Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-08-07 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Laura Mitchell Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Allie Brown Jeff Barnes 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 Chairman Guerette asked if anyone wished to remove either item for discussion. Mr. Theeman noted that there were people in the audience that wished to speak to Item No. 1 and asked that it be removed. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion on Item No. 2. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the balance of the Consent Agenda consisting of Item No. 2. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The item approved is as follows: Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 24,243 sq. ft. building for use as a Masonic Hall located at 300 Perry Road in a Contract Urban Industry District. Bangor Masonic Foundation, applicant. 2 Item No. 1: Final Subdivision Plan re-approval of a 10-lot cluster residential subdivision located on Molly Lane in the Low Density Residential (LDR) and Resource Protection (RP) Districts. LTI, Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for questions or comments. Mr. John Ryan of 25 Jennifer Lane whose land abuts the proposed subdivision, asked questions about the proposed ten foot easement and if the other residents of the neighborhood would have access to it. He noted that the applicant has already done some clear cutting in the area which takes away any buffer or privacy between the properties that are on Jennifer Lane and the properties on Molly Lane. He also indicated that he was concerned about the types of houses that would be built noting that there are lower cost ranch style houses on the other end of Molly Lane. Mr. Ryan said that he has lost $65,000 worth of property value over the last year and if lower cost houses are built he could continue to see his property value decrease. Chairman Guerette indicated that this was not a public hearing nor would it be turned into a debate as it is a Consent Agenda item which means that it has met all submittal requirements. However, the Board was happy to enter his comments into the record. Chairman Guerette then asked the Planning Officer for a brief report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is a revisit of the Molly Lane North Subdivision that the Board reviewed and approved approximately 120 days ago. Because the applicant did not get the improvement guarantee in place within the required 120 days, it was necessary for the applicant to resubmit final plans for approval to restart the 120 day clock. He noted that the applicant has now provided the City with the required improvement guarantee. Mr. Gould also indicated that at the time of the preliminary plan, some Stillwater Gardens residents expressed very similar concerns about housing types and construction traffic within the subdivision. At that time it was pointed out that the Planning Board is approving the lots and not the kind of house to be built on them. The new open space within the plan does provide some access from across the cul-de-sac to the back of the property which presently is private property and no-one will lose any access. The new plan will provide some additional public access ways from the upper end of the subdivision. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant proposes a drainage channel between the blocks of lots such that stormwater will be able to be drained off the lots. In order to grade the property trees needed to be cut and be cleared. Mr. Gould indicated that the Low Density Residential District isn’t a district that requires any specific buffers within a subdivision. Any property owner in the development is at liberty to have as much or as little landscaping on their lot as they desire. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Final Subdivision approval for the proposed subdivision – Molly Lane North Subdivision for LTI, Inc., applicant, on the standard condition, that the applicant provide the City with a suitable improvement guarantee within 120 days. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Modification to place an antenna on an existing water tank and construct a 230 square-foot equipment shelter on Cleveland Street in a Government and Institutional Service District. Cingular Wireless, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant or their designee. Mr. Dan Pepperone, representing Cingular Wireless, explained that this application is for co-location of telecommunications equipment at the water tank on Cleveland Street. The project will include antennas and an equipment shelter to house receiving and transmitting equipment. The shelter is a 230 sq. ft. prefabricated building that will be placed upon a concrete slab at the base of the water tank. None of the equipment will require any municipal services, there will be no odor, noise, or hazardous waste. The antennas will be placed at the 90 foot level of the tower which is directly below Verizon Wireless’s which is located at the 100 foot level. The antennas will be flush mounted and painted to coordinate with the existing tower. The Planning Staff had requested that a few items needed to be addressed regarding the ground surface, the buffer requirements, and lighting. Revised plans were submitted addressing those concerns. Mr. Theeman asked how tall the antenna is. Mr. Pepperone indicated it will be approximately 4 feet tall. Chairman Guerette, noting that previous applicants have not fulfilled their requirement to fully develop this site with buffers, asked if the applicant was willing to fulfill these requirements. Mr. Pepperone indicated that they were willing to meet the requirements. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this request. 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/Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Act Modification approvals. This is located in a Government and Institutional Service District and because it is public utility use it is treated as a conditional use. This is the third cellular company to locate on the water tower. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff wanted to ensure that the details regarding the original buffers and some existing vegetation will be included on this plan because they were included on previously approved site plans but were never planted. Staff also requested that there be a clarification as to which parts of the site would be impervious and which were to be lawn and reseeded, and a clarification on the kind of motion activated light detail on the self-contained unit to ensure its compliance with the City’s standard. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant has addressed these issues. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the buffers that were not planted before. Mr. Gould indicated that a B buffer is required in that district and is located around the perimeter. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt made a motion that the Board grant Conditional Use approval for the proposed development for the wireless 4 communications antenna and associated shelter at Cleveland Street, Cingular Wireless, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Site Development Plan for this same development at Cleveland Street, Cingular Wireless, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved that the Board grant the Site Location of Development Act Modification for this proposed development located at Cleveland Street, Cingular Wireless, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Item No. 4: Preliminary Subdivision Plan for a 14-lot subdivision located at 1397V Essex Street in a Rural Residence and Agricultural District and a Resource Protection District. Woods of Maine, Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant or their designee. Mr. Don Becker, CES, Inc., representing the applicant, explained that this a request for Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for a 14-lot subdivision located at 1397V Essex Street. Mr. Becker indicated that prior to coming to the Board this subdivision plan went before the Marsh Mall Commission on several occasions. It was the Commissions’ goal to encourage them to place fewer lots and provide a greater distance of separation from the Penjajawoc Marsh to the house closest to that Marsh. The plan has varied from 22 lots to 14 lots. They are currently showing an additional 300 foot setback from what is required in an area that is currently a meadow. The Marsh Mall Committee asked them to try to maintain this as a meadow and this is why they are proposing some open space to be restricted and some not. They also propose to use some of the meadow open space for a septic system because the best soils on the site are on that 300 foot strip. The Marsh Mall Commission felt that would be acceptable. Mr. Becker explained that they are proposing that three of the lots use a common disposal field but that each of the lots will have their own septic tank with a line to the field. They are proposing a three-lot association that would manage the grey water delivery system and field. However, the City has interpreted a section of the Ordinance as requiring that each lot have a septic system physically on their lot. Mr. Becker indicated that they felt that having fewer septic fields within the subdivision was better for the environment. Mr. Becker said that there were a number of options and they would be willing to work out a solution. It was not their intent to create something that occurred for the first time. He asked the Board to keep an open mind as there is no disadvantage to disposing grey water in commonality. Mr. Becker indicated that Staff had concerns about Lot 4 and the roadway grade. He indicated that the Department of Environmental Protection is concerned about wetland impact and they proposed a steeper than 6% grade at the point of the wetland crossing. If this is not acceptable to the City it will require that the applicant apply for a DEP permit to fill more wetland. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Becker to explain the difference between restricted open space and common open space. Mr. Becker indicated that they are proposing that the 5 common area open space is to be administered by the homeowner’s association. The homeowners are going to have certain rights in that area but in general it would be maintained as a meadow as it is the Marsh Mall Commission’s desire for that to remain as a meadow. In the restricted open space they propose no activity now or in the future. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the grade in excess of 6 percent was just at the first wetland crossing. Mr. Becker indicated that it was located before the first crossing in the area between Lot 3 and the upper part of Lot 4 and will be approximately 200 to 250 feet. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Becker to explain why DEP did not want them to place the road where the old road was. Mr. Becker indicated that at first thought this might be the most logical place for the roadway but DEP told them that because of the amount of wetland disturbance that would be required (a significant portion of that old road is wetland) they felt that it would be a far greater wetland disturbance. Because of this they did not pursue this further. Ms. Mitchell asked if through discussions with the Marsh Mall Commission if there was an opportunity for trails in the meadow area. Mr. Becker indicated that there is and said that the Commission felt that that was appropriate for both the homeowners and for potential public use. Mr. Theeman asked how anyone other than someone on Lot 13 and Lot 14 could get access to the common area open space. Mr. Becker indicated that there is an access easement located between Lots 12 and 14. The reason it is located there is because of a suggestion of the Marsh Mall Commission who felt that it is a unique wetland area. Chairman Guerette asked what the affect of these private septic fields would be on the quality of the ground water on this parcel and the adjoining lands. Mr. Becker indicated that the goal of the State Plumbing Code is to make sure that the soils and the design of the system are suitable and that the soils themselves treat the grey water prior to its communication with any ground water tables that are located below. Mr. Becker explained that it is a fairly effective process because the soils in Maine tend to be somewhat impermeable. The longer that it is retained in the soils the better. He felt that the impact is minimal. Chairman Guerette asked for proponents. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for a 14-lot subdivision in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District (RR & A). It is proposed as a cluster subdivision which is a requirement within the Marsh Overlay District. The applicant and designers met with the Marsh Mall Commission on numerous times looking at various development layouts. The Marsh Commission’s primary objective is to provide a buffer to the Marsh. They are not looking at active recreation or other details of the subdivision, they are just trying to provide as much permanent open space around the Marsh as possible. The RR & A cluster developments require a minimum of 5 acres and some maintenance and perpetuity of the open space. This proposal has a 2,000 foot road and the lots range in size from 1.5 to 4 to 5 acres. Mr. Gould indicated that some are wetland challenged with limited opportunities to find suitable sites for on-site waste disposal 6 and that contributes to the size of the lots. A small portion of the road does exceed 6 percent but the subdivision ordinance allows this provided that the City Engineer finds it adequate. There is no public water or sewer available and all of the lots would have to be served by on-site wells and septic systems. The Subdivision Ordinance is not crystal clear in the detail of what it requires. The practice of the City has always been that the applicant needs to demonstrate that there is a site on each lot that will pass a soil test. Whoever buys the lot can develop a system however and wherever they want but our minimum standard is a test pit for each lot. That standard is very clear in the minor subdivision standards. However, under the major subdivision standards a similar specific requirement is not listed. The City has historically required that when a spot could not be found, it would be Staff’s advice to send the site evaluator back out to the subdivision, locate a site and then come back. To date, there has never been a circumstance such as this. If the Board wishes to consider this it needs to be very clear why and for what reason. Mr. Gould indicated that if the plan can be rearranged to demonstrate a test pit on each lot then it will meet the requirement. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would like to see clarification about the uses of the two open spaces, as described. One element that the Marsh Mall Commission didn’t discuss or highlight in their final report was the language that was added about interconnectivity of subdivisions by roads or walking paths. One of the things that the City would be very interested in would be some public rights of access through some part of the open space. Should there be a trail system at some time around the Marsh or from the roadway to the Marsh, it would be nice if there was public opportunity. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould to explain if there was some underlying virtue of having an area on each lot suitable for on-site or on-lot septic disposal. Mr. Gould indicated that there are a couple of things that come to mind and it is very similar to the issue of the common pump station. When one owns a lot the landowner is responsible for the septic system and if it goes bad and it is not maintained, it is the landowner’s responsibility. The issue is then if it is over on someone else’s lot and something goes wrong who is responsible for maintaining it. Another element is what is the test for a good lot. A soil test is one basic measure of what the condition and quality of the land is for a home site lot. There are communities that have horrible soils and if they want to do any development they have to talk about group systems or off-site systems because they don’t have a public sewer system as the City does. Some communities require two workable test pits on every lot but the City of Bangor only asks for one. If there is some common scheme of ownership it needs to be clear what the obligations are for people to maintain them, because the more of those elements that are held privately in common, the greater the risk of one property owner’s failure becomes a problem for someone else. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Ring to discuss the slope of the roadway. Mr. James Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the City has a standard of a 6 percent maximum slope. However, there is a provision for exceeding it. He did not feel that a short stretch such as this (200 feet) would pose any particular concerns. 7 Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Ring to discuss the septic system issue. Mr. Ring indicated that from a technical standpoint a group system can work, if properly designed. However, the elements of a system need to be legally defined and legally shared. Mr. Theeman asked if there has been a requirement established in any other applications that abut the marsh for requesting public access to private open space. Mr. Gould indicated that there is no specific public access requirement. There is a standard that talks about the integration of road systems and walkways and if they would consider that as part of their open space. Privately owned open space does not help the cause for a City- integrated trail system. Mr. Theeman asked if the Board should make it a condition of approval. Mr. Gould indicated that this is something that the Board should look at. Ms. Mitchell asked if the developer thought about putting restrictions on Lot 4 as to placement of a house while leaving the rest of the forested wetland untouched. Mr. Becker indicated that the developer felt that if they restricted it, it would decrease its value. In their application to DEP they have to designate where they expect homes to be built and take steps to having them be built in those locations. Mr. Becker said that final plan will be submitted with a passing test pit for every lot. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the Board’s opinions were in regard to any conditions of approval. He indicated that he would be reluctant to change the City’s policy regarding on-site waste disposal. The Ordinance requirements under Minor Subdivision clearly require that each lot have evidence of feasibility for the provision of on-site waste disposal where public sewage is not available. The fact that this language does not carry over to the Major Subdivision provisions is something that should be added to the list of those things that should be fixed in the Code. Chairman Guerette felt that this was a good suggestion and indicated that he felt that the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to work within the Ordinance and they are going to have the septic systems contained within each and every lot except for Lots 9, 11, and 12 which will each have their own system be piped to their own septic field that will not be located on their property. Chairman Guerette said that he was comfortable with this because they were only proposing this for 3 of the 14 lots. Mr. Theeman indicated that if the applicant would provide a test pit on every lot he would condition approval of this. He also indicated that he felt strongly about adding a condition that in the event the City ever does have a City-wide trail system around the Marsh that the applicant agree to allow that trail system to access the restricted open space. He felt that the Board should start asking for this now. Chairman Guerette indicated that he did not want the applicant to feel that they need to allow access to the restricted space through their development as this was not the intent of the connectivity issue. Mr. Theeman said that the intent of what he said would be through private property and not through the common space. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Gould if the Board had the authority to do this. Mr. Gould indicated that the Planning Board is the authority that says that the open space that the subdivider proposes is acceptable or not acceptable. Ms. Mitchell felt that there were collective issues about this plan that would prevent her from voting in favor of this 8 application. She indicated, however, that she is not opposed to the concept of what they are proposing but how they are proposing it. Chairman Guerette reminded the Board that this is a preliminary plan approval and is an opportunity for the Board to tell the developer what things they would like to see on the plan for final approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval for the proposed subdivision at 1397V Essex Street, Woods of Maine, Inc., applicant on the following conditions: 1) that the applicant supply final documentation regarding the management and maintenance of open space; 2) in the event that in the future a public trail system is created in the City of Bangor that is proposed to cross the restricted open space in this subdivision that that trail be permitted and be placed within the restricted open space; and 3) that the plan be modified to indicate that on each of the lots there is space available for on-site disposal. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell asked if there was a reason why the condition was in the restricted open space. Mr. Theeman indicated that it was his feeling that the common area open space was available to the land owners and should not be part of the trail system but that the restricted area should be. Ms. Mitchell asked if the Marsh Mall Commission felt that there could be a trail in the restricted area. Mr. Theeman indicated that the term restricted area is unique to this application and is not a Marsh Mall term. Planning Officer Gould indicated that a portion of it is resource protected and there is another area that is beyond that. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Rosenblatt to restate the third condition. Mr. Rosenblatt amended his third condition to read that approval be conditioned on the plan being modified to depict on-site disposal on each of the lots in the subdivision. Mr. Becker indicated that the applicant agreed with these conditions. Ms. Mitchell still had questions regarding pedestrian access to the proposed restricted area. Mr. Jim Ring indicated that the Marsh Mall Commission has not identified any definite areas but there clearly is interest in where trails go and there are ordinance changes that allow limited types of trail or pathways in a resource protection area. He indicated that this area is still some distance from the Marsh. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion. Item No. 5: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan/Site Location of Development Permit to construct a 50,000 square-foot grocery store, a 7,500-square-foot restaurant, and an 8,000 square-foot retail building at 461 Stillwater Avenue in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Triangle Center, LLC, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant or their designee to make a presentation. Attorney Tim Woodcock represented Triangle Center LLC, and introduced Mr. John Toic of First Hartford which owns Triangle Center LLC, Sandi Deschaine, Traffic Engineer with James W. Sewall Company, Patrick Graham, Engineer, with James W. Sewall, and Mike Longo, representing the property owner along with his attorney P. Andrew Hamilton. Mr. Woodcock indicated that the applicant is requesting Conditional 9 Use, Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approvals at 461 Stillwater Avenue. The applicant was before the Board in March when it applied for and was granted a contract zone change for this site. Shaw’s is to be the major tenant and there will be two other structures on the site; a quality retail center, and a restaurant. At this time, they do not know who will be occupying those buildings. Attorney Woodcock indicated that they feel that this is a neighborhood facility. The conditional use is triggered by the drive- thru pharmacy use of the grocery store building. He discussed the criteria under Section 165-101D (4) indicating that there will be adequate queuing space for vehicles without restricting movements on the site, and the four standard criteria have all been met. Regarding traffic, they have applied for and received, from the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT), a Traffic Movement Permit for this project. They project that most of the traffic using this site will come from the south and they don’t anticipating that this project will contribute much traffic to the north. Mr. Woodcock discussed the applicant’s desire to tie this project into the public transportation system. Sandi Deschaine, Traffic Engineer, worked very closely with Joe McNeil of the Bangor Area Transit Service. As part of the Contract Zone Change conditions, a bus stop on Stillwater Avenue near Shaw’s with a covered area, a bike rack and a pathway will take pedestrian traffic from the sidewalk directly to the grocery store. Mr. Woodcock indicated that this is an advantage to the transit system because it would be the only grocery store in the City set up this way. They are proposing their access to align with Drew Lane which will be controlled by a traffic signal. There will be some widening of Stillwater Avenue to accommodate traffic movement to ensure a good flow of traffic. They have preserved a green area that will remain in its natural condition that will be used to catch water and take it through the stormwater system. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was a copy of the Traffic Movement Permit available. Ms. Sandi Deschaine indicated that a copy of this was sent to City Staff and all of the conditions of the Permit, in terms of the off-site improvements, were noted in the Staff Memorandum. Mr. Patrick Graham, Project Manager with James W. Sewall Company, explained the Site Development Plan. He indicated that they consider this to be a neighborhood type of project. There will be three buildings on the site, the largest being the Shaw’s grocery store. Associated with those three buildings there is an accessory parking area which meets all of the City’s requirements in terms of the number of spaces, handicap spaces, and loading zones. The impervious surface ratio for the site is approximately .64 which is less than the contract condition of .65. Vehicular access will be through the signal controlled intersection on Stillwater Avenue. Pedestrian access will be through existing sidewalks along Stillwater Avenue with bicycle and mass transit accommodations. For handicap customers they propose an ADA ramp from the transit location up to the major sidewalk to access the grocery store and the accessory buildings within the development. There will be a drive-thru pharmacy as part of the Shaw’s building and there will be two drive-thru lanes (one next to the building and the other with a pneumatic tube type of system) that will go around the building. Mr. Graham indicated that the lighting and landscaping meet all of the City’s requirements. There are no rear or side buffers, only front buffers as the site is bounded by Interstate 95 and the Interstate off-ramp. They have shown a B buffer and are trying to 10 maintain as much existing vegetation as possible. Regarding stormwater, there will be a network of catchbasins throughout the parking lot, as well as, an underdrain swale that will capture a large portion of the front part of the parking lot. All of that will be directed into an underground storage system consisting of a ten foot diameter corrugated metal pipe that will be underneath the parking lot. The pipe acts as an underground detention pond so the stormwater that goes in will discharge into that and provide for water quality treatment and provide additional storage volume for water quantity treatment. The discharge line that will come out of those underground structures will then come through the front of the site and then run down along Stillwater Avenue through a storm drainage line which will be adjacent to the sidewalk. There is an existing stormwater ditch that runs along Stillwater Avenue and discharges into a 24” culvert that then goes underneath Stillwater and out to the marsh area. Mr. Graham indicated that they worked with the City Engineering staff to make sure that the proposed development and stormwater system will decrease the peak stormwater flow from the existing so the post development flows off the site will be less than what is currently there. Mr. Graham discussed the Site Location of Development Act Permit application and indicated that in terms of visual quality and scenic character that the proposed development is consistent with the surrounding development and in particular the Parkade site. In terms of soils and wetlands a soil survey was done are there no wetlands on the site. The site will have public water and sewer service. Mr. Clark asked where the proposed loading docks are and if this conflicted with the drive-thru traffic. Mr. Graham explained that they have provided an extra width of pavement for the drive-thru lanes so they would have suitable clearance and not be impeded by any trucks at the docks. Mr. Clark asked about the access off of the Stillwater Avenue off-ramp. Mr. Graham indicated that there are no left-hand turns allowed onto Stillwater Avenue and this is something that they do not have any control over. Ms. Sandi Deschane, indicated that this is a question that she had to address in her application to MDOT because it required showing the patterns that people are going to take to get to the site. For people coming from the north she indicated that half of them would get off at Hogan Road and travel down Stillwater Avenue with the other half going into the Parkade lot, doing a u-turn, and then come out. She did not model anybody making the illegal left turn. Mr. Clark indicated that he has seen people make the illegal left turn and enter The Avenue site to turn around and head back up Stillwater Avenue, thus blocking up that parking lot. Mr. Clark felt that people will want to be able to take the most direct route. He asked if there is a way to make an exit off of the ramp. Ms. Deschaine indicated that a cut off cannot be made on the off ramp. She indicated that in her model for the supermarket use they project 100 percent of the primary trips (the people who are just making a stop for the supermarket) are coming from the tree streets. (The uses for the other buildings will be less than 100 trips total in the peak hour.) Ms. Mitchell asked if there would be a separate lane created for the buses stopping on Stillwater Avenue at the bus stop and if the interior of the site would be marked with pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian access. Ms. Deschaine indicated that after the 11 improvements are made there will be three lanes in that area (two remaining lanes with the bus stopped). For the speed and geometry on Stillwater Avenue having a pull off does not make sense as it would make it difficult for the bus to get back onto Stillwater Avenue. It would be better for the bus to stop in the right-hand lane and have traffic go around. Ms. Deschaine said that the interior of the site will be marked. Mr. Theeman noted that Staff requested that the parking spaces directly across from the pharmacy drive-thru be eliminated and asked if this had been done. Mr. Graham indicated that they have been eliminated. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the loss of so many fine trees. Mr. Graham indicated that they tried very hard to save as many trees as possible. One of the requirements that MDOT made for off-site improvements included widening of Stillwater Avenue which necessitated the removal of those trees. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that in one of the submissions there was a recommendation that one of the off-site improvements include the construction of an additional entrance to the Parkade Shopping Center and asked if this is was still being proposed. Ms. Deschaine explained that Federal Highways did not want that to happen. The only way that they would go forward with that was to put a control of access along Stillwater Avenue for the rest of the site. That is no longer being considered. Mr. Rosenblatt had concerns about the number of peak trips and that 100 percent of the traffic for Shaw’s is going to be coming from the south and not using the interstate. Ms. Deschaine explained that it would be 100 percent of the primary trips which are the trips that are going from home to the supermarket turning around and go back home. There are three types of trips, one where someone picks up some bread on the way home from work and another is one that goes directly to the shopping center and back home. The third type is called a “pass by” trip which doesn’t add any traffic to the main road and are only people that are passing by on Stillwater already. This would be the case there someone did not intend to stop but they saw the sign and it jogged their memory to stop. Mr. Rosenblatt asked of the 680 trips how many are going to be approaching the site from the north and how many from the south. Ms. Deschaine explained that the model indicates 78 primary trips from the south and 72 back to the south for all of the uses combined; 7 straight in and straight back on Drew Lane, 14 coming from the north and 12 going back to the north. Mr. Theeman asked what the distance was between the traffic light at Shaw's to the traffic light at Parkade. Ms. Deschaine indicated that it was approximately 700 feet. Chairman Guerette expressed his concern with traffic from this proposal because the people who come off the Parkade ramp cannot access this site and people are unlikely to drive to the Hogan Road exit to get to this site. He asked what information was gathered either by marketing surveys, focus groups, or neighborhood meetings to show that the residents favored increased traffic in their neighborhood. Ms. Deschaine indicated that she did not think that there were any marketing surveys done among the people who live on the tree streets. However, she did not believe that there was any public comment when they came in for a zoning change for this location. She felt it was because not many people really objected to having a supermarket within walking distance of their house. She indicated that 12 that the supermarket based its choice of this site based on marketing data which suggested that most of their clients are going to be coming out of those tree street neighborhoods. Chairman Guerette indicated that there were 12 or 13 people who spoke in opposition at the public hearing for the zone change about the potential generation of traffic in their neighborhoods and asked if the applicant had taken that into account. Mr. John Toic with First Hartford Realty and Triangle Center LLC, said that he did not recall any public opposition at the zone change hearing. In answer to the question about whether or not there was a market study conducted, he indicated that Shaw’s does maintain proprietary pin data as to the location of the residents that shop their stores. They do those through the use of their Shaw’s cards which shoppers use for discounts. Great consideration was given to the location of this facility by this grocery store and he did not think that anybody would assume it reasonable for them to want to move so far south from their existing location if in fact, the majority of their shoppers were not coming from destinations south. They have assured them the reason for wanting to undertake such a move is because their market base lies south their present location. Attorney Woodcock indicated that most people who shop would never drive across town to go the supermarket but would go to their local supermarket. He would challenge the Board to think of another structure this size in a location like this that would be more neighborhood oriented. He noted that the Board concluded in March it was appropriate to change this to Contract Shopping and Personal Service District and it now has an opportunity to approve a project that by its very nature is likely to draw on the most immediately adjacent neighborhoods to the south. Chairman Guerette asked if there were comments from proponents. Attorney Andy Hamilton indicated that he would like to credit City Staff for a lot of these advancements. He indicated that he represented Grant Trailer Sales as the property owner who is the ground lease landlord to the tenant which is Bangor Triangle, LLC, which will then sublease to Shaw’s Supermarket. Mr. Hamilton said that in discussions with Staff, it would pointed out that they needed to learn from what has taken place in the Stillwater corridor and improve the situation. He felt that this was one of the best uses for this location. He agreed with the presentation that had been made, he reviewed the materials that have been provided by the tenant against the standards for Site Location of Development Act and the Bangor Land Development Code and felt that this project met all of the requirements. Chairman Guerette asked for opponents. Seeing none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Mr. David Gould indicated that this application is for Conditional Use, Site Development Plan, and Site Location of Development Act permit approvals. The proposal is to construct a 50,000 grocery store, a 7,500 sq. ft. restaurant, and an unnamed 8,000 sq. ft. retail building located at 461 Stillwater Avenue in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Many of the development standards that this project meets are addressed with the contract zone change standards which are tighter standards than would be in a typical Shopping and Personal Service District. This project complies with the new lighting standards and new buffer standards. It is completely surrounded by 13 roadway such that there aren’t any rear of side yards in the project which helps to get a B buffer as a requirement around the entire site. The two corners will largely be left as they are and some of the pavement will be taken out from the prior use. Staff has worked weeks with the applicant’s representative to bring this into compliance. The parking spaces originally located adjacent to the drive-up have been eliminated from the site. Planning Officer Gould indicated that if the Board finds that this meets the conditional use standards that they attach a condition to require the completion of all the off-site improvements prior to opening to the public. One other detail staff has had concerns with is the pedestrian crossing from Drew Lane. When Parkade was built and a signal was put in at Drew Lane there was a provision made for pedestrian signals and a cross walk across Stillwater Avenue. Now that they have built the new site entrance drive across from Drew Lane, it provides a somewhat awkward off-set between where that pedestrian crossing is and where the new roadway is. The current plans suggest that this will not be fixed until some sidewalk system gets built on Drew Lane or Stillwater Avenue. Staff is concerned that that does not meet the needs of people that may live in the neighborhood who will walk up Drew Lane and want to come across the street to the shopping center. In the MDOT process there will be actual detailed construction plans of all the off-site improvements. At that time, the engineering and the planning offices would like the opportunity to ensure that any pedestrians coming out of Stillwater Gardens will get safe access across Stillwater Avenue. Even though it may require the movement of some of the existing facilities, Staff does not feel that they should wait until a sidewalk gets built on the other side of Stillwater Avenue or on Drew Lane itself. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff is comfortable that all of the details of the Site Development Plan, the conditional use standards and the site location of development act details are complete and recommended that the Board grant the applicant approval of all three of these with two conditions: 1) that the City get to see the final construction plans for the off-site details and 2) that all of the off-site improvements are in place before the stores and development are open to the public. Ms. Deschaine indicated that two of the off-site improvements are items that were contracted to do by the City of Bangor as part of the Wal-Mart site permit and those will only be built if needed within 5 years. She requested that the condition be limited to just the off- site improvements that are to be done for this project which are the two that are on the Parkade side of the road (the widening above and below the Parkade site on the southbound side). Regarding the two lane widenings that are to be undertaken by the City, they have agreed to do those in their traffic movement permit if they need to be built and they will contribute their proportion of the trips that are going through that intersection. They may never need to be built so if this permit is conditioned on all of those approvals and then they never get built. She asked how this site would be allowed to be opened. Mr. Jim Ring indicated that this is referred as other mitigation in the Traffic Movement Permit. He suggested that the condition for approval be the very same conditions and improvements as required by the MDOT permit which does have the provision about one lane widening which may or may not be necessary. All of the other improvements that are attached directly to this project are in the MDOT permit and should be included here. 14 Chairman Guerette asked if the pedestrian crossing at Drew Lane is mentioned in the MDOT permit. Mr. Graham explained that the reason it was not shown on the site plan is that they do not have the property rights to show an extension of the sidewalk. They would be agreeable to including this if that is something that is part of the widening and improvements that they work out with MDOT as part of the approved plans. Ms. Mitchell asked why it would or would not be built. Mr. Ring explained that every project that is a successor to Wal-Mart project in the MDOT Traffic Permit will see the same reference (that if it is needed). When an applicant does a traffic analysis for an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit (TMP) they have to take into account all traffic that is previously permitted even through it may not be built. The TMP for the Widewaters Project was permitted in anticipation of the Wal-mart Supercenter going in which did not occur (it relocated further down Stillwater Avenue). The trip generation from what has been approved for the Widewaters site is a much smaller project than that approved in the TMP. There are about 500 more trips approved that probably won’t occur. It is the City’s and MDOT’s position that even through they don’t anticipate that those 500 trips will be generated, they will review the traffic after all of the other improvements are done and if there is a need based on level of service they will be built (basically an extension of the merge lane coming in southbound on Broadway). It is something that the City has committed to under separate agreement (not the developers) and this project would pay a proportionate share of that if it is deemed necessary. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Conditional Use Approval to the proposed development at 461 Stillwater Avenue, Triangle Center LLC, on the condition that the applicant complete the items listed in the MDOT Traffic Permit as on-site mitigation and as off-site mitigation not including the items listed as other mitigation before the opening of the facility. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell asked where the Drew Lane sidewalk crossing falls. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that it is not in there. Ms. Deschaine explained that that would come at the time that the City Engineer gets a chance to review the construction plans for the off-site mitigations. They would be able to put something in there. Part of the reason why they did not want to put this cross walk in right away and show it on the plans is because right now they have two choices; they can have a cross walk going to no landing area at all on the Drew Lane side or they could do a skewed cross walk which is a longer distance for pedestrians to walk across Stillwater Avenue. She indicated that they would rather wait until they can square it off to either a landing pad or preferably to a sidewalk on the other side. She also noted that the applicant does not have any ownership of that property to install the sidewalk. Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Site Development Plan for the proposed development at 461 Stillwater Avenue, Triangle Center, LLC, on the those same conditions. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Site Location of Development Permit for the proposed 15 development at 461 Stillwater Avenue, Triangle Center, LLC, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion. Ms. Mitchell requested that the City work on the sidewalk issue so that the crosswalk could be put in place as soon as possible. OLD BUSINESS Item No. 6: Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to extend Commercial and LaSalle Drives, add two lots in a Shopping and Personal Service District and fourteen lots in a Low Density Residential District. Judson M. Grant, Jr., applicant. Chairman Guerette noted that the Public Hearing for this item was opened and closed at a prior meeting. Ms. Shelly Lizotte from Ames AE explained that this proposed subdivision is for expansion and extension of LaSalle and Commercial Drives. The issues that they needed to clear up included open space and traffic issues on Broadway. The site visit conducted allowed the Board to see more information regarding traffic and the new entrance onto Broadway. Ms. Lizotte discussed with the Board a map indicating the existing and proposed open space areas within the subdivision. Chairman Guerette thanked everyone associated with the site visit. He indicated that it was very productive to be there to view such an expansive area in a large growing neighborhood. He expressed his concern for the overall lack of open space planning for that neighborhood. He was concerned that there wasn’t a ball field in sight. He noted that he was also concerned about the undeveloped City-owned lot that sits in the middle of the development as it would seem that in a neighborhood of that size there would be a number of children who would benefit from having a place to play. In regard to the existing open space, it provides a wonderful buffer between the commercial development and the residential neighborhood, as well as being a wonderful wildlife habitat. There was evidence of all kinds of birds and small animals. Another concern he had was whether the extension of Commercial Drive would severely affect movement of animals from the upland area down to that wet boggy swale. Mr. Theeman agreed and indicated that he hoped they could solve the problem of how animals will be able to cross that roadway without walking on pavement. He indicated that the lack of an open space plan is troubling to him and he felt that there should be a broader view of the use of the vast land area there. Ms. Lizotte indicated that the Subdivision Ordinance does not provide a description of what the use of open space is to be. It merely provides for them to set aside a certain percentage of the area of the subdivision and developers don’t generally create areas that are going to have to be maintained in the future. Chairman Guerette indicated that the ordinance says that open space has to be satisfactory to the Planning Board which gives the Board a lot of discretion in deciding what should or should not be acceptable. The Board doesn’t want to make any wholesale changes 16 but because of recent interest in the creations of a trails system at the City Council Level more attention is being given to open space. In many cases open space in developments have been allowed on unusable land such as detention ponds, or areas that are undevelopable because it is too rocky or too steep. The Board wants to change that. He indicated that this applicant has engaged the Board in discussions about this new kind of direction. Ms. Lizotte agreed to the usefulness of the open space area and added that there are many different points of view as to what is useful to different people in different parts of their lives. Mr. Michael Longo representing Grant Trailer Sales, Inc. noted that they have a parcel which is approximately 3 or 4 acres on Judson Boulevard which has been set aside for a possible City park. Approximately 7 or 8 years ago there were some neighbors who got together that wanted the City to take over that parcel and at that time the City wasn’t able to or willing to do that. That parcel still remains and they would entertain a park area for the neighborhood and would entertain suggestions as to open area. The open space in this subdivision expansion is different in nature and would be very difficult to make into a park. Mr. Theeman asked if they had given any thought to creating an under road access to connect the two habitat areas. Mr. Longo indicated that there has been some consideration and the size of the culvert will enable the habitat to cross from one side to the other. Mr. Theeman asked if they had an overall scheme for the development of this area and asked if they could share this with the Board as part of this application so that they could get some sense of what it will all look like. Mr. Longo indicated that economic times are probably the reason they have not seen the whole development yet. Mr. Longo indicated that from the Burleigh Road out Broadway their plan is for commercial along the front. There is a natural divide with the wetland which serves as a great buffer between residential and commercial and that has worked for some 25 to 30 years. They most likely propose single family residential behind this. At some point, they will probably ask for a small addition (25 to 30 units) to the mobile home park which now has in excess of 370 permitted spaces. If this occurs, this will end the development on this side of Broadway. Ms. Mitchell asked if the alignment of Commercial Drive to meet with LaSalle Drive is going to serve the remainder of the land that they want to develop with single-family housing or if they anticipated needing additional drives for the commercial development. Mr. Longo indicated there should not be another crossing of the wetland. They anticipate that LaSalle Drive will extend further out and if there is more commercial development out Broadway there will have to be access for that development but it would not cross the wetland. Ms. Lizotte added that any further commercial development beyond Commercial Drive would more than likely be served by another road coming off of Commercial Drive rather than accessing Broadway directly. As far as the culvert crossing, that area is more of a high point in the drainage watershed. The only reason why the culverts are necessary at this point is that at times the water level will fluctuate there. They propose two 30 inch culverts even though that size is not necessary for the smaller animals to cross under. Mr. Theeman did not feel that the culvert was the best way for wildlife to gain access. She indicated that they 17 could possibly look at something that would have a natural channel bottom that could be considered before the final plan stage. John Theriault from Ames A/E traffic engineer indicated that he had done a traffic impact study for this project. They did traffic counts at the intersection of Judson Boulevard th and Burleigh Road and Broadway on July 11 for the weekday morning and evening peak hours. They have an MDOT Permit for 57 house lots off of Judson Boulevard, 50 mobile home lots that will be accessed off of Judson Boulevard and then 54 residential houses to be built off of Commercial Drive and LaSalle Drive. Off of Judson Boulevard, 40 of those 54 house lots have been completed. Those 40 house lots were included in the traffic counts of Judson Boulevard. He included the 50 approved mobile home lots and the 9 commercial lots as well. He used the ITE trip generation manual to develop the trips. He took the traffic that they counted, seasonally adjusted it for and add a 2% growth rate to represent 2008 traffic volumes. He took all of the counts from that development and added it to Burleigh Road and Broadway, Judson Boulevard and Broadway, the two commercial entrances off of Broadway and the intersection of the future Commercial Drive. He did a Level of Service analysis of each of those intersections and found that the traffic from development has very little impact on the intersection of Broadway and Burleigh and it was operating at a Level of Service C and will continue to do so. The commercial drives are operating at a level of C during the morning and level of service D in the evening. At full build out – Judson Boulevard and Commercial Drive will experience delays during the morning and evening which is not uncommon for an unsignalized intersection. He also did other scenarios using the roadway improvements (developing a three lane section from Commercial Drive all the way down to Burleigh Road) that were required under the DEP permit for the residential expansion of Judson Heights. Mr. Theriault indicated that everything would operate at a level of Service B and C for the intersections. Mr. Theriault indicated that they are proposing to complete those improvements in two phases. Phase I would make improvements just north of Judson Boulevard all the way down to Burleigh Road with a three lane section that would start with a left turn lane into Judson Boulevard and would continue as a two-way center left turn lane down to the Burleigh Road. This will take care of the delays at the intersection of Judson Boulevard and Broadway. When they come back for the future development of the 40 additional house lots they would like to do Phase II which will consist of the additional widening that will be necessary down to Commercial Drive. Rosenblatt asked how the center turn lane would help people turning left out of the driveways. Mr. Theriault explained that when you do the highway capacity methodology of level of service if you have a two-way center left turn lane usually the use that left turn lane to make a two stage left turn. Mr. Rosenblatt asked at what point it would make sense to have a traffic light here. Mr. Theriault indicated that there would need to be more traffic there to warrant a traffic light. Ms. Mitchell asked if it would make sense to align an access point on the opposite side of Broadway with Judson Boulevard. Mr. Therialut indicated that he could not speak to that. 18 Mr. Longo indicated that there were not plans to develop the opposite side of Broadway at this time. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould noted that this project will also need to receive approval by the DEP. Once the applicant gets an indication from the Board that they are headed in the right direction then they will proceed with the SLODA part of this process before they come back for final plan approval. Mr. Gould indicated that the site visit was very helpful. The applicant was encouraged to talk about open space on a larger scale so that the Board would have an idea of what is coming and the ability to influence their thinking in the future. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicant intends to do part of the off-site improvements this year and the other part of the roadway would come after the subsequent development occurs. If that development does not occur within 5 years there would be the ability to go back and take another look at the conditions to see if they are still warranted. The applicant has supplied a great deal of information for the Board’s consideration. Chairman Guerette then asked for a motion. Mr. Theeman moved that the Board grant Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval to Commercial Drive Extension and LaSalle Drive Extension, Judson M. Grant, Jr., applicant. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 7: Final Subdivision Plan approval of a five (5) lot subdivision at the Seminary property on Hammond and Union Streets in Urban Residence -2 (URD-2) and Government & Institutional Service (G&ISD) Districts. Bangor Theological Seminary, applicant. Mr. Dick Cattelle, representing the applicant, explained that this is a request for a minor subdivision plan approval. They are not creating any additional traffic nor building any new buildings. They are only drawing lines to create individual lots for existing buildings. He noted that the applicant was before the Board previously requesting a zone change for some of the Seminary Campus property so that the new owner could get its financing in place as the lender required that they be able to deal with the individual residential properties on an individual basis. This necessitated a subdivision of the property. Since these different properties came into the campus property over time they were melded into one property. The Staff memo addresses all of the criteria required for approval and they feel that they have met those criteria. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Final Subdivision Plan approval of a five-lot subdivision of Bangor Theological Seminary property bounded by Hammond and Union Streets. Some of the property is in the URD-2 District and a portion is zoned Government and Institutional Service District. Under the Subdivision Ordinance, a subdivision that contains 6 or fewer lots and has no public improvements is technically a minor subdivision and can be dealt with as 19 one single application. In this instance, there are no proposed public improvements. Four separate parcels of those single and multi-family buildings within the campus are being created so that they could be sold. All of the lots meet the requirements of their respective districts. Because this is an older established area and because it was one parcel, not all utilities and parking are on each individual lot and the applicant has addressed this through easements providing access to the required parking. Ms. Mitchell moved that the Board grant Final Subdivision Plan approval for the Bangor Theological Seminary property at Hammond and Union Streets in URD-2 and G & IS Districts. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 8: Planning Board Approval of Minutes Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the March 6, 2007 and May 1, 2007 were in order for approval. There was a motion and a second to approve both sets of minutes, which carried unanimously. Other Business There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Ms. Mitchell with regard to Lot 4 Mr. described a scenario where ideally there is a location on that site for a home and the rest of the forested wetland is left untouched but there is not guarantee that that is how it going to work out when someone buys that lot. Mr. Becker indicated that that is correct. Mitchell is there any inclination on the developers to put some restrictions on that? Mr. Becker said generally no because anytime you restrict a lot you decrease its value. They are hoping that – it is a particularly pretty lot so it’s just hard to believe that someone buying the largest lot in the development and will probably be priced as the most expensive lot in the development would destroy the one thing that makes the lot unique. They would prefer not to restrict their lot rights. Mr. Becker indicated that as part of their DEP permit they have to designate where they expect the homes to be built and take some steps to having them be built in those locations. That process is going to have a strong tendency to control where the house is on Lot 4. They would prefer not to condition it at this point so that they can fashion it to match whatever the DEP requires. Mr. Gould indicated that it is their intent to provide a plan that has a viable test pit on every lot. Mr. Becker said that it is their intent that it is in their interest to produce a plan where there is a pit for each lot and those lines will box in the areas that Mr. Moyse described. The final plan will be submitted with a passing test pit for every lot. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what the Board’s opinions were in regard to any conditions of approval. He indicated that he would be reluctant to change the City’s policy regarding on-site waste disposal. The Ordinance requirements under Minor Subdivision clearly requires that each lot have evidence of feasibility of the provision of on-site waste disposal where public sewage is not available. The fact that this language does not carry over to the Major Subdivisions provisions is something that should be added to the list of those things that should be fixed in the Code. Chairman Guerette felt that this was a good suggestion. He said that he was fine with this application and he felt that the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to work within the Ordinance and they are going to have the septic systems contained within each and every lot except for Lot 9, 11, and 12 which will each have their own system that pipes to their own septic field though that field will not be located on their property and he was comfortable with 3 out of 14 lots. Mr. Theeman if the applicant will provide a test pit on every lot he would condition this pp on that he would also feel strongly about adding a condition that in the vent the City ever does have a City- wide trail system around the Marsh that the applicant agree to allow that trail system to access the restricted open space. He felt that if the Board did not start asking for this they will not get it in the future. Chairman Guerette would not support that the way Mr. Theeman stated it. He did not want the applicant to feel that they need to allow access to the restricted space through their development. He did not feel that that was the intent of the connectivity issue. It is if someone wants to walk from the land to the east of this to the land that is to the west of this that they may traverse this parcel. Mr. Theeman said that that is what the intent of what he said not through private property but through the common space. Ms. Mitchell asked Mr. Gould if the Board had the authority to do this. Mr. Gould indicated that the subdivision ordinance is extremely clear. The Planning Board is the authority that says that the open space that the subdivider proposes is acceptable or its not acceptable. Don’t know if the Baord can dictate what The Board can say that the 40% of the open space you have that includes. Ms. Mitchell felt that there were collective issues about this plan that would prevent her from voting in favor of this application. It sounds like there are going to be some changes to how the lots and sewer access is going to be handled for Lots 9 through 12. She would like to see it on paper. She is not opposed to the concept of what they are proposing. Guerette this is a preliminary plan aprpova. This is wehre the Board gets to tell the developer thaht when you come back for final approval these are the kinds of things that we would like to see on your plan. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant preliminary subdivision approval for the proposed subdivision at 1397V Essex Street, Woods of Maine, Inc., applicant on the following conditions: 1) that the applicant supply final documentation regarding the management and maintenance of open space; 2) in the event that in the future a public trail system is created in the Cit of Bangor that is proposed to cross the restricted open space in this subdivision that that trail be permitted and be placed within the restricted open space; and 3) that the plan be modified to indicate that on each of the lots there is space available for on-site disposal. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell asked if there was a reason why Mr Rosenblatt referenced it to just being in the restricted open space? Mr. Rosenblatt – because that is what Mr. Theeman said. Mr. Theeman indicated that it was his logic that the common area open space was really available to the land owners and should not be part of the trail system but the restricted should be. Ms. Mitchell asked if according to the Marsh Mall Commission if there could be a trail in the restricted area? Would a trail need to be further out from that? Mr. Theeman indicated that the term restricted area is unique to this application its not a Marsh Mall term. Gould – there is a portion on this Resource Protected but then there is another part that is beyond that. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Rosenblatt to restate the third condition. Mr. Rosenblatt amended his third condition to read approval be conditioned on the plan being modified to depict on-site disposal on each of the lot in the subdivision. Mr. Becker indicated that the applicant agreed with these conditions. Ms. Mitchell still had questions regarding pedestrian access to the proposed restricted area. Mr. Jim Ring indicated that the Marsh Mall Commission has not identified an area that is definitely hands off. Clearly there is interest in where trails go. There are ordinance changes that allow limited types of trail or pathways in a resource protection area. He did not think it was an issue here and in fact, that area is still some distance from the Marsh as we think of it. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for the applicant or their designee to make a presentation. Attorney Tim Woodcock, represented Triangle Center LLC, and introduced Mr. John Toic, First Hartford which owns Triangle Center LLC, Sandi Deschaine, Traffic Engineer with James W. Sewall Company, Patrick Graham, Engineer, James W. Sewall, Mike Longo, representing the property owner along with his attorney P. Andrew Hamilton. Mr. Woodcock indicated that the applicant is requesting conditional use/site development plan and site location of development modification at 461 Stillwater Avenue which is opposite of Bangor Parkade. This site will access across from Drew Lane. The applicant was before the Board in March when it applied for and was granted a contract zone change for this site. The conceptual plan that was presented at that time is very similar to the one that is before the Board. Shaw’s is to be the tenant at this site and there will be two other structures on the site, a quality retail center and a restaurant. At this time, they do not know who will be occupying those buildings. They feel that this is a neighborhood facility. The conditional use is triggers by the drive-thru pharmacy use of the grocery store building. He discussed the criteria under Section 165-101D (4) that there will be adequate queuing space for vehicles without restricting movements on the site, as well as the four standard criteria have all been met. Regarding traffic, they have applied for and received from the Maine Department of Transportation a Traffic Movement Permit for this project. They feel that most of the traffic using this site will come from the south and they don’t anticipating contributing very much to the traffic to the north. Mr. Woodcock discussed the applicant desire to tie this project into the public transportation system. Sandi Deschaine, Traffic Engineer, worked very closely with Joe McNeil of the Bangor Area Transit Service. As part of the czc conditions that they would provide for a stop right on Stillwater Avenue near Shaws with a bus stop and a covered area, a bike rack and a pathway that will take pedestrian traffic rights from the sidewalk directly to the grocery store. He felt that this is an advantage to the transit system because this would be the only grocery store in the City that is set up this way. They are proposing their access to align with Drew Lane which will be controlled by a traffic signal. There is some widening of Stillwater Avenue to accommodate traffic movement and ensure a good flow of traffic. They have preserved as a green area a triangular area and will be used to catch water and take it through the stormwater system. They had discussed with the neighbors using this triangle as a rain forest but it was the consensus to leave it as it is in its natural condition. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Mr. Woodcock had a copy of the Traffic Movement Permit. Ms. Sandi Deschaine indicated that a copy of this was sent to City Staff and all of the conditions of the Permit in terms of the off-site improvements were noted in the Staff Memorandum. He has summarized for you everything that is in the TMP. Mr. Patrick Graham, Project Manager with James W. Sewall Company, explained the site development plan. He indicated that they consider this to be a neighborhood type of project. There will be three buildings on the site, the largest being the Shaw’s grocery store. Associated with those three buildings there is an accessory parking area which meets all of the City’s requirements in terms of the number of spaces, handicap spaces, and loading zones. The impervious surface ratio for the site is approximately .64 which is less than the contract condition of .65. Vehicular access will be through the signal controlled intersection on Stillwater Avenue which is one-curb. Pedestrian access will be through existing sidewalks along Stillwater Avenue with bicycle and mass transit accommodations. They propose a 10’ x 20’ transit shelter and adjacent to that will be bicycle rack. For handicap customers they propose an ADA ramp from the transit location up to the major sidewalk to access the grocery store and the accessory buildings within the development. There will be a drive-thru pharmacy for the Shaw’s which is what triggers the conditional use. There will be two drive-thru lanes (one next to the building and the other with a pneumatic tube type of system) that will go around the Shaw’s building. Lighting and landscaping met all of the City’s requirements. There are no rear or side buffers only front buffers as the site is bounded by Interstate 95 and the Interstate off- ramp. They have shown a B buffer. They are trying to maintain as much existing vegetation as possible. The triangular area will not be used specifically for stormwater management. There will be as part of the stormwater network on the site a network of catchbasins throughout the parking lot as well as an underdrained swale that will capture a large portion of the front part of the parking lot. All of that will be directed into an underground storage system consisting of a ten foot diameter corrugated metal pipes that will be underneath the parking lot. Those pipes act as an underground detention pond so the stormwater that goes in will discharge into that and it provides a very nice water quality treatment as well as providing additional storage volume for water quantity treatment. The discharge line that will come out of those underground structures will then come through the front of the site and then run down along Stillwater Avenue through a storm drainage line which will be adjacent to the sidewalk. There is an existing stormwater ditch that runs along Stillwater Avenue and discharges into a 24 culvert that then goes underneath Stillwater and out to the marsh area that is beyond. They worked with the City Engineering staff to make sure that the proposed development and stormwater system will decrease the peak stormwater flow from the existing so the post development flows off the site will be less than what is currently there. Mr. Graham discussed the Site Location of Development Act Permit applicant and indicated that in terms of visual quality and scenic character – the proposed development is consistent with the surrounding development and in particular the Parkade site. In terms of soils and wetlands a soil survey was done there are no wetlands on the site. The site will have public water and sewer service. Mr. Clark asked where the proposed loading docks are if this is where the drive thru traffic would have to out there. Mr. Graham they have provided an extra width of pavement back there for the drive-thru lanes so they would have suitable clearance and not be impeded by any trucks at the docks. Mr. Clark asked about the access off of the Stillwater Avenue off-ramp. Mr. Graham indicated that it is true that you cannot make a left-hand turn onto Stillwater Avenue and this is because of the permitted process for that on-ramp. Unfortunately, that is not anything that they have control over. Ms. Sandi Deschane, indicated that this is a question that she had to address in her application to MDOT because you have to show the patterns that people are going to take to get to the site. For people coming from the north from the University she shows half of them doing the legal thing and getting off at Hogan Road and coming through that way and the other half going into the Parkade lot doing a u-turn and coming out because she felt that that was realistic. She did not model anybody making the illegal left turn. Mr Clark indicated that he has seen people make the illegal left turn and also go down to the Avenue and turn around and head back up Stillwater Avenue thus blocking up their parking lot. Is this the right – because people are going to want because of the gas prices there are going to take the ost direct route to get to point A to point B. Is ther a way to address this or can you make a cut off on that ramps. Ms. Deschaine, no you cannot make a cut off on the ramp. For the supermarket use they actually have 100 percent of the primary trips (the people who are just making a stop for the supermarket) are coming from the tree streets and going back. Everyone else has access to another supermarket closer. For the diverted link trips which is what he is talking about where you’re on your way home and you make a short cut down and back those are the ones coming from the north they had to do it the most legal, yet the most logical way and the way that she modeled it was half coming down Hogan and half turning around in the parking lot. She indicated that only a very small number of people would be coming this way in those diverted link movements. (the uses for the other buildings wil be less than 100 trips total in the peak hour which includes pass bys than that 605 trips in the peak hour). Ms. Mitchell asked how many lanes on Stillwater Avenue are there where the bus stop is located when the bus is making a stop. Deschaine after the improvements are made there will be three lanes in that area (two remaining lanes with the bus stopped). Is the interior of the site going to marked with pedestrian crosswalks, particularly coming in off of pedestrian access. For the speed and geometry on Stillwater Avenue having a pull off does not make sense. It makes it very difficult under those conditions for the bus to get back onto and it creates additional headway problems. It is actually better for the bus to stop in the right-hand land and have traffic go around. Deschaine the interior of the site will be marked. Theeman Staff requested that the parking spaces direwctly across from the pharmacy drive-thru be eliminated has this been done. Mr. Graham indicated that they have been eliminated. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he felt sad is the loss of so many fine trees. One thing that the Board is supposed to do is to encourage the preservation of existing trees. Mr Graham indicated that they tried very hard to save as many trees as possible. One of the requirements that MDOT for off-street improvements that included widening of Stillwater Avenue which necessitated the removal of those trees. They have saved trees in the specific restriction area. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that in one of the submissions there was a recommendation that one of the off-site improvements include the construction of an additional entrance to the Parkade Shopping Center and if that is not now part of the equation. Ms. Deschaine said that that is correct, they found out after the fact and fairly late in the process that when the entrance went in across from the I-95 ramps Federla highways did not want that to happen as they thought it was a bad precedent. The only way that they would go forward with that was to put a control of access along Stillwater Avenue for the rest of the site. That is no longer being considered. Mr. Rosenblatt had concerns about the number of peak trips and that 100 percent of the traffic for Shaw’s is going to be coming from the south and not using the interstate. Ms. Deschaine explained that it would be 100 percent of the primary trips which are the trips that are going from home to the supermarket, turnaround and go back home. There are three types of trips, the other two types one is the type that Member Clark was talking about were someone picks up some bread on the way home from work to the shopping center and back home. The third type is called a “pass by” trips which don’t add any traffic at all to the main road. All they are are people that are passing by on Stillwater already who say oh a Shaw’s well I need some milk. They did not intend to go there they saw the sign it jogged their memory. For all of the uses in the trip generation manual they have done enough traffic studies for these different land uses that they can usually estimate the percentage. Mr. Rosenblatt asked of the 680 trips how many are going to approaching the site from the north and how many approaching the site from the south. Ms. Deschaine explained if you include pass by trips, its actually evenly split if you break out the pass by trips primary 78 from the south and 72 back to the south for all of the uses combined; 7 straight in and straight back on Drew Lane, 14 coming from the north and 12 going back to the north (those 14 and 12 would since she is taking all of the primaries from the supermarket from the south from the tree street neighborhoos those ones from the north would be for the specialty retail and the restaurant. Diverted link trips which again are those teips where you are trying to link a lot of trips together. With the trips coming from the Mall they said nobody is going to stop for a gallon of milk and then go to Filenes and shop for an hour and then go home. They are going to be shopping on their way out of the mall and the grocery store is going to be the last place they hit before they head home. Based on that assumption, cars will be coming south through the Parkade intersection to get to this location but when they leave the diverted link trips most of them are going to be going right onto that I- 95 ramp and southbound. Other wise those would be considered pass bys since they are part of the traffic on the main road. For those diverted link trips you have 27 entering the site from the south, 26 going back, 78 coming into the site from the north and 74 heading out. Most of those are going to go down and around the highway. Total site generated on the whole site you have and this does include the pass by trips so these numbers are going to be bigger because they have that whole contingent of traffic that’s already there on Stillwater. The total you have 160 trips coming in from the south, 149 going back; 7 down and 7 up; 147 coming from the north and 137 leaving. Mr. Theeman asked how far the traffic light from shaws from the trafafic light at Parkade. Ms. Deschaine indicated that she through it was approximately 700 feet. Guerette indiated that it was the trafafic element of this proposal that concerned him the most because to him this specific traffaic open ups is really constructed outside of the major traffic flow that services the mall area because people who come off the Parkade ramp cannot access this site and people are unlikely to drive to the Hogan Road exit to get to this site. What information did they gather by either marketing surveys, focus groups neighborhood meetings to show that there is a favor amongst the residents for increased traffic in their neighborhoods. Deschaine indicated that she did not think that they have taken any marketing surveys among the people who live on the tree streets. However, she did not believe that there was any public comment when they came in for a zoning change for this location. She felt it was because not many people really objected to having a supermarket within walking distance of their house. John Toic has market data they chose this site with a some assurance that most of their clients are going to be coming out of those tree street neighborhoods. Chairman Guerette 12 or 13 people spoke in opposition at the zone change for the potential generation in their neighborhoods but it seems to always be a lingering concern of folks that abut commercial development is the increased trafafic on their streets and their neighborhoods. He wondered if they had taken that into account in any formal way. Mr. John Toic with First Hartford Realty, Triangle Center LLC, he said that he did not recall any public opposition spoken at the zone change hearing for this project. In answer to his question about whether or not there was a market study conducted, there was one and Shaw’s does maintain proprietary pin data as to the location of the residents that shop their stores. They do those through the use of their Shaws cards which shoppers use for discounts, they are able to track and market to their shoppers. Great consideration was given to the location of this facility by this grocery store and he did not think that anybody would assume it reasonable for them to want to move so far south from their existing location if in fact the majority of their shoppers were not coming from destinations south. They have assured them the reason for wanting to undertake such a move is because their market in fact lies south their present location. Attorney Woodcock most people who shop would never drive across town to go the supermarket you always go to your locate supermarket where you can. For a structure this size it would hard to image another structure of this size on this lot that would be more neighborhood oriented. He would challenge the Board to think of another structure this size in a location like this that would be more neighborhood oriented. He understands the Board’s concern about traffic. The Board concluded in March it was appropriate to change this to S & PS and sooner or later this will be realized as a S 7 PS development. The Board has an opportunity to approve a project that by its very nature is likely to draw on the most immediately adjacent neighborhoods to the south. Chairman Guerette asked if there were comments from proponents. Attorney Andy Hamilton indicated that he would to credit City Staff for a lot of these advancements. When they talked to Mr. Gould he represents Grant Trailer Sales as the property owner who is the ground lease landlord to the tenant which is Bangor Triangle, LLC, sublease to Shaws Supermarket, Mr. Gould emphasized they need to learn from what we have seen on the Stillwater corridor and improve the situation. With the City Engineer and Joe McNeil there was real focus on providing for access for public transit purposes. From a wellness perspective we need to think about bike and pedestrian access, if y9ou think about this as the neighborhood use in terms of the range of s 7 ps uses that you could have at this location in terms of its favorability toward the tree streets in Bangor this is probably one of the best uses that you could pick for this location. He agreed with the presentation that had been made, he reviewed the materials that have been provided by the tenant against the standards for site location of development act and the Bangor Land Development code. Tehre has been a honest effort by mr. Graham as the project manager and by Ms. Deschaine and Mr. Waugh , the traffic engineers of James W. Sewall to do the very best. Chairman Guerrette asked for opponents. Seeing none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Mr. David Gould indicated that this application is for conditional use, site development plan approval and site location of development act permit approvals. The proposal is to construct a 50,000 grocery store, 7,500 sq. ft. restaurant, and an unnamed 8,000 sq. ft. retail building located at 461 Stillwater Avenue in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. This is one site that we had a very good handle on as to what we wanted for an outcome as we went into the rezoning of the parcel. The same questions posed tonight were discussed then as to what traffic will do, where they will go, and at that time certain Board Members we will get to look at this again at the time of site plan review. A lot of the development standards that this project meet are addressed with the contract zone change standards which are tighter standards than would get in a typical shopping and personal service district. This project complies with the new lighting standards and new buffer standards. It is completely surrounded by roadway such that there aren’t any rear of side yards in the project. That further helps to get a B buffer as a requirement around the entire site. The two corners on the edges will largely be left as they are. Some of the pavement will be taken out from the prior use. Staff has worked weeks with the applicant’s representative to try and get all of the bugs out of this and get them into compliance with the amended Code. The parking spaces originally located adjacent to the drive-up have been eliminated from the site. A copy of a draft Board Order for this project was distributed to the Board for its review. Staff would ask the ‘Board if they find this meets the conditional use standards to attach a typical condition as to completion of all the off-site improvements before they open to the public. One other detail staff has wrestling with this application is the pedestrian crossing from Drew Lane. When parkade built and a signal was put at Drew Lane there was a provision made for pedestrian signals and a cross walk across Stillwater Avenue. Now that they have built the new site entrance drive across from Drew Lane it provides a somewhat awkard off-set between where that pedestrian crossing is where the new roadway is. They hoped that could fix that standards. The current version suggests that that wouldn’t get fixed until some some sidewalk system gets built on Drew Lane or Stillwater Avenue. Staff is concerned that that doesn’t meet the needs of people that may live in the neighborhood who will talk up Drew Lane and want to come across the street to the shopping center. In the MDOT process there will be actual detail construction plans of all the off-site improvements and that the time when the engineering and the planning offices would like the opportunity to try and make sure that any pedestrians that would come out of Stillwater Gardens to get a safe access Stillwater Avenue. It may require the movement of some of the existing facilities but we don’t think that they ought to have to wait until a sidewalk gets built on the other side of Stillwater Avenue or on Drew Lane itself. Staff is comfortable all of the details of the site development plan, the conditional use standards and the site location of development act details are there and would suggest the Board grant the applicant approval of all three of these with two conditions. One that the City get to see the final construction plans for the off-site details which is pretty typical for these kind of projects and 2) that all of the off-site improvements are in place before the stores and development are open to the public. Ms. Deschaine indicated that tow of the off-site improvements are items that were contracted by the City of Bangor to do as part of the Wal-Mart site permit and those will only be built if needed within 5 years and requested that the condition be limited to just the off-site improvements that are to be done for this project. They are the two that are on the Parkade side of the road – the widening above and below the Parkade on the southbound side. Those two lane widenings work that is to be undertaken by the City they have agreed to do in their traffic movement permit is if they need to be built we will contribute our proportion of the trips that are going through that intersection. They may never need to be built so if this permit is conditioned on all of those approvals and then they never get built then how does this site open. They are on Page 11 l and 2 on the southbound side. Gould City feel that they want all of the improvements in place board was quite clear with another project on Stillwater Avenue, whatever arrangement that they might have to get them made by somebody else. Mr Jim Ring this is referred to as other mitigation in the TMP and that is the - if all of the things that were listed were required by this Board that was a little bit contrary to the MDOT permit. He suggested that a condition for approval here would be the very same conditions and improvements as required by the MDOT permit which does have the provision about one lane widening which may or may not be necessary. That is basically the same language in the MDOT permit. All the other improvements that are attached directly to this project are in the MDOT permit and should be done here. When off-site improvements are done he gets to review those design plans. Gueretts – what about the pedestrian crossing at Drew Lane is it mentioned in the MDOT permit? Mr. Ring indicated that he did not think it is. Graham reason it was not shown on the site plan is that they don’t have the property rights on the other side to show an extension of the sidewalk. They would be agreeable to including this if that is something that is part of the widening and improvements that they work out with MDOT as part of the approved plans. Mitchell what are the reasons why it would or would not be built. Ring every project that was a successor to the Wal-mart project and the traffic movement permit for the Wal-Mart project in the MDOT permit will see the same reference that if it is needed. When an applicant does a traffaic analysis for and MDOT TMP they have to take into account all traffic that is previously permitted even through it may not be built. The TMP for the Widewaters Project was permitted in anticipated of the Wal-mart Supercenter going in which did not occur and it went to the other side further down Stillwater Avenue. The trip generation from what has been approved for the Widewater site is a much small project than the TMP. There is about 500 trips that are permitted associated with the Widwaters Site from the prior anticipated Wal-mart project that probably won’t occur there but they are still handing out there. Those trips cannot go away because they are permitted although they probably won’t occur. The way that that was dealt with from City and MDOT standpoint is that even through they don’t anticipate that those 500 trips will be generated what they will do is review the trafafic after all of the other improvements are done and if there is a need based on level of service then they will do that. None of the projects thus far will trigger that requirement which is basically an extension of the merge lane coming in southbound on Broadway. It is something that the City has committed to under separate agreement (not the developers) and this project would pay a proportionate share of that in it is determined after some more projects are done based on actual traffic counts and level of service. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant conditional use approval to the proposed development at 461 Stillwater Avenue, Triangle Center LLC, on the condition that the applicant complete the items listed in the MDOT Traffic Permit as on-site mitigation and as off-site mitigation not including the items listed as other mitigation before the opening of the facility. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Ms. Mitchell asked where the Drew Lane sidewalk crossing fall. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that it is not in there. Ms. Deschaine explained that that would come at the time that the City Engineer will get a chance to review the construction plans for the off-site mitigations. They would be able to put something in there. Part of the reason reason why they did not want to put this cross walk in right away and show it on the plans is because right not they have two choices they can have a cross walk going across to grass to basically no landing area at all on the Drew Lane Side or they can do a skewed cross walk which is longer distance for pedestrians to walk across Stillwater Avenue and they would rather wait until they can square it off to either a landing pad or preferable a sidewalk on the otherwise. They do not have the property rights over they so they cannot do that themselves. Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the board approve the site development plan for the proposed development at 461 Stillwater Avenue, Triangle Center, LLC, on the those same conditions. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Motion carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board approve the Site Location of Development Permit for the proposed development at 461 Stillwater Avenue, Triangle Center, LLC, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion? The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion. Ms. Mitchell requested that the City work to figure out the other side so that the crosswalk can be done as soon as possible. The Board took a five minute recess. Chairman Guerette noted that the public hearing for this item was opened and closed at a prior meeting. He asked for a presentation from the applicant. Ms. Shelly Lizotte from Ames AE and this would Old Business. She noted that they were before the Board last month presenting this proposed subdivision expansion and extension of LaSalle and Commercial Drives. The issues that they needed to clear up including the open space and a request of the Board to take a site visit to review the open spaces and the address the traffic issues on Broadway and to allow the board to see more information regarding the traffic on Broadway and the new entrance. She discussed with the Board a map indicating the existing and proposed open space areas within the subdivision. Chairman Guerette thanked her as well as everyone associated with it, for the time set aside to show the Board the site. It was very productive to be there such an expansive area in a large growing neighborhood. He had a concern under the general category of the overall lack of open space planning for that neighborhood. There isn’t a ball field in sight. He was concerned about that. Mr. Longo mentioned that there was a lot owned by the City that sites almost middle and he is concerned that that has never been developed. It would seem that in a neighborhood of that size there would be anumbe rof children who would benefit from having a place to play. He would like to see this thought out. In regard to the existing open space, it provides a wonderful buffer between the commercial development and the residential neighborhood. He was hoping that there would be some utility in terms of being a place where people could go but he felt that he is happy with the fact that it provides a good buffer. The other thing that he liked about the open space is that it seems to be a wonderful wildlife habitat. There was evidence of all kinds of birds and small animals there. The only concern he has is that the proposed road extension of Commercial Drive will cut that habitat in two and he felt that that would severely affect movement of animals from the upland area down to that wet boggy swale. Theeman agreed and hoped they could solve the problem of how animals will be able to cross that roadway without walking on pavement. It has been done in other areas of the country and is fairly easy to do. The lack of an open space plan is troubling to him and he felt that a broader view of the use of the vast land area there. Shelly indicated that the subdivision ordinance does not provide for description of what the use of open space is to be. It merely provides for them to set aside a certain percentage of the area of the subdivision and does not dictate as to what is to be done on it. Developers don’t generally create areas that are going to have to be maintained in the future. They still own that. that was once designated as a park but nothing ever became of it. Chairman Guerette ienicated that the ordinance says that open space has to be satisfactory to the Planning Board. It doesn’t really give a lot of direction but it give s the Board a lot of discretion in deciding what can or should or should not be acceptable. The Board doesn’t want to make any wholesale changes but they are on the cusp of paying a lot more attention to open space and that attention doesn’t necessarily come only from within the Planning board there has been some discussion at the City council level and from the City’s Manager’s office as a City Bangor does not have an inter-city open space plan and we create development after development and have allowed open space in many cases to be unusable land such as detention ponds, undevelopable because it is too rocky or too steep. The Board wants to change that. You can engage with the board in the beginning discussions about this new kind of direction. He did not feel that the board would make it impossible. Shelly agreed to the useful of the open space area and there are many different points of what is useful to different people in different parts of their lives. Mr. Michael Longo representing Grant Trailer Sales, Inc. noted that they have a parcel which is approximately 3 or 4 acres on Judson Boulevard which has been set aside for the possibility of a City park. Approximately 7 or 8 years ago there were some neighbors who got together that wanted the City to take over that parcel and at that time the City wasn’t able to or willing to do that. That parcel still remains as a possibility and they would entertain anything that the City would want to do on that particular parcel for a park area for the neighborhood or would entertain suggestion as some of this open area. The open space here is a lot different in nature. It would be very difficult to make into a park area. Other than a walking path. Because it is wet you can’t get in there and disturb it. Mr. Theeman asked they had given any thought to in terms of creating an under road access to connect the two habitats. Longo there has been some consideration in that but the size of the culvert will enable the habitat to cross from one side to the other. Mr. Theeman asked if they had an overall scheme for the development of this area and asked if they could share this with the Board as part of this application so that they could get some sense of what it will all look like. Mr. Longo indicated that economic times is probably the reason you haven’t seen this whole development yet. You can tell the direction they are heading. From the Burleigh Road out Broadway their thought is commercial along the front. Tehre is a nature divide with the wetland which serves as a great buffer between residential and commercial and that has worked for some 25 to 30 years and more likely single family residential behind. At some point they will probably ask for a small addition (25 to 30 more or less) to the mobilehome park which now has in excess of 370 permitted spaces. That will end their development on this side of Broadway. Mitchell as far as the alignment of extension of Commercial Drive to meet LaSalle Drive is that crossing location going to serve the remainder of the land that they want to develop with single-family housing or do they anticipate needing additional drives or additional drives for the commercial development. Longo there should not be another crossing of the wetland there. What they anticipate happen is that LaSalle will extend further out. Longo if there is more commercial development out Broadway there will have to be access for that development but not with a crossing of the wetland. Shelly any further commercial development beyond Commercial Drive would more than likely be served by another road coming off of Commercial Drive rather than accessing Broadway directly. As far as the culvert crossing, that area is more of a high point in the drainage watershed. The only reason why the culverts are necessary at this point is that at times the water level will fluctuated there. They propose two 30 inch culvers to be put in. They are not necessary for that size. They may not be large enough for a large animal to cross under but the smaller ones can. She asked what types of wildlife were they thinking of allowing to cross in that area. Mr. Theeman did not feel that the culvert was the best way for wildlife to access. She indicated that they could possibly look at something that would have a natural channel bottom that could be considered before the final plan stage. John Theriault from Ames A/e traffic engineer, indicated that he had done a traffic impact study for this project. They did traffic counts at the intersection th of Judson Boulevard and Burleigh Road and Broadway on July 11 for the weekday morning and evening peak hours. They have an MDOT Permit for 57 houselots off of Judson Boulevard, 50 mobilehome lots that will access off of Judson Boulevard and then 54 residenital houses to be built on this Commercial Drive, LaSalle Drive portion of it. Off of Judson Boulevard, 40 of those 54 house lots have been completed. Those 40 house lots were included in the traffic counts of Judson Boulevard. He included the 50 approved mobilehome lots and the 9 commercial lots. He used the ITE trip generation manuel to develop the trips. He took the traffic that they counted, seasonally adjusted it for and add a 2% growth rate to represent 2008 traffic volumes. He took all of the counts from that development and added it to Burleigh Road and Broadway, Judson Boulevard and Broadway, the two commercial entrances off of Broadway and the intersection of the future Commercial Drive. He did a Level of Service analysis of each of those intersections and found that the traffic from development has very little on the interestion of Broadway and Burleigh and it was operating at a Level of Service C and will continue to do so. The commercial drives are operating at a level of C during the morning and level of service D in the evening. At full building out – Judson Boulevard and Commercial Drive will experience delays during the morning and evening. It is not uncommon for an unsignalized intersection. He also did other scenarios using the roadway improvements (developing a three lane section from Commercial Drive all the way down to Burleigh Road) that were required under the DEP permit for the residential expansion of Judson Heights everything would operate at a level of Service B and C for the intersections. They wish to complete those improvements in two phases. Phase I which making the improvements just north of Judson Boulevard all the way down to Burleigh Road – a three lane section that would start with a left turn lane in to Judson Boulevard and would continue as a two-way center left turn lane down to the Burleigh Road. This will take care of the delays at the intersection of Judson Boulevard and Broadway. When the come back for the future development of the 40 additional house lots they would like to do phase II which will consist of the additional widening that will be necessary the roadway improvements down to Commercial Drive. Chairman Guerette what is the traffic going to be before the build out at the intersection of Commercial Drive and Broadway. Theriault indicated that there would be morning peak hour 14 vehicles, 12 left, 2 right; 41 heading northbound making a right into Commercial Drive and 7 left. Guerette a Level of Service? JT – E during the am peak hour, with a 335 second delay. During the evening peak hour it is a F with 5l.8 second delay. So with no improvements that is how it will operate. He felt that if the delay present a problem that traffic will use Judson Boulevard. Rosenblatt asked how does the center turn lane help people who are turning left out of the driveways. Theriault when you do the highway capacity methodology of level of service if you have a two-way center left turn lane usually the use that left turn lane to make a two stage left turn. They will look at traffic coming from the left and wait for a gap, when they get that gap they move into that center lane and them move over into the thru lane when there is a gap. This is in the methodology and calculations for calculation of delay. He did not see how this improvement would help those trying to go left into Bangor when peak traffic is going out of Bangor. Rosenblatt at what point does it make sense to have a traffic light here. Theriault there would need to be more traffic that what they will be creating out there to warrant one. Mitchell – an effort in developing the opposite of Broadway to align the access point with Judson Boulevard even tho wetland wise it was the best spot. Theriault cannot speak to that. Longo there have been no plans for the other side at this point. Mitchell is there any decrease in the current lanes available for traveling out or in by creating a center turn lane. Theriault if you are heading northbound there would be Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that one of the steps in this process is a visit to the DEP. Everything that the Board sees they are going to have to get approval by DEP. Once they get an indication from the Board that they are headed in the right direction then they will begin to get into the SLODA part of this process before they come back for final plan approval. The site visit was very helpful, they were encouraged to talk about open space on a larger scale and not piece by piece so that the Board would have an idea of what is coming and the ability to influence their thinking in the future. There is an intention to do a part of the off-site improvements this year and the other part of the roadway would come after the other subsequent development came about or if that development did not occur within 5 years there would be the ability to go back and take another look at the conditions there to see if they are warranted. The applicant has supplied a great deal of information for the Board’s consideration. Mr. Theeman moved that the Board grant preliminary subdivision plan approval to Commercial Drive Extension and LaSalle Drive Extension Judson M. Grant, Jr., applicant. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. FP - Seminary Mr. Dick Cattelle, representing the applicant, explained that this is a request for a minor subdivision plan approval. They are not creating any additional traffic, building any new buildings, they are only drawing lines to create individual lots for existing buildings. He noted that the applicant was before the Board previously requesting a zone change for some of the Seminary Campus property so that the new owner can continue to use the properties as has previously been used as residential. In order to get financing in place, the lender required that in order for them to feel comfortable with their collateral they needed to have the ability to deal with the individual residential properties on an individual basis. This necessitate a subdivision of the property. Since these different properties came into the campus property over time and under single ownership for the purposes of determining whether or not you have a subdivision they were melded into single-ownership. The Staff memo addresses all of the criteria required for approval and they feel that they have met that criteria. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Staff report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for a final subdivision plan approval of a five-lot subdivision of the Bangor Theological Seminary property bounded by Hammond and Union Streets. Some of the property is in URD-2 District as well as a portion in Government and Institutional Service District. Under the Subdivision Ordinance a subdivision that contains 6 or fewer lot and has not public improvements is technically a minor subdivision and can be dealt with as one single application. In this instance there are not proposed public improvements. They are trying to create four separate parcels of those single and multi-family buildings within the campus such that should they want to convey them the potential is there. All of the lots meet the requirements of their respective districts. Because this is an older established area and because it was one parcel, not all utilities and parking are on each individual lot and the applicant has addressed this through easements to provide access that the required parking. Ms. Mitchell moved that the Board grant Final Subdivision Plan approval for the Bangor Theological Seminary property at Hammond and Union Streets in URD-2 and G & ISD Districts. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes of the March 6, 2007 and May 1, 2007 were in order for approval. There was a motion and a second which carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt noted the prior TIC Meeting indicated that he was informed that there would likely be a waterfront moratorium enacted soon. He asked what happens after that in terms and asked that Mr. Gould keep the Board informed about this. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.