HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-19 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2008
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman
Jeff Barnes
David Clark
Doug Damon
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Miles Theeman
City Staff Present: David Gould
Bud Knickerbocker
Lynn Johnson
News Media Present: None
Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
As no one wished to remove the item for discussion, Chairman Brown asked for a
motion. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Consent Agenda. That motion was seconded
by Mr. Rosenblatt and it passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The item approved is:
Item No. 1: Site Development Plan Revision approval to eliminate a
proposed tennis court and add an enclosed pool at 109 Haskell
Road in a General Commercial and Service District. Dublin “5”
LLC, applicant.
OLD BUSINESS
Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 5,840 sq. ft.
addition for office use located at 678 Main Street in
an Urban Industry District. Bangor Hydro Electric Company,
applicant.
Mr. Theeman asked that Item No. 5 under Old Business be moved to the beginning of
the Agenda. Mr. Theeman then moved that the Board table the item until the next meeting
as it was not ready to be heard. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 2: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals to construct a
1,060 sq. ft., single-bay carwash located at 301 Odlin Road
(behind the Irving Convenience Store) in a General Commercial
and Service District. Irving Oil Corp., applicant.
Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the
applicant. Mr. John Theriault an Engineer with Ames A/E representing Irving Oil explained
that this is a proposed single-bay car wash at 301 Odlin Road adjacent to the existing Irving
convenience store and gas station. Mr. Theriault indicated that in order to construct the car
wash some of the existing parking needed to be modified and/or eliminated; it will be served
by public water and public sewer, and will create approximately 5,500 sq. ft. of impervious
ground cover on the site. Mr. Theriault explained that because this is a small project it does
not require a stormwater permit nor does it require a Traffic Movement Permit from the
MDOT. They are not anticipating a significant increase in traffic. A convenience store with a
gas station as compared to a convenience store, gas station and car wash does not create
much of a difference in traffic generation. The theory is that if you add a car wash to the site
you basically are going to be servicing the same customers that are already there.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the addition of the car wash would interfere with the other
uses on the site. Mr. Theriault indicated that as designed he felt the site would work well.
Mr. Clark asked if the noise from this use would disturb the people at the neighboring
hotels and what their hours of operation would be. Mr. Theriault indicated that this is going
to be a 24-hour operation just like the convenience store. He did not know how many
people would be using the car wash during the night but he did not think that that number
would be very high.
Mr. Damon asked if the water would be recycled. He also noted that he has seen
these systems before and when you enter the car wash the door closes behind you and
confines the noise to the inside of the building. Mr. Theriault indicated that the water would
be recycled.
Chairman Brown asked for comments from proponents and opponents. There being
none, she closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff Comments. Planning Officer Gould
indicated that this a conditional use application. A car wash fits the definition of retail auto
service. Back in the late 1980’s this site was a gas station with car wash which was
subsequently sold to Irving who tore out the car wash, built a convenience store and added a
gas pump. Irving is now requesting approval to add a car wash. Mr. Gould indicated that
this proposed use meets the four specific conditional use standards in that it meets the basic
standards of the district, it has appropriate utilities; it does not create unreasonable traffic
congestion on adjacent streets; and it is architecturally compatible with buildings within 500
feet. Mr. Gould added that the car wash building has a non-pitched roof and there are other
buildings in this area that do as well. The car wash is located to the rear of the site and the
3
existing hotels are adjacent and across the street from this site. He did not feel that noise
would be an issue.
There being no further comments, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Mr.
Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Conditional Use approval for the proposed additional
development at 301 Odlin Road, Irving Oil Corp., applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the
motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site
Development Plan approval for the same proposed development at 301 Odlin Road, Irving Oil
Corporation, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion which also passed unanimously.
Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals for a revision
to the outdoor storage and display areas and to modify the
landscaping at 638 Stillwater Avenue (Home Depot site) in a
Shopping and Personal Service District. Widewaters Stillwater
LLC, applicant.
Chairman Brown opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Mr. Jeff
Allen of the Sewall Company explained that this application is for a simple modification. The
building has been built, the trees are all planted. However, Home Depot would like to have
some storage areas outside of their building to display seasonal items such as grills in the
spring and snow blowers in the fall. This amendment would “tidy up” the site plan to the
actual conditions on site. Mr. Allen noted that everything else on the site remains as
approved. He noted that there were some trees that originally were not planted but will be.
Also there were a lot of sick or dead trees that need to be replaced. In discussions with the
nursery about this they were told that the best time to transplant trees is the end of
September and the beginning of October.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked about screening of the display areas. Mr. Allen discussed the
screening on the site. Mr. Gould indicated that the plan as proposed meets the screening
requirements.
No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Brown closed
the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer David Gould indicated
that this is an application for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals. This is
unique in that this came about through post-construction documentation of what was on the
site. Some details that were not well documented in the initial review process were the
applicant’s plans for outdoor display and storage. Mr. Gould explained that after a large
project is done the Code Enforcement Office asks for an “as-built” survey of the site to make
sure that all of the details are in compliance with the approval. Staff noted that there were
some areas where they wanted to do outdoor display and storage that weren’t specifically
approved, some of the landscaping was different, and the question was how this should be
handled. It was decided that this should be brought back before the Board as a conditional
use so that the outdoor display areas could be documented. In reviewing the approved plans
with this plan, it was discovered in some areas landscaping materials were missing. Staff felt
that it should be reinstated. Regarding the buffer on the Marsh side, the applicant has
reduced the number of planting but what is proposed meets the standards of the D-Buffer.
4
On the back end there were less deciduous trees than the minimum required and Staff felt
that this needed to be put back as proposed on the original plan. Mr. Gould indicated that
the revised plan meets the City’s minimum standards. There are a lot of plants on the site
that have died and will need to be replaced. Mr. Gould indicated that all of the other details
are in place and the applicant is essentially documenting where outdoor display will be and
updating the plan to the current landscape plan.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked how to interpret screening from the street. Mr. Gould indicated
that screening would be by different buffer yards. Mr. Damon asked if there are adequate
provisions in place so that four years from now there won’t be a parking lot full of wooden
buildings and sheds, etc. Mr. Gould indicated that if they do add outdoor display then they
would be in violation of this plan.
Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Mr. Theeman moved that the Board approve the
Conditional Use for 638 Stillwater Avenue, Widewaters Stillwater LLC, applicant. Mr. Damon
seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Theeman moved that the
Board approve the Site Development Plan for the 638 Stillwater Avenue, Widewaters
Stillwater Co., LLC, applicant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion which also carried
unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 10,160 sq. ft.
building for commercial use located at 252 Odlin Road in a
General Commercial and Service District. Stillwater Realty, LLC,
applicant.
Mr. Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering representing Stillwater Realty, LLC,
explained that this application was continued at the Board’s last meeting as it was discovered
that they had inadvertently put a gravity sewer into a force main. After being informed that
they could not do that, they went back to the drawing board and discovered that in front of
the VIP (between this site and the Irving site) there is a gravity sewer manhole which
changes to a force main. They surveyed it and found that they could get flow from 252
Odlin Road to that manhole. They provided that information to the City Engineer just prior to
the last meeting but there wasn’t enough time to review it. Mr. Marshall noted that the
applicant will need to go before the City Council and get permission to do a sewer extension.
He also noted an error in the traffic calculation which has been corrected.
Mr. Marshall explained that this project is for construction of a 10,160 sq. ft. building.
Because there is no proposed use of the building, they are proposing to use half of it as
office and the other half as specialty retail use. The proposal is under the one acre
threshold thus there is no need for a stormwater permit. However, the applicant has
requested that it be designed with stormwater quality treatment and stormwater detention in
anticipation of a future requirement that it be done. Mr. Marshall explained that they have
designed the site so that most of the runoff will drain towards Odlin Road then enter the
large under-drain soil filter. This design will create less run off from the proposed site than
5
the existing site. Mr. Marshall discussed the proposed Site Development Plan and indicated
that it meets the submittal requirements.
Mr. Theeman had questions regarding the proposed use of the building and its effect
on traffic, the need for a Traffic Movement Permit, and whether or not a change in use would
trigger a need for a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Gould indicated that whenever a new
occupant comes into a building or there is a change of use, this triggers the need for a
Certificate of Occupancy. Traffic really isn’t a standard that the City keeps track of. If the
parking requirement changes and there isn’t enough parking to support a use, then one
would need to come back to the City for approval for additional parking. Mr. Marshall noted
that even with the most intensive use of this building it would be below the threshold of
requiring an MDOT permit.
Mr. Damon was concerned that the proposed plantings may pose a hazard to cars
exiting this site. Mr. Marshall said that the distance from the right-of-way to the pavement is
at least a car length. He noted that they are proposing shrubs on the intersection side of the
site.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the traffic figures noted on the plan were not in agreement
and asked if this is something that could be corrected. Mr. Gould indicated that this
particular information is not usually included on site plan. The suggestion would be to either
correct it or not include it on the plan. Mr. Rosenblatt also discussed with Mr. Marshall the
requirement that the applicant will need to receive City approval to extend the proposed
sewer. Mr. Marshall indicated that they were aware of this and noted that if the sewer is not
extended this project will not be able to proceed.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that the primary issue with this proposal at the last
meeting was access to the sewer. The applicant’s solution is to extend the public sewer in
Odlin Road 168 feet and connect it to their private system. The process to do that is a public
sewer extension where a private party can petition the City to extend the public sewer and it
is done at their cost. The City reviews the details and either approves or does not approve
the extension request. After that is done they can build their project and connect to the
sewer. Mr. Gould pointed out that other people could connect to that sewer as well because
it is a public sewer extension.
As there was no further discussion, Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Mr.
Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed
development at 252 Odlin Road, Stillwater Realty, LLC, applicant on two conditions: 1) that
the traffic information on the plan be clarified to indicate that the totals that they are
indicating for the proposed structures are proposed for 1,000 sq. ft. and 2) that the applicant
and the City reach agreement on terms and conditions for extension of the City’s sanitary
sewer within the Odlin Road right-of-way to serve this site. Mr. Theeman seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
6
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
There were no Minutes for consideration.
Other Business
Planning Officer Gould noted that there were two zoning text amendments that the
Board considered at its last meeting. When the Board’s recommendation got to the City
Council, some members of the Council raised a concern that Mr. Theeman abstained from
the vote. Some Councilors felt that without some kind of conflict of interest you are more or
less bound to vote on everything that comes before the Board. They have asked the City’s
Legal Office to look into that and to report to the Planning Board and the City Council. Mr.
Gould noted that in review of the By-Laws the only reason that one cannot vote is they have
a conflict of interest. He brought this to the Board’s attention to make everyone aware.
Chairman Brown indicated that after discussing this with Mr. Gould that she disagreed
with the City Council. While it is correct that the By-Laws do not make a provision for
abstentions, it would be her suggestion that they be amended. She felt that if you are not at
a meeting where discussion is held it does not make sense to have to vote. She said that
she felt that Mr. Theeman did the right thing.
Mr. Theeman felt that he was not informed on the issue. It was clearly non
controversial but he would abstain again and he would be supportive of an amendment to
the By-Laws. Mr. Damon felt it appropriate for the City to protect Members that don’t feel
knowledgeable to vote on an item. Mr. Barnes agreed. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed and added
there should standards for an abstention. Mr. Clark noted instances in the past when a
Member would arrive late to a meeting and because they were not present for the entire
testimony that they did not feel that they should vote. Mr. Clark felt that an amendment
would be beneficial.
Mr. Gould noted that shortly after the Planning Board was reconfigured there was a
draft amendment to the By-Laws created. At that time there were some City Council
Members who said that they weren’t sure that they made the right decision relative to seven
full members and no associate members and the By-Law amendment was put on the back
burner. Mr. Gould indicated that this would be brought back to the Board.
In other business, Mr. Gould indicated that there have been ongoing discussions as to
the effectiveness of the landscaping requirements. One of the shortcomings seems to be
actual installation and follow thru. One suggestion was made to provide all applicants with a
list of certain plant species to plant which the Planning Office has resisted. An alternative
would be to cite a reference to give some guidance. A more rigorous approach would be to
require that the applicant or their designers or builders submit a landscape plan done by
somebody with qualifications. When a plan is approved, someone is doing a detailed
construction plan, plumbing plan, electrical plan and if it were a large enough project then
7
they ought to do a landscaping plan with someone that has some credentials to pick the right
plants to make sure that they are put in right and that will improve their chance of survival.
Mr. Gould indicated that this has been distributed to people in the landscaping field to
get their feedback. One suggestion was to require bigger trees but Mr. Gould felt that the
answer is not to require bigger trees but to enforce the 1 ½” caliper that is now required.
Mr. Gould distributed to the Board two options, the first, Option A, which would
reference a guide as to what is a tree or a shrub. Option B would require that large projects
be required to submit a landscaping plan done by a qualified person in the field.
The Board asked Mr. Marshall to comment on this proposed amendment. Mr. Fred
Marshall indicated that there are vagaries in enforcement when the applicant decides they
are not going to plant the red maple because they got a better deal on something else. Then
there is the far extreme of people putting in whatever they want. Some of the vagaries
occur because some plant material is raised and trimmed as shrubs and some trees are multi
stemmed. He indicated that he liked the idea of Michael Dirr’s book as the landscape
material standard because it is an industry standard. He indicated that he also liked the idea
that when an applicant gets to the point when they are actually going to build that they
submit a landscaping plan from someone who is qualified. He noted that recently, a couple
of his clients have expressed concern about the current standards and the costs. Mr.
Marshall was not in favor of requiring a 2” or 4” caliper tree which is becoming a standard in
the areas south of Bangor and out of Maine.
Planning Officer Gould asked if there was interest in one option verses the other.
Chairman Brown indicated that she liked Option B. Mr. Barnes agreed. Mr. Theeman moved
that the Board direct Planning Officer Gould to start the amendment process with Option B.
The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.