Town of Scarborough Planning Board

June 2, 2014 AGENDA

1. Call to Order (7:00 P. M.) 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes (May 12, 2014) 4. The Rock Church requests site plan review for expansion of their parking at 66 Gorham Road* 5. Anthony Vail Way Subdivision, Normand Berube Builders requests subdivision review for 3 single family lots off Sarah Liberty Lane* 6. Good Rebel Holdings LLC requests amendment to site plan for architectural changes to previously approved climbing facility on Haigis Parkway* 7. Scarborough Property Holdings, LLC requests site plan amendment review for previously approved site at 284Payne Road* 8. Settlers Green Estates II, Normand Berube Builders requests second amendment review for changes to Lots 17 and 18 in previously approved project on Tenney Lane* 9. Waterstone Retail requests site plan review for 113,482 square foot, 3 building, multi-tenant project at 700 Gallery Boulevard* 10. Rigney Farm Subdivision, Risbara Bros. Construction request preliminary plan review for a 13 lot residential subdivision off Highland Avenue in the R-2 Zone* 11. Griffin Road Development LLC requests site plan review for 36 unit senior housing facility at 5 Griffin Road* 12. Town Planner’s Report 13. Administrative Amendment Report 14. Correspondence 15. Planning Board Comments 16. Adjournment

*Public comment will be allowed on these items.

NO NEW ITEMS SHALL BE TAKEN UP AFTER 10:30 P. M.

 

Town of Scarborough Planning Board

June 2, 2014 AGENDA

Members Present

Staff

Ms. Auglis Mr. Bouffard Mr. Dupont Mr. Fellows Mr. Mazer Mr. Paul

Mr. Chace, Senior Planner Ms. Logan, Recording Secretary

1. Call to Order Mr. Paul called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. 2. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll; Mr. McGee was absent. 3. Approval of Minutes (May 12, 2014) Mr. Paul moved to approve the minutes of May 12, 2014; Mr. Dupont seconded. Voted 4-0-1 – Mr. Mazer abstained. 4. The Rock Church requests site plan review for expansion of their parking at 66 Gorham Road* Mr. Chace explained that this request was for expansion of the building and the parking in the R-4 Zone where a church is an allowed use. He stated that the applicant was asking for a waiver for the architecttural review requirement under the commercial design standards of the Site Plan Ordinance. He stated that there were comments regarding the fire lane, circulation and landscaping and the Board should be aware of proposed phasing. Mr. Tom Greer, of Pinkham & Greer, noted that the church had new members and needed more parking spaces because people were parking on Gorham Road. He stated that they also wanted to expand the existing building by 16 feet to the rear and create two small courtyards for a playground area and gathering space. He stated that the courtyards would be situated so there would be no need to cross the driveway and would be fenced from the parking. Mr. Greer stated that they would relocate a shed and the dumpster. He stated that arbor vitae would screen the parking and there would be additional landscaping with a berm in the rear; he stated that there would be two new islands within the parking lot. He stated that the phasing would be over a five year period and the church would likely expand in the front in the future and they wanted the site to be ready for that expansion. Mr. Greer stated that the proposed addition would be the same as the existing structure with clapboards and a metal roof, and would simply extend out from the building by 16 feet and would house office space and a classroom. He noted that they would give a 10 foot easement for a sidewalk to be built by the Town along Gorham Road.

   

 

There was no public comment. . To a question from Ms. Auglis, Mr. Greer replied that the existing back wall would remain and separate the two areas. Ms. Auglis confirmed that the landscape islands would be installed during Phase 2 and that the berms and arbor vitae would be installed during Phase 1. To a question from Ms. Auglis, Mr. Greer replied that they would erect a moveable fence along the fire lane so there would be access if the need arose. Mr. Chace stated that he had not seen that detail so would have to consult the Fire Department. Mr. Greer stated that there would be a five foot wide grassed area between the walkway and the building after the addition was built. Ms. Auglis stated that she would like to recommend nicer landscaping at the back of the new building. Mr. Bouffard asked whether new spaces would be added for the future front addition; Mr. Greer replied that they would expand the parking toward the rear. Mr. Chace noted that additional parking would also be addressed when the future addition was given site plan review. Mr. Fellows stated that he, too, favored additional landscaping; he stated that, given the nature of the addition, he was willing to waive the architectural review. Mr. Dupont stated that it was great to see the street parking taken care of. To a question from Mr. Mazer, Mr. Chace replied that Woodard & Curran found that the stormwater plan was suitable. Mr. Paul stated that he was satisfied with waiving the architectural review but when the church returned for the front expansion toward the street an architectural review would be necessary. He suggested staggered plantings on the berm; he stated that he was concerned about the moveable fencing. Mr. Greer stated that he would get a written approval from the Fire Department. Mr. Chace stated that the Fire Department needed details of the turf on the fire lane, the design of the lane on the north where there is a parking space that impeded full access around the building as well as the moveable fence. Mr. Chace stated that the Fire Department was satisfied with the location of the lane and the issues could be conditions of approval. Ms. Auglis asked that there be landscaping across the primary entrance to the church with staff to approve what was planted. Mr. Paul moved to approve the amended site plan for the expansion of the building and parking areas with the condition that the plans be revised to address the issues related to the phasing plan, internal vehicular circulation, landscaping and pedestrian easements, as noted in staff comments and detailed as part of the Board discussion, prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition, given the location and scale of the proposed building addition, and that the site is located in the R-4 Zone which is not subject to the Commercial Design Standards, the final design of the addition is to be reviewed and approved by the Senior Planner prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Fellows seconded. Voted 5-0 5. Anthony Vail Way Subdivision, Normand Berube Builders requests subdivision review for 3 single family lots off Sarah Liberty Lane* Mr. Chace noted that the stormwater management issue in this area had been through a lengthy discussion; he stated that Woodard & Curran had provided a memo. He stated that covenants were questioned and needed clarification and the hammerhead did not meet the Town standards and staff did not recommend granting the waiver if the road is to be public but a private road would be acceptable. He noted that this site was in the RF Zone and required the Conservation Design process. Mr. Bill Thompson, of BH2M, stated that this was a proposal for three lots and 19 acres of open space on a 22.7 acre parcel; he stated that they had reduced the amount of water going to the abutters and the peer reviewers had agreed with their proposal. He stated that Note 27 indicated that the road would be private

   

  unless the Town accepted it and Mr. Wendel was satisfied with the standards of the road and the applicant would be comfortable whether the road was public or private. Mr. Thompson stated that there was buffering for protection of the stormwater areas with iron rods and red caps indicating no disturb buffers. He stated that that they understood that when the Hale subdivision was done in 2006 the entire parcel would be under the deed covenants and they met all the requirements. He stated that the buffer pin locations were shown and the sites would be graded and the open areas grassed. Mr. Paul opened the public comment segment; Mr. Dan Dwyer, of 6 Sarah Liberty Lane, stated that the homes were built in 2001, not 2006. Mr. Paul closed the public comment segment. Mr. Bouffard stated that he still could not support this project because of concerns for the raised lots pushing out water which would find its way to the lowest point; he stated that the best thing for this lot was to leave it alone and let it remain open. Mr. Fellows confirmed that the applicant thought these lots were within the deed covenants. To a question from Mr. Fellows, Mr. Chace replied that Mr. Wendel and the Public Works Director were comfortable with the road specifications but the hammerhead was not acceptable; he stated that the subdivision standards for private roads had different criteria. Mr. Fellows stated that he was skeptical about this project given the water issues and the vague language; he stated that the water would raise the high water table and there was no way to move the water away. He noted that there had been a lot of public outcry about water in basements and other issues. Mr. Fellows stated that he had a hard time with this as designed and maybe the project was not meant to be. Mr. Mazer stated that he deferred to the experts and if they deemed the project satisfactory he would not interfere; but he had a problem with the hammerhead because the Public Works Director was not satisfied. To a question from Mr. Mazer, Mr. Thompson replied that the buffers would be delineated with iron pins as recommended by the DEP; he stated that they were not altering wetlands but protecting them. Mr. Chace stated that the red caps were standard but the Board could ask for hardscape delineation. Mr. Mazer stated that he would favor firmer delineation. Ms. Auglis noted that all the good land was gone and new subdivision will have built-in problems and the Town tried to provide ordinances to help make difficult decisions and try to help the applicant. She stated that the Board had done a good job and people would be unhappy whether this proposal was approved or not. She stated that she agreed that this project was pushing the limits and she trusted that the process was fair. She stated that wetlands were a very fragile ecosystem and this may be a site that should remain vacant. Ms. Auglis stated that she was confident that the staff could work out the hammerhead issue. To a question from Mr. Dupont, Mr. Chace replied that elevations would be taken care of by a third party inspector during construction. Mr. Dupont stated that he did not have a problem with the water issue; he stated that, though the pins delineating the wetlands could be removed, a fence could also be taken down. Mr. Paul noted that the Board had not had such a small property go through so much engineering; he stated that he agreed that the proof was not the engineering but that the improvements were installed properly. He stated that the system would take water away from the abutters and deposit it in the wetlands and he believed the engineers on this matter. He stated that he was satisfied with the stormwater but not with the future potential public road if the hammerhead remained as shown. Mr. Paul stated that he was still very uncomfortable with the right, title and interest on this site and had a real concern about approving a subdivision without seeing the legal title. He stated that the red caps were not enough and the delineation of the wetlands should be improved. Mr. Thompson stated that he understood the concerns but when the whole parcel was developed it was one lot. He stated that water will only go where it is directed and there was no more engineering that

   

  would be an improvement. Mr. Paul noted that there were inches of grade involved and that would be easy to miss and needed to be done correctly. Mr. Thompson stated that they would agree to the private road because they could not make the layout work with the right hand hammerhead; he stated that they were trying to get the title issue solved through the attorneys. 6. Good Rebel Holdings LLC requests amendment to site plan for architectural changes to previously approved climbing facility on Haigis Parkway* Mr. Chace explained that this was a request for an amendment to the rock climbing facility approved in February 2014; he stated that there were proposed changes to the architecture and the lighting fixtures in the parking field. He noted that the Board had considered the design standards at previous meetings. Mr. Andy Highland, of Port City Architecture, stated that the main request was for the material change recommended by the contractor, Patco, to keep the entire skin of the building under one manufacturer because of warranty issues. He stated that they wanted to change the light fixture to one that was on the Efficiency Maine list. Mr. Highland stated that the proposed new metal panels had a coating with texture and fine vertical lines that looked like stone; he stated that the color would not change and the height of the building was a little less. There was no public comment. To a question from Mr. Fellows, Mr. Highland replied that the light fixture would meet all the Town requirements. Mr. Fellows had no concerns. Mr. Taki Miyamoto, of Good Rebel Holdings, noted that in the Haigis Parkway area there were no comparable sales and the cost of construction was more than the appraised value so he would like to close the gap and these changes allowed that. Mr. Mazer stated that the Board did not want to lower the quality of the building; he con-firmed that the substitution of the steel doors was not at the primary entrance. Mr. Miyamoto stated that the front door would remain glass with a steel frame. Mr. Bouffard stated that he liked the overall project. To a question from Mr. Paul, Mr. Highland replied that the lowered roof line would still shelter the mechanical equipment. Mr. Paul confirmed that the wire mesh would remain on the building. Mr. Paul moved to approve the site plan amendment as proposed; Mr. Mazer seconded. Voted 5-0 7. Scarborough Property Holdings, LLC requests site plan amendment review for previously approved site at 284Payne Road* Mr. Chace explained that this site was approved for a gas station, carwash and restaurant with the Planned Development review process. He stated that the applicant wanted to modify the site plan by allowing aboveground utilities rather than the approved underground utilities. Mr. David Latulip, of Scarborough Property Holdings, stated that Central Maine Power Co. had informed them that they wanted something different from their approved design and it worked better for the project to avoid the big utility pole within the site. He stated that there is a big lateral pole at the corner of Ginn and Payne Roads which they would eliminate. He stated that there was only a guide wire across Payne Road so no 3-phase power was needed in the street and no conduits in the ground so the pole could be removed. He stated that utility poles would be placed in the rear which they thought was a good compromise to keep everything on the perimeter of the site. He stated that all neighboring properties had above ground utilities and they would like the poles along the treeline where they would be hidden. Mr. Latulip

   

  stated that the bigger issue was that the cost was encumbering the use of Lot 2 and they did not want the pole in front of the property. There was no public comment. Mr. Mazer stated that this was not an unreasonable request given the neighborhood. Mr. Dupont had no problem. Mr. Bouffard had no issues. Mr. Fellows stated that the Board tried to get underground utilities when possible but, given the neighborhood with no residential use, he was satisfied. To a question from Mr. Fellows, Mr. Latulip replied that the pole height would meet the treeline. Mr. Paul noted that if the poles were in the treeline, CMP would be taking down the limbs. He stated that his issue was that the Site Plan Review Ordinance required underground utilities and, in his time on the Board, a project had not been approved unless the utilities were underground. Mr. Dupont moved to approve the amended site plan as presented; Mr. Mazer seconded. Voted 4-1 – Mr. Paul opposed. 8. Settlers Green Estates II, Normand Berube Builders requests second amendment review for changes to Lots 17 and 18 in previously approved project on Tenney Lane* Mr. Chace explained that a home was built on Lot 17 but was four or five feet closer to the property line than allowed; he stated that the abutting Lot 18 was vacant so the proposal was to adjust the lot line. He stated that nothing else would change and there would be no impact on the wetland. Mr. Chace noted that the building permit showed the correct setback and the error occurred during placement of the building. Mr. Bill Thompson, of BH2M, stated that a survey showed that the structure was 4.01 feet into the required setback so he showed a bend in the property line with 17 feet to the building and a loss of a few square feet on Lot 18 which was not yet developed. There was no public comment and no issues from the Board. Mr. Paul moved to approve the amended subdivision plan with the conditions that the plan be revised in accordance with staff comments; Mr. Fellows seconded. Voted 5-0 Mr. Paul called a recess at 8:55; the meeting resumed at 9:05 P. M. 9. Waterstone Retail requests site plan review for 113,482 square foot, 3 building, multi-tenant project at 700 Gallery Boulevard* Mr. Chace stated that the focus was now on the large structure and the two small buildings would be addressed later. He stated that this was Lot 7 of the Scarborough Gallery subdivision and many of the offsite details had been done when the subdivision was approved. He stated that the commercial design standards covered large scale buildings and facades and the applicant should address how the building would complement the existing buildings. He stated that the blank walls, especially on the east side, should be discussed. Ms. Nancy St. Clair, of St. Clair Associates, stated that there was coordinated effort between the landscaping and the architecture with the landscape plan being done by Terrance DeWan Associates. She

   

  stated that a cart corral plan would be provided and a second phase was shown for the small restaurant and retail buildings, for which they hoped to have tenants before construction on the main building began. She stated that all the site improvements would be done at once and the preload was settling and it would be 10 to 12 months before construction. Ms. St. Clair stated that they showed a pad location for a bus shelter which would be provided by South Portland. She stated that a planting list had been provided and they added a crosswalk as requested by the Board. Mr. Tim Tobin, of Phase Zero Design, stated that they provided generous landscaping and added planting areas along the building; he stated that they felt the design of the building was consistent with the others on the boulevard. He stated that the stores kept their own carts but they could create a cart corral design in the event there were stray carts. He stated that they added changes both horizontally and vertically to the building and had multiple building materials; he stated that the elevations showed areas for signage and they would require the individual tenants to comply with the sign standards; he stated that those signs would be presented to the Board when they received them. Mr. Tobin stated that the building would be constructed of brick, EIFS and aluminum with color variations and fabric awnings; he stated that there would be no split face concrete block. He stated that there would be extensive glazing in the front as required by the design standards and they did not show the rear elevation because it could not be seen. There was no public comment. To a question from Mr. Bouffard, Mr. Tobin replied that there were two name plates because Marshall/ Home Place had two separate entrances. To a question from Mr. Bouffard, Mr. Doug Richardson, of Waterstone Retail, replied that the colors shown were the final colors; he noted that the brick was the same as at Lowe’s and WalMart. Mr. Mazer noted that the blank east side wall did not meet the requirements of the design standards. Mr. Tobin replied that they had added some horizontal changes and there was glazing on that side. To a question from Mr. Mazer, Mr. Tobin reiterated that each store took care of its own carts. Mr. Richardson stated that they recently developed Marshalls and Pet Smart stores which had their own cart storage areas and the carts did not go into the parking lot; he stated that the small stores would not have shopping carts. Mr. Dupont noted that some pillars might break up the east side of the building. Mr. Fellows stated that he would like the east side wall broken up but liked the continuity of the building materials and was satisfied with the architecture and the landscaping plan. He stated that there needed to be cart corrals. Mr. Paul noted that the east side of the building would be seen from Gallery Boulevard because of the depth of the corner and that side corridor should be improved. He stated that the Board would want to see the cart corral. To a question from Mr. Paul, Ms. St. Clair replied that they did not change the landscaping in the bio-retention cells but a summary of the plants was provided and would meet the criteria. Mr. Chace asked that there be a general location shown for the signs along the building frontage. Mr. Richardson stated that Waterstone would approve the store signs; he noted that they were a strict landlord and followed the design standards. To a question from Mr. Mazer, Mr. Richardson stated that they should have some stores openby September 2015. 10. Rigney Farm Subdivision, Risbara Bros. Construction request preliminary plan review for a 13 lot residential subdivision off Highland Avenue in the R-2 Zone* Mr. Chace explained that this site was mostly in the R-2 Zone with some areas of RF and Industrial Zoning and required Conservation Subdivision review. He stated that the Board had seen the sketch plan and there were comments from Tom Gorrill and Woodard & Curran, as well as Mr. Wendel and the staff comments. He stated that one of the main questions was the extent of the existing Banager Way because the plans did not leave the existing lot with adequate frontage and that needed to be clarified.

   

 

Mr. Lee Allen, of Northeast Civil Solutions, explained that this was an 18.8 acre site, 500 feet east of the Pleasant Hill Road and Highland Avenue intersection; he stated that there would be 10 acres of open space and they proposed a 1,150 foot public road ending in a cul de sac at the end of Banager Way. He stated that this project required a stormwater permit which was under review by the DEP, and the Sanitary District and Portland Water District would give their approvals this month. Mr. Allen stated that there were two existing homes, one of which was not part of the subdivision. He stated that Lot 1 would be carved out of the existing home and they would extinguish the right of way and give the Jackson home the frontage it needed. He stated that there was a large wetland to the north of the site and the stormwater would be treated with several rain gardens. Mr. Paul opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. Gus Olivera stated that he lived on Woodgate Road which was directly across from this project. He stated that he would like to understand the acreage of this subdivision and the price of the units. He stated that his concern was traffic coming out onto Highland Avenue along with traffic from Settlers Green with the speed limit of 45 MPH; he stated that consideration should be given to the speed limit and it should be reduced. Mr. Olivera asked whether there would be landscaping on Highland Avenue where three houses would back up to the street. Mr. David Carmody, of 1 Woodgate Road, asked whether this site would be sewered or on septic. Mr. Paul closed the public comment segment. Mr. Chace explained that the R-2 Zone allowed two units per acre and because of the area in the RF and Industrial Zones the net residential density calculations needed to be clarified. He stated that the Conservation Subdivision allowed 7,500 square foot lots but this project would maintain 20,000 square foot lots. He stated that Woodgate was in the RF Zone and therefore had two acre lots. Mr. Allen noted that there could be 25 homes on this site but they proposed 13; he stated that the traffic study had been done and there were no offsite issues. He stated that there would be a three to four foot berm with landscaping the length of Highland Avenue to screen the noise and the visibility. Mr. Allen stated that the homes would be sewered with individual ejector pumps and a sewer main in their road which would flow into a gravity sewer; he stated that there would be public water. He stated that the sight distance on Highland Avenue was based on the existing speed limit but they would look at that issue. Mr. Rocco Risbara III stated that the homes would be priced in the $300,000 to $400,000 range and they already had interest in the homes and ex-pected them to sell quickly. Mr. Risbara stated that they had earth material from their project on Route One that they would like to move to this site to create the berm and hoped to be able to place the berm prior to subdivision approval. He noted that they would strip a 50 foot wide area and put the material in after they created erosion control. To a question from Mr. Mazer, Mr. Allen replied that they proposed aligning the center of their road with that of Woodgate Road. Mr. Allen explained the private way to the Jackson house; he stated that there would be a 50 foot wide right of way that tied into the public road. Mr. Chace noted that it was rare that the Board approved a private way off a public right of way but this made sense given the existing conditions. To a question from Mr. Fellows, Mr. Allen replied that, based on the traffic, there would be a stop sign at both intersections. To a question from Mr. Mazer, Mr. Allen replied that they could put an easement between Lots 5 and 6 to access and maintain the pond. Mr. Bouffard stated that there was a need for moderately priced homes and he had no issues. To questions from Mr. Fellows, Mr. Allen replied that the Sanitary District was satisfied with the proposed system and they did not yet have their capacity to serve letter. Mr. Fellows stated that he understood the desire to create the berm early but this project still needed DEP approval which could be a lengthy pro-

   

  cess. Mr. Allen stated that the DEP would be making their decision prior to July 28, 2014 so it would not be a long process. To a question from Mr. Paul, Mr. Allen replied that there would be a street light at the intersection but they planned no street lighting on Rigney Road. In reference to constructing the berm prior to approval, Mr. Paul stated that he did not think the Board had the right to make a decision for any developer to do something on a site that had not been approved. Mr. Risbara noted that they could come back for a Land Reclamation review; he stated that he had permission from the landowner. Mr. Paul stated that the six foot wide paths to the open space were not wide enough because they would slowly become part of someone’s yard and should be wider so they could be clearly delineated to get to the open space. There was discussion about preliminary approval at which time capacity to serve letters should be in hand and there were no details about the Jackson property right of way. Mr. Paul stated that the Board should wait for those items. 11. Griffin Road Development LLC requests site plan review for 36 unit senior housing facility at 5 Griffin Road* Mr. Chace explained that rezoning of this property to the TVC Zone allowed senior housing with site plan review with a subdivision component because dwelling units were being created, however, the site plan criteria was used for addressing many of the same issues as the subdivision criteria for multifamily developments. He stated that at sketch plan review there were issues revolving around buffering and access through the parking lot at Griffin Road; he stated that the applicant did have right, title and interest to use that right of way. Mr. Chace stated that there were comments from Tom Gorrill, Woodard & Curran and from the staff. Ms. Nancy St. Clair, of St. Clair Associates, noted that there had been a site walk and neighborhood meetings. She stated that the updated site plan addressed items from the Board and the neighbors. She stated that they proposed improvements to Griffin Road including construction of some of the road and paving the entire road which would channel traffic to improve the access to Route One. Ms. St. Clair stated that the site plan showed the building on the rear of the site and they had pulled it further from Pine Point Road to create a fire lane around the building. She stated that there would be 37 parking spaces which would be one for each unit and the office employee. Ms. St. Clair stated that they would collect the runoff from Griffin Road and direct it to the natural drainage area toward the stream; she stated that there would be catch basins and the runoff from the parking and the roof would be collected and treated with a bioretention cell in the parking lot. She stated that there would be two other grassed, depressed areas for retention and best management practices were part of the whole treatment system. She stated that they were in the permit by rule process with the DEP and they needed a Natural Resources Permit for the stream which was also a permit by rule. Mr. William Bray, Traffic Engineer, explained that this was an extremely low generator of traffic and And there was a detailed impact study done because of the proximity to Dunstan Corner. He detailed the trip assessments. He stated that left turns in and out of Griffin Road were delayed but it was determined that with the volume of traffic from this site no traffic signal was warranted. He stated that a second lane was not recommended because it would create a blind spot to turning drivers. Mr. Bray stated that the safety data showed the area a high crash location with 19 crashes but only three were at the Griffin Road intersection. He stated that he spent a lot of time watching traffic and it was evident that drivers approaching from the south came into the parking lot at a 45° angle and were not cautious about entering

   

  the site; he stated that people leaving the site also drove out at a 45° angle. He stated that the proposed plan extends a 90° angle off Route One with a raised island so drivers had to come to a stop and observe traffic and drive more slowly. He stated that this was a difficult intersection to resolve but these improvements would help reduce the accidents. Regarding the memo from Mr. Gorrill, Mr. Bray stated that the parking lot was not under the applicant’s ownership so this project could not close any of the entrances or eliminate any parking spaces. He stated that the sight line was not an issue because of the low trip generation. Ms. St. Clair stated that they would provide a sidewalk on Griffin Road with small esplanades, one with a light pole and the other would help make the grades uniform; she stated that the existing driveways would not be affected. She stated that there was stacking room for one vehicle to turn into Route One. Ms. St. Clair displayed the building elevation which was designed in compliance with the design standards with a gable over the front door and decks above; she stated that back patio areas had been eliminated. She stated that the roof was pitched and the colors would be earth tones and there was a natural buffer at Pine Point Road and Orchard Street. Ms. St. Clair stated that the building would be in the open field area so the buffer would be preserved as noted on the plan. She stated that there was an oak tree and evergreens at Route One and a side slope with ferns and sod at the base of the slope with a fence and two maples on that edge. She explained that this site was lower than the abutting area where there would be a fence, shrubs and trees. She stated that there were also garden areas and the parking lot had a landscape isle and a bioretention cell as well as landscaping along the building with flowers, trees and shrubs. Mr. Kevin Bunker, of Developers Collaborative, explained that they would submit their application in the fall for rent-restricted housing approval from the State; he noted that the project had started as three buildings and was now down to one for the best plan for impact on the abutters and the area. He stated that they had agreed to purchase the road from the owner who wanted to be involved. He noted that there was an issue with snow plowing for the owner of the retail mall. He noted that there was a need for affordable housing in Scarborough. Mr. Paul opened the meeting to public comment. Ms. Elena Frank, of 3 Griffin Road, noted that there would be two light poles and the sidewalk on her side of the road. She asked how the sidewalk would influence their ability to build a garage; she noted that she saw no buffering on her side. Ms. Frank stated that the traffic was very heavy and she proposed a sign to stop traffic; she asked about the brightness of the lights and how the power lines would impact the sidewalk. She noted that she had a tree that was in the way of the proposed sidewalk; she stated that the traffic would increase and impact their lifestyle; she stated that the road was not wide enough and a fire truck would block the road. Ms. Frank stated that a three story building was not compatible with the neighborhood and the wildlife area would be destroyed. She asked how the road would be maintained. Dr. Joseph Penna, owner of Dunstan Plaza, stated that he had improved his site over the 28 years he had owned it and this was a good project but his issue was with traffic going through the plaza. He stated that this was a difficult intersection and there was a huge amount of traffic at the corner; he stated that it would be a problem for him to lose parking spaces. He stated that he plowed his parking lot up to Griffin Road and the curbcuts would cause problems for the plowing; he stated that eliminating the curbcuts would be very detrimental to his businesses. Dr. Penna stated that this was a good project for Scarborough but if it created undue hardship it was not fair to him. Ms. Emma Dann, of 16 Orchard Street, stated that she hoped this did not compromise the value of her home; she stated that two stories would be preferred and she would rather single family dwellings. She stated that her property would have no buffer and she would stare at the building and the parking. She stated that there needed to be some significant natural buffer and she hoped that her back yard would not

   

  be impacted by the drainage. She stated that traffic was a big issue. Mr. Anthony DiBiase, of 4 Griffin Road, stated that the curbing would restrict his property and more traffic would be brought through the one outlet. Mr. Paul closed the public comment segment. To a question from Mr. Bouffard, Ms. St. Clair replied that the building would have a partial basement with the mechanical room. Mr. Bouffard asked about storage space; Mr. Bunker replied that they had not provided storage areas for senior housing and there had been no complaints; he stated that there would be a certain amount of closet space. To questions from Mr. Bouffard, Mr. Bunker replied that they eliminated the patios to cut costs. Ms. St. Clair stated that there would be picnic tables and benches in the garden area and they could put some near the building. Mr. Fellows noted that he lived on Orchard Street and opposed the zone change but this proposal had the potential to be a good project for which there was a need; he stated that the architecture was promising. He stated that there should be buffering all the way around the site for the abutters; he stated that the building was optimally situated and used the natural buffering. He stated that he would argue that at certain times of the year rush hour was when people were on the way to the beach; he stated that the recent road improvements helped but he would be concerned about any additional trips. He asked about the seasonal traffic count. Ms. St. Clair noted that an accurate count could not be done during seasonal times of the year. Mr. Bray replied that the traffic number used in the report was counted in April and the volumes on Route One were prepared by MDOT based on summer traffic counts in 2011. He stated that the volume of traffic exiting Griffin Road was not high and it was the left turn movement on Route One that caused the level of F. Mr. Mazer stated that the traffic was a problem now and this project would not add to the existing problem and should not lie on the shoulders of the applicant. Mr. Dupont stated that the traffic issue could not be solved and, overall, he was in favor of this project. Mr. Chace noted that the TVC Zone allowed high density at five units per acre and some density bonuses for transfer development rights and affordable housing. Mr. Paul stated that this was the best type of project for low traffic volume. He stated that the Board could do the right thing with buffering and lighting; he stated that there would be a traffic issue with any project on this site. He stated that the Board needed to know whether there should be right turn only access with no left turns; he stated that there would be stacking issues. Mr. Paul recommended different levels of lighting at night. He stated that this was a great project but the issues needed to be mitigated as much as possible. 12. Town Planner’s Report There was no report. 13. Administrative Amendment Report There was no report. 14. Correspondence There was no report. 15. Planning Board Comments

   

  Mr. Mazer noted upcoming projects to be addressed by the Transportation Committee. 16. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P. M.