HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-09-04 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Nathaniel Rosenblatt
David Clark
Laura Mitchell
Miles Theeman
Allie Brown
Jeff Barnes
City Staff Present: David Gould
James Ring
Peter Witham
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 1: 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 opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make a
presentation. Mr. Paul Cincotta with Packard Development who represents P.S. Bangor LLC
also introduced team members Nancy St. Clair, Jamie Lowry, and Tom Gorrill. Mr. Cincotta
explained that Lowe’s Home Improvement has a Purchase and Sales Agreement to purchase
the existing Wal-Mart site (which will be subject to the relocation of that store) for new store
with two separate restaurant buildings. This site is approximately 20 acres in size and the
proposed project will have a slight increase in the amount of impervious area. The proposed
building will have a larger footprint than the current Wal-Mart building and the two
restaurants will be located closer to the Springer Drive entrance.
2
Ms. Nancy St. Clair, P.E. with Sebago Technics, explained the Site Development Plan.
She indicated that the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing store and construct a
new 139,000 sq. ft. Lowes Home Improvement Center with an enclosed garden center. In
addition, they propose two new 6,006 sq. ft. buildings for restaurant use located at the front
of the site closer to Springer Drive. They are proposing a new access off of Longview Drive
in addition to the existing access drives off of Frost Drive and Springer Drive. The new
access will be to the loading area which will be a right-in and right-out access and be limited
to truck traffic. Ms. St. Clair discussed the on-site circulation, required parking spaces, and
access to the two restaurant buildings. Ms. St. Clair discussed the Planned Group
Development application indicating that the two restaurants will be part of a lease separate
from the major property and will allow them to have shared parking and access. Planned
Group Development easement documents will be prepared as soon as the tenants are
known. The site has access to all utilities.
Ms. St. Clair discussed stormwater management indicating that the original site
development’s stormwater management (for the present Wal-Mart development) required a
site location review and it met the standards for stormwater management applicable at that
time. That approval primarily focused on quantity control. With the proposed changes to the
site they also need to comply with the current DEP standards for stormwater management
which also calls for, in addition to quantity controls, water quality controls. Ms. St. Clair
explained that they have modified the grading design for the pond, created a wet pond and
are also creating a bio retention cell which allows for a portion of the runoff from the site to
enter this area. The plantings were selected specifically for their ability to accommodate
conditions during stormwater events to drain and filter the runoff. The proposed underdrain
will control the amount of discharge. Because this site is located in the Penjajawoc
watershed they also need to provide off-set credits for additional treatment which they have
been coordinating with DEP. Ms. St. Clair explained that the City has some programs in place
which would allow a monetary contribution toward that improvement.
Ms. St. Clair discussed the proposed landscaping indicating that they intended to keep
some of the existing landscaping around the perimeter of the site, as well as, planting some
additional materials to meet the landscaping and buffering requirements. She discussed the
outdoor display of rental trucks, trailers and sheds. Lowe’s also displays fencing materials,
gas grills, etc. in the front of the store. The lighting plan is designed to meet the new
ordinance standards.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if either of the restaurant sites were proposed to be drive-thru
restaurants. Ms. St. Clair indicated that they were not. Mr. Theeman asked if there was any
consideration given to creating underground stormwater mitigation instead of using the
existing retention pond. Ms. St. Clair indicated that they did evaluate that option to see if it
might be feasible and discovered it was more feasible to deal with the existing pond rather
than introducing that type of storage on the site. Ms. Mitchell asked if they had considered
alternate types of cover for the parking area and what the differences are and the amount of
water expected to drain off this site with the increase in impervious area. Ms. St. Clair
explained that the exact amount of increase in impervious area is 4.79 acres. The total
impervious ratio once everything is fully developed is about 69% of the site. Not many
3
studies have been undertaken for alternative types of cover. Ms. Mitchell asked how the
outdoor storage areas met the ordinance requirements regarding yard requirements and
screening. Ms. St. Clair indicated that the yard requirements were measured along the
perimeter edge for the truck storage and the outdoor display garden center.
Mr. Clark indicated that he did feel there was much of a difference between their
proposed display area and that of their competitor (Home Depot). He asked when they
proposed to start demolition. Mr. Cincotta indicated that Wal-Mart is proposing to break
ground at their new location in early 2008 which will mean an estimated early Spring to
Summer of 2009 to start the demolition and construction of the Lowe’s building.
Mr. Tom Gorrill, PE of Gorrill Palmer Consulting Engineers, discussed their Traffic
Impact Study for this site. The primary access is off of Springer Drive and the applicant is
proposing to widen Springer Drive to provide for a by-pass lane consisting of a 12 foot left
turn lane and a 10 foot by-pass lane. The secondary access is off Frost and will continue as
it is. The Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) reviewed this study and has issued a
Permit with the condition that Springer Drive, by the site entrance be widened. Mr. Gorrill
indicated that the City Engineer has indicated that he would like that to be 10 feet wide and
applicant does not object to that. The Permit also requires that the applicant put $100,000
in escrow for the potential signalization of the intersection of Springer Drive and Longview
Drive should it ever warrant it. That intersection does not currently meet a traffic signal
warrant. Mr. Gorrill indicated that they suggested in the study that the City may want to
think about a four–way stop at that location. MDOT has indicated that the intersection needs
to be monitored for a traffic signal for a three year period. This would entail having a traffic
study done to evaluate whether or not a signal warrant is needed. The third Permit condition
is that there be the driveway out onto Longview Drive for the trucks and that it be restricted
to right-in and right-out. There were other conditions that have been met by the submittal
of their plan for example, a separate left and right turning lane as you exit Springer Drive
and adequate lighting, etc.
Mr. Clark felt that the proposed widening would address the traffic congestion at the
entrance on Springer Drive. He did not think that traffic for this use would be any greater
than that of the current Wal-Mart has. Mr. Clark indicated that he did have concerns about
the entrance off of Frost Drive as it appeared to be located between parking spaces and
displays. Mr. Gorrill explained that most of the traffic would be making a right-turn when
entering from Frost Drive which is what occurs at the present site. Mr. Clark asked what
space is available is between the displays of the sheds and the parking space across from it.
Ms. St. Clair indicated that the access drive outside of the display area is 30 feet wide.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked why they did not propose a left turn lane into the site as
opposed to widening the shoulder. Mr. Gorrill indicated that they felt that if it was too wide it
would lead to increased speeds. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how the applicant proposed to deal
with the Level of Service for the intersection at Hogan/Springer/Bangor Mall Boulevard going
from predevelopment Level of Service E to post development Level of Service F. Mr. Gorrill
indicated that the reality is that they are increasing the actual contribution to that
intersection by approximately 1% by the higher ITE rates, which is a very small increase. He
4
indicated that as more development takes place they would suggest that there might be a
synchronization study done to mitigate this.
Mr. Theeman discussed truck traffic to and from this site and asked how many truck
loads per day would be coming in and out of that site and at what times. Mr. Gorrill
indicated that typically truck traffic using this facility would be on off-peak hours and would
be approximately one truck per day. Ms. Mitchell asked if there would be trucks utilizing the
Springer Drive entrance to service the two restaurant sites, and if so, would there be a need
to add an additional lane. Mr. Gorrill indicated that trucks would be utilizing that entrance
but that the entrance does not meet a warrant for a full left-turn lane with channelization.
Ms. Mitchell asked what type of enforcement they propose to stop traffic from going in and
out of the truck entrance to the site and how it aligns with the Target site. Mr. Gorrill
indicated that it would be signed as a truck entrance, and it is off-set. This would be an
issue if it were anything but right-in, right-out. Ms. Mitchell asked if there is bus and
pedestrian access to the site. Mr. Gorrill indicated that he was not aware of any plans to
discontinue the current bus service to the site. Ms. St. Clair indicated that they were
proposing a new sidewalk along the access at Springer Drive, a crosswalk that crosses the
main access road with availability for the two restaurants to tie into.
Mr. Theeman asked who was responsible for the costs associated with the traffic
mitigation. Mr. Gorrill indicated that it was the responsibility of the applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents and opponents. Ms. Lucy
Quimby, 1230 Kenduskeag Avenue, had questions regarding stormwater. The proposed
increase in impervious surface will in fact contribute more to the impairment of the
Penjajawoc watershed. Because there will be a massive undertaking to repair the
impairment of the Penjajawoc Stream she asked the Board to consider this before it makes it
decision. She was concerned that the applicant was going to be contributing to a fund but
proposed changed on the ground would not improve the stormwater quality. She felt that it
would be to bad to approve something now to have to go back at a later time and say that
this isn’t okay in keeping with the plan to repair the impairment.
As there were no further comments, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and
asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is an
application for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 139,216
square-foot retail building, outdoor display area 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 for P.S. Bangor, LLC, applicant.
The applicant is proposing a 31,800 sq. ft. garden center which is the conditional use
component of this application. This is the site of the current Wal-Mart store. This project
proposes to demolish the existing building and replace it with a new building. There are
three specific conditional use standards for outdoor display in excess of 1% of gross floor
area: 1) that the display and storage area shall not exceed 50% of the gross floor area of
the building; 2) that the outdoor display will not be located in any side yard, rear yard or
front yard; and 3) that all display and storage areas will be separate from any vehicle parking
and circulation areas and be screened from view from any public street. This application
5
meets those standards. This must also meet the standards of 165-9 that the basic
requirements of the zone be met for lot coverage, impervious area, building setbacks, and
that the use cannot create unreasonable traffic congestion on the site or on contiguous
streets. This site provides adequate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking, loading,
public sewer, public water, stormwater drainage system, loading and parking areas. The
proposed building conforms to the general character of the area where it is going to be
located and the applicant has submitted drawings as to the architectural style of the building
for the Board to make a determination that it conforms. Mr. Gould indicated that the
applicant provided a detailed analysis of traffic at this site. All of the light fixture poles meet
the new lighting standards but there is some proposed lighting on the back of the building
that may directed outwards toward Longview Drive. Regarding stormwater details, this
project has to go through the Site Law Permit application with the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection who would be reviewing the Chapter 500 stormwater rules. Likely
will result in them paying some additional money into the off-set fees as is very common with
all the projects that that the City sees within the Urban Impaired Watershed.
Mr. Gould noted that earlier in the day Staff was made aware of some additional
storage areas that the applicant is proposing for a truck rental area. Staff wants to ensure
that those areas be physically separated from the parking areas when they are in use and
that the buffer requirements of the plan take into account additional buffering that may be
required for outdoor storage The concerns noted in the Staff Memorandum have been
addressed. However, Staff would like the applicant to provide plans indicating exactly how
they calculate their interior landscape area within the parking lot to ensure that the standards
are met and to ensure that those areas that are newly designated as outdoor display or
storage have the required buffers. Planning Officer Gould suggested that the Board make a
condition relative to the off-site improvements. The applicant is proposing on-site signage to
indicate that the driveway to Longview is a truck service drive. Staff feels that additional
signage should be available on Longview so that the public doesn’t think that that is just
another entrance to the back of the store.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if this application would come under the newly adopted Growth
Management Legislation. Mr. Gould indicated that it is Staff’s understanding that this
legislation does not become effective until September 20, 2007. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated
that the applicant appears to be applying for Planned Group Development (PGD) approval
and the Staff Memo did not mention this. Mr. Gould explained that when the applicant
initially came to the City there was some discussion as to whether or not they needed,
wanted, or required PGD approval which gives a project an ability to sell off physical pieces
of the property and not count them as new lots. In Staff’s discussion with the Legal Office
relative to multiple building sites because the applicant does not plan to sell off the pieces
that they would not need to obtain PGD approval. However, if the Board wants to grant
them PGD approval, they can. Mr. Rosenblatt asked when revised plans were submitted by
the applicant showing the additional outdoor storage areas. Mr. Gould indicated that they
were received earlier that morning and Staff would like to be able to verify some of the
details in terms of compliance. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he did not feel it fair for Staff or
the Board to be reviewing such an important change at such a late date. He suggested that
the Board postpone consideration to allow time to review the plans. Ms. St. Clair asked as a
6
condition of approval that Staff review the screening, the segregation, and the locations of
those areas to ensure compliance with the Ordinance.
Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Mr. Ring had questions regarding the proposed four-way stop
and the proposed stormwater management. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the
applicant did a thorough analysis of traffic. As far as the future generation of traffic from
this site, the permit process requires them to take into account the existing traffic from the
existing development, as well as, what is projected to be added. The four-way intersection is
a High Crash Location (higher incidence of collisions than other four-way intersections) but
he did not feel that a four-way stop would be the best solution. There may be other
developments in the future which may increase traffic impacts and they will have to deal with
them in their applications. Mr. Ring indicated that he wanted to be sure of if signal warrants
are met that there is funding available to install the traffic signal. Mr. Ring discussed the
proposed by-pass lane at the entrance noting that the City indicated that it wished to see a
wider by pass that what the applicant originally proposed. Originally they proposed a four
foot widening which would have satisfied MDOT’s criteria but the City wants to see that
larger and the applicant is now proposing 22 feet left of center line. This will assure in the
future that with 32 feet of pavement that is there now plus the proposed widening if there is
a need for a full separate left turn lane there will be pavement there to do it without having
to build it in the future.
Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he wanted to make sure that the Board is not doing
anything that somehow would undermine or be contrary to the efforts to repair the
Penjajawoc watershed. Mr. Ring indicated that the Penjajawoc is currently classified as a
non attainment or impaired watershed. This project is going to add some impervious area.
However, in this situation, while the impervious area is increasing, there will be considerable
modifications to this pond so that this becomes a wet pond which in fact provides treatment
that is recognized by DEP as achieving a certain degree of quality treatment, as well as,
quantity control. They are proposing improvements in the discharge characteristics from the
site even in its expanded state both in terms of quantity and quality. The City has been
working with DEP for a couple of years on developing a watershed management plan. The
goal of that plan is to improve water quality over time. This applicant and others can provide
money in addition to meeting certain higher or more stringent requirements for their
stormwater control system. The money has to be used to undertake projects that will
improve the stormwater quality over time.
Mr. Theeman asked why the intersection couldn’t just be signalized now rather than
waiting until traffic meets the minimum threshold. Mr. Ring explained that signal warrants
are criteria that must be met in order to legally install a signal. If a municipality undertakes
that without meeting warrants, it could be some potential liability for creating further unsafe
conditions. Mr. Theeman asked the applicant to respond to Staff’s concern about lighting.
Ms. St. Clair indicated that they could follow up with Staff and amend the plans to indicated
that the lights which are located at the rear of the building could be set at an angle to
maintain a maximum angle such that they would not pointing out towards the roadway.
7
There being no further comment, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr.
Rosenblatt indicated that he was comfortable with site development approval as long as the
light issue was addressed but that he was not comfortable voting in favor of conditional use
approval because he did not feel that the plan meets the criteria. He felt that the prior
submittal did but the new submittals which included other display areas did not. He
indicated that he would favor postponing consideration of conditional use approval until the
applicant has had a chance to work more on this issue and present the Board with revised
plans. Mr. Theeman and Ms. Mitchell agreed and expressed concern about traffic. Chairman
Guerette indicated that he was also in support of postponing this item.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board postpone consideration of this item for the
proposed development at 70 Springer Drive, PS Bangor, LLC, applicant, until the Board’s next
regularly scheduled meeting. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 1 in
favor.
Item No. 2: Conditional Use approval to construct a one-family detached
manufactured housing unit complex located at 30V Vizsla
Avenue in a Low Density Residential District. C.A. Strout &
Sons, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the
applicant or their designee. Mr. Don Becker, P.E. of CES Inc., representing the applicant,
who is requesting reapproval of Phase III of a previously approved subdivision which was
approved in the 1980’s but was never completed. The lotting is the same as that approved in
the 1980’s as a preliminary plan. (The then applicant never sought final subdivision plan
approval.) Mr. Becker noted that Staff had concerns regarding open space, and the
applicant would be amenable to suggestions of the Board. They envision modest cost
housing (double-wide mobile homes on a foundation). This site required a DEP Permit
when originally designed which is still valid today. Mr. Becker indicated that they have also
submitted an exhibit demonstrating how a large unit would fit on a lot and meet Ordinance
standards. Mr. Becker indicated that larger units will be placed on the larger lots and smaller
units on the smaller lots thus offering more flexibility to purchasers.
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. Mr. David
Gould explained that this application is for Conditional Use approval for a one-family
detached manufactured housing unit complex at 30V Viszla Avenue (Pine Meadows
Subdivision). In 1985 this proposal for 75 lots on 20 acres in a R-1A Zone (which was a zone
designed for manufactured housing) came before the City for approval to be developed in
three phases. The project was large enough that it required DEP approval. The first two
phases received both preliminary and final plan approval. The roadways were built and the
house lots developed. However, for whatever reason, Phase III never came back for final
subdivision approval and has been sitting vacant for a number of decades. Now, a new
applicant has acquired that remaining acreage and wants to resurrect that original lotting
plan. This lot is now zoned Low Density Residential District (LDR) and those district
standards are not the same as those of the R-1A standards in terms of minimum lots sizes.
8
Also, the LDR District requires that the Board grant conditional use approval. The applicant
has submitted a build out plan to illustrate how the lots may be developed and meet the
standards of the Code. They also submitted an elevation drawing indicating what a typical
unit would look like. The LDR District requires that they have a 5 acre minimum site, that
they meet the development standards of Article 9 and receive approval under Article 16.
Staff feels that the applicant’s revised submittals meet the requirements in that this is the
appropriate location for this type of housing (a continuation of a housing style and type that
was started in 1985) and it is surrounded by existing units of this type so there isn’t any
question as to its compatibility.
Mr. Gould discussed the proposed buffers noting that the applicant proposes to use
existing vegetation. Staff noted that the originally designed subdivision did not designate any
specific open space. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feels that what they have submitted
relative to conditional use approval meets the requirements of the Ordinance and
recommended that the Board grant conditional use approval. Mr. Gould indicated that the
conditional use would needed to imply that subdivision plan approval is required and when
they apply for Final Subdivision Plan approval it needs to imply that any development on
those lots have to meet Zoning Ordinance standards.
Ms. Brown noted that there were a couple of lots that do not meet the 75’ lot width
requirement at the 25 front yard setback and asked if that affected the conditional use
approval. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff raised that question under the preliminary
subdivision plan and asked the applicant to verify that. Ms. Mitchell asked the applicant to
address pedestrian access or use in this development. Mr. Becker indicated that this phase is
not a thru street and would have fairly low traffic. The road is going to be six feet wider
than a typical Bangor street at 26 feet. The development is out into the country and he did
not feel that people would walk into town from this site.
As there were no further questions, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr.
Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Conditional Use approval for the proposed
development at 30V Vizsla Avenue, C.A. Strout & Sons, Inc. with the condition that the
applicant also obtain Final Subdivision Plan approval for the development. Mr. Theeman
seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of four in favor and one opposed.
Item No. 3: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to construct a 25-lot
subdivision located at 30V Vizsla Avenue in a Low Density
Residential District. C.A. Strout & Sons, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant’s designee. Mr. Don Becker, P.E., representing the applicant, indicated that this is
an application for Preliminary Subdivision approval. Mr. Becker discussed open space and
buffers indicating that the applicant’s thought was for a 10 foot buffer to meet the A buffer
requirement. Regarding the open space issue, he indicated that the applicant is flexible on
this issue. They have noted the conditional use requirements on the subdivision plat.
9
Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Becker to discuss the open space options. Mr. Becker
indicated that they feel that there are two options that would allow them to not lose any lots.
One would be that the A buffer yard requirement be viewed as the open space and that it be
maintained as such which would be both an A buffer yard requirement for the conditional use
and would also be a requirement of the subdivision plan as an open space. They are not
opposed to this but this is an option. Another option is that they have some lots that in the
corners that are rather large. One of the lots has an area that could be suitable for open
space that would be an unmanaged or natural open space. He asked if the Board was
looking at a nice forested area that someone could hike through or if they looking for a park
where there might be toys for kids or both?
Ms. Brown noted that at least 2 or 3 lots did not appear to have the required lot width
and that there might be in a couple of places on the roadway where it is less than the 50
foot right-of-way. Mr. Becker indicated that information has been provided to Staff
demonstrating that every lot meets the Ordinance standards.
Ms. Mitchell asked where the A buffer are around the site that they propose for open
space. Mr. Becker indicated that they would be on the backs of the lots and on the sides of
the lots.
Chairman Guerette asked about the 10 foot perimeter buffer. Mr. Becker indicated
that it would only be on the rear of most lots and along the side of four lots. Chairman
Guerette explained that in regard to open space, the Board looks to have some space in a
development that has utility for the people that live there whether it be a place to have a
friendship garden, a softball field, a swing set or a nature center where people can go and
hang bird feeders and observe. He indicated that he liked the idea of taking a small portion
of Lot 38 for common space where the residents could use as an open area. Mr. Becker
indicated that there is an area on the front that would be more suitable for more active use
and there is also a natural area on the other side of the drainage area that would be nice in
its current condition. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed that this would make sense as he did not feel
that long narrow stretches of open space were as useful. Mr. Barnes felt that the Board
should not lose their perspective and that the City does need a good housing mix. The City
needs safe and affordable housing and this meets one of the needs in the housing area. Ms.
Mitchell also agreed and indicated that just a forested area alone might not fully meet the
needs for this large of a development. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would be
support the preliminary subdivision provided the applicant comes back with something
definite on the Final Subdivision Plan.
Mr. Gould reminded the Board that what they are approving is only the 9 acres of the
subdivision not all 75 lots. Also, he suggested that because this is Phase III of manufactured
housing he did not see where it warranted putting a buffer in between one manufacturing lot
and one that was approved in 1985 and he would anticipate seeing the buffer from Lot 45 on
the rear line all the way around to Lot 33.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents or opponents. As there
were none, he closed Public Hearing and asked for the Planning Officer for his report.
10
Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Preliminary Subdivision Plan
approval for a 25-lot residential subdivision for detached manufactured housing which is a
conditional use in the Low Density Residential District. He indicated that prior to final
subdivision plan approval Staff would like for the applicant to annotate the final plan to
indicate the requirements of the conditional use approval, to show where the buffers are to
be maintained, and designate the open space. With that, Staff recommended Preliminary
Subdivision Plan approval with those details.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to
the proposed subdivision at 30V Viszla Avenue, C.A. Strout & Sons, Inc., applicant, on the
conditions that were articulated by the Planning Officer. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of
land located on Griffin Road from Government and Institutional
Service District to Shopping and Personal Service District and
High Density Residential District. Said parcel containing
approximately 16.5 acres. Judson M. Grant, Jr. and Mike Longo,
applicants. C.O. # 07-268.
Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the
applicants or their designee. Mr. Andy Sturgeon, President of Ames A/E, represented the
applicant in their rezoning of 16 acres on Griffin Road from Government and Institutional
Service District to Shopping and Personal Service District and High Density Residential
District. Also present was Steve Ribble, Ames A/E, Husson College President William
Beardsley, and the developer, Richard Trott.
Mr. Steve Ribble indicated that this request met the four conditions to demonstrate to
the Board that this zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This zone
change would buffer lower uses from high uses along the roadway; the High Density
Residential portion of the zone change abuts the Husson College Campus and is a compatible
use with the College; the Land Use Policy places the higher intensive uses along the
roadway and the lower intensity uses away from the roadway; and the mix of zoning is a
repeat of the patterns around it which is Shopping & Personal Service District (currently
occupied by Kev-Lan) and mirrors what is going on across the street on Griffin Road. The
lower 1/3 of the lot is a heavily wetland area and would not be developed without some
extensive permitting and costly investment in mitigation. One of the reasons why they
configured the requested change is because they did not figure that it was going to be
developed because of the wetlands and it was easier to make a rectangle rather than to
make a more convoluted shaped to go around the wetlands. Due to the intent of the
proposed High Density Residential District zoning to serve the needs of the Husson Campus
and the intent of the Shopping and Personal Service District zoning to serve that residential
use this parcel Mr. Ribble indicated that it is consistent with the original zone.
Dr. William Beardsley, President of Husson College explained that their residential
housing is filled to capacity. Because a growing number of the student body is enrolled in
11
some of the doctoral programs and wish single rooms, the College is interested in freeing up
some of the rooms on campus. They are proposing to reconfigure their housing on private
for profit land rather than on non profit land because if their enrollments were to decline,
they could be offered into the commercial market and always be filled. They feel that this is
a tremendous opportunity to provide single-rooms for the growing demand for the students
while minimizing their risks.
Mr. Richard Trott, President of Bomarc Inc., the developer, explained that they wish to
develop a service area on the front (in the S & PS area) not only to help the students but to
also defray the cost of this project. They will be leased by Husson and if at the end of the
lease Husson no longer needs them or purchases them, they will be reconfigured for the
private sector.
Mr. Theeman asked how they propose to access the HDR site. Mr. Sturgeon indicated
that they propose a road coming off of Griffin Road thru the commercial area that would be
buffered.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he
asked for comments from opponents. Mrs. Linda Hunter, 1025 Kenduskeag Avenue,
expressed her concerns about the zone change. She indicated that there were two zone
changes in the past couple of years (the commercial one on Broadway that crept up Griffin
Road and another one on Griffin Road and Kenduskeag Avenue that was worked on with the
neighbors and the applicant). There are many reasons why she has concerns: Griffin Road is
the only route between the outer east and west sides that does not zig zag through an
established neighborhood and with the increase in traffic it is important to maintain that
route; a large portion of Griffin Road has been designated for a future school site and that
needs to be taken into consideration; recently the City rezoned a large parcel of land as Low
Density Residential and the major egress to that property is almost directly across from the
property in question; and the Comprehensive Plan indicates that this parcel be zoned as
Government and Institutional Service District. Ms. Hunter indicated that at the time of the
zone change on Broadway and Griffin Road when the corner was changed to commercial it
was stated that the intent was not to have any more commercial development on Griffin
Road. She asked the Board to consider her concerns and added that if this commercial
zoning goes through it will create another transportation nightmare on Griffin Road.
Mr. Theeman asked Mrs. Hunter how she would feel if the entire parcel were rezoned
to HDR. Mrs. Hunter indicated that she would have to look at the plan to see where the
access would be and how many vehicles would be accessing Griffin Road. She felt that this
is the only corridor that can move people from one side of the city to another and it is very
important to be careful about what goes there.
Mr. Barnes indicated that a lot of the economy in Bangor is based upon service and
education is service and this will meet a need for the community.
Ms. Lucy Quimby 1230 Kenduskeag Avenue, spoke in opposition. She said that she
was very impressed with the Comprehensive Plan Update process and discussions and she
12
reminded the Board about the importance of quality of place. She felt that while it is
important that the applicant indicate what their plans are these plans were in flux and could
change rather dramatically depending on the fortunes of Husson College. This neighborhood
has been through two zone change requests which presented visions of what could happen
but they have yet to see what is going to happen and the zone change runs with the land.
There no opportunity to rethink it once it is changed. Broadway is a strip mall and she would
hate to see that go around the corner and start down Griffin Road. Commercial development
could be unfavorable in this neighborhood or in proximity to a school. Ms. Quimby felt that
Husson College is asking the neighborhood to absorb the risks. She encouraged the Board to
stick by the Comprehensive Plan and not alter it for the S & PS change.
Mr. Doug Marchio, 1142 Kenduskeag Avenue, asked the Board to look at this zone
change very carefully. He was concerned about the wetlands on the site as well.
As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Andy
Sturgeon pointed out that the zone change is not that different than what the
Comprehensive Plan shows and with the integrity of Husson College it would be a great
opportunity for the City.
Planning Officer David Gould indicated that this is a zone change request from
Government and Institutional Service District to High Density Residential District (HDR) and
Shopping and Personal Service District (S & PS) for approximately 16.5 acres for land on
Griffin Road. Approximately 6 acres of the front portion (along Griffin Road) is being
proposed as S & PS while the remaining land to the rear is proposed for HDR zoning. In
reviewing the present and past Comprehensive Plan for this area, there were no designations
for commercial use. At the time of the Comprehensive Plan Update, the Board did not have
any interest in commercial use for this area and high density residential use was added to the
Zoning Policy and Land Use Policy and adopted by the Planning Board and the City Council.
At the time of the zone change on the other side of Griffin Road the thought was to eliminate
the linear zoning pattern on Broadway as it was a narrow thin strip extending out Broadway.
This proposal seems to be just what we were trying to eliminate. Staff is highly in support of
Husson College and its development. They have invested a lot of money in that institution.
Staff would be 100% in support of rezoning this parcel to High Density Residential for
whatever housing type the applicant and Husson College would like to entertain. The
concept of commercial zoning as a buffer is not desirable. The applicant’s proposal is not
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Staff would not support the Shopping and
Personal Service District zoning along Griffin Road as it does not fit into the City’s long-term
plan for this area.
Chairman Guerette indicated that he would be more sympathetic to the request if the
request had contract provisions to guard against the kind of development that they may not
want to see there. If it were before the Board in that fashion he would be in support of
something that might stretch the limits of the Comprehensive Plan. As it is today he would
not support it.
13
Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion that the Board recommend that the City Council
approve the requested zone change from G & ISD to HDR and S & PS for the 16.53 acres of
land on Griffin Road – Judson M. Grant and Mike Longo, applicants as set forth in C.O. # 07-
268. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he planned to vote
against the motion. He indicated that if this were a proposal to rezone this area to HDR
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan he would be in favor. Ms. Mitchell agreed and felt
that this went against the Comprehensive Plan. The Board voted none in favor and five
opposed, therefore, the motion failed.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 5: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development
Modification to construct a 53,165-square-foot two-story
building, new circulation and parking improvements, new
soccer field drainage improvements, and reconfigure a practice
field at 1 College Circle in a Government and Institutional
Service District. Husson College, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked the applicant or its designee to make a presentation. Mr.
Ray Bolduc from WBRC A/E represented Husson College who is seeking Site Development
Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approvals to construct a 53,265-square
foot, two-story building which will include a 500 seat theater, offices and classrooms. Other
improvements as part of this project include configuring the existing parking lot next to
Peabody Hall, provide an access drive between the proposed development which will allow
for loading to access the back of the building, provide additional pedestrian walkways and
provide a drop off area for the meeting house itself. The proposed building will be built on
an existing athletic field and they propose to reconfigure the lower athletic field. The new
building will have access to existing water and sewer service within the campus, new lighting
will be provided along the drop-off area that will conform to the new lighting standards, the
stormwater collection system will be constructed to collect water from the soccer field and
from the reconfigured parking lot. They are increasing 94,000 sq. ft. of impervious area but
when the existing detention system was designed and constructed it was done so with
consideration given for future development within the campus for not only the quantity but
the quality. This pond was designed with an underdrain filter to cool the water before it exits
off the property. Landscaping will be provided within the island areas. They are proposing
12% green space where 5% is required thus exceeding the requirement.
Mr. Bolduc indicated that a Traffic Movement Permit is required as part of this project.
The traffic analysis was reviewed in two ways. One way was using the increase in population
to the year 2012 that would generate approximately 216 new trips. It also reviewed the 500
seat theater to see what kind of traffic that it would generate and it was determined that
approximately 167 new trips would be generated in the peak hours. In looking at the two
different scenarios they used the higher amount as part of the analysis. They had a scoping
meeting back in August. In reviewing these materials it was determined that there would be
no significant drop in the Level of Service as a result of this proposed development at the
signalized and unsignalized intersections. They anticipate that the Traffic Movement Permit
14
will be received within the next week. As part of the mitigation for the Permit the applicant
has agreed to pay a $15,000 impact fee which will assist the City with resignalization of
Broadway. Other projects within the vicinity of Broadway have also been assessed a similar
impact fee.
Husson College President William Beardsley, explained that they have a fine arts
service requirement for their students and one of the things that they are interested in is the
performances of fine arts. The New England School of Communication students are
interested in music and there is a tremendous interest in drama, theatre and things of a
creative economy. They are finding that there is also a need for a meeting place at the
College. With the Seminary now on campus and with the pharmacy coming on board the
academic space proposed in this building will be for the science and humanities faculty and
classrooms.
Chairman Guerette asked what effect this facility would have on the community, if
any. President Beardsley indicated that they tried to size the building sufficiently smaller
than the Maine Center for the Arts so that there would be no perception that it was
competing. What they are looking at is to make a theater environment with oversized
control rooms so that 10 or 12 students can be in there learning and experiencing. What this
does is affords the students hands on live experience which in turn affords them higher
paying jobs. They are really interested in focusing on Maine musicians, theater, music, and
dance only.
Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould
indicated that the applicant is requesting Site Development Plan approval as well as a
Modification to its Site Location of Development Act license to construct a 53,165 sq. ft., two-
story theater and classroom building with modifications to existing parking, rearrangement of
the existing soccer field and adding artificial turf to the main soccer field. In 2006, the Board
approved the stormwater detention system to handle proposed development into the future
for Husson College with more room for additional impervious surface as the campus
continues to grow. There were some initial discussions about parking and the requirements
for parking. The Land Development Code does not have any specific standards relative to
schools. The applicant did provide some guidance from Institute of Traffic Engineers that
Staff is not sure specifically applies to the College’s needs for parking. In the Staff’s review
there is in excess of 300 parking spaces within the parking lot and all of the proposed lighting
meets the City’s new guidelines. One of the unique elements of this new application is that
where they have expanded the parking lot they propose to meet or exceed our new parking
lot landscape standards but want to continue the status of the older portions of the parking
lot. In the future as they build new additional parking lots they will have to meet the
standards entirely throughout the whole parking lot. Traffic is not a standard under the Site
Location of Development or the Land Development Code but Staff felt it important to point
out to the Board that it is part of this process with MDOT. Staff feels that all of the details
for Site Location of Development Act and Site Development Plan approvals are in order and
would recommend that the Board grant approval of both applications.
15
Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan Approval for the
proposed development at 1 College Circle, Husson College, applicant. Mr. Theeman
seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion. Mr.
Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Location of Development Modification for the
proposed development at 1 College Circle, Husson College, applicant. Mr. Theeman
seconded the motion, which also carried unanimously.
Item No. 6: Site Development Plan approval for a fill and grade at 1120V
Stillwater Avenue in a General Commercial and Service District.
Stillwater Realty LLC, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked the applicant or its representative to make a presentation.
Mr. Fred Marshall, Plymouth Engineering, explained that this is a request for reapproval of an
application to fill and grade property located at 1120V Stillwater Avenue which was originally
approved by the Board two years ago. At that time the applicant also applied to fill the
adjoining property at 1110V Stillwater Avenue as they were doing some construction projects
and had excess fill materials and thought that they would have enough to fill both sites.
Only the 1110V Stillwater Avenue site was filled. The permit lapsed and the applicant is
reapplying for approval as they have the opportunity to take advantage of some fill materials
from developments in the area and smooth out this site. This is the exact site plan that was
previously approved. The only change is to add another truck trip. Mr. Marshall added that
they are staying away from an existing wetland.
Planning Officer Gould indicated that the reason why this did not go on the Consent
Agenda is because when the Agenda was set for this meeting, the plans as submitted were
not 100 percent in order. Since that time, amended plans were submitted which included all
submittal requirements. As the plans are now in order, Mr. Gould indicated that Staff
recommended approval.
Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the site development plan. The motion was
seconded and it passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 7: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
There were no minutes for approval.
Other Business
th
A workshop meeting was scheduled for the last Tuesday of the month (Sept. 25).
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:39 p.m.