HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-02 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2008
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Alice Brown, Chairman
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Miles Theeman
Jeffrey Barnes
David Clark
City Staff Present: David Gould
Bud Knickerbocker
James Ring
Peter Witham
City Councilors Present: Councilor Gratwick
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 1: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval of A 23-lot cluster
subdivision located on Grandview Avenue and Essex Street
in a Low Density Residential District. Woods of Maine,
applicant.
Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a representative of the
applicant. Mr. Don Becker of CES discussed being before the Board earlier with a
different plan for this site. The new plan addresses concerns of the Planning Staff, City
Engineer and neighbors to the site. The road has been changed and the lots have been
changed. The shared driveways will no longer be needed, which eliminates the need for
utilities to the lots off the shared driveways. Existing trees will remain and nothing will
interfere with the capability of the stormwater ditch behind Lot 6 to remove
stormwater. The development is not large enough to trigger remediation in the
impaired watershed. The mail boxes originally located on Greenfield Avenue have been
moved to Brookfield Lane near Grandview Avenue. Two stormwater basins have been
added along the road for road runoff. The road will remain as a private road and a
homeowner’s association will be responsible for maintaining the road, stormwater
basins and mail boxes.
2
Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Becker if the open space would have a public easement
to Prentiss Woods. Mr. Becker explained to the Board that the site plan doesn’t show a
trail through the easement, but a trail will be connected to the cul-de-sac along Lots 7
and 9. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the reserved right-of-way excludes vehicles and Mr.
Becker said this is correct. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about stormwater treatment and Mr.
Becker explained that stormwater treatment would be at the back of Lots 4 and 6 and
along the front of Lot 17. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the stream crossing and Mr.
Becker defined the stream crossing and noted that a Natural Resources Protection Act
permit was not required for this application. The culvert at the stream crossing will be
the same size as found under Grandview Avenue. Mr. Rosenblatt noted there were
concerns with site distances on a previous application. Mr. Becker said this is not a
problem with about 488 feet of unobstructed sight distance as shown on the plan.
rd
Mr. Theeman noted that 1/3 of the open space is in wetlands and that the
Bangor Hydro easement is included in the open space. He asked Mr. Becker how much
of the open space is in uplands and Mr. Becker said he didn’t know, but Mr. Becker
noted the existing trail is in the Bangor Hydro easement. Mr. Theeman noted that 12%
of the overall open space is in the Bangor Hydro easement, which is already
unbuildable.
Chairman Brown noted the low point on Brookfield Court near Lot 17 and
expressed concerns about snow damming and flooding problems that might prevent
homeowners from leaving their homes. She expressed concern over the lack of sewer
details and cross-sections for sewers and culverts. Mr. Becker pointed to cross-sections
at 4+25 and 4+18. He noted the sewer inverts are listed and the sewer will go under
the culvert. Ms. Brown asked about the distance below the culvert and Mr. Becker
noted it was quite small. Ms. Brown noted the drainage of the road could be a problem.
Mr. Becker stated that stormwater will drain to one side of the road and the
homeowners will be responsible for snow removal and keeping the drains clear.
Chairman Brown asked for comments from any opponents. Mr. Mattei T. Ilina of
5 Greenfield Avenue lives on the corner of Essex Street and Greenfield. He expressed
concern over the drainage problems around his home and noted the lack of drainage
improvements related to this site plan. He provided pictures from the recent rains that
show 3” of water behind his home. He expressed concern that the proposed
development will add to the upstream drainage problems. Mr. Theeman asked if the
creek ran behind his house. Mr. Ilina said yes.
Mr. Alan Hunter a resident of 20 Greenfield Avenue noted the numerous
improvements to the previous plan. He expressed concern about the notice the abutters
were given and thought he would be given more time to prepare for the meeting. He
asked if this is a good place for development and noted this site is in the Arctic Brook
drainage with soils information that does not mention the Brook. He noted that the site
plan doesn’t show the Brook past the cul-de-sac and the neighbors had placed a bridge
3
over the Brook because it is so wet. The Burnham soils found on site are the worst
draining soils in the area. Standing water can be seen in his neighborhood and he
believes this could have been fixed with good engineering. The neighborhood is on the
upland area and will be draining into the proposed development. Burnham soils are
poor for road building. He is concerned about the long term stability of the proposed
private road and passing the responsibility of keeping the roads up to future
homeowners. Houses and their foundations are another problem. The upland areas
along the power lines are suitable for development. The west side of the Brook would
be better than the east side of the Brook for houses. He noted it is not in the best
interest of the City to allow this development.
Jessica Spencer, Office Manager for Woods of Maine, stated they have had great
success with homeowner’s associations. Homeowners have shown a positive response
to being in a homeowner’s association. They are aware of their responsibilities.
Ms. Lucy Quimby asked about the impaired stream. Should there be a plan in
place before approving development around the streams? Should the impairment be
removed before development is allowed? Planning Officer David Gould explained there
are 5 streams in Bangor that are impaired. Development has continued while plans are
being put into place for meeting the State’s criteria. Regardless, any development in an
impaired watershed must meet the State’s criteria before the development can
continue.
Ms. Brown asked why there is no mitigation fee required for this project. Mr. Jim
Ring, City Engineer, noted that everyone is correct about their concerns. Plans have to
be developed for impaired watersheds and any development in an impaired watershed
will be held to higher standards. Development is allowed while the City is working on
the watershed plans. The Penjajawoc and Birch Streams have the greatest priority and
compensation fees are required, if a project meets that criteria.
Councilor Geoff Gratwick asked if the road will always remain private. Mr. Ring
indicated that the plan indicates it to be private, but noted that no one can say it will
never be public. The City has developed allowances for private streets through
homeowner’s associations. This project has attempted to stay away from the
unfavorable soils and the road follows better soils.
Mr. Theeman asked if private streets have to meet City construction standards
and Mr. Ring said they have to meet the same standards.
Mr. Alan Hunter asked why Arctic Brook was not in Shoreland Protection and was
surprised to find that Osgood Brook and Great Brook are not in Shoreland Protection.
Chairman Brown explained there are no Shoreland Protection areas under
consideration for this application.
4
Mr. Armand Pelletier, 100 LaBarca Lane, asked about the stormwater drainage
along the back of lots on the cul-de-sac. He also asked about the right-of-way on
LaBarca Lane and whether this is a road. He mentioned problems with foundations and
asked where the stormwater will go. Chairman Brown indicated that the area he is
concerned with will be open space and there will only be one entrance/exit to the new
development.
Planning Officer David Gould noted the confusion with the previous application
and notice for this site. A number of meetings were held and a number of notices were
published. Staff indicated that the Planning Office would notify all the abutters prior to
its return to the Board. Staff handled the notice as if it was a new application and the
notice requirements for a new application for a preliminary subdivision were followed.
The current application is for a cluster subdivision which allows smaller lots, but
increases the amount of open space from 5% to 35%. The Plan includes favorable
elements such as a green corridor along the stream and a stream crossing at the best
spot. Soils are poor for development, but soils in Maine present challenges to any
development. Foundation drains and geo-textile fabrics are often used to address these
challenges. The Board should look at the open space which appears to be good, the
drainage for this development, and how the site plan relates to the wetlands on the
site. The plan contained a number of sloppy mistakes and Mr. Ring had some concerns
with the details of the plan. There is no particular concern over a private road as long
as there is clear representation on the plat that the private road is the responsibility of
the homeowners. The Fire Department will be contacted about the road width and
turning radius.
Mr. Theeman asked about building on lots with wetlands. He noted 6% of the
development is in wetlands, but 89% of the wetlands exist on a few of the lots. Mr.
Gould said this would be a problem if the wetlands were at the front of a lot. Typical
practice is to have a developer show there is a suitable upland building site on each lot.
Mr. Rosenblatt wanted to know where the Arctic Brook was on the plan, is the
area in a floodplain, and how do soils fit the criteria for development. State criteria
require the names of all streams. Mr. Gould noted there is no mapped floodplain for this
area and the Board can ask about soils suitability for development. The SCS soils
mapping shown on the previous plan was significantly misaligned. The current plan is
about 95% correct.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Ring if the plan meets the requirements for
development in an impaired watershed. Mr. Ring noted the plans for impaired
watersheds are being developed. The methods applied to this size development appear
to be okay. Mr. Ring is asking for additional details from CES.
Mr. Jeff Barnes mentioned his work with FEMA floodplain maps in the 1970’s and
that the current FEMA maps are good.
5
Mr. Theeman moved for Preliminary Site Plan approval and Mr. Barnes seconded
the motion. Mr. Theeman stated he would vote against approval because of the
amount of open space in wetlands and because of including the Bangor Hydro
easement in the open space calculation. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed with Mr. Theeman’s
comments and added he would not vote for approval because the stream name was not
labeled on the site plan, the soils do not appear to favor development, and no flood
plain information was included on the site plan.
Mr. David Clark said that he was in favor of Preliminary Plan approval. The
applicant will have the opportunity to provide all of the requested information at the
Final Subdivision Plan stage. Mr. Barnes felt that the plan is an improvement over the
previous plan and additional information would be made available at Final Subdivision.
Chairman Brown pointed out that the applicant has been made aware of the
problems with this application and the Board has walked the site with the applicant.
Soils data, Brook labeling, drainage information and homeowner’s involvement can be
addressed before the Final Plan is submitted.
There being no further comments, the Board voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed.
The Plan failed to attain four affirmative votes.
OLD BUSINESS
Item No. 2. Site Development Plan approval to construct a 20,416 sq.
ft. addition to the existing building and for revision to an
approved plan to add an access to the Kittredge Road and
modify the existing access onto Stillwater Avenue in a
General Commercial and Service District. Stillridge, LLC,
applicant.
Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, presented the updated plan. The site plan includes a
20,416 square foot building. He thanked the Board’s for the time spent at the site on
November 18 and added that the new plan addresses concerns of the Board. Mr. Ring
again emphasized the small volume of traffic as shown by traffic counts previously
given to the Board. The public easement will pass through an existing parking aisle. The
new plan shows 4’ wide painted safety aisles behind both sides of the parking areas
abutting the drive. Green islands have been added for additional pedestrian safety. All
pedestrian walkways have been extended to the building. Speed tables will have a
perceived “sharper” edge to slow traffic down passing through this site. The drive will
be signed as Kittredge Road. The pavement will be extended 4’ into the gravel to the
south of the parking lot to widen the area. The lease between the City and the Mr. Ellis
will be limited to five (5) years. This connection will defer significant City costs and
additional development on Kittredge Road may help with the costs of the future
6
Kittredge Road and Stillwater Avenue connection. Mr. Ring suggested conditions that
would require that the Kittredge Road connection be kept on the Official City Map, that
would terminate the lease after five (5) years and extinguish the lease once traffic
exceeded a specified amount.
Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Ring at what point would traffic be a concern. Mr. Ring
noted that it would be a concern once traffic exceeds 100 trips in the peak hour. Mr.
Ring also noted that the entrance off Stillwater Avenue will have a better dimensional
presentation to people turning off Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Theeman asked if site
distances are okay for both drives and Mr. Ring said site distances were good for both
drives.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if this area would be discontinued once the closing of the
Kittredge Road extension occurs. Mr. Ring noted there is no particular advantage to
retaining the extension, but there are some structures along this section of Kittredge
Road that may need access.
Mr. Clark wanted to know who is responsible for plowing and how will the
parking spaces be cleared of snow. Mr. Ring said the City is responsible for plowing, will
maintain signage on-site, and the crosswalks are raised. Maintenance of this area
should be no different than any other place in the City.
Mr. Theeman offered the following list of suggested conditions for approval:
1. That the City retains the proposed Kittredge Road connection to Stillwater
Avenue shown on the Official Map;
2. That all on-site and off-site improvements related to the Kittredge Road
relocation be complete before any through connection is allowed;
3. That once an alternate Kittredge Road connection is completed the public
easement and through movement will be discontinued;
4. That there be no parking or striping for parking spaces in the parking area south
of the public easement until an occupancy permit has been issued for the
proposed 20,416 square foot building addition; and
5. That the City will limit the use of the public easement to five years from the date
of approval and/or until the through-traffic volume in the peak hour reaches 125
vehicles.
Mr. Barnes moved that the Board grant site development plan approval and
included the conditions as suggested by Mr. Theeman. Mr. Theeman seconded the
motion. Mr. Clark asked about the time frame for opening the extension and Mr. Ring
said next June. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0.
7
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the minutes of August 5, 2008, August 19,
2008, November 18, 2008 Meetings and the site visit held on November 22, 2008.
Member Barnes seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.