Kennebunkport Planning Board Continues Tides Beach Club Valet Parking Review

[5:08] Chair (Planning Board): Good evening, and welcome to our first October meeting. It's the 7th of October. We do have a quorum, barely, Peter, George, and myself. We'll start with the minutes. Minutes were distributed from the last meeting we had, which was the second meeting of September. You okay with that? I'm okay with that. [5:34] Planning Board member: Did John respond? As you may remember, I didn't remember about the adjourning motion. You had a question you put out. Right. So I've just made it a little bit more ambiguous that there was a motion and it was approved instead of the specific name. [5:50] Chair (Planning Board): Trying to name the individual that did it. The video was a bit sketchy. Now that we have our new system, that will never be a problem again. Never. Ever. That's right. So do we have a motion? I'll make a motion we approve the minute. I'll second that motion all those in favor Thank You Nadia and Ben before the meeting Mentioned that there is a new admin who's coming on board and so we have to enjoy Nadia's penmanship while we can authorship. I should say not penmanship. We appreciate it [6:29] Planning Board member: I'll make sure that Nadia trains the individual [6:34] Chair (Planning Board): Very well So long we start with the first agenda item number one SP 26 double o 22 for 12 chestnut Street and I understand the applicant is attending via zoom [6:48] Planning Board member: Yes, we are working to get him up on to zoom but we do believe he's in the zoom waiting room, okay [6:57] Chair (Planning Board): David can you okay? Let us know Looks like you don't have a microphone. Well, that's not good. Now unmute yourself. [7:35] Planning Board member: While he's getting situated in Zoom, I can go ahead and introduce the project, if that works for you guys. [7:45] Chair (Planning Board): If the applicant can hear you and pay attention, then I think it certainly works for me. [7:50] Planning Board member: Nick, are you able to give a thumbs up or something? Can you hear me? Oh. [7:56] Applicant/representative: Perfect. OK. Okay, I'm sorry, I couldn't get it to unmute. I can hear you loud and clear. [8:02] Planning Board member: So the applicant tonight is proposing to convert an existing accessory structure on his property into an accessory apartment. The structure currently serves as a garage for the existing single-family dwelling and is non-conforming due to setbacks. It's located about five feet from the property line. line. This project is in the Village Residential Zone, which has 15-foot setbacks on the side. The proposed change has no increase in volume. It's no increase in footprint. It is simply a change of use from a garage to an accessory apartment. [8:48] Chair (Planning Board): So from our point of view, we're looking at it because it's a modification to a non-conforming [8:58] Planning Board member: Structure. That's correct. Any change of use to a non-conforming structure requires Planning Board approval. [9:04] Chair (Planning Board): And our concern, it sounds like, would be possibly with parking, as long as it's still parking for the main residence? Correct. [9:14] Planning Board member: and we did get measurements for the parking area and I think that they're satisfactory there should be plenty of parking areas still for the single family to clarify we aren't worried about additional parking for the edu because our ordinance doesn't require any additional parking spaces for an edu or accessory apartment we use them interchangeably the terms the terms yes, ADU and accessory apartment. Will this be a four season abode or just seasonal? That's a great question for the applicant. I do believe it's intended to be year round. Yes, it is year round. Does the garage currently have electricity or water going to it? [10:01] Applicant/representative: It currently has electricity going through it. [10:03] Chair (Planning Board): But not plumbing. [10:05] Planning Board member: So it's a change of use. If this were a summer cottage converting to a winter cottage, we would consider it a change of use. Yes. Yes. So it is a change of use. It's adding that additional accessory apartment use to the structure. As Nadia mentioned, you are reviewing it per Chapter 240-8.4, which gives you the ability to review changes of use where there's a non-conforming structure. I [10:41] Chair (Planning Board): thought this was an adding a dwelling an ad you and we're reviewing it under 247 one [10:48] Planning Board member: No 247 one is the specific performance standards for us accessory apartments, right? I did take a spin through those just to make sure that everything looks good But most of them are would be applicable at the code enforcement approval stage So this is we don't have to look at that. We're specifically looking at the non-conforming setback correct. So they're basically here to make sure that the change won't create additional nonconformity. Right. [11:16] Chair (Planning Board): So the issue would be, is the neighbor going to be more inconvenienced by that smaller reduced setback with it being an occupied dwelling where people are turning lights off and playing music and the like, as opposed to it being a garage? [11:39] Planning Board member: And it being a change of use. So right now the neighbor has a garage, now the neighbor is going to have neighbors in [11:48] Chair (Planning Board): that building. I think we're saying the same thing. [11:51] Planning Board member: You're talking about the setback, I'm talking about- [11:53] Chair (Planning Board): But the only reason we're looking at that change of use is because of the setback. So I think we're saying the same thing. [11:59] Planning Board member: If it were within, if it were not- [12:02] Chair (Planning Board): If that garage was at 15 foot, rather than five, we wouldn't be looking at it. [12:06] Planning Board member: Even if it's a change of use. That's correct. Correct. If the structure was conforming it would just go through the code office. Thank you [12:14] Chair (Planning Board): I think I think we have the same underlying concern though. Yeah So I was hoping that the applicant could address that concern that I had at least and it sounds like how [12:26] Planning Board member: historic distant historic district changes affect this Were those some day to be passed were they some day to be passed the structure is within the proposed historic overlay districts And that would have specific performance standards on What new structures or changes to structures could look like and that's the aesthetics from the outside correct? Okay, potentially And there are no aesthetic changes to the outside of this garage Windows and a door company thing and it's worth noting that the historic district is only a proposed overlay zoning districts got it but I wouldn't I didn't see anything that said [13:11] Chair (Planning Board): there were no exterior changes just that the footprint wasn't going to change right so no more impervious service that's a question are you gonna raise [13:23] Applicant/representative: the existing building no sir walls windows so it already has a door and [13:34] Planning Board member: is this intended for rental or for personal use no sir for rental and is there screening between the garage and the neighbor's property the in that five and [13:50] Applicant/representative: a half foot setback yes they have a they currently have a I believe it's six and a half foot privacy fence and what's adjacent to the garage is their air they have an airbnb as well adjacent to the garage set [14:10] Planning Board member: set back from the same prop shared property line correct if [14:28] Applicant/representative: you had any contact with the with your with your neighbor on this i have she is currently home and they are military, so they are here about three months out of the year. She is here, and I have spoken with her. She has absolutely no issues. [14:45] Planning Board member: We haven't heard any about her correspondence about this project either. [14:51] Chair (Planning Board): Do you think she'd be willing to send the code office a note to that effect, and that would basically make this smooth as silk? [15:00] Applicant/representative: Absolutely. I can have a discussion with her tomorrow. We're good friends, and I can actually have her stop by the town hall. [15:06] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, and the concern, I don't want to speak for everybody, but I think my concern is that just the change in the use of it being a rental property with occupants coming and going at, you know, from time to time, but just normally using the structure as a residence is a different and potentially more, just it's going to be more conscious of a presence than somebody going in and out of a garage once in a while and [15:37] Planning Board member: And also if it were a seasonal, already a seasonal cottage of some sort that we're changing to year-round, that certainly affects a neighbor as well in a non-conforming structure, right, but it [15:50] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, I don't think anyone's in it now, hopefully no one's in there right now, understand there's no, there's no insulation, okay, so are there any other concerns besides that if we ask for that letter and that comes, would you have any other concerns from a code office's point of view, you said you looked at it from compliance and all, any other issues that need to be raised [16:20] Planning Board member: Right now there's just a couple more things that I think could easily be obtained before the next meeting, a list of waiver requests for some site plan alteration standards, things that really don't cycle it won't in that aren't needed because of the nature of this, right, yeah, so that would just be looking for an official waiver request and confirmation from wastewater and KKNW about adequate capacity and then just a note about any exterior lighting changes, so some pretty minor things, Mr. Vasquez, do you, do you have the contact [16:59] Chair (Planning Board): Information for the, for the wastewater issue, I do, okay, all right, I have [17:06] Applicant/representative: Everything, I am currently working on it and I will get that to them as soon as [17:09] Chair (Planning Board): Possible, all right, sounds like a plan, how do you feel about continuing the public here at the initial hearing or you think this is small enough stuff [17:22] Planning Board member: That we can schedule a public hearing, I would be comfortable with the public hearing, it's pretty small items, I think that they could easily be obtained by [17:29] Chair (Planning Board): The next meeting, all right, so let's say this package is complete, I make a motion, I'll second [17:36] Planning Board member: The motion, all those in favor, aye, so that'll be a public hearing on October 21st and we're looking for a letter from the abutter, a letter from the abutter, an official list of waiver requests, KKNW and wastewater approval and exterior lighting details, okay [18:01] Applicant/representative: I have it down here [18:07] Planning Board member: Letters have gone out to all of the other Butters who then yes, it's okay. [18:23] Chair (Planning Board): Okay, and say again, what will be the date, the second meeting in October, 21st [18:33] Applicant/representative: Sounds like a plan Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. Thank you all you bet We [18:48] Chair (Planning Board): were just talking about the fact that you've been a you've been constant in that and We need to try a different approach. [18:55] Planning Board member: Yeah, because I'm making people angry. If you join, I will leave. Oh, it's a promise. [19:05] Chair (Planning Board): I'm not sure which way that's going to swing, George. All right, we'll move on to the second item, which is the SP260025930, Kings Highway to Tides Beach Club. Up. Nadia, or Ben, can you give us the low down on that? Yep. [19:30] Planning Board member: So this is a proposal for a valet parking plan, as well as a relocation of an existing dumpster. And that is at 930 Kings, King's Highway, which is the Tides Beach Club. The valet parking plan relates to the seating capacity that would be required for the restaurant use at the hotel, but the part that you are reviewing tonight is really just that parking plan, the parking management plan. There is no proposed expansion of the physical parking area. The applicant will discuss what that value management plan is with you, and we'll share some information on how that'll work shortly. That is a relatively new addition to the land use ordinance, but if you are following along at home, or members of the board, if you want to take a look at this as you go through the review of this, that is in Chapter 240, Section 10.7B3. As I had mentioned, the intent of the change to the parking plan is to grant them additional seating within the nonconforming restaurant within the hotel. So that would be an expansion from 66 seats within the restaurant up to 80. And again, that is, you're not necessarily looking at that use or that expansion. It's just the parking park tonight. Parking, as well as many of the use provisions on the hotel, will continue to remain non-conforming. Regardless of how you go through the motions with this project, and I would expect, as we kind of go through this, that there would be several waivers and most likely a handful of conditions that you would want to place on the review of the project as well. There is additional information. There's been some changes that the applicant has added in the last 24-ish hours or so to your packet, which was at a request from staff. So I'll let the applicant kind of talk about in a second what they brought forward and what those changes were, but that was to help kind of show where the, how the trash pickup would work. And then I think it will be, I think it'll be helpful for the board to really think about how the management plan, how the valet management plan works, and what you're looking for in terms of access to the site. They are not proposing any physical changes to the site as it exists today. [22:40] Chair (Planning Board): Before we hear from the applicant, just to clarify, Ben, from what you said, you said our focus is on the valet plan, but it's also on the location, to the extent it affects the Valley Plan, the location of the dumpster. Correct. That's also here. What we're not looking at is some potential increase in the future from the existing seating number of 66. That's correct. The fact that it might go to 80 or it might go to 70 or be proposed for even more in the future, that's not germane right here. That's correct. We're not ruling that this change would make that allowable. Yes. Okay. [23:26] Planning Board member: And it's worth noting, and the applicant will discuss how they're handling the valet parking management plan, that they are proposing use of that plan with existing parking spaces that they have the legal right, title and interest of, that are off-site as well. And I think you will want to have the applicant discuss how that will work and share that with you as well. Ben, just for further clarification, per the January settlement agreement with the town, they are a legal non-conforming with currently 25 allocated parking spaces between the lot in back and the street parking, and to go from 66 seating to 80 seating, an increase of 14, and you got to divide that by three for the allocated number of slots, so that's kind of almost five. And so we wouldn't want to make anything more non-conforming, so anything less than an additional capacity for five parked cars is unacceptable. Where the five come from, it's the, well, that's the increment above 66 is 66 seating goes to 80 seating generates five additional. They're not, they're not proposing any seating increase tonight. I understand that, but that's what's coming maybe, and we're allocating this new, we're considering this new valet parking situation to address an increase. Maybe it's 90, as you said, in which case it's 24 increase over the 66 currently. And that has a different, what I'm saying is you can't be more non-conforming than they are now, right? [25:33] Chair (Planning Board): You can't have less parking with this valet plan than you have today. I'll go along with that for sure. But all the project overview says from the code office is they want a valet parking plan and dumpster reload to better accommodate the existing legally nonconforming seating. [25:55] Planning Board member: And right now they have 13 spaces, that's correct? No, they've got 25. 15 in there, and then 10 on the street. [26:08] Chair (Planning Board): You know more than I do there, but I'm interested in hearing from the applicant what their existing parking is, and I agree with Peter that this change can't diminish that. And they wouldn't be going to all this trouble if it wasn't going to give them the potential for increasing it. [26:24] Planning Board member: Well, that's my point. [26:26] Chair (Planning Board): I know, and I'm accepting your point. [26:28] Planning Board member: Anything that comes down the road, whether it's 14 additional seats or 24 additional seats yeah has to be accommodated within the dynamic of this parking model we're talking about that's right well yeah unless they come up with something else that's correct and you can't make it more non-conform you may want to think about that if you are at a point where you can make an approval you can certainly have that like the thought process that you have as part of a condition of that okay what I see it I may have this completely wrong but when I look at the existing plan I see three spaces plus thirteen spaces for sixteen spaces that's what I see on here and I see that by limiting this exit and moving to valet parking so that they control the access to it that they are proposing 25 spaces am I 'm missing that? You're over one. I think this is 13 and 12 and three spaces. Can I suggest we ask [27:33] Chair (Planning Board): the applicant to brief us on this? I struggled with extracting it from the plans too. All right, with that confusing introduction. [27:46] John Witten: All right, welcome. Thank you. Glad to be here. I'm John Witten I'm a civil engineer with Haley Ward working with the owner applicant of the Tides Beach Club and Emily Nelson is here with me tonight member of that ownership group my computer just rebooted on me and I guess I do have a plan on a poster if we put that up or maybe awesome So we're here tonight basically as you Mentioned that there was a consent agreement formula between The owners of the tides Beach Club and the town and as part of that agreement, it's defined that there are 25 Parking spaces recognized on the property that support 66 food and beverage seats, 21 hotel rooms, and 24 staff members. And that agreement also discusses that the owner has the option of increasing the parking capacity to provide sufficient spaces to support 80, up to 80, food and beverage seats, plus the 21 hotel rooms and the 24 staff. [29:47] Chair (Planning Board): So no matter what you do here, you're capped at 80, unless that agreement were to change. [29:51] John Witten: Right, unless the agreement changes. And that such an increase in the parking is to be in compliance with Section 240-6.9 of the Land Use Ordinance, which is the parking ratio section, which currently requires one parking space for every three food and beverage service seats. So that gets to the numbers that you were discussing where the difference between 80 and 66 is 14, divide that by three, and it rounds to five. So from our interpretation, that means that we need at least 30 spaces that's associated with the Tides Beach Club property to support the 80 seats. [30:41] Chair (Planning Board): Five more than you have today? Yes. Okay. [30:44] John Witten: Five more than the recognized 25 spaces that are in the consent agreement. We met with staff and went over a few different scenarios of how to re-stripe the pavement, possibly increase the area of pavement to establish more parking on the property. And basically with the lot size, the existing vegetation at the rear of the property, there's 40, 50 foot tall arborvitaes all along the back property line that are between the current parking spaces and the closest residential structure. Can you point to those? So there's a line of tall shrubbery here. Okay. And there's, there's a few street trees, the landscaping trees on [31:47] Chair (Planning Board): the property line that exists today. And where's the entry today to that parking [31:51] John Witten: area? There's one here and one here. Okay. So per the consent agreement, there were six recognized spaces along Belvedere Drive adjacent to the building in this [32:07] Chair (Planning Board): area. There were 15. I'm sorry, the six are inside that parking area or outside [32:13] John Witten: side? Outside. Okay. They're, they're angled parking that are street side. Okay. Six. And then there were four recognized spaces in the front yard on Belvedere Drive that are apparently leased spaces, is a lease agreement between the town and the owners, and those are not angled. Does it, does a parallel? Okay. Yep. And then the remaining 15 to total the 25 that are agreed to in the consent agreement are located in this rear parking and [32:59] Chair (Planning Board): I'm looking at all I had was the online version here. It looks like there's three and 13, it says. It should be three and 12. And I can only count 10, so I'm struggling. Is this why you're being careful with your language about the designated parking as opposed to the real parking? Am I reading more into that? [33:26] John Witten: No, I think you're reading more. I just want to be careful because it is in the consent agreement. There's a number, and so I want to be sure [33:32] Chair (Planning Board): that we understand what that number is. Well I agree with the last part, we want to understand what's there today. Yeah, the fact that it's in the consent agreement, I want to, I want to kind of separate that. Okay, that's good, that's where that's its source. But today, if we do a site walk, and by the way I'd like the others in the team here to think about having a site walk, there are currently 13 spaces striped along this back line, and they're, they're 10 feet wide, and they meet, they meet the what was it you just told me 10 by 20. 6.9 they meet 240 6.9 dimensions they're [34:10] John Witten: real 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep. No, these are not, these are not 10 by 20 spaces that are painted, okay [34:18] Chair (Planning Board): they are, they are the designated spaces, but they're not conforming [34:22] John Witten: correct, right, they were legally non-conforming. Yeah, they are legal and non-conforming spaces. So that's why I'm trying to be careful with the language here. No, I appreciate that. And then, yes, our surveyors picked out three spots on this line, but the consent agreement only recognizes two spots on this, right here on this island that is adjacent to Belvedere. [34:45] Chair (Planning Board): Hence, okay, all right. [34:47] John Witten: So we have 15 legally nonconforming spaces in the rear parking lot, six Along the side of the building for closer to the front of the building. That's what the consent agreement got it has established [35:06] Chair (Planning Board): and so took even with the with less seating it would still be non-conforming because of concerns with the dimensions [35:19] Planning Board member: Correct. That's all. Yeah, could you flip back around before you go? Joe, I have one other question on that original map, existing map. Actually, a couple of further questions on that. I'm trying to understand the boundaries of the property, and on the back, on the northwest corner, there appears to be a strip of land. Is that owned by the tides? [35:51] John Witten: So this strip and others may be more versed in this than I am, but this strip of land was part of a paper street, yeah. And the owner is currently going through the legal process to legally obtain that, the rights, the full rights to that property. There is a, this, the street [36:13] Planning Board member: however that 's part of the street it's not all of the street correct right because when you [36:17] John Witten: have a paper Street and it's vacated and I don't know if I'm using the right legal terms, but in traditionally when a paper Street is vacated it is split in the middle and land is offered to either landowners that are on either side of it. So if it's a 50-foot right-of-way originally, then 25 feet would be offered to the north of utter and 50 feet would be offered to the south of [36:43] Chair (Planning Board): So that's the possible claim for the center, right? Is that your main to the rest of this discussion? Are you gonna be talking about using that is space? No [36:51] John Witten: So I think it is important to realize that one and a half of the legally non-conforming [36:57] Chair (Planning Board): Spaces is located in this paper Street area. So it's not just dimensions that are legally non-conforming. It's the location of them as well. They're sort of off the property a smidge. Yeah, right. They have an agreement that says it's okay. [37:17] Planning Board member: That's with the town. Could you use the mic and introduce yourself? [37:25] Emily Nelson: Emily Nelson. The 19th spot that is reflected in the Paper Street is acknowledged in the consent agreement as one of the 25 spots. So while it may bleed into that Paper Street border that we're talking about, it is acknowledged within the 25 spots as spot 19. [37:44] Planning Board member: And the town owns that paper street? [37:47] Emily Nelson: I don't believe anybody owns the paper street, right? And I think that's the, I don't know who owns it now, but we're filing, right, to be able to claim ownership, as John said, of our half side of that. [38:00] Chair (Planning Board): But in the meantime, it is part of the legal nonconformance by virtue of that agreement. Correct. And I want to be careful. I just, I'm very sensitive to how long it took to legislate that agreement and I don't want to re-legislate that in a planning board meeting. [38:20] Planning Board member: It is germane to this because as he flips the chart and goes through the new lining it's not including that piece of the [38:31] Chair (Planning Board): paper strip. Okay, you're ahead of me but so you're saying I'm going to want to pay attention to that. are you suggesting that he should be paying it he should be using so yes it's important to note that [38:45] John Witten: For this application, for many reasons, but it was, it was also suggested by staff that it would be the best approach to this right now would be to not include this paper Street property as part of our parking plan. Okay, that's not to say that we're going to remove this pavement or put up a fence or anything like that, but these spaces that we are proposing are all within the current land that they have a deed to. Okay, so as part of the parking provisions of your ordinance, there's an alternative parking management plan, and as I said, we looked at what changing, physically changing this parking lot would do for the number of parking spaces, the distance from property lines, the buffering, and all of those things, and it was decided that the least impactful solution to the property and the neighborhood would be to hire and train a valet staff to manage the parking lot for the restaurant use, and that would be the avenue at which we would meet the parking ordinance standards for the ratios that we're looking for and be able to physically fit the cars if we ever get to this peak number of cars for the, for the use. So the valet management plan is that at I believe it's 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. most days and to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, that restaurant customers will approach, they will be able to pull in to this first entrance and park immediately off [40:56] Chair (Planning Board): of Belvedere, one car, one car. Okay, I'm coming there will be the tides restaurant, I come and that spot is open, I bring my car there, right, and there'll [41:06] John Witten: There'll be signs, there'll be a valet and a nice... [41:09] Chair (Planning Board): There's three guys in back of me, by the way, because it's 5 o'clock and you're running a special. [41:12] John Witten: Yeah, so you'll be able to pull in. There is enough space. I've already thought about this. I do believe physically you could fit two cars here, but irregardless, come into the valet. Valet gets you out of the car, gives you a ticket, give them the key. You proceed to the restaurant, and the valet parks the vehicle. [41:34] Chair (Planning Board): So the valet parks it. Yes. [41:36] John Witten: So the whole key to this valet arrangement is that the public has no access to their cars. They are not driving the cars in and out of the parking lot. [41:46] Chair (Planning Board): I read this differently. It says the valet will direct the vehicle parking. [41:52] John Witten: I'm sorry. They will drive it. That's the whole point of this is that if cars are blocking other cars in, there's tight spots, that they are to be driven by valet staff only who are okay or professionally trained to be able to drive in those conditions, there's only [42:10] Chair (Planning Board): One of them, though, there's only one valet. No, if it's a peak, they might have to. Yeah, subject to availability. Yeah, it's very clear on that. So I'm trying to figure how this works with just one valet and possibly two. Yeah, that would [42:27] Planning Board member: would be their operational logistical problem. Lots of people have valet parking. No one knows where their car goes, but it seems to come out. I [42:37] Chair (Planning Board): agree with George, but I've never seen a valet parking situation that's this tight before. They [42:46] Planning Board member: got ones in the cities where they stack them up [42:48] Chair (Planning Board): on top. This is not the city. I'm, I'm comparing it my head to the Boathouse, where you've got a circular drive and you've got cars back up. Yep, and that's all visible. I went to the [42:59] Planning Board member: the Ogunquit Museum last night. I have no idea where my car went, but it showed up again. [43:05] Chair (Planning Board): No,, that's great. I agree. But these are populated streets that we're looking at. This is the Goose Rocks neighborhood. [43:12] John Witten: Where I work in Portland, we're in a shared parking garage with a hotel that has valet service. Yes. And all summer, you better drive about one mile an hour through there because they've got cars parked in the traditional spots and in the aisles and at angles and it's it 's tighter than it is comfortable but I haven't seen any accidents so what are the very slender yeah well and one [43:45] Chair (Planning Board): of the criteria for having a valet system is that such alternative parking management plans must be approved by the police chief and fire chief. Have you, do you broach this plan with them, or are we seeing it first? [44:01] John Witten: I thought that was part of the review process. Correct. [44:04] Planning Board member: So any project that you see has gone through at least a basic development review process where the fire chief and all other staff are part of that process as well? [44:17] Chair (Planning Board): If they will approve and say that this is safe, then I'm going to back off from my concerns. But I look at this, and it scares me a little bit, to think of how populated that area is. Heck, when I drive down in front of the Tides, just looking for a parking space, there's people on their bicycles and there's kids in this. It's a very active place. And I see people, I've only got one entrance. Is the same entrance as exit right now? Yes. Okay, so one, maybe two car wide entrance and exit. I've got people coming and going. I'm seeing traffic back up on the street again have the police chief or fire chief tell me I'm all wet but because I'm not skilled I'm not trained in this area but that's my first impression is this is incredibly ambitious for a tight area convince me otherwise please well help me see [45:15] John Witten: It is ambitious with spacing, but I think the important thing to remember is that people are, the average driver is only coming into the site for about 20 feet and then it's out of their [45:31] Chair (Planning Board): hands. Well, but the average driver, I think, is going to be sitting on the street waiting to come in and pull into that space because somebody's coming out on one side and so I think the, I think [45:44] Planning Board member: the question is if you have four people who want to go to the restaurant and the one person is waiting for the valley to park their car where do the other three people wait so as not to block the street to any other access that addresses my concern yeah [46:03] John Witten: I think [46:04] Chair (Planning Board): we can fit two cars here. One of them's an exit lane and one's an entrance lane. [46:10] Planning Board member: Let's say right, I don't think you can view it that way. Oh, because this is not public access, this is a private parking lot being managed by them, so it doesn't matter whether you can get your car in or out if they've got room for two cars [46:27] Chair (Planning Board): to go in there. You pull in, they don't pull you in, the valet will direct you where to go, okay, and you wait on the street until they do that. Yeah, okay, yes. [46:38] Planning Board member: So this is jumping ahead, but one of the things you'll need to think about as you're trying to make a determination is that the loading and unloading for parking for vehicular and pedestrian circulation is not creating a safety hazard. That is one of the determinations you need to make. [46:56] Chair (Planning Board): And I'm looking to put that off on the police and fire because I'm not trained in that area. But this looks suspiciously like it might be a concern. [47:05] Planning Board member: I have one question about that access. On the upper left-hand corner where people now exit, that is still open to the street, so a valet or a driver could be directed to exit there and that will correspond to the plan you've got for the dumpster removal. [47:24] Chair (Planning Board): Right. I thought there was only one... [47:26] John Witten: Yeah, no, I don't know where the idea came that we're getting rid of an entrance or exit, no. This curb cut is staying open. I saw that in some of our letters. [47:37] Chair (Planning Board): I saw it there, so it wasn't the only one, but I think it's, again, the trained eye. It's hard to see. Where's the other entrance or exit? [47:45] John Witten: It right here, this now, there's gonna be no change. This part of this car is parked there, right? Yeah, so but those cars can be driven by the valet to this area to be and the valet parked them there. [47:59] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, so once that's done, it's no longer an entrance or an exit. It is if you're the valet. [48:07] Planning Board member: And you want to exit one of those cars out onto the street, well, you can take those four and [48:13] Chair (Planning Board): and put them on the street, and then move another, I mean. [48:16] Planning Board member: Right, it's like one of those things. [48:17] Chair (Planning Board): I'm seeing the street as being part of the buffer system of this. [48:20] Planning Board member: I'm guessing that valet parkers are trained in what they do. I've never done the job, don't know it. Like I said, I don't know where my car is. [48:27] Chair (Planning Board): I don't think it's a, I think people get good at it, but I don't think, I think it's a high turnover position. I leave it to him. [48:35] John Witten: Yeah. So I think it's, I couldn't do the job. It's also safe to say that if there is a safety issue in the real world, that the management would be called upon to add to the staff or to alter the program so that they're not. [48:55] Chair (Planning Board): So that would be worth identifying. If it proves that traffic is backing up in the street or there appears to be a safety concern developing, then what would you do? What might management do? Well, I think contingencies, okay, I think that [49:14] John Witten: probably already, yeah, I think the first step would be additional staff so that there's, there's more than one person moving a car, which was already brought [49:28] Planning Board member: up in the, I'm sure there are a lot of reasons to not do this I'm gonna hear about, but I want to understand this plan, your point where you have it right now, up against this border, is less non-conforming than it is right now. It bleeds over into that space. And with this plan, you are drawing the line exactly at that space. You're not bleeding over into that contested area at the moment. Correct. And currently, there are 13, one or two which bleed over, plus the three spaces, so 16. And by this valet plan, by concentrating these vehicles and controlling access, you are proposing that it goes from 16 spots to 25 spots. Yes. Okay. I've got nothing else. It's really 15. George, I... [50:18] John Witten: Yeah, it's technically 15 in that rear parking lot. [50:21] Planning Board member: Right, but there's that one extra one cut over there. [50:23] Chair (Planning Board): Yes. I read all a bunch of stuff this afternoon on this. That part of this plan was to have some remote, more remote parking. No, where did that come from? [50:41] Emily Nelson: I'm not sure, okay, yeah, I'm not sure where that would, it does not come from, that does not exist, this is it, yeah, that is it, there's nothing, there's no other available spaces that we would be valet parking off site and running a mile away, no, that then that would certainly, you know, increase traffic, right, and pressure in that space, that is not, we don't have available, used to do that, 's not part of the plan, I want my car back, absolutely, yeah, not the case, I do just want to call out, you know, we're talking about vehicles waiting on the street, right, and this, you know, demand that we can't necessarily quantify at the moment, but I also want to kind of put in perspective that at the end of the day this is for restaurant parking and we have 21 hotel rooms and first and foremost our overnight guests will take priority, right, so at any given time, you know, to manage kind of cars waiting and that demand during a peak time or as you say we have a special at five o'clock and people are cruising in, you know there'll be a lot full sign that easily communicates to drivers that there are no available spaces, right, and visually it may look like they're spaces but I might have six arrivals left for my hotel and those are my priority, so I just want to put that in perspective that there will be ways to communicate, but the idea that like we have this overflowing demand of cars waiting on Belvedere Ave to park, you know, it's certainly a busy area, but I would also kind of challenge for anybody that spends time down there how busy it is already, I think that a valet manned plan like this actually, you know, reduces some of the, you know, some of the confusion of that space as it is, people looking for spaces, you know, I know it's talked about quite a bit in a So like board capacity as far as people looking for public spaces and trying to turn around quickly, right? A lot of this management, I think, kind of reduces, actually, some safety risk, in my personal opinion. [52:31] Chair (Planning Board): So I like where you're going with that. Can we think of this, not precisely, but can we think of this as two-thirds of the lot is going to be taken up by people who are not coming and going on an hourly basis generally? Certainly, right, and you're, you're really micromanaging a half a dozen spots, that's correct. [52:57] Emily Nelson: In my head, that's a lot different. I think it's called out in my, in my ballet parking plan, as far as there's a reference to how many cars a day, and it says 41 or something like that. You know, you can take the, you can kind of take the, that difference right, take 21 right out of that, and think about the idea of, I need to pull it up to reference, right, but we're maybe managing a matter of 20 transient cars a day, right, because guests are, guests are staying put, you [53:24] Chair (Planning Board): know, for the most part, 15 to 20 restaurant cars, but not at one time. [53:28] Planning Board member: Correct, and that didn't come through to me, apologies. I'm happy to know. No [53:33] Chair (Planning Board): apology needed. You know, and a lot of people are going to look at this in its finished form, not as carefully, but with great interest. I actually had a [53:46] Planning Board member: question on that. Is that the proposed average vehicles per day, or is that existing, that we [53:54] Emily Nelson: I mean, I, that's the anticipated, if the, okay, right, the idea that the hotel is at max capacity, [54:01] Planning Board member: there's not a whole lot of flipping for the current seating. Oh, just to be clear, you're not [54:07] Chair (Planning Board): anticipating upping the seating and having this approximately 36 to 41, or are you? Well, I can't [54:14] Planning Board member: fit 41 cars today, right? No, it's not at one time. Those numbers are anticipating this moving forward, and then as if this parking management plan was in action. Correct. I mean, if you say [54:28] Emily Nelson: we open our doors at 11 a.m. for lunch service, right, the average dining time is an hour and a half. And we have, you know, a certain number of transient spaces that we're managing. I'm and multiplying that by average time, anticipating that there's a gap between time that those transient cars are there and I fill them again. And so I think realistically, we're not looking at a huge volume of transient cars in and out. [54:51] Chair (Planning Board): But you're on the order of, was I way off with, I mean, don't let me make a gross mistake. [54:58] Emily Nelson: Let me reference my own numbers before I commit and wanna say one way or the other. [55:03] Chair (Planning Board): Give us a way to put our head around this. [55:07] Planning Board member: And kind of to Ed's question, it may be helpful if you have a way, even if it's just anecdotally in the next week or so, of capturing what it looks like today in terms of your flow within the parking lot. I think what you're kind of getting at, Ed, is that you're trying to understand what the current traffic flow, the volume of those two types of uses are within the parking lot, and then what the anticipated volume would be? [55:39] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, and that it could be seen in enough fidelity to deem it safe without going to the next step. Put it in place, and now you can talk about, oh, yeah, it's working well. We had an agreement that we could go to 80 seats, and look, we have a plan that works, as opposed to trying to take both of those steps at the same time. [56:02] Emily Nelson: I think what is challenging from a perspective right now as far as October 7th or whatever the date is, that there's public parking available on the street now, right? Like what is current status is not when this plan will be most utilized. [56:18] Chair (Planning Board): But your mind's eye is probably the clearest on this of anyone's. You've thought about this more than anyone else. Help us see that same vision. Okay. [56:28] Emily Nelson: That's all. Yeah, again, it's hard to replicate a busy summer July day right now. [56:33] Chair (Planning Board): But it's easier to do that than it is to do that plus expand it to 80 seats in your head, right? Just take the easier problem, not that it's easy, but the easier problem and say, with the current number of rooms we have and the current number of seats in the restaurant, these 25 spaces would be used pretty much this way at peak and I'd only be looking at I'll say 10 of them five of them you know some number of them with an hour and a half type [57:12] Emily Nelson: turnover so you want me to quantify within the back lot how many cars I anticipate roughly just [57:18] Planning Board member: roughly no for this past season okay yeah using that as a model just to give us some sense I mean, I sit here and look, you had 25 for 66 restaurant seats in the other, okay? You'd like to go to 80. You need two valets at peak. That's another parking space. So you need five for the 66 to 80. Carpool. [57:51] Emily Nelson: Yeah, sorry, we're talking about employees per shift. Fair enough. I'm sorry? You're talking about max employees per shift, say, in the 24, and you're adding the valet at 25. [58:00] Planning Board member: I'm adding two more for the valets. [58:02] Emily Nelson: Well, that's at any given max point, right? [58:05] Planning Board member: But that's the standard, at any given max point. Right. So your max point now is 24. You're adding two at max valets. That's one more parking space needed. So you're five to get to 80 plus one additional space for the two valets. I don't know when you go from 66 to 80, do you need more servers? Do you need another bartender? Are there other employees you're anticipating? Because I go back and I look at the old plan, 25, 15, and 10, and I look at the new plan, 25 and 10, and you said, well, I gotta get to 31, but you're getting to 35. Why? I would argue you need to get the, at very least you need to get to 32 when you count the two valets and another parking space. For them, but you're, you're going above and beyond that. So that may be why Ed was thinking about, you know, what's the history here? Are you, are you already putting people out on the public road and telling them to park there because you can't accommodate even with the 25 and the 66 tables seats, you can't accommodate them now? Well, there's a consideration for public [59:33] Emily Nelson: parking, right, the 173 spaces within the beach use agreement of public parking that, you know, people are frequenting the restaurant, not every, not every parking space, not every guest in the And the restaurant is utilizing our parking to dine, right? There's a local neighborhood aspect and then the public parking as well. [59:49] Chair (Planning Board): And the argument then is that the ordinance as written, without this valet stuff, wasn't strictly applicable to this particular application, and some history indicated such. Right. I think that's a fair argument, but again, we're getting into what happens if we just hold the seat count and implement this plan. I was looking for a way to relieve myself of that awful feeling of looking at this and saying, no way I can do that safely. That was my gut reaction to this. I know, you know, it's sealing off the curb, but there's only one way in and out there without jumping through hoops. And it seems like a bottleneck without a lot of space in there. You're going to have to have some pretty accurate driving and carefully not allow oversized vehicles and et cetera, et cetera. [1:00:57] Planning Board member: And again, that's why I was getting at the four extra spaces. Why did you build a model for four extra spaces when you don't need them, when you could remove those two cars from the exit perhaps and still service, have an in and an out? The ones at the end. Yeah, I mean, and or, look, they've taken, per the original plan, which already was nonconforming in the 10 by 20 foot stripage, Now they've removed one space for a dumpster, and they're pulling in and not using the, I won't even say contested, but the paper road piece. [1:01:43] Chair (Planning Board): The easement piece, whatever you want to call it. [1:01:44] Planning Board member: And so your already non-conforming striping would be even less, or more non-conforming, less space. And so you're really compounding the issue in there from both an ability to [1:02:00] Chair (Planning Board): swing cars out, you've made it so only a professional can do it well. You've said [1:02:04] Planning Board member: maybe, I think you're as nervous as I was looking at that and saying, how the hell [1:02:09] Chair (Planning Board): do you get those cars in and out again? I want, I want a safety person to look at [1:02:13] Planning Board member: right, so you have sort of talked around this, but it may be helpful to read for you what the parking management plan is within chapter 10. So the land use ordinance states that a part alternative parking management plan is developed for approval by the Planning Board that demonstrates how the property owner will manage parking on the parcel. Such plan shall demonstrate adequate staffing. I'm sorry, which section are you looking? So this is chapter 240, section 10, and it's 3 7 10, 7 10 7 3b. Yeah, I'm there, and so this is ultimately what you are hoping to determine as you're hearing how the parking management plan is going to actually work, but it would demonstrate adequate staffing, safety compliance, and operational efficiency, including measures such as ensuring that vehicles do not back up onto public streets, that the location of the valley zone on the parcel does not, that it shows the location of the valley zone on the parks parcel, and I think that's important to note that it's on the parcel itself, that it does not cause traffic congestion, there's no excessive idling, or interfere with safe pedestrian access to the buildings on the property. And as Ed had mentioned, it must be approved by the police chief and the fire chief. So you just answered Peter's question [1:03:54] Chair (Planning Board): as to why they didn't use the easement, because it literally says on the parcel. And I think somebody advised them that if you don't want to trip that wire, keep it on the parcel. [1:04:04] Planning Board member: But the consequence is narrower slots. Yeah. [1:04:09] John Witten: Right. So I think a couple of things. This is absolute full capacity. So if these cars are in here, there are going to be no additional cars pulling in. If these two spots are taken, the valets are going to be like, lots full. Nobody else is driving in. [1:04:29] Chair (Planning Board): Let me stop you. Okay. So there you are. Okay. And I did that efficiently and smoothly and safely. Now, somebody down the very end wants to get out. It's in the row that's closest to the floor there. It's the lower row, the fourth one in from the left. He needs to get out. What are you going to do? What's the valet going to do? That's their job. And what is he going to do? How do you anticipate? I'm not a valet. I don't. No, seriously. Okay, but somebody has got to pitch the plan for how that valet is going to work, not I'm going to ask the valet. That's not the plan. The plan is I'm going to hire a valet, and I'm going to train him to do this. I know it's not your job, but it's somebody's job. And we need, in order to declare this safe per this paragraph here, and ensure that the vehicles don't back up, they don't cause traffic congestion or idle or interfere with pedestrian access, we need to know what that valet team is trained to do. [1:05:37] John Witten: So they're trained to maneuver these cars on the property and not back out onto Belvedere. [1:05:44] Chair (Planning Board): Can't do it. How do I get that fourth car, the one I tried to identify, fourth in from the left on the bottom row? No, from the left, right there. Your chock-a-block full, it was all safe. Now, I'm here. I'm done with my meal, thank you, or I'm checking out. [1:06:06] John Witten: So they can move this car over, pull this car out, and park it here, and the customer takes the car and drives onto Velveteer. Okay, all right. [1:06:18] Chair (Planning Board): So you're saying that this is designed to allow nobody to come out onto the street? [1:06:28] John Witten: Nobody's backing onto the street. [1:06:30] Chair (Planning Board): Nobody's fronting onto the street. No one's moving their own vehicle. [1:06:32] John Witten: No, the valet is in control of the car, is inside the parking lot, except for right here. [1:06:36] Chair (Planning Board): So you're saying he doesn't have to move any other car out of the parking lot except the one that I've just asked for? Right. I didn't get that before. I'm still skeptical. [1:06:50] John Witten: And remember, this isn't going to be fenced off. [1:06:53] Chair (Planning Board): How the heck does he move the car that's right in front of car four there? This one? Yeah. [1:07:00] John Witten: That one there. Yeah. He pulls a... [1:07:04] Chair (Planning Board): He's got a car in front of him, and he's got a car in back of him. Yep. [1:07:08] John Witten: It's just parallel parking in and out. I'm very skeptical. If he has to do a 12-point turn, then that's that's on him. It's it's not convenient for the average public. You wouldn't want traffic waiting for you when you're doing [1:07:23] Planning Board member: That but can I ask a clarifying question on something? Is this area, I know that you're not considering it for the actual state like static parking, but is this area in the paper street? Is that still paved? Yes, there's no, there's no proposal. So there is a little bit of access for the mobility of vehicles, right? Well, [1:07:48] Chair (Planning Board): Maybe you want to make part of the plan being able to use that area for mobility. So I think it's available. Yeah. No, it's not, it says it's excluded. [1:07:59] John Witten: It's not available for parking, I say for public, okay, and it's not on the street, in the public street, I like it, all right, so right in reality when this, you know, as long as their legal notices and timelines go out, then this property in a matter of months will be absorbed into the project, and so we wanted to show that we have a maximum of 25 spots that could be taken up at any one time on [1:08:30] Chair (Planning Board): this property, and there is a requirement that says the way the cars are parked is such that I can remove any one of them from the parking lot without moving any other one out of the parking lot. I don't have to put a car on the street. [1:08:47] John Witten: No, that is for public people, not valet managed. [1:08:52] Chair (Planning Board): No,, no. I'm just saying you have enough room in the parking lot to get any one of those cars out as requested without taking another car out. [1:09:03] John Witten: Without removing it from it. Yes, without removing a car from the property. Correct. Yeah. Yes. [1:09:08] Chair (Planning Board): I didn't appreciate that, and I still am having a hard time seeing it. [1:09:13] Planning Board member: Valet parking is not public parking. If someone comes up to Hannaford's, we'll pick on Kennebunk, and they've got a big vehicle and they take up one and a quarter spots, they've taken up two spots. That wouldn't happen in a private valet situation, and they don't need space on both sides to get out because it's only the driver getting out. Except the late arrival who comes in after 10 o'clock at night or 11 o'clock on the weekends and they have to presumably park themselves. [1:09:40] Chair (Planning Board): I'm good with all of that George, except I just don't want someone going on the street. Let's talk about this. [1:09:45] Planning Board member: The restaurant's empty at this point. It closes at 9 or 10? [1:09:49] Chair (Planning Board): 10 or 11, depending on the night. [1:09:54] John Witten: The parking lot would operate as it does today in the non-valet managed hours. [1:10:02] Planning Board member: Outside of those hours, outside restaurant, but you can't forestall somebody with a big vehicle taking up one and a half spaces, that's right, but the demand isn't correct, but the man isn't there. [1:10:15] John Witten: And then going to be the next morning, but okay, right, but then the valet staff has access to the management staff, and they have access to the vehicles and call a tow truck. I mean, if, yeah, illegal, if someone's parked illegally at any point, they could take care of that with a tow truck. But if it's a hotel customer, then they can, they can have access to that vehicle. Where's your handicap parking? Up next to the building. [1:10:46] Chair (Planning Board): Here you have one space is what I understood, correct? You'll need to them. [1:10:52] Planning Board member: Why don't they need two? Over 25 you need two, so. [1:10:58] Chair (Planning Board): The, I thought they only had 25. They do now, we have. [1:11:02] John Witten: 25, yep, with this plan we're up to 31 when it's a valet managed parking lot, so the thought is that the valet service will take care of any access for disabilities. I don't know, there's a federal. [1:11:22] Planning Board member: requirement right i 'm just reading the requirement yeah so it says north well [1:11:29] John Witten: We'll research that more, that at worst we can add, we add striping to the parking space next to the one that's existing. Yeah. [1:11:49] Emily Nelson: Yeah, as you said, right, and the 25 number doesn't change, right? This is just increasing capacity during restaurant hours when we are looking to accommodate the additional people that would be sitting in the seats in the restaurant, so in theory, right, and even talk about the closure of the property, right? The six months it's closed, there's still only 25 spots on the property that exist in lines, painted lines, delineated parking spots. [1:12:15] Chair (Planning Board): So at some point, we need to move this along. I'm looking for a way, if this was a wastewater problem, a stormwater management problem, I'd be asking you, who do we have that looks at these problems and would give us a civil engineering approach? Say, yeah, I'll put my stamp on this, will work. This is a safety issue, potentially. Would the police and or the fire have people on their staff that have this expertise, have had this experience, and could look at this and come back and say, yeah, in our experience, this is a stretch, but this will work? [1:12:56] Planning Board member: I don't believe that staff present would be able to make that determination, but we can certainly follow up with the staff. [1:13:03] Chair (Planning Board): This can't be the first time somebody's had this type of challenge. [Planning Board member: Maybe in Kennebunkport.] This is probably an easy one. Yeah, in Kennebunkport, probably so. NNA? [1:13:13] Planning Board member: I mean, this is an operations management thing. It's like queuing equations. [1:13:17] Chair (Planning Board): I thought the analogy of the civil engineering was more, you know, this is a traffic engineering. The guys that just did the changes to paving on through Dock Square. [1:13:27] Planning Board member: Yeah, let's not drag them into this. [1:13:29] Chair (Planning Board): I'm just saying that 's the expertise though that they drew on to put in new curbing for safety and [1:13:35] Planning Board member: Would MMA have those resources? We will look into if there is an adequate peer review third party review that we should be utilizing or if staff have the existing [1:13:47] Chair (Planning Board): Capabilities to make that determination, but the planning board this member and maybe the others are saying I don't think this is in our I don't think we have enough experience and technical expertise to say this is safe and will work it's an interesting solution and you've met some of the challenges that I had after reading it the first time but not all of them yeah please a few more things to [1:14:17] Planning Board member: further question yeah where's the dumpster currently with the two parking [1:14:23] John Witten: parking lots, cars are the entrance. [1:14:30] Emily Nelson: It's right here. And I'd say it represents where the true location is, represents the car that's closer to the grayed out, you know, blank area, that rectangle. I would say it's further away from the street. It represents the interior car. [1:14:44] John Witten: The fenced area right now is sized so that two dumpsters can be side by side, and they currently only operate one dumpster. [1:14:52] Planning Board member: And they can't have cars parked on the current configuration, parallel parked on the inside lot when they're emptying. I presume that truck needs a lot of room to maneuver to get the dumpsters. And the board may or may not have been able to see the diagram that you sent to us, so if you have it. No, I saw the diagram, but that's proposed. Correct. Although it uses an exit as if it's the existing parking configuration, which it would be up to 7 a.m. in the morning. [1:15:27] John Witten: Which is the condition that it would use it. [1:15:30] Chair (Planning Board): You would have to have the staff trained to leave those spaces. Remember, your overnight guests are still parking there. Correct. [1:15:39] Emily Nelson: Those two spaces that would be backing into the rear of the Tides building would not be filled overnight. Right, the team would utilize existing striped spaces for overnight hotel guests as a rule more than that though [1:15:52] Chair (Planning Board): I mean you that big truck isn't gonna go between those two rows of cars [1:15:56] Emily Nelson: Is it well the row up against kind of where the trees are is parallel that this is how it exists today [1:16:02] Chair (Planning Board): So no, but if we go to this configuration and the dumpster needs to be emptied this Diagram that I looked at showed the truck. I think moving where those cars are maybe I don't maybe I don't understand it 's [1:16:19] Planning Board member: exiting this so it's the way it is today yeah but what you're proposing [1:16:26] Chair (Planning Board): Is to orient these cars this way for valet, for the valet, yeah, hours, but the [1:16:32] John Witten: The dumpster is going to be emptied and non valet hours, time lapse of current [1:16:38] Chair (Planning Board): Status, these two, these spots up here could not be used by guests at the hotel, [1:16:48] Emily Nelson: Correct, they're not, they're not striped today as existing spots, again I think [1:16:55] Chair (Planning Board): That needs to be clear, that would be part of the training, so you're saying that this area would be left to allow the dumpster to be, correct, it would only happen once where that didn't work and then next week it would be okay and [1:17:14] Emily Nelson: Worth noting it's not a daily pickup, I would have to, I would have to confirm the cadence and I'm happy to, I mean that's third-party vendor dependent right, but it's, it's not a daily seven day, I think it may be helpful if you're [1:17:27] Planning Board member: Able to provide that for the board's review for some context, okay, yeah I do [1:17:32] Emily Nelson: Think it probably, it may change seasonally, but I can give kind of the [1:17:36] Chair (Planning Board): Current status, I didn't picked up on that at all, the last question I had [1:17:41] Planning Board member: Relates to the butter correspondence that we've received and you know some detailed, thoughtful, and several already. Have you had any conversations with the abutters? No. [1:18:01] Chair (Planning Board): Why not? How long did it take to get this agreement? Is that part of the reason? [1:18:09] Planning Board member: I don't know, but there's some thoughtful, analytical abutter correspondence here, And, you know, my house were across the street and all of a sudden I had, you know, headlights coming into my windows. I can understand their concern, pay a lot of money to live in Goose Rocks Beach. And, you know, you're unfortunately not the first person who's come before this board with, you know, a butter issues that has not had the courtesy to communicate with them. [1:18:47] Chair (Planning Board): So what do we want to happen, Peter, at this point? [1:18:52] Planning Board member: I think what ought to happen is something you suggested earlier, which is we have an on-site tour, and we have the fire chief and the police chief and a butler. And let's see it online. Let's see it for ourselves and talk about it. Maybe it's screening. I don't know. you've proposed no change in screening but you know this at a public Hearing this can get pretty ugly. Well, a caution on site walks, which are public meetings, and usually no one shows up, but when they are, especially in Goose Rocks area, everyone shows up, and it is different. It is difficult to contain because the public is not allowed to comment at those meetings. I'm not saying don't do it, but it has to be managed because it is a planning board meeting, not a public hearing, and people start shouting stuff. [1:19:54] Chair (Planning Board): Can I, think the site walk is a good idea at some point. I think that some of the things we've talked about tonight might best be done in advance of going and doing that. Have a plan that we can get behind and have the town get behind first and make sure we got it right by, in part, doing a site walk. But have you had a chance to look at the three abutter letters? Yes, I've read them. Yeah, I didn't get through all three of them. I didn't tackle this in detail until today. I spent a lot of time with it. It sounds like others have as well. So how do you feel about going through and responding to this in some fashion? Is that just too much? [1:20:49] Emily Nelson: I think some of the questions raised are addressed in the plan. I think that a lot of them are asking questions that are answered in it. And so I guess, you know, I'm happy to, if somebody wants to identify the, you know, wherever we feel that line lies in the, you know, seven page and six page documents of letters and what needs to be addressed and what doesn't. And if I'm, you know, going back to your question, if I'm being totally genuine, we haven't had those conversations because for in our application to me, this is a very straightforward plan, right? There's no change to the existing lot. There's no, right, it's an operational shift. It's not a physical plant shift, right? So if I'm being quite honest, that's part of it. [1:21:34] Chair (Planning Board): You don't see, you're not nervous that this is going to cause traffic backing up in the street and jeopardy [1:21:43] Emily Nelson: to pedestrians? That is not a concern that I have today. Interesting. Okay. Partially because I think we'll be at capacity pretty quickly, and I think that the signage will communicate that. I mean, in all fairness, right, anybody that's been down there knows that 85% of the time that lot is at capacity without it being manned, right? And so just because we're able to add, you know, additional spaces, I don't know that it necessarily increases the volume because we're going to meet capacity just, you know, just as quickly or relatively as quickly as we do right now. [1:22:18] Planning Board member: Capacity that you had people backing out into the street and there are headlamps because there are people, you know, moving in and out of that parking lot. [1:22:25] Emily Nelson: You would think a lot of the questions raised Exists today, right? [1:22:31] Chair (Planning Board): They've been prompted to ask these questions. I'll ask a little more time. Do you have a thought as to how we could handle these in advance of a public hearing and I'm willing to do some work here, but just as your reaction, it's like these are, these are very [1:22:54] John Witten: detailed. At least two of them are very similar. Yeah, they seem to be a copy-paste situation, so I think talking, you know, certainly similar issues in similar language, I think what [1:23:08] Emily Nelson: makes, if I may, you know, I think like order for me is let's, let's confirm the safety piece first, right, because a lot of the call-outs in the abettors notice and abettors letters are that, and so let's, let's make sure that the plan that we all feel comfortable with is where is compliant, it's safe, right, but everybody feels good about it, and then we can kind of eliminate, say, I'm hopeful it's 65 of the concerns in the letters, and then we can filter out from there what, you know, underlying concerns exist for, you know, right, there's a lot of turning radius questions, there's a lot of things that, you know, could be solved in a different, in a, in a revised plan that everybody feels good about it. So I don't want to spend the time to address it now if it's going to change. [1:23:56] Planning Board member: And MMA can comment because they probably have a parking specialist of some sort and someone who covered this in third semester [1:24:04] Chair (Planning Board): parking. It's operationally safe and it's safe handling emergencies. There's a formula. [1:24:13] Planning Board member: So we generally use MMA for legal provisions. I'm happy to verify with staff if they feel like they need a third-party review, which would presumably be an engine, a traffic engineering firm as you're mentioning. I do not believe MMA would have resources for a traffic engineer for us. Would acorn in an instance like this, we would explore who we would be utilizing as a third-party review if needed and for that confirmation be useful, say yep. Yeah, this is a standard valet parking To the applicant's request, I think if you are looking to understand those safety provisions, you've had two different kind of competing thought processes, I think, between the two of you, which was are you looking to schedule a site walk as a public meeting provision, or would you prefer that staff meets with the applicant and the various staff that are called out in the ordinance determine that on their own, and then we bring that back to you in a subsequent meeting? Oh, I think the latter. The latter first. [1:25:22] Chair (Planning Board): Most definitely. I think Emily put her finger on it. [1:25:25] Planning Board member: I think we would go to do both, though, in sequence. [1:25:29] Chair (Planning Board): But let's not go to all of that trouble if we haven't resolved in our own minds that this is a safe and operationally efficient enough we have had parking [1:25:43] Planning Board member: instances I'm thinking up by town corners where the applicant placed objects so that the board could see what the sight lines were that we could understand what it looked like because it 's pretty visible if you drive down meld there you can see what it looks like I don't I'm not for or against a public meeting other than they can be chaotic and so long as the board can find out and confirm that this is a plan that works and then move toward the if as that progresses move toward a public hearing where the public can then [1:26:22] Chair (Planning Board): comment further we may get a professional opinion on this that comes back and says, no, look it, we can walk you through this, is how this is going to be operationally safe and that's how we're going to handle emergencies. And I think it might obviate the need for a sidewalk. But that's why I wanted, again, I wanted to not take responsibility for personally saying this was safe because I had concerns as a casual observer. And if the police and fire chief both say, yeah, we've seen stuff like this before, or I think we need to engage a traffic consultant and help us confirm that it is, that's how [1:27:05] Planning Board member: I'd like to- Because it's private property. When we've done site walks, they've generally been properties that are not visible from the road where we have to have access to go back in, and in this case, it's pretty clear view. Fair point. [1:27:20] John Witten: I would like to point out that access to the building is not limited. It is not changing because of this layout. There's a stairway at the back that is not being, it has the same pathway that it has today. There's this access through the painted stripes in front of the dumpster to the rear. So there's no, there's no change to pedestrian or emergency vehicle access to this building based on this proposal. [1:27:51] Chair (Planning Board): One of the cars is on fire. That's where my head goes. [1:27:56] John Witten: Yeah, it's 40 feet from the street. [1:28:00] Planning Board member: There's an existing parking lot. What if a car were on fire right now? Yeah. [1:28:04] Chair (Planning Board): I think that it's so tight here as to have me concerned that the fire department can't get at it. If they say, no, that's not a problem, Ed. We do this all the time. We can get our equipment in there. Great. We handled valet parking at Boat Yard. We had a similar incident last year at the Boat House. [1:28:27] Planning Board member: There was a car on fire at the Boat House? [1:28:30] Chair (Planning Board): Somebody had a medical problem. I'm just, I'm hyper-theorizing here. Tell me that. Public safety. Public safety. [1:28:42] John Witten: That's what we're all about. So we're talking about a staff meeting is the next step with fire and police. Is that correct? [1:28:52] Planning Board member: Correct, so staff would be reviewing and I will coordinate with staff and coordinate with you for the board's thought processes on this next step. If staff is able to determine that it looks adequate and they feel comfortable with it, would you prefer it to be something that is just put in the memo like it normally would, or would you like an email or a memo from them or something separate from the other staff? Either or both. I don't need a walkthrough on how it works, I just need assurance that it does work. I don't want to be an expert on parking or docks. [1:29:42] Chair (Planning Board): I think in the past these departments have been, it depends on how they want to represent themselves and I'm happy to go along with that if they're, if they're comfortable with the code office saying I checked with the fire department and it was okay and then I am too, but you may find that they want to, please give them that opportunity, can [1:30:09] Planning Board member: I do a quick plug because I'm sure there are people watching along, I'm following very closely, there are openings on the plan [1:30:15] Chair (Planning Board): I wanted to ask a couple more questions about, I think I found out that your pen was involved with this Tides Beach Club. [1:30:28] Emily Nelson: Perhaps. My keyboard, yes. [1:30:30] Chair (Planning Board): Just going through it, and I think this is part of the application. Just a few things that hit me. Two attendants during peak periods and one attendant for special events. What were you thinking there? [1:30:49] Emily Nelson: It's just calling out that if the restaurant were closed, there would still be some sort of management of the parking lot as needed. But in theory, the volume and the demand would be less. [1:30:59] Chair (Planning Board): We're going to have one or two, and it's going to be tuned. It's going to be directed by management, planned by management, in accordance with the demand. [1:31:09] Emily Nelson: I was going to say, if you schedule just like any one of our shifts that's dependent on business volume. How many waiters are on? Right, exactly. Okay. [1:31:20] Chair (Planning Board): I understand what staging spaces are now based on this discussion. I didn't when I first read this. One ADA, we talked about that. That's probably fine now, but it might be an issue as you... I mean, you're going through all of this for a reason. Enough said. It does say you're going to direct the vehicle for parking, [1:31:46] Emily Nelson: but what you mean is... I can modify that, yeah. [1:31:48] Chair (Planning Board): that the vehicle is doing it. The valets are, all of the movement in that area doesn't involve the vehicle owners. All of this, I must have written four or five different times when you talk about one valet. As soon as you got one valet, I got this thought about cars backing up. He's off moving a car and another car, two cars have come. [1:32:21] Emily Nelson: No, and I think maybe some of that came from the off-site management, too, right? If we're parking off-site, then, of course, there's no eyes. There's no hint of that now. From a visibility perspective, I think there's plenty of visibility. [1:32:34] Planning Board member: And you'd have temporary signage, like a board that says, stop valet parking. Yeah, they would all be A-frames. [1:32:39] Emily Nelson: I know that was called out in one of the abutter's letters as far as permanent versus movable, right? Or whatever. The word is escaping me. But it would just be A-frames. They would be, you know, and swapped as appropriate, right? [1:32:54] Chair (Planning Board): So I would ask, Ben, if when the police and fire chief look at this, that they have an opportunity to review this one-and-a-half-page write-up of, this is how we see it operating. That's part of the vision, not just the layout. This pedestrian and bicycle movement will remain separated where practical. as [1:33:20] Emily Nelson: it exists today right we're not we're not modifying those ways of public transit means right the parks are still going people are still walking down the [1:33:30] Planning Board member: Street, none of this changes that the pedestrian parking area will be closed [1:33:35] Chair (Planning Board): to pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be the sentence I would write instead of that, or just be careful, I think that's a suggestion. Yeah, sidewalks, crosswalks, invisible pedestrian paths will remain clear at all times. I thought, well, that's an aspirational view. I don't see how you could enforce that, but I think what you're saying is there'll be no change, correct, in that area, we're not affecting that, is what you're trying to convey. Same with emergency access routes, drive aisles, will remain clear, will be unchanged, will be unaffected. I think the location of the signage that you reference here, you might want it. Maybe you did, but I couldn't see it. Put it on the plan. Here's the location of the signage. [1:34:43] Emily Nelson: Is that desired if it is movable? I mean, I don't want to depict a placement of something if it won't be permanent. [1:34:52] Chair (Planning Board): Minute, maybe you could just say it will be at the, to the side of the staging area, or will it be on the sidewalk, or I couldn't, I couldn't imagine where it was based on the words, that's all, so you point taken, if it's movable you'd [1:35:09] Planning Board member: sorry, you don't want to show it in a fixed location, service may be suspended [1:35:18] Chair (Planning Board): during severe weather or staffing shortages, and I think that with that means you're going to transition to this old formation. You can't, when you, when you say valet service is suspended, I thought, oh, there's no valets on duty, but still everybody's parking like that, 's not coming across. Yeah, no, until I [1:35:45] John Witten: I probed on it, wasn't clear in my head, right, so yeah, outside of the hours that this is managed by a professional valet, yeah, they are limited to their 66, you've got a different configuration, the [1:35:58] Chair (Planning Board): original layout of the parking lot, and again, that it's like, oh, okay, that feels a little better [1:36:04] Emily Nelson: and to go back to the unaffected and unchanged language, right, the existing [1:36:09] Planning Board member: remains unchanged in that scenario. Yeah, we'll revert to the existing, maybe there's even a name [1:36:14] Chair (Planning Board): you invent for it, to the non valet configuration, to the parallel topside street side, sorry, I don't have the good words there, but I think I've explained what I couldn't see before in terms of, well, that's just gonna get bogged down at the, if the valets leave, then wait a minute, everybody's, no, why did, why did I ever think that? Okay, well, I did. [1:36:44] Emily Nelson: We're in the business of making people happy, not frustrated. That would easily turn. [1:36:50] Chair (Planning Board): And you succeed over 90% of the time, but you don't succeed 100% of the time. Certainly not. [1:36:55] Planning Board member: And you're using a jitneys of some sort to take people from Hidden Pond to the facility. Do those drop off at the front? [1:37:07] Emily Nelson: Those drop off in the parking lot. [1:37:09] Planning Board member: They drop off in the parking lot. Correct. [1:37:12] Chair (Planning Board): This parking lot. No, they're not going in that parking lot anymore. Yeah, well, that's... [1:37:16] Emily Nelson: Well, they would drop off in the staging area, right? [1:37:20] Chair (Planning Board): Be able to turn around. Okay. Maybe you want to say that. Okay. As you address one of the concerns that one of the abutters, at least. Right. [1:37:29] Planning Board member: Am I correct in that? It may be helpful to think about how that would work if the staging area is occupied with one or multiple cars that are queued. [1:37:39] Chair (Planning Board): Maybe there's walkie-talkies. He's saying we're going to be arriving. I don't know how you run, but maybe it's happened so infrequently as to not be an issue. [1:37:48] Planning Board member: I anticipate that currently there are sometimes cars backed up waiting to get a parking spot. [1:37:54] Emily Nelson: And that shuttle would be in queue, right, to access. But, yes, the shuttle pulls into the lot, unloads, and departs. [1:38:03] Chair (Planning Board): Well, part of the point you just made was, you know, this isn't immaculate with respect to wait time. [1:38:10] Planning Board member: Today. It's a mess. [1:38:12] Chair (Planning Board): I don't get down there. [1:38:14] Emily Nelson: I mean, every street down there is a little bit... [1:38:17] Chair (Planning Board): Oh, well, fair point. I do get down there enough to believe that. A little [1:38:22] Emily Nelson: congested, right, is the word. [1:38:23] Chair (Planning Board): In a way, that's a good thing because people aren't roaring through there. [1:38:29] Planning Board member: The difference, however, is in the existing configuration [Applicant/representative: the jitney can] pull in, discharge, and pull out. In a valet situation they may not be able to do that so they're backing out. I don't know how a jitney turns around in that space and exits forward [1:38:53] Chair (Planning Board): so maybe that's just a question you can take away. How are you going to manage jitney arrival? How often is it? [1:38:59] Emily Nelson: It was duly noted in reading the abutter's letters today. I haven't had time to be able to formally respond. We already agreed on the abutter's letters. [1:39:08] Chair (Planning Board): We're gonna worry about the safety thing. Yes, maybe this is a safe [1:39:10] Planning Board member: Okay, I think that was the common one of the common trends. Good catch. [1:39:16] Chair (Planning Board): Thank you for your patience. We're gonna continue this. I would propose to continue the initial review? Yes, pending this discussion about getting some expertise on saying that this is safe and workable and not a bigger problem than you already dealing with you're proposing it because you think it's going to be better even without moving the number of seats, increasing the number of seats. [1:39:46] John Witten: So it was brought up with the last agenda item, but I want to make sure that you understand that there's a number of waivers in the application that we're requesting just because [1:39:55] Chair (Planning Board): we're not changing. I didn't see any that looked unreasonable. Am I correct in that? That's the code offices of you two? You want to look at them carefully? Obviously there's no lighting changes. The sign that they're putting up, I didn't see that as a signage issue. I [1:40:11] Planning Board member: think for the plan that you are reviewing the waivers make sense, and I think you as you go through your findings. I just want to make sure, particularly for some of the landscaping and buffering provisions, that you are comfortable with that waiver as it relates to how you were thinking about this as a parking lot? Right. That's a secondary issue at the moment. Correct. [1:40:34] Chair (Planning Board): Again, it is a legally non-conforming parking lot as it is today. I don't know whether they've explicitly talked about every nuance of why, but it seems to... I didn't want to get into adjudicating the existing landscaping if we're not changing something substantially. Anything else? Peter? No. George? No. We all agree? All those in favor of continuing the initial review? Right. Thank you for your patience. Thank you very much. Care. It's yours, there. I didn't print this. I can't print a big thing like that in my house. I just had 8 by 12, 8 1⁄2 by 11. All right, those are the two applications that are on the agenda. There's two other items. First is a review of the, a quick review of the proposed historic design standards, and I'm going to turn to Ben and Nadia for that. And then on the other business, I wanted to spend just a minute or two looking at the request to support a public hearing tomorrow at the select board with respect to the land use ordinance changes that are on the November ballot. So make sure that, A, that we can be there, and, B, that we understand what's being changed. [1:42:11] Planning Board member: I'm not sure I can be there tomorrow. John and Rick are both out tomorrow to that's the concern I can certainly give them both a call tomorrow morning I'm planning on being there but I don't want [1:42:35] Chair (Planning Board): to come and take the heat for the planning board not represent all right So let's let's know when it let's know in advance you want to start with the historic design standards and Ben give us give us a little bit of background about what's going on there. I know you're you're new to the GPC as well [1:43:03] Planning Board member: Certainly so the We had mentioned this quickly in your previous meeting in September, but the growth planning committee has been working on a set of performance standards that would be a historic overlay zoning district. It was sent to you both in early to mid-September and then more recently in the last week or so. The Growth Planning Committee has, as of right now, finalized its review of the ordinance as it stands. It has gone before the select board, and at the select board's meeting, their second meeting in September, they had a couple of thoughts on where the ordinance could go, but one of the bigger hangups that they had was that they wanted to make sure that you, the planning board, had a chance to review it. And so it is before you starting with tonight I suspect both due to only having about half of your membership as well as wanting to make sure that you have ample time to review it you may want to think about having this review continue past tonight the historic overlay zoning district follows the boundaries of the two federal historic districts. I did send a map in a subsequent email. Very helpful. Good. It is challenging to see the whole entirety of the district on one map and be able to adequately understand what it is, at least in my purview. So I usually find it easier to look at each individual existing federal old historic districts so that you can get down to the minutia of the parcel data but we're happy to show you visuals of whatever mapping makes sense as you think about what this looks like the ordinance itself proposes a couple of new definitions that would be specific to the overlay zoning district it has several performance standards that would be applicable to how you review projects within the districts and most Importantly why the select board was asking for your input is that it does direct the review to you to the planning board and so our hope would be that you can review these provisions and think about what that would look like you can make comments on the document itself you can also comment in a workshop setting And ideally, Nadia and I can both be able to catalog concerns or thoughts or comments that the board has, but also as you're moving through and kind of doing a basic workshop of this, We can understand how we can help support this process. Process. So if you have thoughts, if this were to become an actual enacted ordinance and this was something that you were reviewing in the future, if you have thoughts on how staff could support you in order to feel confident making a decision, we're happy to hear that either in a meeting setting or individually. But ideally you would have a chance to kind of think about what that looks like. If there are members of the public still listening, I'm going to do just the spiel on what it is and isn't, and then I'll turn it over to you guys to do whatever basic review or thoughts you want to do tonight. Can Dave, can you, can you advise us [1:47:16] Chair (Planning Board): is other, is there anybody out there in Zoom land at this point? We do have two attendees. Okay, great. [1:47:21] Planning Board member: All right, so this is going to be the elevator speech pitch of this. So it's not going to go in depth of what actually are in the performance standards, but for your knowledge and for anybody who's listening, the approval provisions would be new construction or additions to existing structures within the districts, new, any modification to an existing structure, which would be any exterior modification, including like windows and doors and things like that, demolition of an existing structure within the districts, and then any covering of an exterior architectural detail or element. And what it excludes, and there are several exemptions, I'm probably not going to go through all of them, but it would roughly be – sorry, I had missed part of the performance standards, which would be all of the things I had mentioned would be visible from a public way. And so the exempt activities would be those types of activities. So a new construction, some sort of an existing modification to an existing structure, or other alterations that are not visible from a public way. Interior alterations would also be exempt. Any landscaping would be exempt. Changes in paint color would be exempt. And then replacing features that match those original materials would also be exempt, which I think may be something that you may want additional guidance on what that could look like if we go through with this process. Additionally, regular maintenance is still permitted for both maintenance in general and public safety provisions as well. That is certainly a very bare-bones version of what those standards are in arts. So I would recommend both you as board members and members of the public to look at the ordinance. The ordinance is available for members of the public on the growth planning committees SharePoint and page of the town's website. You can also reach out to Planning staff and we can get that to members of the public. Thank you, man And you've made some great comments and I generally agree with everything you 've said but I 'm just curious Why is Doc Square of all places? Not included. I mean does this mean somebody can go rip down the Kenny bunk board in and put up a Las Vegas style, you know modern hotel with glass reflective windows in orange and completely ruined the historic downtown Kennebunkport look. I don't understand how that got exempted. So the district boundaries follow the two federal historic districts, of which we have one which is called the Kennebunkport Historic District. Sometimes it's also referenced as the Dock Square Historic District. And then the Cape Arundel Summer Colony Historic District. The map that I sent you, to me, shows the bounds the easiest, but again, even if it's not a static map, you can't easily get into it on a parcel basis and understand what you're looking at. When the federal historic districts were enacted, the Kennebunkport Historic District, which is the one we're currently sitting within the bounds of, purposefully excluded Dock Square at a request from the state, which was because at that point in 1977, I think, or 8, it was determined that the structures on Dock Square did not meet the historic standards that would elevate it to be a federal district. Interesting. And there are a lot of intertwined things. If you are interested in that history, you can go to the National Register and see the federal district's process, or we have access to that in our planning files as well. But for our purposes, it's only relative in terms of should that be part of the historic district, which is, I think, part of a question you didn't ask. Yeah, and as of the process that has gone through so far, the bounds of the proposed local historic overlay zoning district have only followed the federal historic districts. That could change that. We could, we could create our own. No, that's not what this is doing. The correct, so the local Historic district could follow whatever boundaries we the town wanted it to follow, and there are specific provisions for new changes to the federal districts, and there are Buildings back in the 60s and 70s that were built along Dock Square, I think, where some of the businesses can, among Bank used to be down there, and they there were with federal funds for urban renewal, you dad grants, and each community took those grants. There were some towns like Bangor that tore down entire historic districts and put up chrome bank buildings, and then they saw what Portland did with the whole port, and we thought, darn, it's really new [1:53:16] John Witten: Report that drove that, George [1:53:20] Chair (Planning Board): If you had an opportunity to look at any of the [1:53:22] Planning Board member: Comments yet? I haven't looked at the comments yet. I did read through the [1:53:26] Chair (Planning Board): ordinance of family up to the comment so I 'd really appreciate it if all the board members even the ones that aren't here would look at this material before we look at it in depth, I was surprised to hear that the GPC is finished with this. [1:53:43] Planning Board member: They're finished for now. Yeah. I think it's a point in time, and the intent would be you have a chance to review and make comments. Sure. If you have comments or presuming you have things you would like to be shared in this process, those would go directly to the select board first. [1:54:00] Chair (Planning Board): So I want to be, ah, okay, well, that's good. What will be helpful. I've written specifications before for work and nothing like this, but we always start with something that might even be called a mission statement. What are we trying to do here? Give me three or four sentences that says I'm proposing we do all of this work of trying to write a new section and get agreement from a lot of different people on it and to make sure it does this when we're done and that 's hard to get when all you have is a finished product I find myself looking at and saying well why for example are we referencing a four-page federal document that certainly doesn't confine itself to only the exterior or I mean it's focused on use and it's it's just It Expands this enormously. There must have been a reason to include that because it's going to be a lot more work to adjudicate it. Let's understand that. So to accept the task of being the board that judges applications on this, let alone agrees to the language, I think that we owe it to ourselves to understand what we're trying to accomplish. and that 's escaping me right now so if there's anything you could do I know you weren't working on the GPC at the time all of this was in place but what is it that the drives that drives this what's what's the essence of it I will say in terms of what the what the what the boundaries are all of the other districts that we have including the shoreland zone and the resource protection and village residential there's a section in 3.3 that says oh and it starts on this street and it goes to this address and it's that needs to be added right yeah so I don't I don't think we're ready to say we're they're done with it well know that 's missing I think we forgot and there's some other sections in here which I don't want to give you the impression that I studied this I probably spent three or four hours with this but I didn't even get through it all I tried to write only the high level comments that might be useful for engaging with the authors if we want to go through the select board That's fine, but I think it's just going to slow the [1:56:38] Planning Board member: process down. I'm a little surprised that they you know called out the planning board as the arbiter is a good taste here, honestly. I mean, I've seen historic districts don't we are well but seriously, I've seen I've seen this before where it's actually been the Preservation Society and or an architectural subcommittee of that which has to sign on, and I would think they would be a lot better suited frankly to do that if that were possible, that then us or have a say or at least have a stamp of approval or some pre authorization for it and then so that 's one comment I had the other comment is it seems like the cat's a little bit out of the bag on the on the Cape Arundel. I mean, those houses have been largely renovated and changed and expanded. I mean, there's some enormous, beautiful homes, but it isn't exactly a summer cottage colony any longer. And, you know, are you there for kind of keeping architectural detail with something that was massively renovated in the last three years? Or are we, you know, going back to those that maybe have had minor renovations but still have the character of the old kind of main beachfront home or main home generally? [1:58:23] Chair (Planning Board): I had similar questions. I had this thought that in an ideal world, maybe each of us would go through and add a few more comments. Maybe since the code office has been managing, for lack of a better word, both boards, you might be willing to go through those comments and say, well, here's a subset of them I'd like to share with the GPC, and maybe then make a decision as to how you get convergence on what's going on and what are we missing and what direction should we take. As it is right now, I think I could spend a lot more time on this, but I'm just, it's going to come across as being very negative. [Planning Board member: Negative is okay.] But how much time do you want to invest? [1:59:19] Planning Board member: What's the timeline, the process, why the select board right now, when does this have to be through what stage of approval to be on a ballot, so are we under any pressure here? [1:59:32] Chair (Planning Board): And why does it have to go on the ballot soon? If it is, if it is soon, so. [1:59:41] Planning Board member: The conversation had started in the springtime, and it was sort of twofold. If you didn't see the signs out around, there's still at least one out, this was the 50th anniversary of the, I think it was actually in January of 1977, I think it was the start of the next year when it was actually signed off, but '76 was when everything was sent for federal review. So the district is 50 years old. This has been a part of our comprehensive plan and various comprehensive planning processes. However, a lot of the conversation around should this exist at this point in time, should the historic overlay exist, focuses on trying to be proactive with concerns around increased pressures on the district from the housing legislation that we were working through as well, and so the various pieces of housing legislation do have a deadline that is July 1st of next year, which would be the warrant in the spring that we'd be aiming to have those on. So the original intent was that this could be also reviewed on that June warrant. There is not a, if that ends up not being able to occur, then other than just not having this as a possible part of a tool in a toolkit, there's not any other angst or reason to do that timing. Mean, currently the intent would be planning board has its ability to comment and digest it and go from that, comments would go, I would bring your comments to the select board presumably. There would be other action from them, and I don't know what the select board's intent would be, but I would presume that it would not go directly to a new public hearing, [2:02:12] Chair (Planning Board): Which it has not had. So my understanding, assumptions, I think, not understanding of the process to date has been that the code office got asked to look into this. They've used the growth planning committee's talent and energy to get what we have here. That if I'm the select board, they don't want to be in a position of saying, well, I gave it to the planning board, and they came back with all these comments. They're going to want to know what the code office thinks of it since they manage the process with the GPC. [2:02:56] Planning Board member: So staff is just staff support to the various boards and committees, But this was the process had started because the select board as part of prepping for the housing legislation had determined this would be one possible policy choice that may make sense. And so any movement that has gone forward has been either explicitly or implicitly at the direction of the select board. [2:03:30] Chair (Planning Board): So the select board rep to the GPC will have had a strong hand in this, is what you're saying? [2:03:40] Planning Board member: Correct. And obviously, David is not here tonight, but I would expect that he could fill you in a little bit in a subsequent meeting as well. Okay. I challenge everyone to have a point of view, and hopefully David's here next week. Two weeks, yeah. Two weeks, next meeting. And we can take it up then. [2:04:01] Chair (Planning Board): Yeah, my request would be is if you can find the time, and by the way, two requests. When you put your comments in, try to keep them on point, you know, with the viewership first of the code office looking at them, and let's get some feedback on our comments. Before you bring them to the select board, can we have a conversation, either through the comment process or in a separate meeting maybe even those comments would have to be [2:04:29] Planning Board member: individual right not as a group yes I would I would probably end up recommending that you may want to consider a workshop on the ultimate conclusion of the individual comments yes and the meeting tomorrow with a select board our representation is for what exactly so that's that's that's the next thing I wanted to are you all comfortable with that timeline of individual planning board members review and make comments on the document by the next meeting progress and is that unrelated and tomorrow's meeting yes and [2:05:09] Chair (Planning Board): have at least a cursory a little checked out so for the avoidance of doubt when having to have a cursory review by yourselves okay before the next meeting If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen, but that should be our goal. I understand that. [2:05:28] Planning Board member: So with respect to tomorrow, Nadia's going to make two phone calls or emails for John and Rick? Yes. I just sent John and Rick an email and I'll follow up tomorrow morning. I owe you a confirmed tomorrow. I think I can do it. I think I can move things around. And then, will you be here tomorrow? I've got the historical society thing at 7 the select board meeting is at 6 yes we'll be up in the agenda after public complaints and legible lesions yeah it's the first right and our purpose for the meeting tomorrow is yes I can be there so [2:06:04] Chair (Planning Board): tomorrow's just a validated required by ordinance you open a meeting you close [2:06:10] Planning Board member: the meeting we walk out the door correct it is a public hearing on the land menus, ordinance, provisions that are on the November ballot. Okay. For the multifamily? [2:06:21] Chair (Planning Board): So can I ask a... [2:06:23] Planning Board member: That's for the home occupation. [2:06:25] Chair (Planning Board): Just a couple of quick questions on that. Thank you for sending these out again. They are on the elections and voting site for the town as well. But just a couple of nits. Just because I feel like I ought to understand it. I think we were given a heads up by Galen, and he went through what the change was in the home occupation that the type of them that the type A was going to, the conditional use was now going to come to the planning board rather than the zoning board of appeals that all, I think we all said yeah we could do that. Silly us. The changes on road construction, filling and grading, which are to 240 as well. I had one question on it. It says it's a change that basically is saying instead of a single family or two family dwelling, now it's just going to say two dwelling units and so on and so forth. It's just changing the nomenclature to allow for the changes that are coming. But one thing caught my eye and it says on the one that's just going to be two dwelling units now, what is currently single family or two family, it says a driveway slash private road 50 feet long shall not be less than 12 feet wide with a minimum 5 foot setback from the lot line, which I thought was interesting. It reminded me that, at least in that case, that's closer than the 15 foot side setback. And I know we have examples of that in the town that's not new. But then that language is absent for Three dwelling units or four dwelling units, and I wondered if that was purposeful or isn't an oversight We only going to allow it to be [2:08:22] Planning Board member: Closer, that's a good question I can certainly take a look into that and we can send you an email tomorrow morning [2:08:28] Chair (Planning Board): But it's right as it reads right now. It's only for The single, you know, and that seems, it seemed wrong to me, but I don't, and it might be just what was intended. That's one. I think there's one more. I think there's just a typo here. I'll show you it afterwards. There's one more has to do with section changes on the appeals procedure for the zoning board of appeals, and that happens to be in 240, the land use ordinance. It's a section we don't usually look at, but it says after the public hearing the Zoning Board of Appeals shall vote on the applicant adding the words quote vote on the application with a majority of the members present before making finding of facts, and it pluralizes facts. I wondered what is [2:09:34] Planning Board member: going on there. So I think that this is, I think it's a bit of a just a semantic issue perhaps, but the people do make an application for an appeal. I think that this is simply clarifying the zba's own language in their appeals process. So the zba part is not referring to the home occupation anymore, it's, but people do still make applications to the zba, so they still have to come to us, we're going to have to deal with them, and right, so they still do have an application procedure for appeals, so that and they do write a findings of facts. Well, the home occupation, that's not the one that comes to us. Oh no, that goes to the code office. So this is just if the code office issues a building permit from a real zoning appeal, right, yeah. So it's just [2:10:22] Chair (Planning Board): a change for that. Can I just mention to you that it is a finding of fact, not a finding of facts, in every other case in the whole ordinance, so someone's decided to add an s here. I don't know, I don't know why. Duly noted. Okay. Okay. So I'll be there. I think you're hearing that. I hope to be. We're going to try to make it. [2:10:45] Planning Board member: George, I'll let you know if someone else can make it in your stead. It would be great to call everybody else. And if not, I can do it. I've got a thing at 7. Okay. We'll be out before then. Motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. I would second that. [2:10:56] Chair (Planning Board): All in favor? Or everybody? And who was it that made that motion? I did. He did. No. Peter. I echoed it. I vote for a second.