HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-07-19 Planning Board Minutes
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF JULY 19, 2005
MINUTES
Board Members Present: Robert Guerette, Chairman
Hal Wheeler
David Clark
Laura Mitchell
City Staff Present: David Gould
Peter Witham
T.J. Martzial
Lynn Johnson
News Media Present: None
Chairman Guerette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board
Members Rosenblatt and Clark, Associate Member Mitchell was asked to vote.
Chairman Guerette also noted that because only four Members were present and
voting and that for an item to pass there would need to be three affirmative votes of the
Board, applicants would have the opportunity to ask that their items be continued to the
Board’s next meeting of August 2, 2005 when a full Board would be present and voting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item No. 1: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land
located at 402 Essex Street from Government and Institutional Service
District and Urban Residence One District to Contract High Density
Residential District. Said parcel containing approximately 3.83 acres.
Essex Common, LLC, applicant. C.O. # 05-238.
Prior to opening the Public Hearing, Chairman Guerette informed the audience of the
procedures under which the Public Hearing would be conducted. First, comments from the
applicant would be entertained, then proponents would be asked to speak followed by
opponents; then the Public Hearing would be closed, and Staff would be asked to give their
comments.
2
Chairman Guerette then opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant. Mr. Tom Williams of Realty Resources, indicated that they are requesting a
contract zone change at 402 Essex Street in order to construct a 32-unit housing project.
Mr. Williams explained that the applicant had replied to an RFP that was issued by the City,
and was awarded tentative developer status to develop this site. The applicant is proposing
a multi-family townhouse style development with sidewalks up to Mary Snow School.
Chairman Guerette asked what kind of traffic this development will create. Mr.
Williams indicated that the applicant has had a traffic study done that estimates 21 peak hour
trip counts with 13 exits and 5 entrances in the morning and 13 entrances and 5 exits in the
p.m. Chairman Guerette asked if that is normal for a development of this size. Mr. Williams
indicated that it is.
In response to a question as to why the applicant is requesting the zone change, Mr.
Williams indicated that in order to construct 32 units, the required zoning is High Density
Residential.
Mr. Clark noted that earlier there was a plan for elderly housing at this site. He asked
if the proposed townhouses would be open to anyone. Mr. Williams indicated that the
applicant is proposing to construct affordable housing and this is usually subsidized either
through the State or Federal government. Mr. Williams noted that the applicant has another
project called the Heights located off of York Street that is also affordable housing.
No one else spoke in favor of the project. Chairman Guerette then asked for
opponents. Ms. Camille Morrison, 419 Essex Street (diagonally across the street) told the
Board that she purchased her home because it is a single-family residential neighborhood
and is close to the Mall and her friends. She said that she is a single mom trying to bring her
daughter up in a good environment. She told the Board that this area of Essex Street is a
nice, clean and pleasant area. Ms. Morrison said that she is in opposition to this zone change
request as she felt it would have a negative impact upon her property values, and 32
additional units would add to the already heavy traffic on Essex Street. She said that people
use Essex Street to avoid Broadway and that she has had to wait 20 or 30 minutes just to
back out of her own driveway. Since the time the notices were mailed, four people have put
their houses up for sale. Ms. Morrison said that she had no objections to this parcel being
developed as an “old folks home” but was not in favor of 32-units of low income housing.
She told the Board that more study needs to be done on how this will affect property values
in the area, she did not feel that the traffic count numbers presented were accurate, nor she
did not feel that the City had given enough time for the neighborhood to consider this zone
change request as she had only received notice four business days prior to the meeting. Ms.
Morrison said that she felt that the Board should continue this to give people a chance for
review.
Mr. Wheeler asked Ms. Morrison how long she had lived there, what her anticipations
were, if the Naval Reserve Center had been deactivated, how far she lived from the large
office complex on the corner of Essex Street and Stillwater Avenue which generates a fair
amount of traffic, and how far away she lives from the MRI medical office building. Ms.
3
Morrison indicated that she has lived there for 7 years, the Naval Reserve Center was
deactivated at that time, she would like to see another single-family home, duplex or a
memorial constructed there. The traffic from the office complex along Stillwater Avenue has
access onto Stillwater Avenue and does not have a great deal of effect upon Essex Street,
and she lives about one-half mile away from the MRI facility. Ms. Morrison said that she has
never seen a “for sale” sign on the Naval Reserve property.
Mr. Wheeler then asked Ms. Morrison if she noticed that during the school year if
there is marked increase in traffic in her area. Ms. Morrison said that while her daughter
goes to Fruit Street, the kids that go to Mary Snow School walk and are bussed. With kids
walking and the busses trying to enter Milford Street, traffic has to stop and creates
congestion.
Mr. Wheeler asked if it was a requirement of the Ordinance that the applicant post a
sign on the property. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant was given a
Public Hearing sign to post on the property but that it is not an Ordinance requirement that
the applicant do so. Mr. Wheeler said that he felt it should be.
Mr. Brett Landon of 442 Essex Street said that he agreed with everything that Ms.
Morrison said. He told the Board that he sees every car that goes into the Mary Snow
School. He has lived there for 6 years and his three children play in his yard. He noted that
the peak traffic times are the morning rush and the evening rush. He challenged Mr.
Williams to do a traffic study at peak times. He did not understand how the traffic study
arrived at the number of 21 trips when there are 32 units and 50 plus parking spaces
proposed. He told the Board that in this area there are all single-family homes except for
that area of the proposed change. He asked that the Planning Board not accept this. He
noted that he had received a notice a week ago and did see a number of for sale signs. Mr.
Landon indicated that when he purchased his home it was because it is in a single-family
neighborhood and that his mother-in-law’s house was in his back yard. Mr. Landon also had
concern with a proposed walkway to be built on the site and felt that when a walkway is
constructed in a wooded area it can cause problems. He asked if this proposed development
was going to be ADA compliant for wheelchairs and elevators and indicated that that he is
very concerned about the future of his property value and what will become of this
neighborhood. He asked why there isn’t a school zone on Essex Street like the ones on
Hammond Street and Union Street. Mr. Landon indicated that six years ago when an elderly
complex was proposed he felt that that was a good thing and was not worried. However, he
said that he felt that this project was being “jammed through.”
Ms. Gwendolyn Julien, 379 Essex Street, told the Board that she has lived in her home
since 1976. She said that it is difficult to get out of her driveway, and many cars on
Stillwater Avenue make a right on red which also makes it very difficult to get out of her
driveway. She indicated that she agreed with Ms. Morrison. She is in opposition to the zone
change and feels that there needs to be a lot more study done. Ms. Julien said that this is a
single-family neighborhood and if this is changed, she is not going to get used to it and will
sell her home and get out.
4
Ms. Michelle Pinette of 373 Essex Street, which is diagonally across the street, also
disagreed with traffic study numbers. She said that most families have one car and if not
two. She pointed out that it is dangerous to get out of her driveway. She has two teenagers
and said that it is frightening to think of them driving and trying to get out of the driveway.
She noted that during the wintertime the sidewalks on both sides of the street are not always
plowed which makes it difficult and dangerous for children walking to Mary Snow School.
She told the Board that they have an investment and have pride in their property but felt that
people renting don’t have the same investment in the property. To put 32 rental units at this
site is going to change the character of their neighborhood and that is disturbing to her.
Ms. Angela Landon, of 442 Essex Street, told the Board that she did some research on
affordable housing and found that it does not bring property values down but she did not feel
that existing houses would sell as fast. She was concerned about the safety of the children.
She said that people think that Milford Street Extension goes all the way thru to Broadway
and when they discover that it does not, they turn around in her driveway. She said that the
only people who drive 25 mph are student drivers and that the speed limits are not posted.
She added that the school buses have difficulty turning into the Milford Street and there have
been many accidents on the corner of Essex Street and Milford Street as a result of the older
people trying to pull into Eastern Agency on Aging. Ms. Landon pointed out that there was a
dump on this property in the 1930’s in the area where the walkway is proposed. Presently,
there are dump pickers who dig for bottles there and she was concerned about what might
surface in this dump and for the safety of the children.
Mr. Ronald Cross, 420 Essex Street, told the Board that he bought his home less than
a year ago in hopes to raise his three children there. He said that he spends a lot of time in
his back yard, which backs up to the proposed site. He agreed with everything that his
neighbors had said. He was concerned that, as a matter of privacy, the proposed site will be
looking into his backyard. He has a fenced in back yard and a pool and would like to
continue to enjoy it. Mr. Cross said that he is not happy with the proposal.
Ms. Patty Pringle, 382 Essex Street, told the Board that she lived there when the Naval
Reserve Center was active. She is opposed to a spot zone change to High Density
Residential. With the existing traffic, it is a struggle to get out of this site, she disagrees with
the traffic study that has been done and felt that property values in the neighborhood will be
affected if the 32-units of low-income housing or affordable house are constructed. She told
the Board that she objects to the proposal and if the applicant breaks ground, she plans to
sell her house.
Mr. Cheryl Harvey, 412 Essex Street, told the Board that she has lived there 24 years,
and has put her house on the market as she won’t have that type of neighborhood around
them. She said that recently she counted 48 cars go by while waiting to get out of her
driveway to go to work. She said that this proposal does not make sense.
Mr. Bill Pringle, 382 Essex Street, said that he, too, agreed with everyone who spoke.
He said that it is very difficult to get in and out of his driveway. In the wintertime, it is doubly
5
as bad because the road conditions make it impossible to get out of there. He said that this
proposal would lower the property values in the neighborhood.
Ms. Camille Morrison told the Board that she would like to see an independent traffic
study done. She told the Board that the City is going to make 4.2 million dollars from this.
She said that not only will the 32 units have cars but the tenants will have friends, family and
people who are going to visit, thus creating more traffic. Ms. Morrison asked how many
bedrooms are proposed in the units and what the average rent per month would be.
As no one else spoke, Chairman Guerette closed the Public Hearing and invited the
applicant to make a rebuttal statement regarding safety, traffic questions, and the type of
units. Mr. Williams indicated that the applicant has many existing units in the Bangor, Orono,
and Old Town Area. He noted that the applicant owns the Freese's building downtown. All
of the units are properly managed and are managed out of Bangor. Any issues with tenants
are taken care of on a timely basis. The rents are proposed to be 2 and 3 bedroom units.
Mr. Williams did not have the exact figures for the rents per month but estimated that they
would be in the $550 to $650 range. In regard to the traffic numbers, Mr. Williams
indicated that they came from a traffic study done by Gorrill Palmer. He noted that there are
traffic issues everywhere in the City. The line of sight from this site is at least 200 feet
exiting and entering the property. Most of the traffic leaving the property will be making a
right-hand turn to go to the traffic light at the corner of Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Williams
discussed the proposed walkway indicating that the applicant plans to clean up the site and
put in a series of streetlights as a safety precaution for the children to walk to Mary Snow
School.
Chairman Guerette asked for Staff Comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated
that this applicant, Essex Commons, LLC is requesting a contract zone change for
approximately 3.83 acres of land from Government and Institutional Service District and
Urban Residence 2 District to a Contract High Density Residential District (HDR). The parcel
is the site of the former Naval Reserve Center. In 2003, the City of Bangor issued a Request
for Proposals (RFP) for the reuse of this site. The RFP gave people two options, one to reuse
the site as a Government and Institutional Service use or for use as medium density
residential property. Realty Resources, LLC of Rockport responded to the City’s RFP and
entered into a development agreement with the City to construct 32-units. It was always
considered that the property would need to be rezoned to allow it. City Staff looked at the
Urban Residence 2 District and, after some interpretations regarding frontage, it necessitated
having the applicant apply for a Contract Zone Change to HDR with contract conditions that
would limit the overall density of the property.
Mr. Gould noted that abutting this property is the Dakin Pool, and an 8-unit apartment
building at the end of Pine Street. While Essex Street is primarily single-family, there are
some scattered 2, 3, and 4 unit buildings along the Street. Towards Milford Street there is a
large commercial and an institutional use. Mr. Gould noted a chart submitted to the Board
comparing the density standards between a URD 2 zone and the proposed HDR contract
zone. Mr. Gould indicated that this proposed zone change offers a much lower density per
acre than if it were rezoned to a straight Urban Residence 2 District.
6
Mr. Gould indicated that the overall density for this site is 8 units per acre. The City
provided additional land area to make sure that there is adequate open space area. The
High Density Residential District zoning has some additional site benefits that do not exist in
the URD2 District like buffers, greater setbacks, and provisions for impervious surface ratio.
Mr. Gould pointed out that the Board is aware about traffic concerns in many areas of
the City, and should the Planning Board reject this project, it will not address the traffic
concerns, they will still be there. At this time, trip generation numbers and a traffic study
have not been provided to the Board and maybe looked at a later date. Trip generation for a
multi-family complex is anticipated to be less than single-family houses. The initial traffic
study indicated that the Essex Street/Stillwater Avenue intersection is considered a level of
Service D). Traffic is evaluated on a scale from A to F and level of service D is the lowest
acceptable level.
Mr. Gould indicated that Staff finds that the proposal meets the mandatory conditions
for granting a Contract Zone Change under Section 165-7 of the Land Development Code.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the
existing uses in the area. Staff also finds that the proposed contract zone change is
consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning
Board recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Contract Zone Change for
402 Essex Street – Essex Commons LLC, applicant from Government & Institutional Service
and Urban Residence 1 District to Contract High Density Residential District as indicated in
Council Order # 05-238.
Chairman Guerette referring to the RFP sent out by the City that indicates the City’s
desire for low or medium density housing, asked if the proposal before the Board fit the
definition of median density. Mr. Gould indicated that there is no definite answer but pointed
out that the proposal before the Board is for 8.37 units per acre. High Density Residential is
12 units per acre, and that the minimum lot size in an Urban Development One District, for a
single-family dwelling, is 10,000 square feet.
Chairman Guerette pointed out that the Zoning Policy Map indicates that this is an
Urban Residence 1 area. Mr. Gould indicated that that is correct. Chairman Guerette
indicated that he did not think that this is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Gould pointed out that the Land Use Plan indicates this parcel as government and
institutional use that is contrary to URD-1 zoning. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board needs
to make an evaluation as to what is best suited, either G & ISD or a residential district. Then
the Board needs to come to the conclusion whether this area is solely suited to single-family
or is it an area that can accommodate multi-family housing.
Mr. Wheeler questioned why the Staff recommendation is positive for this contract
zone change request. Mr. Wheeler noted that the RFP indicates that the City desires
development of low and/or medium density or a low impact government and institutional use
that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In reading from the RFP he noted
that the RPF indicates that the objective is to provide an opportunity for high quality
7
development that complements the established Essex Street neighborhood. The RFP also
indicated that the proposal must demonstrate a high level of aesthetic interrelationship
among the site plan components, and a high degree of compatibility of the overall
development with the existing land uses in the area. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he did not
feel that this proposal conforms to the terms of the RFP. Mr. Wheeler indicated that the
traffic in this area is highly congested and said that he could not be comfortable enough to
support it in its present form.
Mr. Clark said that he felt that this property is a very valuable property and that at
some point in time it will have a zone change. However, he did not see this as the right mix
for this neighborhood. He said that he felt that the development was too big. If it had been
an elderly home or a nursing home he would not have a problem. He said that this is a bad
street for traffic. He said that the Board has to think about the neighborhoods and he was
not comfortable with the request.
Ms. Mitchell asked for comments regarding housing needs from T.J. Martzial of the
Community and Economic Development Department. Mr. Martzial, the Housing Program
Manager for the City, indicated that there has been talk about the lack of affordable housing
and the City’s need for affordable housing. There was only this response to the RFP. At the
time, the developer was informed that there was an issue with the zoning. The Business and
Economic Development Committee of the City Council reviewed this and the full City Council
felt that the proposal was worthy of going further.
Mr. Guerette asked Mr. Williams to elaborate on what other properties that the
applicant has developed in the area. Mr. Williams noted The Heights development on Boyd
Street behind St. John’s Church next to the Terraces, which is a 24-unit multi-family housing
project. He also noted projects in Orono, Old Town, Ellsworth and all over New England.
Mr. Guerette expressed his great concern for the amount of affordable housing. He
said that in cases of a Public Hearing he would tend to take stock in what the public
comments are. While there were no proponents and many opponents, he said that he did
not agree with all of the points by the opponents. However, Chairman Guerette indicated
that he would have some difficulty supporting this proposal. Chairman Guerette said that if
the applicant had made a more extensive and elaborate presentation before the Board with a
graphic representation as to what the houses would look like it might have been more
compelling. He said that he did not know the affect of rental units on property values but
clearly there is great objection to this on the part of the neighborhood that it would not
enhance it or blend in with the neighborhood. He indicated that he was leaning towards
giving the neighborhood the benefit of the doubt.
Ms. Mitchell had questions as to the vote. Mr. Gould indicated that the Board is acting
on a rezoning request and not about the specific applicant or their project. The Board will be
making a recommendation to the City Council on how to deal with this application.
8
Mr. Williams asked if the applicant could have the opportunity to come back and
present a more thorough presentation. Chairman Guerette indicated that the public hearing
was closed.
Chairman Guerette then asked for a motion. Mr. Wheeler moved to recommend to
the City Council that the Contract Zone Change request for Essex Commons, LLC at 402
Essex Street from Government and Institutional Service District and Urban Residence One
District to Contract High Density Residential District as contained in C.O. # 05-238 be
approved. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted none in favor and four opposed
to the motion thereby defeating the motion.
NEW BUSINESS
Item No. 3: Final Subdivision Plan approval of Phase II of the Woodridge
Subdivision consisting of 21 lots and being located off of
Bomarc Road in a Low Density Residential District. Woods of
Maine, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Don Becker, P.E. of
CES, Inc., represented the applicant Woods of Maine, Inc. Mr. Becker explained that the
applicant is requesting Final Subdivision Plan approval for Phase II of the Woods of Maine
Subdivision. The Board approved the preliminary plan in June 2005. In response to
questions of an abutting property owner, Mr. Becker indicated that he had prepared answers
to those questions, the City has contacted her with this information, and she is satisfied with
the answers. Mr. Becker asked for a favorable vote.
No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this request. Chairman Guerette
asked for Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated that this was an
application for Final Subdivision Plan approval for the Woods of Maine Phase II Subdivision
for 21 lots off of Bomarc Road. The applicant received preliminary plan approval on June 7
with four conditions: 1) that all new lot owners be required to join the Homeowner’s
Association; 2) that the proposed roadway be renamed; 3) that the final roadway section be
approved by the City Engineer; and 4) that Lot 18 be reconfigured to meet the dimensional
standards of the Low Density Residential District. Mr. Gould indicated that all four conditions
have been met. He noted that Staff contacted the abutting property owner who had
questions at the preliminary plan stage due to the fact that she lives out of state and it is an
effort for her to attend meetings. She indicated to Staff that all of the questions she had
raised were addressed by the applicant’s engineer and that she had no further concerns.
Mr. Gould indicated that the project connects to a private sewer pump station
maintained by a Homeowner’s Association, that there is a restriction that all of the lots
except for one fronting on Bomarc Road will have access only to the internal road, that all
lots meet district requirements, and that the open space set aside meets the requirements of
the Low Density Residential District. Mr. Gould noted that the City Engineer provided a
memo indicating that he has reviewed and approved the details of the plan. Staff
9
recommended Final Subdivision Plan approval with the standard condition that a suitable
improvement guarantee be submitted within 120 days of approval.
Ms. Mitchell moved to grant Final Subdivision Plan Approval for the Woodridge
Subdivision, Phase II located off of Bomarc Road with the condition that a suitable
improvement guarantee be submitted within 120 days of approval. Mr. Clark seconded the
motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4 to 0.
Item No. 4: Site Development Plan approval to construct two, four-unit
multi-family buildings located at 1004 State Street in a Contract
Low Density Residential District. BOG Associates, applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Vinal Applebee,
Ames AE representing BOG Associates, explained that the applicant wishes to construct two
four-unit multi-family buildings located at 1004 State Street near Mt. Hope Cemetery. Mr.
Applebee gave a brief history of this property noting that in 1990 this property received
approval of a Contract Zone Change to allow for exactly what is being proposed, two,
fourplexes. At that time there was a site plan presented and approved by the Planning
Board. Subsequently, the Land Development Code was adopted in 1991 and this proposed
site was rezoned as Contract Low Density Residential.
As no one spoke in opposition, Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting
Planning Officer Gould indicated that the applicant has applied to construct two, four-unit
multi-family buildings in a Contract Low Density Residential District at 1004 State Street.
This property was designated as a Contract R-3 District under the old Zoning Ordinance. The
approved site plan lapsed and the City rezoned it to Low Density Residential with elements of
the contract zone change that carried forward with the property. Under the Low Density
Residential District multi-family uses are not allowed. Given the old history, the Code
Enforcement Officer provided a memo which indicated that they came to the conclusion that
this property is grandfathered to the Contract Zone Change standards of the R-3 Zone.
When the Code Enforcement Office makes these decisions, the Planning Board and Staff are
bound to those standards. At the time of the memo there were some issues about
landscaping and labeling that were outstanding. Since that time, revised plans have been
submitted that take care of these issues and meet all of the Low Density Residential District
standards. Therefore, Staff recommended that the Planning Board approve the site
development plan.
Mr. Clark moved to approve the Site Development Plan at 1004 State Street for BOG
Associates. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted four in favor and none
opposed to the motion to approve the site development plan.
10
Item No. 5: Site Development Plan approval to construct five, four-unit
multi-family buildings located at 33 Burleigh Road in a High
Density Residential District. JRG Properties, Inc., applicant.
Chairman Guerette asked for comments from the applicant. Ms. Jodi O’Neal of
Plymouth Engineering represented JRG Properties. Ms. O’Neal explained that the applicant
had an approved site development plan to construct five, four-unit apartment buildings. The
applicant built one of the buildings but the approved site development plan lapsed. Since
that time, the applicant has made changes to the building plan to include two different
building styles, changed a couple of the units to one-story units for elderly or people who
cannot use stairs, and has made changes to the access drive to add a 12 foot esplanade.
Chairman Guerette had questions as to the buffers proposed and said that he felt that
buffers can add a lot of appeal to a project like this. Ms. O’Neal indicated that the applicant
is proposing an “A” buffer around the existing project.
Chairman Guerette then asked for comments from Staff. Acting Planning Officer
Gould indicated that the proposal before the Board is a revision to a previously approved
plan. One of the buildings was constructed differently from the approved plan. The
applicant has redeveloped the plan and is bringing it back before the Board for approval. Mr.
Gould noted that this is essentially the same concept as was previously approved but with a
different layout. The site development plan provides for public water and sewer, parking,
utilities, stormwater, and the required “A” Buffer in the High Density Residential District. The
City Engineer has reviewed the stormwater analysis and finds it acceptable. The plans as
submitted are consistent with High Density Residential District and with the requirements for
Site Development Plan submittal. Staff recommended approval of the revised plan.
Chairman Guerette moved to approve the Site Development Plan for JRG Properties,
Inc. at 33 Burleigh Road. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. The Board voted four in favor
and none opposed to the motion to approve.
Item No. 6: Site Development Plan approval for an amendment to the
Planned Group Development for on-site improvements to
include closing an existing driveway and constructing a
signalized access drive, to construct a parking lot, to
reconfigure site circulation and to construct a stormwater
retention pond at 885 Union Street in a General Commercial and
Service District and a Shopping and Personal Service District.
City of Bangor/Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems/Affiliated
Healthcare Systems, applicants.
Chairman Guerette asked for a presentation by the applicants. P. Andrew Hamilton,
Esq. represented the applicants. Mr. Hamilton explained that this is a revision to the
previously approved Planned Group Development. The purpose of this revision is to bring
together the adjacent site developments for the Affiliated Healthcare Systems ambulance
facility and the Eastern Maine Healthcare Mall. This revision includes construction of a new
11
access drive to be shared by these properties with a new signal located on Union Street
across from the Exxon Car Wash. The revision also closes the existing entrance to the
Eastern Maine Healthcare Mall. Mr. Hamilton indicated that they have talked with the City
Engineer who feels that the installation of the new signal and closing off the existing
entrance will address safety issues in this area.
Mr. Pat Taber, Construction Project Manager for Eastern Maine Medical Center,
explained that there are problems with the existing entrance to the Healthcare Mall and
many people have asked him to fix this problem. The current intersection location was
placed there because, at the time, it was the best location that they could come up with.
Now they realize that it would be better to have this entrance signalized. However, the
Healthcare Mall itself does not generate enough traffic to warrant the installation of a signal.
Now, with the Planned Group Development with the addition of the Slager building site and
the proposed Doug Brown office building it now is possible to relocate the entrance and
install a traffic signal. Mr. Taber said that this is more than to fix a problem today but to help
continue growth along Union Street. EMHC systems is committed to coordination of signals
from Fourteenth Street to Griffin Road as this is a very important aspect for them as well as
the City of Bangor
Chairman Guerette asked if the applicants had any sense for what moving the
entrance and putting in a signal may have on adjacent businesses. Mr. Taber indicated that
the Exxon Station across the street is very much in favor of this and it will help with their
traffic flow. As far as the Nicky’s restaurant site, the applicant has studied what impact this
entrance will have on that adjacent property. Mr. Taber indicated that the models indicate
that there will not be an impact to traffic entering or exiting that property. The models
indicate that it will be a betterment to that site to open up periods where you can enter or
exit the site onto Union Street. As it is now, movement is strung out between two lights.
Mr. John Theriault of Ames A/E indicated that the proposed signal will stop traffic on
Union Street in the northbound lane and then exit from the Mall. The majority of these
movements are expected to be left hand turns. This will allow a gap at Nicky’s for people
to enter and exit from that site.
Mr. Wheeler asked if Mr. Taber was familiar with an e-mail that the Planning Board
received from Ms. Anne Deabay (the abutting neighbor).
Mr. Taber noted that he was and that the connection to her property exists there at
the request of the owner at the time that that site was developed. The people who lived in
that home requested that connection as a way to give them a second way to get out of their
yard when traffic was backed up at the Union Street light. Mr. Taber indicated that the
applicant would not object to closing off that connection and they would certainly work with
Ms. Deabay.
Ms. Ann Deabay, 851 Union Street, indicated that she is employed at Eastern Maine
Medical Center and said that she did not own her house when the Healthcare Mall was built.
She indicated that Bangor Hydro has an easement that runs between her property and the
12
Mall property and they have to leave it open. Ms. Deabay asked if a fence could be installed
and indicated that she did not want the traffic signal to be installed before they worked out a
deal. Mr. Taber indicated that he would go on record that the applicant will work with Ms.
Deabay and resolve this issue prior to the light, if approved, being in operation, to Ms.
Deabay’s satisfaction.
Mr. Clark asked if the traffic light will be triggered when an ambulance is activated.
Mr. Taber said that the light would be overridden in the dispatch office in the Douglas Brown
building.
Chairman Guerette asked for Staff comments. Acting Planning Officer Gould indicated
that a lot of work was done on behalf of the applicant just prior to the Staff memorandum
addressing issues of the Staff. The Planning Board previously approved the Planned Group
Development which is between the City of Bangor, Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems and
Affiliated Healthcare Systems. This revision deals with the relocation of the entrance drive to
a shared location with the creation of some additional parking areas within the existing
parking lot and landscaping where the old driveway was. The big issue has been of traffic
and the MDOT Movement Permit. There has been extensive modeling of traffic on Union
Street to evaluate how a new signal at this location will function and operate. City Engineer
Jim Ring has watched the model of the trips up and down Union Street. With the unique
features at this location, it is possible to interconnect traffic from signal to signal.
Mr. Gould noted that Staff found minor discrepancies between the site plans for both
sites as the plans were done by different designers. Staff suggested that an effort be made
to make one final coordinated plan to be provided to the City. This way, when the Code
Enforcement Office goes out there, there will be a clear understanding that what is approved
by the Planning Board is what is on the ground.
The Planning Staff recommended that the Planning Board grant Site Development Plan
approval with the condition that implementation of the signal system be coordinated with the
other lights on Union Street as part of the off-site improvements and that the applicant
provide a coordinated construction plan.
Mr. Benjie Grant, who owns the property where Nicky’s Drive-in is located, indicated
that he has hired a consulting engineer to go over the applicants’ traffic information. Mr.
Grant indicated that neither he nor his consulting engineer has had a great deal of time to
review this and requested that this item be tabled for a two week period to allow him to
complete a thorough analysis. Mr. Grant also requested that no building permit be issued
until an MDOT Traffic permit has been issued and that the site development plan should not
be allowed to be used until all of the terms of the MDOT permit have been satisfied. Mr.
Grant said that as an abutting property owner, he supported the project but did not want to
be in a situation of being boxed out. He said that it appears that it will benefit his property
but it is too early to tell.
Mr. Taber responded to Mr. Grant’s issues by discussing the applicants’ coordinated
traffic study and implementation of that study. Mr. Taber indicated that the applicant is
13
committed to providing that service to the City of Bangor as part of the impact of their
project. He said that the applicant would not operate a signal until it has been coordinated
with the MDOT Permit. That Permit is in process now and they could not build anything that
relates to the traffic signal until the Permit is provided. Mr. Taber said that Mr. Ring has
made it clear that there is to be no connection from the Healthcare Mall onto the new
entrance until the signal is installed. Also, the existing entrance is to be closed the day the
new entrance is opened up.
Mr. Hamilton indicated that the applicant would like to move forward with this request
and would like to continue dialogue with Mr. Grant in the MDOT traffic permit process. Mr.
Hamilton indicated that the traffic standards of the Land Development Code have been
addressed and that the applicant has satisfied all requirements for this meeting.
Mr. Wheeler indicated that he felt that it would be difficult to entertain a request for
an item to be tabled based on information received on the day of the meeting. However,
based on the representations of the applicant that there will be on-going consultation,
conversation, and accommodation with Mr. Grant’s concern, as well as with Ms. Deabay’s
concerns, Mr. Wheeler made a motion to approve the site development plan for the City of
Bangor/Affiliated Healthcare Systems/Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems subject to the two
conditions as stipulated by the Planning Staff that: 1) that implementation of the Union
Street signal system coordination be part of the off-site traffic mitigation; and 2) that the
applicant provide a coordinated final construction plan which resolves any discrepancies
between the AHS and EMHS plans. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted four in
favor and none opposed to the motion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Item No. 2: Planning Board Approval of Minutes.
Minutes of the June 20, 2005 Planning Board Meeting were distributed to the Board.
This item was continued to the Board’s next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Acting Planning Officer Gould distributed a letter from Associate Member Jonathan
Siegel indicating his decision to resign from the Planning Board.
There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Motion for Approval on Item No. 6 – July 19, 2005
Item No. 6: Site Development Plan approval for an amendment to
the Planned Group Development for on-site
improvements to include closing an existing
driveway and constructing a signalized access drive,
to construct a parking lot, to reconfigure site
circulation and to construct a stormwater retention
pond at 885 Union Street in a General Commercial
and Service District and a Shopping and Personal
Service District. City of Bangor/Eastern Maine
Healthcare Systems/Affiliated Healthcare Systems,
applicants.
Mr. Wheeler indicated that he felt that it would be difficult to entertain a
request for an item to be tabled based on information received on the day of the
meeting. However, based on the representations of the applicant that there will
be on-going consultation, conversation, and accommodation with Mr. Grant’s
concern as well as with Ms. Deabay’s concerns. Mr. Wheeler made a motion to
approve the site development plan for the City of Bangor/Affiliated Healthcare
Systems/Eastern Maine Heathcare Systems at 885 Union Street subject to the
two conditions as stipulated by the Planning Staff that: 1) that implementation of
the Union Street signal system coordination be part of the off-site traffic
mitigation; and 2) that the applicant provide a coordinated final construction plan
which resolves any discrepancies between the AHS and EMHS plans. Mr. Clark
seconded the motion. The Board voted four in favor and none opposed to the
motion.