Oh going on all right welcome everyone to this planning board meeting Wednesday December 19th first item on our agenda is a roll call we've got least a buck we've got Christos Windsor myself fell ruck with that Jeremy debit we've comped him mr. Beckett and Mike Costello down the end there so next up on the agenda is acceptance of the agenda as a motion so moved second very good any discussion comments edits hearing none all those in favor of the agenda has provided next up approval of the minutes of July 18 2018 we have a very good summary that was provided in our packets and I have a motion for that so moved so one correction could I have a second Sam get that mr. Beckett all right comments questions yes so even though I was not there I think there's a miss parameter yeah in Section 7 says John Beckett moved to adjourn on the May 16th planning board meeting in the May 16th planning board meeting was adjourned I think that was supposed to be the drive me good catch you know I look at that know I read right over it was one edit any others I guess that correction all those in favor of the minutes as amended very good next up we have new business this evening first up is a proposed land use ordinance amendment to sections 18 - 128 18 - 126 18 - 31 that 131 are thing one soman 31 that's correct if these are okay 18 - 127 18 - 168 18 - 169 18 - 177 18 - 206 18 - 210 and 18 - 106 to implement standards for parcels located in the c2 district with furnish along Park Street as well as better aligning several traffic and access management standards with those are the Maine Department of Transportation so before we have a presentation I just want to fill in the board members we did have a workshop a month ago and Kyle gave us a very thorough presentation with with Evans support the proposed land use ordinance so we did provide but we had an extensive review provided comment and they've come back to us with some changes but I just just want to let board members know that that weren't able to attend that we did have these five people here anyways and had quite a thorough review so hopefully we don't have to backtrack as much certainly questions are welcome but just wanted to give you a heads up on what happened so with that Kyle can you give us an update presentation I know the revised pack you know the ordinance yes very good is it the entire presentation are an abbreviated one that sounds like a good plan hi everyone my name is Kyle Drexler I'm the town planner okay so this is just a presentation to kind of provide some visual aid for the proposed amendments to kind of better illustrate and give a picture of what the concept in theory is behind some of the ideas you know jumping right in in the red section that's kind of our focus area the the c2 district of Park Street these standards are only impacting the parcels that have actually front a long Park Street and some of the other standards dealing with curb cuts and driveway with our town wide standards but as far as the the setback standard which is the major thing being changed and proposed here that's dealing solely in this section of Park Street so the town had a transportation study done you know fairly recently and three recommendations came out of that the one we're talking about here is the third bullet changes to the land use ordinance in hopes to better manage access to and from Park Street and also encourage more human scale development making it more comfortable space to walk to bike and for eating people who drive to the area for the you know students who now there's you know a lot more apartment helps me so you know kind of going off that you know one of the major goals is to make Park Street a connector rather than a divider you know as it stands you have a lot of student housing on one side of the street and the University on the other side and what this would do is hopefully make the corridor a more comfortable place a safer place for people to travel through instead of trying to get around so to act more as a bridge between the two sections a connector rather than a barrier again you know developing and setting the foundation for more human scale development for people on the corridor kind of making the most out of complete Street principles that's talking about bike lanes and more crosswalks and all those pedestrian and bike friendly amenities that will be better served by some of the standards proposed here and the last one creating an outdoor room effect which is what the main setback standard addresses bringing the buildings closer to the right-of-way to create a closer and more comfortable kind of feel with the buildings acting as walls on the on the street so just quickly this is you know Mill Street what our downtown looks like this is just to provide an image of the the density level in a downtown versus on Main Street here you have a 30-foot setback and it provides still a comfortable walking experience but there's a little more space out in front of the buildings you know you have enough space for a vegetated buffer area but there isn't a lot of room for a lot of parking out front of the building so you might see on Stillwater F or somewhere like that and this ratio that you see at the bottom there is talking about the ratio between the height of the building and the distance from the building to the centerline of the street so in the downtown you have this one-to-one ratio where you have 25 feet of building height and 25 feet to the centerline on Main Street right outside here it's more of a 1 to 3 ratio which is you know a comfortable ratio for pedestrians and people walking on the quarter so some of our current standards that would go unchanged you know keeping the same building footprint the idea of having pitched roofs and residential style siding so it's not really changing the look of the buildings or any design standards that we currently have in place some of the things that are proposing to be changed the front yard setback is the major one currently there's just a 20 foot minimum the proposed change would have a 10 foot minimum and a 25 foot maximum what this essentially does is makes it impossible really to have any parking in front of the building the parking for these developments would then be shifted to the rear and the side of the building to create better access safer access for people walking to business off the street that being said there is this incentive there's a couple ways the one mentioned here is you know if you go up in building height you can move the building back to a farther setback so you're still maintaining the ratio that we talked about a building height to Street centerline you know and that would allow for at most one row of parking out front so if you had a maybe two floor or three floor building and you really wanted that parking out front that would be something you could take advantage of again limiting the width of driveways recognizing the idea of service roads which we can get into a little later but really I just want to use this presentation to show the the idea of this outdoor room and why bringing the setback closer kind of creates a better space on the street for people to walk around so you know you have three design elements here that are kind of keys to outdoor rooms buildings closer to the right-of-way limiting parking in the front of buildings and creating comfortable pedestrian streets so you can see on the street you have bike lanes with you know proper buffering for those bike lanes good lighting shade trees all things that these standards don't directly address but they kind of lay the foundation for those things to happen sometime down the line and to get the most out of those things so you know bringing buildings closer to the right-of-way you can see by the rectangle there the building the Front's of the buildings act as the walls of the room the kind of tree canopy and the roofs act as the the ceiling feel and the street X is the floor you know the whole idea is to just bring it closer and to you make people feel more secure like they're walking in a room even though it's still outside that's a pretty common urban design principle this isn't really a new idea that's being come up with it's just trying to better utilize the space that's that's there and again this doesn't affect any existing buildings on Park Street it's for new development and perhaps if there is some you know some redevelopment of an existing structure so again this new setback standard and bringing the buildings closer to the right-of-way it's not aiming to create a second downtown like it's pictured on the left that's not the density level that is meant to happen in the commercial two district it's more designed to kind of create what you see out here where there's still a setback it's easy for people to get from the sidewalk to the business or a building you know but there just isn't a lot of parking and obstacles for pedestrians and cyclists to get to between the sidewalk and the business so principle two is limiting off street parking in the front of building so this you know image just kind of illustrates you know what that might look like you can see the right building because of their height increase going up to two floors they were able to increase their setback a little and that allows for the one row of parking out front but the majority of parking then would be to the back and side of the building and again just creating a safer environment in the front towards the right of way really it's an aim to kind of dissuade the kind of development on the left and kind of encourage that parking towards the rear kind of atmosphere that's pictured there and the last principle is just creating pedestrian comfort and encouraging the complete Street ideas the bike lanes the you know good crosswalks ad a accessible good lighting again the standards don't directly talk about any of those things but creating that outdoor room effects with the development kind of creates an environment that's more comfortable for pedestrians and this is kind of like a chicken and egg thing when you create a place better suited for pedestrians it's easier to and easier to encourage some of those amenities being put into place you know and as you might know Park Street is in exactly a small neighborhood street it's not Mill Street where the traffic is going really slow and one way it's a bigger street that a lot of people used to get through but just showing that those kinds of amenities like bike lanes and things like that can be used on larger scale streets and still be effective so you know this is all really in an effort to encourage that sort of element development down the line okay so that's just a review of kind of the presentation we had last time and the intent some of these standards very good thank you before I open up the public hearing so we can get comments from from you folks do want to open it up to the board if there's any questions what he presented in your material very good I'm gonna open up the public hearing and invite people to step up to the mic if you would state your name so that we can have you on the record and whether you have concerns or comments all right I'm gonna leave the public hearing open a Kyle can you summarize what you know the the points that the board made the the last time and how you clarify things just just a quick summary okay so I think the main points last time that the the board made was one addressing the issue of complexity when reading through this language it's a lot of technical information it can be hard for even staff to digest let alone developers or residents or whoever is looking at it to try to understand so one thing was you know kind of simplifying a few areas clarifying a few things one way in which we attempted to do that was to provide a visual aid in the new version that kind of illustrates the idea of the incentive approach of building higher to get a further setback when you read through something like that it can be a little confusing so hopefully with that in place that makes it a little easier I believe also the board last time we talked to bail kind of what the Planning Board was actually legally allowed to do when it came to more subjective situations as far as if there's an existing building but they add-on just simply a a minor addition to the building where does that line go as far as they have to abide by the standard or you know where what can the Planning Board actually do as far as forcing them to abide by that standard so I think some of that was cleaned up as well and I think the last thing was the irregularly shaped Lots that was another thing that was mentioned previously there was a graphic example of that and it kind of added a length to the amendment that may not have been useful in that many scenarios so I think some of that was shortened up and clarified a little better it was a very technical document for those that weren't able to attend and you know I think that clarifications work that read quite a bit better mm-hmm so last time and I just want to ask the board's opinion on this the last time we went through every single section you know we carved it up provided comment but I'm not sure that we need to walk through or go through that entire exercise this evening so what I was wondering is you talked to us about what with the board asks and what you changed but there was a couple key concepts I think the presentation highlighted a lot of it and what we're trying to get out of this but there's things like service roads and some some key things that were added I think might be useful for both the audience and board members to hear again just maybe a couple couple of the key key points yeah that you really didn't cover you mentioned service roads in your presentation but I thought that's a newer concept for the town yeah let me just get there real quick so theater the idea of service roads was mentioned in the presentation and this is well it's on page seven of mine it might be slightly different on yours section 18 127 the curb cut section a couple pages in number five letter F so where the or no comprehensive plan or other plan adopted by the Town Council recommends a service road as alternative shared access for two or more Lots or structures or where an approved subdivision plan provides for such a service road the applicant shall provide for access to the service road and as may be required by the Planning Board as part of the approval of a site plan or subdivision plan share in the construction or cost of construction of the portion of the service road on which attest frontage so a service road to kind of take a step back the idea that is you know you have Park Street which is the main road and then you have the businesses a service road would usually run behind the businesses to kind of take some of the pressure the vehicular pressure off of Park Street or whatever the main road was in the whatever situation location your brain so you know that transportation plan that the town had done one of the you know key things it was focusing on was ways to reduce the pressure on the corridor and service road would be one of those ways and so to have it kind of have these new developments provide access to future service road is now a piece of this and service roads become something a definition in our ordinance that is actually recognized and can be you know further explored later down the line I think we talked about an example is that kind of the start of the service road one of the projects is this board reviewed was the edge mhm right and there was a connect between the orchard trails drive and difficult although we through I'm trying to recall to what set to Washburn so that was the start of a service road and then I guess part of our discussion which would seem quite interesting is that you know perhaps again this is a long-term plan this is great one step in the process but to be able to connect all of those you know perhaps student houses so all the pressure doesn't go to the parks treatment that was an interesting idea I think many of you recognize that this is very common down in Texas and other places that I haven't been so or yeah Brewer has new service as well so good concept but any other points I'm just trying to thank those that were at the workshop things that jumped out at you he might not have covered in the oh yes yeah can you there was some standards about just talking about the length of a you know a building wall or something like that as Mike pointed out so it's just just highlighting that just just breaks up you know in terms of access to buildings and breaks up that space you had a good buzz over them yeah the evan record i've been still doing some planning work for the town yes the the current stand there is a current standard that in the c2 district that there can't be blank walls a blank wall is described as a distance now i think a 50 feet currently without any feature like a window or an articulation or door some architectural feature that would break up that blank wall blank walls are just one of the most unfriendly pieces of an urban landscape and so a lot of ordinances that pay attention to urban design in maine and elsewhere have some standards that that discouraged blank walls 50 feet so long blank wall and as we looked at some examples of design and so forth we changed the 50 feet to 25 feet so the blank wall had a 50-foot blank wall could be an entire no width of a building if it was you know situated sideways and so you don't want that blank wall 25 feet there's every 25 feet there you have to be some sort of window or architectural feature or door something that communicates with the with the street so that's there the one thing I wanted to Kyle touched on it but I wanted to make sure that the board one of the changes that was made when we met in workshop we've just received so we had asked for some advice from legal counsel about the ability of the Planning Board to to go through a waiver process because we know this can't be a one-size-fits-all there's just too much variation on what people might want to do or need to do in the corridor and so we wanted to give the Planning Board some authority to waive standards under certain circumstances and so we got some legal advice on that and after we digested that following the meeting we did simplify quite a bit it's section it's on page 2 in my copy section 18 - 128 which are the design standards that talk about the setback but if you go to paragraph b1 romanette ii it's a little - i is there on page 2 where it starts with consistent with section 18 - 303 this hall has doin that conformance because what actually you know as we talked about this corridor is not wildly out of alignment with what Kyle has described and it's partly because this corridor was never developed as a as a big suburban strip because the traffic wasn't there to justify it the market wasn't there to justify it things have changed with the introduction of over 2000 student beds in that corridor but it's so most of the buildings that are built there probably don't fully comply with these standards but they're also not wildly off from them either it still has some of that country the leftovers of when that part of Route 2 was somewhat more of a country highway connecting Orono to Old Town nevertheless a lot of the buildings would be non-conforming so what you do when one of those buildings wants to expand or you know I had an accessory building and so forth well there's a matter of practicality of what can be you know how can you get to a 25 foot maximum foot back is setback if you're already at 40 feet and you want to put a you know a thousand foot square foot addition on so this was all meant to deal with that and so we've gone through this question of well can the Planning Board waive things we really simplified it and dialed it back so I think it's worth reading it just so you understand and if you have any comments on it or if the public has any comments on it they can understand because I think this would be not an uncommon situation that would come up so consistent with section 18 - 303 subsections a and C of this ordinance which is the non conformance part of the ordinance existing non-conforming structures or portions thereof may be reconstructed replaced and/or expanded so long as that reconstruction replacement or expansion does not increase the nonconformity that would be the current standard in any case and further is brought into compliance with the standards contains the subject subsection to the greatest extent practicable as determined by the Planning Board in making its determination of practicability the Planning Board shall consider factors such as the distance at which the existing non-conforming structure is set back from the park Street from Park Street the size of the proposed reconstruction replacement or expansion if an expansion if it's an expansion the proposed use of the expansion and for example it was a utility purpose you know that was going to house heating equipment or freezer in the case of a grocery store something that wouldn't I mean that would be something that's not important to be close to the road if it's a retail shop where you want a lot of people entering and coming and going that that would be a different matter and any physical or natural limitations to bringing this closer to the maximum setback line to the extent that the reconstruction replacement and or expansion cannot meet the maximum yard death standard the plan shall include treatments of the yard areas such as landscape and pedestrian circulation and limited parking between the building and Park Street that create a safe and attractive environment for pedestrians and other users of Park Street so you're still trying to get to the idea that this is a corridor that is friendly to multiple ways of traveled but really you're allowing non-conforming buildings to expand and enlarge how it's always a permitting staff involvement in an early level just to talk about the obviously out of the option so that when we get to the board that some of that yeah there would always be that yes in the end it's the planning boards got some room for judgment here court but with some with some considerations that you have to take into place it's not an hour meant not meant to be an arbitrary thing you look at use you look at the existing setbacks and the practicality of can you bring a thousand square foot addition doesn't even look like an article in the front of the building for example so anyways I thought that was important for you to know because I think that this situation may come up as often as new construction or you know a teardown and reconstruction anything else jump out at you through from workshop till now that I think I'll covered I think the service road thing was very important that we were we understand that there are a couple of irregularly shaped Lots there so we're trying to go through a lot of detail to explain that you know Jesus already said glad they can't do this so how do you explain that we really simplified that I think and and so I think that I think that's that's fine now there's one other thing I wanted to mention that it just escaped me as I was talking here just look oh I and I you know I Kyle I think that a good job of explaining that the setback is valuable to the extent that you want to keep the same ratio that ratio by the way I'm in an urban design as a well-established pretty step standard that this idea of height to length if you from higher one building while one building to the wall of the other building on the other side kind of the golden ratio in urban design is a maximum one to five so that's why the one to two and a half to the center line because you don't know what's going on on the other side of the rope that one and a half is is a a sort of a maximal ratio for the context that we're talking about and so that's why the incentive is if you see if you go up a foot you get to step back two and a half feet farther up to a maximum of sixty feet which would allow as Kyle said single roll parking to the front if you reach that and maybe want to apartments on the top two floors and the retail space on the bottom floor you know can get up to that 39 foot height 40 foot height and there are exceptions of course that we try to take into account so I think Kyle did a good job of explaining all that part of it yes very good thank you any other questions from the board I mean it was a tough read the first time I do think they've simplified it quite a bit for both applicants that might come before the town and staff yeah it's not too confusing service road is not necessarily going to be there right away but someone that wants to develop the land has to know that the likelihood of a service road week would be going through two pieces of property never know at the time it's not there so they can't come back and say no we don't want this service road there yeah I think we're always trying to provide that connectivity so someone that builds has to know that this portion it's going to be a service or it's not currently there that make sense was paid yeah other other comments from the board Thomas from the public based on what you heard yeah please can you step up to the mic that would be great if you would I am Chris sader and I live 20 hillside road or '''l receiving a postcard in regards to this evening sorry that's why I came because I received that postcard that I was a butter or close to this I guess my question would be the service roads are they restricted to any new development that goes on to park or are they also being considered for already existing roads and into older neighborhoods in the area since I got those card I don't know good question the transportation management plan that the town commissioned and it's available I collagen Ovitz online we should probably make sure it's there was it was carried out jointly by town manager's office and Public Works and we participated anyways yeah the idea of a service road or a connecting Road all the way from you know the reserve the area of the reserve and the condominiums to the north all the way all the way through really the orchard trail drive is a key concept whether can ever be done physically because of ownership and and established uses and so forth is another question but in concept it's there and we know that there are there are increments of it that can be built the development that's a development that's been approved by the Planning Board two and a half years ago probably now but not yet built called the edge at or two trails another student-oriented development that would be adjacent to Orchard trails was a clutch of development that in fact includes exactly such a crossroad all the way with all the legal easements and so forth in place so it's just a matter of having the project built and when it is built there will be a cross road from Orchard trails drive to Washburn and so that's a big piece of connectivity and and if the even when that is built there are some other options to further connect and move some of the student traffic off of Park Street and right directly into the roundabout it will take negotiations it will take money it'll take resources and willingness and all of that stuff but you know it's certainly it's it's a tangible possibility it's not a dream I have a hunch because I live in the same neighborhood that she might be talking about the the Webster neighborhood I don't think there's any possibility from my my assessment that the Webster neighborhood could ever be connected because of orchha trails and the the land the way they ice yeah I think that I think I think that's right I think that's right you know I do think that part of the roundabout Aparri part of the purpose of that was to give a Webster neighborhood residents an opportunity to get out onto parks are easier more or less by using that roundabout as a slingshot back in the downtown and so that roundabout takes care of some of the issues not all it makes some of the issues a little more challenging but it takes her a lot of other issues and so the transportation management plan that Kyle referred to we was talking about that purpose of complete Street is goes into great detail with lots of design in it and I know the town council and town manager and public works director will incremental II begin implementing that as they are able to find the resources could you just give a quick summary just so people know and we've had the traffic study by T while in I understand I attended one a while ago because I got the same postcard there have been some was it just workshops or whatever was held with the Park Street corridor so there's been some public meetings I don't know if there's anymore plan just for I don't think anymore a plan doesn't mean that somebody couldn't request it but during the transportation management plan process there were a series I think of three public meetings at different stages along the way or either two two or three at plus a series of advisory committee meetings which included neighborhood and business representatives and then Kyle conducted a public hearing just before I before the workshop with the Planning Board Kyle I which every property owner was in the in the c2 district at least was notified we had a modest attendance all residents from the Webster neighborhood as it turned out and so there's been all that and then of course the hearing process here and before the council so after depending on what we do today goes on the council and then there'll be another public hearing correct thank you any more questions before I close please no please step up came to the meeting you might as well say something Chris sader twenty hillside road again I'm sorry I didn't understand what round is it the one already built at the University yes the roundabout you're speaking up yes that's the one that serves as the kind of a slingshot for Webster neighborhood folks so they can turn right now if you're coming out of neighborhood instead of having to turn left you can still turn left but you can turn right and go around and come back yeah the plan also calls for potentially a second roundabout at the northern end so that all the apartment dwellers between Rangeley Road and Old Town consumer turn right and come around like that that's not necessarily the preferred option but it's a good option in combination with a couple of other possibilities that the transportation plan talks about thank you any more questions before I close it up public hearing is closed questions comments from the board all right so they've made a bunch of changes I don't know based on your most recent review whether you have any more I did not happen to come up with any so if if that's the case in no more comments I think we're ready for a motion and what we're going to do with the proposed amendments okay question for you how many voting members do we have here okay so we don't Mike does not need to be yeah okay thank you for mentioning that yeah do do all right okay so I got you so Mike will it will allow you to vote here I've got a question for you and usually this is how we address this if a board member has as a potential conflict do you think because you're in a butter that you think there's any bias or do you think you can act or vote on this this matter without without any issues I had no issues is a question for the board members do any of you have any problem with Mike voting on this issue all right so we have a we've got a full board so I need a motion please do we need to do each one of these separately these amendments sir so I would think for usually what we would do is just pretty much faith and the new business I move that we approve the proposed land use and then I'd probably just read read the whole rest of that okay should I make that motion do I move that we accept the proposed land use ordinance amendment has sections 18 - 128 18 - 126 18 - 31 18 - 127 18 - 168 18 - 169 18 - 177 18 - 206 18 - 210 and 18 - 106 - implement standards for parses parcels located in the c2 district with frontage along Park Street as well as better aligning several traffic and access management standards with those of the Maine Department of Transportation very good we have a motion kind of a second there good any further discussion all those in favor very good just quick question when would this go before the Council of people want to go to that meeting how quickly would this be processed anywhere 14 okay so there is another option if those of you get another postcard and want to go to another meeting there'll be one in January very good thank you Evan Kyle next up on our agenda is a site plan review request by David Ryan and Matthew Edmond who wish to operate a disc golf course on their lot located at the corner of i-95 northbound off-ramp and Kelly road tax map 30 - zero lot 11 in the easy zone could I have a representative the applicant of the African step up and and tell us about a project hi I'm Ryan Edmond my brother David and I son Matthew we looking to put a disc golf course and at that location and you have a plan that was submitted we are looking to to get moving as soon as we possibly can as the weather goes we're hoping to have started sooner but we had a lot of free damage in our orange and course if you've been over there 20 big trees down so it took us a while to get back on track so the windstorm last year hit us pretty hard so hopefully the suits in that in the package here what we're looking to put in and hopefully meet your specifications there good thank you and Kyle you also provided us a summary you've been working with the applicant can you also add anything - what what we were just just told any any issues anything you saw during the short review process and said it's a proposed golf course so largely the the area will be comprised of the course itself which is relative relatively minimal clearance of the vegetation there as far as the developed area there is this parking lot area with two small structures I believe they there's a small Clubhouse and utility shed that total I think around 800 and some square feet 872 square feet the total disturbed area including the parking and the drainage and everything with 37,000 square feet so under that one acre kind of trigger that would bring in Department of Environmental Protection permitting and things of that nature think the the unique thing about this project has been the parking surface material in our ordinance I mentioned this in the traffic and parking section of the report our ordinance section 18 - 135 States all parking areas driveways in other areas serving ten or more vehicles shall be paved with the two meanest concrete or an equivalent surfacing you know that took some discussion amongst staff I think because traditionally that has just been viewed as if a lot is over ten spaces it's paved so we had a lot of discussion over what that equivalent surfacing meant so we looked at a number of factors the fact that the applicant is not being not proposing to be operational during winter months so the parking lot doesn't really have a need to be filed the fact that this is a lot in this area that isn't surrounded by as much development as a parking lot in the commercial one district or downtown so taking into consideration the kind of visual aesthetic of that area and also taking into consideration drainage concerns and so the applicant proposed this this kind of vegetated parking surface which should have you know seen kind of some graphic example of in the report or in the application when all the sudden got done talking to Public Works Department the town engineer we felt that with the maintenance plan in place that the applicant provided and all these other factors that it functionally meant that equivalent surfacing standard so that was kind of the most unique and biggest hurdle to overcome throughout the process I think other than that there seem to be a few issues MDOT does have standards generally as far as setbacks from interstate ramps however since this is in our urban compact area their standards don't apply I know you should have received an email and correspondence where I raised that question and they you know provided some assurance that with this level of development and the project in question that you know queuing and build up on the interstate ramp wouldn't necessarily be an issue in this case so not not as big of an issue as perhaps a larger scale development it goes where the main concern so while reviewing there Thank You Kyle before I open it up for the public hearing do want to invite some some comments from the board I'm gonna kick off with one because I mean the the alternative parking you know essentially I had no issues with that just reminding the board during our comp plan discussions when we were talking about just innovative solutions you know considering low-impact development type of approaches and what's presented here on thing that that I looked at was this appears to be going to the headwaters of Johnny Mack Brook just down the hill there and that is one of the areas we want to protect and fairly close proximity to that that wetland which I think forms the the headwaters if I'm not mistaken if I remember back and you know this is a low-impact development approach so that that's a good thing as far as receiving waters down the hill so I thought that was pretty innovative but here's to see how it works but nice idea glad the staff was flexible in that and also I like the idea - yep and I think it's great but I would think that when we make our conditions of approval that if this turns out not to work out as expected and turns into a muddy field or something that you know it's clearly not working the way it was supposed to that maybe then they need to pay but that you know that would be I would see that as a condition of approval that we hope it's going to work we're really for it but if it doesn't something needs to be done to fix it good question so I'm Kirsten you must had that discussion with during a review with maybe with Public Works that great so I tried to address this in my third recommendation your report I didn't use the language of having to come back in habit pavéd kind of leaving open the possibility of other issues and other solutions being available but that was the aim of that if different language needed to be used I think that's but yeah I think in speaking to Public Works and the town engineer they felt similarly you know if it didn't work for some reason that there should be some mechanism in place like you said to wait I would think the applicant would have some burden to with you know turned into a mud pit that would probably detract from their business and one of the changes made to the project along the way was this paved apron portion between the street and the parking area that was something the app and added in to kind of relieve any mud getting transferred onto the street could you just point out to the board I just want to be clear what is paved in order to okay thank you other questions yeah um I have a question if for whatever reason you end up wanting to do something with this property in the winter and so plowing all of a sudden becomes an issue would you have to come back to the Planning Board to talk about that with us or how would that work for usage I'm not I'm not sure that that would have to come back that's an interesting question right now there's there's no proposal no change a use I'd I think if they added uses so if this turned into something more than our first big concepts what were were proven but if there was a substantial change that required winter operations they would have to come back correct so you could you can make that a condition of approval I'm always looking for ski trails so you know for instance other other comments I do have one and just because it's a kind of what I do so we talked about the maintenance plan that was submitted so it does talk about number eight and you just mention it Randy when you were talking about it says this is an MS for area and requires an an annual environmental review be completed by a third party and the purpose of that review is to make sure everything's working as as intended my understanding is that this project is less than an acre so that doesn't fall into the MS four issue and it also doesn't drain directly to the town's ms4 so you're exempt in that regard so not that I wouldn't mind a frequent check that you've got to do this every year but I do this and based on my knowledge doesn't kick you in to any ms4 compliance if if you're storm water system drained to the town that the town's ditch but it all drains downhill and it goes directly to the water body so that's just one item yeah it would make sense to make sure that that under grading soil filter is working so if Krista's poin you get a lot of erosion it's gonna clog up your filter and then my comment about Johnny Mack Brook and preserving that goes out the window so I mean that's just common sense your stormwater system isn't going to work unless you maintain it but the MS for comment not actually necessary though do you agree with that right and so I think that again a condition agreement essentially doing the same thing would have to be made to make that part of the maintenance plan right because I other that's rating a Johnny Mac Brook I think that we've identified that as a critical area in town so even if they don't have to submit a report to the town for ms4 we still need to make sure the things working so I'm not quite sure that is a condition or a recommendation how we go about that but I just wanted to bring that everybody's attention yes what do you say sorry you do this but it doesn't actually drain that Johnny Mac Brook it does it's an important part of the drainage but those the headwaters yeah headwaters is up here of course I'm horse yeah I know the forests have roundabouts and enjoying that will come down through Seiler development okay we're talking about here and this you know this fight drains in part that way in part probably probably you know the ninety five price split that drainage and this is all kind of the very edge of probably the caribou bog system which all three drains that way through to push our lake if it ever gets there but there may be a divide here I don't know because there's other drainage systems Mike Johnny Mac work to come down here a couple unnamed streams we're just thinking back from our comp plan days and it just stuck in my head yeah it doesn't I mean I bought it doesn't invalidate your your thought and what the conference' plan was saying in terms of low-impact development I just didn't want you to thank you on the record justify it as Johnny met Brooke thanks appreciate that all right other questions it was a couple things just just looking at your maintenance list so I mean pretty aggressive repair all eroded areas immediately compacted to 95 percent that's a that's a big commitment they have the compaction and everything ready to go but if you want to put that in there great inspect and clean the under drained soil filter at number seven I was just curious on how often you you thought that needed to be done you talked about Road to till and replace the top 12 to 18 inches after five to 10 years but I'm just curious what was your idea and inspecting that under drain soil filter to make sure it's functional so I guess if you just clarify what you meant there that'd be appreciated and just a question Joop mesh will be applied to all slopes greater than three to one night I just without really going through all the contours do you have a lotta slopes greater than three to one on that site and you sorry it's a pretty standard note that we put on in case I get you any other comments questions yeah I am interested in the landscaping and food under the proposed conditions we have the applicant will provide the town with a sketch and letter showing the 10-foot wide landscape buffer strip between the parking lot and Kelly Road and we don't have a landscape plan that came with this so I don't have a real good feeling for what's already there but when you plan your strip there it would be good if you have healthy strobes and trees already there to incorporate them into the plan rather than remove them and then plant new trees that are much smaller than the ones that we're already there it's a matter of whether you have anything that's good to look at you know if it's all bad girly stuff by all means take it out but if it's not sort of include what's already there it's a fairly well wooded lot currently and our plan is to keep it natural as is so we've upped the 60 feet that's already there would more than meet the 10 foot buffer requirement okay so that will be clarified as a condition of a few wish to make that can I just need to state that and then also you're planning to plant trees in the parking lot you should tell us what you're planning to plant there just to designate the end of Rose I believe yeah we there's there in your ordinance you have a requirement to have certain number of plantings to define basically the the islands in the parking so what we did and there's a ratio of three four hundred I forget the number one for 20 spaces yeah okay one for twenty spaces we have about fifty or sixty so three would do the trick and I think we put in five or six one of these plan tonight end of island so we're open to suggestions on the species and we didn't specify the species just a shade tree I apologize we do need we are recording this so comments please into the the speaker I've let a little bit go but just help me out so other questions I could open this up question was can we suggest anything trees are really tricky these days we have lots of lovely ash trees in town and suddenly were threatened with the emerald ash borer and they're all going to go away it's been one thing after another but right now I don't know if anything that's F two red maples and they grow really well so maybe that's something to consider and they have good fall color mm-hmm Thanks I'm gonna open up the public hearing and invite anybody from the audience to step up and talk to us about your comments or concerns put that in the wrong the wrong place but I'm tall enough to be able to see over the top of it good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is Dave Milam and I'm the director of community development I just wanted to make a couple of comments regarding the application and kind of support of what I was hearing from board members as well the two things I wanted to comment on is staff met with with this applicant and we've and really this was a very interesting opportunity to look at alternatives and really kind of thinking outside the box of how we might be able to have a parking lot that that met their you know that their needs and but also met the needs of the the community as far as stormwater containment and such so when we asked them to come up with an idea about this one of the first things that we heard from them was that that this facility wouldn't be used in the winter at all so therefore you know the it didn't need to be you know didn't need to be plowed etc and wouldn't have the impact we commented to them at the time that we would certainly recommend to the to the board that a condition be play that it that the that the facility be conditional that it you know not be used when there's snow on the ground so we would certainly you know support that if that's the the Board's decision we had like conversations secondly is the need for an annual inspection the idea was is that even though it's not required under the EMS for application we still would require an annual report the town on the inspection of those systems on an annual basis I would like to you know to encourage that as a recommendation the idea is is that in three or four five years whatever it takes once we get an idea of how it's actually working if the you know the applicant feels that it's no longer necessary to do an annual one or that it be done every five years or whatever but the idea was they could come back to the Planning Board and ask fat to be you know amended you know and change so we would certainly support those kind of those ideas so we certainly appreciate those the comments by members as well prepared to answer any questions if I have any if not I'll sit down and shut up thank you all right public hearing is open anybody want to step up all right I'm gonna close the public hearing then comment the remaining comments from the board I'm curious where is different from time to time so would you be locking yourself up at this point we don't know yeah you know and I was thinking sitting here going well you know we could have that October still don't forget we got a parking lot I guess I'll shovel it and if I'm not gonna can't plow it but probably good enough to I don't know that's gonna be that would be a unique situation I guess like an aura Norrington excuse me where you know wintertime you know people still go out there and play we're not open but they still go play and we allow it but that would be different here so we have to block the road off I guess because people would want to probably go out in place we have to chain it off and that's right you know right now a big reason what we intended originally that would go us but this pay finally so I'm thinking so here we have this outdoor low-impact recreational sport where the scree big parking lot say there it doesn't really seem to go together to me and I know that's part of zone and we attack I'm not sure if it was part would have been part of other zones if we look at other things when we went through that process but that was part of we understood that when we when we put it in it just didn't seem to match with what we were wanting to do and it would also increase the cost but playing around a disc golf significantly if we've got to further recoup some money from you know a very expensive parking lot that would have to go in there and this would save on cost a great deal by putting a different type of surface on there so again you heard that one of the concerns was again if your operation changes there is a you know a proposed recommendation that says the business will not operate during winter months and will not be operational during snow events so to make sure that no plowing out of the parking lot takes place so that does so it's it cover a good chunk of that so I would say any it would say anything that if we had to plow then we we can't open is what it says yeah if you can drive without bowing says it will not operate during winter months which I know if we have a definition of that I mean if you get a warm spot and a mobile warming happens a little sooner than we expect so what I meant by that was the kind of traditional December 21st that the actual period of winter and then outside of that you get these random you know snow events that would be those certain events where those individual times wouldn't be operational either you know that snow cleared a week later and it still wasn't that winter period and it could resume operation that was my so historically if you ever operated your engine facility during we have you know an orang can we closed you know on paper Christmas Eve this year we've been we've been closed for a month already this year right so you know i suppose it would you could have a time when we didn't hit yet uh you know there was people all playing in last weekend because it was you know it's 45 degrees there so the snow dictate your operation absolutely yeah a good good question other questions yeah I like the innovative approach and I think that's a good thing for for Hornell hope it works one other thing to possibly consider in the winter is if we have freezing and thawing events and maybe a nice rainstorm in the middle of it all there is the possibility for ice action in that parking lot even if there isn't any snow so you might want to have it closed during the winter even if I mean it sounds like you can only plow tar any surface other than tar can't be plowed is that what well it seems to be the whole premise of why you went with the alternative surface so if you start changing things up I think you've burned pretty we're not at you yeah we're back here yeah we're not we're not asking to if we if it turns out that it's going to be to our benefit to pave it and in the open all year around we'll be back okay okay people comfortable with that yeah give him I mean Ryan I'm Kyle covered this that the business will not operate that number four I think kind of covers this anything else public hearing is closed any more questions I think we're ready for a motion do we want to add anything about the annual inspection there's a couple things that I noted that we might add so I mean the annual inspection I think is part of the application that's part of the maintenance plan so I'm not because my comment was that it might be removed but based on what Dave said that I agree with that I think be better to have a little bit more accountability so I think that stays in so I don't know if we need a new recommendation the only thing I asked for a couple clarifications on the maintenance plan you know just I mean although that might be taken care of too because Dave said you're gonna do an annual report to the town for the short term which means you better inspect it or you've got to inspect it on an annual basis so maybe my maintenance item clarification isn't even necessary because they're going to report to the town I think those go hand in hand so scratch that one off the list I think I need to confuse this oh I don't know that we have anymore other than Kyle's recommendations we need what do you think everybody me okay thank you guys are covered all right I got to find what I gotta do all right I move that we approve the site plan for dr. disc-golf that was put forward by David Ryan and Matthew Edmond location is Kelly road tax map 30 lot 11 it's an economic development zone it has 37.3 acres and the applicant request site plan approval to operate a disc golf course and a commercial recreational facility use very good they have a motion have a second second any further discussion we're good actually there was a proposed findings of fact before we vote isn't that correct that I missed was close mm-hm so in the in the review packet just before we get too far we did just before we vote thank you but I got a stall for a second we received lots of supporting in information town engineer Joe Madigan wastewater we've got do tea but the last page has proposed findings of fact so I need to read these in the record before we take a formal vote okay so we'll backtrack a little bit sorry for that but I forgot this is proposed findings of fact obviously welcome to elements or edits for dr. disc-golf for the site plan review dated December 19 2008 dean pursuant to article 6 section 18 - 177 of the Orono Code of Ordinances the Ono Planning Board is considered the application of David Ryan and Matthew Edmond for the construction of dr. disc-golf located a tax map 30 lot 11 and the economic development zone district and based on all evidence presented by the applicant reviewing agencies apartments in the public found the following number one requirements of the district that the proposed construction of the use is an allowable use in the economic development zone district and will be located on a legally conforming parcel in a manner such that the construction meets the requirements of the district there are any issues with any none number two complies with town ordinances and codes that the proposed use structure setbacks buffers and layout meet the provisions of applicable regulations of the town including all pertinent sections of chapter 18 land-use ordinance and the issues they're hearing now number three utilization of the site that this construction is within the natural capabilities of the site is located in the suitable area of the site does not disturb environmentally sensitive areas fits with the existing topography of the site and can accommodate drainage and traffic associated with the construction and the issues there number four traffic and pedestrian access that the applicant has provided adequate and improved access into and out of the site with a two-way driveway I'm Kelly Road traffic generation is within the capacity of the road system to accommodate an internal circulation allows for safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians any issues comments there hearing none number five storage or materials that there will be no exposed storage on the site comments number six stormwater management that the increase in impervious area and the flow of the stormwater from the construction can be managed with the use of an under grained soil filter and issues number seven erosion control that the applicant is provided for erosion control during construction meeting best management practices any issues number eight water supply and sewage disposal that the use proposes an on-site sewage disposal system that meets the requirements of the subsurface wastewater disposal rules and the use and the use will use an on-site water supply with comments number nine utilities that the construction will adequately supply electrical service and other utility services to adequately meet the anticipated use of the project any issues there number ten natural features that the site contains 37 acres and less than one acre will be disturbed during the construction process clearing will be restricted to the parking area and only the removal of minimal brush will be done on the disc golf course Russian poets number 11 groundwater and surface water quality protection that the site is not within the town's Aquifer recharge overlay district and the construction will not adversely impact either the quality or the quantity of groundwater available - abutting properties - report to any public water supply system and that there will be no discharge of material for water bodies any comments number 12 hazardous special and radioactive materials that the use of the site does not involve the handling storage or use of hazardous special radioactive materials comments 13 shoreline relationship that the proposed recreational facility and parking lot or outside of shoreland zones and are not located within a flood plain is identified but the by the Federal Emergency Management Agency comments fourteen solid waste management that the proposed proposed use will provide for adequate disposal of solid waste issues fifteen historic and archaeological resources that the site is not known to contain historic or archaeological resources and in comments sixteen financial capacity that the applicant is the financial capacity to carry out the project elements lastly number seventeen noise and lighting that the facility will operate within the noise standards in town ordinances and that the app can it only has need for a couple of security style lights at the clubhouse and utility shed that will not be a nuisance to neighboring properties any issues very good those are read into the record with no comments we have a pending if motion in a second yes okay so I was just made aware that the occasions need to be read in the MOU getting across good point good things somebody's keeping us in line Lisa will you turn to the back page and read the recommendations that Kyle is provided as part of the motion number one the applicant will submit to the town a letter a sketch showing the sign sewing that the sides will meet the standards for signs listed in article 5 of the land use ordinance in section 18 - 140 before a building permit is issued number 2 the applicant will provide the town with a sketch and letter showing the 10-foot wide landscaped buffer strip between the parking lot and Kelly Road before a building permit is issued number 3 the applicant will maintain the parking lot surface to avoid any erosion issues if the current maintenance plan fails to remedy any problem that arises then the applicant will need to go back to the Planning Board with a different way in which the issue can be resolved number 4 the business will not operate during winter months and will not be operational during snow events so to make sure that no plowing of the parking lot takes place number 5 when providing electrical power to the clubhouse the applicant will follow the guidelines in section 18 - 177 utilities that state's new utility lines and facilities must be underground or screened from view number six if expansion of the parking lot is needed in the future the applicant will need to provide to the Planning Board a traffic analysis showing that there is no negative impact to the interstate ramp and number seven the applicant will comply with all other local and state ordinances rules and regulations thank you Lisa so we have a modified motion I think I'm going to ask for a second to that sax nugget again any further discussion I think we covered all the bases this time all those in favor it is unanimous congratulations I look forward to your success next up on the item the agenda is old business there is none next up discussion you guys want to hang out no ok next up is a German can I get a motion make a motion we adjourn second second any discussion all those in favor very good what do we have on tap for January yep the jump you you