Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-16 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF MAY 16, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman Hal Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Laura Mitchell Alice Brown Jeff Barnes City Staff Present: David Gould James Ring Peter Witham News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: To amend the Land Development Code by changing part of a parcel of land located at 200 Sylvan Road from Industry and Service District to General Commercial and Service District. Said part of a parcel contains approximately 13 acres. Sylvan Properties, LLC, applicant. C.O. # 06-170. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Jeff Allen, James W. Sewall Company, represented the applicant. Mr. Allen explained that the applicant is requesting a zone change for a 13 acre portion of a 36 acre parcel. The remaining 23 acres is presently zoned General Commercial and Service District and this zone change would make the entire zoning of the parcel consistent. Mr. Allen indicated that this zone change request is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. No one spoke in favor of this zone change request. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from opponents. Marlene Susi, 134 Saratoga Avenue, indicated that her property is 2 adjacent to the property in question. She said that she wasn’t necessarily an opponent but wanted the Board to know that the Saratoga Avenue neighborhood was a very well kept neighborhood, family oriented, and quiet. She wished to keep the integrity of this neighborhood. No one else spoke and Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for the Staff Report. Planning Officer Gould explained that the application before the Board is for a zone change from Industry and Service District to General Commercial and Service District for 13 acres of a 36 acre parcel located off of Sylvan Road. This is the site of the former Osram Sylvania building. Historically, Sylvan Road was built as an industrial area and a few industrial entities were developed along this road prior to the commercial development of the Bangor Mall. Today this property is the only remaining industrial property on Sylvan Road. There are multiple car dealerships and a school use there. The City’s Comprehensive Plan in 2000 and prior to this envisioned this area as a commercial area suited for General Commercial and Service District use. This request to turn this portion of the parcel to GC & S is consistent with the City’s Land Use Policy and consistent with the specific Zoning Policy for that zoning district. Mr. Gould pointed out that this entire parcel abuts the Woodlawn Subdivision and with numerous residential property owners there, Staff would be looking at all of the Land Development provisions relative to buffers and impacts on adjacent properties. Staff recommended that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council for this amendment. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Planning Board recommend that the City Council approve the zone change request at 200 Sylvan Road from Industry and Service District to General Commercial and Service District for 13 acres pursuant to C.O. # No. 06-170. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Item No. 2: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approval to construct 32 units of attached residential housing (16 duplexes) in a Low Density Residential District and to fill and grade in the Resource Protection District at 932V and 954V Finson Road. Stan MacMillan, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser, represented the applicant and explained that this proposal is take a former gravel pit that has not been reclaimed over the years and construct 32-units, in 16 duplex buildings, of attached residential housing. The applicant is proposing to access the site through Finson Road with a cul-de-sac and develop the units along the sides of the cul-de-sac. The entire project will be served by public water and sewer. There will be fill and grade activity along the Resource Protection District to access sewer service for the project through a gravity connection into the collector system that runs parallel to the Kenduskeag Stream. The applicant is proposing a number of landscaping areas to soften and buffer the effect on a couple of the residential properties in the area. There is a small wetland impact on the site and they have submitted an application for a Stormwater Permit with the Department of Environmental Protection. They will be creating a pond on the lower side of the property towards the Stream for stormwater treatment to treat any suspended solids out of a runoff from 3 a majority of the road system and the buildings themselves, as required by DEP. Mr. Kiser indicated that this application met the criteria for conditional use approval. Mr. Rosenblatt asked what disturbance there will be to the ground in the Resource Protection and Shoreland Districts. Mr. Kiser indicated that there are a number of exposed earth banks that are in various stages of eroding and slumping. The slopes range from a slope of 1:1 to steeper. It is the applicant’s intent to reduce those slopes down to a manageable 4:1 slope so that they will be able to avoid erosion that is presently occurring. They propose to loam, seed and vegetate those areas. Mr. Kiser indicated that there are several areas where they have stormwater collecting and channeling through the site and it is the applicant’s intent to stabilize those areas whether through rip rap or vegetation stabilization. The applicant is also proposing to install a culvert in the area where there is a trail system to try to stabilize this system for it to stay high and dry in the future. Mr. Theeman asked if the applicant is proposing sidewalks. Mr. Kiser indicated that they were not but they propose a 26’ foot wide roadway and with the low traffic volume that this project will create it should provide adequate width for pedestrian movement within the paved surface. Ms. Brown asked where they were in the process of obtaining DEP approvals. Mr. Kiser indicated that they have applied for permits with DEP and they are currently reviewing the application for both the Stormwater Permit and the NRPA Wetland Permit. No one spoke in favor and Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from proponents. Ms. Randy Menninghouse indicated that she is one of the two owners of 930 Finson Road. She said that her property is going to be impacted the most. She indicated that when the zone change for this property was being considered, they did not realize what Low Density Residential housing would look like and they did not expect to have ten homes built behind their home. She indicated that they have lived there for 21 years and the surrounding area is not developed (with an abutting cemetery and gravel pit). She said that she was asking the applicant to look closer at the one house that has a corner that is 20 feet away from her property line as this will have a direct affect on their lifestyle. She asked if the building could be rotated or moved back further away from her property to plant additional trees to make a better sound barrier. Ms. Menninghouse also expressed concerns about the increase in traffic and noise from this development. Chairman Guerette asked Ms. Menninghouse if there had been any neighborhood meetings or if she had had an opportunity to meet with the developer. She said that this was the first time that she saw the actual plan but that she would be happy to meet with the developer. Mr. Theeman asked what the setback requirement is. Mr. Gould indicted that it is 20 feet. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is a request for conditional use and site development plan approval for a 32-unit attached residential housing complex which consists of 4 16 duplex buildings located in a Low Density Residential District. This application is complicated by the fact that there is some filling and grading and public utility work that will go on within the Resource Protection District. Mr. Gould indicated that development within the City is now “moving out.” What the Board is seeing is an area that is on the edge of development that one day is rural and because public water and sewer are getting there it is now becoming an urbanized or a developing area. As the Board saw on Kenduskeag Avenue, people that have one acre to two acre lots with very sparse development, and now that utilities are available, the level of density is much greater than they have been accustomed to for many years. Development is moving out and this is a pattern that will be repeated throughout the City as it grows and utilities are extended and areas that were once rural and sparsely developed become developed to higher densities. Mr. Gould indicated that this is not to say that this isn’t a low density residential district. This application for attached residential housing has a density of 5 units per acre. This is a significantly sized parcel with over 10 acres in the LDR and another 10 acres that are in the RP District. In this development the undeveloped area is equal to the part of the property that is being developed. Due to the configuration of the lot, the topography and the wetlands, there are limited areas on the ten acres on which the applicant can build on. Mr. Gould explained that this application meets the conditional use standards of the LDR in that it is over 5 acres and it meets the development standards of the District. The applicant has provided an elevation drawing of what the units in this development will look like and the Board needs to evaluate the standard that this development will be in character with the neighboring structures. The Board also needs to make a finding relative to the grading within the RP District. It is the applicant’s intent to reclaim and make this a more useable site than exists now in terms of its status as an abandoned gravel pit. They also indicate an intent to provide some public use of the trail that runs along the Kenduskeag Stream. This is something that the City would look for in the future with other developments. The Board needs to find that the public utilities as extended through the RP are handled adequately. Staff noted that there are standards within the erosion and sedimentation control portion of the plan that do cite that the plan will meet the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Performance Standards within the Land Development Code. The applicant also needs to get Natural Resource Protection Act Permit, as well as, Stormwater Permits from the State because of the nature and location of their work. 32 units of attached residential is a moderate to low traffic generator in the range of traffic generation. The City Engineer has reviewed the roadway details, erosion and sedimentation details and utility details. Staff feels that the submittals meet the Land Development Code requirements. Mr. Gould noted that there are multiple requests for approvals and the Board may wish to deal with them separately: 1) the Board needs to make a finding on the conditional use for the attached residential in the LDR; 2) the Board needs to make a determination relative to filling and grading within the Resource Protection District; 3) the Board needs to make a determination relative to the construction of utilities within the Resource protection District; 4) the applicant is requesting developmental subdivision plan approval due to the fact that there are 3 or more dwelling units (which requires developmental subdivision plan approval under Maine law); and 5) site development plan approval of the project, overall. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there is a buffer requirement in light of the comments made by Ms. Menninghouse; if Staff has had discussions with the applicant regarding the reorientation of 5 the unit closest to the Menninghouses to make it further away; if the applicant has provided an Environmental Impact Statement in support of the utility construction; and what was provided to satisfy the requirement that a plan be submitted for precautions taken during construction in the Resource Protection District. Mr. Gould indicated that in the Low Density Residential District there is no requirement for side and year yard buffers just as a single-family homeowner would not be asked to provide buffer yards. In this instance, the applicant has proposed to do some plantings along that boundary line. Staff has not talked with the applicant about reorienting the building. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff wrestled with the issue of an Environmental Protection Statement as the LDC does not have a specific definition of what that element is. What was presented by the applicant were detailed plans in terms of the utility construction, erosion and sedimentation control plans, and some addition level of permitting. The DEP is also looking over these same issues because of its proximity to the Kenduskeag Stream and the applicant submitted a long detailed list of erosion and sedimentation control standards in terms of mulching, stabilizing, with various methodologies. Mr. Gould explained that Shoreland Zoning, when originally created, set forth a set of performance standards for erosion and sedimentation control. Staff asked the applicant to make a statement that their standards will meet or exceed what is in the Shoreland zoning performance standards. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to address further what steps they propose to mitigate runoff and environmental impact on the Stream while the construction project is going because of the substantial amount of earth moving activity, a steep slope, and the detention pond that is proposed within the Shoreland Zone. Mr. Kiser indicated that the intent is to bring the site down to a slope that will maintain itself so that you have a situation where it is a gradual slope where water doesn’t build-up and doesn’t get a chance to channelize as it does currently. By regrading, it will be possible to smooth a lot of the areas out that are currently channelizing water and creating an erosion problem. With the revegetation of the site it will help absorb and better hold the water on the site than is occurring now. Mr. Kiser said that they feel that what they are proposing for erosion control meets or exceeds the City’s requirements. The DEP has beefed up erosion control practices significantly to the extent that they even require inspections and documentation of those inspections through the construction process. They will be using hay bales, mulching, and silt fences to bring the site under control. Chairman Guerette asked why they volunteered to install a buffer between the property and the Menninghouse property and what they propose it to look like when it is completed. Mr. Kiser indicated that they voluntarily did a buffer because they knew that there was that proximity, and in field observations, they knew the vegetation was sparse through that area. Being a development that is sensitive as to how it will affect other properties, they went ahead and put in an evergreen buffer. As far what this will look like, Mr. Kiser said that he envisioned some white pines or spruce trees being planted. The other abutter south of the site has asked them to plant a cedar hedge rather than white pine trees and they felt that this was acceptable with them. Mr. Kiser said that they would be more than happy to work with those owners to determine what species may be most suitable. Mr. Wheeler asked when they expect to start and complete the project. Mr. Kiser indicated that they expect to start as soon as they can obtain their DEP permits and completion of all of the infrastructure elements by the end of the year. Construction of the units will be dependent on sales but they envision within the next 2 to 3 years. Mr. Wheeler asked to what 6 extent the City monitors the progress of subdivisions of this nature. Mr. Gould indicated that the Code Enforcement Office would be inspecting as there are building units. Mr. Kiser indicated that the Engineering Department would have an inspector on-site for the sewer installation, the Water District will oversee the water installation and the Code Enforcement Office will be monitoring erosion control. Mr. Wheeler asked if there would be any further accommodation of the concerns of the abutting neighbors. Mr. Kiser indicated that they will certainly work on the buffers to try to incorporate their needs. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant conditional use approval for the attached residential use for the development at 932V-954V Finson Road – Stan MacMillan, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor of the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant conditional use approval for the filling and grading use within the Resource Protection District and the Shoreland Zone for the proposed project at 932V-0954V Finson Road – Stan MacMillan, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grand conditional use approval for the proposed utility construction in the Resource Protection Zone and the Shoreland Zone at the proposed development at 932V-954V Finson Road – Stan MacMillan, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 4 to 1 in favor. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed development at 932V-954V Finson Road – Stan MacMillan, applicant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Mr. Rosenblatt then moved to grant developmental subdivision plan approval for the proposed development at 932V-954V Finson Road for Stan MacMillan, applicant. Mr. Clark seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4 to 1. Item No. 3: 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 opened the Public Hearing and noted that the Staff Memorandum indicated that this item was not ready for hearing and that the applicant had requested that this th item be continued to the June 6 meeting. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to continue this public hearing until the Board’s meeting of June 6, 2006. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Item No. 4: Amending Chapter 165-59 to Exempt Government Operated Emergency Telecommunications Towers and Antennas from Height Restrictions. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 06-152. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation. Planning Officer Gould explained that the City of Bangor is requesting an amendment to Chapter 165-59 dealing with height exemptions specifically for emergency telecommunications used solely by governmental bodies. Throughout the City and various zoning districts there are height standards largely geared toward specific building heights. There are provisions in some zones for additional structures as radio towers or silos or structures that may be on top of buildings and it provides for a specific exception for an additional 15 feet that may be granted by the City 7 as a conditional use. It came to the City’s attention that the Penobscot County Dispatch was in need of a newer, taller tower on top of the County Court House which would replace an existing 60 foot tower with an 80 foot tower. When you add that to the height of the existing Court House building it would be well in excess of what would be allowed under the Land Development Code. The City’s Legal Office drafted some language, which is before the Board, that would allow for additional height to be granted for telecommunications towers used specifically for emergency purposes by governmental agencies. Mr. Rosenblatt asked why there was no limitation on the height. At the time that the language was drafted, no one knew just how tall this was going to be and did not want to arbitrarily say that it cannot be taller than 125 feet and find out they need 135 feet. Mr. Tom Robertson, Emergency Management Director of Penobscot County, indicated that 80 feet was chosen because of radio propagation studies that were done. Their entire system includes Picard Mountain, Dixmont, Black Cap Mountain, Eddington, Dexter, Bull Hill, Charleston, Lincoln, Medway, Patten and on the Court House which is the lynch pin of the whole system. They found that in most cases they could change the different facilities and get higher elevations. Projections were made as to what height it would take to be able to hit these new towers with their new radios. It may be that they will be a little shorter but 80 feet (from the roof) was the optimum. Mr. Robertson indicated that there will be a new grounding system and will clean up the site in that one of the major problems with the shortness of the existing tower is that all of the antenna are placed too closely together. This extra 20 feet will allow them to take some of the 13 antenna off of the roof and give them the spacing that they are supposed to have. Mr. Rosenblatt asked for an estimate of how many feet this would be from the ground. Mr. Robertson indicated that it would be approximately 130 feet. Mr. Theeman indicated that he was concerned that the Board would be granting to a government an authorization that they would not grant to a private organization. Mr. Gould indicated that all throughout the Land Development Code and State Law it makes very specific provisions for public utilities and government bodies. What they are doing is not everyday cell phone communications. This is the emergency dispatch for Penobscot County. This is not an unusual pattern where we provide specific provisions that do benefit governmental agencies. Mr. Wheeler asked if the present antenna was going to be extended or if this going to be a new antenna structure. He said that he did not like the way that the present antenna looks but he would support this amendment. Mr. Robertson indicated that this is a totally new antenna and the old antenna will be removed. No one spoke in opposition and Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for questions. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the Board could ask if there could be a height limitation so that it would not be limitless. Mr. Gould indicated that should the Board suggest that there ought to be some standards such as 150 feet to accommodate the County but would not allow a 400 foot tall tower, it would be reasonable to pass along that suggestion to the City Council. 8 Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the Land Development Code regarding limitations on height for towers and antennas owned and operated by governmental bodies as set forth in C.O. # 06-152. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed to motion. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board suggest to the City Council that they consider amending the language in C.O. # 06-152 to provide for a height limitation for this use that can amply accommodate the specific proposal that the County is presenting so that there is some limit in place for this sort of use. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. Chairman Guerette asked what would be a reasonable height for these types of antennas. Mr. Carl Croft, Consultant for the Penobscot County, indicated 80 feet would be more than enough because they are already on a 40 foot high building. If there is a limit on the height, there may be an instance where someone might need a 300 foot high tower somewhere else in order to accomplish a microwave shot to provide communications. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed on the motion recommending a height limit. Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update . Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer to make a few remarks about this process. Planning Officer Gould indicated that he felt that the Board was very familiar with what is in the update having worked on it and with it week after week. The Comprehensive Plan Update is an update. It was done based on 28 different transition areas that were identified within the City in areas where things were changing and that elements occurring since 2000 needed some review. Those transition areas were then reviewed section by section through the Planning Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board held neighborhood workshops at four different locations of the City gathering input from the public and keeping those comments and concerns in mind as they went through the different Planning Elements within the Plan. The Board also went on a bus tour looking at the various areas to see what development looks like on the ground as opposed to just on paper. A little over a month ago the Board conducted a presentation on the plan, had a number of comments and reviewed those comments and the areas of the plan where those suggestions could be accommodated. Some of these comments dealt with open space issues, the transportation plan in the Mall area, the area of the Bangor Y, discussion of the Bangor Land Trust acreage up in the Oldenburg Subdivision and some inclusion of language specifically from the Beginning with Habitat talking about the natural resource values in the Penjajawoc Marsh area. Also discussed was the City’s policy about wetlands and discussion of open space and should wetland be open space or not. Some of the waterway classifications were updated based on new information in terms of the classification of the Penobscot River and the Kenduskeag Stream and the status of the Atlantic salmon in the Penobscot River with some addition discussion of erosion and sedimentation control best management practices. Mr. Gould said that it is important to the Board to hear if there are some lingering concerns with the Plan that people would like to see addressed. 9 Mr. Gould explained that the City’s Charter says that the Comprehensive Plan is by and for the Planning Board for their use and development by them. The State of Maine Growth Management Act says that the Comprehensive Plan is not in effect until it is adopted by the Legislative Body which is the City Council. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board would need to move to approve the Plan relative to the City’s Charter and relative to the Growth Management Act, it needs to make a recommendation to the Bangor City Council that they should adopt it. Chairman Guerette then opened the discussion to comments from the audience. Ann Marie Orr, 1661 Essex Street, and Carolyn Eaton, 112 Trilliam Trail, thanked the Board for their hard work in updating the Comprehensive Plan and for including the public in this process. Ms. Orr noted that they were previously before the Board with a proposal for a five foot shoulder on each side of Essex Street to ensure safety for their children. Since that time, they have investigated further with Augusta as well as the City of Bangor and found that their proposal which at first was 5.9 miles has been dramatically decreased to 3 miles beginning at Grandview Avenue to the Orono town line. Ms. Eaton noted that over the last 20 years there has been a residential development boom along Essex Street and now it is very densely populated and a lot more traffic. MODT statistics indicate that in 1991 the AADT traffic on Essex Street was 1,970 and in 2003 3,240 and in 2005 it was 3,730. In the last 14 years the traffic has almost doubled. Also with the increase in traffic comes an increase in accidents. With these increases they feel there is a real need for paved shoulders. They indicated that they were requesting maintenance to keep pace with the development and traffic on outer Essex Street, to strengthen the road, reduce the frequency of accidents and to reduce long-term maintenance costs. She noted that there are tentative plans to resurface Essex Street from Church Road to the Orono town-line and they are asking that the Board start with that section and add the shoulder on that section first and eventually all of outer Essex Street. They felt that this is directly tied into the Transportation Section of the Comprehensive Plan. They urged that the Board look into the five foot shoulder on Essex Street. Mr. Wheeler said that it is very encouraging to see citizens take initiatives of this nature rather than stand up and complain why the City doesn’t do this or that but rather take proactive steps. While the Board does not have the legal authority to do what they are asking, the wisdom of their proposal is well placed on the record and perhaps they can adopt a resolution to that effect in the near future. Mr. Theeman asked if this might be better addressed by the Infrastructure and Transportation Subcommittee of the Council. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that this could but it is not as simple as paving a wider five foot shoulder. Improving safety is in everybody’s interest. Providing opportunity for recreation is another aspect of their proposal. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there was anything in the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update that is inconsistent with this proposal. Mr. Gould indicated that the dilemma that this project faces in the Comprehensive Plan is that the Comprehensive Plan talks about pedestrian/bicycle issues city-wide. It does not have the ability or the specifics to go in and name specific segments. For example, the people in Finson Road and Kenduskeag Road Avenue areas would make the same argument that they would like this on their street, too. The Comprehensive Plans says that these are important elements to provide for but until all of the streets in the City are looked at 10 comprehensively and point out where are the higher traffic volumes this cannot be accomplished. While the traffic has increased on Essex Street 3,000 AADT is not a lot of traffic compared to Union Street, Ohio Street or Stillwater Avenue. The Board has to put all of these things into perspective as to where does the need and desire for a bikeway or a walkway on Essex Street fit in the need and desire for one on Union Street, Ohio Street or Kenduskeag Avenue. Ms. Eaton added that they feel that Essex Street is unique because it has the two schools, it has the open spaces, it connects with the City Forest, and it is everything that is in the Comprehensive Plan. They feel that it is the missing link to the open areas. Mr. Bernie Kubetz, 317 Fox Hollow, said that he had a concern about safety. There are a couple of factors out there one being that the speed limit goes up to 45 mph and he felt that it is too high for that road. He indicated that he was in favor of adding paved shoulders as it would enhance the opportunity for safe recreational use, diminish the probability of future accidents and work for the benefit of all. Mr. George Eaton, 112 Trilliam Trail, said that he felt that this was a vision issue. He said that he rode his bicycle at noon time through downtown out Essex Street to Pushaw Lake and many people also do this. He said that the Board should have a vision for Essex Street as it is a beautiful corridor as you can see the City Forest and the Penjajawoc area. This corridor extends from the Bangor Waterfront all the way out to Pushaw Lake. He felt that there should be a lane added to Union Street and he would encourage the Board to have a specific vision for Essex Street as he felt it is an asset to the City in terms of the tie into the recreational piece. Ms. Cindy DeBeck, a landowner who sat on the Mall/Marsh Task Force and now on the Mall/Marsh Commission. She said that Ms. Orr and Ms. Eaton were a breath of fresh air. The Comprehensive Plan Update has addressed the issues and it is time to pass it and move on and make progress. Ms. Lucy Quimby, 1230 Kenduskeag Avenue, also was a member of the Penjajawoc Task Force and now Marsh Mall Commission, she would like to thank the Board for their flexibility, creativity and willingness to understand what they were after in working on that part of the Plan. It has been an exciting project. No one spoke in opposition and Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked for a recommendation. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the Board has tried to produce a product that will not preclude any of the proposals that have been discussed. It might be useful to give the Board some idea as to what practical steps people might take who are interested in trying to move forward with these ideas. Planning Officer Gould indicated that what they are doing now, works. They are at a public hearing which is broadcasted throughout the City. The City Council is aware and this is where it is going to be decided in terms of spending public money to make specific improvements. Other elements that the Board has set in motion with the update is talking about sidewalks or cash in lieu of sidewalks to fund improvements outside of the specific subdivision but maybe on the collector roadway nearby. This is a concept that was 11 grown in the update. As development occurs on Essex Street they can come back and remind the City again. There will be many opportunities where there can be input. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if a citizen has a concern about a speed limit on a street where is the best place for a person to go to raise this issue. Mr. Gould indicated that they should talk to the Police Department as they would review this and make recommendations where they could to change speed limits. As there was no further discussion, Chairman Guerette asked for motion on the adoption of this plan. Mr. Wheeler indicated that this is his final year on the Planning Board and he could not think of year when it has been more of a privilege and more of a task to serve. While the process has been long and arduous and at times contentious and very tiring but totally collaborative not only within the Membership of the Board but with the public at large who have taken a special interest. He said that he would like to express his personal thanks to the Staff, as well as, to the Members of the Board but especially to the Staff for many hours of work that they had to put in collating and interpreting and feed back to the Board the conclusions and discussions and observations that were made during the course of the workshop meetings and the public hearings. Mr. Wheeler said that it is with a tremendous amount of pride that he move that the Board adopt the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update as provided for in the City Charter and that the Board wholeheartedly recommend that the City Council adopt it as well. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted eight in favor and none opposed to the motion. Chairman Guerette took a few moments to thank the Staff and the Board Members for all of their hard work and great effort in the process of the Comprehensive Plan 2005 Update. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 7: Site Development Plan approval to revise the approved Site Development Plan for construction of 142,810-square feet of retail space consisting of 11 buildings located on Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District and a Resource Protection District by dividing the proposed project into two phases, the first being the construction of a 6,920 square foot building for restaurant use and the second phase being the construction of the remainder of the approved Site Development Plan. Widewaters Stillwater Co., LLC, applicant. Mr. Jeff Allen, James W. Sewall Company, representing the applicant, Widewaters Stillwater Co., LLC, explained that the applicant received unanimous approval from the Board for their Site Plan on Stillwater Avenue about a year ago and they are coming back now having received their DEP approval in January of this year to break up the site plan into two phases so that some of the construction can proceed this year without doing the complete development as it was originally approved. Mr. Allen explained that the first phase, that they wish to do this year, is a single 6,900 sq. ft. restaurant to be located directly behind the Chili’s project. In 12 association with this phase, the applicant is also proposing to do all of the stormwater, the large detention structure as well as all of the off-site DOT improvements that are required for the entire project. Mr. Allen indicated that they have met with the Mall/Marsh Commission and discussed this proposal with them and they have also had meetings with Staff to ensure that what they are doing under the first phase fits into the entire project. The applicant is proposing to complete the second phase of this development next year. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there were any other changes to the remainder of the project. Mr. Allen indicated that the remainder of the project is exactly as it was proposed before. There have been a couple of minor changes to the sewers to route to this other restaurant first. The landscaping remains and the location of the remaining buildings and parking areas are as it was before. Mr. Theeman asked Mr. Allen if they ran the risk of approving one building at a time. Mr. Allen explained that they are asking for approval of a revised site plan in order to allow this one building and the remainder of the buildings could be done as one unit in a second phase. This is not specifically breaking it up into one building at a time. Mr. Theeman was concerned that this development could be developed one building at a time. Mr. Allen indicated that that is true but because the applicant did not receive their DEP approval until January they were not able to line up tenants for their buildings. He added that because they are spending the money for all of the off-site DOT improvements and the stormwater improvements, it is their goal to get this populated with tenants as quickly as possible. He did not foresee this as being built one building at a time. Ms. Brown had a couple of questions regarding the stormwater management report and the proposed square feet of impervious material noted there. She was concerned that if this is developed one building at a time, that they have not provided for enough impervious area. Mr. Allen explained that the new impervious surface is approximately 100,000 sq. ft. When the original model was done for the entire development they envisioned taking in flow from Chilis and Circuit City and this area is all built. Their DEP Permit includes the entire build-out and the detention pond, bio retention cells, and swale areas were sized for the entire build out. Mr. Allen indicated that he did not envision this to be a problem even if they did do one building at a time to have that pond adequately sized. This is one of the reasons why the applicant wishes to build this now so that you get the environmental disturbance once and then it is done and stabilized. For additional developments that come later you won’t have the same disturbance and you will have a good, viable stormwater system in place. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould explained that the application before the Board is for approval to construct 142,810 sq. ft. of retail space on 26 acres. What sets this apart from the approval that the Board gave last year, which was approval of the whole entire project, is the concept of doing one building apart from the rest of the development. While they have approval for everything it would cause concern if they only built part of the site improvements. The original approval made no provision for partial completion of elements such that if they were to start the project we would expect them to build out the whole project. Staff tried to work with the applicant for a means by which they could build one building and all of the necessary support buffers, utilities, parking, and 13 stormwater that would be provided for if that is all that ever got built. The point that Mr. Theeman makes is very appropriate, and one that Staff raised, as there is the potential that this will change many times before it is done. For example, the Parkade development came before the Planning Board three or four times for changes and as many times as it came before the Planning Board it came back to the Staff for minor revisions. Mr. Gould indicated that we have to be accommodating in dealing with subsequent revisions. Staff is comfortable that the Phase I Element of the plan will stand alone and meet all of the standards if that is all that gets built. Staff anticipates that when they go to Phase II there may be more changes. This applicant did go before the Marsh/Mall Commission and one of the continued concerns that they have had is the issue of invasive plants, largely Purple Loofstrife, and if you have a large site and you have a lot of exposed earth there is a high potential for that to take hold. Staff also pointed out that there are State permits relative to traffic and off-site improvements. It is Staff’s understanding that before they can build Phase I that all of the off-site improvements have to be done. Mr. Gould indicated that it would be Staff’s recommendation that the Board condition its approval that no store be opened to the public until all of the off-site improvements are in place to alleviate an instance where they are opening stores and all of the improvements are not in place. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the applicant wished to break up Phase II into segments if they would need to come back before the Board. Mr. Gould indicated that they would and added that what the applicant could have done is to say that they are going to abandon the 2005 approval and come to the Board for this one building. They are optimistic that it is going to be developed next year within the two-year window of approval so Staff construed it as a Phase I and Phase II development. This way they will not have to come back to the Board unless they make changes to the plan. Mr. Clark asked if they proposed to start the roadway this season. Mr. Allen said that they are talking with MODT who is reviewing these changes in light of other changes that have been made further down Stillwater Avenue and he believed that they are planning to start it this year. Mr. Theeman asked if the traffic mitigation measures were the responsibility of the applicant. Mr. Gould indicated that they are. Mr. Rosenblatt moved to grant site development plan approval for the proposed development at 638 Stillwater Avenue for Widewaters Stillwater Co., LLC, applicant on the condition that all off-site traffic improvements required under the MDOT Traffic Movement Permit must be completed before any business in the development opens to the public. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 6: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. Chairman Guerette noted that the Minutes for the February 21, 2006, March 2, 2006, April 4, 2006 and May 2, 2006 Meetings were ready for approval. Mr. Wheeler indicated that 14 he did not receive copies of the Minutes and not having had an opportunity to read them, he did not feel that he could vote on them. Mr. Theeman made a motion to approve all four sets of Minutes. Mr. Barnes seconded the motion and the Board voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Rosenblatt referenced Mr. Gould’s top ten list as well as some materials pertaining to some text amendments to the Waterfront Development District and asked if the Board would be discussing this in the near future. Chairman Guerette indicated that he hoped to do this at a time when the Board had a shorter agenda. Mr. Gould asked if anyone had input relative to the proposed amendments to the Waterfront Development District if they would forward it as soon as possible. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.