Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-05-15 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF MAY 15, 2007 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Allie Brown City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: None Chairman Guerette called the meeting to Order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board Member Mitchell, Associate Member Brown was asked to vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct a 2,800 sq. ft. bank with drive-thru service and a 1,750 sq. ft. coffee shop with drive-thru service located at 652 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Bangor Savings Bank, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant or their designee to make a presentation. Mr. Ray Bolduc, P.E. of WBRC Architects-Engineers represented the applicant. Mr. Bolduc indicated that Jeff Jeter and Bob Montgomery Rice from Bangor Savings Bank, Tom Gorrill of Gorrill Palmer Consulting Engineers, and Dan Miller of WBRC were also present in support of this application. Mr. Bolduc indicated that the applicant is seeking conditional use and site development plan approvals for a 2,800 sq. ft. bank with a drive-thru and a 1,750 sq. ft. coffee shop with a drive thru at 652 Broadway. He noted that other approvals needed for this project included an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit and an MDEP Stormwater Permit by Rule due to the amount of the disturbed area of the development. Mr. Bolduc indicated that the existing “Friendly’s” building will be 2 demolished and the entrance drive will be reconfigured. Currently there are two drives to this site and they are proposing to eliminate one of the drives. The applicant is proposing two drive thru uses. Three lanes will serve the bank and one for the coffee shop use. The drive-thru lane for the coffee shop will queue about 10 cars and the other lanes will queue at least 5 cars each. They propose 36 parking spaces, circulation areas, and sidewalks. The site lighting is proposed to be shoebox type fixtures with cutoffs not exceeding 24 feet in height. The canopy area will have recessed lighting. Mr. Bolduc indicated that buffer yards will be Type B along the street right-of-way and Type C along the sides and rear of the lot. They are also proposing to provide for an additional 10 foot transition yard adjacent to rear of this property to buffer the existing residential development. The development will be serviced by public water and sewer. There will be a decrease in the amount of impervious area on this site as part of this proposal and a decrease in the amount of stormwater runoff. Mr. Tom Gorrill Traffic Engineer with Gorrill Palmer discussed traffic. He indicated that it was their first recommendation to close one of the two existing driveways with the remaining driveway to be aligned with the westerly driveway to the Broadway Shopping Center. There is a five lane section of Broadway in front of the site which has a center turn lane. They propose to have separate left and right turn lanes coming out of the exiting driveway. Mr. Gorrill indicated that this project will generate enough traffic to require a Traffic Movement Permit. They have applied for and received a draft permit. The only issue is a request that $15,000 be spent toward implementation of a coordinated signal system along Broadway. This would be done through BACTS (Bangor Area Comprehensive Transportation Study). Mr. Gorrill noted that there was another applicant that has been asked to contribute $15,000 as well. This will reach the required $30,000 needed to implement those changes. Mr. Gorrill indicated that the applicant has agreed to do this and the Permit should be issued soon. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated his concerns about traffic and asked if there had been an analysis done of the traffic regarding the left turn movements in and out of the existing driveways and how they relate to each other. Mr. Gorrill indicated that they have closed one of the two driveways and will align the remaining one with the Broadway Shopping Center. They did do an analysis of how that driveway would function and the Broadway Shopping Center movements as well. The two movements are less at a Level of Service F which is not uncommon for an unsignalized driveway. However, neither driveway rises to the point of requiring a traffic signal. Mr. Gorrill explained that the key for an unsignalized driveway is the queuing. They did a queuing analysis at both the driveways for left turns into them as well as the neighboring Kentucky Fried Chicken site. What they found is that they have room for about three cars into their driveway before meeting the cars waiting to th enter the Kentucky Fried Chicken site. They are only using the 95 percentile queue which is one vehicle waiting to turn left in. That is actually during the p.m. peak and they found it has the ability to function. BACTS did an extensive study of this corridor and came up with a signal coordination plan that will be implemented after this project goes in. As far as left turns in, they estimated about 77 trips in an hour with about 50 to turn right. As far as out turns, it was split approximately 62 left and 64 right turns. Coming out of the Broadway 3 Shopping Center they estimate 61 right turns out, 22 left turns out, and 27 left turns in. These figures were included in their analysis. Mr. Clark had questions about the proposed laneage on the site. Mr. Dan Miller from WBRC explained that there was a lane for the coffee shop that would be entering the same driveway as the bank. The next three lanes would be for the bank use. Someone using the coffee shop would stay in the inside lane and go around the building to pick up their order. The bank lanes would be to the outside of this lane. Ms. Brown was concerned that there is no signage on the plan indicating the different lanes. Mr. Bolduc indicated that they propose signage on the canopy to direct traffic and should limit some of the confusion. Ms. Brown asked if the queuing for either the coffee shop or the bank lanes would interfere with each other. Mr. Bolduc indicated that based upon the amount of traffic he did not see that that would be an issue. They estimate a queue of 10 cars for the coffee shop and the turnover would be fairly quick. Mr. Theeman felt that the two handicap spots are in a terrible location because every car that enters the building complex has to drive in front of them. Mr. Bolduc explained that reasons they are placed there is because of their proximity to the front door. Chairman Guerette felt that the proposed design seems a little confusing with the coffee shop lane being up against the building potentially blocking the view of any bank customers that are in the other lanes. Mr. Bolduc indicated that the during the Maine Department of Transportation’s review of this project they preferred this configuration. Mr. Theeman said that there would be less of a problem if the lanes were reversed. Mr. Bolduc said that people using handicap spots can go from their cars to the sidewalk into the building. If parked on opposite side with the traffic lane they would be crossing over the travel lane to get to the coffee shop which would not be the safest way to get into the building. Mr. Jeff Jeter, Senior Vice President for Bangor Savings Bank, explained that the banking business is becoming a highly competitive environment and there are benefits to sharing that lot with other tenants. Mr. Gorrill indicated that the coffee shop will generate more traffic in the morning and the bank will generate more in the afternoon. From a traffic perspective they tend to be somewhat compatible uses in that they have their own traffic peaks. The coffee shop use needs physical contact with the building while bank traffic operates with remote facilities. Mr. Rosenblatt shared concerns of internal circulation and asked Mr. Gorrill to explain where the high crash locations in the area are as noted in the submission. Mr. Gorrill explained that these would be addressed through the signalization study and by closing the other curb cut. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. As there were none, Chairman Guerette asked for comments from opponents. No one spoke in opposition and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. 4 Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is a request for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals for a 4,500 sq. ft. building for a drive-thru bank and coffee shop use in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Technically, these are two conditional uses but because they are all integrated as one site staff felt it expedient for the Board to review them as one application. This is the site of the former Friendly’s restaurant. The applicant is proposing to close one of the existing curb cuts. The buffer area between the commercial development and the residential area in the back now will propose to have a transition yard and existing pavement will be pulled back further from those residential properties. Mr. Gould indicated that the conditional use standards in the Shopping and Personal Service District require the Board to look at adequate queuing space, and make sure that there is adequate parking on site, to make a determination that the site meets the basic parameters of the zone, that it will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on adjacent streets; that the project will have appropriate utilities, fire protection, drainage, parking, loading; and will have other necessary site improvements. Also, the Board needs to make a determination that the building is architecturally compatibility with other buildings in the area. The City Engineer has reviewed this and worked with the applicant on the traffic issues. Regarding stormwater, the actual amount of impervious on the site will decrease. Staff feels that all of the details of the plan are complete and would recommend that the Board grant the applicant Site Development Plan and Conditional Use approvals. Mr. Rosenblatt had concerns about the three bank lanes and whether or not the five space queue was adequate. Mr. Gould indicated that over the years, Staff has looked at whether or not the standards for the required number of queue spaces per lane should be amended. If you have a single lane you probably need 7 or 8 spaces. The more lanes you have the less per lane. By having three separate lanes the number of cars queued at each lane may actually decrease. Chairman Guerette had a question regarding the proposed traffic study and if any off-site improvements were being proposed. Planning Officer Gould explained that no one is proposing any off-site improvements. What MDOT is asking this applicant to do is to contribute a certain amount of money ($15,000) that will go towards paying the cost of tying the signals on Broadway together so that they all will act together as a system to manage the flow of traffic better. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that last year the City of Bangor made a request to BACTS to undertake a study of this section of Broadway and a section of Outer Union Street because they both carry a lot of traffic, there are many driveways (curb cuts) and there is a lack of good progression with the spacing of traffic signals to improve the efficiency and safety of these corridors. Mr. Ring explained that there are three other underlying reasons for that request. 1) safety concerns because both of these corridors have some high crash locations; 2) because there has been an increase in traffic on these corridors from growth of traffic from outlying areas especially in the morning and evening; and 3) because there are several development sites or redevelopments sites. The 5 Broadway study has been completed and it has identified a number of improvements to the signal system to improve timing and interconnections of the existing signals. Another interesting thing that came out of this study was that with some equipment changes, such as detection equipment and modification to the actual controlling systems there could be a significant increase in green band width which is the number of seconds that you may not only hit one intersection but can continue through without hitting red lights. These adjustments and additions to the signal system will need funding and MDOT is aware of this. MDOT participates in the BACTS process, has attended the presentations and discussion of the traffic study and saw this project as well as another to be an opportunity where some funding could be secured to implement these recommendations sooner. Based on the study, Mr. Ring felt that this would make some significant improvements to address the existing issues, as well as, for any new development in the area. This is anticipated to be done this summer. Chairman Guerette noted that if Friendly’s decided to reopen their business they would not need to come before the Board for approval. He said that he is thankful that this new project will trigger the traffic signalization improvements. He felt that the application meets all of the minimum standards of the Land Development Code and he intended to vote in favor of the project. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval to the proposed development at 652 Broadway Bangor Savings Bank, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had some concerns about this site in regard to traffic but this location had a previously existing business and the applicant is entitled to propose a development and take a risk that the design will or won’t work. He agreed that the project meets the standards of the Ordinance and he intended to vote in favor. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed development at 652 Broadway, Bangor Savings Bank, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Item No. 2: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a portion of a parcel of land located at the end of the Harvard Street Right-of-Way from General Commercial and Service District to High Density Residential District. Said parcel containing approximately 5.5 acres. John Largay and A. Shapiro heirs, applicants. Chairman Guerette opened the public hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicants or their designee. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser, represented the applicants. He explained that this parcel is located at the end of Harvard Street. They have been working with Staff close to a year to try to facilitate some access and conformity with the lots off the end of Harvard Street in order to bring them into conformance with current criteria for lot frontage and size. A major drawback to that was the zoning of this parcel as commercial. One big concern was the potential for traffic to access out into the residential area and if it were to remain commercially zoned and become developed. They are seeking support from 6 the Planning Board to move this forward so that these lots can be properly accessed from Harvard Street. Mr. Theeman asked how many dwellings and what the configuration would be for this lot. Mr. Kiser indicated that they have not looked at that at this point. There is the issue of the parcels abutting the Harvard Street right-of-way. One has 35 feet of frontage and the other has about 15 feet of frontage on Harvard Street. Neither one of them has enough frontage to be developed as a legal lot. What the intent is is to try and create a small extension with a cul-de-sac roadway to be able to create frontage on both of those lots. At the current time, this particular lot has no proposal for it and he is not aware of any development on the other lot. Any project will need to come back before the Planning Board for approval. Ms. Brown asked if Harvard Street is paved up to those two lots. Mr. Kiser indicated that the right–of-way thru and between the two lots is currently undeveloped. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Kiser to describe access to Harvard Street. Mr. Kiser indicated that this property is totally landlocked with the exception of a 15 foot undeveloped right-of-way and the abutting parcel is totally landlocked with the exception of 35 feet of frontage on the row. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what would be required for access to this parcel from Sylvan Road. Mr. Kiser indicated that he thought that they would have to cross over other property that is either owned by Eastern Maine Community College (EMCC) or Eastern Maine Medical Center on Sylvan Road Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from proponents. Mr. John Largay, partial owner of the property spoke in favor. He noted that the owners of the contiguous property (the Cochrane’s) to the west of this property were also present. Mr. Largay explained that the Cochranes were interested in trying to develop their property into multi- family or condominium units and their parcel is zoned for this use. They asked him if he would be willing to apply for a zone change for residential use of his property. He said that initially he had talked with EMCC about their possible expansion onto a portion of this property. Presently, this property is directly contiguous to five residential homes. He did not feel that it made sense to have an industrial or commercial use adjoining the back of those properties. Mr. Largay indicated that by the same token they wanted to get as much for the property that they possibly could because it is an investment. In talks with City Staff, a compromise solution was proposed to allow EMCC to buy 2 or 3 acres of the parcel and rezone the remaining parcel for residential use which seemed to be the best compromise and more conforming to the neighborhood. Mr. Largay indicated that he would prefer to build a single-family home on approximately 2.5 acres of the lot. At this point he could not speak for what his partners would like to do with their part of parcel. 7 Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Largay if he had an agreement with the abutting land owner to provide access to their site. Mr. Largay indicated that they had an agreement that they would use the access in common. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that one way to try to reduce the impact upon the neighborhood would be to limit the density of the residential development that would be permitted on the parcel. The High Density Residential District allows for high density development which could create a lot of traffic. This site may be able to accommodate a less dense residential development with fewer people and less traffic that the street system could better handle. Mr. Largay explained that they are proposing to down zone land that could be used for commercial use to multi-family use. He indicated that he would not be in favor of down zoning it further because they have significantly reduced the value of the property in order to request this change. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from opponents. Mr. Pete Larson of 137 Dartmouth Street wanted to know more about what was proposed, what the potential traffic impact would be, and if there was wetland on the property. John Cangelosi, 169 Juniper Street, was concerned about the variety of uses that would be allowed such as large apartments and mobile home parks, and also expressed concern about traffic impacts. He indicated that he would rather have college uses (dormitories or other buildings) on this parcel with no access to Harvard Street. Ms. Susan Hall, 131 Dartmouth Street, indicated that she would rather see the vocational school expansion with access to Sylvan Road than have impacts from a multifamily development on this quiet neighborhood. Ms. Amy Cangelosi 169 Juniper Street, asked if the single family neighborhood would be protected from multi-family traffic volumes. Mr. Errol Cleveland of 78 Harvard Street was opposed to any project. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer David Gould indicated this request was a follow-up to discussions the City has had concerning the extension of Harvard Street. The Staff had indicated they would not support the extension of Harvard Street if it were to serve commercial traffic into the residential neighborhood. Staff felt that any commercial development should be accessed from Sylvan Road. Planning Officer Gould reviewed the history of the City’s Land Use Policy and zoning for this area including the 1960 industrial development of Sylvan Road, the change to commercial use of that area in the late 1980’s, and GC&S zoning in 1991. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff felt that high density residential zoning would be more compatible with the residential neighborhood than a heavy commercial zone that allows hotels, auto dealerships and similar uses. Chairman Guerette asked for discussion and/or a motion. It was the consensus of the Board that because the density of any future development was unknown, there was not 8 a proposed plan, and there were no assurances as to traffic levels that they could not support changing the zone that would potentially allow access to this single-family neighborhood. The Board indicated that retaining the commercial development potential with an access to Sylvan Road was preferable in their view. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Planning Board recommend that the Council approve the proposed zone change for the property located at the end of the Harvard Street right-of-way for John Largay and Heirs of Abraham Shapiro, applicants as set forth in Council Ordinance 07-173. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously to not recommend approval. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to fill and grade property located at 1549 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Grant Realty Corporation, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant or their designee. Mr. Jim Manzer, PE of Ames A/E, representing the applicant explained this proposal is to stage approximately 5,000 cubic yards of soil on 1.5 acres of a 25 acre lot. The fill is sited so as to provide for setbacks from the wetlands on the site. There will be silt fencing of the area of disturbance away from the wetlands. The applicant proposed to utilize an existing driveway to minimize any site disturbance close to the road and to minimize impacts on existing vegetation across the frontage of the site. Mr. Manzer explained that ultimately, the applicant would like to use this site for a site development project at some later date and this material will be utilized at that time. In the meantime, this provides an opportunity for some settlement of the underlining soils of the site. This is a technique used frequently which is call freeloading which allows for a more stable subsoil in which to build on. They project 350 loads over a six week, five day a week period with approximately 12 loads a day. Ms. Brown asked if this was a short lived project. Mr. Manzer indicated that it would take approximately six weeks to put the piles in place which will remain there until a future site development occurs. Ms. Brown asked what buffering was proposed. Mr. Manzer indicated that they propose to leave the existing 60 feet of vegetation along Broadway and the 40 feet along the side towards Glenburn. The soils will be left there to firm them up for ground improvement. When the site is developed it will be pushed aside and used in critical areas for construction purposes. Mr. Theeman asked if this would be a staging area, if there would be trucks hauling it back off the site, and what kind of materials would be stockpiled there. Mr. Manzer indicated that it is the applicant’s intent is to utilize the materials on the site at a future date. There would no sand, no gravel no mulch or loam just basic soils that have clays or organics. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Planning Officer Gould explained that this application is a request for Site Development Plan approval to fill and 9 grade at 1549 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Staff has no concern with a simple fill and grade operation. However, what is of concern is that this same applicant received approval from the Board in 2000 for a fill and grade operation down the street. For years the Code Enforcement Office chased the applicant to bring the fill and grade back under control and it never got under control. Staff does not want the same situation to happen again at this new location. Because this site is located adjacent to a dwelling, Staff indicated that they would like for the Board to consider the hours of operation and an end date when it will be complete. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff has no issue with filling and grading but does have a concern in situations where materials are stock piled that get out of control and never comply with the originally granted approvals. Mr. Theeman asked if this could be accomplished through conditional approval. Chairman Guerette indicated that he felt that it could be. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Gould what type of condition that could be placed upon approval. Mr. Gould indicated that this should be done cooperatively with the applicant. He indicated that he felt that there should be hours of operation established such that whoever resides next door might have some reasonable expectation of some hours of peace and quiet. Mr. Manzer indicated that hours of operation and an end date are perfectly reasonable conditions. He explained that when he was asked to do a grade and fill permit he did his best to put in place the best management practices for erosion and sediment control and site stabilization because he understood that a previously approved fill and grade down the street would be a subject of discussion. Mr. Manzer indicated that he understood the reservations felt by Board Members, but it is his understanding that this site will be completed within the normal parameters of site plan approval and that the fill would be at the contours as shown on the plan stabilized, grassed over and completed within that time frame. However, he indicated that he was reluctant to volunteer hours of operation on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Brown asked if it would be reasonable to table this item to the next meeting in order to ask the applicant to come before the Board to answer some of these questions. Chairman Guerette felt that Mr. Manzer was sent to the meeting to speak on behalf of the applicant and the Board could instruct him to instruct the applicant the wishes of the City. The Board discussed the hours of operations, starting and completion dates, and proposed conditions of approval. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would support a condition which limited the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed grade and fill at 1549 Broadway Grant Realty Corporation, applicant, with the condition that the hours of operation of the grade and fill activity be restricted to 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday thru Friday. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. 10 Item No. 4: Planned Group Development and Developmental Subdivision Plan approvals to construct 24 single-family attached dwelling units (twelve duplexes) in a Low Density Residential District located at 745 and 785 Mount Hope Avenue. Meadowbrook Ridge, LLC, applicant. Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Fred Marshall, Plymouth Engineering, representing the applicant, explained that this project received Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals from the Board, previously. The applicant is now requesting Planned Group Development and Developmental Subdivision approvals so that the applicant can sell the individual units. In this process, they are proposing several reserved areas to allow future development of the remaining lands in the back of the lot. This does not change any of the boundaries or the footprint of the development. Chairman Guerette asked if at the time of the prior approvals if the applicant anticipated selling the units. Mr. Marshall indicated that that was the plan but the applicant was looking at a different format. At the advice of their attorney they are now requesting planned group development and Developmental Subdivision Plan approvals. Mr. Stevenson Sheppard explained that the fundamental change here is that they were originally looking at a condominium development. After review, the applicant’s attorney recommended that they pursue this as a planned group development instead because of vagaries in the condominium process. They are looking to get the title aspects of this in line in order to sell them as planned group development units rather than condominium units. Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. Gould indicated that this Board previously approved this site development plan and conditional use and this application is the same project but the applicant is now requesting subdivision/planned group development approvals. This will allow the developer to sell each unit individually such that they will get ownership in one of the numbered units on the plan; get some ownership in the common areas as depicted on the plan. This will specifically set down the details of the property as to the exact boundary, the location of the units and will have a development agreement. Staff feels that this meets all Ordinance requirements and is basically a procedural step. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Planned Group Development and Developmental Subdivision Plan approvals for the proposed development at 745 and 785 Mt. Hope Avenue, Meadowbrook Ridge, LLC, applicant on the condition that the applicant provide the Planning Office with an executed Planned Group Development Agreement. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. There were no Minutes for Board consideration. Other Business nd Chairman Guerette reminded the Board that at its May 22 meeting the traffic consultant would be present to discuss the Maine Department of Transportation’s Traffic Movement Permit process. Planning Officer Gould discussed a prior handout regarding open space and asked the Board for feedback. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.