are not uses that create problems for neighborhoods.
He was in support of this use.
Mr. Rosenblatt felt that this use should be added to the RR & A, but had a couple of
concerns with the definitions of bed and breakfast or inn which are two different things. Inn
is included with hotels and motels and includes additional services such as meeting rooms
and recreational facilities which wouldn’t be appropriate in a RR & A District.
Mr. Barnes felt that this amendment was a good start on the part of the Planning
Staff. In most cases the use would be in a larger older home with or without the 50 year
provision.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if consideration had been given to lot requirements (setbacks,
etc.) to make sure that this use would not interfere with residential neighbors. Mr. Gould
indicated that what was considered is on-site waste disposal. As you add rooms or beds it
increases the load on the system. The State Plumbing Code has existing standards for this
use and will regulate the use. A bed and breakfast use is not a big traffic generator and
won’t require traffic analysis.
Mr. Sturgeon indicated that his only concern would be with the situation where the
bed and breakfast use is not in a subdivision (on Essex Street or Outer Broadway) and the
5
building is within 50 or 100 feet of the abutting property. In this instance there are no
setbacks or buffers to protect the neighboring property. Planning Officer Gould indicated
that in the situation of new construction there wouldn’t be a problem but with an existing
building it is limited as to where it sits on the lot. However, stating specific setbacks for that
use might be problematic.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that if it were an existing building it wouldn’t
necessarily have to come back before the Board for site plan approval. There would have to
be enough exterior changes to warrant site development plan approval. The one example in
Bangor is the bed and breakfast on Hudson Road which did not need to come back before
the Board for site development plan approval. The applicant in this case requested a contract
zone change in order to use the site in a RR & A District. Staff feels that contract zoning is
an inappropriate use of planning tools for this use. Chairman Brown suggested adding
language to provide for more screening.
It was the consensus of the Board to direct staff to take these suggestions and rework
the language of this zoning amendment.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.