Town of Turner, Maine

Planning Board Minutes

May 12, 2010

 

1             CALL TO ORDER

 

Called to order at 7:03pm by Vice Chairman Ms. Margaret Imber.  Those Members present were Ms. Imber, Mark Morris, Roy Nickerson, R. Edward Morris and Raymond Lavoie. Board Members Gregg Varney and Shirley Twitchell were not present.  Planner, John Maloney was present this evening.  CEO, Roger Williams was also present this evening.

 

2              PUBLIC HEARING-HANNAFORD BROTHERS SITE

                AMMENDENT

Ms. Imber opened the Public Hearing at 7:04pm.

 

Mr. Doug Boyce of Hannaford Bros. Co. addressed the Planning Board by first introducing the members of the Hannaford Team.  Mr. Boyce proceeded by stating that the Hannaford project had been approved at the March Planning Board meeting.  Since the approval of the project a warrant had been approved at the Turner Town meeting which would allow a curb cut on Route 4 to access the Hannaford site.  Therefore Hannaford Bros. Co. is requesting a waiver be granted which was previously disallowed and also an amendment to the already approved project.  Mr. Peter Hedrich of Gorrill-Palmer Consulting Engineers, Inc.  then addressed the Planning Board.  Mr. Hedrich stated that this waiver request would improve  safety with regards to entering the Hannaford project.  He referred to the plan and stated that this additional entrance would take some of the traffic out of the Snell Hill Road entrance while reducing peak hours at the traffic signal, which in turn would help in the safety of turning traffic.  Mr. Hedrich also stated that the right lane design and the traffic signal design have been reviewed with MDOT.  Mr. Joseph Laverriere of DeLuca Hoffman Associates, Inc.  addressed the Planning Board and described the changes to the parking lot as well as the berming with regards to this additional entrance.  These changes would allow for more freedom of movement.  The original plan called for 161 parking spaces.  The new plan will also have 161 parking spaces.  Mr. Laverriere also stated that there would be no further impact on the wetlands and that there would be a slight impervious impact.  A new layout plan and grading plan were discussed.  Mr. Boyce stated that MDOT had already permitted this access.  Mr. Boyce also stated that if this new plan is approved then the plan would have to be resubmitted to the DEP.

 

Ms. Imber closed the Public Hearing at 7:14pm.

 

3                   NEW BUSINESS:

A              GARY GREEN SUBDIVISION EXTENSION

Mr. Maloney stated that the Riverview Subdivision had been approved 2 years ago.  Significant construction has not begun therefore making this approved subdivision null and void.  Mr. Gary Green then addressed the Planning Board and stated that his intention was to sell lots and then begin construction.  Mr. Green then stated that because of the state of the economy he has not been able to sell lots.  Mr. Maloney stated that he believes that Mr. Green has showed good cause and that the Planning Board could extend this approval to February 27, 2012.  Ms. Imber stated that the Planning Board should be very conscious when making a decision based on good cause.  Mr. Lavoie made a motion to grant this subdivision extension to February 27, 2012 based on good cause.  Mr. Nickerson seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to grant this extension to February 27, 2012.

 

B               HANNAFORD BROTHERS-SITE AMENDMENT

Mr. Maloney referred to the Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law with regards to the requested waiver.  Mr. Maloney then stated that the Town of Turner had retained the services of John Q. Adams.  Mr. Adams’ findings were stated in a letter dated May 5, 2010.  His conclusion was that the proposed entrance on Route 4 would be an improvement to the site.  There was then a discussion regarding the possibility of large trucks trying to use this entrance.  Mr. Boyce stated that a sign could be erected stating that all trucks use the Snell Hill Road entrance.  Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept this waiver which would allow a curb cut on Route 4 therefore allowing a right turn in access.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept the waiver allowing a curb cut on Route 4 for right turn in access.   Please find below the verbiage of the waiver request as stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law.

 

Standard

 

Where a proposed development is to be located at the intersection of Route 4, 117 or 219 and a minor or collector road, entrance(s) to and exit(s) from the site shall be located only on the minor or collector road provided that this requirement maybe waived where the applicant demonstrates that existing site conditions preclude the location of a driveway on the minor or collector road, or that the location of the driveway on the minor or collector road would interfere with a predominately residential neighborhood. In addition, this requirement may be waived when an analysis conducted by a traffic engineer, retained by the Planning Board, finds that the operation or safety at an intersection of Route 4, 117 or 219 and a minor or collector road would be improved with an entrance or exit from or onto Route 4, 117 or 219. Any such entrance or exit shall be a restricted entrance or exit point to supplement the primary entrance and exit from the minor or collector road. The entrance or exit will maintain traffic carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.

 

        Waiver Request

 

           On May 12, 2010 the applicant requested a waiver from the provisions of Section 5.E.3.g that reads "Where a proposed development is to be located at the intersection of Route 4, 117 or 219 and a minor or collector road, entrance(s) to and exit(s) from the site shall be located only on the minor or collector road." Should a waiver to the standard be granted the applicant would create a right-in driveway directly into the site from Route 4 and the elimination of the right-turn lane for the Route 4 southbound approach at the intersection with Snell Hill Road.  The proposed supplemental driveway would include a deceleration lane and be channelizes to restrict right turns out. In support for the waiver the applicant stated that the secondary driveway is forecasted to accommodate 115 PM peak hour and 141 Saturday peak hour turns in. That approximately 28% of the PM peak hour and 38% of the Saturday peak hour site generated traffic will use the secondary driveway, which minimizes impact on the Route 4/Snell Hill Road intersection. That a reduction in overall average intersection delay of approximately one second per vehicle for each of the PM and Saturday perk hour conditions. That a reduction in the number of turning movements at the Snell Hill Road intersection reduces the possibility of collisions at that intersection.

 

          Waiver Requests Findings

 

           Section 5.E.3.g allows the Planning Board to waive this standard if one or more of the following is met. 1) The applicant demonstrates that existing site conditions preclude the location of a driveway on the minor or collector road. 2) The location of the driveway on the minor or collector road would interfere with a predominately residential neighborhood. 3) An analysis conducted by a traffic engineer, retained by the Planning Board, finds that the operation or safety at an intersection of Route 4, 117 or 219 and a minor or collector road would be improved with an entrance or exit from or onto Route 4, 117 or 219. Any such entrance or exit shall be a restricted entrance or exit point to supplement the primary entrance and exit from the minor or collector road. The entrance or exit will maintain traffic carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.

 

          The applicant has not directly provided information that existing site conditions preclude the location of all driveways on to the Snell Hill Road or that the location of all driveways onto the Snell Hill Road would interfere with a predominately residential neighborhood.

 

          The Planning Board retained the services of John Q. Adams P.E. to conduct an analysis to determine if the operation or safety at the intersection of Route 4 and the Snell Hill Road would be improved with the proposed right-in driveway directly into the site from Route 4 and the entrance would maintain traffic carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential. In a letter dated May 5, 2010 Adams stated that he was in agreement with the applicant that the addition of a right-turn ingress lane will benefit the intersection of Route 4 and the Snell Hill Road by reducing overall delay at the intersection, reducing the number of turning movements into Snell Hill Road which may reduce accident potential and there will be less traffic on Snell Hill Road from Route 4 to the site entrance.

 

           The Planning Board finds that proposed right-in turning lane meets the waiver requirements, the standards of the Ordinance will be met, the public, health, safety and welfare will be protected, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan will be met and the performance standards of the ordinance have been or will be met.

 

Mr. Maloney then continued with the review of the Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law.

 

         Amendment # 1 Overview

        

On May 12, 2010 the applicant requested an amendment to the application approved on March 10, 2010. The amendment would create a right-in driveway directly into the site from Route 4 and the elimination of the right-turn lane for the Route 4 southbound approach at the intersection with Snell Hill Road. The proposed supplemental driveway would include a deceleration lane and be channelizes to restrict right turns out. To accept the proposed amendment the Planning Board would have to grant a waiver to Section 5.E.3.g of the Town of Turner Zoning Ordinance.

 

On May 12, 2010 the Planning Board conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment. On that same date the Planning Board considered application material including revised site plans and an analysis conducted for the Planning Board by John Q. Adams, P.E. On May 12, 2010 the Planning Board voted to approve Amendment # 1.

 

          Standard [Those applicable to Amendment #1]

 

3. Vehicular Access: The proposed development shall provide safe vehicular access to and from public and private streets.  When conflicts exist between this section and a Driveway Permit or Entrance Permit onto Route 4 issued by the Maine Department of Transportation, the most stringent or restrictive shall apply. 

 

Overview

 

On May 12, 2010 the applicant proposed to construct a right-in driveway directly into the site from Route 4. The proposed driveway would be approximately 290' north of the Route 4 Snell Hill Road intersection. The driveway is designed for right-in turning movements only. The driveway is 20' in width with a northerly radius of 30' and southerly radius of 50'. The design provides for 265' taper and deceleration length and a full length width of 50'. The previously approved right turn lane for the Route 4 southbound approach at the intersection with the Snell Hill Road would be eliminated. The southbound intersection of Route 4 and the Snell Hill Road has been redesigned to provide for adequate turning movements.

 

         Standard

 

                  The grade of any exit driveway or proposed street for a distance of fifty (50) feet from its intersection with any existing street shall be a maximum of three (3) percent.

 

                  Findings

                 

                  The grade of right-in driveway from Route 4 into the project site for 50' from the intersection with Route 4 is less than 3%.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above information and information in the record the Planning Board finds that                            this standard will be met.   Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept this standard as being met.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept this standard as being met.

 

Standard

 

                           The intersection of any access drive or proposed street must function at a Level of Service of C following development if the project will generate 400 or more vehicle trips per 24-hour period or a level which will allow safe access into and out of the project if less than 400 trips are generated.

                          

                           Findings

 

                           The analysis conducted by the applicant indicates that all the intersections studied, with the installation of a traffic signal at the Route 4 Snell Hill Road intersection, will function at an overall  Level of Service of C or better under post development conditions.

 

Relevant comprehensive plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)

 

         Require the developers of new or redeveloped projects which will exceed existing public roadway and intersection capacity to make improvements necessary for anticipated traffic volumes.

 

         That new development or redevelopment does not create or aggravate high crash locations.

 

         That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117 and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above information and information in the record the Planning Board finds that   this standard will be met.  Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept this standard as being met.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept this standard as being met.

 

                          Standard

 

                           Curb cuts or access points shall be limited to one per lot for all lots with less than 200 linear feet or less of road frontage.  For lots with greater than 200 feet of frontage, a maximum of one curb cut per 200 feet of frontage shall be permitted to a maximum of three, provided the Planning Board makes a finding that (a) the driveway design relative to the site characteristics and site design provides safe entrance and exit to the site and (b) no other practical alternative exists.

 

                           Findings

 

                           The project site has approximately 420' of frontage on Route 4. The applicant has proposed one curb cut.

                 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above information and information in the record the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.  Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept this standard as being met.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept this standard as being met.

                          

        Standard

 

Curb cut widths and design shall conform to the following standards:

 

   Median volume driveways with more than 50 vehicle trips/day but fewer than 200 peak hour vehicle trips, based on the latest edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers' Trip Generation Report, as the same may be amended from time to time, and generally including all land uses not in the low or high volume groups, shall:

have either two-way or one-way operation;

intersect the road at an angle as close to 90 degrees as site conditions permit, but at no less than 60 degrees;

not require a median;

slope upward from the gutter line on a straight slope of 3 percent or less for at least 50 feet and a slope of no more than 6 percent thereafter, with the preferred grade being a 4 1/2 percent, depending on the site; and

comply with the following geometric standards:

NOTE:            The Planning Board may vary these standards due to unique factors such as a significant level of truck traffic.

 

 

                        *Where separate left and right exit lanes are desirable.

Findings

 

The Applicant provided information that the right-in driveway from Route 4 into the project site would be a medium volume driveway) less 200 peak hour trips). The driveway is 20' in width designed for one-way operation with a northerly radius of 30' and southerly radius of 50'.  The driveway intersects with Route 4 at approximately 90 degrees and slopes upward from the gutter line on a straight slope of 3 percent or less for at least 50 feet. The driveway's northerly radius of 30' and southerly radius is 50'. The southerly radius of this driveway exceeds to the standards of Section 5.E.3.j.2.e. Because this driveway is designed for right-in traffic only the southerly radius is acceptable which   is allowed by the note above. [NOTE:            Section 5.E.3.j.2 of the Town of Turner Zoning Ordinance states: The Planning Board may vary these standards due to unique factors]

 

Relevant comprehensive plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)

 

         That new development or redevelopment does not create or aggravate high crash locations.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above information and information in the record the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.   Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept this standard as being met.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept this standard as being met.

                 

Standard

 

                  Driveway Spacing: Distance from edge of driveway comer (point of tangency) to edge of intersection comer (point of tangency) by type of driveway should be as follows:

 

  

 

Findings

 

         The minimum distance from the edge of the right-in only driveway corner to the intersection edge of the Route 4/Snell Hill Road will be met.

 

Relevant comprehensive plan statement(s) related to Review Standard 24 (The proposed activity is in conformance with the comprehensive plan)

 

         That new developments or redevelopments along Routes 4, 117 and 219 and other important travel corridors will maintain traffic carrying functions and minimize congestion and crash potential.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above information and information in the record the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.   Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept this standard as being met.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept this standard as being met.

                 

Standard

 

                  The minimum distance between driveway to property line, as measured from point of tangency, should be:

 

        

         Findings

 

         The minimum distance between driveway to property line, as measured from point of tangency, will be met.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the above information and information in the record the Planning Board finds that this standard will be met.  Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept this standard as being met.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept this standard as being met.

 

Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Planning Board finds that the applicant has satisfied each of the applicable review criteria for approval and therefore the Planning Board approves the Site Plan Review Application Amendment # 1 of Hannaford Bros. Co. for a right-in only turning lane form Route 4 onto the project site.  Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept that the applicant has satisfied each of the applicable review criteria for approval and therefore the Planning Board approves the Site Plan Review Application Amendment # 1 of Hannaford Bros. Co. for a right-in only turning lane form Route 4 onto the project site.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept the Application Amendment # 1 of Hannaford Bros. Co. for a right-in only turning lane form Route 4 onto the project site

          

C               STEPHAN PIKE-HOT DOG STAND SITE REVIEW

Mr. Pike was not present.

 

There was a short discussion regarding a Peddlers Ordinance.  Without such an ordinance a full Site Plan review is required for a hot dog stand.  It was suggested that a new ordinance be enacted to address any peddler issues.  If agreed upon by the Planning Board such an Ordinance could be put to a vote at the 2011 Town meeting.  The Planning Board will further discuss this proposed ordinance at a later date.

 

D               DON POULIN-SUBDIVISION APPROVAL-LAPSE

Mr. Poulin was not present.  Mr. Maloney stated that this subdivision approval has lapsed.  Mr. Maloney then stated that there are no changes to the original plan; however under the new subdivision ordinance any prime farm land now needs to be identified.  It was then agreed upon by all that the original paperwork in the file could be utilized to extend this project and that an additional fee would need to be paid.

 

<![if !supportLists]>4        <![endif]>HANNAFORD DECISION-APPEAL UPDATE

 

For the record this agenda item was heard before the Stephan Pike-Hot Dog Stand Review.

 

Mr. Tyler Sterling of Hannaford Bros., Co. addressed the Planning Board and stated what the schedule looked like for the Appeal of the Hannaford Project by the Turner Preservation Committee.  Mr. Sterling stated that he would send Mr. Williams a copy of this schedule.  It was stated that this appeal process could take up to 6 months to a year.  There was then some discussion regarding who was defending whom.  Mr. Maloney stated that the abutters’ were appealing the decision of the Planning Board and that the Town’s Attorney Mr. Plouf is defending the Planning Board’s decision.  Mr. Boyce stated that the Hannaford involvement is on behalf of the Town.  It was stated that the Planning Board completed the review process and that Hannaford is accepting the challenge of the Appeal Process.

 

5                OTHER BUSINESS:

      Mr. Williams stated that Ms. Leavitt, the Town Manager, would like someone to become the

      liaison with the press regarding the Hannaford project.  Mr. Maloney stated that he would

      take on this responsibility.  Ms. Imber made a motion to appoint Mr. Maloney as the liaison

      to the press regarding the Hannaford project.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board

      Members voted unanimously to appoint Mr. Maloney as the liaison to the press.

 

      Mr. Williams addressed the Planning Board and stated that he believes that the fees

      associated with Planning Board projects should be increased.  Mr. Williams also stated

      that the Board of Selectmen agrees with Mr. Williams.  After some discussion Ms. Imber

      made a motion to recommend said increases as proposed by Mr. Williams to be brought

      before the Selectmen.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted 4 in

      favor and 1 opposed to submit fee increases as proposed by Mr. Williams to be submitted

      to the Board of Selectmen.  Mr. R. Edward Morris cast the opposing vote.

    

6                  CEO REPORT

No action required. 

 

7                  REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 14, 2010

Mr. Nickerson made a motion to accept the Minutes from the April 14, 2010 Planning Board meeting.  Mr. Lavoie seconded the motion.  The Board Members voted unanimously to accept the April 14, 2010 Planning Board Minutes.

 

8               REVIEW OF PLANNER ESCROW

No Action Required.

 

9               OTHER ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

Mr. Williams stated that FEMA will begin using digital mapping in Androscoggin County.  Mr. Williams also stated that he will be attending a workshop sponsored by AVCOG regarding the changes that FEMA will be making.

 

10             ADJOURNMENT

Motion made by Mr. Nickerson for adjournment, unanimously accepted.  The meeting adjourned at 8:17pm.

           

 

      Respectfully submitted by

 

 

      Karen Wilcox

      Recording Secretary