HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-18 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
David Clark
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
Miles Theeman
Laura Mitchell
Allie Brown
Jeff Barnes
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Peter Witham
News Media Present: Bangor Daily News
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 1: To amend the Land Development Code by changing parcels of
land located at 729, 731, 735, 737, 739, 743, and 759 Broadway
and a portion of a parcel located on Hillside Avenue from
Contract Shopping and Personal Service District to Contract
Shopping and Personal Service District. Said parcels containing
approximately 4.85 acres. John Tozer, Laura Reidy and
Varnbro, Corp., applicants. C.O. # 07-297.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the
applicant or their designee. Mr. Dick Cattelle, representing the applicants, explained that
this request is for a minor modification to an approved contract zone change. As originally
approved there was a common development plan that incorporated all of the property within
this zone change with two owners involved with consideration of traffic control. Since there
was one development scheme the best available traffic control agreement was for one curb
cut as closely aligned with Husson Avenue as possible so that all of the traffic on and off of
2
the entire parcel (whatever the development ended up being) would be through that
controlled access point. That common scheme was never developed and their remains two
parcels that are under this contract zone change. One of the parcels is owned by John Tozer
and Laura Reidy and they have no interest at this time in doing anything different than what
they are presently using the site for which is a residence on the north end and a dental office
on the south end of their lot. Varnbro the other owner wishes to develop the balance of the
parcel. The only logical way to accommodate both property owners and allow this
development to proceed forward is to modify the zone change and allow a maximum of two
curb cuts. One curb cut would be on the Varney property which is contemplated for the
redevelopment, and the another one, if and when it comes into place, would be 240 feet
from the first one. This would allow Mr. Tozer to continue to use the curb cuts that are in
place (the one for his dental office and the one for the residence).
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents and opponents. There being
none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning
Officer Gould indicated that this application is a request for a revision to an approved
Contract Zone Change to change multiple parcels. One of the keys to that 2005 rezoning
was an attempt to develop some development standards that would provide a commercial
transition from the development of the Broadway Shopping Center to a zone that had more
landscaping, to add more green space within the parking lot, and to add architectural
standards on the outer end. One of the other elements was the concept of access
management/access control. At that time, because they looked at the project as multiple
buildings within one development the applicant was not concerned about limiting access to a
single curb cut on Broadway and this was adopted in a contract. A year after the contract
was in place, the parties involved in the rezoning could not come to an agreement as to the
development. One of the parties who proposed to build a new driveway that would align
with the signal at Husson Avenue. Based on the contract language it would require that the
other existing accesses on Broadway be closed. The other party was not agreeable to having
their accesses closed and the project was held up. The only way Staff could envision that
the project could proceed and the other parties could still use their existing accesses was to
amend the contract condition that deals with multiple curb cuts to Broadway. If this had
been a straight Shopping and Personal Service District zone change without any limitations,
access would be an issue of site plan review/conditional use review of traffic. One remedy is
to amend the limitation to one access only and talk about a second access. Now, instead of
one common development, there are two separate parties where one wants to develop.
There is a single-family house there and Staff never anticipated closing off someone’s
driveway. The new contract language provides that until there is a reuse or an expansion of
those other properties, that the contract would not require them to close those access points.
It gives them the ability to have two driveways. It also doesn’t in any way limit the Planning
Board’s or the Maine Department of Transportation’s right in future development to place
restrictions on access. It just gives them the ability to have at least two and gives the ability
to work out an agreement between the parties and gives the potential to have the Board
consider a second access way. Staff recommended that the Planning Board make a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
3
Ms. Mitchell asked if there are limitations on where the second driveway can be placed
based upon the location of the current driveways that go into Lot 18 and Lot 19B. Mr. Gould
explained that the distance separation is based on the theory of a new driveway and not
from an existing driveway. Should these properties be redeveloped and request a new
driveway then that would have to be separated 240 feet from any other driveway on the
property. The intent is to leave the existing developments (the residential house and dental
office) off the table relative to redevelopment.
Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that that proposal is what “sold” the approval
of the Contract Zone Change in the beginning and asked if there had been discussions with
the non developers to access a common driveway into the site. Mr. Gould indicated that
their plan is for them connect to that driveway. The issue hasn’t been so much the access to
that driveway but the requirement that the other property owners close both their other
driveways.
Mr. Theeman indicated that he did not see any value in granting this proposed
Contract Zone Change when the outcome appears to be that a common access aligned with
the traffic light at Husson Avenue won’t be possible and there will be two access points on
either side of the Husson Avenue access which he felt is not good traffic planning. Mr. Gould
indicated that he could see no reason why approving this proposal would in any way prevent
someone from aligning the driveway with Husson Avenue with the potential that another 240
feet north of that would be another driveway. There is no inclination that they will move it
away from aligning it with Husson Avenue.
Mr. Rosenblatt expressed concern about future curb cuts along Broadway especially
when the balance of these parcels comes along with another proposal. Mr. Gould indicated
that the Planning Board has the ability to limit access. Mr. Theeman indicated that he would
prefer to deal with this issue now and not five years from now or some infinite point in time.
Chairman Guerette said that because this is such a busy area of Broadway he would prefer to
see a common access for the lots and indicated that he would not be supporting the
requested contract zone change.
Mr. Cattelle said that when you have two property owners who are not willing to join
together and one of them is in a position to preclude the other development by just saying
that they are not going to close their driveway, it unnecessarily precludes the opportunity to
develop the site next to Rite Aid. All they are asking is that each property owner retain the
opportunity to access their property from Broadway. There is the possibility in the future
that this could possibly be worked out with everyone in agreement. But in the meantime he
did not feel that it was the right thing to do to say to one property owner that they can no
longer access their property from Broadway or else their neighbor can’t development his
property.
Mr. Clark felt that going from 5 or 6 curb cuts down to a couple curb cuts was an
improvement. He also said that this is a zone change application and is not a site
development plan review.
4
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed Contract Zone Change rezoning 729, 731, 735, 737, 739, 743 and 749 Broadway
and a portion of the parcel on Hillside Avenue from Contract Shopping and Personal Service
District to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District as set forth in C.O. # 07-297. Mr.
Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted one in favor and four against the motion.
Therefore, the motion failed.
Item No. 2: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to
construct a 139,216 square-foot retail building, outdoor display
in excess of 1% of gross floor area, and two 6,006 square-foot
restaurants located at 70 Springer Drive in a Shopping and
Personal Service District and a General Commercial and Service
District. P.S. Bangor, LLC, applicant.
Chairman Guerette indicated that this item was continued from the Board’s meeting of
September 4, 2007 at which time the applicant gave a fairly length presentation and
discussion. Ms. Nancy St. Clair indicated that she wished to highlight seven items that have
been addressed since the last meeting. The first was to provide a detail of the proposed
Springer Drive widening. They have provided a typical section, information in the plan set.
In the northbound lane they propose a 12 foot travel lane with a ten foot paved shoulder. In
the southbound lane, there is a 16 foot travel lane. The second item provided was
information as to how interior landscaping area was calculated. The third item provided was
information about 3 storage areas, one for the utility building storage area, the triangular
area originally proposed next to the garden center has been removed, and the utility trailer
display has been clarified to indicate where they are and that they are enclosed with a barrier
fence around the perimeter. The fourth item provided was a plan to include how the outdoor
display and storage areas would be physically separated from parking and circulation areas.
The fifth item includes adding informational signage that will advise the public of Longview
Drive’s access limitations. The sixth item is clarification of the proposed lighting noting that
some of the flood lighting has been replaced with wall pack lighting that meets the ordinance
requirements. There are still proposing two flood lights located in the loading area and a
note has been added to the plan that they must be angled downward and that the degree of
angle cannot be changed without approval of the City Staff through the Code Enforcement
Office. The seventh and final item addressed was an amendment to the plan to denote the
number of parking spaces that will seasonally be used for outdoor display.
Mr. Theeman asked if there is any concern on the part of the applicant that human
traffic looking at those utility trailers will be at risk from turning traffic from Frost Drive. Ms.
St. Clair indicated that the applicant could provide some signage for those customers to warn
them about potential vehicular traffic. Ms. Mitchell asked if there was two-way traffic in front
of the store next to Frost Drive. Mr. St. Clair indicated that there was.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked for a reassurance from the applicant that the proposed runoff
from this site into the Penjajawoc watershed won’t be worse than what presently exists
because of the increase in impervious surface area. Ms. St. Clair explained that although
they are adding impervious to the site, they are providing treatment on this site which has
5
never occurred before. That additional treatment occurs not only within the retrofit of the
detention pond that is on the site but also through the installation of the proposed bio
retention. They designed their plan and the stormwater management on the site to address
the current DEP standards for water quality in an urban impaired watershed. In addition to
the physical improvements they also propose to make a contribution toward a program that
the City has well underway to help improve conditions elsewhere from this site but within the
same watershed.
Ms. Mitchell asked about this contribution towards the work regarding the quality of
the runoff that will be coming from the site in other areas. Ms. St. Clair indicated that part of
the requirements for stormwater management under the DEP approval process are to
provide treatment for the increased impervious areas that have been added to the site. In
addition, there are mathematical formulas that represent contributions that would be
financially made to a community based on the direct amount of impervious area that is
added to the watershed. Bangor has a program already in place where they can accept
funding and they have specific projects within the watershed that are earmarked when that
funding does arrive.
Chairman Guerette then asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. David Gould
explained that this application was continued from the Board’s last meeting in order to allow
the applicant time to address concerns of the Board. Mr. Gould indicated that in discussions
with the applicant they had a very productive discussion between their office and the
Planning Office to try to resolve all of those details and getting it on paper so that it could be
in front of the Board. Mr. Gould indicated that this project has been granted an MDOT
Traffic Permit. There was a discussion about a few off-site elements within that traffic
permit. One was the widening of Springer Drive which was discussed and is now part of the
submission. The other was the traffic concerns at Longview and Springer Drive. The MDOT
Traffic Permit stipulates that the applicant will put $100,000 in escrow and monitor that
intersection for three years. Should at any time within that three year period it should meet
the warrants for signalization then the City could have that intersection fully signalized. If
after the three years it does not meet the warrants, the money will be returned to the
applicant. Staff would recommend that the Board grant the applicant Site Development and
Conditional Use approvals on the condition that the off-site improvements, namely, Springer
Drive widening be in place prior to the opening of the developments (the Lowes and the
restaurants) to the public.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Staff was comfortable that all of the concerns discussed at the
previous meeting have been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Gould explained that Staff sent
the applicant a list of those items that needed to be addressed, urged the applicant to come
and sit down with Staff to make sure that they understood what Staff was looking for and to
get it documented in the plans. Staff feels that all items were addressed and the plans are
now ready for approval with the noted condition. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Ring his
perspective about adding four acres of impervious area in this area. Mr. Jim Ring, City
Engineer, indicated that the present site and the present impervious area basically was
designed to deal with stormwater under the 1980’s provisions. Now there is a treatment
standard as well as a quantity standard. This project makes provisions for both. The City
6
has been working with DEP and is in the process of developing a watershed water quality
improvement program. In addition to meeting the higher level of regulation afforded by the
current stormwater regulations, there is also a provision and a requirement to pay a
compensation fee which in effect mitigates that last increment that you can’t fully mitigate.
This will be a contribution that is made to the City that will be used to undertake projects to
improve the overall situation there.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Conditional Use application for the
proposed development at 70 Springer Drive, PS Bangor, LLC, applicant on the condition that
the project not be open to the public until the off-site traffic improvements are in place. Ms.
Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that
the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed project at 70 Springer
Drive, PS Bangor, LLC, applicant. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion, which also passed
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to construct a four-story,
91,000 sq. ft. building for use as a State Court Facility located
on the corner of Exchange Street and Washington Street in a
Downtown Development District. State of Maine Administrative
Office of the Courts, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant or their designee. Mr.
Robert Frank, P.E., with WBRC Architects/Engineers, Justice Silver, representatives of the
judicial branch, the project architect and the landscape architect, and Mr.Tom Gorrill of Gorrill
Palmer were present at the meeting. Mr. Frank explained that this project is the new Bangor
Court facility consisting of 91,000 sq. ft. which will house courtrooms, jury assembly, an
office for the clerk, offices for the District Attorney and the Judge’s Chambers. The building
consists of three stories of occupied space elevated above an access controlled parking area.
The public entrance will be at the corner of Exchange and Hancock Streets at the Exchange
Street elevation. The existing 74 space parking lot will be eliminated as part of this project.
Mr. Frank explained access to the site, on-site circulation, and open space. The site is
serviced by electric, water and sewer service. While there is no buffer requirement in the
Downtown Development District, they are proposing trees along both Hancock Street and
Exchange Street. They are also proposing ground cover plantings to orient pedestrians to
the main entrance to the building.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if pedestrians will still be able to walk along the sidewalk
immediately adjacent to the Kenduskeag Stream. Mr. Frank indicated that that will not be
closed off. Mr. Theeman asked if there was a point on the site to drop off people at the
entrance. Mr. Frank indicated that the security, as it relates to the design of this facility,
does not provide for a drop off point.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked about traffic. Mr. Frank indicated that the Maine Department of
Transportation has issued a Traffic Movement Permit for this project. Mr. Tom Gorrill, of
7
Gorrill Palmer, explained that his firm conducted a Traffic Impact Study for the project which
requires a Traffic Movement Permit from the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT)
because it generates over 100 trip ends in an hour approximately 174 trip ends in the a.m.
peak hour and 181 trip ends in the p.m. peak hour. Mr. Gorrill indicated that the intersection
of Exchange Street and Hancock Street is considered a High Accident Location (HAL)
primarily due to the parking that is located there. They recommended that removing the
parking along the street would solve this issue.
Chairman Guerette asked if this intersection would require a traffic signal. Mr. Gorrill
indicated that that would be unlikely. The MDOT requires that certain minimum thresholds
for traffic at those locations be met which is independent of Level of Service. Normally you
have a low Level of Service as a precursor. This intersection has a good Level of Service but
it also doesn’t envision the consistent traffic volumes exiting out of Hancock Street that
would be required for a traffic signal.
Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Frank about the treatment of runoff that would occur in
the parking lot. Mr. Frank indicated that snouts will be put into the catch basins to remove
floatables. This was an existing parking lot that drained directly to the stream. Now there
will be parking under the building which will not be subject to rainfall. They have taken
measures to treat the melted water and drippings that might occur in the winter time or from
other events. From a stormwater standard this does not trigger the stormwater laws that
require treatment. What is now draining directly into the Stream are ten spaces as compared
to the prior 75 spaces. By comparison they are greatly improving the current the situation.
Ms. Mitchell asked where the benches are going to be. Mr. Frank indicated that they
have eliminated the benches in front of the building because of security reasons. Ms.
Mitchell asked if the applicant would consider placing them on the rear of the site along the
Stream side as she felt that this would be a good asset to have for the large number of
people that will be drawn to that area. Mr. Frank explained that benches along the Stream
are presently on City-owned property. Mr. Theeman asked if the applicant had made any
other changes to the plans. Mr. Frank indicated that the benches were the only substantive
change.
Chairman Guerette then asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. David Gould
explained that this application is for Site Development Plan approval to construct a 91,000
sq. ft., four-story building at 74 Exchange Street which lies in the Downtown Development
District (DDD). This parcel is one of the Urban Renewal Development parcels (B-13). This
building is good balance between retaining parking on site and building a multi-story building
on the development parcel. The DDD does not have setbacks, and the height of the building
is limited by the Floor Area Ratio (the size of the lot x 4). This parcel is unique in that it lies
next to the Kenduskeag Stream where the State’s mandatory Shoreland Standards apply.
That Shoreland zone limits the height of the building to 80 feet. The DDD would have
allowed for a much taller building. Also, the Shoreland standards require that the finished
floor has to be raised above the 100 year flood plain (the applicant is proposing to raise it
above the 500 year flood plain). The sidewalks and the parking area along the Kenduskeag
Stream are not part of this development parcel and remain the City’s property. If there is
8
interest in benches or the type of improvements that would go within the right-of-way, that
is something that the City would look at doing in conjunction with this development. The
gate controlled permit parking lot underneath is located above huge stormwater storage
tanks that the City built to deal with combined sewer overflow for the entire City. Mr. Gould
noted that the Traffic study recommended a bumping out of the other side of the roadway
off of Hancock Street in front of the Fleet bank to aid visibility for coming and going at that
intersection. The traffic study also discussed the issue further down the street where there is
quite a bit more traffic that backs up from State Street. Mr. Gould indicated that all of the
details relative to Site Development Plan approval are in order and Staff recommended that
the Board grant the applicant Site Development Plan approval.
Mr. Theeman felt that if this building were in the Government and Institutional Service
District it would require more than the proposed handicap parking spaces. Mr. Gould
indicated that the Downtown Development District does not require parking spaces. This plan
proposes handicap spaces that are in the public right-of-way. The Land Development Code
does not require that the applicant provide any spaces. Mr. Theeman asked if there is
sufficient parking available in the garage to compensate for the growth of the area and the
lack or elimination of certain spaces. Mr. Ring indicated that during the traffic scoping
meetings, they spend a great deal of time looking at parking in the area and he noted that
there is adequate capacity in the parking garage and on-street parking.
Mr. Frank indicated that in addition to the four handicap spaces they also have four
designated below the building, thus meeting ADA requirements. Mr. Theeman asked if the
permit parking spaces would be available to the public. Justice Warren Silver indicated that
in the planning process they needed to design a site which would have a balance between
security for the site and access by the public. The spaces underneath the building will be
secured spaces. If they know that someone needs a handicap space it can be arranged for
them to use one of those spaces. They have been talking with the City to re-designate some
of the spaces in the Kenduskeag Plaza which would give them more spaces that could
potentially be handicap or general public use. Compared to the parking that they have at
their current facility this is an ideal situation. Mr. Silver stressed that they often have very
angry people who use their facility and security for their employees and the general public is
their top priority.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval to the
proposed court house facility located at the corner of Exchange Street and Washington
Street, State of Maine Administrative Office of the Court, applicant. Ms. Mitchell seconded
the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to revise the existing approved
site plan to increase the size of the approved 6,000 sq. ft.
building to 9,999 sq. ft. and to change the proposed use from a
restaurant use to a retail use located at 650 Stillwater Avenue
in a Shopping and Personal Service District and a Resource
Protection District. Widewaters Stillwater Co., LLC, applicant.
9
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation. Mr. Jeff Allen, James W. Sewall
Company, indicated that this is a slight revision to the approved Site Development Plan for a
change of use and a slight expansion of one building footprint. The revised plan also cleans
up some of the other changes in the site plan that have been precipitated by both the client,
Home Depot and some of the other requests of the Planning Board and of the Department of
Environmental Protection. Mr. Allen listed the items that have been changes which include
such things as adding yield signs, snow storage areas, and cart corrals that are typical with
any sort of development like this. The 6,000 sq. ft. restaurant is being changed to a 9,990
sq. ft. retail space and they have added some pedestrian crosswalks and sidewalks. DEP
requested that they have snow storage areas which are located primarily uphill from the bio
retention cells. As the snow melts it will drain gradually into the bio retention cells and be
filtered before it is discharged. Because the snow storage areas were placed upon some of
the trees, the landscaping plan needed to be amended. The lumber pad in the back of the
building was originally proposed at 46 feet and they are proposing to extend it to 50 feet.
Also, the building itself was shortened by 23 feet. They added cart corals to the parking lot
which takes up 26 parking spaces and the snow storage areas also took up some parking
spaces. After these spaces are taken out there are 590 spaces remaining which exceeds the
parking requirements of the Land Development Code. They have moved a couple of the
handicap spaces to make them fit into the site plan better. They added a valve house at the
rear of the building for the irrigation system which is required by the Water District. Mr.
Allen noted that they are also providing access to the abutter’s lot in front right next to
Circuit City and until that lot is developed jersey barriers will be installed for safety
precautions blocking off this access. They rechecked their impervious surface area and the
actual number is approximately .64 (where .7 is allowed). Lighting along the entranceway
from Stillwater Avenue was not shown on the previous plans but are now included on the
plans as are two additional parking spaces.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the expected impact is on parking demand from the
change in the size and use of the proposed retail business. Mr. Allen indicated that the retail
space required 1 space per 300 sq. ft. and the restaurant use requires 1 parking space per
200 sq. ft. Even though they are increasing the size of the building there is only a net
increase in four parking spaces required.
Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer for his comments. Planning Officer
Gould indicated this application is for a revision to the Widewaters Stillwater Site
Development Plan/Conditional Use approved earlier this year. In reviewing the revised plans,
Staff found several items in the plan that had changed since the time of Board approval.
Staff asked the applicant to submit a full set of plans to replace the prior approved plan
indicating all of the changes. At the time the Staff Memorandum was written, Staff was
awaiting additional details. Prior to the meeting, revised plans were submitted addressing
Staff’s concerns. Mr. Gould indicated that the prior condition under the conditional use
approval that all of the off-site traffic improvements would technically carry on to this
approval. It would be up to the Board as to whether they would like to cite this as a
condition of approval.
10
Ms. Mitchell asked if this went before the Marsh Mall Commission and, if so, what their
findings were. Mr. Gould indicated that that it did and the Commission had no concerns with
the proposed revisions.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval to the
proposed revisions to the already approved site plan for the site at 650 Stillwater Avenue,
Widewaters Stillwater Co., LLC, applicant, on the condition that off site improvements be
completed before the project is put into use. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board
voted 5 to 0 in favor.
Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval to relocate the entrance to the
site located at 2685 Broadway in a Rural Residence and
Agricultural District. Woods of Maine, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant or their designee. Mr. Jim
Kiser, Kiser & Kiser, explained that this is a request to relocate an entrance drive at 2685
Broadway. The gravel excavation operation to the rear is located in Glenburn and the
entrance comes out beside the railroad tracks. Their entrance permit with the Maine
Department of Transportation restricts them to a right-turn only which means trucks musts
head towards Glenburn. It makes it very difficult to sell and utilize projects within the Bangor
area. Trucks have to come out of the existing drive, go up the road, turn around and come
back down through. It is very inconvenient and is a safety hazard because trucks are turning
multiple times on Broadway. The applicant has secured a lease agreement on the subject
parcel and is looking to relocate the driveway away from adjacent to the railroad tracks to
the far end of the leased property which is closer to the Bangor side of the property. The
driveway is approximately 700 feet from Broadway property and runs behind an existing
home. MDOT told them that they were required to put it at this location because of sight
distances for the larger trucks and the capacity of those larger trucks to get up to speed once
they enter onto Broadway. There is one stream crossing and they have applied for and
received a Permit by Rule for that crossing.
Chairman Guerette asked if the relocation of this driveway impacted the use of the
residence which is going to be located next to the mouth of this driveway. The abutting
property owner expressed a great deal of concern about the impact of this driveway on the
general environment there and asked how close they would be coming to her property line,
or if there would be any mitigation to control impact either by site barriers or things of that
nature to alleviate the impact upon her property. Mr. Kiser indicated that they did not
anticipate any impact. Currently the center line of her driveway is approximately 25 feet off
the property line. When they were working with DOT they initially told them that they
needed to put it 10 feet off of the property line. In lieu of that they compensated and let
them place it 25 feet off of the property line. As a result of work with DOT they will be
clearing up to the property line. They just found out about the neighbor’s concern and he
feels that this can be worked out. The driveway to the residence would remain the same.
Mr. Randy Gardner, agent for the owner, after hearing about the neighbor’s concern
went out and conducted a quick investigation on the site. He indicated that from the
11
property line to the abutter’s house measures approximately 350 feet. 250 feet of this area is
heavily wooded and screening would be redundant and pointless. Industrial Metals is directly
across the street, the railroad is there, and they do not feel that there will be much change
to the traffic pattern in the area.
Chairman Guerette asked if this entrance would be a temporary one just until the
materials from the site were removed. Mr. Gardner indicated that it will be several years
before the gravel pit will be depleated as it is a fairly large deposit and the driveway will likely
be a permanent fixture.
Chairman Guerette asked if this was a stop controlled intersection. Mr. Kiser indicated
that they would be willing to place a stop sign at the entrance for the truckers but a driveway
access is not a road.
Planning Officer Gould explained that this application is for Site Development Plan
approval to construct an 800 foot long driveway on outer Broadway in a Rural Residence and
Agricultural District. A portion of the property is located next to the Kenduskeag Stream and
is Shoreland and resource protected. The existing access roadway is along the railroad
tracks and the driveway connection on Broadway is impeded by the overpass structure which
limits visibility. In order to get an optimum alignment to Broadway it brings the roadway in
close proximity to the property line. Staff feels that the details of the plan are complete and
meet the requirements of the Land Development Code and recommended that the Board
grant the applicant Site Development Plan approval.
Mr. Theeman asked if there was a driveway setback requirement. Mr. Gould indicated
that Bangor does not have a driveway setback. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she did not feel
that this is a great development plan for the Rural and Residence and Agricultural lot
considering there already is access to it and it is now going to be crossing a stream.
Ms. Brown commented that she felt that the entrance to that gravel pit is dangerous
and MDOT is looking to protect the public at large by making the suggestion that this
entrance to be moved.
Mr. Theeman moved that the Board approve of the Site Development Plan for 2685
Broadway, Woods of Maine, applicant for the construction of an 800 foot long driveway in a
Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 4
to 1 in favor of the motion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
No minutes were ready for approval.
12
Other Business
th
It was noted that there would be workshop meeting on Tuesday, September 25.
Mr. Gould indicated that the Planning Office has received an application for a development
along Kenduskeag Avenue and asked if the Board wished to conduct a site visit. It was
suggested that it be scheduled a week prior to consideration of a preliminary plan (on a
Monday). There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20
p.m.
Planning Board
September 18, 2007
1. CONTRACT ZONE CHANGE 729, 731, 735, 737, 739, 743, and
759 Broadway and a portion of a parcel located on Hillside Avenue –
John Tozer, Laura Reidy and Varnbro Corp.
To amend the Land Development Code by changing parcels of land
located at 729, 731, 735, 737, 739, 743, and 759 Broadway and a
portion of a parcel located on Hillside Avenue from Contract Shopping
and Personal Service District to Contract Shopping and Personal
Service District. Said parcels containing approximately 4.85 acres.
John Tozer, Laura Reidy and Varnbro, Corp., applicants. C.O. # 07-297.
Guerette: Public Hearing No. 1 which is to entertain a zone change at multiple
addresses on Broadway. John Tozer, Laura Reidy and Varnbro Corporation are
the applicants and this is per Council Order 07-297. So I’ll ask the applicant or
their designee to make a presentation.
Dick Cattelle: Good evening, my name is Dick Cattelle and I be the designee for
this request. The request before you tonight is really a minor modification to a
zone change, a contract zone change, that was awarded almost two years ago.
At the time there was a development plan, a common development plan that
incorporated all the property within this zone change basically one development
scheme and also basically two parties involved, two owners of the lots. And at
the time one of the most important considerations as is often the case especially
on a busy street like Broadway one of the most important and considered issues
is traffic control. Since there was one development scheme, the best available
traffic control agreement worked and was agreeable to all the parties and that
was one curb cut as closely aligned with Husson Avenue as possible so that all
the traffic on and off of the entire parcel whatever the development ended up
being would be through that controlled access point. The best laid plans though
don’t always work out and as it turns out there is no longer any common
development scheme so we basically now have two parcels that are under this
contract zone change and one of the parcels is owned by Tozer and Laura Reidy
and they have no interest at this time in doing anything different other than they
are. There’s a residence on the north end of that lot and dental office on the
south end of their lot. And Varnbro wishes to develop the balance of the parcel,
their property, and I think that development pending the outcome of this request
will be subject to the site plan approval process in the near future. It seemed
that the only logical way to accommodate both property owners and allow this
development to proceed forward was to modify the zone change and allow a
maximum of two curb cuts, one being the one onto the Varney property that is
contemplated for the redevelopment and another in all probability in the future
the plan that we worked out with the Planning Office was to designate that that
second curb cut when and if it comes into place would be 240 ft from the first
which would move it up to the north end of the property farthest away from the
intersection and also in the meantime that Tozer be allowed to continue to use
the curb cuts that are in place, one for his dental office and one for the
residence. And that’s really the extent of the request and I’d basically
paraphrase the staff memorandum both chicken and egg as to which came first,
but those are plain and simple those are the facts, that’s the situation and that’s
the request. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Guerette: Question from Member Rosenblatt and then Member Theeman.
Rosenblatt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cattelle, I’m a little bit confused just
about the geography here. Maybe you can help me. That map won’t help.
There are a number of what one, two, three, four, five, six I guess seven
numbered lots and there seems to be an area which has no number which is,
which appears to be an access, a potential access. It’s the area directly across
from Husson Avenue and it seems to go into a cul-de-sac. Does that have a lot
number and I’m not understanding how that unmarked piece relates to the
seven lots for which this request.
Cattelle: Well, that unmarked piece, you’re talking about on this sketch, that’s
really part of one of the others and I’m not sure which one it’s part of. But
that’s, if you’re familiar with the area that’s where there’s sort of the beginnings
of a road in there now, just immediately south of the dental office. The line on
the out of town edge of that what appears to be a cul-de-sac is the line between
Tozer’s property and Varney’s property.
Rosenblatt: Well I guess what we have before us in terms of the Council Order
that we have to vote up or down on, it talks about no more than two curb cuts,
one of which may be located on Lots 19a and 19b and one of which may be
located on lots 18 and 19b. I’m trying to understand again where the geography
is here. I see where 18 and 19b are right next to each other and so that would
mean an access point on Broadway to the what do we call it to the west or to
the north of the traffic light at Husson Avenue. I’m not understanding the
location of the other driveway which again the Council Order refers to lots 19 a
and 19b.
Cattelle: Is that part of 19a, David?
David Gould: The, what looks like a street and a cul-de-sac, I don’t know if it
shows on your plan, is part of Lot 19d. That little symbol connects it into
locations that says that is part of 19d.
Rosenblatt: D like David?
Gould: Yes.
Cattelle: Alright, so it’s 19a and 19d for one curb cut and 18 and 19b for the
other. They also have to be 240 ft. apart. And in all probability where the curb
cuts, where the lower parcel would be, is as close to that property line as
possible so that it would align as closely as possible with Husson Avenue which
would thereby push the other possible curb cut on the other two lots up to the
north end of the property.
Guerette: Well, I think we’ll let Mr. Theeman take the mantle. It seems to me
that we are potentially approving two curb cuts neither one of which necessarily
has to be aligned with Husson Avenue and to me that just doesn’t seem to be
like a good idea. Can you ….
Cattelle: Well, I would say that the control for exactly where they end up is a
subject of the site development plan approval process which is your approval
process too. This is just a zoning issue that is, basically what this is doing is
limiting the number of curb cuts that the property owners can apply for on a site
development plan.
Rosenblatt: (inaudible) expanding it over the status quo. The status quo is one
curb cut and this changes it to two.
Cattelle: But a contract zone change in a more general sense is a limiting thing.
And from detail to detail, yes, this is requesting one additional curb cut but that’s
in consideration of the fact that there’s no longer a single development scheme.
If we had two property owners that wanted to come in and together have a zone
change for what they use they could put their property to, you wouldn’t really
limit the number of curb cuts that they could have collectively because you
would essentially be saying to one property owner you can’t have any access to
your property from the street. So it’s really that’s the consideration that we’re
trying to make here is we’re trying to give both parties the opportunity to access
their property from the street and we’re trying to do it in a manner that best
addresses the traffic control situation and also with the understanding that the
overall process for approval does include site development approval which gives
you another shot exactly where that curb cut would be.
Guerette: Thank you.
Theeman: Mr. Cattelle, not withstanding the current status of the current zone
status of the property how many active curb cuts are there now out onto
Broadway?
Cattelle: Well, there’s a driveway to the residence which is on the north end of
the Tozer property.
Theeman: Can you site those by lot number?
Cattelle: Well, that’s on the out of town end of 18. And there’s currently a curb
cut which is a driveway into the dental office which is onto 19b. And that’s
probably all the curb cuts there are right now that really, really exist. There’s
perhaps what appears to be another one in a semi-construction state on 19d.
Theeman: So how as I’m looking at the number of lots, how does one access
19a, 20, 19d, 19c, and 22a?
Cattelle: Well, that’s all going to be part of that’s under one ownership. And it’s
all going to be one development plan.
Theeman: So there’s no active structures on 22a, 19c, or 19b at the moment?
Cattelle: Right.
Theeman: I believe I’m speaking the truth, am I?
Gould: They’ve all been razed.
Cattelle: I beg your pardon.
Gould: They’ve all been razed, they’ve all been torn down.
Theeman: That’s the down type of raze. And if you could, and I know you in
your opening remarks, could you again share with us which pieces belong to
which half?
Cattelle: 18 and 19b are Tozer’s property. And the balance is Varney.
Theeman: Thank you very much.
Guerette: Member Mitchell, question?
Mitchell: David, what I’m understanding is that we when the site plan is
approved get to kind of help guide where that new curb cut is located? But are
we limited with how far away it can be from another curb cut to have it not
aligned with Husson Avenue?
Gould: Pursuant to this request, you mean? This request would not restrict
that, no.
Guerette: We haven’t gotten to the Planning Officer’s report yet if you don’t
mind holding that question for a minute.
Mitchell: Okay.
Guerette: Thank you. This is a public hearing so anyone who would like to
speak as a proponent of this request for a zone change this would be a good
time to, we invite you to come to the podium and make your comments. Any
proponents? Any opponents? If there are neither, I’ll close the public hearing
and ask the Planning Officer for his report.
Gould: This application in front of the Board is a contract zone change request
changing multiple parcels as outlined in the Council Order and staff
memorandum. As was pointed out, this is a revision to a contract zoning
proposal that came through the process in 2005. There was some discussion
and tweaking of the language back in 2005 when it was here before the Planning
Board. I think it was a split recommendation by the Board that Council
ultimately did pass the zone change. One of the things that was key to this
rezoning was an attempt to develop some development standards that would
sort of provide a commercial transition from the development of old Broadway
Shopping Center where you’ve got quite a large expanse of asphalt to a zone
that had more landscaping, had more green space within the parking lot to even
architectural standards on the outer end. One of the other elements that we
introduced to the applicant was this concept of access management, access
control. At that time, because they looked at the project as multiple buildings
within one development, they had no concern at all about limiting access to a
single curb cut to Broadway and that’s what we were able to get into the
contract. It wasn’t but a year or less after the contract was in place that the
parties involved in the rezoning could not come to agreement as to the
development. And as we sat and worked with one of the applicants who
proposed to build the new driveway that would align with the signal at Husson
Avenue, we said based on the contract language you have to go and close the
other existing accesses on Broadway and in which case the other party said no
we’re not agreeable to that so the project was held up. It couldn’t go forward.
The only way we could envision that they could proceed with the project
separately was to go back and amend the revision that deals with multiple curb
cuts to Broadway. I think what Mr. Cattelle was trying to point out to the Board
was if this had been a straight S&PS zone change without any limitations, access
is really an issue of site plan review, conditional use review of traffic. Initially we
had and it was a very good idea, an excellent idea to deal with traffic at the
rezoning stage. The details of the multiple parties involved could not work out
their disagreement relative to that. One of the opportunities to remedy that
situation was to come back and amend the limitation to one access only and talk
about a second access. The other thing that the contract did which again when
we went into this the anticipation was there would be one redevelopment and
that all the existing buildings would go away. Now where we have two separate
parties where one wants to develop, there’s an existing single family house. We
never anticipated that we would close off somebody’s driveway. So the new
language provides that until there’s a reuse or an expansion of those other
properties that the contract wouldn’t require them to close those access points.
It gives them the ability under the contract language to have two driveways, it
doesn’t in any way limit the Planning Board’s or MDOT’s right in future
development to place restrictions on access. It just gives them the ability to
have at least two. Right now their ability to Broadway is limited to one and any
proposal that suggests one or more than one would be denied before it even got
to the Board. So it gives them the ability to work out an agreement between the
parties and the potential to have you consider a second access way. We did
send immediately after the memorandum, because I think initially it was an
oversight and didn’t get included, a sheet that shows you specifically what’s
different between the original contract language and the proposed contract
language and if anybody doesn’t have that and wants a copy I did make more
copies in case you didn’t have that. I think going back to the question about
how many accesses did this property have, I suspect at one time this might have
had five or six separate accesses to Broadway, most of which have been
eliminated. The two of the northerly properties are still operating and the
southern end is awaiting for redevelopment but relative to the details of the
contract I don’t see this as a major loss to the City. It does not give the Planning
Board, it doesn’t tie your hands relative to you have to give them two curb cuts
but it does allow them the ability to have that, from our working with them for
the past 12 months the likelihood that the parties will reach agreement and there
will be a development under the existing contract conditions are very unlikely.
So I don’t see this as something that we’re giving up a whole lot. So I don’t
have a concern relative to the amendments and would recommend that you
make a positive recommendation to the City Council. I’m open to any other
questions that the Board has.
Guerette: Member Mitchell, go ahead.
Mitchell: Can you answer my question, as far as are there limitations on where
the second driveway can be placed based upon the location of the current
driveways that go into 18 and 19b?
Gould: The distance separation is based on a theory of a new driveway not from
one existing driveway of the dental office or the residential driveway. But should
they be redeveloped and they would request a new driveway then that would
have to be separated 240 ft from any other driveway on the property. The
intent was to leave the existing developments, the dental office and the
residential house, off the table relative to redevelopment.
Guerette: Before you ask a question, Member Theeman, while this is fresh in my
mind let me ask the Planning Officer, what is the frontage of the entire parcel on
Broadway?
Gould: I’d have to add it all up, I guess.
Guerette: And while you’re doing that has there been any discussion to your
knowledge amongst the landowners of this parcel to somehow allow the two
reluctant developers to have access to a common drive that would service this
entire parcel. You know internally.
Gould: We’ll that’s what the proposal was all along that the parcels 18 and 19b
would have access to the access that would be at the signalized intersection.
Guerette: I guess what I’m getting at is to me I think that’s what sold the
approval of the contract zone change in the beginning. Even though some of the
parties are not willing to actually actively engage in developing the parcel, my
question is has there been any discussion to your knowledge to allow those
reluctant developers or the non-developers to access a common driveway into
the site.
Gould: Oh, absolutely, I mean their plan is to have them connect to that
driveway. Who would not want to get access to a signalized outlet on Broadway.
The issue hasn’t been so much as their access to that driveway but the
requirement by the other property owner that they close both their other
driveway.
Guerette: Member Theeman.
Theeman: I think the answer to your question, Mr. Chairman, is 500 ft of
frontage. I just wanted to continue the Chair’s line of thought. I wasn’t on the
Planning Board at the time but it seems to me the original intent of the contract
zone change was to create a single intersection that lined up with Husson
Avenue. I frankly don’t see any value in granting this zone change when the
outcome appears to be that that won’t be possible and that we’re going to end
up with two access points on either side of the Husson Avenue access, which
seems to me to fly in the face of good traffic plannings. Help me with that.
Gould: Okay, we see no reason why approving this proposal would in any way
prevent someone from aligning a driveway with Husson Avenue. That’s what we
intend that will happen. It’s likely that the potential that 240 ft. north of that
would be another driveway. But there’s no inclination that we’re going to move
it away from aligning with Husson Avenue.
Theeman: Why would we encourage an additional driveway when the lot is
accessible by a single, I understand the difficulty that the owners now face, but
we’re going to have if I understand you correctly we would have an access point
directly, we would create an intersection and then 240 ft away we’re going to
approve another curb cut. A new curb cut.
Gould: Again, what I want to tell you is the contract will allow another one to
occur. Whether you’ll approve it or not is another story.
Guerette: Member Rosenblatt.
Rosenblatt: David, I need follow up on that precise point. We’re not going to be
getting two coordinated simultaneous applications. The reality is likely in what it
is we’re going to get one application for one access point. In my experience, our
ability to control access points is remarkably limited but let’s assume that the
development on the in-town side of this set of parcels comes before us first and
let’s assume that we can influence that to the extent that that entrance is across
from Husson Avenue and that’s a four way signalized intersection. Year later or
two years later, the balance of these parcels comes along with some other
proposal and I don’t see how we could, given this contract zone language, I
don’t see how we could deny them a point of access on Broadway. Help me with
that.
Gould: Okay. Suppose we go with your scenario and a month from now we get
a development for the southern half, and it has a new intersection that aligns
with Husson Avenue and nothing happens with the other properties for 5 years,
10 years. They come back to you for a development, they want to develop
something that fits in the zone, they want two curb cuts. Can you tell them they
can’t have two curb cuts?
Rosenblatt: I think we can tell them ….
Gould: Absolutely you can. It’s right within our standards that the Planning
Board has the ability to limit access.
Rosenblatt: Can we tell them that they can’t have any?
Gould: I think you can look at the project and decide whether from a traffic
point of view it makes sense to have shared access with some other property.
Rosenblatt: On someone else’s property is not the applicant? I’m having trouble
with that.
Gould: Well in the same way that Maine Savings Bank worked an easement with
their immediate adjacent abutter to get access to Broadway Shopping Center so
they could get out at the light. It’s a question of how hard will you push
somebody to do that, absolutely. But if you don’t like the concept at all of this
500 ft. having two accesses, recommend the Council deny it.
Rosenblatt: Thanks.
(????): Mr Chairman, for the record it would be my preference to deal with this
now and now five years from now or at some infinite point in space or time.
Guerette: Well, that’s an excellent point and I think you’re entirely legitimate
prerogative to think that way. We see thinks creep along by way of approval,
and I remember when this contract zone change was first before us that I had
some difficulty signing onto it because it’s really a transition area between the
commercial section of Broadway and the commercial section of Broadway. In all
development on Broadway thus far we have been extremely careful about curb
cuts and traffic control. And this is an extremely busy section of the Broadway
when the high school is in session from September through May, very, very
busy. I think it’s entirely possible and I would rather remand the landowners on
this parcel to figure this out internally. There may be some of the landowners
that are now willing or ready to develop but there should be some way for them
to work out easements or an agreement for them to access one curb cut. And I
think that because I believe those are still high potential suggestions that I would
not support the current proposal before us.
???: I’d be happy to make a motion if my colleagues think it’s time. You
absolutely can, we’re still …
Cattelle (I think): I think it’s important before you vote on this to, I’m kind of a
Johnny come lately in this situation. But you really have a situation where many
parties involved and I believe the City in general would just as soon see the
parcel next to RiteAid developed commercially. There are a lot of interested
parties to see that happen. If you’ve got two property owners who are not
willing to join together and one of them is basically in a position to preclude the
other development by just saying I’m not to close my driveways, then I think
you’ve unnecessarily precluded the opportunity to develop the site next to
RiteAid. And I think you need to be, you need to remember that all we’re asking
is that each property owner retain the opportunity to access their property from
Broadway. The possibility is in the future if there’s another development scheme
that comes before to restrict that one way or another. It may be that by then
the new road into the developed site is in place and in all probability there will be
an easement across that into the Tozer property. It may be that by that time
everything has worked out, everybody’s in agreement and when at site
development time the request is made and the property owners (inaudible) can
be perhaps that’s the case, but in the meantime it doesn’t seem to me that it’s
the right thing to do to basically say to one property owner you either no longer
access your property from Broadway or else your neighbor can’t develop his
property. The controls exist, that’s what the site development approval is all
about. Don’t do something, don’t limit something unnecessarily and
prematurely.
Guerette: Member Clark.
Clark: Okay for those of us who actually get out of the house and drive around
the City once in a while, you have noticed that that lot is vacant, every building
that was there is gone. There’s even been a dump truck parked there the last
couple of months it seems and it does pretty much align with Husson Ave
because when you come out of Husson Ave, cause I do often, you’ll notice that
there’s pretty much a straight shot right into that vacant lot. That lot should be
developed if the people want to have, we went from five or six curb cuts as Dave
said down to a couple. That’s improvement by my book. So I think and besides
this is a zone change, this is not the site development plan, and I think we would
be jumping ahead of ourselves if we cut off our nose to spite our faces. Thank
you.
Rosenblatt: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend that the Council approve
the proposed contract zone change rezoning 729, 731, 735, 737, 739, 743 and
759 Broadway and a portion of the parcel on Hillside Avenue from Contract
Shopping and Personal Service District to Contract Shopping and Personal
Service District as set forth in Council Order 07-297.
????: Second.
Guerette: Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? And
the motion fails 4-1. It will still be taken up by the City Council at their next,
Monday.