Portland Planning Board approves self-storage plan at 97 Warren Avenue

[13:08] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Okay. Are we ready to go? [13:14] Austin Smith: We are ready when you are. Great. [13:19] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): So welcome, everybody, to the remote planning board meeting for April 28th, 2026. This meeting is being held hybrid, both remotely via Zoom and in person. Before we begin, I'd like to address some housekeeping issues regarding public comment. Any written comments received prior to this meeting were made available to the board for their review. In order to provide public comment during the meeting, it must be provided verbally. Members of the public attending the meeting remotely via phone or computer do not have speaking privileges enabled when joining a meeting. In order to provide public comment, members of the public must indicate their interest speaking at the appropriate time. If participating with a computer, you would use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest. This is turned on or off with a hand icon located at the bottom of your screen. Please ensure you are logged on to the meeting under your real name, not an alias or username, so that we can call on you properly. If listening to this meeting on a standard telephone or cell phone, you indicate your interest in speaking by pressing star 9 at the appropriate time. In either case, when you are called on, please wait until the moderator asks you to unmute yourself. Once unmuted, please state your name and address. Address, you will then have three minutes to provide your comment. At the end of the period, your microphone will be muted again. If you have any problems during the meeting, you can email planning at portlandmaine.gov. Staff will try to monitor the email and respond if appropriate. With that, Matt, maybe we have a roll call. Yes. Bev Uhlenhag. Here. [15:00] Austin Smith: Austin Smith. Here. Here. David Silk, here. Nicholas Messina, here. Eric Dinn, here. Kelsey Robertson, here. And Joseph Samboni, here. [15:11] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): On our agenda tonight, we noticed a workshop and that workshop is not being held tonight. So 410 Auburn Street, Greenmars Real Estate Services, not being held. With that, I'll go to Communication and Reports. We have a report of the past workshop and public hearing and reports of decisions at the meeting held on April 14, 2026. Any objections or amendments to that? Not hearing any, I'll move to New Business. And Matt, we are going to table this one to a [15:51] Austin Smith: date certain, is my understanding? That is correct. That'll be the 221 Congress Street. [15:57] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): So 221 Congress Street, Green Mars Real Estate Services is the applicant. The planning board will not hold a hybrid public hearing on the application to facilitate construction of a seven-story mixed-use building with 87 residential units and ground floor retail space at 221 Congress Street within the B2B business zone. I would entertain a motion to table that. Second. Is there a second? [16:28] Austin Smith: Chair Zamboni. So the board is being asked to table the public hearing for 221 Congress Street to a date certain of May 12th, I believe it is. Okay. [16:42] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Friendly amendment to your motion. [16:48] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): I'll make a motion or an amendment to the motion to table the 221 Congress Street hearing to the May 12th planning board meeting. Is there a second? [17:02] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Okay, we have a second. Any discussion? Any further discussion on that issue? [17:09] Austin Smith: Matt, will you do a roll on that? Yes. Bet you will make? Yes. Austin Smith? Yes. David Silk? Yes. Nicholas Him? Nicholas? Yes. Eric and? Yes. Kelsey Robertson? Yes. Justin Bonin? Yes. [17:24] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Yes. Great. And so we will move to next item, which is 97 Warren Avenue. This is Peachtree Acquisitions. The applicant planning board is holding up hybrid public hearing to consider an application to facilitate the construction of a four-story self-storage building with 11 parking spaces at 97 Warren Avenue within the B4 commercial corridor zone. Project and plan summary are available for folks on the city's CSS portal by referencing plan number PL003487-2025. So we'll hear from the city first on this, and then we'll go to the applicant. [18:27] Unidentified speaker (Staff Planner): Okay. So good evening, chairs and members of the board. Tonight we are hosting a hearing for the proposed development at 97 Warren Avenue. So the applicant on this project is Peachtree Acquisitions and Haley Ward. The subject property is located within the B4 Coverture Corridor Zone. The applicant is proposing to create a four-story, self-storied building with 633 units and 11 off-street parking spaces. This application is being referred to the planning board for compliance with the City of Portland's Land Use Code Site Plan Standard 13.6.4. So, the subject property is located at Warren Avenue. The site is currently undeveloped and forested to the north. The site abuts a residential area with near by single family residence to the east. The property is surrounded by industrial and business communities to the west and south. The surrounding area consists of commercial and industrial development along Warren Avenue. So here is the zoning cortex map. The subject property is in 3-4 zone and surrounded by RN1 to the north and IN zone to the south. The proposed major site plan application would facilitate the development of a 4-storey self-storage building. Here are some key features of the proposed development that include 11 off-street parking spaces, a central loading area, landscaping, slow storage area, a retaining vault, enclosed dumpster pad, screening trees near the parking area, a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the site frontage, and an underground stormwater management system. These are the elevations for the proposed project with four storey and a total building height of 50 feet. The proposed project is in B4 zone and is not subject to design review. So here is the landscaping plan for the proposed project. The applicant is preserving 82% that is 19 existing trees of 16 dbh or inches dbh or greater within the rare setback to provide visual buffering from the cylindrical structure located north of the project site. The proposed project includes 8 street trees along Gordon Avenue, 15 shade and screening trees in the parking area. The project site presents an important opportunity to support the reverted neighborhood byway. Neighborhood byways are the third type of bicycle facility the city is working to implement citywide alongside traditional bike lanes, bicycle lanes and shared use pathways. Citywide an approximate 30 mile network of these byways have been identified, connecting neighbourhood centres, open spaces, parks, schools and transportation hubs. As shown in the map here, the neighbourhood byway connects directly to the Moran Avenue sidewalk adjacent to the proposed development. To help implement this future connection, staff from Planning and Public Works has been working with African to secure easements in the southwest corner of the site. The exact location of these easements will be finalized as a condition of approval. In coordination with the staff, the applicant has also shifted the proposed driveway to the northwest and narrowed down the driveway to 23. This adjustment creates space for a future neighborhood driveway and a future crossing of Modern Avenue. Overall, the applicant has been coordinating with the city staff throughout this process and has been considered responsible and open to making these adjustments. The applicant is proposing on-site stormwater detention and treatment with runoff directed to underground chambers and treated through a filtration system before discharge through the city system on Water Avenue. The proposed westerly storm drain connection is not approved by Public Works. Therefore, staff recommends that applicants shall revise the design to extend the Water Avenue storm drain and connect to a new terminus manhole as shown in the picture. The city has received two public comments regarding the application. Concerns raised include repurposing existing nearby sites rather than developing an undeveloped lot, potential impacts to wildland habitat, environmental impacts of site clearing, security, lighting and spillover effects on the surrounding neighbourhood. The applicant also held a neighborhood meeting on December 17, 2025, to build off six members of the public attended in the in-person meeting, comments from the attendees centered on construction management and timeline, on-site cooperation and staffing, tenthely policies and restrictions, treat preservation and neighborhood impacts. Now I'll pass it over to the applicant to take a look at the restrictions. [23:12] John Whitten, Jr.: All right, thank you. I'm John Whitten, Jr. I'm a civil engineer with Haley Ward. [23:17] Jack Barton: I'm Jack Barton. I'm the part of the applicant department. [23:22] John Whitten, Jr.: So, thanks for having us. We also have Jeff Gibbons and Dawn Alexander on as part of the applicant team. They're the architecture group that did the building design. And so, if you have questions directly on the building, I think one of those two would be the best to answer this question. I guess I will just point out a few things. Very good summary by Nina. I think a couple things to point out is that the building itself is around 22,000 square feet. Again, it would be four stories. We do have just one entrance, eleven parking spaces, and landscaped areas and snow storage areas around. This line here is a approximately five-foot tall retaining wall, and that enables us to change grade without having to cut trees in the rear 20-foot portion of the site. As was covered earlier, there's 19 trees that are over 16 inches in diameter at breast height. Some of them are significantly over that diameter. And we thought that was important to keep that stretch as natural as possible. And there's a large area in the back that will not be disturbed are as well, and so all of the vegetation in that area will be retained, I think, from sapling to the mature trees that are there. The two staff requested that we add a privacy fence along the back property line as well as retaining those trees. Yep, and the street to that, and the city requested a access construction maintenance easement across the southwestern corner of the site, which is another area that's not being disturbed as part of this project, and the African is willing to deal with the city to finalize an easement through there to support the byway that was mentioned earlier, and so that will be done prior to certificate of occupancy. We reviewed the city's request for a connection of the stormwater to a male versus a youth catch basin that it had out, and that still works drainage wise, and we are in agreement with that, and finally the condition of approval, and honestly can finalize that this week. In general, the use of the building is self-storage. There's no outside storage proposed. There is an exterior dumpster, it'll be fenced, located in this area of the parking lot. The entrance to the site is limited to a central loading area. Look at it here, middle of the site, and then office entrance, manager's entrance, a little bit down from that. So all access to the storage units will be interior. And we've left enough room here where people can bring a truck and trailer, 40-foot box truck, into the site, back up park in front of the central loading area load unload, and then be able to pull out of the site. We don't expect honestly to have 11 cars here at one time very often, and the traffic impacts would be very limited to Warren Avenue due to this use. We have substantial site distance in either direction, and working with the city we've put the entrance in an area that's attractive to them to possibly bring a crosswalk across Warren Avenue in the future to intersect at this side of Bishop Street extension. This is the one of the last, if not the last undeveloped sites, certainly on this end of Warren Avenue. We understand that there are a number of mature trees that will be taken down for this project. The disturbance area is right around an acre, just under an acre, and we feel that we're we're leaving the chile trees to the north, to the south, and along the back property line, if You plan west, and feel that the preservation of trees in that area offers connection between other wooded areas, forested areas behind the buildings to our east, and then running northwesterly along paper streets that eventually will connect out to Sinai Cemetery and beyond, which is an area that the city's looking at to push this byway out in that direction. So we, you know, lighting, we just have one pull mounted light at the two way parking areas at the back of the parking lot, and then just a handful of wall-mounted lights. Everything is interior and capped downward, and no lighting proposed at the rear of the site or along the east wall. Those areas will be allowed to retain or grow vegetation in the future whatever is to disturb it's the only other thing i bring up is that there's a existing detention ditch detention basin along this eastern property line switched rating plan kind of shows that detention area there is an easement granted to the neighboring property to the east from this property to have their don't want to run out detained in this area and in that easement any improvements to it would just be to the owner of the subject parcel would be responsible for any financial costs to change that detention base in an effort to keep things the way they are and not have any negative impact on the partners to the east. We have designed our stormwater system to maintain the same flooding elevation in all the 210 and 25-year storms between those two buildings and focused our treatment and detention in the new part of the site so that we meet the urban impaired watershed regulations for treatment and the flooding standards for the one inch runoff event being two, 10, 25 years. The treatment detention is provided, by pipes that are under the pavement, and treatment is provided by a jellyfish proprietary device, which is a round tent that goes in the ground and has a bunch of filters in it, and that has the ability to treat runoff at a high flow with relatively low maintenance. That those filters need to be inspected and cleaned out periodically, and the applicant will have a system for that in place. Warren Avenue has existing drainage along the frontage. No impacts to that drainage are proposed. The building will require a new domestic service line and a new fire service line to be connected to the existing 18 inch water lines in Warren Avenue and will be connecting to an existing sewer main in Warren Avenue as well. This particular use does not require connection to gas. We have positioned the building to remain 10 feet away from existing power lines and see no need to have any poles relocated or anything like that and we check the city staff as part of this process and there is a cobra style screw light on a utility pole near the front of the building that will be retained and is has been approved by staff to provide adequate light for the public sidewalk that will be along right now the sidewalk is almost four feet wide that exists out there and only comes into the site a couple hundred feet we will be widening that to five feet at the property line but extending it from the eastern property line all the way to the western and again we're going one curb cut for the property. And I think that is pretty much taking questions. [34:51] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): It's great. And I'll just ask if your team members want to add anything. For Don? No, nothing here. Okay. Questions from the board before we get into public comment. [35:23] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): Oh, sorry. Just the one. century engagement the subject parcel confers the easement to the east property that what you said [35:33] Austin Smith: yes and even though it's on the eastern property it's on their property line right so right it [35:38] John Whitten, Jr.: basically gives permission for that eastern abutter to locate their attention on the subject okay it's an odd situation who maintained it so far the eastern property line yeah there's been no there's been no apparent maintenance by the current owner okay there's been no development on this site [36:06] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): david has a question i think sure you covered the trees and lighting just two other questions one is the staff memo mentions condenser units on the roof can you just review that with us and tell us where they're located in the proximity to the residential neighborhood. And the second is, this going to be open 24-7? You mentioned a manager. Does it have hours during the day or people going to be coming in at night to move things in at will? And so those are my two questions, the condenser units and the level of activity on site. Thank you. [36:50] Jack Barton: Yeah, I can respond to the activity, David. It's going to be open from 930 to 6 p.m. I think access before or after those hours is very limited. We do have very good security systems for our facilities. So if there was a requirement to get in to your unit, you know, before or after hours, you'll need an access code to get in the building. And it's monitored 24-7, but it's not open 24-7. And the facility manager will be there, you know, same as store hours, 9.30 to 6 p.m. So you won't have a rush or people making noises at night trying to get into the building and rummaging their stuff. As for the condenser units, Don or Jeff, do you want to provide some input on that? [37:42] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Team): Yeah, I can provide some input. Put so the condenser units are mainly located on top of the roof and there's a parapet all the way around the roof so there shouldn't be really any noise making its way over to the residential area. There's one condenser unit in the southeast corner of the site, it's behind a stair so there also shouldn't be any sound making its way towards the street and then the adjacent property that building doesn't have any windows or anything on that side either so [38:38] John Whitten, Jr.: There's one condenser unit that will be located if you're looking at the front of the building to the right behind a staircase and next to that detention point I was referring to that's along the eastern lobby line. Everything else will be up in the parapet of the roof. [39:03] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Thank you Nick and David. Any other board questions? [39:09] Austin Smith: In the use standards for self-storage facilities there's a requirement that because outdoor self-storage facilities shall be oriented so that storage unit access doors do not face the public right-of-way. I know the access is not facing the right-of-way, but it appears so, and I'm wondering whether there's context for the standard on the Bayview City side, whether that's like an aesthetic thing or whether it's like a circulation access. Question. Now let me take a quick look at the standard. [39:49] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): Can I ask a question? Question on this elevation of the lower elevation on the right hand side those appear to be windows they're not windows are they no [40:03] Jack Barton: Jeff and Don, correct me if I'm wrong, it's just kind of a specific type of glazing that will almost appear to be a window, but or for kind of storefront appeal, there should be kind of a door, you know, if you ever see a all storage facility in the doors, or should be kind of one of those kind of look like, then there's, if you're driving by and you'll see almost the, it's like the U-Haul model where [40:30] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): they have the windows and you can see the storage unit, a little nicer look. Okay, well, you know, it is a big box and the whole perimeter is storage units, so I, you know, specifically with this elevation, the number of materials makes it, breaks down, makes it more acceptable. Sure. Yeah, no, we didn't want [40:49] Jack Barton: to line up sergeants all the way around, that may not be the best design for traffic. Yeah. [40:58] John Whitten, Jr.: And these are not garage doors on the side. Yeah. Okay, it's just, okay, yeah, it's, it's Jeff, maybe you can talk about that a little bit more, but basically, we had to add features to the wall to meet the 40-foot plain face. [41:23] Austin Smith: Yeah, and just to answer your question on the meaning behind that standard, I think, I think that standard does anticipate a, like, exterior self-storage facility with garage doors, and I'm assuming that has, that standard is really there to prevent there from being vehicles that are, you know, operating in and out of the public right-of-way and interrupting traffic. So, I think in this case, this is a very different model of self-storage facility for all the, you know, kind of operations that are happening in the parking area and the soft streets. [41:56] John Whitten, Jr.: Any other [42:04] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): questions? Clarifications for the board? [42:10] Austin Smith: The five foot retaining wall that's supposed to hold back what, 20 feet of vegetation, is pretty big trees that like structurally embedded or like, you know, are those trees going to survive? Yeah, they, we believe there's ample room for those trees [42:26] John Whitten, Jr.: to survive. There's, there's 20 feet, but those trees are more toward the, they're definitely in center of that, and that retaining wall gives them the best chance to survive at all, because if we didn't have that, the chain did great with, it's just a one-maker that was best to push that as far as we could and preserve those treaty guys, right? I mean, I guess I'm not [42:57] Austin Smith: familiar with like how successful that is, that like a fairly common approach to that problem. Other [43:15] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): clarifications. All right. Let's open it up for public comment. Again, three minutes. Kelsey, do you want to do the room? [43:32] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): Sure. If anyone in the room would like to provide public comment, you can come up to the podium up here. Like Joe just said, three minutes, and we will give you a 30-second warning. So invite anyone who would like to comment to come up to the podium now. am [43:53] Chandler Green: i just thinking yeah i can keep this really short so i live giving your name oh yeah i'm chandler green in your echo nine range street thank you so my property is going to be close to the storage facility i think it's just like one property over joyce right here is my neighbor so my one request and concern with this is just making sure there's enough trees and vegetation to create a barrier so the folks living on our street just aren't staring at the storage facility and i think that would be an interest of the storage facility as well to have a bit of a barrier there so that's really my one request for you all [44:46] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): Anyone else in the room like to comment? I'm not seeing any movement, Joe. Okay. [44:57] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Thank you, Kelsey. We'll move online. So I do see one hand up. [45:10] Chandler Green: Erin, you should be able to unmute. Okay. [45:16] Erin: This is Erin. I live at 40 Avalon Road in Portland. And I have a couple of questions. I had submitted public comment. There is already a storage space at 80 Warren Ave, 0.1 miles away. I'm curious why we need another one and if a study was performed to address that need. Self-storage spaces don't typically add to community engagement in that there are dead zones, no engagement with the public, no retail. If this is one of the last undeveloped sites, couldn't we get something that brings more value to the community at large? I'm curious about that figure of 19 trees being 82% of the salvage of the existing trees. I'd love to see a tree count of the current trees and also recognizing that natural habitat is more than the trees that are there. It's the animals, it's the ground, the dirt, everything in that environment. I'm wondering if there's a plan to address traffic that may occur, an uptick in traffic on Avalon and Dorothy for folks who might believe there's other access to that site outside of Warren Avenue. What the plan is to address folks who utilize the space to conduct business from the site, you know, storage, restaurant storage, whatever type of business or attempts for people to reside there. I noted one entrance was pointed out. I'm curious how many exits and where those exits lead. And I noted somebody mentioned that the site will be monitored, but what's the plan if, while the site's being monitored and an active crime, something dangerous happens, what's in place for an immediate response? [46:56] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Thank you for your comments. Let's see, we have another hand up. [47:07] Chandler Green: Mitch, you should be able to unmute. [47:11] Mitch Sacks: Hey, good afternoon, Mitch Sacks. I live at 32 Varel Streets. I called in, I'm sure the folks in the planning board did the site walk and noticed the kind of community built walkway or bike path, what have you, that cuts through the property connecting to Range Street and then terminating at Warren. So I saw this site being built, I was a little sad that may go away, but now since listening to this presentation I'm thrilled and excited to hear that it sounds like, kind of neighborhood byway, maybe built through the property to preserve that. I just want to say regarding, like, bike access in the city, especially Outer Forest Ave, there's no safe way to get from, like, the Riverton area up to Stevens Ave without going on Forest Ave or using kind of this bike path off Rain Street and then crossing Rossingboron, going up through the UNE campus and terminating at Stevens. So if the city could really push for that and ensure that sort of path is built into this development, that would be great for me, great for a number of other folks. I know you use a path. It's part of a Tuesday night mountain bike ride, group ride that a bike shop puts on. and without it you know i try to use the path as much as i can for errands and getting up to that area of town and without that path there it's probably going to be a trip that i take by car because i really don't like riding bike on outer forest ave especially then going through the intersection near like bishop and allen street and that's about it hopefully your developer can weigh in more about what this byway may look like but throw it here that it might be something so thank you thank [49:19] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): you for your comments thank you for being here others online use the raise hand feature i see a handout but i think that's aaron who already went okay i'm going to close the public portion and board members feel free to ask questions but i guess my first question would go back to the applicant for that last question okay [49:53] John Whitten, Jr.: Yeah, so I know I had about a 15-minute discussion with staff on this byway plan. So all I know is that this is a project that's in the works with the planning staff with the city. And from my understanding, they are looking at constructing a approximately 10-foot-wide multi-use trail system, and it would enter our site, the African site, from this paper street just off the southwest corner, traverse the southwest corner of our subject property, intersects with these Warren Avenue sidewalk that will be constructed as part of this project and then the city is looking at providing a an actual pedestrian bike crossing of Warren Avenue over to Bishop Street extension. Again the construction of the pathway and of that crossing is not directly related to this project. The project is the applicants are willing to get kind of a blanket easement over the undeveloped portion in the southwest corner of the city to finalize construction plans for that. It is my understanding that the overall goal of this byway is to do exactly what Mitch was saying is connect Riverton Stevens and then even beyond that connecting neighborhood to neighborhood through portal I guess. Staff you have things to add to that [51:50] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Thank you. I'll just since applicants since you're speaking can you just do a quick review of entrances and exits again? Sure. [52:02] John Whitten, Jr.: So we have one curb cut that's 20 feet wide at the intersection of Warren Avenue. That is the entrance and the exit to the 11 parking spaces. There's no vehicle access point other than that. The only other pedestrian entrance we have is on the eastern side of the building that provides access for an emergency exit from the building on an otherwise locked door. [52:36] Austin Smith: And I'll just note for everyone's benefit as well, so I mean the use the proposed use is the self-storage facility is a low traffic generating use. We don't anticipate there being much in terms of traffic generation coming from the use. One curb cut serving 11 parking spaces is appropriate. The project's been reviewed by the city's third party traffic engineer. There was no concerns raised as to how the entrance is arrayed or you know any impacts to surrounding streets traffic so Matt [53:09] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): can you speak to whether or not you know a storage unit needs to be necessary for the application because there are other storage units around [53:20] Austin Smith: Correct, yeah, so the proposed use as a self-storage facility, it's a permitted use within the B4 zone, which is the, that's what the property is owned for. And so from the city's standpoint, in the purview of the planning board, you know, the applicant is within their right to proceed with an application for that use, regardless of whether there are other similar uses nearby, as long as they're meeting all applicable site plan standards, zoning requirements, which [53:49] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): in staff's opinion they are. So this, oh, go ahead, sorry to cut you off, Joe, regarding the overall [53:59] Jack Barton: supply, I mean, I know Kate kind of mentioned regarding the site across the street, you know, if you go look up reviews on some of these older products and supply in the market of Portland, you'll get reviews about, you know, rat infestations or rodents, break-ins, etc. You know, there are more facilities like the one we're proposing in South Portland, kind of through our initial due diligence, there's a Extra Space facility at River or 150 Riverside Street, which is pretty similar to this product that we are bringing to the market. So, you know, how we look at things, it's typically dictated by, you know, a three to four mile radius, which, you know, in terms of a secure institutional product that really can serve, you know, demand well, it is just that 150 Riverside Street. You know, it is a permitted use, but we also wouldn't just come to the market and put up a facility like this for no reason. It has to make sense on our end as well, and we do believe, you know, additional supply in the market will help cool down rental rates. Occupancy percentages in this market range from 94 to 97 percent for product type, and really this might just get relieved to, you know, some existing demand out there, a little bit lower of a rental rate compared to market facilities. So we do think it makes sense selfishly, but we know that this can be a good project for Warren Ave as well as existing residents of Portland. [55:46] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Matt, do you, would you be able to speak to how that the tree, you know, we don't have a tree count per se, but how that works? [55:55] Austin Smith: Yeah, so the city has a site plan requirement around there are a number of environmental protection site plan requirements, one of which is landscape preservation, which requires that a certain percentage of significant trees within setback areas are preserved. So they have demonstrated as part of their tree survey that they are doing that, particularly in the rear setback between their property and Rain Street are some of the residential streets to the rear of the property. They're also meeting what the city's low-impact development requirement, which has kind of more far-ranging environmental protection standards around wetland protection, tree preservation, impact to areas with steep slopes, pervious surface ratios, for example. Bowl and so they provided a scorecard and a narrative that explains how the project is compliant with those standards as well. Thank you to follow up on that Joe if I understand the [57:00] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): planting plan correctly at Range Street behind the retaining wall you are supplementing that existing tree stand with additional trees. Yes, and I noticed there the hornbeam and the spruce would you consider changing a hornbeam to something evergreen to sort of bolster that buffering and has you know all year. Yes, possibilities just to make it a bit more aggressive. I assume that those trees are all mature and if you could supplement it and be understory it might be a more successful buffer. Good comment so [57:43] John Whitten, Jr.: I'm absolutely willing to do that is also going to be behind an equal screen thanks from the from the [57:54] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): residential neighborhood looking I interpreted the screen fence as being at [57:58] John Whitten, Jr.: the retaining wall. No, it's actually along that property line so it makes sense. Okay, and still be south of it and stuff. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, well I think it's a good [58:18] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): yeah I don't think these guys are I withdraw the comment I mean the hornbeams would work just [58:25] Jack Barton: as well so okay. Yeah, I mean I think we're open to comments we want to obviously work with the neighbors and make sure you're not walking outside and getting an eyesore by any means. Obviously we're trying to design a little better for that but yeah if there's any other recommendations on some potential trees that may or may not work better I think we're open hearing that and [58:45] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): to clarify on the 19 trees and the 82 percentage that's 82 percent of the large 16 inch DBH or above trees not 82 percent of all trees on the site. Ah that's right and it's it's [58:59] John Whitten, Jr.: As Matt mentioned, it's within the, it's within the setback areas of the top three, so we're, we're retaining, yes. Yeah, all right. So there are just, this plan shows all trees that are 16 inches diameter at breast height on the property. We're retaining 19, you know, we are eliminating probably 35. We do have supplemental plantings to add to that and to comply with the cyclone standards to make it appealing from this, from the curve. I [1:00:00] Austin Smith: have another question on the, easement. So, you know, I have heard of a lot of, like a lot of people use that byway I think, and I see in staff notes it's, it's a condition of a CO. What prevents the applicant from building on that area and the easement not going through? Like I think it is an important part of like neighborhood access. Yeah, so the easement would confer rights to the city to build, construct, maintain like a paved or improved, you know, trail, ultramodal trail through that portion of the site. So they wouldn't, they wouldn't obviously what they're getting approved for now is a building with parking area that doesn't extend into that easement area. The condition of approval is specifically to grant, essentially gives the applicant time to work with the city to develop the full language of the reason for the city's satisfaction, and so before they're able to construct and then occupy the self-storage facility, they would need to have that, they would need to execute the easement with the city, and the city at this point doesn't have funds allocated to actually construct the easement or to construct the byway itself, but again as part of the future, the CIP requests to build out that trail system to [1:01:31] John Whitten, Jr.: just clarify, I don't know if it mentions it in here, but that would include construction, maintenance, and access for utilities as well as a paid pathway. There is a private sewer that runs through there, it's not on any city records, but we apparently over the years have found a manhole back there and there is flow. It's been represented on our survey plan and public works mentioned in our on-site meeting that, you know, it would like that added with this, you know, if the walkway were to be lighted at Some point it would want the rights to be able to put power lines along that path, and at this point it's, it's an easement over an area. We expect that to narrow down a bit, but we're willing to, we kind of crowded that area in because we want One, we're not developing that site, and two, I think everyone would like the room to be able to meander between some mature trees with that pathway and not just have a 20-foot straight line that, you know, would be a detriment to this. So that's the stuff that has to be worked out as these guys move. [1:03:05] Austin Smith: Has the paper street behind continued? [1:03:10] John Whitten, Jr.: It's been continued. The paper street along the back of the property is vacated. I don't know the condition of the paper street here, but it's undeveloped at this point. I can't remember if that's... Tyler Street. Tyler Street, yeah. Tyler Street, yeah. But that was mentioned as the route or the path would be down Tyler through the property. [1:03:38] Austin Smith: But nothing about your proposed development, but you're not as drawn, the slot doesn't go to the center line of that vacant it's it yes at one time that vacant street took up about 20 [1:03:52] John Whitten, Jr.: feet of this property okay it's been absorbed by the property in i think 1997. okay wait [1:04:11] Austin Smith: Isn't there a separate process for any if it was if it was not continued in 97 or 2017 or whatever. Is there a separate process for them taking the vacated street and giving it to the butters? And has that been completed? There is. I believe it has. I think at this point, that portion of the vacated street is part of this property. But if in other circumstances, yes, if there's a, you know, a segment of a vacated street that he is a process for a property owner's condition to have a second of it so very yeah [1:04:49] John Whitten, Jr.: And it shows up on city mass so there is a section here that is has not been taken by any private corners it's still just a piece of land that i guess is on my city but other lots have taken over that land and i'm not a surveyor but we do have a survey from 2005 we have a survey from 2018 and we have a survey from 2025 no 2026 from three different companies and they all show the same property what else so i'm i'm gonna go with that this was [1:05:32] Austin Smith: Properly somebody says yeah okay [1:05:41] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Other questions clarifying comments it feels like the board is on track for an agreement do [1:05:53] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): We have a motion. Make a motion on site plan review based on the information, application, plans, reports, through testimony at the Planning Board hearing, and other information submitted by the applicant. The Planning Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the Planning Board report for the public hearing on April 28, 2026, for application PL-003-487-2025, 97 Warren Avenue, relevant to the site plan regulations, and finds that the plan is in conformance with the site plan standards of the land use code, subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to applying for a building permit, one as written, and prior to issuance of a certificate occupancy, two as written. We [1:06:41] Austin Smith: have a second. I'll [1:06:44] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): second. [1:06:47] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Any further discussion? Not hearing any, Matt, we do a roll. [1:06:56] Austin Smith: Benuel and Hank? Yes. Austin Smith? Yes. David Silk? Yes. Nicholas Messina? Yes. Eric Din? Yes. Kelsey [1:07:04] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): Robertson? Yes. Justice Simone? Yes. Do we have a motion on decision? Yes, I will make a motion on [1:07:13] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Member): the Planning Board decision that, on the basis of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the Planning Board report for the public hearing on April 28th, 2026, related to application PL-003487-2025 for 97 Warren Avenue, which is attached to the draft approval letter and incorporated therein, the Planning Board adopts the findings and conclusions in the April 22nd, 2026 Planning Board report and the approval letter as drafted as the Planning Board's decision for application PL-0038487-2025 and authorizes the Planning Board chair to sign the approval letter [1:07:50] Unidentified speaker (Planning Board Chair): as drafted. Second? No second. Thank you, David. Any further discussion? Not hearing any, Matt, will you do a roll? Pat Uehlenhank? Yes. Austin Smith? Yes. David Silk? Yes. Nicholas Messina? Yes. Eric N? Yes. Kelsey Robertson? Yes. Joseph Zamboni? Yes. So thank you to the city for preparing a report and to the applicant. And we had good comments. Thank you for joining us. That's the end of our agenda for the evening.