Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-23 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Nat Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Allie Brown City Councilors Present: Councilor Blanchette Councilor Palmer City Staff Present: David Gould Jim Ring Rod McKay Bud Knickerbocker News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. In the absence of Board Member Wheeler, Associate Member Brown was asked to vote. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 1: Site Development Plan and Planning Group Development approval to reuse the existing building at 107 Maine Avenue located in a Government and Institutional Service District for a day care center for approximately 160 children. Parkside Children’s Learning Center and the City of Bangor, applicants. Chairman Guerette invited the applicant to make a presentation. John Theriault from Ames A/E indicated that he was representing the applicants. He explained that this proposal is for a day care center to be located at 107 Maine 2 Avenue within an existing 10,300 sq. ft. building that was formerly a part of the University of Maine owned property. Only minor renovations will be necessary to the interior of the building for the proposed office space to classrooms. On-site they are proposing to add 12 parking spaces, to add a new driveway to access the site from Arthur Street, to close off the existing main entrance to the building and make the site access from Arthur Street, and to maintain the driveway to the north for mostly employee parking. The use will generate approximately 140 vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 143 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. There will be approximately 18 Staff people to provide daycare for about 130 full-time children. Mr. Theriault indicated that the posted speed limit on this section of Maine Avenue is 35 mph and the required site distance for that speed limit is about 305 feet. The sight distance at the intersection of Maine Avenue and Arthur Street is well beyond the required 305 feet. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Theriault if the applicant planned to apply for a Traffic Movement Permit and if he could describe any particular improvements anticipated in connection with that permit. Mr. Theriault indicated that they have already submitted a permit application to the Maine Department of Transportation which has been accepted and they are waiting a scoping meeting to be scheduled. Mr. Theriault indicated that he had discussed with MDOT Staff eliminating the center driveway to eliminate a curb cut. Mr. Theriault noted that future improvements to Maine Avenue as the business park develops are scheduled for this area. Maine Avenue will become a three lane section from Venture Way to Hammond Street and this should accommodate the left turns into this site. Mr. Theriault indicated that based on current volumes of traffic there they expect about 60 percent of the traffic will be coming from Hammond Street and 40 percent from the other direction. The biggest issue at any unsignalized entrance is a left in turn and a left out turn. They do not expect long delays with that left in turn. Mr. Theriault indicated that usually on a site this large, you don’t get too deep into modeling. However, he did a quick model and the left-in turn did not seem to impact the thru movement along Maine Avenue. There is a 12 foot travel lane in each direction with 8 foot shoulders. The reason the chose the proposed layout is to provide some vehicle stacking for vehicles exiting Arthur Street. Ms. Brown asked Mr. Theriault to address the ingress and egress in terms of traffic letting kids off and the anticipated volumes. Mr. Theriault indicated that the peak hour traffic expected during the morning is 140 vehicle trips. This is a vehicle entering or a vehicle exiting. In the evening it is anticipated at 143 vehicle trips. These breaks down to 74 vehicles entering the site and 66 vehicles exiting the site. They are not expecting long-term parking there. During that peak hour they expect that the drop offs will be somewhat varied. They expect 3 that employees will use the northern entrance and for the most part, parents and guardians of the children will use Arthur Street. They have provided 16 parking spaces but they do not expect those to be filled for more than a few minutes during the morning. There will be a gate during the day for children’s protection but during the morning and evening drop off times the gate will be opened so that some people will just come in and use the turn around and drop off their kids. Mr. Clark asked at what times will the majority of children be arriving and going home. Mr. Theriault indicated that they are expecting the majority of traffic to arrive between 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and leaving between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Chairman Guerette asked if they were proposing some mechanism at the door, such as a staff person waiting to signal the parents that everything is okay to speed the drop off and pick up times. Ms. Liz Leonard indicated that they are proposing an express drop off for those parents who have to be to work at 7:00 a.m. A staff member will be available at the gate to do a very quick delivery, they will have to sign in, and Staff will indicate that everything is okay. She said that she felt that this will be a nice feature for the working parents in a hurry. Chairman Guerette then asked for the Staff report. Planning Officer Gould explained that the application before the Board is for a Site Development Plan approval to reuse an existing building at 107 Maine Avenue, which is currently zoned Government and Institutional Service District, as a daycare facility which is a permitted use in that district. As the Board may know, this site which is approximately 5 acres was formerly owned by the University of Maine and was swapped with the City for another property downtown. Shortly after that, the City sought proposals for reuse of the three existing buildings on this site. To date, the interest has been in this one building for use as a daycare facility. The City has had a long standing interest in providing daycare services within the Maine Business Enterprise Park so this fits into that greater plan. The other important issue to point out is the arrangement of the site with the three buildings. The parking, which is largely intermingled, really only fits a planned group development type of arrangement. It is extremely difficult to try and separate these three buildings on individual lots with their own self contained parking. There is one loop road that goes around the entire site and parking is located all along that. In order for the applicant to create its own parcel there needs to be some flexibility in terms of setbacks and parking and this can been seen from this arrangement. The City tried to anticipate what might happen in the future in terms of zoning and different lot widths and requirements, as well as, to entertain their interest in owning a parcel of land and their building. Some 4 of the property line goes through the parking area but that is exactly what a planned group development remedies. It provides for multi owners to use one site as a coordinated development site. The other added benefit to this, as is in this instance, is that in addition to the parking that they are proposing to construct there are additional parking spaces in very close proximity to where this facility is such that if occasion happened that the parking lot got jammed up there is parking very convenient just a short distance away. Also, people may already be parked or at another facility nearby in the Maine Business Enterprise Park and may not need to access this site by vehicle. Mr. Gould indicated that the Land Development Code does not specifically provide for a parking standard for a daycare. The Code says for those uses that don’t provide a specific standard that the applicant should look to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) standards. As Staff looked through other relevant planning literature for daycare use the standards seemed to be varied. Some suggested that it is all drop off and there is not need for parking at all while others indicated that there be provision of one space for every four children at the daycare. This site is served by existing public water and sewer utilities, the applicant will seek a traffic movement permit (even though it is not a site development plan standard) from MDOT. Staff finds that the application meets the Land Development Code standards. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board also needs to approve the request for a planned group development. However, because the actual document has not been executed that would need to be a condition of approval. Staff recommended that the Board grant approval with the condition that the Planned Group Development Agreement be executed within 30 days of approval. Chairman Guerette asked if the Arthur Street entrance will now become the main the entrance for all of the three buildings on the site in the future; and who the parties would be to the Planned Group Development Agreement. Mr. Gould indicated that the entrance would be for this facility and the larger building in behind it and that the Parkside Children’s Learning Center and the City of Bangor, who retains the remaining land, will be the parties to the Agreement. Should another party come along and want to buy just one of the other buildings the planned group development may have to be amended to deal with that in the future. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if there is future development of the other buildings if they would come back before the Board and will the Board be looking at the entire site? Mr. Gould indicated that the Board would need to look at the entire site because the access and parking for future development is likely going to be tied to elements that already exist. 5 Mr. Theeman asked if the Arthur Street curb cut still exists and if approved, who assumes the responsibility for what was Arthur Street. Mr. Gould indicated that the curb cut exists but Arthur Street isn’t a City Street as it has been discontinued. The Planned Group Development Agreement talks about who is responsible for plowing and maintenance of the roadways and the access issues. Mr. Rod McKay, Development Director for the City of Bangor, indicated that the City of Bangor will be responsible for Arthur Street. In the event that another developer is found for the site and if the City were to sell it, that owner would be responsible for Arthur Street. The Leonard’s would be responsible for the other entrance to the site. Mr. Theeman asked if that street needed to paved and what would it cost the City to maintain that street until further develop occurs. Mr. McKay indicated that it is maintained not as public way but as a private access drive and it will be maintained through the BanAir Corporation. Mr. Theeman asked in addition to being contingent on the Planned Group Development Agreement would it also have to be contingent upon a final review and approval by MDOT. Mr. Gould indicated that there are two types of approvals that the Board does. Those that are conditional use review which have a very clear standard that the applicant must prove to the Board that they will not create or cause unreasonable traffic congestion on adjacent or nearby streets. The Land Development Code, site plan approval standards do not have a traffic standard for the Board to review so technically there is no burden on the applicant to demonstrate to the Board whether it is going to cause traffic problems or not. Staff felt it was only fair to advise the Board that the applicant has other permits that they need to acquire. In this case a Traffic Movement Permit from the MDOT. In this instance there is no specific burden of the applicant to prove to the Board that they meet a traffic standard and Staff did not see it necessary to make the approval conditioned upon that permit. Mr. Theeman asked if the entire area might be rezoned to Technology and Service (T & S) and if this an approved use in the T & S District. Mr. Gould indicated that this use is a permitted use in both the Industry and Service District and Technology and Service District Mr. Gould noted a memo from the Legal Department that talked about conditions of approval and one of the comments made was that if the Board wants to condition an approval, the condition needs to relate to something that is a standard of approval. Mr. Rosenblatt clarified that if the applicant doesn’t obtain an MDOT Permit it can’t be used as a daycare facility that generates this level of anticipated traffic. 6 Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval for the proposed daycare center located at 107 Maine Avenue, Parkside Children’s Learning Center and the City of Bangor, applicants. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Planned Group Development approval for the proposed daycare center located at 107 Maine Avenue, Parkside Children’s Learning Center and the City of Bangor, applicants, with the condition that the applicants execute a Planned Group Development Agreement within 30 days. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The motion passed a vote of 5 to 0. OTHER BUSINESS Item No. 2: Planning Board Discussion Mr. Gould indicated that there was a letter from Attorney Sarah Zmistowski of Eaton Peabody relative to Shoreland Zoning located off the Church Road. Mr. Gould said that he discussed this issue with her and her client relative to a wetland in this area and whether or not it should be covered within Shoreland Zoning. Mr. Gould indicated that in order for the City to reconsider this, the Planning Board, the City Council, or the City Manager would need to initiate an application as the Planning Staff can’t. While the Planning Board is under no requirement or obligation to do anything with this request, Staff wanted the Board to understand what the request is should they want to initiate a review. Chairman Guerette, noting that there is large residential subdivision in that area, asked what effect the review or possible rezoning have on that development. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not know that it would have a significant impact on that development as there are more residential properties outside of the subdivision that may be impacted more by this than those in the subdivision. The main lot on the corner is approximately 5 acres and 4.5 acres of it is wetland. What Staff had discovered four years ago when it was first brought to their attention is that it is a forested wetland. The DEP’s criteria for wetlands are that it has to be a minimum of ten acres in a non forested wetland. When this came up it was noted that this doesn’t qualify to be protected by shoreland zoning but we would have to go through the process to change it. Mr. Gould indicated that the DEP wrote a letter indicating that it agrees that this area does not need to be resource protected or covered by shoreland zoning. This is a decision that the City makes. The shoreland zoning guidelines indicate that a wetland itself can be of any size but for it to be covered under shoreland zoning it has to be a minimum of ten acres in size and it has to be a non forested wetland. 7 Mr. Rosenblatt asked who the owners are of the area that potentially might be rezoned. Mr. Gould indicated that there are 8 to 12 different owners along both sides of Church Road. One of the drawbacks is that any single property owner can petition the City to change the zoning on their property but they cannot ask us to change it on anybody else’s property. In order to do this effectively, it should be initiated by the Planning Board, City Council or the City Manager to cover the entire area of the wetland. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that he had no objection to exploring the issue further given that there is a property owner who is asking the Board to look at this issue. Chairman Guerette felt that at forested wetland can be a fairly significant wildlife habitat and asked what information there was about that particular area and what it might support for habitat. Mr. Gould indicated that there is a deer yard in that area. He explained that there are two approaches that the Board could take if it wants to explore this further. One is an informal review of the information that is currently available, and the other option would be for the Board to make a motion to direct Staff to do the necessary processing and advertising to bring it before them as a proposal to make the change. Mr. Theeman felt it would be a more compelling if they heard from more than one property owner and it would be his inclination would be to review it informally. Mr. Gould indicated that if there was a propose change, everybody impacted and within 100 feet would be notified and there would be a hearing before the Board. Chairman Guerette agreed with Mr. Theeman and said that he would prefer reviewing it, initially, on an informal basis to allow the Board to be more acquainted with the issues rather than having to face new views in a public forum and having to make a formal decision. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would put together the background information that is available and provide it to the Board. After that, the Board could make a decision on whether to proceed further. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.