 |
Town of Gorham
January 12, 2004
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, Assistant Planner
THOMAS HUGHES BARBARA SKINNER, Secretary to the Board
CLARK NEILY
MICHAEL PARKER
SUSAN ROBIE
RICHARD SHIERS
The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The Secretary called the roll, noting that all members were present.
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JANUARY 5, 2004
Douglas Boyce MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion to postpone approval of the minutes of the January 5, 2004, Planning Board meeting. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [7:03 p.m.].
2. FINAL SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for final approval of a subdivision and site plan for 24 detached single-family condominium units on 15.75 acres with 2 public roads on land of Shepard. Zoned UR; M 27/L1.
Shawn Frank, Sebago Technics, appeared on behalf of the applicants and introduced John Caramihalis and Greg Patterson of Adam Blaikie & Associates. Mr. Frank explained the history of the project and said that certain design changes have been made in association with reviews with staff and the Portland Water District. He said that the applicants are willing to contribute their fair share to the construction of a sidewalk on Libby Avenue and thought that the sidewalk under discussion would be placed on the eastern side of Libby where there currently is an existing sidewalk from Route 25 to the old Kasprzak development at Willow Dale Drive. However, Mr. Frank said he understood that Ms. Fossum had had discussions with MDOT about its proposed reconstruction improvements to Libby Avenue, including the possible cost of some $80,000 for a full curbed section of sidewalk with appropriate drainage from this development to Route 25 on the westerly side of Libby Avenue. Mr. Frank said
that this applicant, while more than willing to pay their fair share, certainly had not anticipated such a high number for the cost.
Mr. Shields gave the staff report, saying that the project has been reviewed under site plan as well as subdivision. He referred the Board to Condition of Approval #7 requiring the applicant to provide letters of approval about the water and sewer designs from the Portland Water District as these letters have not yet been provided to the applicant due to some detail changes which are necessary. Mr. Shields said that the applicants would like some flexibility to locate their various house designs on the site with the inclusion of a Condition of Approval and a plan note as well permitting them to construct no more than 30% of the same unit style. Mr. Shields also said that the site distance question at the intersection of the proposed Shepardthat no landscaping shall be installed within the site line which would impede the site visibility. He said that the Public Works Director has suggested that this area be reserved by easement and that the applicants also be required to add covenants to the association documents restricting this area from future development.
Ms. Fossum addressed the sidewalk issue, saying that in light of the anticipated construction of Libby Avenue by MDOT within the next two years, staff asked MDOT to prepare a sidewalk cost estimate. The estimate prepared by MDOT of $80,000 includes the cost of a 5-foot asphalt sidewalk with bituminous curb adjacent to the paved shoulder, with no esplanade, for a length of approximately 1300 feet, which would extend from Route 25 to about the Toddle Inn. She said that MDOT had calculated this applicantof the paved shoulder to be designed by DOT, gravel, excavation, as well as unspecified storm drainage improvement and tree removal. She said that some years ago, Toddle Inn set aside $2500 as its contribution to sidewalk construction, which is definitely insufficient according to MDOTvoluntarily design their projects with granite curbing, and granite curbing along this relatively short section to Shepard
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED: None offered.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED.
The Board discussed the issue of installing the sidewalk at the cheaper cost described by the applicants before MDOT improves Libby Avenue, and decided that that option is not practical as MDOT would simply remove the sidewalk in its reconstruction work. Inasmuch as the applicants did not want to postpone a vote on final approval, after discussion among the Board members, Mr. Frank and the applicants, Mr. Caramihalis and Mr. Patterson, the Board concurred in requiring that the applicants escrow the amount of $90,000, for a 920 foot sidewalk and granite curbing on the west side of Libby Avenue from Route 25 to Shepardfor 6 years. Ms. Fossum said that when the Town holds money in escrow as a performance guarantee, interest is not calculated. The Chairman asked for concurrence from the Board that the inflation interest should be for 6 years and that the Board wanted granite curbing; the Board concurred on both questions. The Chairman and Ms. Fossum said that if the applicants worked with DOT and arrived at a lower cost to install the sidewalk/granite curbing, they could return for an amendment to the subdivision. Mr. Shields reminded the applicants that they are not responsible for posting the amount immediately. He said that it has to be posted prior to the start of construction, so if they wait two months before construction starts and they can come up with a number in the meantime to come back to the Board with for amendment, they may never have to post that amount at all.
Ms. Fossum read a proposed new Condition of Approval as follows: “That the applicant shall contribute or bond the sum of $90,000 to the Town of Gorham for the purpose of constructing a 920 foot sidewalk with granite curbing along the westerly side of Libby Avenue, between Route 25 and the proposed entrance to Shepardreimbursed on a proportional basis based upon the Town
Michael Parker MOVED and Susan Robie SECONDED a motion to grant final subdivision/site plan approval of Adam Blaikie & Associates, LLC
Stretch Break from 8:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m.
Thomas Hughes MOVED and Clark Neily SECONDED a motion that the Board not waive the ten o
3. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING
Request for preliminary subdivision approval for a 20-unit (10 duplexes) condominium development on 7.5 acres on land of Phinney. Zoned UR; Map 106/Lot 19; Map 25/Lot 6.
Jeff Perry, Sebago Technics, appeared and described the current changes in the proposed plan since the applicantsproposed along one side of Ball Park Road connecting to the Community Center as a solution to the sidewalk issue; the proposed roadway will be a private access drive built to Urban Access standards, with a right of way from the roadway being provided to the abutting property; and the building architecture will be identical, with the exception of colors and some detailing.
Mr. Shields gave the staff comments, reminding the Board that it had postponed preliminary approval of the application on October 6, 2003, until the applicant had addressed certain concerns that had been discussed at that meeting, with the major change being the fact that the number of units have been reduced, and that the project is no longer reviewed under Multi Family Performance Standards. Mr. Shields highlighted the areas that were of primary concern at the October meeting, one of which was stormwater management, noting that the southwest stormwater area has now changed in that the decreased pond is no longer in that section of the property, which will accordingly be retained in its natural state and no facilities will be located there. He said that the Board had also asked the applicant to consider the
cost of underground stormwater management, which has been provided to the Board. Mr. Shields discussed the fact that the northeasterly section of the site is no longer the proposed recreational area that had been required under the Multi Family Standards and will remain in its natural state. Mr. Shields said that the plant species selected by the applicant will by far be the most effective in providing screening. He also commented that the 50 foot right of way that has been restored on the plan to the abutting property.
Ms. Fossum spoke about the sidewalk issue, stating that the developer is proposing to put money into an escrow account for future sidewalk construction. She said that some options had been discussed with the developer, one of those being building a sidewalk along the southerly side of Morrill Avenue between the development and South Street, or, if that is not viable, constructing a sidewalk along Ball Park Road to the Community Center along the edge of Robie Park, thus connecting this development to the Village providing a route to some of the public facilities in the greater Village. She said that the Town Manager preferred that staff handle this issue by having the developer set aside an amount of money which would cover either option, with the preferred route being along Morrill Avenue. Ms. Fossum
said that the Public Works Director advised that the cost of a sidewalk could be anywhere between $40 and $100 per linear foot, depending on drainage, curbing type, tree removal, etc., and that the Public Works Director recommended that the Board require the developer to survey, stake the right of way and develop the construction plans for the project in addition to estimating the actual materials and labor costs. She said that the Public Works Director, the developer and staff should work together to develop realistic cost numbers and review the issues for each sidewalk option.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OPENED:
Elaine Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane, said that the project still has too many units, the buffers are inadequate, the configuration does not work, the building elevations are too high, the marketability of neighboring properties will be adversely impacted, light pollution will be a problem, the project is not harmonious with the neighboring abutters, and the project does not meet performance standards.
Al Liberio, 7 Liberio Lane, said that the neighborhood group has provided the Board in the past with documentation showing that the development is not in conformity, according to the EPA, the stormwater ponds are too large and will provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes, said past soil tests have shown the inability of the soil to handle drainage property, no one from the Town has contacted David Rocque of the State Department of Agriculture to ask him to do additional soil testing as Mr. Liberio asked the Board to do in October. Mr. Liberio said the Board has been provided with the list of well over 100 signatures of people who oppose this development. He also spoke about the traffic on Morrill Avenue.
Peggy Clements, 10 Morrill Avenue, spoke about the volume of traffic on Morrill Avenue, said that this development will aggravate the problem, and recommended that a new traffic study be done.
Lee Cyr, 3 Oakwood Drive, spoke in support of the development, said that the developer has come up with a good plan, and the quality of the units will probably help abutting property values.
Elaine Liberio again addressed the Board, saying that the Board has not looked at the information from the EPA that she has provided, that the detention ponds do not meet EPA standards, would add to a mosquito problem, and would pose a problem of rotting vegetation.
Mike Chabot, 17 Morrill Avenue, spoke of his concerns about traffic and the safety of pedestrians if this project blocks the cut-through used by many young people on their way to and from the high school.
Lisa Bolduc, 7 Sylvan Road (formerly at 13 Morrill Avenue), said that this development will ruin the neighborsPUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDED. [9:28 p.m.]
Mr. Perry responded to the comments from the abutters as follows: (1) in terms of elevation and change in grade, the maximum change in grade would be about 7 feet, with the finished first floor one foot above that; (2) proposed fixtures would be incandescent on the buildings themselves, typically 60 or 100 watt bulbs, but they can investigate shielding some of the fixtures if that is necessary; (3) the neighbors should consider that the detention ponds were designed by professional engineers; (4) he appreciates the neighborsinstance, the DEP and the Army Corps of Engineers review their plans, never once has a ten-acre criteria been imposed for a detention pond and a detention pond can be done on a one acre site; (6) as far as the grading is concerned, they are obligated to hold the flow of stormwater and manage it before it can leave this property, which is not the current situation today. Mr. Perry said while he appreciates the neighbors
Mr. Shiers said he preferred this submission, that the developer has improved the plan, that he has never voted against a project because of traffic and he will not vote against this one because of traffic. Mr. Shiers said he has recently heard that Morrill Avenue may be a 3-rod road instead of a 2-rod road, which might mean that a sidewalk can be installed after all on the south side, which he would like the developer to investigate. Mr. Perry said he would investigate that possibility.
Ms. Robie said that she would like to see certain actions occur before final approval, which include: (1) an engineered sidewalk from the development to South and an accurate cost as part of the plan; (2) however many speed tables on Morrill Avenue it takes to regulate traffic engineered and costed; (3) an evaluation of the carrying capacity of the soil versus the number of units being proposed, conducted by some state authority that is independent and unbiased; (4) the fact that the ten buildings will be architecturally identical differing only in color is not acceptable, they need to be significantly different in the environment; and (5) the issue of abutters who potentially could be affected by drainage and cellar flooding from the development that is 5 to 7 feet above the surrounding area needs to be addressed
so that the neighbors have some recourse in the future in the developer
Mr. Hughes said that the six reasons he had why he would not have voted for this project have been addressed with the exception of the Multi Family Standards, which is no longer an issue. Mr. Hughes said that whatever the developer does about the drainage should improve the situation as it is now. Mr. Hughes said he agreed with Mr. Shiers and would not vote against a project because of traffic, but he is still concerned about safety with children walking down Morrill Avenue. Mr. Neily said he shared Ms. Robie
Mr. Grant commented that he did not believe the Board has the authority to require the developer to put in speed tables, and suggested that the developer work with the Planning Staff. Mr. Grant told the developer that with the changes that have been made, Mr. Grant said he would probably vote for the project, and commented that the one remaining issue is the Morrill Avenue sidewalk. Mr. Grant also said he was aware that Morrill Avenue might be a 3 rod road, and that he concurred with the Public Works Directorfor approval, now that the Multi Family Standards are no longer applicable. Mr. Boyce said he agreed that the project will have numerous impacts, but that most of those impacts can be engineered so as to render them less significant. Mr. Boyce commented that by elevating the land, he believes the developer has given himself an option of controlling storm water. Mr. Boyce also said that he concurs with the concept of a sidewalk on Morrill Avenue and would like to see an engineered sidewalk solution investigated and presented. Mr. Shiers confirmed with Mr. Perry his understanding that the detention ponds will essentially be mowed depressions and will serve as temporary holding areas for no longer than 24 hours maximum.
Mr. Grant said he concurred with Ms. Robie about the design of the buildings being the same, and suggested that the applicants make some revisions to the plans. Mr. Perry said there will be different architectural designs. Mr. Grant said he believed there is no major issue other than the sidewalks that the applicant cannot address, and if they can come back with a sidewalk design that will work without easements, preliminary and final might be granted at the same meeting. Mr. Shiers asked if the applicants would do a sidewalk feasibility study for Ball Park Road in the event Morrill Avenue is not wide enough. Mr. Grant said that the priority would be 1) Morrill Avenue, south side, 2) Morrill Avenue, north avenue; and 3) Ball Park Road. The Board concurred with the 3 options. Mr. Grant
told the applicants that he believes the Board should be shown why the sidewalk will not work on Morrill Avenue if that turns out to be the case. Michael Parker said that he is concerned about the height of the buildings at the rear elevation, that he believes the water drainage will be improved, that he is not happy about the concentration of this development, but does not believe he can stand in the way.
Mr. Parker asked if the Board has any authority to impose restrictions on how much additional traffic can be inserted on Morrill Avenue from this development. Ms. Fossum said the Board has to make that judgment. Mr. Shields said that under the Site Plan review requirements a decision has to be made whether the roads serving the neighborhood have the capacity to serve this development as well. Ms. Fossum added that the Town Council
The Board discussed at length if it has the authority to require the applicants to install speed tables and/or traffic counting devices. Mr. Hughes said he did not believe it is the responsibility of the developer to solve the traffic problems on Morrill Avenue and that it is unfair to impose such a burden on the developer. The Chairmancriteria mentioned here tonight is met. Mr. Neily concurred. Mr. Shields asked what the Board wanted to do if all else fails and the sidewalk cannot be installed on Morrill Avenue, did the Board want the applicant to come back for another meeting prior to engineering the sidewalk on Ball Park Road. Mr. Grant said he would be satisfied if he were to see an engineered drawing, with the edge of pavement and right of way staked out on Morrill Avenue if they cannot put the sidewalk in, so that he could understand what the hurdles are in not being able to install the sidewalk. Mr. Boyce said that would be an appropriate use for peer review; Mr. Grant concurred. Ms. Fossum said that if the sidewalk can be installed on the south side of Morrill Avenue, there is a good chance that preliminary and final approval might be granted in one meeting, but if it is not easily done within the south side, it would appear that they would have to come back for another
discussion prior to preliminary approval. Mr. Grant said he wanted to see why if the peer review also says the sidewalk will not work on Morrill Avenue.
Clark Neily MOVED and Douglas Boyce SECONDED a motion to postpone preliminary approval on this project until the developer returns with the proposed sidewalk alternative. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [10:15 p.m.]
4. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Request for preliminary subdivision approval for an 8-lot residential development on 24 acres. Zoned R/MH; M11/L1
NOT HEARD
5. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - “SPRINGBROOK FARM” Request for preliminary subdivision approval for a 17-lot residential cluster subdivision [16 new house lots and 1 existing single family] and 1,500-foot road on 59 +/- acres on land of Mason. The project is located within the Public Water Supply Source Water Protection Area for “Dingley Spring Estates”. Zoned R / Manufactured Housing - Shoreland Zoning; Map 81/Lot 29.
NOT HEARD
6. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discussion of a proposed 43-lot residential subdivision on 92.10 acres off Harding Bridge Road. Zoned R / Shoreland Zoning - Resource Protected; Map 50/ Lot 6.
NOT HEARD
7. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discussion of a proposed 455
NOT HEARD
8. APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discussion of a proposed 500
NOT HEARD
9. APPLICATION CONFERENCE Discussion of a proposed 24-lot residential subdivision on 58.44 acres. (Phase I, currently under construction, included 14 lots). Zoned R; M45/L23 & M47/L39
NOT HEARD
10. ADJOURNMENT
Clark Neily MOVED and Richard Shiers SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion CARRIED, 7 ayes. [10:27 p.m.]
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Barbara C. Skinner
Secretary to the Board
___________________________, 2004
P:\TOWN\PLAN\PLBD\AGENDAS\Minutes\PBMN04FY\PBMN011204.doc
2. FINAL SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN
Conditions of Approval
1. That this approval is dependent upon, and limited to, the proposals and plans contained in this application and supporting documents submitted and affirmed by the applicant and that any variation from the plans, proposals and supporting documents is subject to review and approval by the Planning Board, except for de minimis changes which the Director of Planning may approve;
2. That the applicant is responsible for obtaining all local, state and federal permits required for the development of this project prior to the commencement of any site improvements;
3. That prior to the commencement of any site improvements and/or earth-moving activities associated within the approved subdivision, the applicant shall arrange pre-construction meetings with the selected Review Engineer, Public Works Director, Fire Chief, Code Enforcement Officer and the Planning Director to review the proposed schedule of improvements, conditions of approval, and site construction requirements;
4. That the hydrant locations shall be determined by the Fire Chief at the time of installation. The cost of the hydrants and their installation shall be the developer
5. That the buildings shall meet all applicable sections of the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code.
6. That the applicant shall be responsible for the cost and installation of all required street signs to be placed in locations approved by the Fire Chief and Police Chief;
7. That the applicant provide letters of approval regarding the sewer and water designs from the Portland Water District prior to commencement of construction;
8. That no one single type of unit shall exceed 30% of the total number of units constructed within the development;
9. That the applicant shall provide property line information and site information in auto-cad format to the Town of Gorham Tax Assessor prior to the pre-construction meeting with staff;
10. That the developer shall provide a defect guarantee, which may be in the form of a bond, letter of credit or escrow account with the Town or a responsible financial institution, for all plant materials required to be installed under this plan within the proposed town roadways.~ Said defect guarantee shall remain in effect for three years after the installation of the plant materials;
11. That the legal documents shall be revised to satisfy any final review comments of the Town Attorney, prior to the release of the Final Plan Mylar;
12. That the applicant
13. That the applicant shall contribute or bond the sum of $90,000 to the Town of Gorham for the purpose of constructing a 920 foot sidewalk with granite curbing along the westerly side of Libby Avenue, between Route 25 and the proposed entrance to ShepardTown
14. That these conditions of approval and the Final Plans shall be recorded at the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds within thirty (30) days of the Planning Board
| |
