HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-17 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF APRIL 17, 2007
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Laura Mitchell
Miles Theeman
Roch Le Blanc
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Peter Witham
Bud Knickerbocker
News Media Present: Bangor Daily News
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board
Member Clark, Associate Member Le Blanc was asked to vote.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mr. Theeman asked if there is a condition of approval on an item on the Consent Agenda
if it can be passed as a Consent Agenda Item. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board could
approve an item under the Consent Agenda and added that under Item No. 1, the condition is
that the applicant needs to return to the Planning Office a copy of the executed Agreement for
the Planned Group Development. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr.
Rosenblatt seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. The items approved are as
follows:
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 1: Developmental Subdivision Plan for a Planned Group
Development of the approved development to construct a 114,700
sq. ft. building, a 6,000 sq. ft. building and a 3,238 sq. ft. building
located at 638 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal
Service District and a Resource Protection District. Widewaters
Stillwater Co., LLC, applicant.
2
Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 12,000 sq. ft.
building for office and warehouse use located at 21V Dowd Road
in an Industry and Service District. Hardy Associates, Inc.,
applicant.
Mr. Bob Spencer, representing Three Rivers Development Corporation, indicated that he
wished to speak. Chairman Guerette explained that the Board would not be entertaining
comments from the public regarding the Consent Agenda. Mr. Spencer indicated that he
wished to make comments. Chairman Guerette called a recess to allow Mr. Spencer an
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Spencer indicated that he wished to go on record saying that his children own Three
River’s Development Corporation. When they got their deed in 2001 it was based upon the
Wal-Mart plan. Mr. Spencer indicated that the Consent Agreement does not coincide with the
plan that the Board reviewed at this meeting (for Widewaters Stillwater LLC under Item No. 1,
above). Mr. Spencer indicated that he was told by Kevin Kane, of Widewaters Stillwater
Company, that if they did not sign the Consent Agreement they would lose their access right to
the property. Mr. Spencer asked Mr. Stan Plisga if this was correct. Mr. Plisga indicated that he
had not talked to Mr. Kane and he was not at liberty to discuss this matter.
Chairman Guerette called the meeting back to order.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals to construct a
2,975 sq. ft. building for a bank with drive-in use, a 14,002 sq. ft.
building for retail use, and a 5,875 sq. ft. building for restaurant
use located at 878V Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal
Service District. W/S Kittredge Road, LLC, applicant.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Noting that the applicant, W/S Kittredge
Road, LLC had requested that this item be tabled Chairman Guerette moved to table this item.
Mr. Le Blanc seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion to
table this Public Hearing.
Item No. 4: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct a
14,550 sq. ft. building for use as a retail pharmacy with a drive
thru located at 706 Broadway and to realign the south parking
edge at 720 Broadway and to create a cross connector to 706
Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. The
Richmond Company, Inc., and MIKMAR, LLC, applicants.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant or their designee
to make a presentation. Mr. Don Becker of CES, Inc. represented the applicant who is seeking
conditional use and site development plan approvals for a new Walgreen’s Pharmacy at 706
Broadway. The site is currently a monument business. Mr. Becker discussed the four general
conditional use standards and indicated that he felt that this application met those standards.
3
Mr. Becker indicated that in regard to traffic they propose to enter and exit the site
through the existing traffic signal that serves School Street and Broadway. They are also
proposing a cross connection with the abutting Broadway Hardware site so that they can
conduct left-turn entries and exits using this signal. Mr. Becker noted that they have obtained a
Traffic Movement Permit from the Maine Department of Transportation which requires the
applicant to pay some money as a portion of the cost of improvements that are planned for
Broadway to solve some general area problems, particularly, with the signal interconnect
systems. Mr. Becker indicated that the proposal has adequate and appropriate City utilities, fire
protection, drainage, parking and loading. Currently, runoff from the hardware site and this
site combine in ditches and flow uncontrolled between some buildings to the rear of the site.
The applicant proposes a large pond on the back of the site that will provide significant control
that the site presently does not have. They are proposing a brick building that will look similar
to the Kelley Pontiac building and be similar in height to other buildings in the area. Mr. Becker
indicated that there were concerns raised by the abutter to the west and they have had
discussions with him.
Mr. Rosenblatt had questions regarding lighting and if consideration was given to using
low impact development alternatives to the proposed detention pond. Mr. Becker indicated the
proposed lighting is 175 feet away from the abutting residences. Staff requested that the
applicant move some of the rear plantings up near the pavement area to provide a better shield
to the lights. Regarding stormwater, Mr. Becker indicated that they are proposing a large
infiltration system that is shaped and bermed like a pond which is an under drain system that is
designed in compliance with the 2006 DEP Standards. This will allow the water to stay there for
a period of time while it infiltrates through the system.
Chairman Guerette asked about the height of the proposed lighting and the structure
component of the bottom of the detention pond. Mr. Becker indicated that the mounting height
of the proposed lighting is 13 feet and in compliance with the City’s new ordinance and the
detention pond would have a sand layer, an aggregate layer, and perforated pipes.
Mr. Le Blanc asked if Walgreen’s would be open 24 hours because in other areas they
are. Mr. Becker indicated that he was not certain that the market conditions would warrant a
24 hour store but they did not propose a restriction on hours as part of their application.
Mr. Tom Gorrill, Traffic Engineer with Gorrill Palmer indicated that this proposal will
create a fourth leg to the intersection opposite School Street and will be incorporated into the
traffic signalization. There is one in-bound lane and two outbound lanes that are going to be a
thru left lane and a right-turn lane. There will be a cross connection to the adjacent parcel
which will give the abutter the chance to utilize the light. The abutting Broadway Hardware
site’s driveway will become right-in and right-out. Mr. Gorrill noted that the applicant has
obtained a Traffic Movement Permit. As part of that approval, the applicant will be contributing
$15,000 toward signal enhancements on the Broadway corridor.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the left turn from Broadway into the property will be from the
center lane of Broadway. Mr. Gorrill indicated that it would be. Mr. Rosenblatt expressed
concern as to whether the project will result in significant additional delays for traffic going
through this intersection, if it will make it more congested, and if there will be traffic delays
going through as opposed to traffic going into the project. Mr. Gorrill indicated that there will
4
be a little bit longer delay than it is today because of the exclusive left turn phasing that will be
incorporated. If kept the way it is, there wouldn’t be a lot of difference but when they go to
exclusive phasing there will be some additional delay introduced to Broadway. Mr. Gorrill
indicated that the five lane section along Broadway can handle that traffic and it is projected to
operate at an acceptable level of service.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked how they propose to prevent left turns into and out of the
Broadway Hardware (MikMar) property. Mr. Gorrill indicated that often times there is an island
shaped like a pork chop so that one can only go right in and right out. This physically makes it
difficult to make a left-in turn because the island blocks you from doing that.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. Mr. David Hughes, owner of
an abutting property, wanted the record to show that he was present and in favor of the
project.
No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for
comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicants, Richmond Company
and Mikmar LLC are seeking conditional use and site development plan approvals to construct a
14,550 sq. ft. pharmacy with a drive-thru window. The drive-thru window is the element that
makes this a conditional use. The project also calls for the realignment of the adjacent property
(Broadway Hardware) with a cross connection between the two sites with a limitation that the
existing driveway be a right-in, right-out. This is an example of traffic management through the
limitation of full access to the arterial roadways. This parcel is approximately 2.1 acres in size
and abuts Ernst Manor and the Mallard Pond development. The project as a drive-up business
in the Shopping and Personal Service District and is required to provide a B buffer on all of the
side and rear yards. Because it is a conditional use, it also requires that the applicant
demonstrate that it will not cause or create adverse traffic conditions on adjacent streets, and
requires the applicant to provide the Board with an elevation of the building so that the Board
can make a determination that it is architecturally consistent with other structures within 500
feet. This site has public sewer and water and the proposed stormwater system is an
underdrain system which is a new style of system. Staff pointed out the need for this applicant
to use some of the adjacent site in order to make their site work. The applicant has an
agreement with the next door neighbor to acquire some of their land. Through that acquisition
they need to move some of the improvements of that site, such that the boundary in between
the two, as well as, some of the physical details on the adjacent site.
Instead of putting this together as two separate applications and because they are so
interconnected, Staff felt it best to leave it as one agenda item on the theory that the Board will
either approve them both or deny them both. One dilemma Staff had was that when they
looked at the adjacent site, there were concerns as to the completeness of that site based on
the plan that was approved several years ago. Staff found that there were elements of that
approved plan that were not in compliance with Ordinance standards. Staff did not want to
reapprove that plan in a way that it did not depict all of the requirements of the prior approval
such that the site would be waived of coming into compliance with the approved plan. Staff felt
that the Board should deal with this as three separate motions. One for conditional use, one for
the site development plan for the Richmond Company property and one for the site
development plan approval for the Mikmar property. Planning Officer Gould noted that Staff
recommended approval with the specific conditions. First, in regard to the Richard Company
5
the applicant be asked to submit to the City photogrametric plans that demonstrate that their
lighting is consistent with the standards of Section 165-81. That would provide details in terms
of the height of the fixtures and provide the lumination levels on the residential properties.
Secondly, Staff suggested a condition that the project not be open to the public until all the off-
site improvements are in place. That would keep the store from opening until all of those
details are in order. Lastly, with regard to the MikMar site, because there are some lingering
doubts as to its present compliance, that the previous site plan approved on May 20, 2003
remain in effect except for the specific elements shown in the revision in common with the
Richmond & Company’s site development plan. All the other elements that run all the way to
Husson Avenue would remain unchanged from the 2003 approval.
Mr. Rosenblatt expressed concerns regarding the right-in and right-out access and how
to ensure that it gets done. Mr. Gould noted a similar project on Union Street where it was
anticipated that a new driveway was to open but the old one wasn’t closed until the new one
was opened. Mr. Gould indicated that as soon as the Walgreens driveway is operating with the
light that’s when the other site would be limited to right-in and right-out.
Ms. Mitchell asked if the City intended to bring this site up to code. Mr. Gould indicated
that the City does not bring plans into compliance, the applicant does. He noted it is Staff’s job
to point out when approved plans are not built in compliance. Ms. Mitchell asked if it is the
City’s intent to enforce it. Mr. Gould said that he could not speak for the Code Enforcement
Office but added that Staff was trying to proceed with a new approval that did not take away
the City’s ability to enforce it.
Chairman Guerette asked about the cross connector and its location so close to the curb
cut onto Broadway and its proximity to 3 parking spaces. Mr. Becker explained that it is there
for two reasons. The Hardware store asked that those three spaces be reinstated and the City
requested that they not decrease the number of parking spaces on the site.
Mr. Theeman disclosed that his employer owns three pharmacies in the area. The Board
did not feel that Mr. Theeman had a conflict of interest.
There being no further questions, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt
moved to grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed project at 706 Broadway for the
Richmond Company, Inc., applicant, on the following two conditions: 1) that the applicant
submit photogrametric plans consistent with the lighting standards of 165-81 and that the
project not be open to the public until all off-site improvements are in place. Mr. Theeman
seconded the motion. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Becker if the applicant was comfortable
with those conditions. Mr. Becker indicated that for the record, that the applicant was
comfortable with those conditions. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted
unanimously in favor of the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan
approval to the project at 706 Broadway, for the Richmond Company, Inc., applicant, on the
same two conditions. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr.
Rosenblatt then moved to grant Site Development Plan approval to the property at 720
Broadway, MikMar LLC, on the condition that the previous site plan of May 20, 2003 remains
effective except for the specific elements shown in the revision that is before the Board that is
in common with the adjacent Richmond Company site development. Mr. Theeman seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6
Item No. 5: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a portion of a
parcel of land located at 993 Broadway (building and land under
the building) from Contract Low Density Residential District to
Low Density Residential District. Said portion of a parcel
containing approximately 1,931 sq. ft. Rafi Jacobi, applicant. C.O.
# 07-137.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the
applicant. Mr. Rafi Jacobi, the applicant, indicated that he lives at 993 Broadway and is
requesting this zone change. He explained that he owns the single-family building in the front
of the Orchard Hills Development which consists mainly of condominium units. His building is
over 1900 sq. ft. and it is his plan is to divide the building in half to add two more units. He
indicated that the Orchard Hills Condominium Association By-Laws indicates that as long as he
does not change the exterior of the building that he can change the inside of the building. He
spoke with Mr. Gould who indicated that dividing this building would be in accordance with City
Codes.
Chairman Guerette asked how much land goes with the building. Mr. Jacobi indicated
that it was complicated because the land is part of the Association but that he owned the
building and the land under the building and because he is not going outside of the building he
would not be interrupting any of the Homeowner’s Association land.
Ms. Mitchell asked if he was subdividing a single-family home into three apartments and
if he had parking spaces available. Mr. Jacobi said that his plan is to go for two more units and
he presently has 8 parking spaces.
Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from the public. Mr. Shawn Emery,
President of the Orchard Hills Condominium Association and a resident of 56 Baldwin Drive,
spoke in opposition. He indicated that the By-laws of the Orchard Hills Homeowner’s
Association specify that Mr. Jacobi’s building is only entitled to one parking space as each unit
gets one parking space. He said that there may be room for 7 or 8 parking spaces but that is
not what has been approved. For a change for that single-family building Mr. Jacobi would
need a 2/3 affirmative vote of the Home Owners Association. Mr. Emery indicated that those
who live in units 1 thru 11 would be immediately affected. He said that he had heard that the
applicant was proposing 7 units and not 3. Mr. Emery also noted that the Homeowners’
Association has not been approached formally by the applicant for any consideration for more
parking or any discussions for this project and that they were not interested in changing
anything for this unit at this time.
Chairman Guerette indicated that sometimes people come before the Planning Board
with a concept or a plan and they are not always familiar with how their concept or plan might
interact or coordinate with abutters. He explained that this request could in fact be a small step
in a process that would involve their Association. Mr. Emery pointed out that it would have
other impacts. The Homeowners’ Association raises its maintenance fees according to the
usage whether it be snow removal, painting, roofing, and trash removal. He said that allowing
three families or occupants to reside there instead of a single family would affect the other
homeowners in the Association. Chairman Guerette asked where the access to the property is
7
and if the applicant needed to go on Homeowners’ Association property to access his property.
Mr. Emery indicated that he did.
Ms. Mitchell asked if the residents pay fees to the Homeowners’ Association. Mr. Emery
explained that currently there are 101 units. 100 of those units pay 1 times the month’s
assessment. The applicant pays 2.5 times the fee and the reasons for that is that it was
estimated that the exterior of that farmhouse is such that it would cost them 2.5 times more to
replace the roof or maintain the exterior of the property.
Planning Officer Gould explained that there are two sets of rules governing this property.
The City’s Land Development Code and the Orchard Hills Homeowners Association. When the
City approved Orchard Hills in 1984 it was approved as a planned group development. Under a
planned group development there is no assignment of parking spaces to buildings. To meet the
requirement there are x number of units and the Ordinance requires that x number of parking
spaces be provided. The Land Development Code does not dictate who gets to use which
spaces. You could have a situation where someone would have a proposal to add more units
that would be allowed under the zoning ordinance but at the same time may not allow by the
homeowners’ association which is a private agreement which the City cannot enforce.
Mr. Jacobi rebutted by saying that because he is paying 2.5 more in dues that he felt
that he was entitled to 2.5 times more use. If he adds two more units they are going to be
paying an association fee and the Association should be happy about it because it will be more
money for the Association. Mr. Jacobi indicated that it was his plan to add one or two units.
As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for the
Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the application is for a contract
zone change from Contract Low Density Residential District to Low Density Residential (LDR)
District. The change is limited to approximately 1900 sq. ft. because that is the land that the
applicant actually has right, title and interest to. He does not have any interest to apply to
change the zoning on to the surrounding land. Mr. Gould gave a brief history of the Orchard
Hills Development which was approved as a Planned Group Development. Mr. Gould explained
that the LDR District that we have today allows single-family detached and attached residential
that didn’t exist in 1983. At that time it was zoned Residential 3 Zone. In 1983 when this
proposal came forward there was some concern as to building townhouse buildings or attached
residential on the front part of this parcel on Broadway. The designers and developers of
Orchard Hills entered into a Contract Zone Change Agreement with the City and said that the
first 200 feet of the property would be R-3 contract and would limited the existing farmhouse
building as a single-family unit and the rest of the R-3 zoned parcel would be developed into
attached residential units. As times changed, the City’s acceptance of attached residential as a
single-family residential type became much more accepting. Orchard Hills was a trend setter
for Bangor and was way ahead of other projects. In 1991 the City’s Land Development Code
was adopted and the R-l, R-2, & R-3 Zones were done away with. LDR was the District that was
designed for developing areas and within that district itself was the provision for attached
residential as a conditional use. The contract that was approved in 1983 stayed with that first
200 feet. There have been several inquiries into the possibility of constructing additional
attached units within the 200 feet of frontage on this lot and the LDC would allow it there. The
land other than where this building sits is controlled by the Homeowners’ Association and the
Contract zone change cannot be changed unless the Association makes an application to do
8
that. Mr. Jacobi has an interest in doing attached residential and has the right, title and
interest in that building and the land under it to bring the application to the City. The land
around it will stay within the Contract Zone change that expressly says that no other buildings
can be built there. Should this be approved and he proposes to split the building, he would
need to obtain conditional use approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Gould indicated that it is
Staff’s understanding that any change in the number of units would also need approval from
the Homeowners’ Association. Should the Homeowner’s Association want to eliminate the
contract zone change condition the City would recommend it as it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning policy. For this reason, Staff recommended that the Board
recommend approval to the City Council.
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that if the applicant owned the entire 200 strip and were asking
for the contract zone change to be lifted he would be entirely sympathetic. He indicated he felt
that this was a patchwork rezoning. Mr. Gould explained that the applicant can only apply for
what he has an interest in. Mr. Theeman indicated that the Board needed to be responsive to
applicant but also needed to be responsive to contiguous landowners. He felt that this was a
moot issue until the Homeowners’ Association approved the use of the property as it is
proposed. On that basis he saw no reason to support the application. Mr. Theeman asked if
there were setback and other requirements for attached residential dwellings and if this zone
were changed if the applicant could meet them. Planning Officer Gould explained that back in
1983 Orchard Hills was approved as a planned group development meaning that every unit has
access to all the common areas. Mr. Jacobi’s building is part of Orchard Hills so that he has
access to all open space and parking because it is all one project and must meet the
requirements as a project.
Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that it is the beginning of a process that will
lead to further changes and that the applicant as the owner of that property has the right to
request a rezoning for what he owns. Chairman Guerette indicated that he wanted the
applicant to understand that this is not permission to make any changes to the property. It is a
zone change and he indicated that he was in support of it.
Mr. Emery indicated that the Homeowners’ Association does not care what the applicant
does inside that building but is concerned about what happens outside the building such as
wear and tear on the common ground, and the pavement. Mr. Emery indicated that Mr. Jacobi
is not completely accurate when he says that he has additional parking. Mr. Emery explained
that there are guest parking spaces for Units 1 thru 11 which are on a first come, first serve
basis. Many of those units have more than one vehicle. He will need to get a 2/3 majority
vote for approval of any additional parking spaces even though there is paved surface that may
be suitable for them. Mr. Emery indicated that he had heard that the applicant was proposing
seven units and a large increase such as this would be a detriment to the area out front. He
wished to go on record so that if something happened in the future and they aren’t able to
come to an agreement and he doesn’t get approval by the Homeowner’s Association. Mr.
Emery indicated that they were not totally opposed to this project but have concerns.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that there is no application for any specific changes.
The only application before the Board is a request for rezoning. He added that in a Low Density
Residential District, under attached residential, the maximum number of units allowed in any
building is six units.
9
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed amendment to the Land Development Code regarding a portion of the parcel of land
located at 993 Broadway for the building and the land under the building dealing with changing
that from Contract Low Density Residential District to Low Density Residential District as set
forth in C.O. # 07-137. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted three in favor
and 2 opposed.
Item No. 6: Amending Chapter 165, By Enacting Article VI-A, Erosion &
Sediment Control – City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-142.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Planning
Officer David Gould explained that this text amendment would clarify the details of erosion and
sedimentation control in the Land Development Code. For many years, the Planning Board has
had the benefit of site plan review standards and other elements to make sure that plans
reviewed and approved are handled consistently with standard engineering practices (Maine’s
Best Management Practices). Mr. Gould indicated that there are a number of projects that
never come to the Planning Board or the City and there has been a concern about the City’s
ability to make those projects comply with erosion and sedimentation control standards because
it wasn’t clear within the Code. What this amendment does is add a clear requirement that all
development, in terms of earth moving and disturbance, will require applicants to provide for
erosion and sedimentation control. As most places operate by the State of Maine’s Best
Management Practices for erosion and sedimentation control, the Land Development Code
would reference that as the basis by which those plans should be developed. Mr. Gould
explained that this won’t have a big impact in terms of what the Planning Board reviews but it
will require projects that are not required to go through the site plan approval process to meet
those standards.
Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the proposed new article is indicated as 165-32.1 which would
come between Sections 32 and 33 and appears to split the current article in two. He indicated
that perhaps that needed to be fixed. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he was in favor of the
substance of the amendment.
The Board discussed the placement of the proposed amendment within the Land
Development Code. The Board also discussed the types of projects that do not need to come
before the Planning Board such as those projects that have DEP oversight and those single-
family dwellings that are located in places that could have a high susceptibility to erosion, land
slides, etc.
No one spoke in favor or in opposition to this amendment. Chairman Guerette closed the
Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Planning Board
recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendment to the Land Development Code as
set forth in C.O. # 07-142 noting that there needs to be some correction to either the Article
number or the Section number associated with the amendment. Mr. Theeman seconded the
motion which carried unanimously.
10
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 7: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
As there were no minutes for approval, Chairman Guerette asked if there was any further
business to come before the Board. It was noted that the Board would hold a workshop the
following Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. There was a motion, a second, and a vote to
adjourn at 8:30 p.m.