249 A001 & A002; 250 A001; 251 A005& A009; 255 A002 Applicant: City of Portland Economic Development Department Jean Fraser

Transcription

1 CITY OF PORTLAND, MAINE PLANNING BOARD Carol Morrissette, Chair Stuart G. O Brien, Vice Chair Joe Lewis Lee Lowry, III Michael J. Patterson David Silk Bill Hall February 3 rd, 2012 Gregory Mitchell City of Portland Economic Development Dept. City of Portland 389 Congress Street Portland, Maine David Senus, PE Project Manager Woodard & Curran 41 Hutchins Drive Portland Maine Project Name: Portland Technology Park Project ID: Project Address: 300 Rand Road (aka 1581 Westbrook Street) CBL: 249 A001 & A002; 250 A001; 251 A005& A009; 255 A002 Applicant: City of Portland Economic Development Department Planner: Jean Fraser Dear Mr Mitchell and Mr Senus: On January 24 th, 2012 the Portland Planning Board considered and approved a Level III Final Site Plan and Subdivision proposal to construct an Office Park Planned Unit Development comprising 7 units, with a total of 122,000 sq ft, on a 26.2 acre parcel at 300 Rand Road. The proposal includes the provision of a 1400 linear foot long roadway and the creation of a separate but associated Conservation Easement on the abutting 13.8 acre woodlands. The Planning Board reviewed the proposal for conformance with the standards of the Traffic Movement Permit, Subdivision Ordinance and Site Plan Ordinance. The building architecture, site landscaping, site pedestrian circulation, bicycle parking, lamp specifications and signage within the limited common element areas of each unit will be subject to review and approval by the Planning Board for conformance with the Portland Technology Park Design Guidelines and City of Portland Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14 Land Use, Article v. Site Plan. The Planning Board approved the application with the following motions, waivers and conditions as presented below. On the basis of the application, plans, reports and other information submitted by the applicant, findings and recommendations contained in Planning Board Report # for the Portland Technology Park, Rand Road relevant to the Site Plan and Subdivision reviews and other regulations, and the testimony presented at the Planning Board hearing, the Planning Board finds the following: SIDEWALK WAIVER The Planning Board voted 5-1 (Lowry recused; Lewis opposed) that the following criteria do apply, and therefore waives the requirement for a sidewalk along the frontage of the Portland Technology Park site with Rand Road, subject to the provision of the internal sidewalk and crosswalk to the opposite side of Rand Road being constructed as part of phase 1 of the development: C) A safe alternative-walking route is reasonably available, for example, by way of a sidewalk on the other side of the street. F) Strict adherence to the sidewalk requirement would result in the loss of significant site features related to landscaping or topography that are deemed to be of a greater public value.

2 Page 2 of 7 TRAFFIC MOVEMENT PERMIT SUBDIVISION: The Planning Board voted 6-0 (Lowry recused) that the plan is in conformance with 23 MRSA 704-A and Chapter 305 Rules and Regulations pertaining to Traffic Movement Permits. The Planning Board voted 6-0 (Lowry recused) that the plan is in conformance with the subdivision standards of the Land Use Code, subject to the following eleven (11) conditions of approval: i. That the Subdivision Plat shall be finalized to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority and Corporation Counsel and include revisions to the phasing references, easements (including that to Portland Trails), the Condominium Association documents and relevant conditions; and ii. iii. iv. That the Condominium Association documents, including references to the Stormwater Management Inspection and maintenance requirements, shall be finalized to the satisfaction of the Corporation Counsel prior to the recording of the Subdivision Plat; and That the applicant shall submit for review and approval by Corporation Counsel, and show on the Subdivision Plat, all final documents containing easements and encumbrances as represented in the application and on the plans; and This approval entitles the applicant and future developers of the office park units to develop the maximum number and size of parking spaces as shown on the Subdivision Plat and Overall Site Plan subject to providing confirmation of the need for these spaces and space dimensions (via a parking analysis) at the time that the unit is under site plan review; and v. That the condominium association shall develop and manage a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan acceptable to the Planning Authority, reviewed as part of the initial and subsequent site plan approvals for each building unit within the limited common element areas; and vi. That the development of limited common element areas is subject to review and approval by the City of Portland Planning Authority for conformance with the Portland Technology Park Design Guidelines and City of Portland Code of Ordinances, Chapter 14 Land Use, Article v. Site Plan for building architecture, site landscaping, site pedestrian circulation, bicycle parking, lamp specifications and signage and any changes or alterations to approved traffic, parking, access, utility, exterior lighting, tree preservation and stormwater features; and vii. The clearing limits shall be restricted to Limited Common Element (LEC) areas, Easement Area 1 associated with the site roadway; Easement Area 2 associated with access to the trail head parking, and Easement Area 3 associated with the trail head parking; and viii. That the applicant and all assigns shall comply with the conditions of Chapter 32 Stormwater including Article III, Post-Construction Storm Water Management, which specifies the annual inspections and reporting requirements. The developer/contractor/subcontractor must comply with conditions of the construction stormwater management plan and sediment & erosion control plan based on City standards and state guidelines; and ix. That the applicant shall submit large scale Tree Preservation Plan and Forest Management Plan within three months of this approval. The Forest Management Plan would contain existing conditions and management recommendations that the condominium owners and easement holders would follow in sustainable forestry management with goals of protecting habitat, forest health and recreation; and x. That the proposed Limited Common Elements, shown as "LCE" on the plan, be marked with permanent markers such as FENO markers in the field prior to any work on the site to ensure that the limits of clearance and tree preservation areas are clear on the site; and xi. That the RPZ Zone line, trailhead parking area, significant tree areas and particular tree saves (as identified on the Tree Preservation Plan) be marked or located in the field prior to any site work.

3 Page 3 of 7 SITE PLAN REVIEW The Planning Board voted 5-1 (Lowry recused; Lewis opposed) that the plan is in conformance with the site plan standards of the Land Use Code, subject to the following four (4) conditions of approval: i. That the applicant receives and submits all required State and Federal permits prior to the issuance of a building permit; and ii. iii. iv. That the applicant shall submit revised plans/documents that address the comments from Tom Errico, Traffic Engineering Reviewer, regarding the four items under Additional Comments for review and approval by the Planning Authority prior to the issuance of a building permit; and That when individual units are proposed for site plan review the applicants should submit detailed specifications for snow storage management/protection of gravel wetlands, exterior lamp fixtures (including wall mounted), and consider the opportunity for trail links with the wider trail network on the RPZ open space part of the site; and That the site plans for individual units shall be brought before the Planning Board for review and approval, and the Board reserves the right to review individual units under the standards of the site plan ordinance. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Please note the following standard conditions of approval and requirements for all approved site plans: 1. Develop Site According to Plan: The site shall be developed and maintained as depicted on the subdivision plat and site plan and in the written submission of the applicant. Modification of any approved site plan or alteration of a parcel which was the subject of site plan approval after May 20, 1974, shall require the prior approval of a revised site plan by the Planning Board or Planning Authority pursuant to the terms of Chapter 14, Land Use, of the Portland City Code. Modification of an approved subdivision plan requires the prior review and approval of an amended subdivision plan by the Planning Board or Planning Authority. 2. Separate Building Permits Are Required: This approval does not constitute approval of any associated building or road plans, which must be reviewed and approved by the City of Portland s Inspection Division. 3. Recording of Waivers: Pursuant to 30-A MRSA section 4406(B)(1), any waiver must be specified on the subdivision plan or outlined in a notice. The plan or notice must be recorded in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within 90 days of the final subdivision approval. 4. Mylar Recording Plat: The final revised and approved subdivision recording plat must be signed by the Planning Board prior to recording in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds. A mylar copy and 5 paper copies of the recorded plat (with dates and details of the recording) must be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the release of any associated building permit. 5. Final Plan Meeting Conditions of Approval: Seven (7) final sets of plans must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the release of a building permit, street opening permit or certificate of occupancy for site plans. If you need to make any modifications to the approved plans, you must submit a revised site plan/subdivision application for prior review and approval by the Planning Authority or Planning Board. 6. Expiration of Approvals: The site plan approval will be deemed to have expired unless work has commenced within one (1) year of the approval. Requests to extend approvals must be received before the one (1) year expiration date. The subdivision approval is valid for three (3) years. 7. Inspection Fee: An Inspection Fee of $300 is required for the site inspections conducted by the Planning Division, unless waived by the City Manager. 8. Preconstruction Meeting: Prior to construction, a pre-construction meeting shall be held at the project site. This meeting will be held with the contractor, Development Review Coordinator, Public Service's

4 Page 4 of 7 representative and owner to review the construction schedule and critical aspects of the site work. At that time, the Development Review Coordinator will confirm that the contractor is working from the approved plans. The site/building contractor shall provide three (3) copies of a detailed construction schedule to the attending City representatives. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to arrange a mutually agreeable time for the pre-construction meeting. 9. Department of Public Services Permits: If work will occur within the public right-of-way such as utilities, curb, sidewalk and driveway construction, a street opening permit(s) is required for your site. Please contact Carol Merritt at , ext (Only excavators licensed by the City of Portland are eligible.) 10. As-Built Final Plans: Final sets of as-built plans shall be submitted digitally to the Planning Division, on a CD or DVD, in AutoCAD format (*,dwg), release AutoCAD 2005 or greater. The Development Review Coordinator must be notified five (5) working days prior to the date required for final site inspection. The Development Review Coordinator can be reached at the Planning Division at All site plan requirements must be completed and approved by the Development Review Coordinator prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Please schedule any property closing with these requirements in mind. If there are any questions, please contact Jean Fraser at (207) Sincerely, Carol Morrissette, Chair Portland Planning Board Attachments: Tom Errico, Traffic Engineering Reviewer comments 2. Planning Board Report #04-12 Electronic Distribution: Gregory A Mitchell, Acting Director of Planning and Urban Development Alexander Jaegerman, Planning Division Director Barbara Barhydt, Development Review Services Manager Jean Fraser, Planner Philip DiPierro, Development Review Coordinator Marge Schmuckal, Zoning Administrator Tammy Munson, Inspections Division Director Danielle West-Chuhta, Associate Corporation Counsel Gayle Guertin, Inspections Division Lannie Dobson, Inspections Division Michael Bobinsky, Public Services Director Hard Copy: Project File Kathi Earley, Public Services Bill Clark, Public Services David Margolis-Pineo, Deputy City Engineer Greg Vining, Public Services John Low, Public Services Jane Ward, Public Services Chris Pirone, Fire Department Jeff Tarling, City Arborist Tom Errico, TY Lin Nelle Hanig, Economic Development Department Assessor's Office Approval Letter File

5 Page 5 of 7 Attachment 1 From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Tom Errico <thomas.errico@tylin.com> Jean Fraser <JF@portlandmaine.gov> Katherine Earley <KAS@portlandmaine.gov>, David Margolis-Pineo <DMP@portlandmaine.gov>, Jeff Tarling <JST@portlandmaine.gov> 1/19/2012 6:22 PM Portland Technology Park Jean - I have reviewed the Site Plan Application dated December 31, 2011 prepared by Woodard & Curran and offer final comments. * The project meets requirements for a Traffic Movement Permit (TMP). The Applicant has submitted a TMP Application and I have determined that it is complete. Accordingly, a Traffic Movement Permit Scoping meeting has been scheduled for November 29th at 3:00pm in the Planning Conference Room. I would note that specific traffic study comments will be issued upon completion of the traffic study following the Scoping Meeting. Status: A traffic impact study has been submitted by the applicant and I find the methods and conclusions to be acceptable. In general, I agree with the conclusion that a traffic signal is not warranted at the site drive and the proposed improvements provide reasonable accommodations for site traffic. January 19, 2012 Status: No comment necessary. * The applicant should provide information supporting a waiver for the provision of a sidewalk on Rand Road along their property frontage. Related to this issue will be the appropriate provision of how pedestrians will safely walk between the site and the sidewalk on the north side of Rand Road. Status: The applicant has provided supporting information for a sidewalk waiver. I do not support item 1, that there is no reasonable expectation for pedestrian usage coming from, going to and traversing the site. I do support criteria 3 as noted in their letter. Jeff Tarling should provide expertise on whether criteria 6 is satisfied. January 19, 2012 Status: It is my understanding that this issue has been resolved and a sidewalk waiver is supported by DPS. * The applicant should provide information that supports the parking supply provided. Upon receipt of this information I will render a decision on issuing a waiver from the City's Technical Standards for parking stall size. Status: I would suggest that additional supporting technical information be provided that supports the parking supply being proposed. One possible approach, if supporting documentation is not available, would be to design and permit the project for the assumed full parking supply as requested by the applicant. Only parking spaces that meet zoning requirements will be displayed on the plans for construction. Future expansion parking areas will be illustrated and can be constructed if tenant characteristics required the additional parking spaces. January 19, 2012 Status: I support the condition of approval drafted by the Planning Department noting an upset limited on parking supply with final totals to be determined during site plan review. * The applicant should provide information justifying the traffic circle on the project driveway. It does not seem to serve any traffic control purpose and requires addition pavement area that seems to run counter to project sustainability goals. If it is to remain, adjustments to the design may be required. Status: The applicant has appropriately responded to this comment and I have no further comment. January 19, 2012 Status: No comment necessary. * The driveway approach to Rand Road indicates two approach lanes. I would note that the design criteria (storage length) for these lanes will be a function of analyses performed in conjunction with the traffic impact study, which has yet to be provided. Status: The traffic study indicates the 95th% storage of the egress lane to be 80 feet and the left-turn ingress lane to be 70 feet. The proposed design provides in excess of the noted requirement and therefore I find the design to be acceptable. January 19, 2012 Status: No comment necessary.

6 Page 6 of 7 * I have an expectation that large tractor trailers will make occasional deliveries to individual building sites. The applicant should provide information on where these deliveries will occur and their ability to maneuver on-site without leaving the pavement. Status: The applicant has provided turning template graphics that display adequate space for maneuvering and therefore I have no further comment. January 19, 2012 Status: No comment necessary. * The parking aisle near Building 6 and the motorcycle parking spaces is only 20 feet wide and does not meet City Technical Standards. Status: The plan has been revised and I have no further comment. January 19, 2012 Status: No comment necessary. * The Layout plans illustrate "block" style crosswalks, but the details provide information for parallel line crosswalks. The detail should be revised. January 19, 2012 Status: The detail has been added and I have no further comment. * The location of the crosswalk nearest Rand Road concerns me. I need to evaluate this further before providing some guidance to the applicant. January 19, 2012 Status: The revised crosswalk location is acceptable and I have no further comment. * Further details on the layout of the trailhead parking lot should be provided. Specifically, what is the intended parking layout for an area that is proposed to be 58 feet wide by 60 feet long. January 19, 2012 Status: The plans clearly note the parking lot details and I find them to be acceptable. I have no further comment. * Coordination with the Maine Turnpike Authority is still outstanding and will need to be conducted. I will contact them as it relates to any potential traffic impact fee contribution. January 19, 2012 Status: No action by the Maine Turnpike Authority is required for this project. * The Design Guidelines document suggests providing parking spaces that are 8'-2" x 18' in size and therefore do not meet City standards. I would suggest that the project incorporate a combination of standard (9'x18') and compact (7.5'x15') sized parking spaces that will minimize pavement area and avoid the requirement of a technical waiver. January 19, 2012 Status: I support the condition of approval drafted by the Planning Department that the reduced size parking stall will be permitted, but a final decision will be determined during site plan review when specific tenant needs are known. * The provision of the a sidewalk on one side of the site driveway is based upon the assumption that it is private and does not need to following City standards for providing sidewalks on all property frontages, unless waiver criteria can be met. Corporation council should confirm that in fact the City ownership of the road does not require the City's sidewalk provision standards to be applied. January 19, 2012 Status: It is my understanding that this issue has been addressed by Corporation Council. **Additional Comments** * Through pavement arrows are not required on Rand Road and should be deleted. * The applicant should confirm that adequate illumination will be provided at the proposed crosswalk on Rand Road. * Signage at nose of island on Rand Road should be provided. * A lane assignment sign for proposed left-turn lane on Rand Road shall be installed.

7 Page 7 of 7 If you have any questions, please contact me. Best regards, Thomas A. Errico, PE, Senior Associate Traffic Engineering Director T.Y. Lin International 12 Northbrook Drive Falmouth, ME direct mobile fax thomas.errico@tylin.com<mailto:thomas.errico@tylin.com>

8 From: To: Date: Subject: Jeff Tarling Barbara Barhydt; David Margolis-Pineo; Jean Fraser 1/22/2015 8:30 AM Re: Proposed Gas Easement Route for the Portland Technology Park Hi David - I am supportive of the project given the limited other options to gain access to the site. The impact to the forest should be minimal in the RPZ zone. I would recommend that the right of way be over-seeded with the appropriate restoration seed mix. See: Jeff >>> David Margolis-Pineo 1/21/2015 3:08 PM >>> Please see attached. Please be aware that Jeff Tarling has walked this site several times and is fully aware and I believe supportive of this proposal.

9 From: David Margolis-Pineo To: Barbara Barhydt; Jean Fraser; Jeff Tarling Date: 1/7/2015 8:13 AM Subject: Re: draft approval letter for marine ramp at GDI ( ) No comments on my end Jean. Thanks >>> Jean Fraser 1/6/2015 4:43 PM >>> Hi This is fairly minor, but please see the attached draft- just checking that we are all set re this. Pl let me know if you think it needs some revisions. Thanks Jean

10 From: Keith Gautreau To: Jean Fraser CC: Craig Messinger; David Petruccelli Date: 3/2/2015 8:52 AM Subject: Re: Amend to PTP Subdiv Plat re gas line easement Hi Jean, Fire approves. Let me know if you need anything else. Keith Keith Gautreau, Acting Asst. Chief Fire Prevention Portland Fire Department 380 Congress Street Portland, ME (207)