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