Planning Board Meeting
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Cumberland Town Hall
290 Tuttle Road, Cumberland, Maine
7:00 PM
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Present: Tom Powers, Vice-Chair, Bill Ward, Bob Couillard, Bill Richards, Chris Neagle
Absent: Phil Hunt, Chair, Beth Howe
Staff: Carla Nixon, Town Planner, Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk
C. Approval of Minutes of March 15, 2005
Mr. Richards moved to approve the minutes of March15, 2005 with minor technical corrections.
Mr. Ward seconded. VOTE: Unanimous
D. Consent Calendar / Deminimus Change Approvals
There were no consent calendar items.
E. Hearings and Presentations:
1. Public Hearing - Shoreland Zoning Permit existing 4' x 200" fixed pier supported by piling, a 3 x 48 seasonal aluminum ramp, and a 12 x 24 wooden float with bottom skids. Applicant to add a 2nd 12 x 30 float and a longer 3 x 60 gangway to an existing pier/ramp/float facility located at 81 Spruce Point Road, Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 30A, Charles Poole, Custom Float Services, representative; John Wilson, owner.
Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: The applicant, John Wilson, is seeking a
Shoreland Zoning Permit to construct a float extension to a private pier at 81 Spruce Point Road (off North Rd.) Chebeague Island, Map I-06, Lot 30A. The applicant is represented by Charles Poole, Custom Float Services of Portland, Maine.
DESCRIPTION: The applicant initially requested a shoreland zone permit for a float extension to his existing pier. However, in reviewing the files, it appeared that while the applicant did receive a signed permit from a previous code enforcement officer, the plan never went to the Planning Board for review and approval. The planner and code enforcement officer at the time informed Mr. Wilson that Planning Board approval was not required. Mr. Wilson wants be sure that all necessary reviews are conducted and so this review will cover both the existing pier and the proposed extension.
The existing pier is a 4 X 200 fixed pier on pilings, a 3 x 48 seasonal aluminum ramp, and a 12 x 24 seasonal wooden float with bottom skids. The proposed extension will consist of a second 12 x 30 float and a longer 3 x 60 gangway. The applicant will also add 2 new sets of Helix style moorings to the float system (the existing mushroom anchors will be removed.)
Ms. Nixon stated the Army Corps of Engineer permit has been applied for, but not received.
Mr. Powers clarified that the applicant was applying for a 12 extension and the pier wouldnt change.
Mr. Poole showed photos of the existing pier, the pier was built in 2000 and will not change. The ramp, and float are seasonal. A new gangway, 12 longer, will be added. The extension will allow the owner to gain more usable water depth at low water at his pier facility. By increasing the overall float / gangway length, Mr. Wilson will have another 35 to 40 to the outboard end of the floats. He owns several keel style power and sail boats, adding this water depth will allow for more use of the facility at low water and much safer navigation in and around the float area. There are no other boats or moorings in the immediate area, so this improvement would not cause a navigation issue. Mr. Poole stated a submerged lands permit from the Army Corps of Engineers has been applied for, a DEP review is not necessary for seasonal floats. The extension will be seasonal.
Mr. Couillard asked if the extension would affect other boats.
Mr. Poole stated no, the cove is not a navigable water way, it is very shallow at low water.
Mr. Richards asked if the approximate distance of the pier is 300.
Mr. Poole stated yes.
Mr. Neagle asked about ownership of the tidal area.
Mr. Poole stated the issue of ownership was addressed in the Turner-Taggert application and a legal opinion was submitted.
Ms. Nixon asked about outside agency reviews.
Mr. Poole stated a NRPA, DEP permit takes approximately 90 120 days.
Mr. Neagle stated he would like to review a copy of the deed.
Mr. Powers opened the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Berger Johnson, of 95 Spruce Point View Road stated he was an abutter of the Wilsons and has no objection to the pier.
The public portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Powers stated some items were missing for approval; Mr. Neagle would like to review the deed. Mr. Powers stated it would be unlikely that the Board would find the pier unsuitable and ask to have it removed. The 12 extension is a minimal change.
Mr. Poole stated he would have a copy of the deed sent to Ms. Nixon, the Army Corps approval should take about a month.
Mr. Ward moved to table the request for an extension to an existing pier at 81 Spruce Point Road, Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 30A.
Mr. Richards seconded. VOTE: Unanimous
2. Public Hearing Preliminary Plan Review Major 4-lot subdivision Roy Hill Woods, 20 Petticoat Lane, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 130A, Island Residential District; Jeffrey Perry, Landscape Architect, Sebago Technics, representative; Tom Fernandez, applicant, owner.
Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows:
The applicant is proposing a 4 lot subdivision. 3 lots will be sold, 1 will be retained by the owner, and 1 will be sold to an abutter. This has been classified as a major subdivision in accordance with Section 3Y of the Subdivision Ordinance which defines a major subdivision as
Any subdivision containing more than four lots, or requiring new streets or private ways, or extensions of existing streets or private ways;
The property is located on Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I03, Lot 130A. Jeffrey Perry, P.E., Sebago Technics is the representative; Tom Fernandez is the applicant and owner.
HISTORY:
August 17, 2004: Sketch Plan Review (on Chebeague Island)
Mr. Perry, representative, of Sebago Technics stated the 15.5 acres will be divided into three sections. The owners will retain the existing homestead and 3.04 acres of land. The LLC will develop the 4-lot subdivision comprising 5.71 acres, and the remaining land (6.69 acres) will be conveyed to the abutting property owner.
The subdivision will be serviced with on-site septic and individual wells. Power will be brought into the site from existing overhead service within the Roy Hill Road right-of-way and proceed underground to the three proposed lots. Stormwater will be conveyed and managed by a combination of ditches, culverts, and undisturbed vegetative buffers. The road will be 750in length.
Ms. Nixon stated the applicant had requested four waivers.
1. § 7.5a 10% Minimum Open Space Requirement
2. Appendix D-A Subdivision Plan to show properties within 2000
Plan shows immediate abutters, location map shows properties within 500. There are no known subdivisions within 2000.
The Planning Board stated this was not applicable
2. § 7.15e Hydro geologic Evaluation Only 3 new lots are proposed; threat to groundwater contamination is nominal.
3. Appendix D-B.19. Geologic Evaluation Soils report does not indicate unusual subsurface conditions.
The Board took no action on the waiver requests.
Mr. Powers opened the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Tad Runge, of 6 Shermans Road stated the purpose of his talk was to confirm the continued use of the existing trails. The trails are an incredibly actively used system. Mr. Runge presented a power point presentation showing the current use of the trails. The trails are used for snowshoeing, skiing, and other winter recreational activities on the Island.
Mr. Neagle asked if the trails were shown on the Greenbelt Map.
Ms. Nixon stated the Greenbelt shows only trails on the mainland from Route 295 to the west.
The public portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Neagle stated the retained lot should be labeled as Lot # 4. He encouraged the developer to include 10% of the parcel as open space. The Ordinance has no power to enforce trails, but he would encourage allowing continued use.
Mr. Richards asked if there were any significant wetlands on the property.
Mr. Perry stated there is a 20 no disturb area specific to lot # 3 and another 10 setback for a 30 no disturbance buffer.
Mr. Couillard asked if the peer engineer reviewers comments about the turn-around would be addressed.
Mr. Perry stated those changes would be made to the plan.
Mr. Couillard also encouraged 10% open space.
Mr. Powers stated this is the first preliminary plan review, the Board historically has prioritized historical use of property such as trails, to preserve quality of life of the abutters. He encouraged trails.
The Board voted to hold a site walk on Saturday, April 30, 2005 between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. The Board will take the 8:15 boat and return on the 10:15 a.m. boat. The Board requested that the centerline of the road, trails and wetlands be flagged.
3. Public Hearing Major Site Plan Review Seafax Company, U.S. Route One, Tax Assessor Map Ro1, Lot 11B; Dale Akeley, Seafax Inc., applicant; Scot Decker, P.E., SYTDesign Consultants, representative; Peter Kennedy, owner.
Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: The applicant is Seafax, Inc. Dale Akely is the authorized agent for the planning and permitting processes. Scott Decker of SYTDesign is the project engineer and representative, Gawran Turgeon Architects prepared the building elevations. The land is owned by Peter Kennedy; there is a purchase and sale agreement on file. The applicant is requesting major site plan review for a new office building on Route One, Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 11B. The parcel is in the Office Commercial zone. This building will be the new company headquarters. The site is approximately 3.15 acres in size. The building will be two stories with a 10,000 sq. ft. footprint for a total building square footage of 20,000 ft. Seafax will occupy ½ of the building, the remainder will be leased. There will be an entrance drive, walkways, and a parking area for 95 vehicles.
Ms. Nixon reviewed the Planners Comments as follows:
1. Entrance location still needs to be determined. A shared driveway with the other half of the parcel should be fully explored. (see Addendum A #23 in Section 4 of the application.) It appears that the MDOT will issue an entrance permit for each lot, however the Route One Design Guidelines and commonly accepted planning principles, suggest that a shared entrance on an arterial roadway should be required.
Ms. Archino Howe, of SYTDesign stated she felt the application was ready for final approval. The comments from Al Palmer, of Gorrill-Palmer, the Towns peer review engineer have been addressed, and stormwater can be handled as a condition of approval. The NRPA permit has been re-submitted. The building was moved back and a stormwater detention system will be placed under the parking lot. The applicant is waiting for guidance from the Planning Board for an easement or other legal vehicle.
Ms. Nixon stated she had received the e-mail from Al Palmer, which suggests the engineering concerns can be worked out. She asked Ms. Archino Howe if she had reviewed the review comments from Ralph Oulton, of MACTEC regarding the sewer. The Town will own the sewer at connection and the sewer design is not ready for final approval.
Mr. Ward asked for clarification that the applicants position was not to have a shared entrance.
Ms. Archino Howe stated the property has an entrance permit from D.O.T, and the applicant feels to have important for a southerly entrance.
Mr. Dale Akeley, Seafax representative, stated he understood at the last meeting the Board was comfortable proceeding with the single entrance and the proposed building roofline. The building was moved to meet the 75 setback.
Mr. Couillard stated he appreciated the change in the guard rail. He agreed in reading Mr. Oultons comments regarding the sewer that the design details should be worked out prior to final approval. He asked about a future easement or mechanism to connect the parking lots.
Mr. Richards asked if the proposed single entrance remained what impact would that have on development to the north of the site.
Ms. Nixon stated the lot can receive its own entrance permit. The Seafax entrance was moved slightly south to achieve a 350 separation. The impetus to share driveways was to limit curb cuts. However, the D.O.T. classifies Route 1 as a major collector.
Ms. Archino Howe asked about the location of the second egress through the parking lot.
Mr. Akeley again stated the desire for a southern exposure and single drive, and has agreed to cross circulation between the two parcels.
Mr. Neagle stated he was okay with a single entrance and a connection design for the two parking lots. The two lot owners need to agree to exchange easements to ensure connection through the parking lot. With respect to the sewer he agreed it needed more information and he would like to see details of the sewer easements. Mr. Neagle asked about the conveyance of land to the Town.
Ms. Nixon stated she had spoke with Mr. Shane, Town Manager, who stated the paperwork had been put together but not executed.
Mr. Neagle stated the lot makes no sense if not conveyed.
Mr. Powers stated the Town and Board are very much interested in the project going forward.
Mr. Powers reviewed the outstanding issues as follows:
· A single entrance has been agreed upon by the Planning Board.
· The cross easements for interconnectivity of the parking area for both lots will be approved by the Town Attorney for final approval.
· The sewer design will be approved by Ralph Oulton of MACTEC, and the sewer easements approved by the Town Attorney for final approval.
· CCSWCD approval of Erosion Control Plan for final approval.
Mr. Neagle moved to table the application for Major Site Plan Review for Seafax Company, U.S. Route One, Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 11B, Dale Akeley, Seafax Inc., applicant; Scott Decker, P.E., SYTDesign Consultants, representative; Peter Kennedy, owner.
Mr. Ward seconded. VOTE: Unanimous
4. Inventory & Analysis Major Site Plan Review Planet Dog, Lots 4 & 5 of the Cumberland Business Park, U. S. Route One, Tax Assessor Map R02D, portion of lot 1, Scott Decker, P.E., SYTDesign Consultants, Charlotte Maloney, Gawran Turgeon Architects, consultants; Guidi Flash Holdings, Inc., owner.
Ms. Nixon stated this is the first time Board has seen the plans and information for this project. The new review process does not require a meeting for application completeness. The Board should address any general design issues that might be of concern.
Ms. Ann Archino-Howe, of SYTDesign Consultants stated the applicant would like to establish their Corporate Campus on Lots 4 and 5 of the Cumberland Business Park. At present, Planet Dog is based out of a facility in the waterfront district in Portland. The Cumberland business would employ approximately 60 people with approximately 55 of them being office and support personnel, 4 of them performing packaging and warehouse support and the other 2 would provide retail support. The facility would be open from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Access to the site is planned from U.S. Route 1, via a shared access for lots 4 and 5. This access is selected to provide maximum exposure and to address the concerns of abutters and nearby residents regarding safety issues. An MDOT entrance permit application for this location will be submitted to the MDOT.
Mr. Travis Bezio, of Planet Dog stated the company is 7-years old; they are a designer, developer, and distributor for award-winning, high end dog toys. The San Diego Zoo buys their dog toys for their tigers. The company is in its third residence in Portland. Planet Dog is a rapidly growing, a company. They have donated upwards of a quarter of million each year to non profits with their mission to provide animal welfare. They have two lots; their culture encourages dog walks and public access. They are calling this their campus with a farm theme, their goal is to be as non-invasive to the lot as possible, and still accomplish their goal.
Ms. Archino-Howe stated the company is committed to low impact and green building to decrease impervious area on the site. The topographic survey submitted is from the original 1995 subdivision, current ones are being completed. As with all lots in the Cumberland Business Park there are wetlands and a stream that crosses this parcel. A trail currently exists that will be slightly re-located; they will work with adjacent lots to ensure the connectivity of the trails.
Mr. Neagle welcomed the company; he had personally purchased merchandise in Portland and was satisfied. It looks like a great site; he questioned how to access the parking.
Ms. Archino-Howe stated perhaps a bridge.
Mr. Neagle asked if some of the parking area was within the 75 setback. He encouraged as the plan is re-configured to consider heavy buffering in the 75 setback.
Mr. Richards stated in reviewing the soils study the lot is challenging, and asked about drainage issues.
Ms. Archino-Howe stated the plans were preliminary and didnt have the details.
Mr. Couillard stated he liked the plan and would like to see a sidewalk on one side of the driveway, from Route One to the parking lot. He questioned wetland impact if a bridge were built.
Mr. Ward welcomed the applicant, he asked if the 20,000 sq. foot building was to be one or two story, and asked if the parking was for 60 people.
Ms. Archino-Howe stated one story and yes, the office will have 55 office and support, 4 packaging and warehouse support and two others for retail.
Mr. Neagle asked if there would be a small retail facility.
Mr. Bezio stated a retail operation would be an exception.
Mr. Powers stated the Board is happy they are considering moving to Cumberland. The Boards job is to enforce the Ordinance. The Board is sensitive to treatment of water, run-off, or any other form of water. He stated if there was going to be significant animal population there should be some provision for waste that would not ordinarily be thought of for business. He also asked the applicant to pay attention to the advisory but preferred architectural guidelines.
The public portion of the meeting was opened.
Ms. Penny Asherman, of the Cumberland Conservation Committee stated the Committee appreciates their environmental sensitivity. The Committee recommends the following:
· The wetland boundary be delineated.
· Information regarding significant wildlife habitats.
· All plans looked at together for an overall impact on the site.
· A maximum buffer between the stream based on NRPA guidelines.
· Stormwater treatment specifically relevant to the wetlands and stream quality.
· Secondary impact to the wetlands in developing the impervious surface.
Mr. Powers stated the Board would like to see an overall plan, but that is not always possible.
Ms. Nixon stated the entire Cumberland Business Park was reviewed comprehensively during the original subdivision review and the building envelopes reflect buffers for such issues as wetlands.
Mr. Bezio stated the corporation would gladly take those recommendations and incorporate them as much as possible.
Mr. Stretch Madore of Schooner Ridge stated he is an abutter on the back of the property. He also welcomed them to the community and appreciated their environmental sensitivity. He asked about the population of dogs, and asked about the word "kennel . Would there be an overnight or daytime kennel, or just walking trails for dogs? He also voiced concern for protecting the wildlife; he was most concerned with the noise from animals.
Mr. Belize stated his employees are encouraged to bring dogs to work. In Portland they have lawyers to the left, retail stores on the first floor and a counseling service, next door. There have been no complaints from neighboring businesses.
The public portion of the meeting was closed.
Mr. Powers again welcomed the applicant, and stated that the Board looks forward to working with the applicant.
5. Public Hearing Major Site Plan Review Norton Financial Services, Cumberland Business Park, U. S. Route One, Tax Assessor Map R02D, portion of lot 1, Scott Decker, P.E., SYTDesign Consultants, Charlotte Maloney, Gawran Turgeon Architects, consultants; Guidi Flash Holdings, Inc., owner.
Ms. Nixon presented background information as follows: The application is complete; while there were a few outstanding items, the application was sent to the Town Engineer, Al Palmer for his review and comments. At this meeting it would be best to focus on the items listed under the Planners comments and Al Palmers comments.
REQUEST: The applicant is Norton Financial Services, Inc. Scott Decker of SYTDesign is the project engineer and representative; Gawran Turgeon Architects prepared the building elevations and landscaping plan. The land is owned by Guidi Flash Holdings, LLC. There is an option agreement in place which expires August 31, 2005. The applicant is requesting major site plan review for a new 12,500 S.F.office building on Route One, Tax Assessor Map R02D, a portion of Lot 1. The parcel is in the Office Commercial zone in the Cumberland Business Park adjacent to Route 1. This is Lot 3 in the Cumberland Business Park. This building will be the new company headquarters. The site is approximately 3.9 acres in size. The building will one story with a total building square footage of 12,500 S.F. There will be a shared (with Lot #2) entrance drive from Route 1. A parking area for 64 (narrative) or 61 (C-101)? vehicles and a walkway will also be constructed. The building will be occupied by approximately 60 employees.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
· Zoning: OC (Office Commercial)
· Min. Lot Size: 1 acre
· Lot frontage: 150
· Setbacks: Front = 25, Rear = 65, Side 20 (75 Route One Guidelines front setback)
· Roadway No road is proposed, only a shared entrance drive.
· Water: Portland Water District
· Sewer: Yes; __?_# of sewer units required.
· Utilities: The applicant is proposing underground utilities (telephone, cable & electric)
· Trail: Yes
· Traffic Impact Analysis: John Murphy, P.E., Civil Engineer, Traffic Engineer
· Outside Agency Approvals Required:
1. MDEP Stormwater permit (Letter sent to MDEP 3/2/05)
2. NRPA
3. CCSWCD Approval of Erosion Control Plan
4. MDOT Entrance Permit
5. Portland Water District: Letter dated 2/10/05 on file.
REQUESTED WAIVERS: None.
PROJECT HISTORY:
1.
February 15, 2005: Site Inventory and Analysis deemed complete.
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEWS:
Fire Chief Small:
1) The building shall be equipped with a fire alarm system that is monitored by an approved fire alarm company. The system shall have a remote annunciator panel located at the main entrance that can be silenced with the push of one button from this location. The strobe or other visual alarm signaling devices shall remain active when the system is silenced. The alarm system shall identify the exact location of each individual initiation device with plain text at the fire alarm panel.
2) The building shall be equipped with a hinged key box approved by the fire department. The key box shall be electronically connected to the fire alarm system to show a trouble signal whenever the box is in the open position.
3) The building shall meet the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code. These requirements cannot be determined until a complete set of building drawings are reviewed. For this type of building the requirements typically address, but may not be limited to: building exiting, emergency lighting, and fire extinguishers.
4) Any fuel storage shall meet the appropriate standard of the National Fire Protection Association. Attention to building and property line set back requirements should be included as part of the site plan review.
5) An additional fire hydrant shall be installed to assist with supplying water to the sprinkler system outside connection.
6) The fire protection sprinkler system shall meet the requirements of the National Fire Protection Association. The fire department connection shall be equipped with a 4 locking coupling that is located in an area that is approved by the fire department. The sprinkler system shall send a water flow signal to the fire alarm panel whenever water is moving throughout the system.
7) Access to the building shall be adequate enough to accommodate fire department vehicles.
Police Chief Charron: Concern regarding theft of construction tools and materials. A security gate is recommended once construction begins.
Rescue Chief Bolduc: No comments
Bill Longley, CEO: No comments at this time.
Adam Ogden, Public Works Director: No comments
Peer Review Engineer, Al Palmer, P.E., Gorrill-Palmer Engineers:
Date: April 14, 2005
Summary:
As requested by the Town Planner, Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, Inc. has conducted a peer review of the above referenced project. Our review has focused on:
Whether the project appears to conform to standard engineering practice and any revisions which may be desirable.
Whether the project appears to conform to the requirements of the Town of Cumberland Zoning Ordinance, and any revisions, which may be desirable.
Information provided to Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, Inc. for review included:
Application for Project Approval from the Town of Cumberland under Section 206 Minor Site Plan Review of Article XI Zoning Ordinance , dated March 2005
Based upon our review of the submittal, our office would recommend that Staff and the Planning Board consider the following comments:
Section 11 - Lighting Photometric Plan1. A photometric plan has not been provided.
Section 12 - Project Drawings
2. The~Existing Conditions plan
· Stamped/signed by the appropriate professional that prepared the drawing.
· Label setbacks
· Note source of wetland delineation
· Label building envelope approved as part of subdivision and apparent buffer from subdivision approval at rear of the parcel
3. Site~Layout~& Utility Plan:
§ Building dimensions should be labeled.
§ Separation distances should be labeled for adjacent driveways on both sides of the project site, as well as the available site distance.
§ Label edge of pavement radius at Route 1.
§ Label width of driveway between parking bays
§ The Applicant should provide a narrative outlining their compliance with the Route 1 Design Guidelines, including buffers, shared driveways, interconnecting parking lots, architecture, etc. In particular, one item that we would recommend that the Board consider is provisions for interconnecting the proposed parking lot with the parcel to the northeast.
§ Will a stop sign be provided at Route 1?
§ The proximity of the barrier free parking to the front entrance does not appear to meet the ADA guidelines.~ As the front entrance will have the elevator, we would recommend reconsidering the placement of the barrier free spaces.
§ Parking table should be completed to note the required number of parking spaces.
§ The southerly end of the proposed building is shown outside of the Building Envelope per 1995 Subdivision Plan . Is this acceptable to the Board? Does this require modification of the Subdivision Approval?
§ At the rear of the lot it appears that a buffer was required as part of the Subdivision Approval. The lightly hatched area is 100 wide and is assumed to be a required buffer. A corner of the parking lot, dumpster, storm drain outfall and relocated trail are within the 100 zone. Is this acceptable to the Board? Does this require modification of the Subdivision Approval?
§ We would recommend that the on-site wetlands be clearly shown on this plan to reduce unintended impacts by the Contractor.
4. Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan:
§ The water main is proposed easterly of the driveway, in an area that is 5 below the driveway. Providing adequate cover to the water main may result in a vertical conflict with the existing culvert.
§ No erosion control measures are shown on the plans.
§ Riprap sizing calculations should be provided for the driveway culvert.
§ A maximum disturbance limit/clearing limit should be shown on the plan. Without this being shown, it is difficult to determine whether the Applicant is complying with the MDEP required 75 setback or the MDIF&W requested 100 setback.
§ We would recommend that the on-site wetlands be clearly shown on this plan to reduce unintended impacts by the Contractor.
§ A Construction General Permit from the MDEP would appear to be required, and evidence of approval should be provided to the Town prior to the start of construction.
5. Planting and Lighting Plan.
§ As our personnel are not landscape architects, we will not comment on the landscape architectural design, however the following comments affect the design of the facility from an engineering standpoint and are provided for the Boards review:
o The external property line should be shown on the easterly and westerly sides of the parcel, as it appears that the proposed tree line extends onto the abutting parcel.
o The relocated trail does not match what is shown on the Site Layout Plan. In particular, along the boundary with Lot 2, the proposed trees are located in the area that is shown as the relocated trail on the Site Layout Plan.
o Stamped/signed by the appropriate professional that prepared the drawing.
o The proposed sign is located within the Route 1 right-of-way which would appear to violate both Town and State regulations.
o Along Route 1, a note on the plan indicates Thin and Limb up in compliance with intent of DEP Regulations for 75 Stream Setback Is this acceptable to the Board, and in compliance with the Route 1 Design Guidelines?
o Along the access drive, the plan indicates Thin and Limb up Trees as directed by Landscape Architect . Is this acceptable to the Board? What standard will be used in determining these limits?
Section 16 - Sign~No sign detail is provided.
~
Section 17 - Unique Natural AreasThe Applicant should respond to the Department of Conservation recommendation that "you may want to have the site inventoried by a qualified field biologist to ensure that no documented rare features are inadvertently harmed". While the Department letter was addressed to Woodlot, they did not respond to the information in their October 25, 2004 correspondence.
6. The November 2, 2004 letter from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife requests a 100 foot undisturbed buffer to the on-site stream. The proposed plan intrudes into this buffer. The Applicant should address the Departments request and why the intrusions are proposed.
Town of Cumberland
Section 206 Site Inventory & Analysis Checklist
Norton Financial Services
SECTION 206.7.1 Site Inventory and Analysis Submission Requirements
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR SITE PLANS ONLY
1. names, address and phone of record owner and applicant _____x_____
2. names and address of all consultants _____x_____
3. evidence of right, title or interest How?
Option until 8/31/05_ 4. evidence of payment of the site inventory and analysis fee Amount? _____x____
5. 15 copies of a plan showing:
a. name of development, north arrow, date and scale _____x______
b. boundaries of the parcel _____x______
c. relationship of site to surrounding areas _____x______
d. topography _____x______
e. major natural features within 200 feet _____x______
f. existing buildings, structures or other improvements _____x______
g. existing restrictions or easements _____x______
h. location and size of existing utilities or improvements _____x______
i. class D medium intensity soil survey _____x______
j. if private sewage disposal system, a suitable location _____N/A____
6. 15 copies of narrative describing existing conditions, proposed use, etc.______x_____
a. traffic study _____ x_____
b. utility study ____________
c. market studies ____________
d. other ____________
7. 15 copies of any request for waivers _____N/A____
SECTION 206.7.2 Site Plan Review Application Submission Requirements
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS| 1. | Site Plan Application Form Completed | Yes |
| 1. Record owners name, address, phone and applicants if different | Yes |
| 2. location of all setbacks, yards and buffers | No-label distance for all setbacks on site layout sheet. |
| 3. name and address of all property owners w/I 200 feet | No-property owners for lots on both sides and across street are not labeled on the plan. |
| 4. location map showing location of project | Yes |
| 5. boundaries of all contiguous property under control of owner | No |
| 6. tax map and lot numbers | Not on plan |
| 7. deed, option to purchase or documentation of right, title or interest | Yes |
| 8. name, registration number and seal of person who prepared plan | Yes |
| 9. evidence of technical and financial capability to carry out project | Yes |
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS| 1. | zoning | Yes |
| 2. | Boundary survey | Yes |
| 3. | utilities, including sewer & water, culverts & drains, on-site sewage | Culvert locations/size changing post dev.? |
| 4. | location, names, widths of existing public or private streets/Rows | No |
| 5. | location, dimension of ground floor elevation of all existing buildings | Yes |
| 6. | location, dimension of existing driveways, parking, loading, walkways | N/A |
| 7. | location of intersecting roads & driveways within 200 feet of the site | N/A |
| 8. | location of drainage courses, wetlands, stonewalls, graveyards, fences, stands of trees, important or unique features, etc | Yes |
| 9. | direction of existing surface water drainage across the site & off site | ? |
| 10. | location, front view, dimensions and lighting of existing signs | N/A |
| 11. | location and dimensions of existing easements & copies of documents | None shown. |
| 12. | location of nearest fire hydrant or water supply for fire protection | ? |
SECTION 206.7.4 Proposed Development Activity
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS| 1. | estimated demand for water & sewage disposal/location/dimensions, etc | Yes |
| 2. | surface water drainage and impact assessment on downstream properties | ? |
| 3. | handling solid waste, haz & special waste/including screening on-site | Yes |
| 4. | driveway, parking & loading areas, location/dimension & materials
along with changes in traffic flow onto or off site | Yes |
| 5. | landscape plan | Yes |
| 6. | location, dimension and ground floor elevation of buildings | Yes |
| 7. | signs/location and method of securing | No |
| 8. | location and type of exterior lighting | Style changing |
| 9. | location of all utilities including fire protection systems | Yes |
| 10. | general description of proposed use or activity | Yes |
| 11. | traffic/peak hour and daily traffic generated by project | Yes |
| 12. | stormwater calculations/erosion & sedimentation control plan, etc. | Yes |
REQUIRED FOR MAJOR SITE PLANS| 1. | narrative/how plan relates to the site inventory & analysis | Yes |
| 2. | grading plan at 1 foot contours | No - 2 shown |
| 3. | stormwater drainage & erosion control plan, etc. | Yes |
| 4. | groundwater impact analysis prepared by groundwater hydrologist | Yes |
| 5. | name, number, seal of architect, engineer, LA, etc. | Arch. & LA seals needed |
| 6. | utility plans | Yes |
| Water | Yes |
| Wastewater | Yes |
| Electrical | Yes |
| Telephone | Yes |
| Cable TV | Yes |
| Other | Yes |
| 7. | landscape Plan | Yes |
| 8. | traffic analysis | Yes |
| 9 | written Statement from utility RE: Adequate Service | Yes |
| 10. | cost & evidence of applicants financial capacity | Yes |
Note: Section 206.7.6 states that the Planning Board may waive any of the submission requirements based upon a written request by the applicant. A waiver may be granted only if the Board finds that the information is not required to determine compliance with the standards and criteria.
Planners Comments:
1. Entrance location from shared driveway to Lot 2 should be shown to avoid difficulty in the future due to topographical constraints as well as the location of light poles, etc. for Norton.
Ms. Maloney, of Gawran Turgeon Architects, stated that Lot 2 has been sold. The driveway will extend approximately 160 feet from Route One and allows access to lot 2 in the only place possible.
2. Add legends on all sheets.
3. Route One ROW line clarified? There is some discrepancy with the parcel line and Route One.
4. Trail is relocated around back of parking area. Can the tree line be maintained so close to the parking spaces? If not, the trail will be exposed. Perhaps add language that trail will be constructed after all clearing and grading is complete and that the trail will have at least 20 of trees on the building side. The clearing of the trail and the surface type should be specified as a note on the plan and included in the cost estimate for the LOC. The trail connection to Lots 2 and 4 should be shown.
Ms. Maloney stated the trail head is at the existing paved entrance from Route One; Norton has agreed that people could enter through the lower parking lot and access the trail. The trail could be moved away from parking, but that would put it closer to the wetland. The trail will be a 6 wide swath of clearing with 4 to 5 of bark mulch.
Ms. Nixon asked if there would be any permitting implications.
Ms. Archino Howe stated it will be considered wetland fill, if the trail is in the wetland. The concern was that it is too close to the parking; the reason is to not encroach any further into the wetland. They are hoping to have planting to buffer the trail.
5. A new standard condition of approval will accompany all subdivision and site plan approvals:
All clearing limits to be clearly flagged and approved by the town engineer or technician prior to the preconstruction meeting.
6. Clarify that the 75 front setback is a no-cut buffer.
Ms. Maloney stated with the review of Lucindas they spoke of a view shed from Route One; keeping that in mind, this lot has many constraints. There is a 75 design setback; a 75 setback from the center of the stream and Maine Inland Fish & Game wants an additional 25 buffer from the stream. A little corner of the building is beyond the building envelope. They are requesting some thinning and minor clearing in the 75 setback for sight line. The DEP has very strict guidelines for thinning. There are proposing some limbing up of trees. One of the differences between the SHP building and Norton is that the many of these trees are evergreens.
Ms. Nixon stated the Route One design guidelines offer two options for the 75 setback. It can be maintained in its natural wooded state or thinned to present a manicured park like setting.
Mr. Richards asked where the stream was located; he asked if this was a lot that Inland Fisheries was concerned about the American eel.
Ms. Archino Howe stated there is currently a culvert at the stream crossing which will not be changed.
7. Show existing vegetation/tree line and proposed tree line and clearing limits on SheetC-101.
8. Driveway Cross section? Driveway width in accordance with ordinance? Sidewalk or paved shoulder? Are the three light poles along edge of parking in the rear necessary? Hours of operation?
Ms. Maloney stated the cross-section will be in accordance with the Ordinance. There will be no sidewalk or paved shoulder, they prefer a gravel walkway.
Mr. Powers stated the applicant should be aware of adequate lighting for security in the parking area.
9. Still need to see sign and sign lighting details. Will there be any signage on or near the building?
Ms. Maloney presented a preliminary sketch of the sign. The sign will have down lights; the sign will be on Route One. The owners are still determining if there will be a sign on the building.
10. Evidence of sewer user units secured? Number needed?
Ms. Maloney stated they will be awarded 4 sewer units with the purchase of the property.
11. Number of parking spaces clarified.
Ms. Maloney stated there will be 61 spaces. There will be 45 employees in the beginning with anticipation that will increase to 60 employees.
Mr. Couillard stated he noticed the trash collection point is at an end of the building where there are no doors.
Ms. Archino Howe stated Norton will not have a dumpster, they generate minimal paper waste, paper is sent to a confidential shredder, and cleaners will take any solid waste.
Mr. Neagle stated it would be good to design a dumpster location for any potential future owner.
Mr. Couillard asked about a sidewalk to Route One.
Ms. Maloney stated one of the rooms in the building is a fitness room.
Ms. Archino Howe asked if they were referencing a formal sidewalk with curbs, or a widened paved shoulder.
Mr. Couillard stated he would prefer a sidewalk on the side; he feels paved walkways are hazardous.
Mr. Ward stated the proposed building is nice and fits with the difficulties of the property. He didnt remember what the sight lines were; he offered caution on clearing for the sight line.
Ms. Nixon pointed out that they have encroached the building envelope from the 1995 subdivision approval. If the Board is accepting of this, how would they like to see it handled?
Mr. Powers stated the setback can be corrected as part of this application.
The public portion of the meeting was opened.
Ms. Penny Asherman, of the Conservation Committee stated concerns were similar to Planet Dog.
· The stormwater treatment to be maximized to maintain the wetland and stream quality.
· To see the maximum buffer from the stream to be maintained and clearing to be approved by DEP.
· The wetlands impact was not on the plan, they would like that to be included on the plan.
· Parking lot lighting directed away from wetlands to not disturb wildlife.
Mr. Stretch Madore, of Schooner Ridge stated he abuts behind the lot. He was under the impression that the wetlands couldnt be encroached. He would like to see the building moved away from the wetlands; which are a natural barrier to development on the lot.
Ms. Maloney stated they have been very conscious of having lights not affect abutting property. They are somewhat in the wetland but approximately 50 at the very most; there is a tiny arm of wetlands.
Mr. Powers stated there are conditions and circumstances that allow filling of wetlands; this applicant has wetlands on one side and a stream on the other side. They are limited to where the building can be shifted. There is a very narrow building envelope on this lot and the building has been located effectively with the competing considerations.
Mr. Mike Moles of Cape Elizabeth stated there is a bill before the Legislature (LD 1493) to move Maine to Atlantic Time zone which would reduce light pollution and increase safety in winter months.
The Board took no action.
6. Sketch Plan Review Major 19-lot Clustered Subdivision Foreside Crescent, 120 Foreside Road, Tax Assessor Map U05, Lot 2, Greenland Construction, applicant; Robert Metcalf, P.E., Mi
