Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-15 Planning Board Minutes PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2003, 7:00 P.M. MINUTES Board Members Present: Richard Fournier, Chairman Ryan King Hal Wheeler David Clark John Hanson Bill Masters Robert Guerette City Staff Present: Katherine Weber James Ring Peter Witham Lynn Johnson Dan Wellington John Hamer Dan Wellington City Councilors Present: Councilor Palmer 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, Chairman Fournier asked the Associate Members to alternate voting on the items. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No. 1: Preliminary Subdivision Plan Approval to add seven lots to the existing Stillwater Gardens Subdivision in a Low Density Residential District and a Resource Protection District. LTI, Inc., applicant. Chairman Fournier opened the Public Hearing, and asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Don Becker, P.E. of CES, Inc., represented the applicant. Mr. Becker explained that the Planning Board had approved a subdivision plan for this same area in 1999. The approved 1999 Subdivision Plan had a hammerhead design and flag lots. Mr. Becker told the Board that, at that time, City Staff had suggested that the applicant propose flag lots for this area along with a “hammer head” turn around that would be easier for the snowplows to maneuver than the small cul-de-sac that had been proposed. Mr. Becker indicated that the original approval has lapsed, and the applicant is now requesting approval with a new design. The proposed Preliminary Plan indicates a hammer head style of turnaround. Of the seven lots proposed, three are flag lots. Mr. Becker also discussed the fact that the actual size of the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision is only 70% of the originally proposed development because there is an extensive wetland area to the west of the site that will not be developed. No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the proposed Preliminary Plan. Chairman Fournier then closed the Public Hearing, and asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that the applicant is proposing to add seven lots to the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision in Low Density Residential & Resource Protection Districts. Staff had concerns regarding the proposed flag lots. Ms. Weber explained that flag lots are not intended to be designed into new subdivisions, but are intended to allow for the subdivision of larger existing lots with substandard minimum frontage. Ms. Weber indicated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan subject to two issues. One, that prior to Final Plan Review, the applicant obtain Land Development Permit approval from the Planning Board for the three flag lots. Secondly, that the applicant provides the necessary drainage easements in a form that is acceptable to the City Engineer. Mr. Guerette had questions regarding the proposed flag lots. Mr. Becker discussed the original layout for this subdivision, and noted that the applicant was now proposing the three flag lots as these house lots would be ideally suited for houses with walkout basements. Mr. Becker also explained that arranging the subdivision with no flag lots would have necessitated another street and intersection that would not be of additional benefit to the City. Mr. King asked Mr. Becker to discuss the Resource Protection areas on the map. Mr. Becker indicated the location of 40 to 50 acres of wetlands within this lot, and noted that there may be up to 150 acres of Resource Protection land adjacent to the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision. Mr. Becker also explained that the wetland at the lower end of Essex Woods, that abuts this property, is in its own watershed with no outlets. Mr. Guerette had questions regarding the proposed drainage from this subdivision especially if there are no outlets. Mr. James Ring, Director of Infrastructure and Development Support, indicated that the requested drainage easements are for a couple of the lots within the subdivision that slope toward the wetland. In order to make a grade for sewer service they will need to be filled. As a result of dealing with 2 problems in other City subdivisions in the past, Staff feels it necessary to require that the applicant show the grading and easements along lots, especially, for situations where one lot is higher than another. Mr. Ring also noted that the adjacent wetland is very flat, and, in the event that water got high enough, it would drain in two different directions. After some discussion, Mr. Guerette moved to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plan of LTI, Inc., located off of Molly Lane in the Stillwater Gardens Subdivision. Mr. Clark seconded the motion. The Board voted 5 in favor and 0 opposed to approving the Preliminary Subdivision Plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No. 2: Planning Board Approval of Minutes. The Board voted to continue this item to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS Item No. 3: Site Location of Development Modification/Site Development Plan Approval to add additional seating to the existing baseball field at Husson College in a Government and Institutional Service District. Husson College, applicant. Planning Officer Weber told the Board that at the time of the writing of the Memorandum, the Planning Staff had not received an indication from the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that the City would be given Delegated Review Authority to review the Site Location of Development ACT (SLODA) Modification for this project. However, late in the afternoon today (July 15, 2003), a letter was received from DEP, as well as, a packet of materials from the applicant’s designer addressing Site Location of Development Modification requirements. Because these items were not received until late in the afternoon, Staff had not had time to adequately review these materials with respect to the Site Location of Development Modification requirements. Staff was prepared to make a recommendation on the Site Development Plan only, using the review criteria under Chapter 165-114, but not the SLODA application. Mr. Andrew Sturgeon of Ames A/E, represented the applicant, Husson College. Mr. Sturgeon noted that Traffic Engineer John Theriault, Husson College President William Beardsley, Husson College Baseball Coach John Winkin, and Husson College Chief Operating Officer Robert Coombs were also present to answer questions of the Board. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that the applicant had previously received Planning Board approval in October 2000 for the installation of 1368 seats. The applicant is now 3 seeking approval for 3,000 seats which has a parking requirement of 750-spaces. Mr. Sturgeon noted that there were 1,100 parking spaces already located on the Husson College Campus. Mr. Clark asked what types of seats were proposed, and why the applicant was requesting approval of 3,000 seats. Mr. Theriault indicated that only a percentage of the seats would have backs while the remaining percentage of seats would be bleacher seating. Mr. John Winkin explained that most amateur champion events, such as American Legion teams, high school teams, and a professional baseball league team such as the Lumberjacks, require seating for 3,000 people. Mr. Winkin also added that the College was trying to qualify for any of these types of events, and it was a good level of seating for football games, as well. Mr. Wheeler had questions regarding the number of seats presently available, whether there were handicap accessible parking spaces already designated, and how many existing parking spaces were located within 500 feet of the complex. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that there presently is a temporary bleacher section with 100 seats. Mr. Wheeler questioned the need for 3,000 seats when the 1,300 already approved were not installed. Mr. Theriault indicated on a map the location of 500 parking spaces within 500 feet of the ball field. Mr. Theriault said that they did not count the number of handicap accessible spaces when they took an inventory of the existing spaces. Mr. Winkin added that there were handicap accessible spaces already designated at the basketball gymnasium. Mr. King asked if there would be any landscaping, and if this would be one of the largest stadiums in the region. Mr. Sturgeon indicated that the applicant was not proposing to create any new parking, and that a stadium of this size would be the largest one north of Portland. It was noted that Mansfield Stadium has seating for 1,500 people. Mr. Fournier referred to a letter submitted to the Planning Board from Mr. Nat Rosenblatt expressing his concerns regarding this project. Mr. Fournier said that he would entertain comments from Mr. Rosenblatt. Mr. Nat Rosenblatt, a resident of 504 Valley Avenue, asked the Board not to proceed on the Site Location of Development Act Modification application as he wished to review the information that was submitted in support of that application. He explained that he had issues regarding the use of the ball field by the Lumberjacks Baseball Team because he did not feel that it was a permitted use. However, he realized that the Planning Board was advised by Counsel that the use issue is not before the Planning Board. He indicated that he proposed to file an Administrative Appeal to the Board of Appeals. 4 Mr. Rosenblatt explained that he did not feel that there was adequate on-campus parking for the addition of 3,000 seats. He was concerned that it would create a great deal of traffic in this area, and that neither Husson Avenue nor Broadway would be able to handle this additional traffic. He said that he felt that people would end up parking along Husson Avenue and Kenduskeag Avenue in order to be “closer” to the ball field, thus creating a traffic hazard. Mr. Rosenblatt also had concerns with lighting and noise. Mr. Rosenblatt referred to a condition within the Agreement between the City of Bangor and Husson College regarding the installation of lighting, and asked that the Planning Board also include that condition as part of any approval. As no one else spoke, Chairman Fournier asked for Staff comments. Planning Officer Weber indicated that Staff had reviewed the Site Development Plan application under the criteria found in Chapter 165-114. She went on to say that Staff feels that the application, with the additional materials requested by Staff, adequately meets the Site Development Plan submittal requirements. Staff recommended approval, since the plan as presented, is consistent and compliant with City Ordinances. Mr. Clark asked how many students are on campus. Dr. Beardsley indicated that when school is in session, there are 1,400-day students, plus faculty members. Mr. Wheeler noted that the majority of site plans reviewed by the Board have been required to provide traffic impact information, and asked why this project was any different. Mr. Wheeler asked if the applicant anticipated that a formal traffic study would be conducted. Mr. Theriault indicated that they had not talked with the Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). However, one will be done if MDOT deems that one should be done. He noted that they anticipated that MDOT would require a study. Mr. Wheeler noted that it was unusual for the Board to get correspondence from both the Code Enforcement Officer and the City Attorney relating to the scope of Planning Board review on this application. He said that there was a need to give all applications the same consideration in the review process. Mr. Hamer told the Planning Board that the purpose of his memo was not to restrict the Board but to make sure that the Board is clear that its scope of review is the criteria for site plan approval contained in Chapter 165-114. Mr. Clark said that he lives in the same neighborhood, and faces the traffic issues on Kenduskeag Avenue and Broadway every day. He said that he was concerned with the traffic, noise and lights. He said that he agrees that he Board needs to address this issue carefully. Mr. Guerette said that he found that the existing parking quite inadequate in terms of close proximity to the ball field. He questioned why the applicant would go 5 through such an endeavor to create an athletic field and not provide new parking closer to the facility to protect the neighborhoods. Mr. Sturgeon explained that to build a large parking area might be “too forward thinking.” He said that Husson College has a relatively large campus and parking at its furthest point is only 1,000 feet away. The applicant wants to make sure that this works before proposing the construction of any new parking. Mr. Sturgeon also indicated that all parking will be on the campus, and not allowed along Husson Avenue. Mr. Masters said that he was pleased to see this proposal, and wholeheartedly supported it. He also said that he hoped that the applicant listens to the concerns of Mr. Rosenblatt regarding traffic and lighting. As no one else spoke, Chairman Fournier asked for a motion. Mr. Clark moved to approve the Site Development Plan for Husson College at 1 College Circle. Mr. Guerette seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 in favor and 0 opposed. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 6