Loading...
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.