Loading...
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.