Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-20 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JUNE 20, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark 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 As no one wished to remove any of the items for discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rosenblatt and passed unanimously. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Act Modification approvals to construct a 7,200 square foot building for use as a golf maintenance building at the Municipal Golf Course located at 333-343 Webster Avenue in a Parks and Open Space District. City of Bangor Parks and Recreation Department, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan and Site Location of Development Modification approvals to locate wireless communications antennas in the interior ceiling of the BIA Domestic Terminal Building and construct a 240 sq. ft. equipment shelter in an Airport Development District. Portland Cellular Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, applicant. 2 Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to reconstruct an existing employee parking lot, relocate the existing entrance away from Main Street, add storm drains, and add catch basins in a General Commercial and Service District located at 491 Main Street/Lincoln Street. Bangor Daily News, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 4: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval to construct a 6,058 square foot building for use as a credit union with a drive-thru use located at 671 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Maine Savings Federal Credit Union, applicant. Chairman Guerette noting that this Public Hearing was opened and continued at the Board’s Meeting of May 16, 2005, asked for a presentation from the applicant. Mr. Don Becker, P.E. of CES, Inc., represented the applicant, Maine Savings Federal Credit Union. Mr. Becker indicated that Jennifer Williams, a Traffic Engineer from Gorrill Palmer Associates, and Mr. Ed Theriault, architect, were also present to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Becker explained that the applicant is proposing to construct a 6,058 square foot building for use as a credit union with a drive-thru use. This site is next door to the Quiznos Sandwich shop and across the street from Dairy Queen on Broadway. Chairman Guerette asked about buffers and the curb cut proposed on Broadway, which is an extremely busy major arterial. He asked if the applicant had considered access to this facility through the parking lot of the Broadway Shopping Center as he felt that this would be a much more user friendly and traffic friendly configuration. Mr. Becker indicated that he was unaware that there was a buffer issue. At one time there was a missing tree on the left hand side of the site and some differing landscape plans which have been addressed. In answer to the access question, Mr. Becker indicated that they looked at access from the Broadway Shopping Center as the applicant would have liked to do this. Unfortunately, the owners of the Broadway Shopping Center have a Lessee who considers themselves a competitor to the applicant. Therefore, there was no willingness on the part of the Shopping Center owner to provide the applicant access to the shopping center. So, their only access alternative became Broadway. Mr. Becker indicated that there was a great deal of thought given to where this curb cut would be and how people would enter and exit the site. Ms. Jennifer Williams, Traffic Engineer with Gorrill Palmer Consulting Engineers, indicated that her firm did the Traffic Impact Study for this project. She said that access to this site from the Broadway Shopping Center would have been ideal but unfortunately that was not an option for this project. What they did was align the access for the credit union with the entrance to Dairy Queen (across the street) to try to eliminate or reduce the number of conflicting turning movements. There is delay in entering and exiting the facility because of the five lanes of traffic but this is not uncommon for this type of roadway. Mr. Rosenblatt had several questions pertaining to traffic. He was concerned that the proposed use would create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets. He asked why the diagrams of the Broadway intersection, contained in the 3 Traffic Report, do not include driveways which obviously have traffic coming in and out of them. He asked if the Broadway Dairy Queen driveway was analyzed. He asked if the Level of Service E, as indicated in the Study, was an appropriate level to see if a traffic signal is warranted. Ms. Williams indicated that they were asked to look at the signalized intersections along the corridor from the southbound ramps at the Interstate up to and including Grandview Avenue. Typically they use this information to run the travel model which looks at the flow of traffic along the corridor. It is very difficult to count and accurately model every driveway. They typically look at the major intersections and work the balance through there. Ms. Williams indicated that while they do not have the turns at every driveway, by counting the intersections they still have the overall flow of traffic along the corridor. They did not do an analysis of the Dairy Queen Driveway but used the typical trip generation rates for that type of facility and used those numbers of the p.m. peak hour turning movements to see what the impact of the opposing driveways would be. Ms. Williams indicated that they did not do a complete signal warrant evaluation because of the proximity of the signals along the corridor. Having the existing signals timed in coordination will help provide gaps along the corridor. She said that she felt that the only warrant the signal would trigger would be for the peak hour which is not necessarily the best reason to install a signal when it only meets that one condition. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the signals were coordinated now. Ms. Williams said that she believed that they are, and they are recommending a new coordination plan of those signals. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about the peak hour numbers for left turns (54 left turns per hour exiting and 44 left turns per hour entering) and how the proposed queuing will take place. Ms. Williams explained that what they propose for queuing, as they run the model and look at it, is an average th queue of one to two vehicles on Broadway. Under the so-called 95 Percentile Queue it indicates that 95 percent of the time the queue will be shorter than three vehicles for southbound traffic which is the left turning traffic into the site. Mr. Rosenblatt asked how does that queuing relate to queuing to other places, particularly, the Diary Queen and if it is occupying the same place in the center lane. Ms. Williams indicated that they would be face to face with each other with the entering vehicles. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there is an existing traffic simulation model and if it was a visual model. Ms. Williams indicated that there is but that they have not been able to coordinate schedules to sit down with the City Engineer to go over it. She explained that it is an animated computer model that is overlayed on an aerial photo. Mr. Theeman asked if Ms. Williams was involved with the traffic model for the Tim Horton’s location. Ms. Williams indicated that she was not personally involved. Mr. Theeman asked if the Traffic Simulation Model for the Tim Hortons has been completed. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer indicated that it has and when the Board considered this a few months ago it was the same traffic consultant that did the analysis for that project. The Board and Staff had concerns about the traffic when considering the Tim Horton’s proposal and this site is not too far down the road on this very busy thoroughfare. Mr. Ring indicated that he has reviewed the traffic analysis and felt that it was properly done. The Tim Horton’s project, like this one, because of the volume of traffic, needed to obtain an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit. One of the additional conditions of the Tim Horton’s approval and what Staff is recommending here is 4 that in that process (which he is always involved with) that Staff review a traffic simulation model to verify the numbers. This is not a substitute for a study and he looks at it as a very useful tool that substantiates the study. Mr. Theeman asked if it is possible that given the distance on the opposite side of the street that the signal timing modifications recommended for the Tim Horton’s project would be in conflict with this project. Mr. Ring indicated that he did not think so because when a traffic study is done for a project like this and one that requires some level of a MDOT Traffic Movement Permit it has to take into account all permitted facilities even if they are not built. Mr. Ring indicated that recently they did improve the coordination of the timing on Broadway. This is done quite frequently in order to make improvements and to account for changing traffic conditions. Mr. Wheeler asked if the current competitive lessee (Bangor Savings Bank) has exercised a virtual veto over access from the Broadway Shopping Center parking lot and if that is the case, is that a part of that client’s/lessees contract with the Shopping Center. He said that he found it disturbing that this kind of restraint could be placed upon what would obviously be a safer situation for all parties concerned. He indicated that when he hears questions that express concern about creating hazardous traffic conditions, in terms of egress and access on a site that is one of the most highly traveled and busiest in the City, he finds it ironic and bothers him that they might be on a case by case basis continuously holding applicants, at least temporarily hostage, to ideal conditions which don’t exist and have not existed for a very long time. According to the Staff Memo, contingent upon the submission of a traffic simulation model, this application has met all of the requirements necessary. He said that the problem is not so much the fact that there will be a few more cars entering Broadway and leaving Broadway to patronize this facility, the problem is the way people drive. Mr. Clark said that he agreed that exits going left might be a problem but Dairy Queen is closed four months of the year and will take some of the traffic away. When he thinks about the University Credit Union and the fact that Union Street and that is almost as busy as Broadway during the day, people are managing to get through there. He said that he felt that the applicant had done adequate studies and because of the nature of the use, he did not have a concern with the traffic at this site. Mr. Ring indicated that when this project first came in for Staff review the drive-way was shown to be in a different location and Staff raised that as an issue with the applicant. The present proposal does align the main entrance to this facility with the entrance to Dairy Queen. He noted that he looked at the proposed queuing length very carefully and the 95% queue on the peak hour was 3 vehicles, What he is interested in when he reviews this type of application is does that stack so that it blocks the entrance to the Dairy Queen, and the answer is no. The fact that the peak hour traffic occurs in the p.m. was also something that he felt it was important as the heavier movement on Broadway is outbound and this does mean that the greater proportion of total trips in and out of this facility at the peak hour would be right in and right out. Mr. Ring felt that this would be an off peak hour for the potentially conflicting driveway on the other side of the street Mr. Ring indicated that there won’t be major re-timings of the signals and the legs of the intersections on the public ways, overall, show a slight improvement. The study also showed that the impact would be within the site and not out in Broadway. 5 Mr. Rosenblatt felt that Broadway is very congested and that he was having trouble concluding that this development won’t make it considerably worse in that particular area. He asked why the diagrams in the traffic study did not include the un-signalized entrances off of Broadway. Mr. Ring explained that unless you know the exact peak hour occurrences for the particular business it is very difficult to model it. Mr. Rosenblatt said that in the real world there are cars coming in and out of those driveways all the time. He asked how the Board could proceed with this study that just pretends that they don’t exist. Mr. Rosenblatt noting the number of left turns at the peak hour is 54 and given the activity on Broadway during the peak hour including the driveways that really are there that do not have signals, indicated that he is having trouble understanding how this roadway accommodates this. Mr. Ring said that he thinks that one of the things that benefit on Broadway is that Broadway has a fifth turning lane so that that turning traffic can get out of or avoid blocking thru lanes. What is really critical, aside from the fact that you have turns, is the waiting for the turns and the queue length. Mr. Ring said that if the queue length doesn’t block adjacent driveways, while there may be a wait and potential conflicts for left turns, and you don’t have high crash locations there, it is not a serious problem. Mr. Becker asked if Board was aware that the turning movements of those cars that were not counted are actually accounted for in the thru traffic, and that means that it assumes that they can get in and get out. If you were able to model this, the fact that those cars would be delayed from time to time would make your study overly optimistic about what would occur. It is actually conservative not to consider those turning movements because it would in effect make the model look better than it really is. The applicant has to satisfy MDOT and Jim Ring that they have not created an unsafe condition. If not, they will not get their permit and they will never build this facility. Ms. Brown said that a model is a model and you have to have some faith in what you put in for figures. The statistical analysis says that you take a certain percentage of what you are looking at. The designers of these different studies have spent the better parts of their lives figuring it out. While sometimes it is uncomfortable, she has done it with drainage studies. Ms. Brown said that you have to take some faith in the fact that there are some checks and balances here. The big one being the Maine Department of Transportation’s input. No one from the public spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the request. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould discussed with the Board an exhibit which showed the lanes and turning movements on Broadway. He explained that Maine Savings Federal Credit Union is seeking conditional use and site development plan approval to construct a 6,058 sq. ft. financial institution with drive up facilities at 671 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. The proposed facility is going to have 3 drive-thru lanes, approximately 27 parking spaces, and an on-site loading at the facility. The Land Development Code requires parking lots that abut a public street have a minimum of a “B” Buffer between the parking and the public street. Conditional Use/Drive Thru uses are required to have a “C” Buffer on the side and rear yards. Two particular details that the Shopping and Personal Service requires of drive-thru facilities is to provide for adequate queuing on-site (to make sure that there is a minimum of five spaces for each of these drive-up windows). It also talks about any additional parking that might be provided for customers that might have service 6 on-site. Mr. Gould said that Staff is comfortable that this facility does have adequate queuing for its drive-up lanes and more than adequate parking on-site. Planning Officer Gould discussed the conditional use standards of the Land Development Code and noted that this application meets those standards in that: 1) it meets the basic standards of the Land Development Code without obtaining a variance; 2) it does not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on contiguous or adjacent streets ( the applicant has gone through the standard engineering methodology to make a model to predict how the site is going to operate); 3) it maintains appropriate utilities to accommodate this use; and 4) the applicant has provided elevation drawings in support of the criteria that the building needs to be in character with the other buildings in the area. Mr. Gould discussed traffic details noting that this is a Level of Service E. Mr. Gould noted that he spoke with representatives of the applicant pointing out to them that a Level of Service E this will result in delays. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff is comfortable with the City Engineer’s analysis of the traffic study and is comfortable that this application meets the standards for approval. Staff recommended approval with the condition that the City Engineer view the traffic simulation model to make sure that any signal timing improvements that can be made to the City’s coordinated signal system on Broadway be done and that any off-site improvements required would be the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if in 5 to 10 years from now the owner of this facility would like to have a fast food operation there if they would have to come back to the Board; and, if there was any particular reason why the Planning Board should approve this before anyone at the City has seen the traffic model. Mr. Gould indicated that if the Ordinance is the same as it is now, they would need to come back before the Board as it would be a different conditional use request. Regarding approving this project prior to City review of the traffic model, it is like many things that are done. The City Staff expects that the Board has some confidence in the Staff that certain details such as stormwater analysis, some additional submittals that Staff may want to see, some additional traffic modeling that Jim Ring would want to see that the Staff will diligently look out for the interests of the City. If the Board does not want to give that confidence in the Staff then the Board can say they are not satisfied and the applicant needs to provide it to the Board. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that the MDOT Traffic Movement Permit will be a part of this application. He noted that he is always involved with that process but in this case it is an additional request. He explained that the process does not require the simulation model but they have to model the traffic to predict the impacts. It is not an MDOT requirement it is something that he wants to see as it helps him in validating what the written analysis says. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he appreciated the City Planner’s response and asked if the condition of the submittal of a traffic simulation model would apply to both the approval of conditional use and the site development plan or the site development plan alone. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff would ask the Board to do two separate motions. Typically the conditions are run with both motions. However, the traffic issue is really a part of the conditional use standard and not a part of site development plan approval. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board grant approval of the conditional use subject to the submittal of a traffic simulation model to be reviewed and 7 approved by the City Engineer and that any signal timing modifications be the responsibility of the applicant as it relates to a 6,058 sq. ft. building with drive thru lanes at 671 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor. Mr. Wheeler moved to grant approval of the site development plan for the credit union with drive-thru lanes at 671 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District - Maine Savings Bank Federal Credit Union, applicant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of the motion. Item No. 5: Amending the Land Development Code Chapter 165-103a – Technology and Service District and Schedule “B” as it Pertains to the Technology and Service District. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-224. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the applicant. Planning Officer Gould explained that the amendment before the Planning Board is the creation of the Technology and Service District. This is something that was discussed during the Comprehensive Plan Update and is an idea that has been around for a year or two to come up with a new set of zoning standards for a better way to deal with Maine Business Enterprise Park. When the Park was created in the early 90’s the Industry and Service District which is the City’s base Industrial Park District was used. As the park has developed, it has become something more than our typical industrial park. It has really become a high end business location. Some years ago, Staff sought a way to allow some things to happen in the Maine Business Enterprise Park that would not necessarily work in other Industrial Parks. In the Maine Business Enterprise Park there is a long list of private covenants that the City has including design review. Staff felt it was timely to come up with a new district, namely, the Technology and Service District. This new “business park district” is geared less towards manufacturing and standard industrial uses and more towards high end business park, technology centers, and medical facilities. Schedule B is the schedule within the back of the Land Development Code which provides for lot area, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. Staff has provided for sizeable lot areas and lot coverages to maintain the high quality of development that is presently in the Maine Business Enterprise Park. By making Maine Business Enterprise Park a separate zoning district this will allow for a freer hand when going back to make amendments in that District. In the past, Staff was cautious of any amendments to the Industry and Service District because they would also impact the Maine Business Enterprise Park. The Economic Development Staff has been pushing to develop this as soon as the Comprehensive Plan Update was completed because there is always an interest in that property and they wish to ensure that the continued development is consistent with what is there today. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that there is a reference to 165-13 and it should be amended to read 165-103a. Mr. Theeman asked what would be allowed in the Technology and Service District that would not be allowed in the Industry and Service District and vice versa. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not think that there was anything that is in the Technology and Service District that would not be allowed in the Industry and Service District (I & S). Mr. Gould explained that the Industry and Service District is a broader category. Medical and Dental Clinics are allowed in I & S now but likely will come out because they are not a standard industrial use while contemplated in Technology and Service District. In terms of Permitted Uses, manufacturing, compounding, assembling, warehousing, wholesaling is not intended for the T & S District. The industrial operations become conditional uses that are intended to be limited in terms of their outward 8 impacts. Truck terminals, distribution centers, radio and television facilities, chemical dependency treatment facilities are not allowed. Under Conditional Uses there would be auto repair shops that would not be in the Technology and Service District because the Industry and Service District was designed to cover large areas of Bangor and the Technology and Service District is really geared towards the Maine Business Enterprise Park. Mr. Theeman noted that there could be a substance abuse treatment facility in the Industry and Service District but it would not be allowed in the Technology and Service District, and that there could be a research and testing laboratory in either location. Mr. Gould indicated that this is correct. Chairman Guerette noted that the Board has had some very lively debate about the zoning, as a permitted use, of the substance abuse clinic. The City clearly did not want that use in the mainstream of society and attempted to make that permissible only in Industrial Zones where a manufacturing or packaging activity or warehouse activity takes place. He indicated that it bothered him that now they are trying to accommodate the Maine Business Park type setting that we are going to leave the substance abuse clinic in the industrial zone. He said that he felt it ironic to not allow them the same kind of exposure for this preferred zoning. He noted that under the list of permitted uses banks, credit unions and other financial institutions were excluded and asked if they are considered to be business offices. Mr. Gould explained that these are more service businesses than strictly an office operation. The Technology and Service District zoning for the Maine Business Enterprise Park is not intended for drive-thru bank facilities. Chairman Guerette indicated that he would have liked to have had a discussion prior to this Council Ordinance coming before the Planning Board to have input into how this was structured. He said that he found it extremely imperfect as it is presented. Ms. Brown asked if substance abuse clinics would fall under the definition of clinical, medical or dental facilities. Mr. Gould explained that it did not and that the City’s attorneys crafted the language very specifically to say that it is not. Substance abuse treatment facilities are a defined term in the Land Development Code. The prior amendments were very intricately crafted amendments to deal with definitions which took medical facilities and doctor’s offices and gave them a new definition of clinic, medical and dental. The methadone clinics were taken out of that as a separate use so now places where we used to be able to do a doctor’s office as a professional office you can no longer do that. It is defined separately. This is why in the Waterfront Development District there is a proposed amendment to put clinic, and medical and dental uses back into the district because the way the Ordinance has been restructured, it does not fall under professional office. Ms. Brown said that she agreed with Chairman Guerette that she would have liked to have seen this in a different format in order to discuss it. Mr. Theeman said that he agreed with the Chairman and said that he felt that they were trying to put a size 10 foot into a size 8 shoe and the Board should have been given the courtesy of a discussion about this. He indicated that he wished to go on record that he would not support this amendment. Mr. Clark asked if making the Maine Business Enterprise Park a Technology and Service District was advantageous to the City in terms marketing the properties and if it gave them an 9 easier path to market the properties. Mr. Gould indicated that this district has the potential to have the people who are there that have substantial investments in the park be assured that they won’t have a drive-thru bank next door or a small operation that isn’t consistent with their investment. Mr. Gould said that he hoped that the Technology and Service District would not get tangled up in a discussion about chemical dependency clinics as he felt that this was a separate debate. The creation of a new zoning district for Maine Business Enterprise Park is a key element in the restructuring of Industrial districts as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. If the Board does not like this amendment and would like to look at other permitted and conditional uses then the Board should have that discussion. The Economic Development Department was concerned that uses may come along that they did not want to see in the Maine Business Enterprise Park and that is what moved this along. Mr. Rosenblatt said that the Board should not let striving for perfection keep the Board from doing at least something moderately useful. He asked what area would be included in this district and where the boundary is. Mr. Gould indicated that the only area anticipated to be zoned Technology and Service District will be the Maine Business Enterprise Park which is off Maine Avenue at the corner of Hammond Street and Maine Avenue. Some of the businesses that are already located there are the Malcolm Jones Technology Center, Northeast Cardiology, and Sunbury Medical. The Park runs along Maine Avenue back to Corporate Drive and Venture Way and abuts the Interstate. Mr. Gould noted that if this District is approved, then there will need to be a zone change to place the district on the ground. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he saw this as a typical example of the evolution of land use and that it relates to the lengthy work that the Board has done to update the Comprehensive Plan. The key element that will persuade him to support this is the statement in the Staff Memorandum that if we don’t support it them they are going to inhibit some necessary and logical and advisable amendments to the Industry and Service District because they will simultaneously impact the Maine Business Enterprise Park. Mr. Wheeler said that even though he is emotionally connected with the Chairman’s sentiments and the rest of the Board, he felt that he would have to vote in favor of this amendment. There were no proponents or opponents. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Barnes said that he felt that this Ordinance should pass as it is consistent with the land use in the Maine Business Enterprise Park. Mr. Theeman asked if the Board could table this item. Chairman Guerette indicated that the Board could table this but when it comes back for reconsideration it will be in the same format. The Board will have to vote on this Council Ordinance up or down. He said that he believed that this will make it through the City Council and it was incumbent upon the Board to vote in its best judgment and then come back and make modifications to the language at a later time. Mr. Wheeler said that he did not think that the Board could table this and asked for a ruling by the City Attorney. Mr. Gould indicated that the Land Development Code says that the Planning Board must render a recommendation within 30 days of holding the Public Hearing. He said that he would like to get the language to a point where the Board is comfortable with it before moving ahead. He indicated that he wished to know the nature of the Board’s concerns. 10 Mr. Theeman said that he was not sure what is meant by research and testing laboratories and he could think of facilities that would be less aesthetic and a lot more inappropriate under the umbrella of research and testing laboratories than he could under alcohol or methadone clinics. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Gould how the language of this amendment was drafted. Mr. Gould indicated that the concept of this was to take a look at what we had in Industry and Service and the idea was to move away from Industrial and move toward a Business Park. The thought is to not have retail operations that will be competing with regular commercial parks. The City is looking for high end establishments similar to what is presently located in the Maine Business Enterprise Park. Staff worked through the list of uses with the Economic and Community Development and the Legal Department Staffs to make sure that it was acceptable in terms of definitions. The Economic and Community Development Staff has taken this to the Business and Economic Development Committee twice and they have endorsed it twice. Mr. Wheeler felt that Mr. Theeman had made a logical point that there is a great lack of specificity in the term research and testing laboratories and the Board could come up with a parade of horribles that probably would not happen. On the other, he questioned whether the Board wanted to create a loop hole that is big enough for something very ugly and undesirable to jump through. He indicated that he was going to vote against this amendment. Mr. Theeman said that for the record that it is a shame that no one from Community and Economic Development was present to defend this and that the defense of this falls on Mr. Gould. Ms. Brown said that she did not mean to come across as picking apart the medical definition but wanted it to be put out there as the general public reading this without being aware of the background might not really understand what is meant by the definitions of all of these different places. She said that she was sure that they were all defined but if they are not defined she would not be in support of this. Mr. Gould said that in general he concurred as he liked terms that are defined. In his discussions with the Legal Department the City Attorney indicated that not every term that is used needs to be defined. The concept of research and testing, in terms of a land use concept, goes back to the City’s 1974 Zoning Ordinance which had an Industrial 1 District. The only research and testing facility that he is aware of that was ever developed was the Affiliated Laboratory that was built off Sylvan Road in the I-1 District which was designed specifically for research and testing type facilities. Chairman Guerette indicated that the concept of the Technology and Service District has been something that Mr. Gould has been mentioning for some time. It is a logical change and improvement to the Land Development Code and he felt that every Board Member probably wishes that they had been involved in this earlier on in trying to craft this language with a basic knowledge that they have just having gone through the Comprehensive Plan Update. He said that he thought that because of those dynamics that he will support the motion and endeavor to lend definitions to it at a later point in time. While not perfect, the amendment is going in the right place. 11 Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Land Development Code – Section 165-103a as set forth in C.O. # 06-224. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3 to 2. Item No. 6: Amending the Land Development Code Chapter 165-8 – Districts Established, Section 165-66 – Zoning District Boundaries, Section 165-73 Parking Areas; Section 165-74 Design, Parking Lot Construction and Maintenance and Section 165-111 Site Developments Requiring Permit to add the Technology and Service District in the Land Development Code. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-223. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this amendment is the second part of what is needed to do when creating a new district. The new district is added to the list of districts in the Land Development Code but also needs to be added to the parking regulation sections, transition yard sections and a number of places where the Ordinance specifies by district. Chairman Guerette opened the meeting up to comments from proponents and opponents. There being no comments, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the amendments to those provisions of the Land Development Code set forth in C.O. # 06-223. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Item No. 7: Amending the Land Development Code, Chapter 165, Section 94 – Waterfront Development District and Schedule “A” as it Pertains to Waterfront Development District. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-226. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing. Planning Officer Gould explained that this amendment is a revisit to the proposed amendments to the Waterfront Development District that were reviewed by the Board back in December 2005. At that time, there were a few concerns raised by the Board. Staff indicated that it would work on these and bring it back to the Board. Now the Waterfront Development District comes back with proposed definitions for intermodal facility both passenger and freight. Due to some interest of development projects within the district to have professional doctors offices, the clinic, medical and dental use is added as a permitted use. Also, there was concern about the last amendment that deleted some language as to manufacturing within the Waterfront District and language was added to include this use. Schedule A is also being amended to reflect the basic lot and dimensional requirements for that new use. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Gould to explain how the changes evolved and who was involved in developing the language. Mr. Gould explained that this initially started from concerns that the Planning Board raised when intermodal facilities was moved from a conditional use to a permitted use without having any kind of definition of what was meant. Staff researched literature to come up with a definition of passenger intermodal and an off setting one for freight intermodal 12 facilities so that the two uses could be clearly defined. Passenger intermodal was put into the Waterfront Development District so now it is clear as to what that deals with. There are three property owners with three pending developments that have expressed an interest to the City that they be able to lease space to medical professionals. Without this amendment they would not be able to do so in the Waterfront Development District. The last amendment relative to the Maine Products Center was something that some members of the City Council expressed concern when it was proposed to be deleted from the Waterfront Development District because that was one of the cornerstone concepts of the original District. Back in December 2005 there was concern that the language seemed to be extremely awkward and unworkable. It was not until Staff proposed to take it out that anyone expressed a concern at its loss. Staff tried to look at language that would provide for that use. The Planning Staff worked with the Staff in Community Development (who are the ones who are trying to redevelop the waterfront) and the Legal Department to make sure that the language is something that they thought was defensible. As there were no public comments, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Land Development Code specifically, 165-94 and Schedule A as it pertains to the Waterfront Development District as set forth in C.O. # 06-226. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion and it passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Item No. 8: Amending the Land Development Code, Chapter 165-13 – Definitions to add Intermodal Facility – Passenger and Freight. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-227. The Public Hearing was opened by the Chairman who asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould explained that this amendment would add definitions for Intermodal Facility for Passenger and Freight. He noted that some years ago there was an interest on the part of a bus line to locate in the City. Presently bus station, which is undefined, is only provided for in the Downtown Development District. When the bus line came to the City to locate somewhere outside of the downtown, the thinking at the time was that the only way to do this was to rezone the property as a Downtown Development District. Today there is a contract Downtown Development District in the middle of Union Street. With the definition of passenger intermodal facility, which is in fact a bus station, it opens the door to have bus stations in places other than downtown. He added that this amendment will facilitate more than just a Waterfront Development District with this definition. Chairman Guerette asked in which zones passenger intermodal facility would be appropriate other than the Waterfront Development District and the Downtown Development District. Mr. Gould indicated that it is proposed in the General Commercial and Service District (which is in the next amendment). Mr. Theeman asked if these definitions were fairly standard and reflected Staff’s research. Mr. Gould indicated that they reflected research while crafting them to specifically fit what Staff is looking at doing. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the bus terminal use in the Downtown Development District is a permitted use and he asked what was meant by tank farms and other transportation terminals. 13 Mr. Gould explained that in the Urban Industry District it says permitted uses are any industrial or commercial use. Generally tank farms and other transportation terminals are truck terminals and distribution facilities. Mr. Wheeler noting that he recently saw a horse drawn carriage on Harlow Street asked if “other modes of transportation” in any way prohibit that type of activity. Mr. Gould indicated that it does not nor would not exclude any. There were no public comments and Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to Section 165-13 contained in C.O. # 06-227. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously; Item No. 9: Amending the Land Development Code, Chapter 165-102(9) – Adding Passenger Intermodal Facility to Permitted Uses in the General Commercial and Service District. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-228. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this a straight forward amendment to add Passenger Intermodal Facility to the list of Permitted Uses in the General Commercial and Service District. As he pointed out earlier, there is one bus facility that is not located in the downtown. This facility does have some interest in expanding and/or relocating and this will give them other opportunities. He noted that the Staff of the Community and Economic Development Dept. feels that bus terminals are just large parking lots. Mr. Gould noted that he pointed out that the General Commercial and Service District is a district that is intended for automobile and outdoor equipment storage and large parking areas. It would seem that if there is any district within the City that would accommodate a bus terminal and a large parking lot it would be this District. There were no comments from the public. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what areas around the City are zoned General Commercial and Service District. Mr. Gould indicated that Odlin Road from Lane Quarry to the hotels, Hogan Road where the automobile dealerships are, parts of outer Stillwater Avenue, and the Hammond Street Bulge are all zoned General Commercial and Service District. This District is a heavier commercial zone and tends to have more outdoor display. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment to the Land Development Code Section 165-102 adding No. 9 as set forth in C.O. # 06-228. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 5 to 0. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 11: Final Subdivision Plan Revision approval of a developmental subdivision plan located at 1434 Ohio Street to renumber the existing condominium units on the Final Subdivision Plan. Sable Ridge Real Estate Investments, LLC, applicant. 14 Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering, represented the applicant. Mr. Marshall explained that this is a “housekeeping” item. The owner and their attorney discovered part way through selling a couple of the units that the developmental subdivision plan incorrectly numbered the units. They are now asking for approval of a revision to correctly number the units on the plan. Mr. Marshall indicated that this is the only change to the developmental subdivision plan. Mr. Marshall indicated that there have been some conflicting comments from the developer and the contractor regarding changes made to the site and the buildings. He noted that he has talked to them about when they come back for the Certificate of Occupancy that they will need to have a correct site plan done. They have talked about moving one of the buildings and have added bulk heads. Mr. Marshall indicated that they recommended to the applicant that they do all of the changes at the same time. Chairman Guerette asked the Planning Officer for his report. Mr. Gould explained that the applicant came to the Planning Staff indicating that they had a problem as the approved Developmental Subdivision Plan that they recorded does not match the condominium agreements. The applicant is now asking for approval of a revised plan to get the unit numbering changed. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff does not care what the units are numbered. When the revised Plans were submitted, Staff noted other changes to the plan and did not feel that this was the same project only with different numbers on it. Staff got several phone calls from people trying to close on their units and the banks did not want to close because the paperwork and the approved plan did not match. The applicant indicated that they wished to revise the plan in order to have the correct numbering of the units. It is Staff’s understanding that there are other minor details of the plan that are not consistent with what the Board approved and there may be other changes coming. Staff felt this was a good time to bring the applicant and their representative here saying that we don’t have a concern relative to the numbering on the final plan but Staff wanted to go on record to say that we expect the applicant to bring back to the City plans that reflect the current conditions on the site and not do it after the whole project is completed. Mr. Theeman said that he felt that the applicant was doing this piece meal and asked if they could require the applicant to come back with all of the changes including the numbering as opposed to doing it one thing at a time. Mr. Marshall explained that they would have preferred to do this but one reason they wish approval of the renumbering is that they have several purchasers who want to close on units and they felt to delay their closings would pose an undue burden upon them. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that when the developer does this it is at the developer’s risk. When selling these units that have been constructed differently from what the Board has approved there is a fair amount of risk that is being passed along to the purchasers. Mr. Theeman agreed with Mr. Rosenblatt and asked the Planning Officer if he knew of any changes that would affect the issuance of occupancy permits for any of the properties that are out there. Planning Officer Gould indicated that the dilemma is that he does not issue occupancy permits meaning that they don’t have to do this step if they don’t want to. Mr. Gould said that Staff is taking this opportunity because they have a captive audience to say yes we will do this 15 adjustment of numbers based on the original plan that you approved but sooner or later there is going to come a reckoning on this project. Mr. Theeman asked the same question of Jim Ring. Mr. Ring indicated that in terms of issuance of a certificate of occupancy the buildings have to be built in conformance with the plan. Chairman Guerette asked Mr. Marshall if he felt that the developer was in agreement with coming back with revisions to the plan for approval before the Board before the entire project is completed. Mr. Marshall indicated that he believed that it is their intention to come back and it is their desire to move the one building (which has not been built yet) which would definitely require them to come back. Mr. Wheeler moved to approve the developmental subdivision plan for Sable Ridge Real Estate Investments, LLC at 1434 Ohio Street. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Item No. 12: Site Development Plan approval to reconfigure existing parking lots and construct a new parking lot at 40, 60 and 72 Summer Street in a Waterfront Development District. Harmaney Realty Limited Partnership, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened up the discussion and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. John McCormack of CES Engineers and agent for Harmaney Realty Limited Partnership which is a subsidiary of Webber Oil Company spoke in favor of this application. Mr. McCormack explained that the applicant has purchased the former Snow & Nealley building, the adjacent two- story brick building on Summer Street and a small parking lot across the street at the corner of Summer Street. This application does not involve any changes to the building footprints but involves reconfiguring some existing parking areas and the creation of new parking on the smaller lot across from the Snow and Nealley building. He noted that they have worked extensively with Staff on the issue of buffering and they feel that they meet all Ordinance submittal requirements. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if a revised plan had been submitted addressing Staff concerns. Mr. McCormack indicated that a revised plan was submitted that afternoon with additional plantings in the buffer areas. Mr. Theeman asked what the differences were between the two plans. Mr. Gould indicated that the curb cut proposed on Summer Street has been eliminated, and there are changes to the proposed buffers to reflect the correct number of plants. Mr. Gould noted that it is the City’s future intention to move the majority of traffic from Railroad Street up to Cedar Street thus moving it away from Summer Street. Mr. Clark asked if there would be a net gain or loss of parking and if the use of the buildings would be strictly for office, retail or mixed use. Mr. McCormack indicated that there was a gain of few spaces but at this point they did not really know how the buildings will be used. He indicated that they would be used for general office use and if there are other things that are allowed within the Ordinance they may be doing those too. 16 Mr. Gould indicated that this proposal is to redevelop additional parking around the sites. The benefit of it is that the site was approved six years ago and the approved improvements were never put in place. This gives the City another chance to see this site developed in accordance with City Ordinances. Because the Land Development Code has been amended since the original approval, the applicant must now comply with the 2006 requirements for buffer yards. This will be an improvement on the site, as well as, some additional off-site parking. All of the parking now meets the Land Development Code parking setbacks and the plan reflects the correct number of plant units and their locations are specified on the plan. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff feels that the plans are consistent and in order for approval. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to approve the site development plan for the proposed development at 40, 60 and 72 Summer Street for Harmaney Realty, LP, applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 10: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. This item was continued. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Guerette commended the Board on its expediency in reviewing the many items on the Agenda. Mr. Theeman asked for some definitions of some of the uses of the Technology and Service District, specifically research and testing laboratories, as well as, clinical, medical, and dental. Mr. Gould indicated that clinical, medical and dental are presently defined. Mr. Theeman asked if information processing and telemarketing are defined and added that he felt that it would be valuable to have definitions for those two items. Chairman Guerette noted that there was a wide-ranging interest to see this and to review that language. He asked Staff to prepare that language for the Board’s review. Mr. Gould indicated that the Planning Staff drafted a Council Order to send the Planning Board’s recommendation to the City Council for their review and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan 2006 Update. The City Manager thought it would be best that that go to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in advance of going to the full City Council. This will be considered in early July. Staff will keep the Board apprised of that meeting should the Board want to attend. On a different topic, during the Comprehensive Plan Update, there were discussions about definitions of some housing terms that are currently used in the Land Development Code that need to be defined. Planning Officer Gould distributed an initial draft of some definitions that are in the High Density Residential District for the Board review. It was noted that the Board’s next meeting will be on Wednesday, July 5, 2006 due to the th 4 of July holiday. There being no further items for discussion the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.