 |
Town of Gorham
February 11, 2002
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Auditorium, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
HAROLD GRANT, Chairman DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
CLARK NEILY, Vice-Chairman AARON SHIELDS, Planning Assistant
DOUGLAS BOYCE
N. A. MARTIN, III
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and introduced the agenda. The Assistant Planner called the roll noting all present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: FEBRUARY 4, 2002
Planning Director Fossum recommended postponing until provided the Board.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to postponed the minutes. MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
2. DISCUSSION / INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION PLAN Discussion on the preliminary plan of a proposed 9-lot industrial subdivision on 29.50 acres at the intersection of Libby Avenue and New Portland Road. Zoned Industrial/Black Brook Road/Brackett Road Special Protection Overlay District (I) Map 29/Lot 2.
Mr. Greer reviewed the application with the Board including the tentative building on each lot, the traffic study prepared by Jack Murphy and the projected number of trips generated, DEP permits for storm water management in its current design, wetland impacts as proposed. Mr. Greer stated that the traffic report addresses staff concerns of the access onto Libby Avenue. He noted the proposal would include extension of public water, with a twelve-inch water line, running through the project from Libby Avenue to New Portland Road. Mr. Greer noted the buffering along both roads would be a minimum of one hundred foot wide area, which may be reduced to fifty feet with Planning Board approval. He noted that should a reduction not be granted, some lots might be difficult to sell and develop.
Aaron Shields summarized the staff report. He stated that each lot owner would be responsible for the wetland impacts as permitted by DEP. Mr. Shields explained the Public Works Director has requested that Tanner Drive be extended to the property limits. He stated that the fifty-foot ROW for both Tanner Drive and Jenna Drive meet the specifications of the ordinance, but with drainage impacts, grading and future lot development, staff is recommending a seventy-foot ROW for Tanner Drive, which is the main industrial entrance. Mr. Shields asked the Board to provide direction to the applicant on two items: 1) the request for a second curb cut for the site; and 2) the requested reduction in the 100
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: None offered.
Board discussion followed regarding the width of the service road (Jenna Drive), and the access road (Tanner Drive), and concluded with the applicant agreeing to a 70
The Board then discussed the request for a reduction in buffering from required Code amount of 100
When asked, Mr. Greer stated they anticipate little to no blasting for water lines; that the two hydrants will be located near the intersection about 500
Mr. Grant closed by suggesting the posting of signage for no truck traffic east on New Portland Road. [7:55PM]
3. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PLAN Request for a pre-application conference on a proposed 45-unit housing development (11 multi unit structures) on 107.8-acre tract off Barstow Road. Zoned Suburban Residential (SR) Map 87/Lots 21&22.
Thomas Greer, P.E., Pinkham & Greer, agent for the applicant, introduced the project and thanked the Board for its participation and comments at the site walk held the prior week. Mr. Greer presented an in depth overview utilizing Arial photos to point out various site features including 1) Standish town line; 2) the Bear Run subdivision; 3) the now inactive Maine Central Railroad that the Mountain Division / Northern Division Trail System will be developing; 4) a farm house to be relocated; 5) a barn to be demolished; two Portland Water District easements; on the site; and 6) Wescott Brook and the 100-year flood elevation A zone. Mr. Greer described the development as having eleven multi-family buildings of 45 two to three bedrooms units. The utilities will consist of public water with a booster pump
station, and a central wastewater disposal system with a pre-treatment, activated sludge treatment plant and a reserve area equal to the septic bed. As the wastewater volume will be approximately 13,000 gallons per day, a State engineered system review would be required as well as a nitrate impact analysis for the plume, and a mounding analysis with possible monitoring wells. Mr. Greer explained that since the site will access onto Barstow Road, the project will include an upgrade to the Barstow Road corner intersection with a true “T” design, eliminating the curve. He stated that the project will be built in phases; that of the 107 acres, 18 acres will be developed with the balance to remain as common open space; that the actual location of the septic field is still tentative; and that the project design is meant to minimize the impact on abuttersdesign will take into consideration comments received on the site walk regarding the massive size of the buildings. He closed by stressing the 1:4 ratio of site development to proposed open space.
Aaron Shields summarized the staff report noting that the important items have been addressed in Mr. Greercul-de-sacs, and the existence of on-site buried debris. The applicant should follow up on the content and impact of any fill that has been buried on site.
Mr. Greer stated the common open space may possibly remain either with the homeowners association with a conservation easement to Gorham Trail or the Town. He then addressed the construction demolition buried on-site, stating that a Phase I Environmental assessment would be completed as part of the application, and if material is found, would ultimately be disposed of properly.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED
George Skillin, 157 Barstow Road, abutter, read a letter into the record, regarding his concerns including: Barstow Road
Nancy Kane, 126 Barstow Road, stated that she was the drafter of the letter delivered earlier the prior week expressing the neighbors
Newburn “Bud” Miner, 19 Bear Run, stated that he agreed with Mr. Neily
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED [9:00 AM]
Mr. Neily requested Mr. Miner put his comments and concerns in writing to the Planning Department.
Mr. Boyce opened the Board discussion by stating that most projects can be engineered to meet Code requirements, ultimately receiving approval. He explained that on this project, there is an important threshold issue that the Board needs to carefully evaluate the Performance Standards for Multifamily Housing under the Code [Chap II, IV, B. 1] that reads “Multi-family dwellings in developed areas shall retain and respect the existing streetscape and character of the neighborhood. This shall include the size and massing of structures, the relationship of buildings to the street and the use and treatment of front yard areas.” He stated that in his opinion, this would be a difficult threshold issue for this particular development to attempt to achieve based on the current site plan and layout of the
buildings and the density of the development in the open field area.
Mr. Boyce stated that although he does not find condominium type development objectionable or the proposed number of units objectionable, locating this density of development on a very exposed knoll that runs through an open field would have a significant impact on the character of the streetscape and would have difficulty meeting the performance standard. Mr. Boyce closed by summarizing his position. That he would not want to have the applicant spend a lot of time and money and effort pursuing detailed engineering studies of any nature, prior to being convinced at sketch plan level that the density of development could be supported reasonable on this property and the standard cited could be met.
Mr. Neily stated his primary concern was that the development is in the wrong location, and with the possibility of soil contamination and existing road conditions, the developer should look more closely at the financial aspects of the project.
Mr. Grant stated that although “neighborhood character” may be a showstopper, the condition of Barstow Road, i.e. sight distance and the width of the road, is a concern. Ms. Robie stated that she agreed with Mr. Grant and indicated the Ordinance requirements for “Performance Standards for Multi-Family Housing” could be a major hurdle for this project, to which Mr. Martin and Mr. Shiers also agreed. Mr. Parker agreed and stated that the project would require the upgrade of Barstow Road. [9:10 PM]
Stretch Break 9:10 to 9:20 PM
4. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE / SITE PLAN Request for a pre-application conference for expansion of the building and relocation of drive-thru service at 64 Main Street. Zoned Village Center (VC) Map 102/Lots 116 & 117.
Mike Yandell, President, Gorham Savings Bank, introduced the project, explaining that the request was for parking reconfiguration and renovation of the main office. He noted that the old post office building was not part of this application. Nancy St. Clair, P.E., Sebago Technics, Inc., reviewed the proposed improvements including the drive-thru relocation, improved parking and circulation, and building elevations showing the enhanced rear entrance. Ms. St. Clair closed by stating that there are no immediate plans for the old post office and that all options are still open.
Mr. Shields provided the staff report, and noted the applicant
Board discussion followed on signage, parking egress, the lack of immediate access to the old post office property as currently proposed, and grandfathering of setbacks and pavement. Ms. St. Clair noted that even though the pavement may be grandfathered, the applicant wishes to comply with the new parking and rear setback requirements as much as possible by reducing the amount of parking in the setback area.
The Board questioned why both east and westbound traffic could not exit directly onto Main Street from the drive-through. Ms. Fossum reminded the Board that when the new signal is installed at Water and Main Street, there would be a center turn lane, for eastbound traffic turning left onto Water Street. The traffic engineers have determined, and DOT confirmed, that a left turn exit from the bank would not be consistent with general traffic standards and probably not function well given the volumes on Main Street and the signalization.
Discussion followed on the interconnectivity of the rear parking lots and the separate east/south exits, with Mr. Yandell stating that a right of way would not be granted at this point to prevent any adverse traffic situation or interfere with any future building plans. Ms. Robie suggested that the applicant look more closely at pedestrian traffic to the old post office. Mr. Neily encouraged both the applicant and staff to preserve the old post office as a professional building to help maintain a business-healthy downtown area. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Yandell indicated the amount would be in the low to moderate seven figure range.
Mr. Parker questioned whether paving between the front of the Post Office building and the side walk is consistent with the ordinance. Ms. Fossum explained that the recommendations of the Main Street Study and the development of the ordinance performance standards are somewhat at cross purposes as the Town certainly never intended to create ordinance requirements that would force a building to be demolished or removed in order to accomplish parking circulation. The removal of the building is certainly consistent with the strictest interpretation of the ordinance. And yet the building is an important piece of Main Street and retention of this building is important enough that the Town needs to examine the traffic closely and consider how the ordinance is to be interpreted. She stated that this will be a
judgmental or interpretive question for the Board.
When Mr. Boyce asked whether there was any consideration given to locating the drive-thru facility adjacent to the old post office building and use the existing post office driveway to bring the entering vehicles to a drive-thru, Mr. Yandell indicated that it had been considered and was not feasible.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. None offered.
Ms. St. Clair closed with a request for a site walk. [10:10 PM]
5. ADJOURNMENT
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED at motion to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED 7-0. [10:10 PM]
Respectfully submitted,
______________
Penelope E. Overton
Clerk of the Board
February 11, 2002
| |
