From: 	Jean Fraser
To:	Bushey, Steve;  Kennedy, Bo
CC:	Barhydt, Barbara;  Latulippe, David
Date: 	4/10/2013 3:13 PM
Subject: 	2282 Congress-  Prelim comments
Attachments:	Section 12 - Site Lighting_8.4.11.pdf

Steve,
 
Today we undertook a preliminary review of this project with a view to identifying "threshold" issues that might result in revisions to the site plan-  so that there would be time for you to respond on these and time for any revisions to be reviewed for the PB report.
 
The most fundamental issue is Right, title and Interest:   We have an 10.25.2013 e-mail from the MTA Right of Way Manager that was submitted in support of the zoning amendment.  It stated:

David LaTulippe and CJ Developers have submitted an application to the Maine Turnpike Authority to obtain an easement across MTA land to access Congress Street in conjunction with a proposed gas station and convenience store.  A preliminary review by MTA staff concluded that the proposal was complete enough to present to the Board of the Maine Turnpike Authority as soon as a mutually acceptable offer of compensation is reached.
 
I don't believe any further documentation has been submitted, and we need updated and more definite evidence of the applicant's right, title and interest over the MTA land before this can go for  PB Hearing.

We have the following questions and concerns that result from considering the proposals in detail in the context of the site plan review standards. The review of the zoning amendment did not include a detailed site plan review of the project. The site plan needs to be "substantially in accordance with" the Concept Plan attached to the CZA but "may be amended, modified or altered with the Portland Planning Board approval in connection with the site plan review process".
 
At this preliminary stage we would draw your attention to several issues and recommend revisions to address these;  please note there may be additional comments once all the reviewers have finalized their comments next week.  
 
1.   The area of pavement:   The area seems excessive, especially in light of the reduced program (bank has been omitted);  we would like to see a justification for the following:
The number of parking spaces:  there appear to be about twice the zoning requirement-  this  triggers the need for a parking analysis (Ordinance requirement Section 14-526 (a) (4) a. 3. ) which should be submitted asap (also please confirm the proposed number of spaces-  the plan states 33 while the application data sheet says 32);  
Bicycle Parking:   if you are not proposing to provide the required number of bicycle spaces you need to request a waiver with evidence of why the development is expected to generate reduced demand (see 14-526 (a) (4) b)-  bicycle parking would be for both employees and customers; 
The aisle widths:  some substantially exceed the City's technical standards and we would like to see turning templates and other information that explains the need for such wide aisles.  Please clarify if one-way or two-way traffic movement especially on west side.
 
2.   Location of dumpster:  The dumpster should be located in a less prominent location and away from Congress Street and from public circulation and activity (eg not next to picnic area as proposed);  please clarify the anticipated truck access for its removal/emptying.
 
3.  Fire Department issues: You have outlined in a letter dated April 1 to Captain Chris Pirone how the project addresses Fire Department issues and I suggest you contact him asap to further clarify the proposals so he can determine whether the site plan is satisfactory.
 
4.  Snow Storage:  The ordinance requires that snow storage areas be shown on the plan and the locations are important in the context of the stormwater treatment/detention system proposed.
 
5.  Landscape and Lighting:    The scale of paved areas,  the limited planting, and the proposed "Prolific" light fixture are not consistent with the Conditional Zoning Agreement requirement that "CJD shall include Landscape, Architectural and Lighting Plans that achieve a campus like character for the project".  Also the application narrative refers to proposed (landscape) buffering along Congress Street and Skyway Drive, but this is not expressed on the Landscape Plan.  Please also note that the lighting proposals need to meet the standards set out in the Technical Standards (copy attached- see specific standards in 12.5 and 12.6) and at present do not meet  those standards (waivers are unlikely to be recommended).  The photometric plan calculations need to show the average, maximum and uniformity ratio for the specified areas.
 
There is a question over the indicated link to Skyway Drive in view of the MTA concerns (letter of 3.14.13), and this is still under review.
 
Please contact me if you have any questions or consider a meeting would be helpful regarding any of these points (I am out of the office tomorrow but in on Friday;  the City offices are closed on Monday).
 
thank you 
Jean
 
Jean Fraser, Planner
City of Portland
874 8728