6 Church Street, Gardiner, Maine 04345 Pat Hart, Chairperson
Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
{00030026-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} CITY OF GARDINER
PLANNING BOARD
Gardiner Planning Board August 12 & 14, 2008
City of Gardiner, Maine Regular Meeting 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL - August 12, 2008
Present: Pat Hart Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis
Pamela Mitchel Edward Lawrence
Absent: Ian Burnes James Montell
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
David Cichowski, CEO
William Najpauer, Planner contracted by the City of Gardiner as advisor to the Planning Board
Nick Beaulieu Bridget Condon Ronald Condon Marcus Guilmette Stanley Guilmette Dana Purington Penny Anne Purington Sonya Everett Nancy Sparrow Eugene Thayer Rebecca Thayer Suzanne Bisson
Steve Martin Peggy St. Pierre Lou Parent
Harold Warren Christopher Lawrence Heather French
Wentworth Goodwin Kay Goodwin Jen Moody
Denise Dutton William Guilmette Ruth Guilmette
1.) Call the Meeting to order.
Chair, Pat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:04 PM and welcomed everyone.
2.) Roll call taken.
3.) July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes and July 28, 2008 Site Walk Minutes.
Pamela Mitchel made a motion that we accept the July 8, 2008 Meeting Minutes as amended (Page 3, 6th par. - the word “said” left out following Najpauer). Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Judy Dorsey made a motion that we accept the July 28, 2008 Site Walk Meeting Minutes as written. Deborah Willis seconded the motion.
Vote: 3 in favor. 0 opposed. 2 abstained (Pam Mitchel and Ed Lawrence were not at the Site Walk) Motion passed.
Chair Hart went over the schedule for this meeting.
4.) PUBLIC HEARING – Subdivision/Minor Site Plan Review
Nicholas J. Beaulieu, Applicant, is seeking approval of a 5-lot Subdivision and Minor Site Plan approval to develop a 10-lot RV/Campground named Colonial Heritage Resorts RV Park. The property, located on Longwood Dr, is within the Residential Growth/Shoreland (RG/SL) Zoning Districts, City Tax Map 16 Lot 7.
Chair Hart recapped the history of this application. She said that they had held a workshop over the winter, had received applications, held a public hearing, went through the preliminary subdivision review and tabled it, went through the Performance standards to know which ones apply, asked for additional information and have received some of it.
Chair Hart asked if any of the Board members felt that they could not hear this Application in an unbiased or impartial manner.
6:08 PM Ed Lawrence recused himself as he has done contract work for this Applicant.
Chair Hart noted that all of the remaining Board members have attended all of the meetings on this Application.
Chair Hart asked the Applicant, Nick Beaulieu if he had any additional information to provide.
Nick Beaulieu introduced himself and went over the two documents that he submitted to the Board at the meeting.
The first one concerns the access way. He said this document clarifies that he does have proper access. The second document is the new stormwater drainage plan. Additional materials that he submitted are a letter from his attorney concerning the common lot, water access and his rights to give others access; the weights of Class C Motor homes; copies of the deeds to the properties that he sold in the original subdivision; a letter from David McCullum, Attorney, indicating that as the developer, he has the right to amend the deeds and take on the responsibility for the common lot and access ways beyond Longwood Dr.
Nick asked to first clarify where the Board is coming from on the roads. He said that it would be hard to do this project in an economically feasible manner if the Planning Board determines that the roads have to be 18’ wide.
Bill Najpauer said that the first thing the Planning Board needs to do is to go through the Performance Standards relevant to this property and the Site Plan review. If the road is a critical issue, they could go right to it first.
Chair Hart asked Dorothy and David if they had received any comments orally or in writing on this application. They said no.
The Planning Board members reviewed the memo received from Bill. They looked at the section on Planned Residential Development. Bill noted that the land dedicated to the common space met the requirements. Judy asked if it was a tradeoff for condensing the lots. Bill said that the lots are required to be a minimum of 20,000 S.F. by the State and the balance of the land in common space. Bill recommended that the Applicant indicate on the final plan, the provision that reserves land for open space in the Ordinance. He also noted that there is some flexibility in the Ordinance to reduce the width of the roads.
Nick said that he wants to try to integrate the Site Plan, Residential Development and Subdivision standards. He said that Performance Standard 8A allows a reduction in the road width as long as it doesn’t create an unsafe roadway. He referenced the definition of “dwelling Units”. He said it doesn’t include recreational units. He’s proposing a single land road and that’s why he feels he can go with 12’ roads.
Chair Hart asked how wide the RVs are. David said most are 7 – 8’ wide. If they are wider, they would have to get a wide load permit.
Chair Hart asked Nick if he was proposing 12’ 1-one way roads because the definition that included dwelling units, excluded RVs. Nick said that is his angle. That is the data he is using and in addition, recognizing that a subdivision road standard is 18’ for 2-way - he is proposing 12’ for his 1-way.
Mr. Condon asked if using the definitions, how can a commercial entity be qualified as a residential – this standard says residential and it uses the term dwellings as the applicable standard for this and this is a commercial venture and not a residential area. If he looks at the definition, this campground doesn’t meet the criteria of residential. Chair Hart said that this will be an important part of their discussion.
Bill Najpauer said that in the subdivision standards, it doesn’t have an allowance for 1-way roads. Some ordinances do allow it in particular circumstances, but one way roads often become two way roads over time. The minimum is 18’ for a private road which this proposal would come under. If we accept Nick’s definition, the width of the road could go down to a surface area of 16’, but not to 12’. Bill’s interpretation of the Ordinance is that the Planning Board can reduce the surface area to 16’ when it can be shown that the reduction doesn’t create an unsafe situation, but no narrower than 16’.
Chair Hart said that the Board has at least two questions that they will need to work through. One is being clear about this particular Performance Standard called Planned Residential Development. They did work though it a little in the subdivision preliminary review and they have those notes about their discussion on that. She said it would be helpful as they start to have the Board affirm the standard that they want to apply. The second question is the use of the term dwelling unit and excluding RVs from that. They need to work through the process on this and then vote on it. She asked if there were any other things that they need to consider. No one listed any.
Judy said that one of the things that continues to be confusing is that we’re looking at a subdivision of 5 lots. It has to be treated as a subdivision, but it’s not going to have any dwelling units and it’s commercial. You’ve got put it in some category. Her question is, if we’re not going to call these lots, at least the four lots in the subdivision part of it, what are they if they are not dwelling units and what standards are we supposed to be using. We can’t just say, in this part we’re treating it as this and in this part of the ordinance we’re going to treat it as this and in this part of the Ordinance we’re going to treat it as a third thing – we’ve got to make up our minds and stick to it.
Bill said that not all subdivisions contain dwelling units. There are campgrounds that are approved as subdivisions because each lot owner bought rights to the land or the lots are given to a particular person in that campground so it has to be considered a subdivision. Some will place permanent structures on them and many of them will be tenting sites or RV sites, but will still be considered a subdivision. A campground is certainly considered a commercial operation because people are operating it for a profit, but it’s probably closer to what we would call a recreational/residential operation as opposed to being a grocery store, etc. The Ordinance doesn’t have a separate category like that. Another thing to keep in mind when you’re looking at these
developments, long term, they could evolve over time and could, conceivably evolve into permanent structures at some point in the future so it has to be viewed in that way.
Judy said if we’re not considering these to be dwelling units, than why are we even in Performance Standard U? None of these standards apply if we use the Applicant’s logic that these are not dwelling units. Chair Hart said that they’re either dwelling units or they’re not – you can’t have it both ways. Bill said that the definition for a dwelling unit excludes RVs. The Planned Residential Development standard doesn’t limit its use. Someone could come in and use this provision for an office park or something like that. As written, it could be used for just about anything – it’s just a title - the title has gone back and forth over time and doesn’t preclude non-residential. Chair Hart said that the problem she
has with it is that this section doesn’t, even once, reference non-residential. Bill said it was written in a generic manner. Judy asked, is it possible if this business of saying the definition doesn’t apply to RVs means if you have a subdivision, and you decide to plop an RV in there instead of an actual house, that it doesn’t apply? But that’s not what we’ve got here. If that intended to exclude campgrounds, it should say that. Maybe the exclusion is for some totally different purpose. Bill said he can’t speak as to why they used the term dwelling units, it is easier to count dwelling units Vs talking about other types of square footage delineations. He thinks they just defaulted to the term dwelling units because if they really wanted to spell this out, they would say, roads would serve a maximum of 10 dwellings or X amounts of square footage, etc. There is a lot to this section, but it certainly has
some gaps in it. Chair Hart said that we can say this section applies because it talks about clusters, etc. and it doesn’t exclude a commercial development, but when they get to the roads, the road only gives you the reduction if it is a residential development. If we call it residential, we can’t say they are not dwelling units. He can’t have it both ways. It doesn’t work. Judy said that Nick has to make a choice here. Debbie said she agrees – you have to make a choice - not bounce back and forth. Pam referenced the section where it says that a developer may reduce road standards in a residential development when it can be shown that the reduction will not cause an unsafe or hazardous condition. She said that she has no idea if a 12’ road would be unsafe or not.
Nick said that one of the things that he has tried to clarify is a residential road and nowhere in the definitions does it clarify that.
Judy asked who makes that decision whether these are dwelling units or not? Bill said that if you had to err on one side or another or are looking long term, you would stay with the 18’ – it was put in the subdivision standards for a reason. On the flip side, because of the location on the water, if you wanted to find a way to reduce the impervious surface - reducing the travel way 2’ is probably not going to make that much difference in terms of impairing the ability of 2 vehicles to pass as long as there is a shoulder area. There’s a balance here, certainly some reasons to reduce it to 16’ on roads with low volume counts. Chair Hart noted that this property has a history – some time ago a campground was put in and then a
subdivision was added. If we approve this and sometime later it ceases to be a campground, then what are we left with – are we left with something that could be used for residential houses – will the roads be adequate? Bill said that if someone wanted to make permanent lots there, they would have to come back to the Planning Board. Judy said that what makes her lean toward 18’ rather than 16’. Currently you have a maximum of 10 lots if you only count the subdivision, but the real traffic will be from the rest of this and that’s a total of 15. She has problems in trying to wiggle their way into 16’.
Nick said if he has to go to a 16’ or 18’ minimum, he’ll have to condense things down, because this has to be economically feasible for him. He might have to terminate Moonlight Dr and put 2 lanes down Longwood Extension. The people who have cottages down there and currently use Moonlight Dr would have to travel across the new section of road that he would put in. That would allow him to fall under just Site Plan Review, which would allow him to get their roads down to 12’, the width that he wants, once they got to the end of the 2 lane section. He would condense some of the campsites and draw them back into the Boardwalk section. Chair Hart asked him why he thought he was only in Site Plan Review as he has subdivision lots proposed and a road
so we would need to consider all of it. Nick said that he would not be leasing or selling lots – it would be strictly a campground – he would change the plan completely. Chair Hart said that if he does that – it would have to be 18’ because you have a lot of people driving down that road – residents and non-residents.
Chair Hart asked the Board what they wanted to do – they have the proposal, they’ve had a discussion, they have the specific proposal that the Applicant gave them tonight and what he might do if he comes back. He’s clarified that this plan that he provided to them does show the roads as 12’ in width.
Pam Mitchel suggested that we table it. Debbie Willis said that she thinks the Applicant wants them to make a finding regarding the width of the road – what we intend to apply. For the record, we should say how we got there and what are consensus is and why. That will give direction to the Applicant. She said she feels they are pretty much in agreement that it is not 12’. The Applicant is saying he will have to go back to the drawing board if it is not 12’. Would we want to go down from 18’ to 16’ and why. Pam said she thinks they want to leave it at 18’ because of the traffic that would be on that road. Even if there are going to be 15 sites on there, it needs to be 18’. Judy Dorsey said that she agrees.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that their intent is to apply the 18’ road width standard to the roads based on the amount of perceived traffic that would be in this subdivision and the abutters who use this road. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart noted that the Applicant has said that if this is our decision, he wants to withdraw his Application. Nick said he would like to table it for while. Pam said if he is not going to lease or sell the 4 lots; it won’t be a subdivision any more. It is an entirely new application. Chair Hart suggested that we table this Application until the Applicant decides what he wants to do. Bill said if he decides to withdraw the Application, he would ask that he put it in writing as there has been no decision on this Application. Nick agreed to do that.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that they table this Application with the note that if Mr. Beaulieu decides to withdraw the Application, he will submit a note in writing to the CEO. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Nick said that there were other things that were pending from the last meeting and asked if they could work through those to try to make the process smoother when he comes back to the next meeting. Chair Hart said there are other Applicants waiting to be heard tonight and they’ve spent a number of meetings on this Application. She feels that they should look at whatever he presents at the next meeting. The other agreed.
Debbie asked if they could amend the motion to include, “to the September meeting.” Judy said that would be fine as long as they don’t get the new Application just before the meeting. They others agreed. The motion was amended and seconded to add, “to the September meeting.”
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart suggested that any of the people here for the Beaulieu application stay in touch with the CEO Office so they don’t come here in September and there is no application.
Mrs. Condon asked if there was any limit as to the number of times an Applicant could change their Application and come before the Planning Board. Chair Hart said no.
Mr. Condon said that in the discussion of the road width, the Planned Residential Development standards were discussed. He did not hear any decision on that. Chair Hart said none was made. Mr. Condon said it would make a difference in the road standards and if a commercial venture, the roads would go to the commercial standards of 30’. Chair Hart said that they will take that into consideration.
7:01 PM Break
7:04 PM Resume Meeting
5.) Public Hearing – Minor Site Plan Review
Dana and Anne Purington, Applicants are seeking Minor Site Plan approval to conduct the following: School for professional groomers; dog daycare; small retail; cat boarding; professional grooming services; children’s activities (story time and training of animals) and pick up and delivery of dogs, cats and exotic animals. The property, located at 175 Capen Rd, is within the Rural (R) Zoning District, City Tax Map 17, Lot 27-A.
Chair Hart asked if any member of the Board could not hear this Application in an unbiased or impartial manner. Deborah Willis asked to be excused.
7:06 PM Deborah left the Board and Ed Lawrence returned to the Board.
Bill Najpauer said that he has done a completeness review but did not do a formal review of the Application.
Chair Hart had the Applicants introduce themselves and give an overview of their proposal.
Anne (Penny) Purington said that she is planning to run a school for professional groomers and also do animal grooming. She will have a small amount of retail. She has decided not to include cat boarding and she clarified exotic animals as grooming, pick and delivery of guinea pigs, rabbits, ferrets and iguanas, etc. She will not keep any animals overnight. The grooming school will be for 6 – 8 students. It is a 350 hour course. They will use dogs from the Kennebec Valley Humane Society. The dog owners will drop off and pick up the dogs for the doggie day care. The dogs will be supervised all of the time. Staff will work with the animals and give them plenty of exercise. The retail
will be a small amount of grooming items and dog treats, etc. The children’s activities will be held in the garage. It will be a story time once a week for children on how to care for their dogs.
The Board reviewed the Application for completeness. It was determined that waivers would be needed for 5.H.5.b, i, k, q, & r.
Judy Dorsey made a motion that they grant waivers for the following: 5. H. 5. b, i, k, q, & r. Pam Mitchel seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7:28 PM Chair Hart opened the meeting for public hearing. She asked if the CEO office had received any calls or correspondence. Dorothy and David said no.
7:28 PM Closed public hearing.
David noted that a gentleman did come in, concerned about dogs barking.
The Planning Board went over the Performance Standards in Section 3 of the Land Use Ordinance to determine which ones apply.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the following Performance Standards do apply: A, C, D, F, J, L, O, P, S & Y. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
A. General Standards
Pam Mitchel made a motion that this Application meets Standard A. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
C. Access Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard C has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
D. Animal Husbandry
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard D does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
F. Buffer Areas
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard F has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
J. Kennels
The Board members asked the Applicant what the yard area would be made of. The Applicant said the area will be surrounded by a 6’ fence with a ground cover of small rocks/gravel and a tree canopy She will clean up the dog poop and put it in the dumpster. Bill said that the concept of a doggie day care and grooming was not intended for this Standard.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application meets the intent of Standard J. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
L. Lighting
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard L has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
O. Noise
Chair Hart asked the Applicant about the concerns of dogs barking all day. The Applicant said that someone will be with them all of the time and she won’t let that happen.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard O has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
P. Non-Residential Development
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard P has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
S. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard S has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Y. Signs
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard Y has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Chair Hart noted that the Applicant needs to check with the CEO to get a sign permit.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board members went over Section 5. Q., Site Plan Review of the Land Use Ordinance. They skipped 1 & 2 to the end.
3. Utilization of the Site
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 3 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
4. Traffic Access
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 4 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
5. Pedestrian Access
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 5 does not apply. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
6. Buildings
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the existing building meets Review Criteria 6 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7. Storage of Materials
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 7 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
8. Stormwater Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 8 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
9. Erosion Control
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 9 as written by the Applicant and it is not applicable. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
10. Water Supply
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 10 has been met with the condition that the Puringtons install a testable back flow preventer similar to what a hair dresser would be required to install. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
11. Sewage Disposal
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 11 with the understanding that the rest room is not going to be part of this Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
12. Utilities
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 12 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
13. Natural Features
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 13 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
14. Groundwater Protection
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 14 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
15. Water Quality Protection
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 15 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
16. Hazardous, Special and Radioactive Materials
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 16 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
17. Shoreland Relationship
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Review Criteria 17 has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
18. Capacity of the Applicant
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 18 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
19. Solid Waste Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 19 as written by the Applicant. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
20. Historic and Archaeological Resources
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 20 as written by the Applicant. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
21. Floodplain Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 21 as written by the Applicant. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
1. General
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application for development adequately meets all of the appropriate Performance Standards and all of the Review Criteria. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
2. Compliance with City Ordinances and Codes
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the proposed use and design meets all of the provisions of all applicable regulations and ordinances of the City, and meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we approve this Application with the conditions that the Puringtons install a testable backflow preventer similar to what a hair dresser would be required to install. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
8:10 PM Break
8:20 PM Resume meeting. Deborah Willis rejoined the Board.
New Business:
6.) Public Hearing – Minor Site Plan Review
Christopher Lawrence, Applicant is seeking Minor Site Plan approval to operate a Service Business (Cheerleading Training Center). The property, located at 1 Marks Lane, is within the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District, City Tax Map 16, Lot 5.
Chair Hart asked if any of the Board members could not hear this Application in an unbiased or impartial manner. All said no.
Chair Hart asked the Applicant to introduce himself and give an overview of his proposal.
Christopher Lawrence said that he looking at renting this space to operate cheerleading practices out of. The practices would be after school. The competitions will be held elsewhere. The building is all open space except for a small office area. They will use one half of the building. The remainder of the building stores caskets.
The Board members reviewed the Application for completeness. Bill Najpauer noted that he has not reviewed this Application. It was determined that the Application was complete with the granting of the following waivers: 5. H. 5. b, c, d widths, e, i, j and r. and upon receiving the number of vehicle trips per day, which the Applicant provided at the meeting.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we waive the following: Section 5. H. 5. b, c, d, e, i, j & r. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application is complete. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
8:39 PM Opened meeting for public hearing.
Harold Warren, owner of the property, said that he went through all of this before when he built the building and doesn’t think it is necessary to do this all again.
Chair Hart said that a Committee has been going through the Ordinance and making changes. They will look at this. Mr. Warren said that it is not a business friendly thing to have to go through each time he rents space. David, the CEO said that the zone has changed since he got his approval before. Judy noted that even though the building is existing, some types of businesses might impact the neighborhood more. That is why they have to look at it.
Chair Hart asked if we had received any correspondence or received any calls. Dorothy and David said no.
8:44 PM meeting closed for public comment.
The Board members reviewed the Performance Standards in Section 3 and determined that only Y applies.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the only Standard that applies to this Application is Y, Signs. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Hart asked the Applicant about the sign. Mr. Lawrence said that it will be mounted on an existing pole and after discussion about the type of lighting, said that he will install lights that are directed onto the sign. The sign will be 5’ x 3’ and made of aluminum.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Performance Standard Y has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board members reviewed the Application for compliance with Review Criteria in Section 5.Q., Site Plan Review, of the Land Use Ordinance. The skipped Review Criteria 1 & 2 to the end.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 3 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 4 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 5 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 6 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 7 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 8 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 9 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 10 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 11 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 12 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 13 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 14 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 15 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 16 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 17 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 18 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 19 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 20 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 21 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application meets the appropriate Performance Standards and Review Criteria. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application meets the provisions of all applicable regulations and ordinances of the City and meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we approve this Application. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Pam Mitchel moved that we adjourn. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
ROLL CALL - August 14, 2008
Present: Pat Hart Judith A. Dorsey Deborah Willis
Pamela Mitchel
Absent: Edward Lawrence Ian Burnes James Montell
Also Present: Dorothy Morang, Planning Board Recording Secretary
David Cichowski, CEO
William Najpauer, Planner contracted by the City of Gardiner as advisor to the Planning Board
Don Leighton Peter Bethanis John Finn Elliot Thayer
Call the Meeting to order.
Chair, Pat Hart called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM as a continuation of the Regular meeting held August 12, 2008 and welcomed everyone.
Roll call taken.
7.) Public Hearing – Minor Site Plan Review
Savings Bank of Maine, Applicant, is seeking Minor Site Plan approval to construct a 24-space, ground level parking lot. The property, located at 8 Mechanic St, is within the Central Business (CB) Zoning District, City Tax Map 34, Lots 137, 137A & 121.
Chair Hart asked if any of the Board members couldn’t hear this Application in an unbiased manner. They said no.
Chair Hart asked the Applicant to introduce himself and give an overview of the proposal.
Peter Bethanis, Architect, introduced himself as the agent for Savings Bank of Maine for this project and Anita Nored, who would have presented it, had to be out of town. He said that this will be a 24-unit parking area - blacktopped. The existing building will be removed and they will put in a retaining wall of reinforced concrete with keystone bricks to provide support for the other existing building and its lot. The wall will be approximately 13’ high with a rail fence at the top. It will be controlled with an electric gate and will be a 1-way entrance/ 1-way exit.
Elliot Thayer with Thayer Engineering has worked with Peter and John on this project. He provided information on pre and post stormwater conditions and calculations. He said that the Stormwater is adequate now and they are planning to reroute it to make it better. He explained the stormwater changes and watersheds. Pam Mitchel asked about noted increases from pre/post – up about 3 times. Elliot explained why this is really insignificant in the overall plan. She asked Dave if he was ok with this. Bill noted that the post does not have to be the same or less than the pre.
Elliot noted that they will use Best Management Practices for erosion control. He noted that they have worked with Diane Morabito on the traffic study. She determined that they don’t expect more than 10 trips in any hour and it doesn’t appear to cause a significant impact or to be a high crash area – the site distance is adequate.
Judy asked about the parking lot further up the street and why they don’t blend the two. Peter noted that the grade is the problem. There is about an 8’ difference. Chair Hart asked about the operation – will cars be able to park there on weekends. Peter said he isn’t involved in that aspect of it and doesn’t know.
Don Leighton, a landscape architect went over the proposed vegetation. There will be a new sidewalk with a planting strip behind it. He showed a diagram of the area and where new trees would be planted. They will be high branching trees so to not block the view. The new light fixtures will match the ones in the park and on Water St. Within the planting area there will also be a low evergreen hedge with perennials in front – blue and yellow. At the corner there will be granite steps with brick pavers. It is the same detail as used in the Depot Square lot. There will be lights incorporated into the retaining wall. Judy asked if there will be any vegetation by the fencing – the fence looks temporary. Peter said that they can incorporate
some shrubs.
The Board reviewed the Application for completion. They asked about the intensity of the lights. It was noted that they are the same as downtown. They had planned to install an internally lit sign. The Board noted that internally lit signs are not permitted. Don said that they will put an up-lit light at the bottom of the sign instead.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the Application is complete with the condition that the information about the sign material needs to be added and the intensity of the lights needs to be added. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The Board reviewed the Performance Standards in Section 3 of the Land Use Ordinance. It was determined that Standards C, F, L, O, P, S, & Y apply.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that the following Performance Standards apply to this Application: C, F, L, O, P, S, & Y. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
C. Access Management
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard C has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
F. Buffer Areas
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard F has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
L. Lighting
Judy noted that in some of the buildings across the street there are residences and asked about the times that the lights will be on. Don said that the ones along Mechanic St. will be connected to the street lights. The others will go off at 11:00 PM
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard L has been met with the note that we need to know the intensity of the lights. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
O. Noise
Some shared their concerns about skateboarders.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard O has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
6:50 PM Chair Hart noted that they had not opened the meeting for public comment so it was opened. No comments were made.
6:50 PM meeting closed for public comment.
P. Non-Residential Development
They discussed the visual impact of the wall.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard P has been met with the condition that the Applicant adds some vegetation to soften the lines of the fence. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
S. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard S has been met. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Y. Signs
Chair Hart reminded the Applicant that they need to check out the requirements on materials for signs in the Downtown. Don noted that if what they’ve proposed is not allowed in this zone, they could use a painted wooden sign.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that Standard Y has been met with the condition that the sign not be internally lit and be made of a material as stated in the Ordinance. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
The Board reviewed the Application for compliance with Section 5.Q. of the Ordinance. They skipped 1. & 2. for now.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 3 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 4 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 5 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 6 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 7 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 8 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Judy noted that the Applicant needs to coordinate the walkways with the City. David said that he talked with Chuck Applebee about the side walks. Chuck is fine with this and will foot the bill for the sidewalk. They discussed the stormwater and David said Chuck is good with the plan as long as it doesn’t increase the water flow. Elliot said that the underground connectors, catch basins and pipes will take care of the stormwater. The entrance and exit grading is designed to break the water and it will go into the parking lot and into the drain. Although there is a slight increase, because of the catch basins, it speeds up the time of concentration so that the overall value won’t increase. This could improve the situation by getting the water into the Kennebec River before
peak flow.
David asked about the current guard rails and what would stop a car from going over the bank. John Finn said that the guard rails will be the same. The other area will be regarded and the pavement removed. David asked how far apart the fence poles are. John said about 6’. David noted that throughout the area the other rails are wrought iron and asked if this would be visually better. The Board members said that they are ok with the fence with vegetation.
Chair Hart asked how they will take down the existing building. Peter said that hasn’t been determined yet, but the plan will include life safety and they will have to get a demolition permit from David.
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 9 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 10 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 11 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 12 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 13 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 14 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 15 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 16 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 17 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 18 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 19 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 20 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we accept Review Criteria 21 as written. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion (Review Criteria 1) that this Application meets the Performance Standards with the condition that the sign not be internally lit and be made of appropriate materials and Dave has to approve the materials and they provide the intensity of the lights. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion (Review Criteria 2) that this Application meets all of the provisions of all applicable regulations and ordinances of the City, and meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
Pam Mitchel made a motion that we approve this Application with the condition that the Applicants shall use appropriate sign design and it shall be approved by the Code Enforcement Office; provide information on the intensity of the lights; the storm water control shall be acceptable to the Public Works Director; that they check with the Public Works Director on all items applicable to the City; and that vegetation be added on the up hill side of the fence to soften the line of the fence. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed
OTHER
8.) ADJOURN
Pam Mitchel made a motion to adjourn. Judy Dorsey seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 7:35 PM
| 
