Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-04 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF APRIL 4, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nat Rosenblatt David Clark Laura Mitchell Allie Brown Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Rosenblatt asked to be excused from voting on the Consent Agenda because he had a conflict as one of the applicants is a current client of his office. Ms. Mitchell moved to recuse Mr. Rosenblatt due to a conflict of interest. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark and passed unanimously. Associate Members Brown and Barnes were asked to vote on the Consent Agenda. Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Ms. Brown seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The item approved is as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval for a Planned Group Development and construction of a 16’ x 22’ freezer addition located at 570 Main Street in an Urban Service District. Lafayette Bangor, Inc. and Timka, Inc., applicants. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No 2: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 2,975 sq. ft. building for a bank with drive-in use, a 14,002 sq. ft. building for retail use, and a 5,875 sq. ft. building for restaurant use located at 878V Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District. W/S Kittredge Road, LLC, applicant. 2 It was noted that the applicant had requested that this item be continued to the Board’s next meeting. Chairman Guerette opened the Public hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to continue this Public Hearing to the Board’s next meeting. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Chairman Guerette asked Associate Member Barnes to vote on this item. The motion passed unanimously. Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approvals to construct 20, single-family attached dwelling units (ten duplexes) in a Low Density Residential District located at 745 and 785 Mount Hope Avenue. Sites Realty, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Associate Member Brown was asked to vote on this item. Mr. Fred Marshall, of Plymouth Engineering representing the applicant, explained that the applicant received Planning Board approval of the first phase of this project which consisted of two, duplex buildings. This request is to add 10 more duplex buildings. Some of the structures will have a daylight basement because the topography is fairly rolling. The buildings are approximately 4800 sq. ft. or 2400 sq. ft. per unit. Each contains a 2 car garage with sufficient parking for two additional cars in the front of the garage which is more than enough parking for the use. Mr. Marshall indicated that this project is in an urban impaired watershed (the Meadowbrook Stream) and this second phase, because of its size will require a Stormwater Permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). There is approximately 2.5 acres of impervious surfaces and the project is currently before DEP for review. Mr. Marshall explained that under drain soil filters are proposed for this project which means that the stormwater sits on the top, percolates through the soil, a filter medium filters out the impurities, which are then collected underneath and discharged. The system not only filters the water but it detains it. The final phase, when constructed, will require that they obtain a Site Location of Development Act Permit. Mr. Marshall noted that they have also submitted architectural drawings of the units in support of the conditional use application. Chairman Guerette asked about the stormwater runoff from the site and what the maintenance requirements would be. Mr. Marshall explained that one of the challenges of the site is the fact that it is forested so there are no high levels of runoff. The system that they propose is to treat the stormwater on a micro level instead of gathering it all. Two thirds of the site drains ultimately to Meadow Brook while the rest will drain through underdrain soil filters. After the stormwater collects in the underdrain soil filter it either percolates through or, in a big storm, it ends up flowing over an emergency spill way which is rock lined. The discharge will be at or below what it was pre-existing. He noted that this system is designed so that if there are failures the entire system will not fail. Regarding maintenance, there is going to be a homeowners association and it will be the homeowners’ responsibility. When DEP issues their permit, there will be stipulations that there be a maintenance plan, and an inspection plan. If it is found after inspection that those systems aren’t being maintained then they are subject to legal action by both the City and DEP. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how far the nearest point of the proposed development was from the stream. Mr. Marshall indicated it is hundreds of feet away and the preliminary design for the last phase is proposed at 75 feet away. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Marshall to address items 3 mentioned in the Staff memorandum regarding the roadway width, the crown of the road, and lighting. Mr. Marshall indicated there are two instances where the roadway is less than 24 feet one is the entrance and another small back piece. Because they are short they did not feel that it would be critical and that is why they proposed less than 24 feet. Regarding the crown of the road Mr. Marshall indicated that they could meet the specification of 3%. Mr. Marshall indicated that any light that will be shining on an abutting property would not be greater than a 75 watt porch light. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about proposed street lights. Mr. Marshall indicated that they do propose 150 watt street lights that would be approximately 14 to 16 feet tall. Chairman Guerette then asked for proponents to speak. There being none, he asked for comments from opponents. No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals for a 20-unit attached residential complex in a Low Density Residential District. This district allows, as a conditional use, a property owner to develop what is call “attached residential” which is a building that has multi-units that are attached by a common wall with up to six units within one building. Each unit has to have its own individual access from the outside and the overall density of the development cannot exceed 5 units per acre. It also specifies that 35% of the development site needs to be preserved as open space. In this instance all of the buildings are duplex (2 unit) units. Because this does fall within an urban impaired watershed, the DEP will carefully scrutinize their stormwater submission. The applicant proposes to treat the stormwater in small amounts in various locations. This system of low impact, small stormwater infiltration systems, is leading edge stormwater design and whether it is going to work perfectly or not is not known. Mr. Gould indicated that this proposal is in compliance with the basic conditional use standards in that the development meets the basic standards of the district; there are adequate utilities provided on the site in terms of fire protection, stormwater, traffic impacts; and water and sewer service. There is significant acreage to the rear of the lot that will be a future phase so there is no issue in terms of getting too close to Meadowbrook Stream. Staff brought a number of minor details to the applicant’s attention such as the crown of the road. Staff did not feel that this was a defect but advised the applicant that this is something that they ought to consider. Also, the width of the driveway is the same situation. Staff made an observation that someone is likely going to have a car backing onto the lawn or possibly requesting to widen it in the future. Regarding lighting, Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is a good opportunity to take a look at the Code to see if the Board feels that what they have proposed meets the standard. Mr. Gould prepared a comparison between what the applicant has proposed for decorative lights and what the Ordinance requirements are for the Board consideration. Mr. Gould indicated that the plan meets the standards of the Land Development Code and Staff recommended approval. The Board discussed Mr. Gould’s comparison of the proposed lighting and what the new lighting standards are. The Board also discussed the type of lighting fixtures proposed. Chairman Guerette asked if the pole mounted lights would be installed on a timing device. Mr. Marshall indicated that they were proposed to be photo electric for safety reasons. Ms. Brown indicated that in order for the light to be directed down it would need either top or side reflectors. Mr. Marshall noted that the model number they chose has the top 4 reflector. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the lighting element would be exposed to motorists, pedestrians or adjacent properties. Mr. Marshall indicated that they are designed so that one will be aware that there is light but it will be focusing down. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she felt that the new lighting standards were implemented with major commercial developments in mind and when trying to apply it to a situation such as this it ties the Boards hands to not approve something that may be an attractive approach to lighting in a residential area. She asked if there was a way to qualify where this exact standard applies versus what a slightly different standard would apply for this type of situation. Mr. Gould suggested that if the Board feels that there should be more latitude in the lighting standard, then the Board should look at amending that standard. For example, if the Board doesn’t approve this style of light, and because he did not feel that the project will be built tomorrow and the applicant still wants them, the Ordinance could be amended so that it would be allowed. Mr. Gould indicated that there was some discussion about this when the new regulations were going through. Mr. Gould noted that the new lighting standards are working well for commercial projects. Chairman Guerette indicated that the latitude that the Board needs for approval is already found in the Ordinance and he was in favor of approval. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the way to deal with this is to amend the Ordinance to permit this kind of lighting in this situation. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed development at 745 and 785 Mt. Hope Avenue Meadowbrook Ridge/ Site Realty/ Julie Sites, applicant. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval to the proposed project at 745 and 785 Mt. Hope Avenue – Meadowbrook Ridge – Sites Realty/Julie Sites, applicant on the condition that the plan be amended to comply with the provisions of Section 165-81, C., 2, B. Chairman Guerette felt that this would further the issue as the applicant could request that the Board grant an exception. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there should be a motion on an exception. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would support that approach. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant an exception for the proposed lights for this project as stated in Section C, 2, B, of Section 165-81. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 in favor and one opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that with the exception having been granted, he moved that the Board approve the Site Development Plan for the proposed development at 745 and 786 Mt. Hope Avenue – Meadowbrook Ridge – Sites Realty/Julie Sites, applicant. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 0. Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 463 Stillwater Avenue from Low Density Residential District to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Said parcel containing approximately 9.42 acres. Grant Trailer Sales, Inc., applicant. C.O. # 07-129. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Associate Member Barnes was asked to vote. Mr. P. Andrew Hamilton, Esq., representing the applicant, indicated that he was joined by Mike Longo, Vice President of Grant 5 Trailer Sales, John Toic, Vice President of First Hartford the long-term ground lease tenant and developer of the parcel, Mr. Patrick Graham of the James W. Sewall Company, Tim Woodcock, Esq. of Eaton Peabody, and Kelly Disley, Paralegal at Eaton Peabody. Mr. Hamilton explained that this is an application for a Contract Zone Change seeking to change and limit the zoning from Low Density Residential District to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Mr. Hamilton gave a history of the property which was historically used as a mobile home park. When Bangor Mall was developed there was a transition from agricultural use to commercial uses on that property and on neighboring properties. This triangle parcel is surrounded by Stillwater Avenue and I-95 and does not abut any residential use. This parcel’s former residential use has been overtaken by three events: first, the evolution of commercial use in the immediate area; second by the evolution of commercial uses along the immediate frontage on this segment of Stillwater Avenue from the overpass down to the Mall area; and third by the significant change in land use and traffic patterns resulting from the construction and operation of the I-95 interchange. Mr. Hamilton discussed the existing uses along Stillwater Avenue noting that there are five commercially zoned contract zones across the street from this site that include the Little Angels Day Care, the former USDA Building, the Mrs. Inc. parcel which abuts the Interstate overpass and the Parkade project. Mr. Hamilton indicated that this parcel is consistent with the land use policy along this segment of Stillwater Avenue. He noted that there are commercial uses south of the overpass including Leadbetter’s, Northern Mattress and Furniture and a convenience store. The City’s land use policy has an intentional focus on the commercial uses starting at the overpass and coming north. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the applicant is proposing an access drive on this site that will align with Drew Lane. Also, they are proposing commercial use along the northerly portion of this site leaving the southerly portion relatively undeveloped with no structures (1.06 acres of land). He noted that in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan they are proposing well planted buffers, access management with a single-curb cut at a driveway aligned across from Drew Lane, and provision for alternatives to vehicular access to this site by planning for public transit, pedestrian access and bike access from the City’s center to the site. Mr. Hamilton outlined the process they went through which included meeting with City Staff, meeting with the Stillwater stth Gardens neighbors on March 21 after mailing notices of this meeting on March 8. Mr. Hamilton discussed the proposed conditions that include: no warehousing use, no servicing of motor vehicles on the subject parcel, no auto, truck, or heavy equipment sales, no enclosed recreation centers for profit, no external speakers to minimize noise audible beyond the boundaries of the subject parcel, the parcel will be designed to facilitate access by foot, bus service to the site; sidewalks to be installed and maintained from the intersection of the access drive at Stillwater Avenue to the interior portions of the subject parcel, a public transit shelter to be sited in coordination with the BAT Community Connector; a bicycle rack; and vegetative plantings in the parking area. In regard to the specific restricted area which is approximately 375 feet of frontage on Stillwater Avenue, they presented three options for consideration to the neighbors. First was a wet pond or a detention pond, second was a rain garden, and the third concept was simply maintaining a vegetative buffer within that area. The neighbors indicated that they would not want to see a wet pond at that location. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the proposed application met all contract zone change requirements. 6 Mr. Patrick Graham, James W. Sewall Company, explained a concept plan which showed a large anchor store (proposed grocery store) with an accessory retail structure and sit down restaurant. Mr. Graham indicated that they propose to use an existing curb cut which is at a traffic signal controlled intersection along Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Graham indicated that they also propose bicycle access to the site to be co-located with the public transit access (bus shelter). He explained the rain garden concept noting that the entire landscaped area would be completely vegetated with under drain swales beneath the garden and the existing vegetation consists of mostly pines trees and a small section of hardwood and deciduous type trees. Mr. Clark asked how they planned to prevent people from using the Parkade entrance to turn around to enter this site because there is no left turn off the interstate ramp. Mr. Graham indicated that issue would be addressed at the time of site development plan review. At that time, they would also have a thorough traffic analysis done at that time. Mr. Tim Woodcock, Esq., Eaton Peabody, representing First Hartford Realty, indicated that because this is proposed for a grocery store the bulk of the traffic will be drawn from the neighboring trees streets and the neighborhood from across the street. The other uses are conceptual as they have not signed a lease with any other tenants. He noted that if approved and once a site development plan is before the Board it will look different from this proposed concept. Chairman Guerette asked if any one wanted to speak either in favor or in opposition to this item. As no one wished to speak, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for a contract zone change for a 9.42 acre parcel from Low Density Residential District to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District at 463 Stillwater Avenue. This property represents what was the southern half of the Queen City Mobile Home Park which was discontinued at the time that the new Interstate off-ramp was built in 1998. Mr. Gould indicated that the key determinant for rezoning is if it is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and land use policy Since the 1980’s, the City’s position has been that the frontage on Stillwater Avenue in this area isn’t likely to be developed as single-family housing. Mr. Gould indicated that it was up to the Board to evaluate the conditions to determination if this request meets the City’s policies. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what consideration was given to this parcel for it to be indicated for residential use as opposed to commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that this was indicated for residential use in the Comprehensive Plan as a means to put the City in a better position as to how it gets developed. If it had been designated for commercial use then the decision would have already been made and the City would not be in a bargaining position as to how the lot will be developed. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould what the second mandatory condition that talks about consistency with existing uses in the area and permitted uses within the original district meant. Mr. Gould explained that at one time there was a theory that if you had a use that wasn’t allowed in the original district then you couldn’t have it in a contract. Historically, the City has been comfortable with contract zone changes as long as they have been consistent with other uses in the area. 7 Mr. Rosenblatt asked why there was no specific condition limiting the access point to this site. Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that the applicant had come to the conclusion that they didn’t have much choice but to use the one access across from Drew Lane given there is a limitation of access from the off-ramp which controls access to that point. Having an access at a signalized intersection makes a huge amount of sense. Mr. Hamilton indicated that they considered a condition to provide for access management but the Department of Transportation has imposed a limitation on access for a considerable distance down on the south side of Stillwater Avenue from the interchange. Mr. Hamilton indicated that the applicant was prepared to address it with a condition or to clarify any of the existing conditions if the Board requested. Mr. Rosenblatt expressed his concerns regarding traffic and indicated that he felt that the Board had the opportunity at this stage to limit heavy traffic generation impact. Mr. Hamilton offered a proposed condition that there be no more than 3 principal use structures on the subject project with an aggregate floor area for all structures not to exceed 72,500 sq. ft. and the floor area of the largest of the principal use structure shall not exceed 60,000 sq. ft. Mr. Hamilton explained that the idea is that you are not going to have one of the larger big box stores on this site. What traffic engineers have told him is that you can apply the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual based upon the size of the use and that way you limit traffic generation based upon the size of the uses that can be placed there. Ms. Mitchell asked what the ITE Manual anticipated for traffic from this type of development. Mr. Hamilton indicated that he wasn’t sure but anticipated that a traffic permit will be applied for on this site and will undergo a thorough Section 7 review. Mr. Hamilton indicated that because the intended principal use will include a drive-thru pharmacy window as part of the grocery store it will necessitate conditional use approval that will bring into full play the Board’s traffic review standards. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he felt that the Board has the authority to decide that it is an appropriate condition to permit commercial development to go forward as long there is a traffic volume limitation associated with. He indicated that he was not comfortable voting in favor of a condition where the only effective traffic control measure is the MDOT standard. He said that he was not comfortable that the City is being well served by that and the square footage limitation as a way to get at that makes some sense. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Ring to discuss the MDOT thresholds. Mr. Ring indicated that there are two thresholds in the MDOT process; one is 100 peak trips, and the other is 200 peak trips. As the applicant has stated there will be a traffic movement permit required and the City needs to look at what the traffic impacts are. The net impacts are the result of what is generated versus how it is accommodated. Mr. Ring indicated that the City needs to be assured by the traffic permitting process that impacts from this development don’t make matters worse. Ms. Mitchell noted that with the Wal-mart development down the road that traffic will be at a Level of Service D. She asked Mr. Ring what the traffic is like in this area and what another 100 trips would put that section of roadway at. Mr. Ring explained that the Level of Service refers to degrees of delay meaning how long you are going to have to wait at an intersection. A is no delay, the other end of the scale F is a parking lot. The acceptability is a comparison between what is there now and the impacts. If it 8 is below a threshold D then it is not acceptable. Mr. Ring indicated that a condition that caps the total size of the development has a direct relationship with the amount of traffic as does the type of use. The Board discussed imposing a condition to set a Level of Service at this intersection. Ms. Mitchell asked if there was a standard for development that would require the developer to improve the traffic standards above and beyond what the MDOT standard requires. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if it would it be possible to have a condition that says whatever the use is that it won’t result in a Level of Service at this intersection below a certain letter. Mr. Ring indicated that it would be very difficult to determine what an acceptable level of service is at a location because it is different in each and every location. As far as setting a standard for a developer to improve the traffic standards or flow above and beyond what MDOT standards require, Mr. Ring indicated that that would be difficult as everyone has a different opinion about what is acceptable and what is not. Mr. Gould indicated that the contract zoning runs with the property. It might be developed next week, next month, or it might not be developed for 5 years. The Board has no control over traffic on Stillwater Avenue beyond this site and should not try to solve all of the traffic issues on Stillwater Avenue in this one application. Ms. Mitchell noted that at the time of the Comprehensive Plan Update the Board did not feel that this parcel was a hospitable area for residential use. Chairman Guerette indicated that he was troubled by some assumptions that were made that he does not agree with. The first one being that the overpass is by default a boundary between the residential section of Stillwater Avenue and the developed or commercial section. He said that he felt that that may be a convenient land mark to use for that kind of distinction. He said that while the Board did review this during the Comprehensive Plan discussions the Board decided not to change it from LDR to commercial. Chairman Guerette felt that by changing the zone to commercial it would open the flood gates to development along the undeveloped section of Stillwater Avenue. He felt that this was in essence a spot zone and he was more concerned about the long-term and real impact on the tree streets and the residential areas that people will have to travel on to get to this site. He said that he could not overcome those concerns and it was not something that he would want to approve. Ms. Mitchell felt commercial development is a natural fit for this property as the property across the street is Shopping and Personal Service District, and there is on-going commercial development continuing down Stillwater Avenue beyond the overpass. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed contract zone change for 463 Stillwater Avenue - Grant Trailer Sales, Inc., applicant, as set forth in C. O. # 07- 129. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion was defeated by a vote of 1 in favor and four opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the contract zone change for 463 Stillwater Avenue, Grant Trailer Sales, Inc., applicant as set forth in C.O. 07-129, as amended, by adding the four conditions presented to the Board: 1) pertains to the size of structures; 2 pertains to a single-curb on Stillwater Avenue; 3) pertains to impervious surface ratio and 4) pertains to no retail fuel storage tanks or garage facilities and no fueling sales or servicing of motor vehicles on the property. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. 9 Ms. Mitchell asked if the condition in regard to floor area in total will be 75,200 sq. ft. and if it would tip the MDOT review? Mr. Hamilton said there are two other matters that relate to traffic and access management one is the curb cut requirement and the second is the condition regarding pedestrian, bike and public transit. He indicated that the applicant wanted to make it clear that they are trying to begin to manage traffic on Stillwater Avenue. In effect what they are trying to say is that while they can’t do anything about the cumulative impact of traffic they can start to contribute to a long-term solution. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted 4 in favor and one opposed recommended approval of C.O. # 07-129 (As Amended). Item No. 5: Amending Chapter 165-13 – Definitions, Chapter 165-66 - Zoning District Boundaries; Chapter 165-69 Planned Group Development, Chapter 165-73 – Parking Area Location and Screening, Chapter 165-74 –Design Construction and Maintenance, and Chapter 165- 135 D – Buffer Yards. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-097. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the City or its designee to make the presentation. Planning Officer Gould, representing the applicant, explained that this amendment is an update to the City’s buffer standards. These standards were developed in 1991. In 2002 because of some concerns the standards were amended to double all of the number of plantings. There was still interest on the part of the Council to revisit this and see what else could be done. The intent of the amendment is to try and look at the issue of buffers more comprehensively. This amendment has been reviewed by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. One item that they wanted changed was the substituting of a fence or a berm for plant materials. The TIC Committee concluded that they would be in favor of someone placing a fence or a berm but not substituting them for the planting materials. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what process was done to gain input into this amendment process. Mr. Gould explained that several of the area landscape architects were e-mailed a copy of the draft language to gain their input. Steve Ribble of Ames, A.E, and Jill Gilman a landscape designer offered suggestions and ideas. Mr. Gould indicated that some of their suggestions he supported and some of them he did not. One concept was that plantings should be very specific and trees named by type. Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that the City is challenged enough now to make sure the buffers get planted and maintained. It would be adding a burden to say that it has to be X species of tree in X location. The proposed amendment makes some progress in terms of what the mix ought to be by providing ways to deal with projects as they grow in scope and size. Mr. Gould added that in the downtown area and some other developed urban areas the same expectation cannot be expected because there isn’t space available. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was a standard that would set the size of shrubs. Mr. Gould indicated that there is a minimum standard size at the time of planting for all materials. Deciduous trees are 1.5 inch caliper. There was a lot of debate relative to deciduous trees. Some people that thought there it ought to be 2.5 inch caliper trees. The cost difference from 1.5 to 2.5 is more than doubled the actual cost of the landscape materials. Shrubs were never required within parking lots. Mr. Gould noted that this concept was taken from Rockland’s landscape code as they had problems with evergreen trees within parking area and decided to go with shrubs. 10 There is a size standard plus there is a percentage of those planted to be of an evergreen variety. Ms. Brown and Ms. Mitchell discussed the issue of maintenance. Ms. Mitchell asked if the landscape designers suggested hardier varieties to ensure growth. Mr. Gould indicated that he felt that they were trying to pick species that they felt would be heartier. He noted that it was his experience that the bigger a tree is that is being transplanted the less likely it is to grow. Relative to maintenance, he did not think that that could be written in a Code. Mr. Gould indicated that the Planning Office could look at developing guidelines calling for a group of trees that Staff would recommend, and another list of trees that are invasive species that they would not recommend. He did not want to be a position where the City tells somebody to plant a specific kind of tree, then the tree dies and they say it is the City’s fault that they picked the wrong kind of tree. The burden should be on the applicant to keep and maintain the tree. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she liked the idea of suggesting that the hardier varieties be used. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would be happy to do a guideline that people could look at but did not want to put the City in the awkward position of saying that only this works because there are people who have a different opinion. Mr. Gould said that he was willing to give them a list of things that the landscape people tell us generally will work, talk about soil mix and maintenance and all sorts of little details. Mr. Gould indicated that he was hesitant to put that in the written Code. Chairman Guerette asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Jim Manzer indicated that he had talked with Mr. Steve Ribble who had indicated that he reviewed the proposed amendment and did not have any problems with it. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Guerette said that he was not in agreement with the proposed amendment. He felt that it was making parking lots the destination. Because we live in a climate where there are snowplowing activities taking place in the winter time it would put a burdensome hardship on property owners who have to maintain these parking lots. Chairman Guerette indicated that it would also be a hardship for those businesses that rely on a visual sign of traffic in their dooryard as an indication of success and as a marketing strategy. He was against shielding all cars from public view and indicated that he planned to vote against it. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed changes to the Land Development Code set forth in Council Order # 07-097. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Chairman Guerette noted that Associate Member Brown would be voting on this item. The Board voted two in favor and three against the motion, therefore the motion did not pass. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 6: Site Development Plan approval to fill and grade 78,000 square- feet at 402 Stillwater Avenue in a Contract Shopping & Personal Service District. Global Rand, Inc., applicant. 11 Chairman Guerette indicated that this was not a public hearing but asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Barnes was asked to vote. Mr. Randy Rand, of Global Rand, LLC, and Mr. Jim Manzer, Ames A/E noted that they were present to request approval of a fill and grade application. The site is located at 402 Stillwater Avenue (across from the Grant contract zone change site) next to I-95 and Little Angels Day Care. The parcel contains approximately 2.8 acres and the Garden Way walking path is behind it. It is currently zoned as Contract Shopping and Personal Service District and they are also subject to Shoreland zoning. Mr. Rand indicated that this grade and fill activity is in anticipation of their future development of the site as a self-storage facility. He discussed the proposed site development plan. He noted that they have been in talks with the neighboring property regarding a grading easement for approximately 80 feet and anticipate providing the City with a signed copy of an easement. Mr. Rand indicated that there will be no access from Garden Way at any time or for any reason. Their future access, under their contract zone change agreement, is the driveway of the abutting property through an easement. During the fill and grading activity, they will use their existing driveway so as not to damage the abutting owners’ driveway. Chairman Guerette asked how long this activity is anticipated to take place, during what hours of the day, and if they proposed to do any blasting. Mr. Rand indicated that this would take approximately 3 weeks and would be done during normal business hours (probably from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.) He noted that there is visible ledge on portions of the site but it is anticipated that it is not within the areas that they plan to excavate and no blasting is anticipated. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the two areas off the site that were planned to be filled. Mr. Rand indicated that there are two triangular areas that are both on the same abutter’s property. They are proposing this to improve the drainage and help alleviate drainage on the neighboring property. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the easements with the abutting property owner. Mr. Rand indicated that they have a purchase a sales agreement on the lot now and they are waiting for the easements to be executed. They also have the initial letter from Mo Fer the abutter, stating that he has no problem with the proposed grading. Ms. Mitchell asked if they had been before the Marsh Mall Commission. Mr. Rand indicated that they have and the Commission supports this as they doing this in stages to help protect against impacts on the wetland. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is a straight forward application to do filling and grading. This activity is allowed in most all districts provided that they provide a plan. This site is unique in that it is a contract commercial zone which was recently approved. After listening to the concerns of the neighbors at the time of the Molly Lane Subdivision expansion Staff noted them to the applicant who has indicated that all of their activities for the filling and grading are going to take place from Stillwater Avenue so that there won’t be an issue of trucks going into the subdivision, spilling materials onto the roadways or running in and about small children. Planning Officer Gould noted that when the applicant submitted the plans they had letters from two different abutters who expressed their consent for the applicant to do filling on their property. Staff indicated that the applicant still needs to obtain agreements that will run with the property. As 12 the applicant is in the process of obtaining these, Mr. Gould recommended that the Board approve the fill and grade plan subject to their providing those executed easement agreements. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed filling and grading at 402 Stillwater, Global Rand, Inc., LLC, applicant, on the condition that the applicant provide executed easements to the Planning Office before undertaking the proposed filling and grading activity. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 7: Planning Board Approval of Minutes Chairman Guerette indicated that the Minutes of January 16, 2007 Meeting were in order for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Minutes of the January 16, 2007 Meeting. The motion was seconded and it passed unanimously. Item No. 8: Planning Board Discussion of Comprehensive Planning & Implementation Organization & Approaches Planning Officer Gould noted a meeting on April 12, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. with representatives of the Trust for Public Lands to talk about open space planning and extended an invitation to the Board to attend. Chairman Guerette said that in keeping with the Board’s interest in moving forward on some of the proactive items brought to the Board’s attention by Mr. Barrett, he would like to th schedule a workshop meeting on April 24. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MEETING Excerpt from April 4, 2007 Planning Board Meeting Transcript of Item No. 5: Amending the Land Development Code – Chapter 165-13 – Definitions, Chapter 165-66 – Zoning District boundaries; Chapter 165-69 Planned Group Development, Chapter 165-73 – Parking Area Location and Screening; Chapter 165-74 – Design, Construction and Maintenance, and Chapter 165-135 D – Buffer Yards. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-097. Chairman Guerette: Our next item, Item No. 5, is again a Public Hearing and is a proposal for a zoning amendment to the Land Development Code, amending Chapters 165-13 – Definitions. Also, Chapter 165-66 – Zoning District boundaries; also Chapter 165-69 - Planned Group Development, also 165-73 – Parking Area Location and Screening, as well as, Chapter 165-74 Design, Construction and Maintenance, and Chapter 165-135 D Buffer Yards. The City of Bangor is the applicant per Council Order No. 07-097. I will open the Public Hearing and ask the City or their designee to make the presentation. Are you going to do that right from there David? Mr. Gould: Yes, I might as well. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Mr. Gould: This is the long awaited update to the City buffer standards. As was pointed out in the Memorandum, the current scheme was developed in 1991. There was some unhappiness with the result of that scheme that resulted in a change in 2002. A lot of what we heard relative to that immediate and was a very simple change we just doubled all the numbers that the actual space that was allowable for things to grow was inadequate. But there still was some interest on the part of the Council to go back and revisit that and see what else we could do. The intent this time was not to do a simple quick fix but to try and look at the whole issue more comprehensively. How could we improve landscaping within parking lots? How could we get more buffer in some places without overwhelming small existing lots. And those details you’re all familiar with our quick little fix to try and put 2 evergreen trees into parking lots which was ill received by all our landscape professionals in the Greater Bangor area who were then included as sort of sub-consultants as we developed and refined this draft by the City Manager’s Office e-mailing them all directly ensuring that they were okay with this detail. I did point out in the Memorandum the City Council reviewed this at the TIC Committee, the transportation committee. The one thing that they wanted to be changed since we had published this or printed the Code was the piece within alternates and I think it was something that Laura had brought up as well, which says you could substitute a fence or a berm or other things for certain plant materials. Their conclusion was they would not like to offer that as a substitution for plant materials that, that, if people want to do those things they may but they don’t want to see any of the designated landscaping eliminated as the substitution. Certainly, I am open to other questions but if the Board is happy with this we would just suggested that to include that amendment as the proposal because that’s the intention of the City Council or at least the TIC Committee in terms of the final detail. Chairman Guerette: Question Nat? Mr. Rosenblatt: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. David just a couple of questions. You’re right the unanimity we heard from the landscape architect community on the evergreens was, was singular and so I just would, did want to understand a little bit more about the process that you used to try gain to gain your input and to, and to come up with a result that everyone thinks is logical and workable. Mr. Gould: Well at one point in the draft process we actually sent them all a copy of the draft and said do you have any issues with this? I know Steve Ribble, who had, if you go back to the rezoning we did on Broadway, if you remember that, that was about the time when Councilor Stone did not want to approve the zone change until we amended the buffer standards. Mr. Ribble, a landscape architect with Ames, was the representative of the applicant and said that he would sort of help us work through the details of that. So, he’s had some input through the process. I think there, a lady by the name of Jill Gilman, a landscape designer, offered a lot of suggestions and ideas as to how this ought to be done. Some of them I didn’t support. This concept of that, that the planting plan ought to be very specific and name trees by, by type and very specific plants. I think the City is challenged enough now to make sure the buffers get planted and maintained. I think to add a burden to say that it has to be X species of tree in X 3 location is beyond what we’re ready for. I know there are some people that think that’s the way it should be done. I just don’t know that we’re at that point that we ought to, we ought to do that. I think this makes some real leaps ahead in terms of what the mix ought to be providing ways to deal with projects as they grow in scope and size to ask for more. And also making an understanding that in downtown and some other developed urban areas we can’t have the same expectation of what there is available space for. Mr. Rosenblatt: One thing your, one thing I noticed that’s changing is there are a lot more shrubs in a lot of these buffer zones. This sounds like a silly question but is shrub defined. I mean my image of a shrub I think is maybe it’s bigger that what we’ll up seeing. Is there any sort of standard for that so we don’t get these tiny little . . Mr. Gould: All our plant materials and it’s in, it should be right in with what you have. We set a minimum standard at time of planting for all materials. There was a lot of debate relative to deciduous trees. I think we asked for inch and a half caliper. There were some people that thought that it ought to be 2.5 inch caliper tree and different reasons why. When I did research as to what the cost difference is from 1.5 to 2.5 it more than doubles the actual cost of the landscape material from a quick survey of different nurseries. The shrubs is something that we never did require within parking lots. That was something that we picked up from Rockland’s landscape code when they had problems with evergreen trees within the parking lots we said okay we’ll go to shrubs. There is a size standard plus there is a percentage of those that have to be of evergreen variety. Mr. Rosenblatt: Thanks. Ms. Brown: David, when you go back and look at some of our discussion Laura had mentioned that one of the concerns with these buffers isn’t so much the planting as the maintenance after and making sure that, you know, two years down the road, stuff is still alive. How are we going to or is there a way to handle it. Because I think that’s, that’s a really valid point and you brought it up a couple of times. Ms. Mitchell: To follow-up on that, I was wondering whether the, you know, definitely the caliper width of the tree means that its’ further along and probably more likely to grow, possibly. One would hope. And then also, is the specific species that the landscape designers was recommending are they the hardier varieties or 4 something so that would ensure that they grow or is it just they’re the nicest, the prettiest, or something if successful. Mr. Gould: I think partly they are certainly trying to pick species that they think will be hearty and grow. My general experience is the bigger a tree is to try and transplant the less likely it is to grow. The smaller they are the easier it is. But you’d have to set some minimum standard. Relative to maintenance or long-term, I don’t think we can write that in a Code. Now what I have suggested that our office would look at is to develop sort of a guideline where we could say here’s a group of trees that we would recommend. Here’s a group of trees that that are invasive species that we wouldn’t recommend. But I don’t want to do it by Code. What concerns me, additionally, is that should we go and tell somebody plant this kind of tree and then that tree dies. Then they’re going to say it’s our fault that we picked the wrong kind of tree. I’d rather let them make that decision. They have the burden to keep it and maintain it. Similar, if, you know, I don’t think we want to overstep. Our intent is to get things planted of a certain type. I don’t think we need to get into the actual selection or detail or to burden the Code Office even more to suggested that, well gee it’s not a red oak it’s a red maple therefore you’ve got to pull it our and replace it because the plans said a different type was there. Ms. Mitchell: I do like the idea of including the heartier varieties, though, if we already know them not as a ‘you have to use them” but as a “these have been used and they have been successful” type of thing. Mr. Gould: I would be happy for us to do a sort of a guideline, a book that we could offer to people to look at. But even among the landscape professionals they differ as to what’s suitable and what is not. So, I don’t’, I don’t’, really don’t want to put the City in that awkward position to say this is what we think only works because there’s people who have a different opinion. We’re willing to I guess give them a list of things that the landscape people tell us generally will work. We’ll provide them the list of what today is listed as invasive species, things you ought to avoid. We can talk about soil mix and maintenance and all sorts of little details but I really am hesitant that we put that in the written Code. Chairman Guerette: This is a Public Hearing. Are there any comments from the public? I would just ask you to state your name and your address please. 5 Mr. Jim Manzer: Ah, Jim Manzer, speaking on behalf of Ames to some extent. I spoke with Steve late in the office this afternoon and he did review the Memo and he wasn’t able to make it here but he didn’t have any problems with it so I just thought I’d get that out. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Any other comments? See none, I’ll close the Public Hearing and continue the discussion. I have to say for myself that I think this Ordinance change is just a little bit too much. I mean, I think that we’re making parking lots the destination and we’re adding, you know we live in a climate where there are snowplowing activities take place in the winter time and with islands and trees and its just putting an, I think a burden, a burdensome hardship on property owners who have to maintain these parking lots. And for those businesses that rely on a visual sign of traffic in their dooryard as an indication of success and as a marketing strategy and I think that I would be upset having to build a parking lot around that kind of business that shielded all cars from public view. And, I just don’t go along with it. I’m going to vote against it. Mr. Rosenblatt: Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend that the Council approve the proposed changes to the Land Development Code set forth in Council Order 07-097. Ms. Mitchell: Second. Chairman Guerette: Thank you. Associate Member Brown will be voting on this item and if there is, is there any other discussion or questions? All in favor? Any opposed? That motion did not pass on a vote of 2 for and 3 against.