 |
Town of Gorham
March 24, 2003
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
LOCATION: Gorham High School Cafeteria, 41 Morrill Avenue, Gorham, Maine
Members Present: Staff Present:
HAROLD GRANT, Chairman DEBORAH FOSSUM, Dir. of Planning & Zoning
DOUGLAS BOYCE, Vice-Chair. AARON SHIELDS, Planning Assistant Planner
CLARK NEILY BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
THOMAS HUGHES
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that all members were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MARCH 3, 2003
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Thomas Hughes SECONDED a motion to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2003 Planning Board Meeting as printed and distributed.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Boyce suggested that the voting for the three motions in Item 2, “Lewry Gravel Pit,” show Mr. Grant as recused and not as abstaining.
Motion CARRIED to approve the minutes as corrected by Mr. Boyce, 6 ayes, 1 abstention due to absence from March 3, 2003 meeting (Mr. Parker) [7:05 p.m.]
Mr. Grant thanked the applicants and the abutters and neighbors for their patience and understanding when there was insufficient time at the March 17, 2003, Planning Board meeting to discuss the Morrill Place item at the time it had originally been scheduled.
2. SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN Discussion on a proposed 24-unit condominium development on a 7.5-acre parcel off 42 Morrill Ave on land of Phinney. Zoned Urban Residential; Map 106/Lot 19, Map 25/Lot 6.
Jeff Perry, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants, stating that they felt they were at a crossroads in terms of “fine tuning” the project, were responding to technical comments from peer and staff reviews, and wanted to get some feedback from the Board as to the direction the project should take on a number of items as outlined in the Agenda Memo. Mr. Perry gave a brief overview of the project/site, saying that the project planned for 24 units on 7-1/2 acres of land, about 13,000 square feet per dwelling unit, that the units are attached condominiums in clusters of 4, 3 and 5, and that the current plan before the Board shows some of the buildings having been moved closer to the street. Mr. Perry discussed the stormwater management program, saying that the site in a general sense
will be filled to provide the project with high ground along Morrill Avenue, with the property generally sloping in a southerly direction, offsite water coming on to the property will be picked up by a couple of ponds, which will direct stormwater to the major detention basin on the property. This basin will collect all the stormwater hitting impervious surfaces and direct it to the existing Village Woods catch basin and storm drain system but will not exceed the water presently entering that system. He commented that because the site currently is flat, water ponds and has no place to go until it seeks an outlet, so their plan will collect, manage and discharge the water. Mr. Perry introduced Peter Hedrich of Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers to discuss traffic concerns.
Mr. Hedrich said that the project is not a particularly high traffic generator; using ITE data based on 24 units he projected about 19 p.m. peak hour trips and 17 a.m. peak hour trips, and afternoon trips of about 15 expected. He said that the congestion on Morrill Ave with the high school traffic is fairly well known and the intersection with South Street has been evaluated a number of times, and it was understood that Morrill Ave did operate at a low level of service, with a long delay to turn left out onto South Street and the turning radii for busses could be improved, but the Town has decided not to expand the intersection of Morrill Ave and South Street. He said that in the afternoon, when this development is forecasted to add 15 trips on Morrill Avenue, there are 244 vehicles already there, so the
development will add less than 6%; in the morning, when about 17 will be added, that is less than 4% of the 474 trips on Morrill Ave. He commented that most of the traffic associated with the Middle School will be moving down to Weeks Road and come off Morrill Avenue, which should reduce morning traffic by 126 vehicles, and adding in this project will still result in a net reduction of 109. Moving the Middle School will reduce afternoon trips by about 48 trips, and adding this project will result in a net reduction of 33. Mr. Hedrich opined that the project would not have a significant impact on the traffic, especially when the Middle School traffic is moved.
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, saying that even though the applicants have not made a formal presentation, they are looking for direction from the Board on the items in the Agenda Memo. He said that he would expect that the best way to proceed would be for the Board would have conversation with the applicants about the various items. He said that the Townhave to meet, which is one of the threshold issues that needs to be looked at by the Board and developer at this stage. She said that traffic is a major concern and while the Townto make the project friendlier to the abutters.
Mr. Grant suggested that the Board consider each listed discussion item separately, as well as any other concerns Board members might have, with responsive information and/or commentary from the applicants, to be followed by comments from the abutters and neighbors.
Items for Discussion
· Neighborhood Context/Density. This is an issue that has been raised by abutters to the project and is one, which the applicant would like an opportunity to address at the meeting.
Mr. McCormack showed an aerial photograph to illustrate a comparison of existing buildings in the area surrounding the site to demonstrate the buildings proposed for the project are compatible and a and “good fit” with the neighborhood. He showed buildings of larger mass, such as Gorham House, Cressey Apartments, Village Square, Ridgewood Apartments, High School, and new Middle School. He also pointed out small multi-family units in the area in the South Street area. Amy Mulkerin commented that the project will be inclusive of the “Village feel and look.” Mr. McCormack said that after discussions with staff they have moved some of the buildings closer together and closer to the street and instead of a 30 foot buffer strip, it could increase the buffering up to 60 feet in the back
of each building in order to include more landscaping, as well as retain some of the existing trees on site.
Ms. Robie said she applauded the applicantsfamily homes, offset somewhat to establish different characters with appropriate landscaping. Mr. Parker commented that the presence of someone elserepresentative of what is off site. Mr. Grant asked what was anticipated in the plans were for the trees in the buffer areas; Mr. Perry replied that most of the construction disturbance will be at the property lines and most of the trees on site were being removed, and if the buffer width is extended from 30 to 60 feet as a result of moving some of the buildings, an opportunity may occur for more existing vegetation to remain on site. Mr. Grant said that the multi-family standards clearly spell out that these units should be buffered from single family homes and he would be opposed to removing many of the hardwood trees in the buffer areas. Mr. Perry said the proposal is for a relatively dense evergreen buffer, which would screen buildings close to the property as well as along the common property line with existing single-family homes, and hopefully they can supplement their plan by leaving more existing vegetation. Mr. Shiers said he recognizes that some
of the trees will not do well if their root systems are disturbed, and he would like to encourage the applicants to plant some fairly substantial sized trees, such as at least 6 feet to start with. Mr. Perry concurred, saying that many of the proposed trees are 5 to 6 feet. Mr. Perry pointed out the size of the existing trees relative to the size of those proposed and if there is fill of even one foot over an existing root ball it can kill a tree.
· Net Residential Acreage. The application includes the developer
Mr. Grant asked for a breakdown of the 28, 250 sf figure. Mr. Perry explained that it was clarified that only pre-existing easements can be deducted, but they had taken out proposed stormwater easements by mistake. He asked about the small area where no building can be placed but which is instrumental to the development of the site in terms of the detention ponds, and could that be considered unavailable for development and therefore a deduction. Mr. Shiers said he believed that the applicants are well within the allowable limits. Mr. Perry said his quick calculations on what he had discussed would yield 26 units, but their proposal is for 24. Mr. Hughes asked Mr. Perry for further clarification of his calculations. Ms. Robie said the Board should answer whether the one area of 72 feet
wide and 179 feet long, which can
· Drainage. Staff has asked for a cross section showing the elevations of the proposed roadways and structures relative to surrounding properties. The review engineer is not yet satisfied that the drainage will work as described by the applicants
Mr. Neily said that perhaps the site should be looked at when the snow is gone and expressed his concern that careful consideration must be made of the proposed drainage plan to satisfy the review engineer. Mr. Grant asked staff if they are satisfied with the cross section as demonstrated by the applicants. Mr. Shields said it was important to understand from the cross section what the applicants are proposing for filling and grading of the site. Mr. Parker asked Mr. Perry to show exactly where the fill is going in; Mr. Perry said it was going all the way between the buildings regardless of how far apart they are. Mr. Perry said all roof water will be directed to the center of the site, water from the land in front of the buildings will be directed to the street, and behind the buildings there will
be swales and field inlets directing water to the detention ponds. Mr. Shiers asked for clarification about drainage in the back of the buildings. Mr. Perry replied that all roof drains will be tied into the storm drains which will tie into field inlets. In response to a question from Mr. Grant, Mr. Perry explained that a field inlet is basically a catch basin in the grass with surrounding topography sloping into it, which is essentially the situation where they propose to tie into the existing storm drainage system for Village Woods. He confirmed to Mr. Parker that the storm water will be collected and piped from the field inlets to a detention pond or the existing storm drainage system. Mr. Perry said that the water table is within one foot of the seasonal high water table.
· Buffer. Both the Multi-Family Standards and the Site Plan Approval Criteria require buffering between any multi-family housing and residential dwellings. The proposed building layouts indicate that the developer will not be able to retain any existing vegetation. Some of the buildings are located at the very back edge of the building envelope. If some of the buildings were pulled closer to the proposed street, it might be possible to save some existing stands of trees, although the applicant will still have to increase the new plant material used to infill the buffer area.
Mr. Grant asked what was the plan for the buffer area. Mr. Perry replied that as the plans had been submitted, it was about 30 feet in the narrowest case between the rear of the building and the property line, with very little existing vegetation preserved. He said that by moving the buildings closer to each other, the opportunity is gained to retain more of the existing vegetation, which could be up to 60 feet. Mr. McCormack said that perhaps 25 to 30 feet of existing trees could be saved, depending on the “jogging” of the buildings, and if the Board gave them “something to shoot for” as appropriate for a buffer requirement, they could try to design the buildings around that distance. Mr. Grant said he would like to see 25 feet, plus or minus 5 feet, staying undisturbed;
perhaps it would be advisable to do another site walk with the snow gone to determine more precisely what the circumstances are. Mr. Boyce said he believed it would require significant work by the applicant to buffer the project, that it is not appropriate for the Board to pick a number as to the width of existing vegetation that should remain, and that one solution would be for the applicants to go out and look at it and flag any vegetation they feel is worth retaining for buffering which they would then supplement with additional material, based on what was acceptable to start with. Mr. Boyce said that the applicants need to insure that they get drainage to flow from their common property boundaries with the abutters to make sure that it will get into their storm water conveyance facilities and work that into their buffering scheme. Mr. Boyce said that perhaps the Board should go back to walk the site after the applicants have flagged what they feel is worth
retaining. Mr. Parker asked if there would be underground pipes going along the back property line, and if so, would they not kill some of the trees; Mr. Perry replied in the affirmative, saying they would re-visit that in terms of greater sensitivity in locating the pipes. Mr. Boyce commented that the current plan the Board has shows pipes in the buffer area only on the southerly side and no pipes or field inlets are shown on the north side, only pond #3, so the north side would have to have enough topography or swale to direct surface water back to that basin, or the basements of the new homes could be in jeopardy. He said that the most significant questions he has involve the storm water management plan, and he would be interested in having confirmation that a 25-year storm in fact can pass through the proposed system, as well as what would happen with a storm of perhaps greater intensity. Mr. Grant asked if drainage details will be added to the north
side of the site; Mr. Perry replied that it will be re-visited with the realignment of the buildings. Ms. Robie said that she agreed with Mr. Boyce about not having a set figure for the buffers, but she would like to see the buffer strips very carefully delineated and understood on the plans that ultimately will be reviewed by the Board. Mr. Grant concurred with Ms. Robie, especially in light of the view of the buildings that might be seen from Morrill Ave if there was no vegetation.
· Traffic. The applicant has submitted a traffic study prepared by Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers. This study is undergoing peer review by Casey & Godfrey.
Mr. Grant commented that the Board has not had a chance to review the information from Casey & Godfrey that was handed out prior to the meeting, and asked what staffdifficult to comment until more was known about the possible use of the school site. Mr. Hughes asked what impact the signal at Weeks Road might have; Mr. Shields suggested that Mr. Hedrich should address that issue. Mr. Parker asked if the applicants had exhausted exploring all exits from the parcel; Mr. Perry replied that Morrill Ave is the sole public street access.
· Sidewalk Ordinance. The site plan approval criteria require that all new developments located within the village area must include connections to existing sidewalks if they exist in the vicinity of the development. Sidewalks are also required per Chapter II, Section V, Minimum Standards for the Design and Construction of Streets and Ways. The applicant is proposing to provide an easement and pedestrian path to the abutting Southwoods Subdivision. The location of the proposed path coincides with the location of an existing path currently used by students going to and from the High School, Shaw Jr. High and other public facilities. There is a 12-foot easement show on the plan connecting the proposed subdivision parcel to South Street. This might also be considered for a possible sidewalk/pathway to South Street.
Mr. Shiers asked if the applicants proposed to put a sidewalk along the public right of way from Morrill Ave; Mr. Perry replied that they did, from Morrill to the southerly property line. A discussion of the easement to South Street ensued, as well as a discussion of an easement to a vacant lot south of the parcel, which does not extend across the vacant lot. Mr. Boyce suggested that the easement to South Street should be surveyed. Mr. Shields said that as there could be some difficulties in doing the sidewalk on Morrill Avenue, this easement to South Street could be a possible alternative. Mr. Grant said that it may not be practical to put sidewalks in on Morrill Ave but that the Board would like the applicants to look at the possibility of both sidewalks and report back. Mr. Boyce said he
does not think the applicants should be responsible for a sidewalk on Morrill Ave except on their own frontage. Mr. Grant said he disagreed with that interpretation and he felt the applicants should come back to show the Board that they either can or cannot put the sidewalk in on Morrill Ave. Mr. Shiers said he would be concerned about the fate of the trees on Morrill Ave if a sidewalk were put in, and that he would take the trees over the sidewalk. Mr. Grant agreed, saying the applicants could use common sense when they assess the Morrill Ave sidewalk issue. Mr. Boyce said that the pedestrian connection to South Street via the 12-foot easement is appropriate to stimulate pedestrian circulation through the property. Ms. Robie said she agreed with the comments about the difficulties of putting a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue and also agreed that the 12-foot pedestrian walkway to South Street would be a good addition to the project. Mr. Hughes and Mr.
Neily concurred. Mr. Hughes asked if there would be a problem in providing a public sidewalk into a private way; Mr. Shields replied they can provide a public pedestrian easement without any problem. Mr. Parker asked if there were any sidewalks on the cross street, and would the public pedestrian easement connect; Mr. Perry said that at present it does not but can be redesigned to connect.
Stretch Break from 8:40 p.m. to 8:55 p.m.
· Aesthetics /Architecture & Building Massing. The applicant is sensitive to some of the comments that have been made regarding the type of structures being planned and would like to discuss this topic with the Board. One consideration is that these proposed buildings are not one and a half story buildings but are actually two and a half story buildings with full daylight basements at the rear of the buildings.
Mr. Shiers said he considers the buildings to be a story and a half in the front and two and a half in the back, somewhat compatible and similar to certain gracious homes in the area, and not completely out of line. Mr. Parker said he thought the applicants have worked hard to make the buildings attractive from the street within the planned site, and that provided they are well-buffered from the rear, they will be attractive from the front, look individual within the applicantsof the buildings will contribute to an acceptable appearance.
· Other. There may be other issues, but these are the issues that were identified in a meeting between staff and the applicant and its engineers.
Ms. Robie said she had two concerns: (1) she did not understand how the private way could end without a turnaround; and (2) in the Multi-Family standards there is a requirement for 250 sf of common outdoor space for each dwelling unit, or some 6,000 sf of common space planned in the site. Mr. Perry said he understood that within the subdivision application there could be a fee paid in lieu of common open space; Ms. Fossum said that the 250 sf common outdoor space per unit is a separate requirement under the Multi-Family standards and is above and beyond the subdivision requirement. Mr. Perry said that the private way would function as a private drive to 5 units, owned and maintained by the condominium association and not part of the public way. Ms. Robie said she did not see how it could function
safely and said she had never seen a private way or private drive come before the Board without a turnaround. Mr. Grant said that some of these roads in these projects are not Town roads and they serve the project than if they were Town roads, but the Board has the right to vary the standards, so he would agree with Ms. Robie, particularly the requirement for a turnaround that the Fire Chief may have. Mr. Shiers and Mr. Neily concurred. Mr. Shiers asked about the road being proposed by the applicants as being 22 feet of pavement, and asked if they would consider widening it to 24 feet, not to build it to the base standard of a collector road, but simply to widen it to 24 feet. Mr. Grant commented that a recent critique of the street standards could change some of the standards in the future, that parking on a 22-foot wide street could reduce the travel lane to one lane of traffic, and that he as well would like to see it widened. Ms. Robie suggested
that Cape Cod bituminous curb be used instead of curbing with sharp angles not be used. Mr. Perry said the street has been designed to meet Gorham standards with a vertical bituminous curb within the site, granite curbing where it meets the radii. Mr. Perry asked if the sidewalk could butt up to the street without a grassy esplanade; Ms. Fossum said the sidewalk could be put at the curb line in the esplanade area. Mr. Shiers said he would prefer the esplanade, then the sidewalk; Mr. Neily concurred, saying the esplanade is more attractive. Ms. Robie said she would be willing to sacrifice the width of the esplanade and the sidewalk for more buffering in the back; Mr. Hughes said he would sacrifice an esplanade for a wider street. Mr. Parker agreed as well, saying that as a slow-moving traffic internal street, pedestrian safety would not have to depend on an esplanade. Ms. Fossum answered a query from Mr. Boyce that the street classification is
urban access. Mr. Grant said that an urban access street requirements are two 11-foot travel lanes, with curbing at the edges, and the Board seems to be saying that a wider street is preferred with the esplanade being sacrificed; Ms. Fossum suggested reducing the width of the esplanade. Mr. Boyce read the urban access standards of two 11-foot travel lanes, a 9 foot esplanade and a 5 foot sidewalk, and said it appears that the Board wants to see the travel lanes increased where there is going to be curbing on one side or the other. Mr. Perry said that one side of the road would have curbing with grass graded to a nominal slope to the foundations. The Board concurred that the street should be 24 feet wide. Mr. Shiers said he preferred having the esplanade next to the curb and then the sidewalk. Ms. Fossum said that keeping a sidewalk within a right of way can be difficult and there have been some suggestions made regarding the inclusion of
additional space between the back of the sidewalk and the edge of the right of way line to add to construction flexibility. Ms. Robie said the developer should be given some flexibility in the width of the esplanade, that a 9-foot esplanade in this development is excessive. Mr. Hughes concurred. Mr. Parker suggested that the esplanade be no less than 4 feet. Mr. Shiers asked staff if by widening the road to 24 feet, was the developer being asked to put down the extra base. Mr. Shields replied that the Board does not have to ask for that, it can just ask for 2 more feet of paving. Mr. Grant summarized the Board
Mr. Parker suggested that the public comments be tailored to what has happened tonight, rather than what was happening.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Elaine Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane (formerly 119 South Street) read into the record the letter of March 24, 2003, (attached hereto and made a part hereof) expressing her concerns about neighborhood context and density of the project, the applicants
Margaret Clements, 10 Morrill Ave, read into the record the letter of March 20, 2003, (attached hereto and made a part hereof) expressing the concerns of Morrill Ave and South Street residents about traffic issues.
Tim Higgins, 27 Running Springs Road, discussed the heavy pedestrian traffic traditionally using the area and noted that prospective buyers of the units need to be aware that this traffic will continue.
David Ernest, 107 South Street, said that the development does not fit in with the neighborhood and the multi-family developments referred to by the developer are on the other side of town, and if the pedestrian easement to South Street is developed, there must be a traffic light on South Street to get children across the street.
Lisa Bolduc, 13 Morrill Ave, commented that the developers
Al Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane (formerly 119 South Street), reminded the Board of the document he presented in January outlining possible code and/or ordinance violations by the project. He also commented that construction equipment will necessarily damage trees and other vegetation in the buffer areas.
Mike Chabot, 17 Morrill Ave, commented about traffic and safety concerns.
Michael Lortie, 18 Morrill Ave, stated that the project was too dense to fit into the neighborhood.
Wendy Rudolph, l17 South Street, said the 12-foot pedestrian easement to South Street abutted her property and the drainage is very poor as the right of way is in a swale. She said she is concerned about liability and safety.
Mary Ellen Valentine, 19 Morrill Ave, expressed her concern about the increasing traffic fumes and their impact on health.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
Ms. Fossum said that some of the concerns expressed will be referred to the Town
3. ADJOURNMENT
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Michael Parker SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes [10:10 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
___________________, 2003
R:\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\MINUTES\PBmn03Fy\PBMN032403DFF draft.doc
| |
