Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-18 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2008 MINUTES Board Members Present: Allie Brown, Chairman Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Douglas Damon Jeffrey Barnes David Clark City Staff Present: David Gould Bud Knickerbocker Jim Ring Peter Witham Chairman Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 1. Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approvals to construct a 4,217 square foot addition for pediatric and family outpatient services and modifications to the waiting room and entrance at 268 Stillwater Avenue in a Government and Institutional Service District. Acadia Hospital, applicant. Mr. Theeman noted he had a conflict of interest as his employer has a substantial interest in Acadia Hospital. Mr. Nat Rosenblatt made a motion that Mr. Theeman recuse himself and Mr. Jeff Barnes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to accept the Consent Agenda and Mr. Barnes seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 2. To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 954 Broadway from Low Density Residential District to Contract Government and Institutional Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 2.2 acres. M & J Corporation, applicant. C.O. # 09-007. Mr. Vaughn Smith representing M &J Corporation indicated that the parcel proposed for rezoning was originally a portion of the larger parcel that was rezoned Government and Institutional Service District (G&ISD) and developed in 1997 by M&J Corporation. The hospital’s initial interest is to use the existing building for some of its home health nursing staff. The nursing staff will have offices in the house and other staff will use the house during the day, but no client activity would take place there. Mr. Theeman asked if the house was contiguous to the M&J property and would access be limited to the existing complex drive. Mr. Smith said the property was contiguous to the medical office site and M&J Corporation will be back soon with changes to share a common drive. Mr. Richard Mitchell of Orchard Hills indicated that he did have some concerns regarding access on Broadway and the eventual redevelopment of this parcel. The Board noted that the current discussion is about rezoning and prior to any site development, there would be additional meetings concerning the proposal at that time. Mr. Mitchell asked if he will get a notification on future changes and was told yes. Planning Officer David Gould indicated the property in question was identified in the Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential on both the Zoning Policy and Land Use Maps. Mr. Gould noted that in 1996, the City found the adjacent parcel was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan when specific contract zoning conditions were included. Mr. Gould noted the Planning Board’s and City Council’s decision becomes more complicated in a contract rezoning request because the Board not only has to review proposed district regulations but the additional restrictions provided by the contract conditions. In some instances the restrictions can mitigate some of the potential adverse impacts and provide a greater consistency than would a rezoning without contract conditions. Mr. Rosenblatt did not agree that contract conditions could alter the inconsistency between Low Density Residential Use called for in the Comprehensive Plan and Government and Institutional Service Uses requested in the rezoning. He told the Board he could not support this contract zoning request. 3 Members of the Board were pleased to see contract conditions dealing with access management, but sought assurances from the applicant that those changes would be happening sooner rather than later. Mr. Gould noted that the contract conditions are structured to provide two separate levels of activity and conditions; one in the reuse of the existing structure and a second set of conditions if the existing structure is expanded, or replaced. Mr. Theeman asked if a condition could be placed on the recommendation to close the second driveway. Mr. Gould noted that once a request has been advertised it can not be changed unless it is advertised again. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council and Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt then expressed concerned that the City and Board were rationalizing that LDR does not mean LDR and the Comprehensive Plan represents what it shows. This request does not meet the first criteria and represents a property by property creep from LDR to another district. Mr. Damon stated that he did not see the proposal as a spot zone or inconsistent with other zoning adjacent to the site. Mr. Barnes noted that Mr. Rosenblatt has a good point, but the site is contiguous to the hospital site and the limitations from the Council are acceptable. The motion passed 5 in favor and 1 opposed. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 3. Site Development Plan approval of a Planned Group Development located at 633 Hogan Road in a General Commercial and Service District. Webber Energy Gasoline, applicant. Mr. Ray Cota of Webber Energy discussed the history of the property. In 1986 a car wash was approved and built, followed later by an office building and a parking lot next to the car wash. Since the original construction, ownership has become an issue and a Planned Group Development (PGD) will help resolve this issue. Mr. John McCormick of CES and the applicant’s engineer explained to the Board that after several meetings with Staff he was able to present a site plan that represents the site as required. He has included tables for each portion of the site representing the dimensional data of the proposed PGD. Mr. McCormick also included a cross-easement agreement as required and this is being reviewed by the City Solicitor. Planning Officer Gould told the Board that this is a fairly straight forward PGD. The site was developed over a number of years and the PGD sets up a structure for selling off portions of the site. In the 1980’s there were no impervious surface ratio requirements and buffer standards have increased dramatically. Mr. Gould noted that 4 the PGD provisions in the Ordinance were originally adopted to allow Orchard Hills to be individually owned by each unit owner. The ownership of a PGD is not as important as the overall development standards and the standards apply to all the approved ownerships. Mr. Theeman asked if the Board could make the applicant correct the amount of impervious area on this site. Mr. Gould explained that they have a valid plan and the Board is not in the position to correct the impervious area of this existing site. Mr. Damon noted there are three parcels in the PGD and asked if the applicant could sell the parking lot shown on one of the parcels. Mr. Gould explained that PGD parcels could be divided a limitless number of times and someone else could own the parking lot. Mr. Theeman noted he understood that the parking lot would be owned by the office building and asked Mr. Cota to respond. Mr. Cota agreed and once again stated that there are ownership issues within this site. Mr. Barnes moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for a Planned Group Development at 633 Hogan Road, Webber Energy Gasoline, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. Item No. 4. Site Development Plan approval to construct an access drive from an easement off of Haskell Road in a General Commercial and Service District to land located off of Mt. Hope Avenue. Hampden Home Builders, applicant. Chairman Brown indicated that the applicant requested that this item be continued. Mr. Theeman moved that this item be continued, but stated he had concerns about a through street. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion and the motion passed 6 to 0. Item No. 5. 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, explained that the City is seeking to reroute Kittredge Road traffic through the Stillridge site. In 1998, the Official Map was amended with the Hogan Road Extension and an alternate connection for Kittredge Road with Stillwater Avenue. Ending up with a 5-way intersection would not be efficient. The cost of the planned road would be between $500,000 and $600,000 which would be a significant amount of money for a small volume of traffic. Currently, there are about 220 to 250 trips a day with a peak-hour rate of 40 cars. The potential to reroute traffic through an existing development would save the City money. Rerouting the road through the parking lot is similar to Patten Street at Shaw’s. Mr. Ring indicated he 5 approached Mr. Tom Ellis and asked if he would be interested. After verifying Mr. Ellis’ interest in the project, Mr. Ring sought and received City Council approval for the project. The revised site plan before the Board includes a previously approved building addition that lapsed. The required parking for the site is 136 spaces and is based on the addition being completed. The gravel pad for the building was completed but the landscaping still needs to be done. The site plan includes a 30’ easement which provides adequate site distance, crosswalks, speed bumps and some new impervious. The cost savings will be close to $500,000, environmental costs will be low and peak traffic will be low. The proposed right-of-way will be kept on the Official Map and if any large development would be proposed it would have to help with the cost to construct the planned road. About 400 feet of the existing Kittredge Road to Stillwater Avenue will be discontinued, but the City will retain an easement for a bike/pedestrian path. Mr. Barnes indicated that he liked the path that the City will keep. Mr. Barnes asked if the City is paying for the engineering on the project. Mr. Ring answered that the City is paying for this project. Mr. David Clark noted there is a very sharp turn off Kittredge Road into the driveway and asked if they will be any barriers at the end of the old portion of the road. Mr. Ring explained the sharp curve was kept to slow traffic and barriers would be added. Mr. Theeman thought the road through a parking lot was a real problem and was not similar to Patten Street given its physical separation and design. Mr. Ring referred to Patten Street because it is a public easement that allows passage through a site. Parking at the site would normally be in the spaces closest to the building. Only 81 parking spaces of the 136 total parking spaces are along the through movement. Traffic to Kittredge Road will be less than along similar parking aisles in the Mall parking lot. Mr. Damon noted the traffic along Kittredge includes heavy construction and fuel oil trucks that would have to go through this parking lot. He said he would further anticipate additional heavy traffic in the future. Mr. Theeman wondered if it would be possible to remove the parking along the South side of the new through lane. Ms. Brown expressed similar concerns as Mr. Damon and asked if the development could be moved to the south side of the parking lot. She asked how the City will decide to build the new roadway, and when would the driveway from the site to Kittredge Road be terminated. She wanted to know if there is a way to keep the parking separate from the travel way. Mr. Ring noted the City will keep an eye on the traffic threshold. Mr. Theeman asked if it would be possible to remove the 32 spaces along the south side of the site. Ms. Brown asked if a site visit would be appropriate. Mr. Rosenblatt then asked what the projected traffic count would be along Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Ring noted that the traffic volume on Kittredge Road is very low and the City had done actual traffic counts on several occasions. Peak traffic flows were counted 6 on four occasions at Saturday noon, four occasions at noon Tuesday through Friday and five times in the evening. The maximum peak hour was between 32 and 41 trips. Mr. Clark said that he has less problems with this development, but believes the parking should be separate from the travel way. Ms. Brown wanted to know if the travel way could be moved further south and Mr. Ring noted that the stormwater treatment is in this area. Mr. Theeman asked if it would be possible to waive the parking in this area. Ms. Brown said this is not possible being a Land Development Code requirement. Mr. Tom Ellis indicated he was approached by the City to build this travel way. He will not gain financially from the arrangement. He will use the parking along the travel way for employee parking and has no concerns over safety. Planning Officer David Gould gave his report. The site development approval includes the expansion of the building and the use of the parking lot. The 2000 site plan approved a large building of which only half of the building was built. All of the asphalt for the parking was built and some of the approved landscape has not been planted. Even though Staff does not feel comfortable with pass through traffic the traffic flow through this site will be very low and will not generate much additional traffic. The project should be coordinated with all of the off-site traffic improvements going on in the area. Chairman Brown asked if the Board could approve the application with the condition that the travel way be closed once the new street is open. Mr. Gould agreed that this is a condition the Board could place on the site plan approval. Mr. Ring noted this was an acceptable condition and the City will be responsible for maintaining the easement. He stated the City would not propose an un-safe condition and it would take a 100 trip increase to duplicate similar conditions at other locations in the City. Mr. Barnes mentioned that this type of pass through works in other places such as Hannaford’s in Brewer. The speed bumps at this site slow traffic. Chairman Brown asked for a motion. Mr. Damon asked if an on-site visit would be a good idea. The Board decided to hold an on-site visit on Saturday November 22, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Theeman moved that the meeting be continued and Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion to continue the meeting passed 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval. The Planning Board Approved the Minutes of the November 4, 2008 Meeting. 7 OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Damon was nominated by Chairman Brown to take the place of former Board Member Mitchell on the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning. Mr. Rosenblatt seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Gould explained that the Special Committee on Comprehensive Planning is reviewing the timeline for the 2005 Comprehensive Plan Update Implementation. He handed out information that the Committee had prepared on the timeline. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.