Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-20 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2004 MINUTES Board Members Present: Richard Fournier, Chairman David Clark Robert Guerette John Hanson Ryan King Bill Masters Hal Wheeler City Councilors Present: Councilor D’Errico City Staff Present: Katherine Weber James Ring Rodney McKay David Gould Peter Witham Lynn Johnson News Media Present: Bangor Daily News Chairman Fournier called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the absence of Board Member Costlow, the Associate Members were asked to vote beginning with Mr. Hanson, followed by Mr. King and Mr. Masters. CONSENT AGENDA Mr. Hanson asked that Item No. 2 – Brinker Restaurant Corporation, be removed from the Consent Agenda. Chairman Fournier then asked for a motion on the remaining item. Mr. Guerette moved to approve Item No. 1 on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to approving Item No. 1 on the Consent Agenda as follows: Item No. 1: Site Development Plan approval to expand the existing parking lot at 416 Stillwater Avenue by nine spaces in a Contract Shopping and Personal Service District. Morris L. Fer, applicant. Item No. 2: Site Development Plan approval to construct a 5,697- square foot restaurant (Chili’s) at the corner of Stillwater Avenue and Gilman Road in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, applicant. Mr. Jim Giarrusso, representing the applicant Brinker Restaurant Corporation, explained that this was a vacant property located adjacent to the Circuit City site and comprised an area of approximately 1.75 acres. Mr. Giarrusso told the Board that the applicant was proposing to build a 5,700- square foot, 217-seat Chilis Restaurant that consisted of a bar, an inside grill and a restaurant with 114 parking spaces. Mr. Giarrusso indicated that the site development plan complies with all of the City’s zoning requirements. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the applicant, Brinker Restaurant Corporation, requests Site Development Plan approval to construct a 5,697-square foot restaurant on the corner of Stillwater Avenue and Gilman Road in a Shopping and Personal Service District. Ms. Weber indicated that restaurants are permitted uses in the Shopping and Personal Service District. Ms. Weber indicated that the Site Development Plan has been reviewed under Section 165-114 A-J, and that the City Engineering Office has reviewed the site plan for stormwater management. Staff has reviewed the Site Development Plan in regard to parking, impervious surface, buffers, and traffic analysis, and finds that the Site Development Plan is complete and consistent with the standards for approval. The Planning Staff recommended Site Development Plan Approval for Brinker Restaurant Corporation located at the corner of Stillwater Avenue and Gilman Road. Mr. Hanson noted a recent final subdivision plan revision that revised language on Lot D, and asked if this was the same lot. Planning Officer Weber indicated that that language change was for a different lot. She went on to explain that prior to the language change, there was a subdivision plan revision approved by the Planning Board to increase the size of the lot under consideration in this application. Ms. Weber explained that in order to accommodate this development, it was necessary for the lot size to be increased. Mr. Hanson asked if the increase came from the larger lot. Ms. Weber indicated that by increasing this lot, the size of Lot C (the larger lot) was decreased slightly. 2 Mr. King asked how close this property was to any environmental properties. Mr. Giarrusso noted that it was more than 250 feet away. Planning Officer Weber noted that there was a proposal to build an Auto Zone at this location, which is the lot next to Circuit City. The Auto Zone proposal required a slightly smaller lot and was never built. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Site Development Plan on Stillwater Avenue for Brinker Restaurant Corporation. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed to granting Site Development Plan approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 3: To amend the Land Development Code by changing a parcel of land located at 183 Main Street from Government and Institutional Service District to Downtown Development District. Said parcel containing approximately 5,421-square feet. Merrill Merchants Bank, applicant. C.O. #04-110. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing and asked for comments from proponents. Mr. Bob Kelly, on behalf of Merrill Merchants Bank, told the Board that the applicant was requesting a zone change at 183 Main Street (the old Penobscot Theatre Building). Mr. Kelly indicated that the Bank would like to restore and reuse the building as offices. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Kelly to describe the kind of renovations proposed for the building. Mr. Kelly said that the renovations would be consistent with the National Park Service’s guidelines for historic buildings. Mr. Kelly went on to explain that the outside of the building would be scraped and painted and that a new set of steps would be built. Also a connector between the two buildings is being proposed. Most people entering the building will do so through the rear of the building. Mr. Kelly indicated that this had already been presented to the Historic Preservation Commission for consideration. As there were no opponents, Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing and asked for comments from Staff. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the applicant, Merrill Merchants Banks in cooperation with the Penobscot Theatre is requesting a zone change on a small lot located at 183 Main Street (that contained the old Theatre) from Government and Institutional Service District to Downtown Development District. Merrill Merchants Bank would like to renovate the building for use as commercial office space; hence, the need to rezone from Government and Institutional Service District to Downtown Development District (DDD). DDD was the logical District to be requested because the property is 3 currently surrounded by DDD zoning with the exception of the church building on the corner of Union Street and Main Street. Ms. Weber noted that it just adds to that piece of DDD zoning which is appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies for that portion of Main Street. Ms. Weber said that DDD zoning also fits the intended use for commercial office space for the Bank. Staff feels that because the requested change is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and is surrounded by DDD properties, it merits consideration to be rezoned to DDD. Therefore, the Planning Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend adoption of the zone change from Government and Institutional Service District to Downtown Development District contained C.O. # 04-110 to the City Council. Mr. Guerette asked to recuse himself from voting on this item because he is on the Board of Directors of the Penobscot Theater and was instrumental in the sale of the property to Merrill Merchants Bank. Chairman Fournier indicated that Mr. Masters and Mr. Hanson would vote on this item. Assistant City Solicitor Hamer told the Board that a formal vote should be taken on Mr. Guerette’s request to recuse himself. Mr. Wheeler moved that Mr. Guerette be allowed to recuse himself from voting on this issue. Mr. Masters seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to grant Mr. Guerette’s request. Mr. Wheeler then moved to recommend to the City Council that the zone change request contained in C.O. # 04-110 to rezone the property at 183 Main Street from Government and Institutional Service District to Downtown Development District be approved. Mr. Masters seconded the motion. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to the motion recommending approval of C.O. # 04-110. Item No. 4: To amend the Official Map per Section 271-9 of the Code of the City of Bangor to realign the proposed Parallel Service road located between Gilman Road and Stillwater Avenue. City of Bangor, applicant. C.O. # 04-111. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Fournier explained that the Parallel Service Road already exists as a paper street on the City’s Official Map. He instructed the Board and the audience that the issue before the Board is not about whether the road is a good idea or not, the issue before the Board is regarding the amendment to the Parallel Service Road between Gilman Road and Stillwater Avenue. Mr. James Ring, Director of Infrastructure and Development Support, explained that this item was referred to the Planning Board by the City Council at 4 its meeting on April 12, 2004. Mr. Ring indicated that the City of Bangor, the applicant, is proposing to amend the Official Map by realigning a small portion of the Parallel Service Road between Stillwater Avenue and Gilman Road. Mr. Ring explained that the Official Map is a document established by City Ordinance where by all public streets and parks are shown on one map. In accordance with Chapter 271 - The Official Map Ordinance, all proposed future streets are to be shown on the Official Map. Whenever an amendment or an alignment of any proposed City road is more than 500 square feet, it needs to go to the Planning Board for a Public Hearing. Mr. Ring explained that the Parallel Service Road was added to the Official Map in 1998. The City Council approved and adopted this amendment for a future street to provide for possible transportation needs in the future. Prior to the adoption, the Planning Board held Public Hearings on two dates, October 6, 1998 and December 8, 1998. Mr. Ring told the Board that the existence of any proposed roadway is not an obligation, but rather a preservation of the right, to construct a road if the need arises in the future. Council Ordinance #04-111 involves the realignment of 1,200 feet of the Parallel Service Road. Mr. Ring went on to explain that when a proposed street is placed on the Official Map, any development that is planned must meet setbacks just as if it existed. The reason for this proposed amendment is the pending retail development on Mr. Judson Grant’s property. The 1998 alignment basically runs through the middle of Mr. Grant’s property, leaving areas on both sides of the proposed road. It was placed at that particular location because it was not known at that time what development would occur. Since then, Mr. Grant obtained a zone change for a portion of this parcel in which he agreed to provide a 150-foot buffer along the side of the property that abuts Stillwater Gardens. With the development currently being contemplated and because of the large buffer on the Stillwater Gardens side, the developer has requested that the Parallel Service Road be realigned closer to the adjacent property line. Mr. Ring indicated that the question before the Board is whether or not to realign this short section and to make a recommendation on this amendment to the City Council for final action. Mr. Guerette asked why the proposed route configuration was chosen since it is not a straight road. Mr. Ring explained that on the map exhibit it was difficult to see the location of the centerline. This design allows for vehicles to approach the intersection at a 90-degree angle alignment. Mr. Hanson, referring to Mr. Ring’s Memo to the City Council on the Parallel Service Road, that this roadway is indicated as a service road. Mr. Hanson asked if this precluded it from becoming a public way, and if the roadway would be closed to thru traffic. Mr. Ring explained that a proposed 5 road may someday become a public way. The reason for placing a proposal on a public map is to provide for future transportation alternatives if and when land areas are developed. The City takes into consideration the land uses specifically envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ring explained that back in the 1990’s, the City looked at a possible route that might serve property in this area. Preservation of the right or the opportunity to be placed on the Official Map does not mean that the roadway will or will not be built; that will be determined at a later date. If no thought is given to where development could occur, there is no logical way to deal with transportation issues. Mr. Ring said that this is a proposed street. It can become a public way, if in the future, there is a demand or a need. It is to preserve an opportunity in the future. Mr. Hanson asked if a detailed design would have to be done before the roadway were to be constructed. Mr. Ring indicated that it is very likely that the presently proposed alignment will change, and any roadway construction would necessitate a detailed design. Mr. Hanson then asked what would preclude accepting this new proposal only to see it changed again. Mr. Ring said that there would be nothing to prevent that. Mr. Ring said that the original concept was to provide possible connectivity from Hogan Road to the I-95 interchange. This is a preliminary alignment because we do not know what is going to be developed. Mr. Ring said that there is a specific proposal now on Mr. Grant’s property, and hence the request. Mr. Ring added that in the future there may be some changes as there is a lot of vacant land in the area of the Parallel Service Road. Mr. Hanson asked if speeds would be greater on the straightened road and noted that traffic on Stillwater Avenue is very heavy now. Mr. Ring indicated that there is a very tight curve proposed in this realignment, and if someone is approaching it, it would tend to discourage someone from speeding. Mr. Masters had questions regarding whether or not this was City-owned land, if there was an agreement with the affected property owners, and whether or not the City would need to acquire these rights. Mr. Ring explained that when this roadway was original laid out, the City dealt with a lot of property owners. When a specific proposal comes along such as this one, it does not mean that land is being taken by the City. It is basically to advise any developer of the property that this could become a city street and there is a need for a reservation in case that the roadway is ever built. Mr. Ring explained that, in most cases, the City would be able to secure an agreement to minimize any costs by the city. Mr. Masters said that he was concerned that the City may have to buy land to make up for the land Mr. Grant gave for the 150-foot buffer. 6 Tim Woodcock, Esq. of Eaton Peabody representing Bangor Parkade, the developer of the parcel, noted that John Toic, of Bangor Parkade, was in audience. Mr. Woodcock told the Board that The First Hartford Corporation held meetings with the local Stillwater Gardens residents, who indicated that their chief concern was the need for a buffer between this development and Stillwater Gardens. The applicant offered a 150’ buffer consisting of 5.5 acres of the parcel, or 30% of the developable land and 20% of entire area. This buffer did place a lot of pressure on the land that remained. The size of the buffer is what necessitated the developer to ask to have the roadway moved closer to the property boundary. Mr. Hanson asked if this access road becomes a reality, is there some possibility and probability that this alignment could once again be amended to a slightly different route. Mr. Woodcock told the Board that the applicant hoped to present a site plan to the Planning Board soon. He noted that if the site plan is approved, and the roadway is poured in concrete, it would be unlikely that it would be changed. Mr. Fournier then asked for opponents. Ms. Valerie Carter, 112 Birch Street, representing Bangor Area Citizens Organized for Responsible Development (BACORD) indicated that she was not a staunch opponent to this particular request, but rather was opposed to the larger process. She asked if the Board had received copies of BACORDS Statement on BACTS Long Range Transportation Plan. The Board indicated that they had received it. Ms. Carter told the Board that BACORD is opposed to this Parallel Service Road concept and that the existing Comprehensive Plan is seriously deficient. BACORD feels that any forward movement should be halted until the Comprehensive Plan is revised. Ms. Carter said that BACORD is very concerned that many of these decisions are being made piecemeal, and because both ends of this road are being pushed through, this is more than a paper road. She urged the Planning Board to take into consideration the environmental issues. Ms. Carter said that this roadway is a developers’ access road. She asked the Board to take the big picture into consideration. Mrs. Hope Brogunier, of 60 Leighton Street, told the Board that she belongs to a couple of organizations that are very concerned about this. She said that she was not for or against this particular alignment, but was concerned about the part along Gilman Road. She told the Board that she was not aware in 1998 when this Parallel Service Road was added to the Official Map, and that the City has a top freshwater marsh in the state. She said that the Planning Board has the responsibility at this juncture to take up this specific issue of this paper street in light of the high value of this marsh area. Mrs. Brogunier said that this upland area is of exceedingly high value. She told the Board that she did not like the idea, as a citizen, of waiting around to wonder what is going to happen to 7 the marsh, and to have a battle to defend it every time. She expressed her concern that, if done in little bits and pieces, eventually there would be a road. Mrs. Brogunier said that the question is do we in Bangor want that area to be conserved and do we value it in our Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Brogunier asked the Board when this would be opened up for discussion in the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Fournier reiterated that the question under consideration is the alignment of this short section on the property owned by Mr. Grant. Mrs. Brogunier asked where is the place to get direct input into the Comprehensive Plan so that it may be changed. Chairman Fournier indicated that the Comprehensive Plan is revised every five years. Planning Officer Weber indicated that there will be a series of opportunities for input and that the 2005 Update process will be starting this year. Mrs. Brogunier asked if there is a working group. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the working group will be the Planning Board, and that there will be plenty of opportunities and workshops for input from everyone. Mr. Weber explained that under the State Statutes, the guiding body to work on the Comprehensive Plan is the Planning Board. Mr. Wheeler said that he did not know how the Planning Board could do anything that disregards environmental consequences because the City is subject to environmental regulations, and that the Board will do nothing that we are prohibited by law from doing. Ms. Carter said that the planning process that takes place is largely driven by the narrow prospective of revenue from taxable property and said that the wildlife habitat needs to co-exist. It has so much potential. Mr. Edmond Bearor, Esquire, representing the abutting property owner Jean Oliver, told the Board that his client is not opposed to a service road. However, his client may or may not have concerns about this section of the road. He said that he appreciated the effort on the part of the City to relocate this road so that the developer would have more land to work with. The proposed alignment would come within 10 feet of her property. His client has concerns that if the roadway is ever widened to 100 feet, then it is on her property line and it would create the need for a front yard setback. The realignment could give her value to someone else. Mr. Bearor told the Board that Ms. Oliver will be impacted by this realignment. Mr. Bearor said that they felt that there must be something that could be done that doesn’t impact Ms. Oliver, such as moving the roadway away from her property line another 30 feet. Mr. Bearor also suggested that the City take both of those roads right off the City Map. If at the time that the road is 8 needed, then the City could take the property and give compensation. Mr. Bearor said that as presently configured, it created an infringement on his client’s property. Mr. Clark asked that if at the time when the development is done and if the road is built, if this might be to Ms. Oliver’s advantage because it could provide another access point. Mr. Bearor said that that access might be viewed as a positive, or it may bring more cars into Ms. Oliver’s lot in order to gain access onto Stillwater Avenue. Mr. Bob Deschaine, a resident of Hudson, expressed his concern that a road is proposed that we don’t know where it will end up. He wanted the Board to make sure that they are aware of the concerns about the environmental area near by. He urged the Board to be very careful, and not look at just this little piece of road. Mr. Ring told the Board that he had spoken with Norman Heitmann, the City Solicitor, for clarification on the proposed change on the Official Map. Mr. Ring said that the proposal is for an 80-foot wide right-of-way that leaves a 10- foot separation along Ms. Oliver’s property. Mr. Ring indicated that it was Mr. Heitmann’s opinion that with that 10-foot separation, and the change from 100 feet to 80 feet, that the 10-foot strip would cause a separation between the proposed right-of-way and the Oliver Property. This situation would not create a front yard setback; it would be a side yard setback, as it is presently. If the right-of-way were placed on the property line, then a front yard setback would be required for any development on Ms. Oliver’s property. Planning Officer Weber added that the City can create a nonconformity by its own actions. If the City, by placing a new road that already has an existing development creates a nonconformity, that is acceptable. This is not a loss of land. That setback could be reduced through the creation of a nonconformity by the City. Mr. Hanson was concerned that while the City could do that, there is no assurance that it would create a nonconformity. Mr. John Hamer, Assistant City Solicitor, discussed with the Board how the City could create such a nonconformity. Mr. Guerette said that he felt that this is very important point as it is a potential detriment to another landowner. Mr. Guerette asked for clarification on the accepted dimension or width of a road right-of-way is. Mr. Ring explained that the originally proposed alignment of the Parallel Service Road and the right- of-way in 1998 was 100 feet, which was a very conservative approach to reserving the land. Mr. Ring told the Board that for industrial roads or arterial collectors, or any type of roadway that would support development the right-of- way width requirement is 80 feet. In looking at this site, it was determined that 9 the width that needs to be reserved for a street. Mr. Ring told the Board that this amendment is to change the alignment of this segment of the Parallel Service Road and also to decrease the width from 100 feet to 80 feet. Mr. Ring said that the 80-foot width, if approved, would leave a 10-foot separation of land between the edge of the right-of-way and the Oliver property. The 10-foot separation would not create any street frontage, and any development on the Oliver property would not be required to meet front yard setbacks; only side yard setbacks as it would now. Mr. Ring added that if there was a need in the future to increase the width from 80 feet, it would require another amendment to the City’s Official Map. This action would require another Public Hearing before the Planning Board. At that point, it could be an issue. Mr. Guerette said that he felt this was a big issue, and he did not see why all contingencies were not offered and presented with this plan. He said that he felt that the Board is being asked to recommend approval of an amendment that does not indicate the proposed 80-foot width for this road. When a developer is asking to move a road to gain more area, and everyone could be accommodated by forfeiting another 20 or 30 feet while having it approved the first time around, it would eliminate any worries to abutting land owners. Ms. Weber noted that the map exhibit does have a scale on it, and it is scaled out at 80 feet. This exhibit would become part of the Official Ordinance. There being no further comments, Chairman Fournier closed the Public Hearing and asked for Staff Comments. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the applicant, the City of Bangor, is proposing an amendment to the Official City Map to align a portion of the Parallel Service Road. In 1998, there was an Official Map amendment creating the Parallel Service Road. The amendment contained in C.O. #04-111 would amend the Official Map to address the alignment of 1,200 feet of the Parallel Service Road to move the alignment closer to the property line on Mr. Grant’s property, to accommodate a proposed development. Ms. Weber indicated that the issue before the Board is to align the short section of the Parallel Service Road primarily on Grant Trailer Sales property. Staff recommended that the Planning Board recommend to the City Council adoption of Council Ordinance #04-111. Mr. Guerette indicated that he felt that the City has always done an exemplary job on changes before the Board. However, he said that he felt that this presentation is an exception. He said that he did not like being asked to vote on something with a small possibility that we can be making an error, but could have a hearing at a later date to correct a mistake. Mr. Guerette said that he was confident that these two property owners could work out a 20-foot relocation of this road, and it concerned him that this had not already been 10 done. He asked if it would it be appropriate to continue this item to another date for the two parties to work out an agreement. Mr. Fournier asked if he would like to make this a motion. Mr. Guerette indicated that he would. Mr. John Toic, the developer of Mr. Grant’s property, told the Board that it was not the developer’s intent to impose a future impediment upon Ms. Oliver or this property as it relates to the setback requirement. He said that it was his understanding that no such impediment would be applied to this property because of this ten-foot difference and the proposed realigned right-of-way. Mr. Guerette noted that there is nothing to say that in the future that this issue will not be revisited. He felt that this should be dealt with now, and a resolution made that fits everyone’s needs. Mr. Toic indicated that he was under the impression that this issue was resolved. Mr. Guerette made a motion to continue this matter to the next meeting or a future meeting to allow the two parties involved to negotiate the realignment. He said that he not opposed to this, but would like to see it done right the first time. Mr. Fournier indicated that Mr. King would be voting. Mr. King seconded the motion. Mr. Wheeler said that this is a difficult item of business that has been referred to us by City Council. Mr. Wheeler noted that he had seen the discussion that took place at the Council Meeting when this item was referred to the Planning Board. He said that did not agree that there has been any weakness in the City or the Staff’s presentation of this proposal. He said that he felt that the Board is obligated to act on this item of business whether tonight or two weeks from tonight. He said that he was not sure if the Board is legitimately within its obligations and authority to suggest, dictate, request, or require that the two parties negotiate when one of whom is not directly connected with this. Mr. Wheeler said that he was willing to take the word of the City Staff that it is very unlikely that any impediment will be placed on the Oliver property. Mr. Wheeler indicated that he would be perfectly willing to consider this in two weeks, but felt that by continuing this item the Board would be prolonging the process. He said that while he would not argue continuing the item, he would not vote for it. Mr. Hanson said that he disagreed with Mr. Wheeler, and said he felt that if an additional two weeks would facilitate the parties coming to a mutually satisfying arrangement, the Board would be sorely lacking in its responsibility. He said that if he were voting, it would be in the affirmative. Mr. King had concerns about whether or not an 80-foot wide reservation would be sufficient for both ends of the road. 11 Chairman Fournier asked for a vote on the motion to continue this item. The Board voted one in favor and four opposed to continuing this item. Jean Oliver, the abutting property owner, had questions about traffic and the need for an additional lane coming in and out of this site. Mr. Fournier explained that traffic issues and the site development plan were not before the Board at this time. Mr. Hanson said that this discussion had raised more questions than it had answered. He said that all too often the Planning Board is left at a disadvantage considering things piecemeal with no big picture view. He said that he was very concerned about the process that goes down the primrose path. He added that the Board should have the benefit of some context, and some people have a vision of what that should be. It would serve the citizens better. Chairman Fournier said that the they do have a vision, and we do have a Comprehensive Plan, and would strongly suggest that he get right in the middle of it. Mr. Fournier said that these issues have previously been discussed. Mr. Hanson said that the Board was not informed that that there would even be a request. He said that from the tone of the discussion that someone had a discussion that they would be before this Board. Mr. Wheeler felt that the rhetoric was getting pretty dense, and suggested that such terms as primrose path are a bit extreme. Mr. Wheeler told the Board that he has been involved in City government for many years, and he had had disagreements with everyone from the City Manager to the custodian. He said that in all those years he had never seen any deliberate attempt by Staff to deceive or withhold information. He questioned how one could look at the big picture, and see the future 3, 5, or even 1 year from now if we refuse to act on the issues that are before the Board because of the possibility that something else for which we have built-in mechanisms to deal with may or may not happen. Mr. Wheeler said that he had confidence that the Oliver property would not be compromised because of his faith in the Staff. He expressed his concern that more and more frequently the Board gets side tracked in concerns that are not acted on because of being afraid of something that might happen. Mr. Clark then moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of Council Ordinance No. #04-111 amending the Official City Map. Mr. Wheeler seconded the motion. Chairman Fournier called for a vote. The Board voted four in favor and one opposed to recommending that the City Council adopt the Official Map Amendment contained in C.O. # 04-111. 12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 5: Planning Board Approval of Minutes Chairman Fournier asked for a motion on the Minutes of the April 7, 2004 Planning Board Meeting. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Minutes of the April 7, 2004 Planning Board Meeting as printed. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of five in favor and none opposed. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 6: Site Development Plan Approval to construct a 20,000-square foot office building at 16 Telecom Drive in a General Commercial and Service District. Stillwater Realty, LLC, applicant. Mr. Fred Marshall of Plymouth Engineering represented the applicant, Stillwater Realty, LLC, who is requesting Site Development Plan Approval to construct a 20,000-square foot office building located at 16 Telcom Drive in a General Commercial and Service District. Mr. Marshall noted that Tammy Higgins and Carol Epstein of Stillwater Realty, LLC, and Sherry Heller of Union Street Athletics were also present. Mr. Marshall discussed with the Board components of the site development plan noting that there were some overlay standards for this lot that are stricter than the requirements of the Land Development Code because this lot is located within the City’s BIA Commercial-Industrial Subdivision. Mr. Marshall indicated that there would be a total of 150 parking spaces. There would be an exit only access to Ashley Street where a card activated gate would be installed to allow employees to exist the site to lessen traffic exiting out of Telcom Drive. Chairman Fournier indicated that Mr. Masters would be voting. Mr. King had questions regarding illumination of the parking lot. Mr. Marshall described the type of lighting, and the height of the proposed light poles. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that the applicant, Stillwater Realty LLC, is requesting Site Development Plan approval to construct a 20,000-square foot office building at 16 Telcom Drive. Ms. Weber noted that this parcel was in two zones – the General Commercial and Service District and the Industry and Service District. The proposed office use is allowed in the General Commercial and Service District. Planning Officer Weber indicated that Staff have reviewed the Site Development Plan under Chapter 165-114 A–J, and that the City 13 Engineering Office has reviewed the stormwater management plan and found it acceptable. Planning Officer Weber stated that Staff recommended approval with the condition that the required buffers be provided along the Industry and Service District boundary (at the discretion of the applicant as long as it is meets the buffer requirements), and that a revised site plan addressing that one deficiency be submitted to the Planning Office within one week, April 27, 2004. Mr. Guerette moved to approve the Site Development Plan for Stillwater Realty, LLC at 16 Telcom Drive subject to the condition noted by Staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Masters. The Board voted five in favor and none opposed to approving the Site Development Plan for 16 Telcom Drive. Other Business Planning Officer Weber informed the Planning Board that Staff will be commencing, with vigor, the Comprehensive Plan Update. She noted that Staff are currently involved in the budget process to fund this undertaking. Ms. Weber indicated that there will be workshops and many opportunities for the Planning Board to discuss and get public comments on the various components of the Comprehensive Plan Update throughout the Summer and Fall. There being no further items for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:28. p.m. 14