Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-06 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Nathaniel Rosenblatt David Clark Miles Theeman Laura Mitchell Allie Brown City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Theeman asked to be recused from voting on Item No. 1 as his employer has a direct relationship with the company receiving benefit. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that Board determine that Mr. Theeman has a conflict with respect to Item No. 1 the Consent Agenda. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Associate Member Brown was asked to vote. Chairman Guerette asked that Item No. 4 be removed from the Consent Agenda and continued to another meeting due to the fact that proper notice had not been given to all of the abutters. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the remaining four items on the Consent Agenda, Item Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 5. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Location of Development Modification/Final Subdivision Plan approvals to revise Lots 9 & 10 in BanAir Industrial Park at 62 and 101 BanAir Road in an Urban Industry District. City of Bangor, applicant. 2 Item No. 2: Site Location of Development Modification/Final Subdivision Plan approvals to revise Lots 8 & 10 in Maine Business Enterprise Park at 103 and 133 Corporate Drive in a Technology and Service District. City of Bangor, applicant. Item No. 3: Site Location of Development Modification/Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 40’ x 78’ building off Hayes Street in an Airport Development District. Maine Army National Guard, applicant. Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval to add a 225 square foot entry way and regrading at 450 Essex Street in a Government and Institutional Service District. Eastern Agency on Aging, applicant. Item No. 4: Final Subdivision Plan re-approval of a Developmental Subdivision Plan for 36 condominium units located at 606V Essex Street in a Low Density Residential District. Green Diamond, LLC and David McDonald DLM Corp., applicants. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board continue Item No. 4, Final Subdivision Plan Re- approval at 606V Essex Street until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Chairman Guerette moved that the next order of business be Item No. 10 under New Business for discussion prior to the Public Hearings due to the fact that the applicant had to sit through lengthy Public Hearings at the previous meeting before being continued because of a moratorium. Item No. 10: Final Subdivision Plan approval of a two-lot cluster subdivision located at 1331 Essex Street in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. John Andrew and Jean Strom Benson, applicants. Ms. Jean Benson, the applicant, explained that she owns a 66 acre parcel at 1331 Essex Street and wishes to subdivide it in order to sell the property. She indicated that she is also proposing to deed approximately 20 acres to the Bangor Land Trust as part of the Penjajawoc Marsh. As no one spoke in opposition, Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Final Subdivision Plan approval of a minor subdivision under the Land Development Code. Any development that does not have any public improvements and is less than five lots is treated as a Minor Subdivision. This project is unique because it falls with in the Penjajawoc Marsh Overlay District which requires that any subdivision development within the District be done as a cluster subdivision. That requirement says that 30 percent of the gross acreage of the subdivision has to be set aside as permanent open space. The proposal in front of the Board 3 does propose 30% of the land as a conservation easement on the remaining lands. At the previous meeting this application fell under a moratorium relative to development in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Mr. Gould indicated that there were a few outstanding issues. The first being the ability of Lot 2 to be served by on-site waste disposal and that information has been submitted. Mr. Gould also wanted to bring to the Board’s attention the Land Development Code requirement that any new lots need to be created at a right angles to the street line. The proposed lot, the original parcel, and the out lot created all have lot lines that are less than perpendicular to the street. Under the Land Development Code the Planning Board has the ability to review that detail and pass on it. The reason for this standard is that typically when people build houses they like to queue them up parallel to the street. In this instance the house isn’t parallel to the street so nothing specially would be gained by the detail. The other element Staff pointed out is that under the Land Development Code minor subdivisions need to indicate 2’ contour intervals over the entire site. Because this is a 60-acre parcel it would be very expensive to do 2’ contour intervals and Staff felt that the Board should waive that requirement. Another issue is that of the proposed conservation easement. As in other subdivision developments that the Board has approved, the applicant has been requested to submit to the City a copy of that instrument as part of the approval. With all of those details, Staff would recommend the Board grant Final Subdivision Plan approval. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Board would be setting a precedent by waiving the 2’ contour requirement. Mr. Gould indicated that generally, the Board would get topographic information to evaluate drainage and constructability. However, a single-family house on 40 some acres does not seem to warrant this. If they should further subdivide this, they will need to come back before the Board with that additional information. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant a waiver with respect to the submission of 2 foot contour intervals in connection with the application. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Final Subdivision Plan approval with respect to the Minor Subdivision application submitted by John Andrew and Jean Strom Benson, applicants, for the property at 1331 Essex Street on the condition that the City receives a copy of the conservation easement. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 6: To amend the Land Development Code by changing nine parcels of land located at 16, 34, 55, & 87 Summer Street; 4 & 16 Union Street; 60 May Street; and 268 & 278 Main Street from General Commercial and Service District to Waterfront Development District. Said parcels containing approximately 4.4 acres. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 07-324. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for a presentation on behalf of the City. Planning Officer Gould explained that this rezoning is part of the City Council’s review of the Waterfront Development area. Recently, the City Council enacted a moratorium on development in this area along Main Street from Lincoln Street to 4 Union Street. At that time a number of Ordinance amendments were prepared and some of which the Board has reviewed and forwarded its recommendation back to the City Council. This zone change is another element of this. There are three remaining blocks in the waterfront area bounded by Main Street, Union Street and Railroad Street that are still zoned as General Commercial and Service District. The City Council’s concern is that as time goes on and the waterfront begins to be developed that some development might be incompatible with the City’s future plans for the waterfront. The existing General Commercial and Service District zoning is largely because of historic use. Historically, the Waterfront was largely an industrial/heavy commercial area with many warehousing and automotive uses. As the City has acquired property the intent has been to convert those uses to waterfront uses that would be high intensity, high activity pedestrian based uses. It is the feeling now that those three blocks should be rezoned as Waterfront Development District such that any future uses would be consistent with the City’s policy in this area. Mr. Rosenblatt asked which existing uses will become nonconforming. Mr. Gould indicated a few of those include an automobile sales lot on Main Street and the U-Haul operation off of May Street. A few of the residential uses and offices which are now nonconforming uses in the General Commercial and Service District will become conforming uses in the Waterfront Development District. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was any consideration given to rezoning them Downtown Development District as opposed to Waterfront Development District. Mr. Gould indicated that there was some consideration given but Waterfront Development District was chosen as it was seen as being more appropriate. Mr. Theeman asked if those uses that would become nonconforming could remain in operation. Mr. Gould indicated that a nonconforming use runs with the property and the use would need to be discontinued for a year or more before it would be deemed abandoned. Chairman Guerette asked if this City-initiated zone change would be setting a precedence because the actual landowners have not petitioned for the change. Mr. Gould explained that the Zoning Ordinance provides for a property owner to petition the City to change zoning but all of the zoning throughout the City is done by the Zoning Ordinance which is put into place by the City. Mr. Theeman asked if the affected property owners were contacted. Mr. Gould indicated that notice was mailed to everybody who is affected and everybody within 100 feet of what is going to be changed. Also, a legal ad was published. He noted that some of these property owners have been before the City Council discussing this. Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not see an urgency in rezoning land presently occupied with no apparent or known interest to redevelop it. He said that it would have been more appropriate for these parcels to come before the Board for a zone change once the owner of those parcels decided the wished to development them. Ms. Mitchell asked what the status was of the Waterfront Development District amendment reviewed and tabled at the Board’s last meeting. Mr. Gould explained that because the Board did not report back to the City Council on this, the amendment hangs in limbo. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Board would be taking this matter up under Unfinished Business. 5 No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the zone change request. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Clark asked what would happen to the U-Haul site should it be vacated. Mr. Gould explained that U-Haul could remain at this location unless they abandon their use for 12 months or more. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code changing the zoning of certain parcels on Summer Street, Union Street, May Street and Main Street from General Commercial and Service District to Waterfront Development District as set forth in C.O. # 07-324. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would not support the motion as he felt that there is no eminent development, the City does not own the land, and he was not comfortable with the City unilaterally changing the zoning on land that is owned and occupied by nonapplicants. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion. Item No. 7: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 10’ x 12’ shelter, a 150-foot telecommunication tower, and antennas at 1765 Ohio Street in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District. Bangor Cellular Telephone, L.P. (U.S. Cellular), applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for presentation. Mr. Bob Gashlin, representing U.S. Cellular, explained that they are requesting Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a telecommunications facility on 2.9 acres of the 57.5 acre site at 1765 Ohio Street. This area is zoned RR & A where towers are a conditional use. Mr. Gashlin indicated that he was requesting that the Planning Board grant a waiver of the 40’ height limit in order to install a 150’ tower. This tower will not negatively impact adjacent properties and it will not cast shadows, deprive the adjacent property of light, air, view or alter the appearance of the setting of the adjacent property. The closest concentration of low density residences is approximately 1200 feet away. The project is located adjacent to the existing Bangor Hydro Easement/power line. The hydro poles are 70 to 80 feet tall and they have co-existed there for many years. Mr. Gashlin discussed the Site Development Plan indicating that they proposed a 75’ x 75’ compound with 150’ of road frontage and a gravel roadway to access this compound. They have sited their project to meet all of the required setbacks and they propose underground utilities that will have no visual impact. Mr. Gashlin noted that they put a lot of effort into making sure that they kept the road and the project out of the wetlands on the site and this project will not trigger the threshold limit for DEP filings. They are also proposing landscaping around the project to help with the aesthetics. Mr. Gashlin indicated that they have provided room for four additional carriers (while they do not have any other carriers proposed at this time), the equipment shelter is a 10’ x 12’ building, with a propane tank and generator for back up. He discussed the proposed lighting indicating that they will have a down tilted light shield so as not to be a burden to neighbors at night. Also, the light will be a photo cell motion detector and will only come on if there is an emergency. The closest residence is the one on the same parcel which is approximately 900 feet away. Mr. Gashlin indicated that the use met the standards for conditional use approval in that: the district standards have been complied with without a waiver; the use will not 6 create unreasonable traffic congestion as it is not a high traffic generator; adequate utilities, fire protection etc. are provided; and the use conforms to the general character of the developments in the immediate area as to architectural style, building bulk, extent and intensity of site use. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if this facility would create any noise and asked Mr. Gashlin to explain the lighting. Mr. Gashlin indicated that the backup generator and their equipment shelter has an air conditioning unit and those two things will create noise. The only light on the facility is the light over the entrance to the equipment shelter which will be a motion detector light with a downward shield to make sure that when it is on the light is pointed in a downward direction. Regarding lighting on the tower, they have done an FAA study and they are not required to place any lighting on that tower. Mr. Clark asked if they were planning to place a bridge over the wetlands on the site for the proposed road. Mr. Gashlin indicated there is no open water only a spongy area and they are not going to need any type of a bridge. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for comments from opponents. Mr. Walter Constantine, an abutting property owner at 1806 Ohio Street, indicated that he was not against the tower but wanted to know if there was going to be a flashing light at the top, if it would affect TV reception in anyway, what the length of the lease that they have on this property is, does it attract electric storms, will it affect the surrounding property as far development is concerned, how close it can be to other dwellings, and what type of design will the building be. Mr. Constantine said that he did not want this to have an adverse affect upon the value of his property. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application from Bangor Cellular Telephone, LP requests Conditional Use and Site Development approvals to construct a 150’ tall cell tower along with a 10’ x 12’ equipment shed. The applicant is proposing this on 2.9 acres of leased land within the Rural Residence and Agricultural District out of a much larger 57 acre parcel on outer Ohio Street. A gravel roadway will come in from Ohio Street to the compound where all of the different huts will be located with a 150’ tall cell tower such that in the future if other providers would like to co-locate on that tower it would accommodate additional sites. There are two specific standards for these towers under Section 165-60 that deals with structures that exceed the height of the district by more than 15 feet. They talk about the proximity of those structures relative to other districts where they might not be allowed and the other standard 165-9 is the standard set of conditional use standards that are applied for all conditional uses in the City. This site meets the test for conditional use approval because it is going in 900 feet off of Ohio Street and they are not within 500 feet of any other houses or properties. In response to Mr. Constantine’s questions, Mr. Gould indicated that it is very fortunate that the height of the tower is only 150’ which is below the height that FAA would require illumination of a tower for aircraft issues. The building is the traditional pre-cast unit and typically is a very small square box. Mr. Gould did not think that there would be interference issues but this is an FCC requirement. Relative to being a lighting magnet, that 7 would cause the applicant as many problems as it would to the surrounding property. Relative to where other development could occur, the way the Land Development Code is structured it keeps the towers away from other properties. However, there is not rule that would prohibit someone from building a residence in close proximity to this. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feels that this application meets most of the standards except for the lighting on the proposed building. Staff did not find on their plans that the lighting is shielded or connected to a motion sensor. If it is shielded and activated by motion sensors, Staff would not have any issues with this and he suggested that because there is some discrepancy that the Board may want to add this as a conditional of approval to make it clear. Mr. Gashlin indicated that the lease term is 30 years, they will be operating pursuant to an FCC License which requires them to operate within a specific discrete defined band so as to avoid interference issues, and they spend a great deal effort and money to ground their towers. There being no further discussion, Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed telecommunication tower to be located at 1765 Ohio Street, Bangor Cellular Telephone, LP, applicant, on the condition that the light that has been described will be activated by a motion sensor and will be fully shielded. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the application for the 150’ telecommunication tower to be located at 1765 Ohio Street, Bangor Cellular Telephone, LP, applicant on that same condition. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Item No. 8: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for a 9-lot residential cluster subdivision located off of Kenduskeag Avenue in a Contract Low Density Residential District. Forrest H. Grant Family LP, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and indicated that this item was previously before the Board at its October 2, 2007 Meeting. At that meeting, several Members of the Board had asked for an interpretation from the Assistant City Solicitor concerning the jurisdictional rights of the Planning Board to take into account the nature of the remaining parcel of land that this subdivision is taken from. As of this date, that recommendation had not been forwarded to the Planning Board and without that guidance the Board may be limited as to what action it could take. He indicated that he would like for the applicant to have the opportunity to address the Planning Board with any new information that might be relevant for the Board’s consideration and he asked that the Board continue the item for further discussion rather than making a decision at this meeting. Mr. Jim Kiser, representing the applicant, indicated that they are proposing nine lots on this 6.6 acre parcel of land which is under a Purchase and Sale Agreement from LN Broadway Properties to Forrest Grant Family. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicant feels that their only responsibilities are with the 6.6 acre parcel. They were in hopes that the 8 Board would have some additional information from City Staff to give them better direction. They have done some refining of the covenants and restrictions to more specifically spell out what is permitted within the open space and the buffers around the pond. They have provided additional information on the stormwater runoff from the site which Mr. Kiser said complies with the pre and post requirements. They have provided a wetlands letter indicating the methodology, timeline, and findings of the wetlands on the site and the indication that there are no vernal pools located within the 6.6 acres. They have also made some adjustments for additional explanations on the ownership of the open space and the maintenance criteria and responsibilities for the common shared driveway. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that the Purchase & Sales Agreement talks about the applicant purchasing two separate pieces of property from the Seller one the 6.6 acre parcel and the other a 17 acre parcel and that the applicant seek subdivision plan approval of the three lots. He asked where the 17 acre parcel is located. Mr. Kiser indicated that the second parcel is at the opposite end along Kenduskeag Avenue. Mr. Kiser referenced a copy of a Review of the Title information from Attorney Christopher Largay who indicated that this 6.6 acre parcel would be the first division of this property and that further subdivision would not be required at this time. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he felt that this was inconsistent with the Purchase & Sales Agreement. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Board needed to pursue the interpretation of the Land Development Code before taking any action. He asked the applicant if they were willing to have the Public Hearing continued. Mr. Kiser indicated that this was fine. Mr. Theeman moved that the Board continue the Public Hearing for the Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Deer Pond Lane, 9 lot residential subdivision, Forrest H. Grant Family, LP, applicant. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Item No. 9: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 2,926 square-foot bank, drive-thru lanes, parking, and access drives at 759 Broadway in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Varnbro, Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Attorney Tim Woodcock, of Eaton Peabody, introduced Mr. Bill Varney, principal with Varnbro, Scott Braley of Plymouth Engineering, Bill Lucy with Merrill Bank and Tom Gorrill, Traffic Engineer with Gorrill Palmer. Mr. Woodcock said that this project is an example of a contract zone change that was well formulated and well designed to achieve a transition between commercial zoning and residential zoning. This contract zone was passed with the full understanding that there would be a gradual downshifting in commercial intensity. The applicant is requesting a Site Development Plan for a drive-thru bank which meets the objectives of the contract zone change as it was passed. Mr. Woodcock indicated that under the conditional use criteria they meet all of the standards for Shopping and Personal Service District; they meet the criteria for queuing, parking, they have obtained a Traffic Movement Permit from the Maine Department of Transportation which indicated that the Level of Service contemplated is satisfactory. This project will require the installation of a four-leg intersection. The proposed structure is compatible with adjacent structures within 500 feet 9 (the existing Rite Aid is next door). This structure was originally planned to be located on the northerly portion of the site which was in a specific restricted zone which had specific architectural criteria associated with it. Even though the building is being located outside that restricted area the applicant has actually applied the criteria to this structure. Mr. Bill Lucy, Merrill Bank, indicated that he felt that this was a great project for Bangor and great use of this property. Being located at this signalized four-way access on Broadway it creates better safety for bank customers and will have good traffic control this a premiere site. Because there will be a means of ingress and egress on Hillside Avenue this also makes this a great site. Mr. Scott Braley, Plymouth Engineering, discussed the Site Development Plan. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2900 sq. ft. bank building with three drive-thru lanes. All of the on-site circulation will be through a single entrance on Broadway with a separate entrance/exit towards Hillside Avenue. The building has been designed to meet the more rigorous architectural standards of the contract zoned parcel in that it will have a pitched roof with earthy tone shingles, vinyl clapboard and vinyl cedar type shake siding. It will be a low- profile single-story building. The zone allows for a 40 foot maximum height building where this building will be 28 feet in height. Mr. Braley noted that this proposal is less intensive than what would be allowed in the zone and under the contract zone change conditions. Mr. Braley discussed the landscaping and green space noting that both exceed the requirements. He indicated that as proposed the plan meets or exceeds all of the requirements of the Land Development Code. Mr. Tom Gorrill, Traffic Engineer with Gorrill Palmer, explained that they conducted a Traffic Impact Study for this project. Currently there is a three-legged signalized intersection at this location and this project will add the fourth leg. There are presently, two driveways that are on either side of that intersection that will be closed as part of this development. There will be a left turn into the site, two outbound lanes consisting of a left turn and a thru right turn from the site, and the traffic signal will be interconnected with the other signals up and down the Broadway corridor. The intersection will operate at a LOS B. The are also proposing pedestrian count down clocks at the crosswalks which indicate the amount of time in seconds left to finish crossing before the traffic starts (instead of typical flashing “walk” and “don’t walk”). This project did require a Traffic Movement Permit as it will generate more than 100 trip ends. The Maine Department of Transportation has issued that Permit, and the conditions have been reflected on the plans. Mr. Gorrill indicated that they are required to make a $15,000 contribution toward the signal coordination along Broadway which BACTS will be conducting. Mr. Gorrill indicated that this project is not going to create unreasonable congestion nor will it create hazardous conditions on adjacent streets. Mr. Rosenblatt asked questions regarding internal circulation and the number of queuing spaces per drive-thru lane. Mr. Braley indicated that there is enough room for the required five spaces by utilizing the lanes and the area back around the side of the building. It would not interfere with any of the parking spaces to get the total of fifteen spaces. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how far apart are the center line of Husson Avenue and the center line of the new roadway and if there any concerns about the movement of vehicles when the centerlines are not lined up. Mr. Gorrill indicated that it was approximately 35 and 40 feet. 10 He noted that they did have some concern with the centerlines not being lined up and they have solved this by running it as a split phase (run each approach separately) so that the traffic from Husson Avenue would flow out while the traffic from the bank is held then the traffic from Husson would be held and the traffic from the bank would exit. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that there appears to be a lot of queuing space that is heading out Broadway and turning left into Husson and asked how much queuing space is being lost there. Mr. Gorrill said that the stop line is going to stay about where it presently is. Mr. Theeman had concerns that this project would be creating a City street between Hillside Avenue and Broadway and thus creating cut thru traffic. Mr. Gorrill indicated that the site driveway was laid out to address that concern. It is circuitous, in that you will need to make a right-turn off of Hillside and then travel down to make another right turn to go on the section that is Broadway then you are going to need to stop and go through the next intersection to get to the left turn onto Broadway. They have designed it to discourage this. City Engineer Jim Ring compared a route thru this site or a route going from Husson Avenue down Broadway to School Street and indicated that by not going thru this site it was a shorter route for motorists to go directly down Broadway to School Street. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents and opponents. As no one wished to speak, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 2,926 sq. ft. bank with drive-thru lanes on Broadway in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. The Contract Zone Change was amended and approved by the City Council in October 2007. The City Council shared the same concerns as that of the Planning Board and motivated the applicant to make some adjustments to the contract conditions dealing with access management. Mr. Gould discussed the conditional use standards and indicated that this application has provided for the adequate queuing on site (5 spaces per drive thru window) and required parking on the site. Mr. Gould noted that this site is required to adhere to the contract conditions for the entire site which include provisions for water quality standards, green space within the parking lot; a driveway that outlets to a signalized intersection, pedestrian access, pedestrian signal phases to the site, and architecture. The plan indicates buffer standards that are above and beyond what the buffer standards are for many other developments in the City because they were done at the time of the contract zone change before the city’s buffer standards were amended. All of the lighting conforms to the City’s current standards as do sewer and water utilities and the stormwater meets the new water quality standards. The traffic at this intersection will have a LOS B and most of the projects along Broadway and Stillwater Avenue are lucky to be at a LOS D. Relative to cut through traffic Staff talked about this issue from the very beginning because there was a real interest on the part of the developers to have access to Hillside Avenue. When the language was developed Staff tried to make it as clear as possible that there not be a straight shot through the site. They have instituted a couple of 90 degree turns controlled with stop signs so there won’t be any free flow through the site. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feels that this is adequate. Mr. Gould also discussed the four standard conditional use standards indicating that the applicant has met them in that the standards for the district have been met; this will not create undue traffic congestion; the site has appropriate utilities; and Staff felt that the use is 11 appropriate for this location based on building bulk and architectural style. Staff felt that the applicant has met the burden of the Land Development Code. Mr. Gould indicated that the proposed plan is outstanding as to how it deals with every standard and Staff recommended that the Board grant them Conditional Use approval with the standard condition that all of the off-site improvements be in place before the facility is allowed to be open to the public. Mr. Theeman asked if the remainder of the lot under the contract zone change is large enough to be developed and will the access become a City street. Mr. Gould indicated that it is large enough to be developed and the access will not be a City street. Ms. Mitchell moved that the Board grant Conditional Use approval for Varnbro, Inc. at 759 Broadway to construct a 2,926 sq. ft. bank in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell added the condition that all of the off-site improvements be completed before opening to the public. Mr. Theeman seconded the amendment. Chairman Guerette gave credit to the applicant for the concessions and foresight to plan this is in such a way that it is going to be an attractive development. He said that he would be remiss in not making a few comments on behalf of those people who still reside in that section of Broadway. He indicated that he had been reluctant to see more commercial development take place in that section of the Street. Mr. Rosenblatt indicted that he felt the same way and he opposed the original zone change because he felt that the line should remain at the Rite Aid site where the fence was and he did not think that commercial development should occur down Broadway. The intensity of the development as proposed is more comforting than some of the things that might happen here and he indicated that he would be voting in favor of the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Mitchell moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval at 759 Broadway for Varnbro, Inc. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 11: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 4,500 sq. ft. warehouse addition and parking and loading areas at 101 Banair Road in an Urban Industry District. Commercial Delivery Systems, applicant. Mr. Theeman asked to be recused from consideration of this item as his employer has a business interest with the applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that Mr. Theeman has a conflict of interest and should be recused from this matter. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4 to 0. Mr. Clark asked the Board if he should be recused from voting on this item as his brother is one of the owners of Commercial Delivery Systems. He indicated that he has no financial interest. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that Mr. Clark has a conflict of interest and should be recused from voting. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 0 in favor of the motion. Chairman Guerette indicated to the applicant that because there were only four Members present voting that they would have the opportunity to continue this until such time as a full Board were present and voting. 12 Mr. John Theriault, Ames A/E representing the applicant indicated that the applicant wished to proceed. Mr. Theriault noted that Mr. Blair Lovejoy was also present. Mr. Theriault indicated that the proposed project is a 4,500 sq. ft. building expansion to the existing Commercial Delivery Systems building at 101 BanAir Road. This addition will be used for warehouse purposes. The project also includes additional pavement to the south side of the site, and additional pavement to the north side of the site. They also propose an additional driveway to assist truck traffic accessing the new building. Mr. Theriault indicated that they are proposing a Type B Buffer to the west side of the property line and reducing the size of the existing driveway. The site will provide 48 parking spaces. Regarding stormwater flow, they are not proposing any changes to the existing pattern of stormwater runoff from the site. They propose to add a small shallow pond to collect runoff and then outlay it via a 12’ culvert to the existing drainage easement to the back of the site. They propose to add 5 wall pack wall units to the outside of the new addition that will meet the City’s new lighting standards. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the Staff Memorandum noted some fill violations and that the Board may want to discuss the status of the wetland permitting. Mr. Theriault explained that in 2005 the applicant completed the permit application for the wetland fill (an after-the-fact wetland fill) but they never submitted it to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). On September 26, 2007 it was re-submitted and they have not heard back from the DEP on it. Mr. Blair Lovejoy indicated that in 2005 they did have a violation and they contracted with Moyse Environmental to do the paperwork. At that time they thought that they had their permit and did not realize that they needed to submit this paperwork to DEP. When he discovered the error, they submitted it to DEP on September 26, 2007. They are now just waiting for DEP to return it. Chairman Guerette indicated to Mr. Lovejoy that even if the Board approves his plan that he cannot complete it until they receive their Permit from DEP. Mr. Lovejoy indicated that that is what he understood. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is an application for Site Development Plan approval to construct a 4,500 sq. ft. building addition and parking area expansion at 101 BanAir Road in an Urban Industry District. As the Board may recall from the Consent Agenda there was an amendment to the BanAir Industrial Park Subdivision to provide some additional lot area to this lot from the adjacent one for this expansion. This has been a problematic site. A new parking lot expansion was constructed without benefit of permit. In trying to get the site to come into compliance in 2005 a new site plan was proposed that would remediate some of the wetland violation and then permit additional areas to be filled as well as remedy some parking issues and buffer issues that weren’t consistent with the Plan. When this latest plan came along for an expansion to the building it was realized by Staff that none of the 2005 approved improvements were put in place nor had any of the wetland permitting, restoration and, other details been done. The plan as proposed will meet the Land Development standards provided the applicant builds to the plan that is in front of the Board. Staff felt it important that the applicant be aware that the plans brought to the Board and are approved is what is expected to be built. As presented, Staff feels that the plan is in order and would recommend approval. 13 Ms. Brown asked how plans get policed to ensure that they get built. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board is not an enforcement entity and has no ability to enforce anything. The mere fact that they are expanding and have to come back to the Board to get approval affords the opportunity to require that they bring the site into compliance or not get approved. Ms. Mitchell discussed adding a condition to the approval that the existing site be brought into compliance before the expansion occurs and at a minimum that any approval be conditioned upon the DEP permits be obtained. Ms. Brown indicated that the Board doesn’t have any jurisdiction to impose those types of conditions. All the Board has jurisdiction over is whether or not the plan before them is in conformance with the City’s standards. Mr. Theriault indicated that up until this application, the applicant thought that he had a wetland permit and was in compliance. As soon as he realized that he did not have a permit and he filed it with the DEP. Mr. Theriault asked that the Board to approve the Site Development Plan on the condition of their receiving the wetland permit. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition that the Board approve this on the condition that the applicant obtain the DEP Permits. Mr. Lovejoy indicated that they had expected to do that. Mr. Gould indicated that it would not make sense for them to go back and bring the site into compliance and then go and remove landscaping and make changes to make it conforming to this site plan. Mr. Miles Theeman, 45 Grove Street, indicated that his employer is an owner of CDS, and he assured the Board that should the Board grant approval contingent upon receipt of all appropriate approvals from the DEP that they will comply with them. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval to the proposed development at 101 BanAir Road – Commercial Delivery Systems, applicant, on the condition that the applicant receive all of the necessary DEP Wetland Permits required for the present situation, as well as, for the proposed development. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Associate Member Brown voted. The Board voted 4 to 0 in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 12: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Mr. Rosenblatt asked that this item be postponed to allow for more time to review the Minutes of the July 3, 2007 Meeting. Other Business Chairman Guerette indicated that as unfinished business there was a request to amend the Waterfront Development District per C.O. # 07-323. There was an item in that amendment that prohibited the sale of liquor during certain hours in the Waterfront Development District and there was a questions raised and concern expressed about whether 14 or not this would affect the Hollywood Slots complex. Upon further study it was discovered that that language would in fact impact the Hollywood Slots project and it was not at all the City Council’s intent to impose those controls. Because this came to the Planning Board from the City Council and the Board did not act upon it at the last meeting the item is in limbo. Chairman Guerette suggested that the Board vote on the C.O. # 07-323 as presented and if it is declined, then the City Council will redraft the amendment and it will be back before the Planning Board for consideration. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the City Council does not want to adopt that amendment as proposed. However, the City Council needs to have a report back from the Planning Board in order to proceed. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion to remove C.O. # 07-323 from the table. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to Section 165-94 pertaining to the Waterfront Development District as set froth in C.O. # 07- 323. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 0 in favor and 5 opposed, therefore the motion failed. Ms. Mitchell reiterated her concern regarding the proposed drive-thru because of the pedestrian nature of the waterfront. Mr. Theeman didn’t feel it was an issue because the use is to be located on a major arterial and the only major arterials in the Waterfront Development District are Union and Main Streets. Mr. Theeman asked if there is a difference between a drive-in and a drive-thru. Planning Officer Gould indicated that a drive-in business is defined and used in the Ordinance. Chairman Guerette noted that there was some concern expressed that at a future date someone could reclassify one of those streets as a major arterial and it was explained to the Board that in order to be named a major arterial it has to meet certain federally regulated thresholds. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Board was comfortable with the concept of a drive-thru financial institution on Main Street that extends down to Hollywood Slots. Mr. Theeman indicated that he would be comfortable noting that McDonald met that criteria. Mr. Gould added that the Downtown Development District also allows drive-thru financial institutions. There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.