Augusta Planning Board approves FedEx parking expansion, bank rezone

[5:35] Speaker A (unidentified): Welcome to tonight's Augusta Planning Board meeting. Thank you all for silencing your cell phones. A reminder, who, a reminder for all who will be speaking this evening, please 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 three items on our agenda this evening, and all our 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 I think that's it. I had notes from last time down below [6:32] Speaker B (unidentified): that don't apply right now, so thank you Betsy and Eva. We're ready. Okay, good evening everyone. My name [6:38] Eva Nielsen: is Eva Nielsen. I'm the assistant city planner for Augusta. Before we get to the first item, I'll just note that the applicant for agenda item number three has withdrawn their application, so the planning board will not be reviewing the amended subdivision application for Mike Bonifan. And then moving on to the first item on the agenda tonight, it's a public hearing for a minor development application of Rockwood Development Corporation to modify the existing parking a lot between, but excuse me, behind a Federal Express or FedEx, and construct a 58 space parking lot. This is assessors map 91, lots 2 and 2a, located at 162 Witten Road in the regional business district or CC. The applicant has established right, title, or interest in the form of deeds for all associated parcels. The project also does have a little bit of grading on lot 2b, which the applicant also owns, and we've located a d to verify that the applicant submitted an application for a minor development review and supporting materials including a narrative, letter of authorization for consultant representation, storm water analysis, traffic report, site plans and details, a parking waiver request, and the fees for the application, public notice, and the abutter notification. Staff completed direct mailings to abutters within the required notification radius of 500 feet. We posted legal advertisements in the newspaper. We notified the Planning Board, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the City Council, and other interested parties, and we installed a sign on the property. So based on this review, the Augusta City Planning staff recommends that the Planning Board make a positive motion regarding the applicant's standing to apply, the completeness of the application, and the sufficiency of the public noticing to proceed with the substantive review. [8:37] Speaker D (unidentified): I move that the applicant has sufficient standing to apply to the Planning Board for minor development review for the above-described project. The Planning Bureau provided public notices outlined in the land use ordinance and collected the required application and public notice fees for the project review. I move that the Planning Board with a recommendation from the city planner find that the application is complete. I second. Thanks. [8:58] Speaker A (unidentified): Allison, all in favor? Very good, so. [9:06] Eva Nielsen: Planning staff have provided the applicant and the Planning Board with a planning staff review, an engineering Bureau review, and a draft findings of fact and conclusions of law document, which we've also posted on our planning board materials webpage, and as planning board members have reviewed in your staff documents, the application has been modified a bit due to an update to the proposed ground disturbance, so the application originally identified twenty four thousand two hundred and seventy four square feet of ground disturbance, which qualified as a minor development. The revised total is 47,300 square feet, making the overall project a major development. Due to the timing of this update, staff were unable to re-advertise the application as a major development before this meeting tonight. Tonight, so the applicant is therefore requesting that the board only review what is included in your revised plans as phase one tonight, which includes 38,950 square feet of ground disturbance and would qualify as a minor development. Phase one includes the new 58 space staff parking area, stormwater improvements, and additional security measures related to the TSA requirements and other company changes. Phase two would include the truck stalls and those associated stormwater improvements, and they would potentially be reviewed at a future meeting. So to just reiterate this, the applicant is simply requesting that the board review phase one improvements tonight. I'll now go through the application. So we have a presentation. This is the first image as an aerial image of the main properties included within the proposal in that orange colored outline. So map 91 lots 2 and 2a as I mentioned just before, a lot 2b which is just to the left or to the west of 2a includes the minor grading, and the applicant and has established ownership for that parcel. Witten Road runs north and south with I-95 running parallel just to the east, and a portion of the Augusta Crossing is just northeast. This is just the greater area. The proposed and existing use is considered services, and it is permitted, a permitted use in the CC district. There were several planning board approvals associated with a subdivision plan of which these parcels were included. So this was in 1988 originally, and then 91, 94, and 97. The FedEx building has existed on the property since 1987. And the proposal and the existing lots meet all the lot characteristics for CC zoning. Owning, and a mix of land uses exist in the vicinity of 500 feet, including business and professional associations and research, testing labs, public utilities, and a couple others. So moving on to some photos, this is an image of the front facade of the building facing north within the parking area. Overall, the changes aren't anticipated to bring about a significant increase in traffic, though there might be a slight increase due to some additional package handling, according to the applicant. And this is the northern driveway access, which is both an entrance and an exit, as is the southern driveway access. I'm facing south here on Witten Road. And because our technical standards require the dual driveways to function as one way in and one way out, the applicant needed to submit a waiver request to the Engineering Bureau, which they did. And the applicant notes that the long-standing use of the dual driveways with full access and the lack of problems over the years, and the Engineering Bureau recommends continuing this full service use, provided signage, and possibly other traffic control measures can be utilized, which we included. Both the waiver as a draft finding and then the signage and other traffic control measures as a possible condition of approval. This is just panning to the west from that same general area where one can see the northern property line and the paved circulation area. The area out back is proposed to be closed off with a fence and gate. Access would be provided at both ends of the building. This is standing to the rear of the parking area facing northwest, and this area is more associated with the phase two truck stalls that are proposed, not included in this review tonight. And this is the length of the rear existing parking area. So all of this parking is proposed to be eliminated, or rather relocated to that southern parking area, and that would have 58 spaces. Just panning West a little bit, staff added a draft condition that the on-site dumpsters either need to be relocated behind the building or screened with dumpster enclosures if they're visible from the public way. And this is the area just south to where that proposed parking lot would be located with the stormwater improvements. And according to the ordinance, 97 parking spaces are required and 72 total are proposed for phase one. So the applicant did request a waiver, noting that since the parking requirement is based on building square footage and the portions of the building are used just for storage and for loading, there might be fewer employees per square foot overall than a typical industrial facility. And Wayne Bunnell, Assistant City Engineer, supported a waiver in his letter written on behalf of the Engineering Bureau. And the board can take that into consideration when deciding whether to grant the request. This is a photo facing northwest from the southern entrance and exit. It work was some work was being completed when I visited. The applicant can speak more to this one. Can see where the new gate is proposed to the southern end of the building, and we did add a condition regarding a Knox box for emergency access to this rear area. The gates won't have alarms, and they would deliveries would be made typically between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. Just for a little bit of context, facing north from that southern entrance and exit, you can see the Augusta crossing pretty far out in the distance, and then I included the pages of the site plan. So all that is within phase two, not to be reviewed tonight, is included in that dotted, those dotted areas, a couple of dotted areas. There are 1,515 square feet of wetland impact, which was noted in the review. The paved area for the new parking lot includes twenty four thousand two hundred seventy four square feet of impervious. There's no proposed changes to the building. The applicant did include buffer yard a landscaping that would be utilized to screen parking areas of more than six spaces, and they would submit a formal landscaping plan for staff review pending planning board approval. We also have other pages of the site plan if there are questions. So I'll just close by going over the draft findings and conditions of approval, which the board has authority to accept or to change. First to the findings, which we've already covered. So number one, the Planning Board either does or does not grant a waiver to allow two-way access at both driveways. Per the city engineers recommendation, number two, the Planning Board either does or does not grant a waiver to reduce the required parking from 97 spaces to 72 spaces per the city engineers recommendation, and then the draft conditions, which the board can also consider and discuss. GUS. The number one, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to planning staff identifying the proposed fixture types and locations and shall upgrade all existing non-conforming lighting to full Cotta fixtures. Number two, the applicant shall either relocate the existing dumpsters behind the building so they're not visible from the public where install a dumpster enclosure to screen the dumpsters from Witten Road. Number three, the applicant shall coordinate with Augusta Fire Department and install a Knox box for emergency access to the proposed gated area in accordance with fire department standards. Number four, the applicant shall coordinate with the city engineer to implement appropriate signage and other any other traffic control measures to promote safe on-site circulation. Number five, the applicant must submit a landscaping plan to planning staff that meets buffer yard a requirements. So that's all from us staff and we're happy to take any questions from the board. Any questions for Eva? Yep, Eva, and I see [19:04] Speaker D (unidentified): the wetland areas that are outlined on here are there, refresh me, are there buffers that need to be met between the wetlands and what they're creating for parking impervious areas? No, okay, or setbacks, I mean? No, okay. Any [19:24] Speaker A (unidentified): other questions for Eva? Okay, we can hear from the applicant. [19:49] Randy Butler: Hello, I'm Randy Butler, I'm with Dirigo Engineering and the designer of the project. I think even a pretty thorough job at representing the project. Erosion control has been Documented on the plans. In addition to that, Later in the just last week. We realized as a result of having more than one acre of Disturbed area that triggers a permit requirement through Maine DEP. It's called the main construction general permit, which they've just updated their permitting process over the last year or so. It used to be kind of like a one-page form, but they've made it a little bit more thorough to make sure the environment is protected. So we submitted an application for that permit last Thursday, I believe it was. So that is noted as a condition on the plan, condition number four. We've added onto the plan for your reference just to know that will be, that's underway. It's essentially a, it acts like a permit by rule. They'll review it and as long as you don't hear back from them the project is good to go. I think it's a either 14 or 20 day review period, so that's that's in the works right now. And then as mentioned we'll have to have a landscaping plan submitted at some point as well as a lighting plan. FedEx themselves will come up with a lighting plan, so that's why it's not included in our package, but that will be submitted prior to installation of that system and I think that's all I have unless you have any questions, happy to answer them. Yeah, go ahead. [21:30] Speaker F (unidentified): Bob, would you repeat what the main DEP permit is, what 's it? Yeah, it's called the main [21:37] Randy Butler: Construction general permit, that's all I had. Yeah, and we've got that noted on the plan next to the signing location on the for the planning board off to the right. We've got conditions noted and that's condition number four, we make note of that. Any other questions for the [22:05] Speaker D (unidentified): applicant so the large trucks that are going to be accommodated at some point parking in the back there's nothing in this part of the proposal that accommodates those large trucks is that correct what they're shown on the plans [22:19] Randy Butler: that's what the big bold box on the top of the plan there, that's in that's indicated for that. So six parking spots, that's what's indicated there toward the rear. Okay. [22:33] Speaker D (unidentified): All those notes, that's not that's not part of this project then, correct? Right, it's phase two. [22:39] Randy Butler: Is what it is, right, we broke it out because of the limit on the area of disturbance. [22:44] Speaker D (unidentified): Since there's been a an agreement by the city engineer that the in and out exits and entrances for this are sufficient, are you using big trucks in here at the present time? Are they going and they're functioning okay in that? Yes, I believe that's the case, our large trucks are coming in [23:05] Randy Butler: and out right now, correct? It's just that they're not parking here. Okay, yep, that's I just wanted to be clear. They're parking, it there are three of them from what I understand that use this facility and they're parking at night at a different location. So but under the new operations they'll be up to six that will actually be parking on site, so that's the reason that we're adding those. Harold, [23:30] Speaker G (unidentified): is that fence going to go around the parking area also? That is already being constructed around the building for no. Okay, so how are the employees, are they going to have access through that fence to get into work? Yeah, they'll have a keypad I assume or some a [23:55] Randy Butler: card system they'll have. So they'll they'll I assume that there'll be a there'll be a gate. So essentially the flow for the employees would be to come into the parking lot and then there's the walkway that you'll see coming into the left side on the plan view, which would be the south side of the building. So there'll be a gate, a pedestrian gate if you will, at that location for them to enter the facility. Okay, thank you. [24:22] Speaker G (unidentified): You had stated that FedEx are going to come up with lighting plan, yes. So are they aware of the standards or are you working with [24:32] Randy Butler: Them to make to ensure standards are met. We'll make sure that they have the standards. Yes, yeah, they'll, they'll need to comply. They'll, they'll need to get approval from the city before they can start to start that phase. So yes, they'll, we'll get that to them. Any [24:49] Speaker A (unidentified): other questions for the applicant at this time okay you'll have the last word okay thank you 're welcome is there anybody here who would like to speak in favor of the project all right is there anybody here who would like to speak against the project is there anybody who would like to speak neither for nor against all right you have the last word all right thank you all right kevin i [25:28] Speaker G (unidentified): don't have any concerns with the project thank you harold nor do i 'm just glad to see some more growth here in the city of augusta thank you kathy i had a couple of [25:40] Speaker D (unidentified): questions. I found in one place the staff note that all the signs comply with the land use ordinance, but there's a condition that said you have to get approval for the signs, a condition I think I'm thinking about the stop signs and other signs that may be required, but you haven't reviewed any of those, correct? [26:09] Eva Nielsen: No, I think, so you're talking about like the non-directional signage? [26:16] Speaker D (unidentified): It's not clear. On page 6 at the top, subsection F, it says all the signs comply with the land use ordinance. [26:26] Eva Nielsen: Yeah, I guess typically I think of like the branding, like the company signage, the existing FedEx signage. [26:35] Speaker D (unidentified): Could you just clarify that? Because it's kind of inconsistent where we have to look at some of the other signs. [26:41] Eva Nielsen: Okay. Within the performance standards section of the staff review? Yeah. Okay. And [26:51] Speaker D (unidentified): I had another question. Usually we have something a little bit more robust for the financial cap capacity, the applicant. All I saw for financial capacity was that they owned the property, not that they had the capacity with the funding to do this expansion related to the parking areas and whatnot. So do we have anything more from the applicant just where the money's [27:13] Eva Nielsen: coming from, just what's in the narrative? If there is more that the planning board would like to see, they can discuss that. I'll wait to see what other people want to weigh in. The other question I [27:27] Speaker D (unidentified): have for staff is has there been any conversation yet with Hollow Well about the project? Could you [27:32] Eva Nielsen: update us on that yep so pending a planning board approval tonight a representative from hollow well who works for kv cogg and is their planner is able to come to a future meeting is aware of the plans that are submitted and is happy to engage in the review [28:00] Speaker D (unidentified): is this is that review contingent on hollow well agreeing to anything [28:05] Eva Nielsen: Yeah, so if I can find it really quick, mark it off somewhere. There is a joint review required for major developments that cross municipal lines. So since this review is now considered a major development, it triggered the joint review. And in the past, it sounded like with Granite Hill, for example, a represent, an authorized representative from Hollowell had attended a, an Augusta planning board meeting is what I understand, and that's what we would try to replicate with this review. [28:49] Speaker D (unidentified): So what is the planning board's role in this, if any, regarding the section that's in Hollowell? So [28:57] Eva Nielsen: regarding the land that's in Hollowell, we wouldn't review that. The Augusta Planning Board would not. [29:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, I'm just trying to see where the town line is. [29:13] Speaker F (unidentified): Can we not make the condition that all well approval must be obtained also? [29:24] Eva Nielsen: So this is for phase one, which is a minor development. [29:31] Speaker F (unidentified): So it's gonna deal with when they come back for the major. Yeah, then we require that they must get the approval, so the applicant would need to submit [29:42] Eva Nielsen: another application for an amended review for a major development, because it would include phase one and two, and at that time it would trigger that joint municipal review. So it's not triggered yet. [29:55] Speaker F (unidentified): No, okay, so we need to make any lead into that though. Can we make it, still make it a condition that the Hollow approval must be attained when the it's brought back to us for the well? [30:09] Eva Nielsen: This only pertains to phase one, so there is no phase two. There might never be any phase two. Okay. [30:15] Speaker F (unidentified): Do [30:22] Speaker G (unidentified): you have a question? So is this parking lot going to be in, over the Augusta Hollow line? No. [30:29] Eva Nielsen: No. No, this is in Augusta. The 58 space parking lot is in Augusta. [30:35] Speaker G (unidentified): So how does this affect Hallowell? [30:38] Eva Nielsen: So if you look at your plans, you can see to the top of your plan, I guess I can point it out on the presentation screen. Screen. So up at the top, there's the property, the Hallowell Augusta line. [31:00] Speaker B (unidentified): It's hard to see [31:01] Eva Nielsen: from here. But it kind of, if we're looking just at phase two for a second, it's like a dotted line that goes straight through those like six parking areas, and there's quite a bit of grading on the hollow wall side. Okay, yeah, so right there, kind of like right here, all of this [31:27] Speaker B (unidentified): stuff that's [31:31] Speaker G (unidentified): Phase two though, not right phase one. Okay, thank you. Yeah, Kathy. [31:38] Speaker D (unidentified): Thank you. In Wayne's memo, he indicates that the bureau recommends that the applicant confirmed that sufficient space is provided between the proposed fence gate and Witten Road to accommodate the longest anticipated vehicle waiting at the gate without encroaching into Witten. [31:55] Eva Nielsen: Road. Have they provided that? We've confirmed that. I think the engineering bureau wanted that in writing, but if that's different than what I understand, then Wayne can speak to that. So do we have confirmation or not? I mean, is that, yeah, if we measure on the plan, there's sufficient space. It is sufficient. Okay. How are you doing, Kathy? [32:27] Speaker A (unidentified): You still going though? Go ahead. If somebody else, yeah, no, I'll just ask someone else, but if you still have things that will wait, no, go ahead, go ahead. Okay, Bob. I have no problem with it. [32:41] Speaker H (unidentified): Thank you, Allison. I have no problem, but I'd like to ask if others have thought about the waivers and how they feel with the two waivers requested. I have no problem with either one. [32:53] Speaker A (unidentified): Does anybody have any concerns with the waivers being requested? [32:58] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't. I thought it was justified because of the size of the storage areas of the building and. [33:04] Speaker H (unidentified): You're, you're comfortable. I was thinking that we should have a sixth condition that would include the request that there, we'd be sure there's enough space for those big trucks. I was thinking of including that as a sixth condition, but it doesn't sound like we need it. I'm. [33:27] Speaker A (unidentified): Seeing nose and just no. [33:29] Speaker D (unidentified): No need for. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Allison. Yep. I think staff saying that they measured on the plan that there was enough room should be sufficient. [33:40] Speaker I (unidentified): Maddie. My only question pertaining to the waivers is about, are the number of employees expected to increase or is it staying in the same? Okay, thank you. That was my only question. Thank you. I have no problems with it. [34:08] Speaker A (unidentified): Okay, very good. So it seems we're ready for a motion. I'm. [34:21] Speaker H (unidentified): Happy to make a motion. In the matter of FedEx parking and expansion improvements, Pursuant to the provisions of the City of Augusta Land Use Ordinance, the City of Augusta Planning Board has considered the application of Rockwood Development Corporation, care of Jeff Szostak, 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 conclusions of law. Law. The request is for a minor development review as per section 300-405 and 300-603.e. The applicant proposes to expand and improve the existing Federal Express FedEx parking area in response to the consolidation of FedEx Express and FedEx ground operations and the TSA security requirements related to air transport. This review is limited to Phase 1, 38,950 square feet of ground disturbance for a new parking lot with 58 employee parking spaces and associated stormwater improvements to the south of the building. This would include 72 total parking spaces with four accessible spaces and requires a parking waiver. waiver. Phase two, which includes roughly 8350 square feet of ground disturbance for six semi truck spaces near the northwest corner of the building is not included in this review and will require additional review at a future meeting. The project applicant is Rockwood Development Corporation, care of Jeff Shostak and is located at 162 Witten Road in the Regional business district CC on tax map 91 lots 2 a and 2 B the existing and proposed land use services is a permitted use in this district based on the information before the Planning Board including that found in the remaining findings of fact and conclusions of law detailed in the draft motion applicant submittals and testimony and all other related materials contained in the record I move to approve this act of application with these additional findings the planning board does grant a waiver to allow two-way access at both driveways for the city engineer's recommendation to the planning board does grant a waiver to reduce the required parking from 97 to 72 spaces per the city engineer's recommendation the following conditions shall be met prior to the issuance of a permit from the code enforcement bureau in order to satisfy land use ordinance criteria and planning board requirements one the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to planning staff identifying the proposed fixture types and locations and shall upgrade all existing non-conforming lighting to pulcata fixtures two the applicant shall either relocate the existing dump dumpsters behind the building so they are not visible from the public way or install a dumpster enclosure to screen the dumpsters from winton road the applicant shall coordinate with the augusta fire department and Install a Knox box for emergency access to the proposed gated area in accordance with fire department standards. The applicant shall coordinate with the city engineer to implement appropriate signage and any other traffic control measures to promote safe on-site circulation. Five, the applicant must submit a landscaping plan to planning staff that meets buffer yard A requirements. This 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 court enforcement action and potential legal proceedings per section 300-601 of the land use ordinance. I'll [38:09] Speaker A (unidentified): second. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, all in favor? She has a question. Oh, I thought you said, I said I seconded. Sorry. Yes, but oh, you have discussion. Yes, I just want [38:22] Speaker D (unidentified): to make sure that subsection F on page six gets clarified with regard to what signage it refers to that complies. [38:32] Speaker F (unidentified): Even [38:36] Speaker B (unidentified): nodded. Okay, are you happy with that? Was enough for me. Yeah, okay, great. [38:41] Speaker F (unidentified): All in favor? Very good, thank you. Eva, do we need to keep this package for the future meeting for any reason? [38:51] Speaker B (unidentified): That might be wise. Yes, thank you. Yeah, thank you. All right. [39:18] Betsy Pool: Good evening, board. My name is Betsy Pool and I'm the city planner, and tonight I have item number two on the agenda, which is a public hearing. It's a general rezone. It's the application of Kennebec Savings Bank to change the zoning on a portion of the property from medium density residential RB2 to institute. This is assessor's map 33, law 135, located at 150 State Street. So this application, so the applicant provided right title or interest in the form of a deed and they submitted the application form for a parcel reclassification. [40:02] Speaker F (unidentified): We need to keep it open, Jim, please. Yeah. [40:10] Betsy Pool: The applicant submitted a application form for parcel reclassification for the general rezoning. With a letter of authorization, I received the payment for the application and a better notification fees today. You'll see in the memo it was incomplete or complete, received the payment. There's a narrative that addresses the ordinance submission requirements and also some plans that address the site elements. So the staff determined that the submission was complete. The application was distributed to the planning board and posted on the city's website. The staff completed public noticing as outlined in the ordinance, which was direct mailings to abutters within 500 feet of the property, two legal ads in the paper, notification to city council, the planning board, of zoning appeals and other interested parties, and install signage at the property. So staff recommended that the planning board makes a positive motion regarding the applicant standing to apply, application completeness, and sufficient public noticing in order to proceed with the [41:11] Speaker H (unidentified): substantive review of the application. I move that we find that the application is complete, as the applicant has sufficient right, title, and interest to apply, and has submitted all necessary materials. Staff has provided the butter notifications as required by the ordinance. Thank you, Kathy. All in [41:32] Speaker I (unidentified): Very good. [41:35] Betsy Pool: Okay. So as I said, this is an application for a general rezone which would eliminate the medium density residential district, which is RB2, from the Kennebec Savings Bank property by shifting the institute business and professional sub-district BP onto a portion of the property. So I think most of, other than Maddie, wasn't here for the Kennebec Savings Bank review, but this is the property, this is a memorial circle here in western avenue, so the zoning map is overlaid on here, 's state street, so the area we're looking at is right here, this is chapel street, so as you can see I outlined in the staff review, this is a area where a whole bunch of zoning districts come together, and the comprehensive plan also has a bunch of areas that come together as well here. So this is the KBD2 district, which covers a portion of the Kennebec Savings Bank property, which is here. We have the BP district here, which is the Institute Business and Professional District. We have the RB2 district, which is medium-density residential. And we have the CB district, which is the local business district. So all of these kind of come together in this area. So as the application outlined, this area here is currently the RB2 district, the medium density residential, and there had been residences on these properties, and Cannabec Savings Bank acquired these and demolished the buildings. But the zoning still remains in that area. SO LOOKING AT A WAY FOR THEM TO THERE'S NO PARKING lots are not allowed in that area and there's no parking there now on the site but in order for the applicant to maximize the site circulation on there and make everything run efficiently it would be make sense for they are asking for a change to change this residential district to this b sorry yeah the bp district here this pink so the pink would kind of extend to the property like that of these two districts that exist on the property the bp district has some uses that are a little bit less intense than the Kenwick Business 2 district, which I'll talk about a little bit later, but this gives a nice overview as to how the zoning hall is on this site. This is the aerial photo of the property, so as I said, this is State Street, Memorial Circle, Western Avenue, and Chapel Street. So the pink outlines the entire lot for Kennebec Savings Bank. So the area with the rezone would be in this portion of the site. Here's some pictures from the property. So this is on Chapel Street looking towards Memorial Circle. There's Western Avenue. This is where the house was that was relocated. Looking to the north on Chapel Street, so the area for Kennewick Savings Bank is on this side. And you can see this area is definitely more residential in character with, you know, two to three-story buildings generally in this area. This is moving a little further down to the north down Chapel Street. You can see the entrance to the Kennewick Savings on this side, looking into the site. So this driveway entrance and this lot here are both in that medium density residential district currently. Just looking into the site to the east, and then this is further down Chapel Street looking towards Western Avenue back into the site, and then looking to the north on Chapel Street and then the south on Chapel Street. So this is the plan that the planning board approved July, August, I can't remember, recently. So, as you can see, like the plan has some, there's some larger, this is Chapel Street, Western Avenue, so this plan right now has some larger islands in this area which would be landscaping, and this is a plan that shows what they would like to do in the area with a rezone. And then this is the without that rezone area, so that the plan would be to shrink the landscape islands in this area, but that also allows the ones up in this area to be increased and over on this property be increased as well. So if the rezoning is recommended by the planning board to city council and the city council goes through their process, if they were to approve the zoning change, then the applicant would still need to come back to the planning board to make this change to their planning board approval. So the review of any of these site changes aren't really up for discussion today, but this is just more of what their path is as to what they're planning to do. As I guess with any zoning, I mean, the zoning goes with the property and any future changes. So even though this is what, you know, the bank would like to do with the property, really anything within that BP district could occur in that location. So for a rezone, as I said, the process would be the planning board reviews this as the public hearing tonight, takes any comment and decides if what type of, if they want to make a decision tonight to make a recommendation to city council positive or negative and then the council would take the action up at an informational meeting and two business meetings and if they proceeded through it they would vote at a second business meeting and as I said a change could come back to the planning board. But there's five items that the parcel reclassification needs to meet, so first is the rezoning consistent with the 2023 comprehensive plan and any plans or policies subsequently adopted by the city. So the proposals in Augusta's growth area and the future land use map notes the area as west side residential. So within blocks of this location are the river downtown, river state government complexes, future land use areas. So from the comprehensive plan it says the west side residential district is a mix of neighborhoods and commercial corridors with clear lines separating the two. The protection of neighborhoods from further encroachment of businesses is critical to maintaining livability, long term security for residential investment and historic character. At the same time commercial corridors such as western avenue, capital street, portions of state street and mount Vernon avenue are important places of commerce. These corridors should be limited to a depth generally of one or two lots back from the main corridors. So the application summarizes aspects of the recently approved planning board development I went through already. So the second item that the planning board needs to review is if the rezoning is consistent with established land use patterns. So as I showed you in the images, residential and office use buildings are to the which were to the east of Chapel Street now owned by Kenebec Savings Bank were either demolished or relocated. The parcels proposed for the rezoning have been encompassed into the larger Kenebec Savings Bank lot. Land to the west of Chapel Street is primarily residential with rooming houses, single family and multi-family dwellings. The medium density RB2 district does not allow for construction of a parking lot, which is why the land is proposed for rezoning. The BP district does not allow some higher density higher intensity uses such as auto repair, construction services, hotels, restaurants, taxi services and retail, which are permitted in the KBD2 district, so rezoning the parcels to BP is closer aligned with the residential character of Chapel Street. The third item is the rezoning will not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent districts. The zoning would just move the zoning line from BP to cover this area, so it wouldn't be isolated. Number four, are there adequate utilities, roads and services must exist or be provided, so all of the lands well connected to utilities, road infrastructure and services, so that standard appears to be. And then the fifth one is rezoning is justified by a change or changing conditions. As I said, the applicant has purchased properties along this area and have been investing in the improvement of the land in keeping with the economic savings bank what they want to do with the property. So I think that's it. I don't know if there's any questions. [50:50] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, Betsy, have you gotten any public comment, emails or anything from the public in regards to this? No. [51:00] Speaker G (unidentified): Harold? Betsy, is that entrance and exit on Chapel Street going to stay where it's at right now or is it going to be moved? [51:09] Betsy Pool: It would be moved to where the planning board approved it at the meeting. At the meeting, so I believe it was moving more towards the... Western Avenue? Towards Western Avenue, I think. Yeah, I mean, the planning board approved it relocating, but it was only relocating a little. I believe it was moving more towards Western Avenue. Okay. [51:33] Speaker G (unidentified): And I remember a house being there years ago that belonged to the Pruitts. So that's why that's in that zoning area right there. Years ago, the house was taken down. All right, thank you. [51:53] Speaker A (unidentified): Any other questions? Okay, we can hear it from the applicant. [52:09] Jim Coffin: Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, members of the board, Jim Coffin, Engineering. I also have Andrew Sillsby, the president of the bank here. If anyone needs to talk finances or new mortgages, he's here for your help. So it's a pretty straightforward rezoning usually we get in these contract zones isolated districts. But this one seems to align pretty well as the RB2 is right on the outskirts of the BP. What we ended up with before I don't know just to remind you wait a hundred and seventy four parking spaces. This gets us up to a hundred and eighty one. I know it's only an increase of seven but three of those are on trailer parking spaces which are 40 by 10 so those take up a lot of room and we purposely left that off the first plan just to try and get the parking to work if you will. So long story short I'll answer any questions about this rezoning and we're hoping you'll give us a positive nod with the city council. Any [53:10] Speaker G (unidentified): questions? What's what's the trailers what are they for? [53:14] Jim Coffin: Is that construction a lot of clients that come in at the end of the day contractors it could even be people that are taking care of their lawns the mulch and stuff. So they have a lot of contractors that come in with trailers that they pull behind them and that's they made it a an emphasis to put those in. All right thank you. Yeah any other questions? [53:38] Speaker A (unidentified): You'll have the last word. Thank you. All right you're welcome. All right is there anybody here who would like to speak for the project? Is there anybody here who would like to speak against the project? And is there anybody here who would like to speak neither for nor against? Thank you. Got it Nate I have no problems with the rezone. Maddie I have no concerns. Allison I have no problems. This [54:11] Speaker H (unidentified): is something that we encourage people to do when they have several different zones on the one piece of property that they own it simplifies everything. Thank you Bob no problem. Kathy I like rezoning [54:24] Speaker D (unidentified): it to the BP as opposed to the KBD2 I think that makes more sense for that neighborhood. [54:29] Speaker G (unidentified): And I'm I'm good with it. Thank you Harold I'm in favor of it I just hate to see us not approve this and mess up the whole ball of wax. Fair enough and Kevin yeah I have no concerns. [54:44] Speaker A (unidentified): With this, all right, thank you. And next step, I'd like to move that we send this [54:56] Speaker F (unidentified): on to the City Council a recommendation of changing the RB2 to the PP zone. [55:06] Speaker A (unidentified): All okay. I didn't know if that was question or that comes next. Fair enough, all right, all in favor, discussion, is there more discussion? [55:20] Speaker D (unidentified): There's the other finger. Oh, you do really? Because this has come up before with regard to the criteria that you have to meet when you do a rezone. I'd like to have the motion include the fact that it meets all five. [55:35] Speaker F (unidentified): No problem. I very appreciate it. [55:40] Speaker A (unidentified): Any further discussion? All in favor? Very good. You're welcome. [55:52] Betsy Pool: I was saying in looking ahead to the schedule for the council, it's possible the rezone would be like October 15th at the earliest if there was a vote. Okay. So we'll see how the schedule looks. Okay. That's good. Correct, yes, the applicant withdrew that for the third item, so we will not review that tonight. [56:20] Speaker H (unidentified): Betsy, do you think they're coming back with that at a later? Thanks for coming, Mayor. Do you think they'll come back or should we hold on to this or just [56:32] Betsy Pool: I don't believe he will be coming back, so okay, so that's a goal we got to go ahead to throw it [56:42] Speaker A (unidentified): away. Thank you, all right, so now the minutes, all [56:50] Speaker G (unidentified): right, Kathy, you've had plenty of time to read. [56:54] Speaker D (unidentified): I wasn't at one of the meetings, so I would say which one are we looking at first? July 28th, on page three there's just a space needed after my name, yeah, top half, that's [57:15] Speaker H (unidentified): right, I had too much time on my hands, and Betsy's name down at the bottom, one, two, three, four, five, six lines from the bottom, is spelling, it's the Czechoslovakian spelling, just that's all I found. I moved to approve these minutes as amended. I'll say thank you, Kathy, all in favor. [57:56] Speaker A (unidentified): So the July 28th minutes have been approved as amended. And now how about the August 11th minutes? [58:06] Speaker H (unidentified): Kathy and I were absent, so we can't talk anyway. [58:09] Speaker D (unidentified): I didn't see anything when I read it. [58:11] Speaker A (unidentified): So Bob, Kevin, Nate, and Maddie are able to vote, I [58:19] Speaker D (unidentified): think they look fine. Do you have to vote as a tie [58:22] Speaker A (unidentified): to get the quorum? Yes, I had to last time. Yeah. Oh, but to approve the minutes this time? Yep. [58:30] Speaker F (unidentified): I move that we approve the minutes of the August 11th meeting. Second. Thank you, all in favor. [58:37] Speaker A (unidentified): Very good, and I want to find out if we're gonna have a meeting. I think we [58:51] Betsy Pool: are. I'd say September 22nd we were meeting. Yes. Okay, so now Harold, where [58:58] Speaker F (unidentified): were you? Might be in a room. No, we want the motion to quit. I might be in front. [59:06] Speaker A (unidentified): All right, motion to adjourn, is there a second? All in favor? Very good, thank you.