Loading...
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 Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant had withdrawn this request.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.