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.