Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-05 Planning Board Minutes Approved on 2/7/07 PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2006 MINUTES Board Members Present: Chairman Guerette Harold Wheeler David Clark Nathaniel Rosenblatt Miles Theeman Laura Mitchell 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. Rosenblatt moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The items approved are as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 9,932 square foot building for professional office use located at 41V and 37V Ridgewood Drive in a General Commercial and Service District. Maine Vitreoretinal Consultants, LLC, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 15,620 square foot gravel storage yard at 204 North Hildreth Street in an Urban Industry District. Dunbar and Brawn Construction, applicant. 2 Item No. 3: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 240 sq. ft. addition to the existing building at 778 Stillwater Avenue in a Shopping and Personal Service District for office use. Ronald Bailey, applicant. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 4: To amend the Land Development Code by changing part of a parcel of land located at 1027 Kenduskeag Avenue from Rural Residence and Agricultural District to Low Density Residential District. Said part of a parcel containing approximately 8.8 acres. Forrest H. Grant Family LP, applicant. C.O. # 07-11. Chairman Guerette indicating that this item was continued from the November 21, 2006 Meeting, declared the Public Hearing open and asked the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Jim Kiser, of Kiser & Kiser, represented the applicant who is requesting a zone change off of Kenduskeag Avenue. Mr. Kiser gave a brief history of the site and noted that the abutting 20 acre parcel was rezoned to Low Density Residential District last year with the intent to proceed with a development that has not occurred. Subsequent to that time, the applicant secured a Purchase and Sales Agreement on a 20-acre parcel plus the 8 acres being considered for this zone change. The applicant is asking to rezone the additional 8 acres to Low Density Residential so that the entire 30 acre parcel will be zoned for development. Chairman Guerette asked for comments from proponents. There being none, he asked for comments from opponents. Mrs. Linda Hunter, 1025 Kenduskeag Avenue, indicated that her property abuts the parcel to be rezoned. She explained that she had a petition signed by several of the neighbors which she wanted to present to the Board and read into the record. The petition which contained some 40 plus signatures asked the Planning Board to deny the requested zone change on Kenduskeag Avenue. The petitioners were concerned that Outer Kenduskeag Avenue cannot handle more traffic as it a country road without sidewalks and in many places it does not have a shoulder for pedestrians or bicycles. The increase in traffic resulting from a large number of housing units would make a currently dangerous situation much worse. Traffic leaving this development and heading for the planned future commercial development on Broadway must not travel down Kenduskeag Avenue and should have other routes to access Broadway/Griffin/Strickland Road. The pond and wetlands on that lot and the neighboring one rezoned in May, 2005 are crucial wildlife habitat and a plan should be in place to preserve the pond and wetlands as well as adjacent uplands that are crucial to the survival of the wildlife that live here. The also felt that connectivity with other habitat areas must be preserved. Ms. Hunter indicated that she wanted to speak on behalf of another neighbor, Elsie Campbell of 1000 Kenduskeag Avenue who is ill and could not attend the meeting. Ms. Campbell lives opposite where she would assume that the entrance to this development would be. Ms. Campbell compiled a list of 20 plus accidents that have occurred in front of her home in the past couple of years and asked that the Board carefully consider the increase in traffic before they approve this zone change. Ms. Hunter presented Mrs. Campbell’s list to be entered into the record. Ms. Hunter, speaking for herself, indicated that she is opposed to the rezoning of this lot for many reasons: traffic, outer Kenduskeag Avenue is a narrow country road with no sidewalks or shoulders; many residents presently have difficulty safely exiting their driveways; and many accidents occur on this street every year. Adding a large number of residential units which would utilize this road is impractical and 3 unsafe. Ms. Hunter indicated that Bangor’s rural neighborhoods are fast disappearing and they chose to live there because it affords open space and access to wildlife. Ms. Hunter said that she enjoys gardening, keeping animals and looks forward to waking up to the birds singing and listening to the frogs and owls at night. Adding up to 140 units of housing to a neighborhood of approximately 50 residences would drastically change the identity of that neighborhood and if the current zoning laws are not adequate to protect the integrity of the rural neighborhoods then they need to be adjusted so that a rural lifestyle remains a viable housing choice for the citizens of Bangor. The land in question has many residents who have no voice including deer, coyote, fox, rabbits and other mammals, birds, turtles, frogs and salamanders that occupy the wetlands that have lived there undisturbed for decades and constitute a viable balanced ecosystem. Ms. Hunter noted that there is at least one vernal pool that borders that property and it is possible that there are others and asked what protections are in place to protect these habitats. Ms. Hunter indicated that there are 100 acres of undeveloped land in the triangle bounded by Kenduskeag Avenue, Griffin Road and Broadway which is owned by one family and will be slated for some kind of development sooner or later. She indicated that it would make more sense to look at a plan for the entire parcel and carefully plan the best access and egress routes, as well as, having the least impact on the wetlands and wildlife populations. She felt that access via Griffin Road would be preferable. She asked that the parties involved have a master plan which will make any development the best that it can be. Ms. Lucy Quimby, 1230 Kenduskeag Avenue, indicated that she and Linda Hunter were the ones that circulated the petition. After working on the Marsh Mall Commission she has come to the conclusion that by careful placement you can put development into a landscape without completely ruining a landscape. She indicated that she is not against development here but feels that it is extremely important that it be done carefully. She said that presently the larger parcel is under the same ownership and the area under consideration for rezoning is under a purchase and sales agreement. She said that she felt that because the ownership has not yet changed, now is the time to look at what is going to happen to the entire parcel. Ms. Quimby said that because permitting for site plans goes lot by lot and regulatory agencies deal with things lot by lot, there would be more flexibility in looking at a total landscape, the total wetlands and the traffic patterns. She suggested that an exit out onto Griffin Road would take care of the traffic problems on Kenduskeag Avenue. She urged the Board to turn down this rezoning request because it is not the best use of the landscape and ask that the applicant and the landowner sit down and do some brainstorming preferably with Mr. Ring and come back with a plan. Mr. Rosenblatt noting that the Comprehensive Plan anticipates the land will be Low Density Residential and could be developed for uses permitted in the Rural Residence and Agricultural District. He asked what is different here from some of the other rezoning requests that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Quimby indicated that what’s different here is that there is an opportunity to do something well. This is an area where there is a lot of wetlands and if you did a cluster development at a place that had easy access to Griffin Road you would have something spectacular. Housing that is close to service areas, handy to Broadway for the shopping, handy to the other development that is going in on Broadway with the 30 percent open space consolidated around the wetlands and contiguous with the other wetland open space in that area would allow something that is wisdom on the landscape and that is what would be different. There were no other comments. Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to make any rebuttal remarks. Mr. Kiser indicated that the applicant has just this land under control and does not have additional land to access Griffin Road. Mr. Kiser noted that the applicant would need to obtain Site Development Plan approval and meet all of the Ordinance requirements which the 4 Board has oversight of. It is not to say that what the developer proposes won’t take into consideration the wetlands, the pond that is in the front of the property, adequately provide for open space, and implement a development that is going to be a quality development for the City of Bangor. Mr. Kiser said that the Comprehensive Plan does envision this area to be low density residential. When they come before the Board for site development plan review, traffic will be looked at that time. The presently zoned Low Density Residential area can go forward for development as a 20 acre development. The current owner would like to increase it by the 8 acres to do a better development project in there. Chairman Guerette asked the Planning Officer for his report. Mr. Gould indicated that this application is for a zone change request for an 8.8 acre portion of a parcel located at 1027 Kenduskeag Avenue from Rural Residence and Agricultural District to Low Density Residential District. This was before the Board in May 2005 when the original request was to rezone approximately 20 acres of land on Kenduskeag Avenue to Low Density Residential District. At that time, the Board had not gone through the Comprehensive Plan Update or the details of the City’s Land Use Plan relative to Kenduskeag Avenue. The Board had a great deal of discussion about the development of this area. The Land Use Policy has said that the area of Kenduskeag Avenue was suitable for High Density Residential development and commercial development ought to be on the Broadway arterial corridor. Prior to this meeting the City Council referred this request to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who also heard from Mr. Kiser and many of the residents on Kenduskeag Avenue who spoke here about their concerns about traffic and commuter traffic that uses Kenduskeag Avenue which was described as a very narrow roadway with severe limitations in terms of its ability to handle traffic and the potential of its ability to handle additional traffic. One of the ideas was that any residential development that is located in this area have access to Griffin Road. Another was to look at the entire 100 acre parcel. Mr. Gould indicated that even if it is all rezoned at the same time it won’t dictate how it gets developed. The same piecemeal development approach may occur whether we rezone it piece by piece or all at once. What is important to the City and the planning efforts is that we are consistent with what our plan directs the development to be. The zone change request, as was the previous one in 2005, is consistent with the City’s Land Use Plan and Zoning Policy which calls for low density residential in this area. There have been concerns expressed about development in this area. This is a location that has public sewer service, public water available and in terms of those basic utilities can support higher density. Mr. Gould explained that as was pointed out relative to traffic on Kenduskeag Avenue a large part of that is the nature of the roadway and the nature of traffic that travels on the roadway. That’s one element that the Board would have review over but does not have the ability to force the developer to do it other than meeting minimum standards. Mr. Gould indicated Staff would suggest that the Board make a positive recommendation to the City Council because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Mitchell asked City Engineer Jim Ring what plans the City has made regarding access off of Griffin Road for the future school and the general and institutional plans for that area. Mr. Ring indicated that at this point the City acquired the school site a number of years ago with the idea in mind that it would be an appropriate site for a future school. Beyond that, he was not aware of any specific planning in terms of access or layout. It is just a parcel that the City now holds. Mr. Theeman said that he felt that they needed to take a long look at this piece of property. The Board has an obligation to the applicant but also an equal obligation to the abutting land owners. He did not think it was unreasonable that the Board reject piecemeal development and that they ask the owner to come up with a master plan, if for no other reason, to allow the abutting landowners some sense of how that property is going to be used in the future. He said that the Board is really limited by the Board’s 5 inability to evaluate traffic given the lack of standards and that this is an additional consideration that he would have as the Board evaluates this application. Chairman Guerette indicated that what is before the Board is a request for a zone change not a development and there is no traffic associated with a zone change. The Board spent the better portion of 18 months doing the Comprehensive Plan Update and it was clear that this section of the City is appropriate to zone as Low Density Residential. In keeping with the Comprehensive Plan he felt compelled to vote in favor of this request. At such time as the applicant comes before the Board for developmental review that is the time to review it under the Land Development Code criteria. Ms. Brown said that while she appreciated Ms. Quimby’s concern this is a zone change request and not a specific project or plan. They are two totally different issues. A zoning recommendation to the City Council is based on the Comprehensive Plan and the Board spent the better part of the year discussing this area. Ms. Brown said that she could remember at least three meetings about this area and to go back and suggest that the Board needs to look at overall development first is, to her, contradictory to zoning. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he felt that the Board has heard some testimony as to why this property is a little different from the typical rezoning application and the consequences of a piece meal kind of approach as opposed to a more comprehensive sort of approach even if that more comprehensive approach lends eventually to Low Density Residential. Mr. Rosenblatt said that he fully understands the skepticism of the abutting land owners as to the protections provided by the development standards that the City of Bangor has in its Land Development Code. Those standards are not protective of a lot of the legitimate interests that people have and he did not think there is a lot of comfort for people in the notion that when the time for site plan review comes around the Board would be able to look at all these concerns because the reality is that they can’t. Mr. Rosenblatt said that it is appropriate that these concerns be voiced and addressed now. Ms. Mitchell said that while they did complete the required aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, there were a number of implementation aspects of the Comprehensive Plan some of those bigger picture master planning aspects such as open space planning and, pedestrian travel that the Board hasn’t gotten to look at. She felt that compliance with the Comprehensive Plan would include some of those more master planning perspectives. Mr. Wheeler indicated that Member Mitchell seemed to be suggesting that the work done on the Comprehensive Plan has been incomplete, futile and worthy of disregard and he totally disagree with that. He indicated that he did not have a crystal ball as to regard with the future development of this land. We can only act on the proposal that is before the Board and he rather suspected as he looked into his own conscience that the objection here is not so much to the issues that have been articulated but rather to the fact that it is attached housing and he did not see that as a problem. He indicated that he would support the zone change. Mr. Theeman felt that the operative word is comprehensive and he would not suggest that the Board do anything that overrides or sets aside the Comprehensive Plan. He felt that the Board has an opportunity here especially when the land under consideration is owned by a single-land owner to require that landowner to provide the Board with a comprehensive plan relative to how that land is going to be used. A piecemeal zoning of that property would not accomplish that. Chairman Guerette gave the applicant’s representative an opportunity to comment. Mr. Kiser indicated that master planning can be done. When you are looking at Low Density Residential for that area 6 you can go into residential planning for the project or for that area but residential development is somewhat cyclical in that what is desired as a residential development now may not be what people are looking for ten years from now. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion and reminded the Board that if they were planning to vote against the motion that they state a specific reason relative to the Code as to why they are voting against it. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zone change at 1027 Kenduskeag Avenue from Rural Residence and Agricultural District to Low Density Residential as set forth in C.O. #07-11. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 3 in favor and 2 opposed. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that his vote was based on the comments that he expressed before that this ownership arrangement is sufficiently distinct so that there is an opportunity to have the area evolve into Low Density Residential in a way that is more appropriate to the specifics of this property than will likely occur given the piece meal proposal that is before the Board. Mr. Theeman agreed. Item No. 5: Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals to construct a 136,885 sq. ft. gaming facility, a 1,469 space, 4-story parking garage, a 180,915 sq. ft., 7-story, 150-room hotel located on Main Street, Lincoln Street, Dutton Street and improvements at Bass Park in a Contract Waterfront Development District and a General Commercial and Service District. Bangor Historic Track, Inc., and City of Bangor, applicants. Chairman Guerette noting that this Public Hearing was opened and continued from the Board’s November 21, 2006 Meeting, asked the applicant to continue. Ms. Helen Edmunds, attorney at Pierce Atwood, represented the applicants. Ms. Edmunds explained that at the last meeting there were a number of open issues based on the plan set. Since that meeting, revised plans have been filed and reviewed in detail with the Planning Staff. She noted that the colored renderings of the proposal were available for the Board’s review. She said the revised plans address all of the concerns expressed at the last meeting. She indicated that they were requesting Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals from the Planning Board. Ms. Edmunds noted that the Planning Staff pointed out that the Board may need to make a decision regarding the alternation of some of the parking space dimensions within the valet parking arrangement. However, the applicant is proposing parking far in excess of the number of required parking space per the contract zone. Chairman Guerette asked if there were any comments from members of the audience who would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this. Seeing neither, Chairman Guerette asked for the Planning Officer’s report. Mr. Gould pointed out that there have been two iterations of plan sets from the applicant since the last meeting that Staff has reviewed in detail. Mr. Gould indicated that his office would like to extend thanks to Mr. Ray Bolduc of WBRC for his help and for being available and eager to make the corrections that Staff requested. Mr. Gould indicted that what is before the Board is a Conditional Use and Site Development Plan request for the new Bangor Historic Track gaming facility and hotel. Because the hotel is in excess of 65 feet in height this application is a conditional use. The Land Development Code and the Waterfront 7 Development District have two standards that apply to a hotel in excess of 65 feet. One that it cannot be any taller than 100 feet, and that it be setback 250 feet from the water which also corresponds with the Shoreland Zoning requirements. All conditional uses must meet the general standards of Chapter 165-9. One of those standards is traffic. This project comes in with Level of Service A’s and B’s which is something that we don’t ordinarily see. But in the Main Street area this is good. Another standard for review is site intensity and architectural compatibility. The applicants have provided the Board with some detailed renderings of the proposed building. The Planning Staff would direct the Board’s attention to other buildings in the area such as the Shriner's Building which is a block style, windowless building resembling some elements of this structure. Other buildings in the area are The Bangor Daily news facility, a gas station across the street, the Bangor Civic Center and the Auditorium. Even though this is a large structure it is not totally out of character with what you would find within that general vicinity of the City. The applicant proposes all new sewer lines, and a stormwater drainage system that will go and pick up stormwater problems that have occurred in Bass Park for decades that will be handled within this project. Staff feels that the City is fortunate that a number of streets are going to be reconstructed and utilities will be rebuilt. Staff noted that the Land Development Code provides certain flexibility to those people building parking garages. The basic standard that the City follows is approximately a 9 x 18 foot space and a 24 foot travel aisle for two-way traffic. The applicant is proposing valet parking on the first floor of the garage. What that means is that you turn over your car to a parking attendant who will park your car for you. In the arrangement of the first floor of the garage there are numerous spaces where cars would actually be blocked in by other cars and if someone wanted to get a car that is in the middle, another car would have to be moved. Mr. Gould indicated that he didn’t know if there is any valet parking on a surface lot or anywhere in Bangor. However, it is an element that is eligible for the Board to review under Chapter 165-75. On the second floor of the garage they found a little excess space and created room for three parallel spaces. The drawback is that the spaces are narrower than 9 feet or the aisle is less than 24 feet in that location. In a garage accommodations can be made to try and fit in the cars where there isn’t the room available that might be outside. Those are two details that Staff wants the Board to make note of and consider. Other points that Staff has been working with the applicant WBRC on to preserve all of the existing vegetation on the Bass Park side around March and Catell Streets. These are longstanding neighborhoods and the City wishes to make as much of a buffer there as possible. There is a certain area down by the Penobscot River that is in the 100 year floodplain. The sewer proposed to be constructed in that location actually needs to be flood proof so that it will continue to operate if it becomes under water due to flooding. Planning Officer Gould indicated that Staff finds that the application meets the conditional use and Site Development Plan approval standards. One other detail that Mr. Gould felt that the Board should consider is that there are improvements proposed within the right-of-way and improvements outside of the right-of-way. At Bass Park there is an employee parking lot that is on leased space of the City. The City abandoned Dutton Street to facilitate the location of that parking lot and give a little more space to move it away from the residences. In doing so, it is technically no longer on a public street. Staff suggested that a Planned Group Development between Bangor Historic Track and the City of Bangor through a lease agreement. It would be appropriate for the Board’s approval to contain a Planned Group Development agreement. Mr. 8 Gould pointed out that there are also a few details relative to right, title and interest to parts of I- 395 where the Bass Park retention facility exists and for some stormwater catch basin work that is on leased land near the Chamber of Commerce Building. Mr. Gould indicated that there will be final details done for all the off-site roadway improvements and Staff suggested that as those plans are developed that they be available to be reviewed by both the Planning and Engineering Offices before they are finalized. Another condition, which is something that Staff would like to see on all applications that deal with off-site improvements is that the facility shall not be open to the public until such time as all the off-site traffic improvements are in place. Because this occurred at another development in the Mall area Staff would like to avoid that in any future projects. Mr. Gould indicated that the applicants will need to obtain a Site Location of Development Act Permit and a Traffic Movement from MDOT before they can do their project. Mr. Gould also explained that generally at the time of site plan review, what the City reviews are actually conceptual design plans and are not the final roadway designs. They are based on models and assumptions as to how traffic is going to work and sometimes it doesn’t work the way it is modeled. After an MDOT Permit is issued, then detailed off-site improvement plans are developed and are available. Staff wants to make sure that they get to review those to make sure that there aren’t any surprises at that time. Mr. Rosenblatt asked with respect to right, title and interest is the condition simply that the applicant shall submit further materials or something more specific. Mr. Gould indicated that applicant should provide the City Planning Office acceptable right, title, and interest to construct the Bass Park stormwater detention pond and the stormwater improvements in the Chamber of Commerce leased area. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Staff anticipated that the Planned Group Development be a separate approval. Mr. Gould explained that this is similar to that of Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals. While Staff has no problem with the Board doing it all as one motion the reason to split them out is it gives the Board the ability to vote differently on each individual item. If the Board feels that an application meets all of the standards they can make one motion. However, if the Board feels that they will have different outcomes it is easier to split them out as separate votes. Mr. Theeman asked about the condition regarding occupancy and if this shouldn’t be a Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Gould indicated that is it but to specifically condition it gives Staff more comfort while at the same time protecting the interest of the public. Chairman Guerette asked the applicant to respond to some of the parking spaces not meeting the standard requirements. Mr. Frank extended their thanks to the Planning Staff for their patience in reviewing all of the amended plans. He explained that the parking in question is located in the center section in the garage. The valet parking works within the existing structural layout so if they were to restripe this at a later date for traditional garage parking it could be done. What has been done internally 9 and only on the lower level is for valet parkers to leave their vehicles and staff will park them in the available spaces. Staff will control the entire area where cars are double stacked. The applicant is proposing 3 parallel parking spaces whose area is less than that provided for within the Ordinance. The applicants are seeking Planning Board acceptance of it either meeting the parking standard or obtaining a variance from the standards for traditional parking. Mr. Rosenblatt asked that if some point in the future the applicant decided not to do valet parking what would happen to these spaces. Mr. Frank indicated that they could repaint the spaces and add them to the total number of self-park spaces. Mr. Rosenblatt asked about a bulge on Dutton Street that appears to restrict traffic in that area. Mr. Frank explained that while it looks like it is narrower it is actually two lanes and does not restrict traffic. Chairman Guerette then closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. Mr. Rosenblatt noted that he would like to make three motions and attach the same three conditions to each of the three motions. He indicated that the conditions are: 1) that the applicants provide the City Planning Office acceptable right, title, and interest evidence to construct the Bass Park stormwater detention pond and the stormwater improvements in the Chamber of Commerce leased area; 2) that the City Planning and Engineering Offices shall review and approve the final design of off-site roadway improvements; and 3) the facility shall not be opened to the public until all of the required off-site traffic improvements are in place. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Conditional Use approval to the proposed development at Main Street and Dutton Street, Bangor Historic Track and City of Bangor, applicants. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Site Development Plan approval on those same three conditions specifically noting that the Board is content with the parking arrangement and that they are prepared to use the Board’s authority under Section 165-75 to accept the parking proposal that is before the Board. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rosenblatt moved that the Board grant Planned Group Development Approval for this same proposed development on those same three conditions. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Item No. 6: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan approval to construct 36 condominium units (18, 2-unit buildings) located at 606V Essex Street in a Low Density Residential District. Maine Capital Companies/Scott LaLumiere, applicant. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Al Hodsdon, and Mr. John Blais of A.L. Hodsdon, as well, as the applicant, Mr. Scott LaLumiere were present at the meeting. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that the applicants are proposing to develop the land, which they are calling Lancaster Farms, bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Essex Street, East Broadway, and I-95. This is a 13.2 acre site and they are proposing 18 duplex condominium units. There are two different styles of condominiums being proposed and they are designed and tailored after the Dirigo Pines development separate units located in Orono. The proposed improvements to the site will include underground public utilities, water, sewer, storm drain, electricity, telephone and cable. The storm water system has been designed and a separate 10 application has been filed with Maine Department of Environmental Protection under the Stormwater Law as this site triggers the need for a Stormwater Permit. However, it does not trigger the Site Location of Development Act as they do not exceed 3 acres of unrevegetated area. Mr. Hodsdon noted that this project does not require an MDOT Movement Permit and estimates for peak hour trips for this site at 15 or 16 trips. The facility is intended for those 55 and older who are empty nesters that don’t want to maintain a large separate house. Mr. Blais explained that the larger units will be 102’ x 46’ and include a two car garage on one side and the majority of the units will have two single car garages attached. They are all single-story, ranch style homes. Mr. Hodsdon added that the major difference in the models is in the sizes of the garages. The proposal is zoned for Low Density Residential use, it meets the Land Development Code requirements that it be over 3 acres in size, and there is adequate open space. They are proposing to keep a large area of undeveloped land adjacent to the Interstate to use as a traffic sound buffer. Mr. LaLumiere indicated that their company has developed a number of these projects in southern and central Maine and their success rate has been good. The designs are open and work well for a number of different lifestyles. Mr. Hodsdon noted that Mr. LaLumiere’s company is presently developing the complex down at the Cutler Naval Air Station. Ms. Brown asked if the applicant had any provision for sidewalks. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that they are not proposing a sidewalk. Ms. Brown, noting that the proposed access is only 20 feet wide, asked how they proposed to handle parking that might occur on the street. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that there are garages and there are driveways which will accommodate at least one or two cars. They are proposing a 20 foot pavement with a Cape Code curb which is a mountable curb. He noted that you can actually drive over that curb and if someone had guests they can drive over the curb and park on the grass. Ms. Brown indicted that she had concerns about a 20 foot travelway width in regard to snowplowing in the winter, the fact that there is no sidewalk, and fire protection access. She asked Mr. Ring to speak to this issue. City Engineer, Jim Ring, indicated that the proposed roadway for this site will not be a public street but with a 20 foot width that is sufficient, in his opinion, for vehicular passage even with some allowance for snow banks. The applicant will be required to provide for their own snow removal services. If there is vehicle parking on one side, it is not an issue, and it would still allow a typical fire truck to pass through. If vehicles are parked on both sides there may not be room enough. The question is what is likely to happen in terms of allowable parking on-street. Ms. Brown asked about improvements in East Broadway. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that East Broadway would be extended approximately 50 to 100 feet beyond where it ends now and there would be a turn around point where a school bus could turn either into the access to this development and back around to the end of East Broadway and come out or back into the entrance as it makes a “T” turnaround. There is nothing there now and he felt that this would improve the turnaround capability. Mr. Blais indicated that they were proposing to expand East 11 Broadway 150 feet. Ms. Brown indicated that the plan said 200 feet. Mr. Hodson explained that they would be reconstructing some of the existing road but it would be extended 150 feet. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that at the time of the prior development plan for this site one of the issues that came up was the flow of traffic and in particular, the intersection with Bill Street. At that time it was completely uncontrolled with no stop signs. He asked if the applicant was proposing to make this safer. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that presently he did not think it has a stop sign. That is something that they had not addressed, but it is a good point. Mr. Rosenblatt asked Mr. Ring if that was still feasible. Mr. Ring indicated that it was. Mr. Hodson indicated that they would be happy to accommodate that request. Chairman Guerette asked if the maintenance of the proposed lawn area would be the responsibility of each condominium owner and if there were other plans to use open space as common area. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that the land will be maintained by the Association. Regarding the open space Mr. Hodsdon noted that there is a reason why the development has been designed as it is. This design does not trigger review under the Site Location of Development Act Law. To add more buildings or add sidewalks would push this development over the 3 acres and require a permit. For this reason they do not plan to expand this development. Chairman Guerette asked if they would allow individual condominium owners to construct secondary out buildings, storage sheds, or small garages. Mr. LaLumiere indicated that the condominium documents don’t contemplate that. Any changes would have to be made or approved by the Association and he doubted that that would be the case. Chairman Guerette then asked for proponents. There being none, he asked for proponents. Mr. Charles Jacobson 136 Lancaster Avenue had questions regarding traffic, the existing ledge and use changes. Mr. Buddy Murray a Lancaster Avenue neighbor indicated that he would like for the applicant to preserve the existing trees between his property and this development. He also had questions about the proposed street and the proposed setbacks. He questioned the need for two accesses to this site. Mr. Wilber Worcester, 603 Essex Street, was concerned about the proposed drainage and interstate noise. Mr. David Dunn, an abutting property owner, indicated that his garage is located over the property line. Ms. Jenny Clark, 148 Lancaster Avenue had concerns about traffic and that there was little room for the driveway. Mr. Jeff Gray, 100 Lancaster Avenue had concerns about traffic using this as a bypass. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that they propose to put in plantings on the site that abuts Mr. Murray’s land and they are also moving the first unit back. Regarding Mr. Jacobson’s comments about ledge in the area, he indicated that they are aware that there is ledge and they have a full set of plans related to the construction of the sewer, water, storm drains and roadways. They will need to do some blasting for some of the in-ground utilities. The water may be the deepest utility. 12 They do have test pits and in many areas they have 8 feet to the depth of the ledge. However, there will be some blasting. Mr. Blais indicated that the reason why they showed plantings there is because there is a water main going in on that side and if they should damage the root system they may have to replant those trees. Mr. Hodsdon, in response to Mr. Worcester’s concern about the drainage, indicated that it does predominantly go toward Broadway and that is where the detention pond is that will treat the water, detain it, and control the peak flows. Regarding the interstate noise, this is something that they will have to deal with sometimes people do get used to it. Plantings are part of what they propose to do. Chairman Guerette had questions regarding blasting and potential damage to adjacent property and homes and foundations. He asked the applicant to verify that they would be using a licensed blasting contractor and that people at the appropriate distances from the blast site be offered a pre blast inspection. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that it is a pre blast survey which is a standard procedure, and any blasting will be monitored with seismic equipment on the site to determine that it does not exceed the standard levels. Ms. Brown noted that on the stamped survey plan it appears to indicate that the property owner’s garage on the east side is over the property line about one foot. She asked if there was a way that they could shift the 20 foot road a little to the west to center it between the two buildings. It won’t solve the problem of the garage being in the right-of-way but it will alleviate the problem of that 20 foot road being on his garage. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that it could be moved. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if the line of trees there will be preserved. Mr. Hodson indicated that that is correct. Mr. Rosenblatt indicated that the previously approved development proposal did not have access onto Lancaster and asked how important this access is. Mr. Hodson indicated that in his opinion it was very important because it will allow two access points for a development of this size. Most communities require that after 12 residential sites you must have two accesses. This proposal is consistent with planning in other communities, it provides for safety, and he felt that it is critical. Mr. Theeman felt that by having 2 accesses they have created a by-pass or short cut between Lancaster Avenue and East Broadway and a 20 foot wide street with no sidewalk is also a problem. Mr. Hodsdon did not feel that this would be a short cut as it would be a longer route to travel going through the project site and it will 2 stop signs. Mr. Wheeler asked what the project costs would be for the units. Mr. LaLumier indicated that they have not done a final cost projection but anticipate that they would be in the $190,000 to $205,000 range. 13 As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and asked the Planning Officer for his report. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this application is for Conditional Use and Site Development Plan approvals and Developmental Subdivision approval to construct 36, attached residential condominium units located off of Essex Street, Lancaster Avenue, and East Broadway. The previously approved development for this site was a 28-lot single-family subdivision. At that time, the developer did extensive traffic analysis because of the issue of thru- traffic from Essex Street to Broadway. They also worked with the Bangor Police Department to look at signage and traffic control in the subdivision. Mr. Gould indicated that relative to this roadway this is intended to be a private roadway and will not be a public right-of-way nor would the city expect it to meet any of the right-of-way standards that of the Land Development Code. A residential access is a road that only accesses houses directly. A residential street would be one that provides access to residential access streets. The proposed 20 foot paved roadway is not what our public street standard is but is certainly adequate for the project. The traffic generation from this project is going to less than what was looked at from the prior project. They have tried to keep the impervious area less than 3 acres on this site which in turn has driven the number of units down to avoid having to obtain Site Location of Development Act Permit approval There are a lot of properties in close proximity to this site with little or no setbacks. Some actually cross the property line. Staff pointed out to the applicant that the preservation of the existing vegetation around the site is a very important element in that it is important to the neighborhood and important to future residents. Relative to the conditional use standards, Staff had no concerns at all with that. Because the applicant is proposing an attached residential duplex development they have had to account for every bit of impervious area of the whole project which is a very different scenario than what was before. Now there are new Stormwater laws and this project drains into an urban impaired watershed. Mr. Gould noted that the Board Members are familiar with this site as they attended a site visit during the prior approval. Since the time of the writing of the Staff Memo revised plans have been submitted and the elevations of the building and the floor plans arrived at City Hall that evening but Staff had not had time to review them. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff has a concern regarding the developmental subdivision and wants to make it clear that the details of that final plan are on paper before they would suggest that the Board sign off on the plan. Staff is generally comfortable with the development because it is of a much lower density than could be built at this site and elderly restricted housing is a unique idea. There has been a renewed interest in condominiums especially since the cost of single-family housing has gone up. Staff noted that this would be a good time for the applicant to discuss some of the property boundary adjustments with abutting parcels before the plans are finalized. Mr. Clark said that when this was Libbyview he voted against it because he felt that it was a poorly planned development, but this proposal seems to be a better development because it is not as congested and is a step in the right direction. Mr. Rosenblatt asked if Staff felt that this applicant was not quite ready for approval. Mr. Gould noted, as he indicated to the applicant’s agent, that he is uncomfortable with the final 14 subdivision plan as there are a lot of details that Staff feels should be included on that plat. Overall, Staff is comfortable with the details of the project but when it comes to signing off on the final plan it should indicate the proper things. Mr. Rosenblatt agreed and asked Mr. Gould to comment on the proposed second access on Lancaster Avenue. Mr. Gould pointed out that this is a case where the applicant is saying that most communities require two accesses and the neighbors want just one. It is very clear that it is the purview of the Board to review access points. Normally it is Staff’s position to try and limit access points on arterials through what is called access management. The Board needs to evaluate the nature of the traffic that is going to come and go out of this elderly residential project and whether or not it going to cause or aggravate problems on Lancaster Street. In most neighborhoods the bigger concern is the existing traffic on the roadway. Mr. Theeman asked about Mr. Murray’s comments regarding the side yard setback as it relates to the right-of-way. Mr. Gould indicated that Mr. Murray’s interpretation of the Land Development Code is correct but Staff does not feel that the applicant is creating a right-of-way here and a right-of-way is a City Street. This is essentially an easement in which the applicant is going to put utilities that would require side yards and not street setbacks. Mr. Gould said that it is like a driveway into an apartment complex. It’s a private roadway and there is no setback standard that applies to it. Mr. Theeman said that he would argue that any time you connect a private road to two public streets you have defacto created a public way. What you have created here is a loop and he would suggest that given that that loop includes a roadway that is only 20 feet wide without a sidewalk creates a hazardous condition as provided for under 165-9 A 2. Ms. Brown indicated that she agreed with Mr. Theeman that by connecting to public roads it creates a public way. She said that she was more concerned with the residents and that sooner or later they would end up in the Code Enforcement Office or the City Engineering Office complaining because they are not getting the services that they expected that they should be getting had they lived on a public street. Mr. Gould indicated that the Land Development Permit standards allow the Board to consider pedestrian movements and access. The Board needs to evaluate each development. Some Members hold the opinion that if there is no sidewalk in the development they don’t want to approve it. It is still a judgment that the Board needs to make whether it be residential, condominium, commercial or industrial. The Board could direct the applicant to amend their application if they did not feel what is proposed is sufficient. Chairman Guerette indicated that this seems to be a fine project. He expressed his concern regarding the successful resolution of the property line issues and felt it would be to the applicant best interest as well. Also, the retention of mature trees and vegetation along property lines would also be a mutual benefit and he noted the street improvements to the lower portion of East Broadway including some widening of the current section as per Staff. He asked the applicant if he would be agreeable and willing to concede to these conditions. 15 Mr. Hodsdon, speaking on behalf of Mr. LaLumiere, indicated that the property line issues are something that they all agree need to be corrected. The maintenance of the trees is shown on the plan but they are prepared to live up this condition, too. He indicated that he did not understand the widening of East Broadway or how far it needs to be widened nor did they know enough about the request to give an answer. Lancaster Avenue is not much wider than 20 feet and there is no sidewalk there or on East Broadway or all the way to Broadway. The only existing sidewalk is on Essex Street. Mr. Hodsdon indicated that the have not discussed the East Broadway issue and coming back in two weeks, after they have had a chance to work those issues out, would give them what they need for time. Mr. Rosenblatt felt that the prudent thing to do would be to continue this to the Board’s next meeting and made a motion to do so. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed to the motion to continue this item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 7: Planning Board Approval of Minutes Chairman Guerette indicated that the Minutes of the Special Meeting of October 23, 2006 were in order for approval. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Minutes with the exception that he did not think that Mrs. Blanchette was a Councilor on October 23, 2006. Chairman Guerette indicated the change was so noted by the Planning Officer. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:02 p.m.