Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-20 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 2005 MINUTES Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman David Clark Harold Wheeler Laura Mitchell Alice Brown Miles Theeman City Staff Present: David Gould Peter Witham News Media Present: None Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the Absence of Board Members Rosenblatt and King, Chairman Guerette noted that Associate Members Mitchell, Brown and Theeman would be voting. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Conditional Use/Site Development Plan to construct a 3,230 square foot restaurant with drive-through service at 594 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Tim Horton’s (New England), Inc., applicant. Chairman Guerette explained the Public Hearing procedure in that the applicant would be asked to give a presentation, followed by comments from proponents and opponents, the Public Hearing closed, and then comments from Staff. Chairman Guerette opened the Public Hearing and asked for a presentation from the applicant. Mr. Jim Parker, P.E. of Civil Engineering Services, represented the applicant. Also present were Sean Gilbert and Peter Heddrick, who has done some traffic work for the applicant. Mr. Parker explained that this application is for conditional use/site development plan approval at 594 Broadway to replace a former gasoline service station with a Tim Horton’s restaurant. 2 Chairman Guerette indicated that with another establishment on Broadway that has restaurant service with a drive-thru, one of the concerns is going to be the vehicle movement on the lot and how the applicant will accommodate for vehicles queuing up to the drive-thru. Mr. Parker indicated that there is room to accommodate ten cars in the queue. The applicant has additional land from that of the service station lot that makes it possible to wrap the traffic around the site. Mr. Peter Heddrick, Gorrill Palmer Associates, indicated that they did a preliminary traffic evaluation and a scoping meeting application to the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT) for the project. As was indicated there is stacking on-site for about ten cars before interfering with any parking on the site with area for an additional eight cars before getting out to Broadway. His firm has done traffic counts at six locations around the state to get a handle on the trip generation and the type of traffic that this use generates. They are forecasting in the morning peak hour 250 trips for approximately 125 customers in and out and about 67 trips in the afternoon peak hour in and out. They project that approximately 70 percent of that traffic is pass-by traffic that is already there and not really adding a lot of traffic volume on Broadway. As there are four lanes and a center turn lane on Broadway, they feel that the traffic can be adequately accommodated. Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from opponents. There being none, he closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould explained that the application before the Board is for Tim Horton’s, Inc. requesting conditional use and site development plan approvals to construct a 3,230 sq. ft. restaurant with a drive-through window in the Shopping and Personal Service District (S & PS). The proposed restaurant would have 64 seats inside. On Broadway they propose two curb cuts, one will have left and right turns and one with a right-turn only lane. The S & PS District requires that a drive-thru use have a minimum C Buffer. In this instance, the property abuts a residential district which requires that a transition yard be provided and there is approximately 34 feet of C-1 Buffer proposed. Mr. Gould indicated that at the time the Staff Memorandum was written, a number of the elements of the application were incomplete. The applicant’s representative came into the Planning Office a couple of hours after the Memorandum was mailed to the Board with a packet of additional information and revised plans that Staff had requested. The revised plans meet the front setback, provide architectural details on the bulk and form of the proposed building, and traffic information supporting that this proposed use will not create unreasonable traffic congestion or hazardous conditions on adjacent streets. Now, Staff is comfortable that the Board has adequate information to review the conditional use standards. There are a few items on the plan that Staff would like to the applicant to address. One being that the front setback is identified on the chart on the plan incorrectly. Mr. Gould indicated that if the Planning Board is comfortable that the applicant has adequately addressed traffic and that there may be off- site improvements required as a part of the MDOT Traffic Permit. Staff suggested that the Board condition approval that the operation not be open to the public until any off-site improvements are in place. This would avoid the potential of them generating traffic when 3 the improvements are not in place. These are separate permitting issues but this is one way for the City to bridge the gap between the two. Mr. Jim Ring, City Engineer, indicated that additional information was submitted by the applicant and that he was confident that the traffic infrastructure will handle the predicted flows that this new facility will generate. Rather than using standard trip generation tables, the projections for this facility were derived from actual studies and counts done for similar facilities. The counts look good and he did not believe that there would be any problems. Queuing space is always an issue and many existing facilities with similar functions do generate some queues. The applicant in this case has done a good job working with the site to provide up to 20 spaces if cars are allowed to queue in the regular parking area. One thing that he would like to see that he has not seen is an actual simulation model and this could be done through the MDOT permitting process. Mr. Ring indicated that he has discussed with the MDOT Traffic Engineer and he agrees with this. Mr. Theeman referring to Mr. Ring’s Memo asked for clarification as to what he meant by any additional local approvals. Mr. Ring indicated that local approvals include that of the Planning Board and a traffic permit. Because of the number of trips that this particular project will generate, MDOT requires a Traffic Movement Permit. While this is a separate process, he wished to note the connection between the two even though they are separate. Ms. Mitchell noted that Mr. Ring had indicated that they could queue 20 cars if the queuing is allowed in the parking area and asked if this was through the site or in a parking space. Mr. Ring indicated that there is a clear queue of 10 spaces which is more than the City Ordinances require. There is space through the parking area (not the actual parking spaces) to handle up to 20 cars. Chairman Guerette asked if queuing could take place out onto Broadway and what could be done to prevent this from happening. Mr. Ring said that this was a very good question and is among the things that Staff considers. As one would expect the traffic projections estimate that the highest amount of use or patronage to this facility is in the morning. At least 70 percent of them are considered drive-by trips of people who are already there. If this was proposed on the opposite side of the street so it meant all left-hand turns there would be a different set of concerns. He did not feel that the queuing or the in-bound traffic should be that much of a problem. There is a center lane and this can provide some queuing space which is a better situation than when you don’t have the center lane. There is approximately 150 feet of queue lane that is available for storage. The real way to be totally sure of that is to have a good traffic simulation model. Mr. Clark had a concern that it may be difficult to make a left-hand turn and because this proposed use will generate a great deal more traffic that the Texaco Station did there may be more cars queuing from this site. Mr. Ring said that he felt these concerns are very valid. He did feel that the site layout is much more accommodating in terms of the demand, 4 because of the length of the queue, and the driveways on the project site. The left turn out movement can be very difficult but it is too close to adjacent signals to add another signal. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would like to inform the Board that this structure has been in place as a service station for more than 40 years. If the traffic were overlayed in and out of that facility during the 1960’s and 1970’s with the relative volume of traffic at that time we probably would not find a too great an incremental difference. Ms. Brown indicated that there were arrows going around and in the front of the site that appear to be one-way traffic exiting out and that there is no a sign to indicate that. She asked if there going to be something there to alert the public to that fact. Mr. Parker indicated that there will not be two-way traffic in front of the building and the applicant would provide a do not enter sign. Mr. Theeman asked the Planning Officer to list those items that Staff feels that have not been provided. Mr. Gould explained that beyond the issues of traffic there are a few annotation notes that Staff would like to have corrected on the plan. There is a place on the plan where it talks about the building setbacks of the district and it lists the setback as 40 feet where it is a 50 foot setback. The other things that Staff requested that someone clarify is some of the adjacent site encroaches on this site and there is a light pole in the other parking lot on the plan that says existing light to be moved. It is not their light so it is an existing light to be “removed.” It is not going to get relocated to another location on this site and needs to be noted on the plan. Ms. Brown indicated that she noticed on the southerly portion of the site that there is a number 6 rebar set and asked where that information was coming from as only an engineer stamped the plan. Mr. Parker noted that Mr. Plisga had given them a plan and this plan shows the pins that they will be setting. Mr. Parker explained that the surveyor normally would not set those pins until they start the construction work. Ms. Brown felt that there should be a note to say this. She asked for a clarification about the proposed fence and pavement that appear to be an encroachment issue. Mr. Gould explained that the adjacent parking overlaps off of its site onto this site. Mr. Parker indicated that if the there was overlapping parking it would be removed and landscaped. Ms. Brown said that she felt that there is an issue of encroachment that affects the parking. Mr. Parker indicated that the surveyor has not identified any issue with the boundary or a question of title. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette asked Associate Members Mitchell and Theeman to vote on this item. He also indicated that the Board needed to identify any conditions for approval. Mr. Theeman indicated that they would need an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit, clarification of building setbacks on the plan, and clarification of the narrative description of items on the plan including an existing light. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Conditional Use/Site Development Plan at 594 Broadway, Tim Horton’s New England Inc., applicant, with the conditions that: 1) that the 5 applicant obtain an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit , 2) that the site plan be amended to clarify building setbacks, and 3) that the site plan be amended to correct non-sustentative narrative inconsistencies. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he felt that the third condition should be stated more specifically. Chairman Guerette indicated that this was sufficient but added that under the first condition that the Board was asking the applicant not to open prior to obtaining an MDOT Traffic Movement Permit. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 to 0 in favor of granting the conditional use request with the stated conditions. Chairman Guerette then asked for a motion on the Site Development Plan. Mr. Theeman moved to approve the Site Development Plan for 594 Broadway, Tim Horton’s New England Inc., applicant, to construct a 3,230 sq. ft. restaurant with drive-thru service at 594 Broadway in a Shopping and Personal Service District with the conditions that: 1) An MDOT Traffic Movement Permit be obtained; 2) clarification be made of building setbacks that appear on the plan, and 3) the that correction of non substantative narrative inconsistencies on the plan be made Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 3: Final Subdivision Plan re-approval for Phase II of Woodridge Subdivision, 21 Bomarc Road in a Low Density Residential District. Woods of Maine, Inc., applicant. Mr. Jim Parker, Civil Engineering Services, represented the applicant. He explained that this is a re-submission of a plan that lapsed due to timing of improvement guarantees. The applicant is requesting re-approval of an existing plan. They did find a geometrical error on Lot 43 that Associate Member Brown had pointed out whereby it lacked a little over a foot in width at the setback line for proper lot width that has since been corrected. Chairman Guerette asked if the improvement guarantees would be more difficult to obtain this time around or if much of that work had already been done. Mr. Mike Woods, of Woods of Maine, Inc., indicated that financing is all in place for the improvement guarantees and it is just a matter of having the DEP Permit in hand. Once this takes place, the bank will release the guarantee. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is a revisit of a project that the Board approved on July 19, 2005. The Preliminary Plan was approved on June 7, 2005. What has held this project up is after the City’s permitting process they needed to get their stormwater permitting with the Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP was short staffed in Bangor this summer and their application got sent to Augusta for review. With some different people to work with, things dragged on and their bank was uncomfortable giving them a Letter of Credit without all of the permits in place. It took long enough that the 120 day period expired giving them the option to come back and get Final Plan approval again which will start the clock over again and give them another 120 days. Planning Officer Gould noted that Associate Member Brown was kind enough to review the plans in detail and spotted a lot that did not look quite right, using some trigonometry and surveying work 6 discovered it was shy of what it ought to be. Our typical practice is to look at all of the lots. If we have a question, we usually ask the applicant’s designer to demonstrate to us that the lot meets the standards. This one wasn’t one that caught Staff’s attention. It is an issue of less than two feet but the fact that, if approved, it does not make it a legal lot. The purchaser of the lot would actually have a nonconforming lot which could be problematic down the road. The applicant’s designers have corrected this and new plans have been submitted. Staff recommended that the Board grant the applicant Final Plan approval with the standard condition that they provide the City with a suitable improvement guarantee within 120 days. Associate Members Theeman and Brown were asked to vote. Mr. Wheeler moved that the Board grant approval for the Final Subdivision Plan at 21 Bomarc Road with the condition that a suitable Improvement Guarantee be provided within 120 days of the date of approval, Woods of Maine, Inc., applicant. Mr. Theeman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Theeman asked what a private forced main system is. Mr. Ring explained that a forced main denotes a pressurized sewer line meaning that it is a pumped system (as it is uphill). In this project, as in the prior phase of this development, the City is not interested in owning and maintain pumped and nongravity sewers. However, a Homeowners Association was part of the approval requirements and they are obligated to operate the force main system. Ms. Brown asked if by allowing these private pump stations this is to provide gravity for a lot that would otherwise be unbuildable in the present condition or could not accept on- site waste disposal. Mr. Ring indicated that is correct except that some lots may be able to support septic systems but that would mean a requirement for larger lots and it would be inconsistent with the zoning designation. Item No. 4: Site Development Plan to construct 308 square feet of additional seating area at 130 Haskell Road in a General Commercial and Service District. Realty Resources Hospitality, applicant. Mr. Thomas Williams, Construction Manager for Realty Resources Hospitality, explained that the applicant is proposing to construct 308 square feet of additions to the existing Denny’s Restaurant. They consist of two 7’ x 22’ additions on the front of the building. Because business has increased, the applicant wishes to provide additional seating area. Mr. Clark asked if the proposed additions would be new construction or a prefabricated section and how this would affect the existing parking. Mr. Williams indicated that the original building is a diner style building that was made at a factory and shipped to the site. What the applicant is proposing to do is to construct wooden additions with 7 stainless steel siding and relocate the front portion and windows forward to make it look exactly as it does now. In regard to parking the requirement for the total development is 32 parking spaces. There are 72 spaces on site, nearly twice that required. Ms. Brown indicated that there is a utility easement going across the front portion of the lot, the existing building is already encroaching in that easement, and the addition is also going to encroach it further. Mr. Williams indicated that that easement is granted to Bangor Hydro who requires this when they do underground lines in case the lines need to be repaired. The actual line is running outside of the building about six feet. Ms. Brown asked how the Hydro felt about an encroachment into their easement and if there is a copy of that easement. Mr. Williams indicated that it was part of the original agreement with Bangor Hydro and there is a copy of the easement. Ms. Brown noted that in the upper right hand corner there is a loading area and some hatching that is not indicated on the legend. Mr. Williams indicated that this is a designated loading zone and the full-sized plan it indicates this. As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Gould indicated that this is a straight forward Site Development Plan. When the applicant initially came back to the City for approval some of the initial data that was on the site plan such the location of the loading zone, the identification of the number of seats and the parking standards and other details weren’t on the initial plan submitted. The applicant went back to their designers and covered these issues. The revised plan shows the dimensions of the building, shows where the access points are, lists the height of the building, locates the loading zone, provides the number of seats in the building, indicates that the expansion meets the parking requirements, and gives the details of the lighting on site. In the addition, they are relocating a grease trap and this is shown on the revised plan and they have clarified the details of the island and the buffer yards around building. The plan indicates that the sign is to be relocated but does not indicate the proposed location. The Board could have the option to approve the plan without a specific sign location and then the applicant could file an amended plan with Staff as a Minor Revision; or the Board could add a condition that the applicant may have a sign as long as it meets the setbacks of the Ordinance would be acceptable. At some point Staff will want a plan filed with the City that actually locates where the sign will be. All of the other details of the Plan are in order. Mr. Theeman asked if the Board could not approve this plan contingent upon the relocation of the sign to bring it into compliance. Mr. Gould indicated that the plan already says on the face of it that the sign will be relocated. If the Board approves this, this will happen by virtue of the approval. When the applicant does comes up with a fixed location that location should really be noted on a approved plan. This is an element that Staff can actually approve in-house. Mr. Theeman indicated that he had a concern that he would like to ensure that people do what they say that they are going to do and asked if there was a way to craft a motion that requires them to do this as a condition to the approval to move the sign first and then build their building. Mr. Gould indicated that he did not know if this could be done in this order. He suggested that the approval could be conditioned upon the 8 sign meeting the standards of the Ordinance but he did not know if the order in which they occur can be dictated. Mr. Theeman asked if the Board made a contingent approval that required the sign to be in the correct place, if Code Enforcement would condition their occupancy permit on whether or not the sign was in the right place. Mr. Ring indicated that there is more than one location that will meet setback requirements and Staff is looking to assure that the setback requirements are met. Associate Members Brown and Mitchell were asked to vote on this item. Chairman Guerette asked for a motion. Mr. Clark indicated that he was in favor of having the sign noted on the site plan and at such time as it is relocated, that the applicant apply and receive in-house Staff approval. He then moved to approve the Site Development Plan at 120 Haskell Road for Realty Resources Hospitality, applicant. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. Mr. Gould indicated that Staff would request that the applicant submit revised plans indicating the location of the sign for in-house Minor Site Plan Approval. If in the event that this does not meet Ordinance requirements, then Staff will not sign off on the Minor Site Plan Revision. Ms. Brown asked what the chain of events that take place if in the event that the sign is not put in the right place. Mr. Gould indicated that they would be in the same situation that they are in now and they would need to relocate it. Mr. Ring added that after a plan is approved by the Board the City’s inspectors go out in the field to check the details of the plan. If they find that the sign is moved and moved wrong again there is an internal process where the applicant will receive a notice of violation of their site plan. Chairman Guerette asked for a vote. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 2: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. There were no Minutes for Board consideration. Other Business Mr. Theeman asked if the intermodal language was part of the record for the City of Bangor. Mr. Gould said that in his appearance before the City Council adopting the amendments to the Waterfront Development District, there was no uniform or unanimous support for all of the elements of the change. There were some people who thought that intermodal ought to mean freight and cargo which is just the opposite of the sentiment of the Planning Board. There were some other details about the amendments that some people were uncomfortable with. Mr. Gould indicated that he wanted to provide the definition but 9 wanted to discuss this amongst Staff as to whether any of the other issues that came up at the City Council meeting ought to be revisited regarding the Waterfront Development District. He noted that the amendment did pass as the Board recommended it. Staff envisions that a definition for passenger intermodal will be introduced but there may be some other changes to the Waterfront Development District, as well. Mr. Wheeler said that he thought with all due acknowledgement of the sincerity of some of the questions and concerns that have been expressed at the meeting, that the Board needed to disabuse itself of any idea that it is an enforcement body. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the Board is not the development police, they are a citizen Board appointed by the City Council just as the City Council is elected by the citizens of Bangor to be an oversight body for the professional staff. He said that he did not question the right of any Member to raise any question that concerns them but on the other hand sometimes he felt that the Board gives the impression that they are there to wield the power of life and death over development applications when in fact this is not the Board’s function nor is it the Board’s process. Mr. Wheeler said that he hoped that the Board could get away from this and deal with things in the larger perspective of what the Board’s mission is. The Board is a body of overseers representing the public at the behest of the City Council to be sure that our Codes and Ordinances, both local and state, are followed adequately and that nothing slips through the cracks that will cause any major disruption of either traffic or quality of life. Chairman Guerette thanked Mr. Wheeler for his point of view. He indicated that he personally felt that this was an exercise as having some newer members having a chance to look at these applications in a little more detail as they had a voting role. He thanked the Board for all of the comments and thanked Mr. Wheeler for his comments that were well meant and well taken. Planning Officer Gould noted that there was a list of current Board Members with addresses, phone numbers, and e-mails available. Also, he noted that there was a list of the City’s Boards and when terms are expiring in 2006 noting that both Mr. Clark’s and Mr. Theeman’s terms will expire and they will need to reapply if they wish to get reappointed by the City Council. There being no further business for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.