|
Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
{00030026-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} CITY OF placeCityGARDINER
PLANNING BOARD
Gardiner Planning Board February 13, 2007
placeCityCity of Gardiner, StateMaine Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Present: Pat Hart Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis
Edward Lawrence Pamela Mitchel Ian Burnes
Absent: James Montell
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
David Cichowski, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)
Jason Simcock, Director Planning & Development
Terry Turner
1.) Chair, Pat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:10.
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) January 9, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Pam Mitchel made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. 1 abstained (Pat Hart – was not at meeting). Motion passed.
Chair Hart went over the agenda items for tonight and what we’ve done so far on the subdivision. She asked if any member needed to abstain from participating in this application. Ed Lawrence recused himself as he is the Agent for the Applicant.
4.) Subdivision – Final Plan Approval
Valerian Bolduc, II, Applicant, having Power of Attorney for Debra Stone, Owner, is seeking Final Plan Approval for a 5-Lot Subdivision with Common Open Space named Stonie Acres. The property, located on Costello Rd, is within the Rural (R) Zoning District, City Tax Map 10, placeLot 12B.
Ed Lawrence noted the changes that have been made since the Preliminary Plan approval. The Applicant has changed the name of the road to Christine’s Way from Christina’s Way; decreased the lot size for lots 1, 3 & 5 and added area between lot 5 and the Costello Rd in the open space, which eliminates any access that lot 5 had to Costello Rd.; added a note that lots 2, 3, 4, & 5 must access through Christine’s Way only. Ed also provided copies of the Final Plan, a statement of financial capacity, the Road Maintenance & Improvement & Common Open Space Maintenance Association agreement and a letter from Public Works.
The Board discussed the statement of financial capacity, which was a bank statement. Ed suggested that in the future, it would be best to get a letter from the bank and ensure that monies are earmarked for the project.
Pam Mitchel noted that the letter from Public Works asked for a 12” culvert. Ed noted that on the Road Profile, he has shown that they plan to put in an 18” culvert.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 1 of Section 8. E. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 2. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 3. has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 4. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 5. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 6. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 7. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
PersonNamePam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 8. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 9. does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 10. has been met with the note that the Board previously decided that they wanted 1 Mylar copy and didn’t want multiple copies of the plan. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 11. has been met. Pam Mitchel withdrew her motion.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 8. E. 11. does not apply at this stage of the process. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard 1 of Section 8. E. 12. does not apply at this time. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we approve this subdivision. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart asked if any Board member needs to abstain from participating in the next application. PersonNamePam Mitchel said that she is an abutter. She wishes to recuse herself as she feels it would be a conflict of interest and she doesn’t feel in good conscience that she can sit on the Board.
5.) The City of CityplaceGardiner is conducting a public Hearing to discuss a proposed, new zoning district called the Cobbossee Corridor District. The proposed new zone will include certain parcels along the Cobbossee Stream from the intersection of Summer and Bridge Streets to the intersection of addressStreetAndrews Street and Route 126. The City is proposing the District to implement mixed-use redevelopment goals established in the Cobbossee Corridor Master Plan.
Chair Hart read the proposal, explained the process and reviewed what has been done so far in this process. They’ve held a public hearing, looked at the proposed zone change, changes to the Ordinance, Use Table and Map. At this point we have to review the text changes. She said the goal is to recommend this to the City Council or not or to table it.
Chair Hart introduced Jason Simcock, the Director of Planning and Development who is the Agent for the City and presenting this proposal.
Jason said that if we run into something that changes the text considerably, we would need to have another public hearing. Chair Hart polled the Board members and they felt that nothing so far rises to the level of another public hearing.
Jason said that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will get all of the edits and if they come back with something quite different, we may want to re-visit it. We’ve already had conversations with DEP, but they could make changes. Chair Hart asked about DEP’s timeframe. Jason said they told him that they could turn it around in about a week.
Judy Dorsey brought up the issue of flat roofs and whether or not if the place burned down, we would allow the owner to rebuild a flat roof or not and whether that would be a sticking point for the owners in that zone. Jason said he would talk with the owners.
PersonNameIan Burnes, who is on the Cobbossee Corridor Committee, said that when the Committee was discussing this issue, it was determined that it was more critical that the roof fits in with the environment around it.
Chair Hart said that as the Ordinance Review Committee looks at the whole Ordinance, probably it needs to look at this issue City-wide rather than make changes in pockets. The current Ordinance says that if it burns down, the owner would not be able to rebuild a flat roof.
Judy said that the owners are getting benefits from this. Some would be able to build where ordinarily they couldn’t and also to have less parking.
Ian said that there are a lot of funky buildings in there. He doesn’t see it as a make or break situation. Some places wouldn’t look good with a pitched roof. He agrees to look at it in the context of the whole City. He described other areas such as placeCityBrunswick where a lot of flexibility had to be put in to redevelop an area. He said that the Committee wanted to build in as much flexibility as possible.
Ed Lawrence said that if some of the buildings had to be rebuilt with a pitched roof, the building would be over 40 feet. It would be too tall, you’d lose the view. Judy said a one story flat roof is ugly, but a larger, 2-3 story building would not be bad.
Jason will bring this issue back to the Committee –to take it out for now while they develop overall design standards for the whole City.
Judy suggested that they re-word it to say, except where necessary to maintain view. Ed asked about Green Roof technology – you can’t use it with a pitched roof. Jason said we
could allow some new construction with a flat roof, but they would have to utilize the Green Roof technology.
The Board continued through the text change document.
Section 3. P. 13. d. Would be just a suggestion, to give the Board some negotiating power.
Section e. P. 13. e. Remove the exception.
Section 3. S. Reverse 2 & 3.
The Board discussed parking in Section 3. S and the fact that the Ordinance already allows fewer parking spaces at the Board of Appeals level.
Chair Hart suggested that they move this paragraph under #2. and in 2., put a period after Downtown Area as defined.
They discussed the setbacks in the Resource Protection and Shoreland Zones and in this new, proposed Zone. They also discussed the exceptions to parking as noted in Section 3 AA. 1. d. & e. and whether the notes need to be added as they have already said they can be loosened up. Ian said that in the Downtown District, you do not need to have 2 parking spaces for each.
Section 3. f. Two-Family is changed to Multi-Family
Section 3. DD. A. second line – remove the word industrial.
Page 12. Judy asked that G. and the title be put after the section, so we know what section this page is in.
Judy questioned the new language added at the bottom of page 12, Section 4. G. 4. f. – that she is not sure what purpose it is as it is already covered in the Ordinance. It only applies if you’re talking about rebuilding. The second sentence makes her think that maybe it’s needed. It should be taken out. It’s already in the Ordinance. They asked Jason to talk with Mitch to see why he put this in.
The Board looked at Section 4. H. 3. c. and decided to take out the strikeover of Shoreland Overlay District. They would also add the same language to d and cross out the 2nd e. which is a duplicate.
Judy said that if something burns down, why shouldn’t it be moved back? Ian said, as an example, the Gardiner Paperboard the foundation makes up part of the riverbank, you wouldn’t be able to do it – you would have to rebuild the whole stream – the wall goes right up to the water. Judy suggested that there be a timeframe such as five years. Chair Hart said that in the cases of Ridgewood, Prescotts, the Water District and the Mill, they are right on the water and have no real place to move back to. Jason said that we are not singling out any one property to benefit anyone specifically, there’s benefit for all. Chair Hart said there are quite a few properties to which this would apply, but she does agree with Judy to bind this to a timeframe such as five
years.
Section 4. H. 3. e. added 5 years.
The Board reviewed text changes in Section 5. Site Plan Review.
Section 5. A. 2. include single family.
Section 6. Shoreland Zoning.
G. paragraph 3, 2nd line – remove “the” after set forth for and add Section 6. H. to text for Council purposes.
G. 21. – cross out “at” in second line.
Chair Hart asked the Board if they thought any of the changes were significant enough to cause a second public hearing. They said no.
Terry Turner, from the audience, asked why they had changed the Ordinance so that a single family dwelling would also require Planning Board approval. PersonNameIan Burnes said that they looked at all land uses already going on in this area and thought that the Planning Board review would be more in-depth, especially in the Resource Protection area.
Terry Turner asked if a single family use is a permitted use, what is accomplished by requiring Planning Board review.
Chair Hart said that the property might go through a planned path. Judy said that currently they can’t build in the Resource Protection District. They should go to the Planning Board. They would be able to negotiate in a case like this.
Jason said that the City was not planning to construct single family dwellings in the property it owns, but there are some areas where a single family dwelling could be built and it’s not in the Resource Protection area.
The Board looked at the additional requirements and hardship, if any; an applicant would face by having to go to the Planning Board for approval. They discussed that they have, in the past, waived a survey and accepted a hand drawn plan. They looked at the Ordinance – Utilization of site, building placement requirements, etc. Ian said it might push the project back 1 or 2 months. Debby said that she doesn’t think that it would be a detriment to the owners. It could be explained in a nice way and in some cases, it would be an advantage by having overall review by just one board.
Terry Turner asked what leverage the Planning Board has if he meets the setbacks. Chair Hart said the Performance Standards. We would be able to negotiate with the owner if they came before the Board. Terry Turner said if it’s a multi-family the Board would probably be dealing with a developer, whereas with a single-family dwelling, probably not.
Chair Hart asked the Board if they felt they needed another public hearing before the vote. They said no.
Judy Dorsey moved to make the recommendation to the City Council that it adopt the Cobbossee Corridor District Zone Table and language changes with the amendments agreed to by the Planning Board. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Jason thanked everyone.
Ian asked that the Planning Board receive notice when this is heard by the City Council. Jason said the next Council meeting is scheduled for February 28th. (Note: It will not be heard on Feb 28th)
6.) ADJOURN
Deborah Willis made a motion to adjourn. Ed Lawrence seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 8:53 PM
| 
