HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-06 Planning Board Minutes
COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020, 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
MEETING MINUTES
Board Members Present: Ken Huhn, Chair
Don Meagher, Asst. Chair
Michael Bazinet
Ted Brush
Reese Perkins
Lisa Shaw
City Staff Present: Melissa Bickford, Development Asst.
AnneKrieg, Planning Officer
Joshua Saucier, Asst. City Solicitor
John Theriault, City Engineer
Chair Huhn called the meeting to order at 7:04P.M.
____________________________________________________________________________
1.Site Development Plan -668 Stillwater Avenue -Map-Lot R61-021-Brady
Sullivan Properties d/b/a True Storage Bangor -Land Development Permit
approval for site development plan for 2-story climate controlled self-storage facility
with a footprint of 39,150 sq. ft., with a total floor area of 78,300 sq. ft. at property
located at 668 Stillwater Avenue, (Map-Lot R61-021-A), in a General Commercial &
Service (GC&S) District.Applicant is Brady Sullivan Properties d/b/a True Storage
Bangor.
Jim Kiser presented the project on behalf of the applicant, True Storage Bangor. Chris Lewis
was also present.Proposed for the Board’s review is a 2-story storage facility with a total square
footage of 78,000. The facility to be enclosed with fencing, and will be gated at existing
entrance. The gate will open for emergency responders as needed.
Planning Officer Krieg asked Kiser to review parking, as there is not an industry standard for this
use.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2020
Most parking in these types of facilities are for registration and purchasing of packing products.
They will have limited office staff,possibly 2 on a daily basis. The plan provides10 parking
spaces to accommodate facilities.
Kiser noted thata stormwater permit will be needed. They willbe providing treatment for
existing and new impervious surfaces;and no additional treatmentis needed/required.The
proposed drainage line under the building will behand form around the pipes as they enter/exit
foundation area.
Impact fees were discussed at great length. Member Shaw asked staff to provide background
on impact fees. Planning Officer Krieg indicated that impact fees started in 1991, specifically in
Land Development Code, and empowered Planning Board to institute these fees. State Statute
empoweredcities to impose these fees. This fee is for a specific area for capital improvements
in Stillwater Avenue/Hogan Road area;whenever new development was created, this fee was
assessed and paid. The fees are set by cost of construction at the timeit was instituted. In
discussing with Finance Department, when fees are received, they are put into a fund that the
Engineering Department then recommends to City Council to vote on how those funds are to be
utilized in that area. Funding must be used for projects in that Capital Improvement area. City
Engineer Theriault used the example of the project on Stillwater Avenue, which has been 2 years
in the making now –that is adding of an additional lane to Stillwater Avenue at the Parkade
intersection. Impact fees are only collected from this area to use in this area.
Assistant City Solicitor Saucier stated that the Planning Board is required to impose impact fees
for this area. Member Shaw inquired about the authority of the Planning Board to waive the fee
in this area. Member Shaw indicated that the project did not seem like it had a greater impact
on the region than what was there before.She reviewed situations where a fee may need to
be reimbursed.
Member Brush discussed Kiser’s letter to Planning Officer Krieg from 09.21.20, mentioning that
Marsh Impact Fees were applicable. Kiser stated thatit was his misinterpretation, and that it
was more comprehensive than just the marsh impact. This is a separate fee that functions more
like a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) area.
Chair Huhn asked if Kiser was asking for a discount based on the fees previously paid by Circuit
City. Kiser indicated that there would be little impact and less impact on the area than previously
as far as the utilities and traffic overall, and hopes that Planning Board would consider fees
previously paid by Circuit City andthatno additional fees would be required.
Page 2 | 6
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2020
This project should increase overall tax revenue to the city, and would like this to be considered.
Hewould like to discuss reductions due to reuse of facility if the Board was considering fees
also.
Assistant City Solicitor Saucier indicated that there currently was no building or facilitieson the
lot, so there was no impact right now currently.
City Engineer Theriault advised that Circuit City was one of the first in the area, and since the
area around has grown up as well. There has been other development in the area, and it will
be an additional impact. Other businesses have also paid this fee. Redevelopment of The
Avenue had to pay these fees.
Asst. Chair Meagher had a suggestion/proposal forthe Board to think about that came in three
parts: 1) apply fee to this development using the formula that is currently in use, 2) credit
applicant for the fee that was paid by Circuit City, and 3) credit the balance if there is one after
calculation and credit carried forward for future fees on this parcel as the result as future
changes in the fee system. Planning Officer Krieg advised that this fee is based on square
footage, not traffic. City Engineer Theriault indicated that the building was double the size of
the previous building. Kiser felt that it was double the size, but a fraction of the impact.
Asst. Chair Meagher realizes there is a basis for fee in current language, but strikes him as
unusual as a fee is supposed to apply to capital improvementsthat the city needs to make
accommodationsin the development of the area. Thought total impervious surface and traffic
would be primary factors in how to base the fee, and feels that it’s unusual that it’s based on
square footage, not related to purpose. City Engineer reminded that this was established in
1991, and DOT didn’t get into trip generation and traffic movement until early 2000’s. Asst.
City Solicitor felt that it was important for the Board to note, looking at the ordinance, the
PlanningBoard may require applicant to prepare an analysis relating to what area will have for
impact. Kiser provided a quick analysis from traffic, 196 daily trips, which may be high, or may
be low. Electronic superstore was 1280 prior daily trips, which is a substantial difference in
traffic on daily basis coming/going out of facility, utilizing Stillwater Avenue and roadways. Asst.
City Solicitor discussed the building no longer being there, and site currently was not in use. It
is what specific use of what you’re putting there that will have the impact, and that’s related to
the infrastructure.
Another climate-controlledstorage facility on Stillwater Avenue also paid the impact fee based
on total square footage of the building. Kiser indicated that was not a redevelopment of a
parcel, but raw land.
Page 3 | 6
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2020
Asst. City Solicitor Saucier indicatedthat there would always be capital projects in that area, as
infrastructure is constantly being improved.
Concerns regarding reimbursement of these fees back to developer if impact wasn’t substantial
were discussed. Planning Officer Krieg advised the Board that this is akin to acapital investment
fee based on all development in area thathas impact on infrastructure. It is not the same as,
for example, a big box storethat triggers need for traffic light. This is more for an area of
accumulation developmentcreates overall impact to infrastructure of area. It is not the same
as definitive impact from one development. Each lot pays into this fee for those infrastructure
improvements.
Further discussion regarding the fee paid by Circuit City at time of development, and a credit to
the current applicant, whether the fees runwith the parcel. Asst. Chair Meagher thinks that if
a fee already paid on parcel from previous development, a credit should be issued to current
development. Doesn’t think that the square footage is the best metric for fee. Asst. City Solicitor
advised that is how it’s calculatedin theCode. City Engineer Theriault advised that infrastructure
improvements in the area are what the fees pay for, and that this was the only Capital
Improvement district that the City maintains.
Members requested that the language in the code be cleaned up, that that there issome
paradoxical verbiagein there. City Engineer advised that this facility doesn’t generate as much
traffic as Circuit City did, however, it’s based on square footage. This is what was decided in
1991. If that needs to be changed, it needs to be looked at by staff. It’s a fault with the system,
but that’s what we have to deal with.
Members asked if there had been a case where a fee wasn’t imposed in this area. Planning
Officer Krieg’s research shows that everyone has paid since the inception of the fee in 1991.
There havebeen noredevelopmentprojects on parcels. Circuit City previously was 28,400 sq.
ft. and the new building 78,300 sq. Ft.
Asst. Chair Meagher made a motionfor approval of Land Development Permit for site
development plan for 2-story climate controlled self-storage facility with a footprint of 39,150
sq. ft., with a total floor area of 78,300 sq. ft. at property located at 668 Stillwater Avenue,
(Map-Lot R61-021-A) with provision that impact fees that apply for this area in the code will
apply to the square footage of total floor area and applicant will be credited toward fee in amount
of Circuit City fee as paid. Seconded by Member Shaw. Impact fee to be assessed at
$0.4078/square foot of building. Circuit City previously was 28,400 sq. ft., $11,581.52, and new
proposed build is 78,300 sq. Ft., $31,930.74, for a difference of $20,349.22 to be paid by
developer for new project.
Page 4 | 6
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2020
Additional discussion regarding obligation by City to reimburse monies not paid, and
reimbursement to current owner and operator or whomever may be entitled to reimbursement
of monies paid on the property. Asst. Chair Meager indicated that total amount ofwhat Circuit
City paid and what current applicant will pay needs to be recognized. City Engineer Theriault
advised the Board that one of the current projects in the area is $650,000.
Roll call vote: Meagher, yes; Shaw, yes; Bazinet, yes; Brush, yes; Perkins, yes; Huhn, yes.
Motion passes.
2.Site Development Plan -50 Sidney Street -Map-Lot 025-101 -Kongsuriya
Investments, LLC -Land Development Permit approval for construction of 1,872 square foot
2-story, 4-family detached swelling with 2 bedrooms per unit at property located at 50 Sidney
Street, (Map-Lot 025-101), in an Urban Residence 2 (URD-2) District.Applicant is Kongsuriya
Investments, LLC.
Jim Kiser representing applicant. Applicant has withdrawn application. No action required
from Planning Board.
OTHER BUSINESS
3.Proposed staff-led zoning changes for informal review:
a.Lot size reductions in URD-1 and URD-2
Planning Officer Krieg discussed proposed staff led zoning changes. She reviewed the
neighborhoods that have non-conformities due to changes to dimensional controls in their
respective districts. She noted that you can still do things with non-conforminglots, but if you
want to do renovations that we’re seeing with ADU’s, garages, etc., you may not be able to with
current zoning. In terms of affordablehousing, it curtailed the double lots, which aren’t double
lots now. More infilldevelopment in thosedistrictsis needed. URD-1 and URD-2are close to
downtown within walking distances of goods and services, sidewalks, etc. She reviewed the
specific proposal. Discussion with Code also showed that front yard setbacks are concerns with
open porches. InCode it’s defined, sometimes those open porches become closed. This will
give Code the ability to give some variation as well as other setbacks for front porches, which is
another companionpiece as well.
b.Front door requirement on residential buildings
This is more of a design feature –where front door is oriented.
Page 5 | 6
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
October 6, 2020
When you look at neighborhood design, pedestrian welcoming, one element is the location of
the front door. More multifamily units are being developed, coupled with concern of not having
front door not facing front of property. A lot of studies have been done with pedestrians walking
through a space, and when they get to a place without doors or windows, it’s not welcoming
and they’ll turn around. It blocks off a neighborhood, it’s not welcoming. Requirement would
be principal buildings containing dwellings have egress on façade facing front yard as definedin
your code. Exceptions would be mobile home parks, ADU’s, flag-lots. This requirement would
be for new construction, anything constructed after date of enactment. This would still allow
for other doors, example: old New England house, mud room in the back is the “winter door”
and guest door is in the front of the house. There is a trend of getting rid of the front door as
it’s unused. This is an example of “form-based” code, whereby the form of building of public
concern, not the use. It’s different than what Bangor has done in the past, but it’s used
elsewhere. Member Shaw liked the walkability metric employed. Asst. Chair Meagher indicated
that this was a first in which a pretty detailed architectural standard would be incorporated,
because it’s a big change. The Board discussed a large window vs. door. A door has more
character. Example of a corner lot –large bay window vs. blank wall, it might be architecturally
more attractive than front door. Asst. City Solicitor advised that this would be the first form
based architectural requirement, and isn’t aware of any others. This was discussed during the
Commercial Corridor districting, which has not been enacted as of yet.
No action from the Planning Board required.
4.Meeting Minutes –Meeting minutes of September 1 & September 15, 2020 were
approved, with no additions or corrections. Member Shaw moves approval, seconded by
Member Bazinet. Roll call vote: Meagher, yes; Brush, yes; Bazinet,yes; Shaw, yes; Perkins,
yes; Huhn, yes.
5.Adjournment –Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Bickford
Development Assistant
Planning Department
Page 6 | 6