Augusta Planning Board approves storage facility, conditions Popeyes amendment

[13:53] Betsy Poolen: Welcome to tonight's Augusta Planning Board meeting. Thank you all for silencing your cell phones. A reminder for all who will be speaking this evening to speak directly into the microphone so everyone can hear your comments. Please address all questions and comments directly to the board members, and we will attempt to have all of your concerns addressed. There are two items on our agenda this evening. Both are public hearings. The procedure for the public hearing will be as usual. Betsy and Eva will present the application. The applicant or representative will speak next. We will then take public testimony. If you choose to speak, please state your name and address, and a reminder to address your comments to the board. We will first hear from those in favor of the proposal, then against, then neither for nor against. Once all public testimony has been heard, the applicant will have final say. The public hearing will then be closed and the Planning Board will deliberate. No further testimony will be heard unless specifically requested by a member of the board. And we would also like to welcome our newest board member, Maddie. Feel free to introduce yourself a little bit more. [14:53] Maddie Bruno: My name is Maddie Bruno. I have lived in Augusta since 2022, and I've lived in Maine for a long time now, but I was not born here. I'm really happy to be joining this. I am a hydrogeologist, so I do a lot of work thinking about the future use of sites, as well as thinking about both environmental impacts but also geoengineering. I worked for a large geoengineering firm for a long time, and I'm happy to be here, happy to help out. [15:24] Betsy Poolen: So we're happy to have you too. Thank you. Thanks, guys. All right, Betsy and Eva, we're ready to begin. Good evening, members of the [15:34] Eva Nielsen: public, members of the Planning Board. My name is Eva Nielsen, and I'm the assistant city planner. The first item on the agenda tonight is a public hearing for a major development and conditional use application of RS Storage, care of Ross Smith, to construct 18,499 square feet of self-service storage units on a new vacant lot. Assessor's map 5, lot 37, located north of 269 Civic Center Drive in the planned development district, or PD. The applicant established right title or interest in the form of a purchase and sale agreement. The applicants submitted an application for a major development and conditional use review and supporting materials including narrative, letter of authorization for consultant representation, storm water analysis, traffic report, site plans and details, financial statement, correspondents from city staff and from various agencies, and the fees for the application, public notice and operations. Abutter notification, which were received yesterday. Staff completed direct mailings to abutters within the required notification radius of 1,000 feet. We posted legal advertisements in the newspaper. We notified City Council, the Planning Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and other interested parties, and we installed a sign on the property. So based on this review, we as Augusta City Planning staff recommend that the Planning Board make a positive motion regarding the applicant standing to apply, the completeness of the application and the sufficiency of the public noticing in order to move ahead with the substantive review. [17:16] Betsy Poolen: Thank you Bob. City [17:18] Robert Eric Austin: Pioneer has reviewed the submitted materials for a major development and conditional use review and just want to say we consider the application complete pending the submission of applicants public notice and a better notification application fees. [17:36] Betsy Poolen: Thank you, Kevin. All in favor? Very good. Thank you, Eva. [17:41] Eva Nielsen: And we did receive the fees, so we can check that box, too. So planning staff have provided the applicant and the Planning Board with a staff review and draft findings of fact and conclusions of law documents, which we also posted on the Planning Board materials web page. So the applicant plans to or proposes to subdivide the current lot and construct 18,400 square feet of single-story self-service storage units. And just a quick note on the square footage, the plans were updated. The total storage is a little bit less now than what was advertised. So the storage units would be built on a flag lot, and the existing residential building would have its own separate lot and be owned and rented out by the applicant. So the project requires the main construction general permit, or MCGP, from the Main Environmental or Department of Environmental Protection, and the authorization we listed as a draft condition of approval in the decision letter. So going ahead with the presentation, the lot is in the orange outline line there, and it sits between Civic Center Drive, which is running kind of north and south on the west end, and Stone Brook, which is along the east boundary. Leighton Road also comes up from the southwest to a signalized intersection with Civic Center Drive. And so the proposed use, of course, is the self-service storage units, which is a conditional use, and the one- and two-family dwellings, which is permitted. And other uses in the vicinity include residential uses, civic, social, and fraternal organizations. We have the Elks to the north. We have business and professional offices, government uses, warehousing, and others. On to some images of the property. So this is an image of the existing residents at 369 Civic Center Drive, and this is facing east from the driveway and entrance connecting to Civic Center Drive. So from this point, the driveway to the storage would be kind of on the left side of the photo, or to the north of the driveway, and the two storage buildings, two of the storage buildings, would be situated kind of behind the house and the garage, and two others would be just north, or just to the left. So for some context, this is looking north on Civic Center Drive from the residence's driveway access toward that signalized intersection, and then this is looking south, more in the direction of the marketplace. This is the area behind the garage, it's closer to the northern property line, facing south, and there would be a buffer area starting at the rear of the garage between the storage buildings. Here this is a look of the current vacant area where the storage would be located, it's looking east in the direction of Stone Brook and this is from pretty much the same location just panning northeast and looking at the northern property line a couple of the abutters who live on [street] and then this is kind of where the two southern storage units would be located looking to the rear of the residence and again a buffer would be between the two uses so I included all the pages of the plan here but I'll just go straight to the site plans. So we have pointed out a small portion of the property along the eastern property line. It's within the 100 year flood zone and the SP 150 shore land district but as you can see the project is completely outside of these more sensitive areas and then this is closer into the project. So all of the lot characteristics for the PD zone are met. We do have some comments on buffering which I'll get to in a minute. But flag lots have different frontage requirements, but they're met for this proposal. And the storage buildings would have metal siding and roofs. They would be about one story tall or about 12 feet tall and range from 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. And you can see there are wetlands on the property, this green here. And there's about 1,030 square feet of impact on the southeastern portion of the project. So the impact doesn't require a NERPA permit from MDP, and significant impacts aren't anticipated there. And the stormwater projections indicate a slight increase in peak flow for the two-year storm event, but decreases for the 10 and 25. year storm events and the engineering bureau expressed to us staff that they were satisfied with the report as well as the traffic report the sedimentation and erosion control plans included as well they did point out that there is an infiltration pond here just south of the driveway way and we have a condition addressing this in the draft decision letter because it crosses over onto the residential lot so before any future conveyances of the residential lot the owner would need to establish and record a formal easement over the residential lot for the infiltration pond to access it since the easement can't be established while both parcels remain under common ownership and now just regarding the landscaping for screening so there are buffer yard see plantings with a fence and a couple of locations on the plan and a fence was used where the width requirement couldn't be met so to the north of storage unit a and then to the east of the residents and the garage area so we made a recommendation as staff to continue the buffer yard see plantings on the northern and southern sides of the driveway area because we consider the driveway part of the use and in enhancing this so because there's residential abutters on to the north and the south and just looking at the counts of the plants it looks like only a few would need of each type would need to be added but they would need to be relocated to provide more sufficient screening in those areas and alternatively of course the Planning board does or the ordinance enables the planning board to have some flexibility in buffer yard requirements and then kind of separately but along the same vein the applicant included buffer yard C to comply with the setback requirements here along Civic Center Drive and so they also need to provide sufficient landscaping for the signage and while we do have some details for the plantings on the plans we don't know the plant species which would help us to determine as our ordinance Describes plantings that are a type and species appropriate for the conditions and meet the other standards included in that section 300 502b so I'll just go over the draft conditions of approval which the board has the authority to accept or change we didn't list any findings so first we have the following conditions that shall be met prior to the issuance of a permit from the code enforcement bureau and so number one is the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan for review and approval by planning staff showing the required buffer yard seat plantings along the southern northern sides of the access driveway and providing additional details for all required buffer yard plantings include the plants including the plant species sizes quantities and locations number two the applicant shall submit landscaping details for the proposed signage as part of the revised landscaping plan for review and approval by city staff in accordance with the signed ordinance landscaping Requirements number three the applicant shall coordinate with the fire chief to install an approved nox box or other approved emergency access device at the proposed gate and this condition is referring to the letter that the police chief had provided and then number four the applicant shall submit documentation of MDP authorization under the main construction general permit MCGP and then we have one final condition separated from the others that are needed prior to the issuance of a permit so This following condition shall be met prior to any future conveyance of the residential lot. The applicant shall establish and record a stormwater easement maintenance agreement between the resulting lots to ensure access to and maintenance of the proposed infiltration pond located across the property boundary. So that's all for the staff side. I'm happy to take any questions. Any questions for Eva at the moment? Okay. [27:57] Betsy Poolen: No questions. We can and hear from the applicant evening. [28:09] Ross Smith: Man chairwoman members of the board congratulations Sunday first meeting hope you enjoyed here it's one of the better playing boards you can go to as I can attest to Eva that was very well done thank you I'm here with Ross Smith the owner of our storage so I'd like to dial back even if we could what's that mouse anyway thank you appreciate it so the previous one would be oh don't close it cancel can I roll it up there we go so I'm going to tell you I'd like to dive into landscaping right out of the gate here so I met with Rob Overton a couple weeks ago and we discussed this landscaping across this line right here the northern line he informed me he said listen as long as you have landscaping so anywhere in the house you can't see the buildings that's fine with me so that's why this gap right here was left and that's that's why I worked out with Rob of course Rob went on vacation the week after and even never could talk to her because he wasn't around but I will definitely work this out with city staff no issues whatsoever whatever they decide is fine with us the other thing the stormwater pond so at first it's better see right here this pond right here we had to have it that big at first and it is the right size for what we're doing I'd like the opportunity to work with city staff on that get rid of this drainage easement and simply lengthen in this direction keep all the contours on this side so the pond is completely on the commercial property so instead of having that stormwater easement that we'll need, I'd like to be able to work with city staff rather than having to come back after I change the plan. That's where I'm headed. The other thing is the uniqueness about this lot, it has type A soils, which are very prevalent in this area because the one up above was the Saxon property that never got developed. Now it's A soils all back. Back so when you do the ponds and the soil and the stormwater study for this type of land and soils, you're you can use the infiltration. You don't need an outlet control structure, you don't need to limit the flows, everything goes right into the ground unseen, and it's it's tremendous opportunity to recharge your groundwater table. So thank god we have a soils in this area. Whenever you have a soils, it's so hard to get any flow out of the pre-development condition, but thank god we had a house there. If this was one big field there, we would never even come close to making the numbers work because the EA soils have zero on all three events when you look at this. But I will entertain any questions unless you want to say anything. I'm good. Okay, that's all I have and we're good with an ox box and all the conditions. Okay, does anyone have any [31:04] Betsy Poolen: questions for the applicant? No? Okay, you'll have the last. Thank you. Yeah, go ahead. I noticed [31:10] Maddie Bruno: that the test pitting for the infiltration pond was in a different part of the property. It was [31:16] Ross Smith: they just didn't provide their test bits in that location. I can update that plan for you if you like. And you know, I thought I needed a hydro geo, this is aside, I'm sorry, I needed a hydro logic hydro geologist today because the town of Winthrop asked for a nitrate study, which is the only town in Kennebec County that asked for a nitrate study. So I wish I would have known you were kicking around for us because I would have called you, but anyway, that's my aside, sorry. Very [31:44] Betsy Poolen: good. Now you know though. Yeah, exactly. Any other questions for the applicant? All right, you'll have the last. Thank you. Thank you. Is anybody here to speak for the project? Is there anybody here who'd like to speak against the project? Is there anybody who would like to speak neither for nor against the project? Okay, all right, and that was your last word. All right, great. So Kevin [32:20] Unidentified Board Member: I don't have any concerns with the project. I think it's good to move [32:23] Robert Eric Austin: forward. I don't have any problem with the project. I did have a question that I put presented to the city staff prior to. I saw that Tyler had a number of comments that he made and it was brought up forth by Eva on that stuff, but I saw no letter from Tyler that I'm so used to seeing that it's come forth in there. I did receive from city staff the email that Tyler sent back to them through his discussions with him stating he has no problems as Eva pointed out, but I was just concerned moving forward That whenever we have Tyler say something like that to be part of the record, that it actually should be a letter in file so nobody can question what Tyler's doing and what Eva's doing or what Betsy's doing out there. I was presented with the concept that there was a number of cases when Tyler did not comment in writing in regards to like storage facilities and stuff. But I just, I can go either way. But I just feel to protect ourselves that whenever ever Tyler's ass he makes the responses back it should be part of the file the [33:40] Betsy Poolen: kept that should be kept and looked at do you want Tyler to speak to have [33:45] Robert Eric Austin: anything on record during this meeting since I do not need to because again I got the copy of the email and I'll read this at this point from Tyler to even Betsy I'm good with the self-application storage one question observation I have is that the infiltration pond near CCD crosses the property line to the of butter I didn't look too closely but I'm assuming that would need some kind of easement or agreement that's the main concern that Tyler had with that yeah and one thing maybe I didn't [34:15] Eva Nielsen: mention in the email is that we do keep the emails in the files the internal files [34:22] Robert Eric Austin: And I'd be fine with that I just think that it should be part of the package that goes out to the board members like the a printed email a copy of the email okay it just backs up you what you said and what Tyler said that's all that to me that becomes record of the package that's presented before the public thank you Bob I have no issues with the project okay Maddie [34:50] Betsy Poolen: I have no issues with the project and neither do I am I a voting member tonight I'm assuming I am so I need to speak to that so all right and neither do I so we just need a motion thank you Bob [35:05] Robert Eric Austin: Pursuant to the provisions of the City of Augusta Land Use Ordinance, the City of Augusta Planning Board has considered the application of RS Storage, care of Ross Smith, including supportive data, staff review comments, public hearing testimony, and related materials contained in the record. The Planning Board makes the following findings of fact and conclusion of law. The project description is the applicant proposes to subdivide the lot and construct 18,400 square feet of a single-story self-service storage units on a proposed flag lot, including 42,105 square feet of the new impervious area. The resulting lot containing the existing 1,152-square-foot residential building will be rented out by the applicant. The project will disturb approximately 70,480 square feet of land and requires authorization under the Maine Construction General Permit, MCGP, from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, MDEP. The applicant is RS Storage, Kara Ross-Smith. The right title of interest is the purchase and sale agreement between RS Storage and Ruth E. Babcock. The owner currently is Ruth Babcock, Kara William Ellis. Location is City Civic Drive. Zoning is a planned development PD, Map 5, Lot 37. Seven existing land use is one and two family finally drawings which is permitted proposed yet land use one and two family drawings which is permitted and self-service storage units which is a conditional unit use seven point eight four acres no previous planning board approvals separate in view of the above actions and applications supporting the documentation of the record the planning board makes the following recommendations and conditions of law therefore the planning board hereby approves The application of RS storage care of Ross Smith as described in the findings of facts and could dick conclusions of law above with the following additional findings the additional findings was none the following conditions shall be met prior to the issuance of a permit on the code enforcement bureau in order to satisfy land use ordinance criteria and planning board requirements number one the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan for review and approval by the planning staff shown Showing the required buffy yard seed plantings along the southern and northern sides of the access driveway and providing additional details for all required buff light buffy yard plantings including proposed plant species sizes and qualities and location number two the applicant shall submit landscaping details for the proposed signage as part of the revised landscaping plan for review and approval by the planning staff in accordance with the signed ordinance landscaping requirements section 300-603 e6f number three the applicant shall coordinate with the fire chief to install an approved knock box or other approved emergency device at the proposed gate section 300-603 Number 4, the applicant shall submit documentations of the M.D.E.P. Authorization under the Maine Construction General Permit, MCGP, Section 300-603-E-4-D and Section 300-603-E-5. The following condition will be met prior to any further conveyance of the residential lot. The applicant shall establish and record a stormwater easement or maintenance requirement payment plan resulting the loss insurer access to and maintenance of the infiltration pond located across buildings and this is the plan is to be accepted and approved by the city staff on that it's it's smitted the project shall commence within two years of this approval and shall be substantially completed within five years of the date of the planning board decision unless a permit extension has been granted by the board. Deviation from this approval is subject to code enforcement action and potential legal proceedings per section 300-601 of the land [39:26] Betsy Poolen: use ordinance. I have one question and is it okay if I speak to you directly to about the stormwater I know you wanted it completely on the commercial property not on that just have a caveat in there that I can work with city staff okay so that was articulated fine right okay thank you is there a second to the motion thank you Kevin and any further discussion all in favor very good thank you congrats [Robert Eric Austin: Thank you. Hi.] Good evening everyone my name is Betsy Poolen I'm the city planner and the next item on the agenda is another public hearing it's an amended minor development. It's the application of Golden Chicken of Augusta, LLC to modify the plan for Popeye's Restaurant, which was previously approved on June 3rd, 2025 by the Planning Board. This is Assessor's Map 27, Lot 195D-1, located at 48 Western Avenue in the local business district CB. B so the applicant has provided right title or interest in the form of a lease agreement and a letter of authorization for the engineer to present the application to you folks tonight they submitted an application form for an amended minor development and also the payment of a butter and application fees a narrative addressing the changes that they are proposing from their previous approval in June of last year and some plans that address those site elements. So planning staff, we determined that the submission was complete and distributed to the planning board and posted it on the city's website. We also completed the public noticing as outlined in the ordinance, which is direct mailings to abutters within 500 feet of the property, legal advertisements in the paper. There were two notification to City Council Planning Board of Zoning Appeals and interested parties and installed signs at the property. So as staff we recommend that the Planning Board make a positive motion regarding the applicant standing to apply, application completeness, and sufficient public noticing in order to proceed with a substantive review of the application. Thank [42:17] Robert Eric Austin: you Bob. The City Planner has reviewed the submitted materials for the amended and minor development review and determine the application is complete. Has the application better fees been? Yes. Okay I won't put that in part of it and the proper notification has been done. [42:34] Betsy Poolen: Second. Thank you Kevin. Any discussion? All in favor. Very good thank you. Okay so many of you were on the Planning Board when this came through the first time so you have some familiarity with the site. This is on Western Avenue is a yellow dot here in the middle so this is Western Avenue. This is the former Augusta Plaza which will be the Capitol Heights Center. Zooming into the site obviously this is an old aerial photo because that was the Kmart and whatnot that's gone. This is where VIP is located and this is a site where Popeyes is, Wendy's, Sunrise Bagel, here's the federal building, post office. So back a year ago the applicant came and received a minor development approval to construct a 2,536 square foot Popeyes restaurant with a drive-through on a vacant lot. One driveway access was constructed on Western Avenue and the excess also was constructed through at the time it was the Augusta Plaza development from a signalized intersection on Western Avenue. So the applicants requesting alterations to the previously approved plan to match the constructed conditions which reconfigure landscaping, lighting, parking, and stormwater management features. A retaining wall on the eastern side of the property was eliminated. So this plan shows sort of the easiest example of what the Planning Board approved and what was built. So there's some red lines on this plan that shows what the previous approval had. So Western Avenue is up here at the top. So over here on this eastern side, there was a retaining wall over here along where the federal building is. So the change was to remove this retaining wall and basically keep the slope as it existed. So that preserved some of the existing vegetation. Obviously, it eliminated a lot of cost, you know, to build the retaining wall as well. So because of that, there's some other site elements that shifted. Well, that's one reason some of the site elements shifted a little bit. Another big change, it was over here on the western boundary. So the red here shows that the parking area actually had been a little bit more over here to the east, and there was a five-foot strip of landscaping there. So that area was eliminated because the parking was pushed more towards the west, and you can see the area of where the building was shifted. A look like the building is in the same spot, but the kind of the area of where the circulation was shifted a little. The dumpster enclosure here, it was put over here and because of a lot of these site changes, there's a little minor change over here too. Some of the landscaping shifted, some of the lighting changed. Generally, I'd say the storm water didn't shift too much. The impervious surface decreased, but one of the major changes to the plan is that the, they, when we went out to do our site inspection, we realized there were not 36 parking spaces. The size of the spaces changed, the drive aisles changed. That's when we realized the plan was not constructed as the planning board approved, so they would have to come back to the planning board. So at this point, there's a temporary occupancy on the property that's valid. Right now it's through the end of December 21st for the applicant to meet all the conditions that the planning board, to meet whatever the planning board chooses is to do with this project for to approve if the planning board feels that they want to stick with the original plan that was approved back, you know, last year, and say no, well, sorry, you constructed it this way, we approved it this way, you have to do that. 's one option, or you can look at this plan that was as it was constructed, see how it Fits, you know, the ordinance, obviously the applicant would prefer to not make changes back to what was originally approved because anyway, so the board can look through some of these changes and determine how you want to proceed with this. So I've written up a draft findings of fact and conclusions of law that sort of that, and in the staff review as well highlighted the items which were different from the previous approval with italics and underlines so you can kind of pick them out and see where Those changes are there's see, so the bigger, as I said, the majority of it is more kind of connected to engineering related with the, there's a letter from Wayne funnels, our assistant city engineer, that talks about some of those deviations with the size of compact pack spaces, you know, if they'd be acceptable, the drive aisle wits, that sort of thing. So in this draft findings of fact and conclusions alive, I've written up some of just some language that the board can use to consider if as you're going Through this process and I'll go through that a little bit more as we go through. I've got some slides of the images of the site, so this is looking out the main access drive towards western avenue at that signalized intersection, so as I said this is the area their hat was originally a five foot strip of landscaping here, so the property line is sort of in this area, so eliminating that landscaping has definitely caused a deviation from what the typical buffer yard a landscaping requirement would Be, so normally there'd be a 15 foot width that could be reduced to 10 feet with a fence. The planning board used some flexibility in the approval last year to just allow some additional plantings along this area with no additional fence, but now obviously there's no room to put those plantings, so in the memo I outlined, you know, how many additional plants would be needed on this side to at least get the number of plants to meet the standard. This is looking, you know, panning more towards the east so This is the vip would kind of be on the right, that's the federal building in the background, so here's the site entrance, the lighting which you can't really see too well here, like the original plan had a light pole over here, it's over here now, so some of those things shifted. The light fixtures for those pole mounted lights are still in compliance, like they're still full cut off, like as they were approved. Some of the building mounted lighting is not full cut off, which I mentioned in the memo and recommend that those should be changed to full cut off fixtures but it's up to the board if you want to change that this is looking more towards vip so you can see a little bit of this landscaping over here this side was fine for the landscaping requirement back towards a VIP towards this is looking south so here I am entering the site so Western Avenue is straight ahead so you go in you take this right turn and go around I'm in the sort of the eastern corner of the site VIPs over there 's the kind of the start of the drive-through queue area. So there's a few compact spaces that were added in here, and there's this drive, the dumpsters on this left here, and here's the drive aisle. This is one of the drive aisles that was sort of a concern. So additional parking spaces were striped in here to meet the number of parking space requirements, but they're small and also create a pinch point here for where all like a lot of the vehicles are driving through the site. There's some of those very compact spaces, and this is looking more towards the west. So here I'm on Western Avenue looking east across the frontage back into the site, and there's looking west up Western Avenue. There's some, additional landscaping was needed along this area as well. The stormwater feature changed a little bit how the, it was constructed I guess from the plan, but I don't think it didn't seem like that was really a concern based on the reduction in impervious surface. Anyway, way there's also landscaping is needed around the sign to meet the sign ordinance standards. This is looking to the east, so there's a, people can walk from the restaurant over here and come out to Western Avenue. So it and here we go, this, there's a little sidewalk connection here. This is something that the applicant, they've agreed that they will fix. Obviously they still don't have their occupancy, but this was a point of concern because it's the only pedestrian access into the site from Western Avenue to get to this whole complex. And right now it's this sort of non-accessible area. So there's a lot of people who come through with them, you know, motorized wheelchairs, that sort of thing. And it's not up to snuff right now. Now, this is, it's kind of hard to see in here, but some of these lighting fixtures are the ones there were, there's a plan outlined in, that was provided to you that shows different light fixture numbers and what the fixture looks like. And you can see that they're not a full cutoff style fixture. There is an ability, if maybe the state or federal laws required you to have a light fixture that wasn't full cut off, that might be okay to approve, you know. But generally there were no rules for that. This is just something that the applicant preferred to have, I guess. So this is the ex with the plan that was originally approved, and this was the constructed version. This is some of the landscaping, so that this was a, we could put additional plantings in these areas. So one of the conditions was that staff is recommending is to have additional landscaping to screen the parking areas and to meet the sign ordinance standards. She'll be submitted to the city planner for review prior to installation. That would make sure that the number of plants is met, the size, the species, that sort of thing. We did get some, an email from the applicant asking if they could wait to like September to do some of those plantings, just because this is a really hot time of year to do plantings. So I mean obviously they're, they have until I guess December for their to complete the work that the planning board wants to have done for their occupancy. I think they'd prefer to have their occupancy a little sooner than December, but anyway, I don't, so just to let you know that they had that request to have a little bit to have time to have the landscaping done. The lighting, as I said, these, this is where some of the fixtures are actually out on the site versus where they were approved, and the light fixtures on the building, I won't go show that one, I'll go back to the change plan. I had a couple other items in here. So I've got a proposed like a possible waiver, so waivers required for the width of the drive aisles within the parking lot and the eastern side of the drive-thru and maybe actually other areas too, according to the, I didn't have the letter from the city engineers review when I wrote this because I was on vacation last week, so I put in what some things in here that sort of the kind of placeholders for the board to kind of discuss. So the, so I have, you know, the city engineer has determined the width is adequate or is not adequate, you know, and if they, if the planning board wants to grant or not grant a waiver, obviously the landscaping changed and the plan, the planning board could have some flexibility in landscape buffery yard requirements if they want. So there's a lot of mature trees that were protected along that eastern side of the property line, but obviously that screening On the eastern property line does nothing for the western property line if there's not enough plants over there, so the board, as I said, can discuss that. Other items I listed in the proposed conditions were the building mounted lighting labeled WP and ER required to be changed to full cutoff fixtures. Obviously the board can discuss that. Reconstruction of the walkway connection to Western Avenue sidewalk to comply with ADA accessible standards, approval by the city engineer of the stormwater management plan. So if anybody has any additional questions for [56:39] Robert Eric Austin: me or engineering, no questions for you, but I'll save them for the applicant. [56:45] Betsy Poolen: Okay, sure, okay, applicant can please come up. Hi. [57:00] Hale Barasa: Good evening, Hale Barasa with LJB Engineering, here on behalf of Golden the Chicken of Augusta. I appreciate the thorough review, Betsy, of our request here from you all this evening. And just going right into some of these modifications. Excuse me. As Betsy had noted, and this is certainly the best plan to kind of show what was originally approved and what now exists out there today that we're looking for. Amendments to our original minor development plan from you all, largest item being the removal of the retaining wall, certainly for constructability, and but additionally to preserve existing mature trees that were out there as well. And in our opinion here, and now that the property has a conditional opening at this point and has been open, we're certainly not seeing or hearing any additional feedback that negatively talks about the circulation ability through the site here, and for either delivery vehicles, trash trucks that are coming into service the dumpster location here, and then just regular users, patrons of the restaurant. So one thing we wanted to point out there, we're very amenable to and certainly motivated to clean up a lot of these conditions that Betsy has prepared for you all this evening, certainly on the evergreen shrubs along Western Ave, additional landscaping in there, and we've certainly been trying to coordinate, I know just even earlier today there was some additional Feedback we were trying to provide back on these items, but landscaping, we're certainly going to be just cognizant of the location of the sign that has both the Popeyes and then the VIP underneath it as well. So don't want to necessarily block those views, but I think the evergreen shrubs to block headlights that are facing out towards Western Ave will be helpful. Excuse me, and but additionally, we can advantageously plant some additional trees that Betsy has pointed out for us within that front area. The same would go for the area along the western side. The preference would certainly be to not install a fence along that side, but we can certainly suppl supplement with some additional plantings. Reason being for on that side where we had gone up closer to the property line and removed that additional little bit of landscaping there, was that actually prior to our activity on site here, the plaza owner had reconstructed this sidewalk area, and so I had brand new sidewalk walk curbing installed and trying to maintain some of that some of that area in addition to that my understanding is that there are some areas we're dealing with a lot of grade across the site here so what we're dealing with and if you visited the site and some of the photos won't do it justice but trying to make upgrades down from the parking area where we enter towards the rear from VIP down into the building area and in that landscape strip there 's actually a water line that runs through there so we're trying to make sure that we have enough cover over it, we're not filling too much over the line. I'm not trying to compromise that line in any certain sort of way. There on the lighting side of things, we're certainly cleaning up our existing conditions to note the correct location of all the light poles that we have on site here, and then to Betsy's comment on the cutoff fixtures or versus non-cutoff fixtures that are on the building, our preference would be to certainly keep those lights. This would be something I believe that is commonly used on a lot of these sites that the Popeyes folks have been building out. If there's additional information the board would like from us, or such as perhaps light surveys just to test around premier property lines, we'd be certainly open to that just to help with that. And then sidewalk areas going out towards the front where we're certainly understanding that needs to be constructed, so that's been already communicated back to the ownership and construction Team too, so that will be on the schedule here in the in the coming weeks, as I understand, so just subject confirmation from those contractors. Then from there, the kind of a minor item that we touched on where we have reduced overall impervious area on the site is the storm water management. I don't believe we're looking for or did any sort of reduction to that system out there. Ultimately, we actually did connect in the roof drain for the for the building, which typically just for DEP standards doesn't need to be provided water quality treatment, but it was certainly just kind of best practice, and then easiest for us to connect back into the closed system we already had on site that was going to that focal point there. So we're doing a little bit more treatment and we have a little bit less impervious on site, so we're happy with that outcome definitely. And hadn't looked too much further into that, and I think that city staff felt comfortable with that deviation there. Now looking just at the waivers, both of these were certainly in favor of, and can talk a little bit more too if the board has any additional questions for us. But certainly just going back to the site being open currently, having no issues currently with circulation through the site, with some of these areas where we might have less than what was previously approved for dry vial widths, space dimensions, if there is some areas where we can adjust and get up to the compact stall spaces, I know there were some areas where striping might not have lined up or measured quite to the city standards. More than happy to review that with staff, and we'll we'll make right on some of the striping elements, but I believe on the dry vials we'll certainly look to and would respectfully request the board consider that for approval here this evening. And then additionally, just speaking to the landscaping and the buffer standard on the westerly property side, I think that's what's Betsy has come up with here is certainly fair where we're keeping a lot of that existing vegetation to certainly separate our view from the federal building and Beyond, and then really keeping us kind of in line with what was the existing Plaza space here, and keeping it open to the primary drive driveway entrance in there, and keeping that view shed. So other than that, I turn it over to the board for any questions. Thank you. Sure, Bob. Yep, first of all [1:03:33] Robert Eric Austin: Why didn't you come to the city engineer? Why didn't you come to the city making? I know you know you knew you're not following what was approved. I think at the time that not being [1:03:44] Hale Barasa: IN MY I WOULD SAY FOR LACK OF BETTER TERM COURT FOR THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS THESE BUILDINGS THEY GO UP QUICKLY AND THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TOWARDS DEADLINES. I THINK THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY MUST HAVE JUST BEEN FAIRLY FLUID AND SO THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A DECISION AT THE TIME THAT OR MAYBE THEY JUST HAD NOT GOTTEN TO REACH OUT TO THE CITY AT THAT TIME BUT WE'RE certainly understanding that's not ideal. I've been very appreciative of the planning staff and engineering staff to kind of accommodate us and really work through a lot of these items and as I had mentioned here too we're certainly amenable to all the solutions that are on the [1:04:26] Robert Eric Austin: table here. Secondly in regards to other locations do it a different way they do with the lights differently and everything else just want to make it very positively understood this is a custom that we have the zoning ordinances that are required with the stuff we approved it that's our way of doing business not we don't care about any other town any other location just live up to our standards and we get along fine with you folks. Absolutely so I in reading the memo that Tyler put together and everything else and what Betsy's put together I'm hard-paced to waive any request moving forward on this thing. The only one that has a chance is the regards to the wall he took out on that type of thing and I'm not convinced I [1:05:20] Betsy Poolen: want to waive that one so that's my thoughts. Any other questions for the applicant at the time? Okay you'll have the last word. Thanks. You're welcome. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak for these adjustments? Is there anybody who would like to speak against? Sure come on up please. Hi [1:05:55] Greg Pierce: Greg Pierce I live at [address] in Augusta. I would live you know these lights be shining out of the northern boundary of this property into my directly in my house. I do remember the abandoned shell the Friendlies that was there certainly before this you know. I think there's definitely some improvement. I'm a little offended by just building whatever you want and just assuming that Augusta is going to be fine with waving all of our ordinances and our rules so I but I feel very strongly about the landscaping on the northern boundary especially and the lighting shut off that seems very important because we don't want this these stupid and you know for what it's worth there is the church right across the road from this building and you know they have activities all hours so it's not just you know I don't know if they're anyone else is going to show up to speak to this but there is a neighborhood here so and there are people who live around here so [1:07:10] Betsy Poolen: thank you thank you Greg is there anybody else who would like to speak against some of these adjustments thank you is there anybody who would like to speak neither for nor against Okay, that closes the public hearing portion do we want to hear from the Engineers as a board. I wouldn't know sure [1:07:44] Robert Eric Austin: Come on Tyler join up [1:07:52] Tyler Pease: Let the Wayne take off the stuff too [1:07:56] Betsy Poolen: Yes, if you guys just want to kind of speak to your primary concerns That we haven't gone over [1:08:05] Wayne Bunnell: That we haven't gone over. [1:08:07] Betsy Poolen: Well, how about you just voice your concerns about that. [1:08:09] Wayne Bunnell: Okay, I was going to say, I think we've kind of talked about things. Introduce yourself. My name is Wayne Bunnell, assistant city engineer. Some of the concerns that we had were the aisle lengths, specifically on the east side, but also on the north side. So you kind of have some pinch points, both on the north end as you're coming in from Western Ave. The plans were 18 feet. I measured it at 14 feet. And then on the east side, it gets as narrow as 13 feet going on around the, which is less than what was previously approved. Another concern that we had was up on the north end of Western Ave, the sidewalk at the driveway does not meet ADA standards, just want to make sure that is also addressed. I know we talked about on the west side, that connector, so both of those would need to be addressed for that. I think we were looking at some of the plantings that Betsy was maybe recommending. We just want to caution that there's enough sight distance looking to the west. and the compact spaces were a little bit smaller than what I think our ordinance requires so yes [1:09:39] Betsy Poolen: so the way it's constructed right now is there a way to even correct it is there space to correct it and what is how do you how do you re comply where the space doesn't fit now to keep them going or [1:10:01] Tyler Pease: I'll probably take a little bit more looking into the so back when this was approved oh I follow my own my own advice here I'm Tyler Pease the city engineer so back when this was originally approved you know that our ordinance I think it was 24 feet required for like the angle parking and you know in my time here we've looked at other you know common engineering nearing reference materials and whatnot to look at reduced widths because ours are a little bit wide in some cases for the angled parking so there was some reference material provided with the original application that i think the 18 feet was slightly above what that had by about a foot or so but i was good with it at the time and then so even you know some of this some of these aisle widths are smaller or narrower than what the reference material that was provided both today and last time or the kernels are smaller than what was provided so we didn't go crazy trying to come up with solutions yet on our end because but you know happy to work towards something that's agreeable also [1:11:20] Robert Eric Austin: I just like to point out to the members who were not on the printing board at the time that this one came through there was large discussions we had a lot of discussion in regards to the parking, the driveway, going around the parking, having to move in and out, and the movement of the things on the way this thing was set up. And it took some time to come to the conclusions with the help of Tyler and everything on what we decided on at that time. And to me, they need to go back and fix what they ignored on this stuff. And it's going to be up to them. It's going to be up to getting you guys' approval, meeting the different things that were required on that thing. I do want to discuss, again, where they took out the wall, the retaining wall. Sometimes that's hard to go back and put it back in and do that on that stuff. But, again, that caused some of the parking to be scrunched together, I believe, in doing that. So I would like to see something can come up with the engineers and help bring back some of that parking that they'd eliminated and widen the spaces that they have is what I'd like to see and I Just want to know that you guys you feel you got the capacity to Make that happen. [1:12:44] Betsy Poolen: We can try. And again, this isn't just for this project. But the concern is that if we do approve all these exceptions on this one, that this could be a bad path moving forward for other projects coming in if we give a unexplained or unjustifiable exception at this point. So yeah, Nate Tyler on the other side where [1:13:07] Unidentified Board Member: they remove the retaining wall. Obviously they're saying right now they have no issue with cars getting around queuing. What are your thoughts on wintertime? It's [1:13:24] Tyler Pease: gonna be tough I think. I mean, we usually don't get too much into the snow removal side of things, as you know. You know, I'm glad that it's working for them, but a lot of times in these situations that seem kind of tight, I often try to, you know, check in with Dave, Chief Dave Groter from fire department to make sure they're comfortable with getting around the building and having access. Are [1:13:52] Betsy Poolen: the widths wide enough for emergency response? But you can fit a vehicle through, so even their big ones. You're [1:13:58] Tyler Pease: figuring eight and a half feet wide. I mean, but it gets into turning movements and I do have, do you remember how long that compact space was? I think 14 feet on the south end. Yeah, I think the compact space further south was shorter than what our standard is. And you know that, not that I, we get into worrying about what all of everybody's behavior is, ignoring a compact spot of, you know, parking in there with a large vehicle, but it's really getting tight dimensionally that if somebody was to do that and I mean, I don't think it's grounds here, but if somebody was to do that, you're getting really tight and potentially an issue. Okay. [1:14:41] Betsy Poolen: I feel like we've heard your opinion. Does everybody else at this point? Okay, thank you. And we'll just deliberate as a board. Nate, sorry to start with you, but someone has to start. There's a lot [1:14:57] Unidentified Board Member: yeah, there is a lot here. I'm kind of with Bob on this one. I don't know if I feel great about granting any waivers at this point because as you said, we do this once and it just opens the floodgates to everybody else. I think they should go back and fix some of the issues that they chose to ignore. Fix the lighting, I guess there's full cut off, it needs to be full cut off whether the company likes it that way or not, it needs to be our standard. Yeah, they, I think they need to put something together and bring it back to us with proposed changes that fits all the standards. I'm [1:15:53] Maddie Bruno: In agreement with both of you, I also think ignoring the ADA accessibility is pretty blatantly against what we are doing and why we permit these things the way they're permitted. And also, as somebody who lives in the area, the lights are very bright and it's notable and different than the other buildings in the vicinity. Yeah, Kevin. Yeah, I'm inclined to stick [1:16:24] Unidentified Board Member: with what was originally approved. I do think it would set a pretty bad precedent to allow these waivers to go through after we've already approved something for them. And I know the applicant said that there's no issues with movement through the property, but I have had multiple residents speak to me saying that they were having difficulty maneuvering. Thank you. And Bob, [1:16:51] Robert Eric Austin: and last of all, in regards to the full cutoff lighting and stuff, I would not want to see any of the full lighting remains on that building. It all needs to be full cut off like we require in the city. So we need to make sure that's part of it out there. And I do think that I would, in regards to the retaining wall, I would leave that up to city staff to come up with a plan how they can put some parking spaces back in there on that stuff versus replacing the wall but fixing what they did back there. Yeah, but it needs to be agreed to and approved by the city staff, city engineer, if that happens. [1:17:35] Maddie Bruno: Do we lose potentially the older trees that are there? That was my other question. [1:17:43] Betsy Poolen: i'm about to say yes so it sounds like no one's really in favor of exceptions if i'm hearing everybody this is there a path forward at this moment i think there is i think it's still [1:18:06] Robert Eric Austin: in regards to what we can approve the night is one is we don't grant the waiver for the width of drive aisles and the parking lot and the drive-thrus and stuff that they have there. We leave the retaining wall question, we disapprove it, that they come up with a plan that it's a satisfaction of the city engineer to fix that problem and get some parking back in there and get the help with it with, and then I think we can address all five deals that Betsy put forth on that thing, because I don't have a problem with the evergreen slubs. I don't have a problem with the amount of lighting. I don't have a problem with the additional landscaping, the reconstruction of the parkway, and the approval of the storm ordered by the city engineer. Okay, anybody? [1:18:59] Betsy Poolen: else have feedback for that so kind of agreeing to the requirements the one through five and then having a better plan between applicant and city engineer for retaining wall and drive aisles and decide what was that yep okay yep [1:19:19] Unidentified Board Member: YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. I'M GOOD WITH IT. [1:19:25] Betsy Poolen: JUST FOR CURIOSITY, IS THE BOARD THINKING THE BOARD WANTS TO LOOK AT A PLAN AGAIN? NO. OR IS THIS A STAFF THING? [1:19:34] Robert Eric Austin: I THINK IT'S A STAFF THING. THIS IS PUT TOGETHER AND EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE. I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE VERY GOOD IN PUTTING THESE FACTS TOGETHER. I THINK WE JUST ARE HERE TO GIVE YOU GUIDANCE ON WHAT ADDITIONAL STUFF AND WHAT WE'VE LAST SEEN TYLER'S DIVISION TO [1:19:47] Betsy Poolen: DO ALSO. CAN I ASK YOUR OPINION? For the reason you asked the question, if there's another way we should be looking at this as well. In your experience, I guess, I mean, say for instance the retaining wall, if it was installed or not installed, has a fairly significant impact on the site, so I just don't know if, as staff, you know, being like, we, you know, oh, sure, that's fine, we'll get the wall in, all these trees are going to disappear, and the parking will be fine, if all the board would be happy with that solution, if staff approves that, I guess, is what I'm saying. But if staff says, oh, well, okay, there's a way to reconfigure the site without putting the retaining wall in, and it meets the standards, and that's fine. [1:20:41] Robert Eric Austin: That's what I'm asking the city staff and engineer to come up with. I'm trying to avoid having to put in a retaining wall. [1:20:48] Betsy Poolen: Okay. That was unclear. Okay. Right. Okay. So you see what you're saying is that if they did recommend putting that in so the parking or whatever would be better. It would change significantly from, yeah. So I guess we're just trying to get a little clarity here. So if there was a way to reconfigure the site with some minor changes to meet the drive aisles and the parking space standards, and it's within an acceptable city engineer standard for drive aisles and the fire chief's okay, then the board would be okay with basically restriping and some minor changes. Is that's what I'm just so make sure on the same page there, thank you. So you want to try to articulate that in a motion, Bob? [1:21:50] Robert Eric Austin: Here we go guys. Pursuant to the visions of the city of Augusta land use ordinance, the city of Augusta Planning Board has considered the application of the Golden Chicken of Augusta LLC, including supportive data, staff review comments, public hearing testimony, and related materials contained in the record. The Planning Board makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law. The project description is to receive approval to construct a Popeyes restaurant with drive-thru on a vacant lot parking lot. One driveway access was constructed on the Western Avenue and access was constructed through the Augusta Plaza development at a signalized intersection on Western Avenue. The applicant is requesting alternatives to the previous approved plan to match the construction conditions, which configures landscaping, lighting, parking, and stormwater management features. A retaining wall on the east side of the property was eliminated. Number two, the applicant is Golden Chicken of Augusta LLC contract. Contract also Jeffrey, care of Reliance Hospitality Group, LLC. The right title and interest is a lease agreement with 48 Weston Avenue, LLC. The owner is 48 Weston, LLC. The location is 48 Weston Avenue. The zoning is local business, District CB. Tax and map number is map 27, lot 195D-1, plus maps 27, lots 195D-2, and lot 95 for access only. Existing land use is restaurant permitted. Proposed land use is restaurant permitted. Acreage is 1.06. Previous approvals on March 22, 2022, the Planning Board approved Aspen Dental on this property. February 11, the Planning Board approved a subdivision which included this site. June 3, 2025, the Planning Board approved construction of Popeye's Restaurant with drive-thru service. And a temporary occupancy permit is now in use and conclusions of the view of the above actions and application of reporting documentation the planning board makes a final following conclusion of the law and to get notified here again therefore the painting board hereby approves the application of golden chicken of the SLC as described in the findings of fact and conclusion logs above with the following additional findings a waiver is requested for the width of the drive aisles within the Parking lot at the eastern side of the drive-through section 300-603-E3C and D if the city engineers determine the width is adequate or is inadequate for passage, the Planning Board does not grant the waiver. Number two, a retaining wall in eastern boundary was removed from the original site plan which was preserved, which we preserve numerous mature trees. The flexibility of landscaping requirements, section 300-502-C2B, for a reduced width of the landscaping on the Woodson boundary, is not granted. And subject to approval by the city engineers to work out an agreement between the developer and the city staff and the city engineer to go back to the original depth. That was required and approved by the board in the first place, and if this can be resolved without having to replace the excuse me the retaining wall, it would be much appreciated. So their request to for their waiver is not granted. The following conditions should be met prior to the issuance of the certificate of OXME from the Code Enforcement Bureau in order to satisfy land use ordinance criteria and Planning Board requirements. Number one, Evergreen shrubs shall be incorporated into the design along Western Avenue to screen headlights, section 300-603E6E. All work is to be completed by 12-31-2026. Building mounted lighting labeled as WP and ER are required to be changed to full cutoff fixtures, section 300-603E6E and 300-404B21. Additional number three, additional landscaping to screen the parking areas and to meet site and order standards shall be submitted to the city planner for review prior to installation, and all work is to be completed by 1231 2026, section 300-603 E6E and F. Number four, reconstruction of the walkway connection to the Western Avenue sidewalk to comply with ADA accessibility standards, section 300-603 E3C, and number 5, approval of the city engineer of the stormwater management plan, section 300-404 B17 The project to commence within two years of this approval and shall be substantially completed within five years of the date of the Planning Board decision unless a permit has been granted by the board. It's subject to the 1231 26 dates required for number one and number three of these conditions. Deviation from this approval is subject to the code enforcement action and potential legal proceedings per section 300-601 of the land use ordinance. Did that capture everything [1:27:38] Unidentified Board Member: You want just one in three to have the 1231, or do you want one through five to have 1231? One, so I believe all five would have to be meant to get the certificate, correct? Very. [1:27:52] Robert Eric Austin: good very good thank you i 'm no i have no problem with that amendment and [1:28:01] Betsy Poolen: Was there only one walkway connection that needed to be ADA, or was there more than one? I'd say the other sidewalks. In the right-of-way, so there's a sidewalk, there's a connection on this site that connects to the right-of-way that needs to be fixed on their one. Okay, yeah, I think right, the other I thought I. Heard you guys articulate something in your, I think tight is gonna help us. Yeah, I'll try. Yeah. [1:28:29] Tyler Pease: So the one over in here was out of whack quite a bit, and then the sidewalk on Western Ave within the right-of-way was not constructed properly with the cross slope, so that one needs to be. [1:28:40] Betsy Poolen: Fixed as well. So Eva, do you have that? Yes. Okay, thank you. That was one of the areas we had major. [1:28:47] Robert Eric Austin: Discussion on, that entrance in and out and the crosswalk. Yeah, just making sure they're. [1:28:53] Betsy Poolen: ADA compliant. Okay, I think overall that covered it. I think so. All right, any questions? A second to the motion as adjusted? Second. All in favor. [1:29:10] Robert Eric Austin: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Welcome to the city. We love your food. I do anyway. My wife does. [1:29:22] Betsy Poolen: All right, now did you have a question? I was gonna say we might want to wait on the minutes just because we're a little, because Maddie wasn't, oh yeah, for just to have a proper vote, yeah, and I. Wasn't here either. Okay, so we'll hold those till next time, right? Correct. All right, so next is I. [1:29:54] Robert Eric Austin: Make a motion we adjourn. Okay, thank you. I see a vote. Oh yes, that's right. All in paper. Okay, I'm opposed and welcome again Maddie. Thank you, glad to be here. You've got a fun one.