Planning Board reviews affordable housing and mixed-use projects in hybrid meeting

[9:02] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Welcome to the planning board meeting for May 12th, 2026. This meeting is being held 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 public comment during the meeting and must be provided verbally. [9:30] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): For news of the public attending the meeting remotely, we have shown our computers do not [9:34] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: have speaking privileges enabled when joining the meeting. For public comment, members of the public must indicate their interest in speaking at the appropriate time. If participating in the meeting with a computer, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest. This is toggled on or off with the hand icon located near the bottom of your screen. Please ensure that you are locked into 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 may indicate your interest in speaking by pressing star 9. In either case, after you are called on, please wait until the moderator asks you to unmute yourself. Once unmuted, please state your name and address. You will then have three minutes to provide your comment. At the end of that period, your microphone will be muted again. Finally, if you experience problems during the meeting, you may email planning at portlandmaine.gov. Staff will try to monitor this email and respond if appropriate. Andrew, can you have your microphone? Absolutely. Beverly Ulanik? Here. Austin Smith, recused. David Silk, recused. Nicholas Messina? Here. Eric Dent? Here. Kelsey Robertson? Here. And Joseph Zamboni, absent. Okay, so we will start off with our workshop. We have one item today for our workshop. It's a major site plan, 1871 Forest Avenue. Avesta Housing Development Corporation is the applicant. planning board will hold a hybrid workshop to consider an application for the construction of a four-story approximately 28 000 square foot multi-family building at 1871 forest avenue in the b12 no b2 community business zone the proposed development includes 33 dwelling units 100 of which would be affordable in eight parking spaces project and plan summary are available for viewing on the city's css portal there it's in plan number peel dash zero three five three [11:26] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): Eight dash twenty six, thank you. Right here, Robertson and members of the board, my name is Roma McCallister and I'll be providing an overview of 1871 Forest Avenue. The applicant is A Best Housing, represented by Acorn Engineering. They exhibited a major safe plan application to facilitate the construction of the 33 unit multi-family residence presidential building at subject property in the B2 zone. The proposed residence will be administered under the Home for Good program with ground floor office space for staff support. The excuse me, this site is situated along for sap to the west of I-95. There are multiple commercial and industrial uses within a quarter mile of the site, primarily on the western side, the interstate. Nearby residential uses also include single family homes and multiple multi family developments, including a new 41 unit residence at Riverton Park. Metro also provides a bus transit via the number two and three routes along this corridor door. The zoning as stated is in the B2 zone. Industrial and residential zones are also nearby. [12:46] Speaker D (unidentified): The subject circle the [12:50] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): site is approximately 144 000 square feet. It contains an approximately 9 000 square foot baking commercial restaurant with 59 parking spaces. There is a significant change in grade throughout the site and wetlands and mature trees cover the more western side of the western rear side of the property and an informal footpath extends from Fordstaff to the rear of the property towards Hansford. The proposed development itself is situated on the eastern side of the parcel and like I said it would provide 33 affordable units for constantly homeless individuals under the Plan for Good program. There is some additional residential development completed at this site, but for tonight this site does stand alone for review. The proposal provides eight parking spaces, six street trees, improved sidewalks, and a crosswalk as well. We've also received some updated architecturals as shown here, and the applicant has submitted a handful of requests as well. The first is to it is a waiver from the cyclone standard regarding parking and vehicle display a lot landscaping, so essentially to provide some movies adjacent to the parking rather than in a landscaped island. They're also requesting a waiver from the bicycle parking requirements, so in both cases that compared to board discussions with the applicant in more detail the applicant has also requested a technical manner waiver from the technical manual regarding private connections into the city catch basins staff from water resources appear to be supportive of this connection and so are supportive of allowing waivers for a direct connection the applicant plan also submitted a request for a bill to exemption As shown in this slide, you can see that they're providing or proposing a 12.5 front yard setback, which is greater than the 10-foot build-to-zone in the B-2 district. The applicant has stated that the building setback is limited by a 15-foot setback from the overhead utility line. And as you may know, the planning board can provide an exception to the build-to-zone for unusually shaped lots, as long as there's a continuous a pedestrian edge treatment with street trees and other plantings along the front of the building. So again, staff would encourage the board to discuss the applicant's ability or their reasoning for this exemption. Potentially the board could explore widening the sidewalks or seeking if the applicant would relocate the utility lines underground, but all right, the other point I just want to just call out here, obviously there's one more extensive staff comment a collection found in the attachments to your memo, but to call out this specific comment here, staff has requested that given the most residents will utilize the public sidewalks and transit that as a primary transportation, staff has requested a revision of the crosswalk as shown here, as well as improvements to the existing transit paths to approve ADA, et cetera. So for the board's consideration, I'd encourage you to consider the bill to exemption, the waivers requested, some of the staff comments about sidewalk transit improvements, [16:48] Speaker E (unidentified): and then just the fact that this is a standalone [16:50] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): load residential development on the site, and then in closing one public product has been submitted and the applicant did hold a public artesian neighborhood meeting on March 18th, which comes from the attendees including safety concerns questions are proposed it's going for a good program and it just looks half a lot can occur in addition to other ones [17:25] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: turn over to the applicant can please introduce yourselves and your business [17:30] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): My name is Ron Effecto, I work over in on the development team at Avesa Housing. You're not there, I'm Dr Thanks over at Science Working. [17:38] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): I'm Alex, go back here, I'm a landscape architect at Acorn Engineering, and Samuel Bell, civil [17:44] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: engineer with Acorn Engineering, yeah. [17:50] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Well, thank you for the overview of the proposed development. We're excited to bring this, is excited to bring this proposed development to 1871 Forest Avenue. For those of you who may not know, Hope for Good is a program that the Maine legislature created a couple of years ago as a means to addressing chronic homelessness in the state. We had previously had a proposal to have a program like this at 197 Officer Street, had a previous site plan approval for that. Unfortunately, things had to shift around due to financing, and we ended up shifting that program, that proposed program, to this site at 1871 Forest. Standing alone versus the program that's proposed at 197, which included two different programs within one building, we're excited that we're able to secure this site, excited to have the opportunity to bring 33 homes that will support people who have experienced chronic homelessness, providing them with permanent supportive housing with 24-7 support services on-site, which we can talk more about during tonight's proceedings. We have developed three other sites similar to this in the City of Portland. Avesta has been the developer and property manager in partnership with Crevel Street, which has been the service provider. Portland is not alone. The Home for Grit program is supporting four other sites [19:26] David Hingston (Public Commenter): in the state of Maine. [19:27] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Those sites include Augusta, Bangor, Auburn, and Sanford. And so we're all currently working through, all five of us, working through site plan approval and getting these things built in communities across the state to support families, people who have experienced chronic homelessness. So with that, I'll turn it over to Sam and to go through the more finer details and I'll be happy to chime in with those. Great. [19:54] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ryan. So first just kind of taking a look at the vicinity map at the 30,000 foot view. Of course, we've got the subject parcel here in the middle outlined in red. Just left of that running up and down the page, Riverside going towards Falmouth to the north. The Persumscot River is shown in blue. You've got the I-95 corridor running north-south, and then, of course, Forest Ave, looking at all. Zooming in a few frames here, once again, the property line outlined in red is a 3.4-acre site. I'm sure most of you have driven by the old Tortilla Flats building that is kind of perched up on the hill. There's a retaining wall that kind of runs along the middle of the site, dot built that about 10 years ago to accommodate a road widening and median and, you know, bike lane addition to this forest. Have on the left hand side or the west are some undeveloped woods and as well as a pocket of wetlands. Otherwise, you know, the site is pretty well developed and quite a bit of existing impervious area for parking that previously served the restaurant. Shadow lines make it a little bit hard to see, but the pavement does extend pretty far to the east towards the Portland Friends Meeting House hill. As mentioned, the existing residential development across the street. And so flipping one frame here to kind of show the before and after and what we are referring to as phase one for these 33 Home for Good units. We are proposing to demolish the existing building as part of this project and focus our development of phase one here on the easterly side. We do envision a future phase two, another affordable residential project, likely a, you know, more of a traditional light tech project. Those details have not been worked out, but we are kind of preserving the middle of the site where the previous building was and focusing our efforts here on the east. You can see we've aligned the proposed curb cut with the existing development across the street. The building, although in context here it does appear to be, you know, pretty far to the east, we are maintaining a 26 foot side setback at the pinch point and then almost 40 feet to the rear. Overall we are reducing the impervious area, about over 6,000 square feet. We're also working with staff, as Rowan mentioned, to look at some public transit improvements, recognizing this project is going to be heavily reliant on public transportation. So looking at upgrading two of the existing bus stops, one directly across from the proposed development as well, just off the screen near the Hannaford Drive entrance. We would also, you know, we are also looking at repositioning this crosswalk and installing an RFV or a flashing beacon to, you know, increase the pedestrian safety as people navigate across the street to the various bus stops. We'd be reconstructing approximately 215 feet of public sidewalk, and as you'll see kind of in this next frame, looking to actually pull that sidewalk off of Forest Avenue a little bit to create an esplanade and a little bit of buffer so that pedestrian experience isn't directly on the curb line adjacent to the business of Forest Avenue. In the previous iteration and what we submitted, there was a connection shown between our proposed driveway and the rest of the you know kind of pavement and parking that would remain as part of phase one. We have since kind of decoupled those two areas. Previous thought was to perhaps maintain some of that parking for neighbors. We kind of abandoned that proposal, and we'll be looking to install gates at this stub as well as the existing curb cut to prevent trespassing and really kind of just Providing a pretty simple access in here for cave parking spaces, which we anticipate would primarily be for staff. The car ownership ship tends to be extremely low or zero. From a utilities perspective, to the greatest extent possible, we are trying to plan for the phase two, and you can kind of you know build in the ability to provide utility services to a second building. As Rowan mentioned, we've been working with public works to kind of extend the separated storm drain and also you know plug our storm water system into that. All the utilities would be underground. Our storm water management system would consist Of an underground detention and filtration system below the parking lot, as well as a rain garden, which we found kind of a cool opportunity to really make that a focal point right at the front of the site. And so it kind of ties you know the entrance to the sidewalk and kind of a cool landscape feature that Alex will get into in the next part of the presentation. So yeah, pleased to be able to reduce the impervious area, treat approximately 90 of the runoff, and you know decrease the peak flow off of The site. Just speaking to at least one of the waivers here. You know, the setbacks that we are proposing, the 12 and a half feet approximately, which is pretty close to the bill two of zero to 10. And, you know, we felt this was an appropriate waiver to request modifying existing three-phase electric and some of the other utility lines tends to get extremely expensive and complicated and just not something that an affordable housing project can work into the overall finance. And so we are proposing to keep those existing overhead lines as is, and you know, we've found a way to kind of position the building on the site that still provides that direct entrance and connection into the public sidewalk and keeping the, you know, the building relatively close to the street. I'll let, I'll let the rest of the team speak to some of the other site layout and architecture. Happy to discuss any of the other waivers that Rowan mentioned as well, but for now I'll turn it over to Alex to discuss some of the other [27:29] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): site design and landscape architecture. Sure, so I will take it from there. One thing that we've provided, as you can tell, is a number of pathways that run from the newly constructed or proposed sidewalk up to the various entrances of the building. They're meant to really be visible and highlighted, also incorporated, as I mentioned, along that route, our rain garden, a number of planting areas. We've provided foundation plantings on the west face of the building as well as the front Forest Avenue Street facing side. We've shown three bike parking stalls. I can speak a little bit to that waiver request right now. The healing from the property owners that on similar properties, similar our home for good properties, the outdoor parking stalls, I guess bike racks, were going underutilized, if utilized at all, due to the fact that the residents prefer their bikes in their own units. Thus this is sort of a way to accommodate kind of the spirit of that requirement but also not necessarily take out too much of that area with furniture that wouldn't really be utilized. Additionally, we've incorporated a number of smaller and larger tree plantings throughout the site. As has been mentioned, we've only incorporated one parking island tree and it doesn't quite meet the dimensions that are required, but this is really due to the fact that we have to accommodate some considerable sort of turning radii on this parking area for the trash pickup company to access the dumpster in the back of the property as well as sort of to back up and turn around, so that somewhat limited our ability to incorporate those tree islands, but we felt like there was another opportunity To incorporate trees sort of around the entire property. So as this site really fills out and grows, those trees are able to get big and have the larger sort of soil mass, soil area to become sort of the larger mature trees that might be better suited for this property and the number of people that will be on site. For the trees proposed along Warsaw, we're really picking more, these are the smaller pedestrian-scale trees for residents in Sursbury, which are appropriate for those overhead B20 lines, so that's why the different sizing there. We've also provided a private patio for the residents. This would be screened by a wood slap fence, which will be a little bit more visible within the architectural renderings, but incorporating venting on the inside as well as around that exterior and it's really meant to be a flexible space for residents to use but not necessarily feel open and exposed to the street so that they really have their own private space as well move on thank you so if you just show some sections again of that are cut along the sidewalk and forest avenue you can see That there is some grade change there to access the finish floor elevation of the building and patio. So the way that we are mitigating that grade change is to really identify with trees shrubs and the intention too is to create this sort of active street front where the building may not necessarily be at that build to zone the hope is that by providing this planted zone we're able to create this active pedestrian repair and then just looking towards the back of the site we've incorporated Another site wall just again to mitigate the rate change allows to have this open parking area where we're able to access the various entrances that run along that west side of the building so you can see again parked parking area and then again And beyond that, while we're planting, we'll be incorporating some shrubs, as well as the whole place to seed with the more native students to get some higher native plantings, wildflowers, whatever. And that's it. The [32:11] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Architecture a little bit here. On the left is the ground floor plan, and on the right are the upper levels. The three levels above are all the same, so those two, three, and four all look like the image on the right. On the left side you can see the kind of community and common areas are all in the white color, and in the gray is where all the back of house support spaces are, you know, including mechanical, storage, and Breville Street office and administration spaces. That community room in the front is the closest component to the property line and by putting that program in the front and not only does it receive some of the south basic light but it also can interact and create a more engaging street space there are a significant amount of windows there so i'll kind of show this as a public space area even though it is private engagement there the upper levels each have 11 studio apartments for a total of 33 studios in the building there are two egress stairs, both located on the parking street side, so that's similar to create egress out to the parking a lot as opposed to towards the property line, and then there is a central elevator located in the knuckle. These are some of the elevations that we've been working on. The primary facade is wood commodity panels and cementitious panels. There may be some accent materials as well that we're still studying higher value volume. And we have a mansard roof at the one corner to help break down the volume of the building. And you can see the main entry is not located directly onto Forest Ave due to some of the preferences from this type of property. But by creating it just around the corner, we found that we were meeting the intent of having an entry free along Forest Ave. Actually, we're holding it for one more second. Typical blink wall between windows on the primary facade is 9 feet. The maximum is 12 feet. So we are going to be trying to meet 89% window transparency at the first floor, facing Forest Avenue. That's very visible. [34:34] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Okay, now we can jump to the next one. [34:38] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): And these two, I think, speak for themselves. These are the kind of longer facades at the rear and the side of the face, which is mostly colored trees. We go to the next images. This is a view looking east along Forest Avenue, so you can see the main entry at the mansard roof. You know, a three-story building isn't that a typical for Portland, so one story more. We're trying to look at how it, how it feels like a more prototypical for the house with dormers and a porch and even a garden with apologies that community space in there. It has a sports like quality on the inside, make it feel like a home for the individual. If you go to the next image now, we're looking in the other direction west along Forest Avenue. There is an existing tree line that we're working hard to maintain as much as possible, and you can see the Quaker meeting house there just out of the brain, and the next image dissolves those trees so you can see the building is like behind. I think that's all the notes on the architecture. [35:45] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Yeah, thank you. Sure, all right, thank you for that presentation. Board members, questions for staff or the applicants? Any clarifying questions before we move on to comments? I have [36:07] Speaker D (unidentified): one. So this is a multi-family dwelling, but it's got full-time. What's the distinction between like residential care facility more? It is not a residential care [36:23] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): facility. It's an R2. I'm not, you know, the reason why it has to do the level of [36:30] Speaker E (unidentified): care that I assisted. Yeah. [36:35] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): So for folks who over time, a lot of folks who move into a filter grid will stay there, and at some point may to the point where their health needs are greater than what's provided on the site. They would have to move to a facility like Mississippi Living that provides that level of care, but this is not that's not that's not the care that can provide. The staff is there to support residents how to provide health care. [37:10] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Yeah, I mean, I was just going to clarify that when we look at the use classification of housing, it's agnostic to who's going there and what kind of housing it is. It's strictly that, you know, it's a multi-family building and it's allowed in some industry. And that's what we look at. We don't also look at what kind of specific housing is it, you know, for people coming out of homelessness or experiencing homelessness or, you know, you know, any other individual. It doesn't have a lot of features to use, so that's all that's allowed for us. I [Speaker I (unidentified): have any questions.] I just have one. Can you remind me the average size of the units in other studios? [37:55] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Yes, they are covering right about 400 square feet. [37:59] Speaker D (unidentified): Actually, right now. Yeah. [38:01] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I think my other things we can discuss after. Or give me questions right now, we can discuss that. Okay, yeah, all right, and just, and just provide [38:13] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): clarity. Main Housing is aiming for the use to be around for this quickly so that is meeting [38:18] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: the program requirements that's prescribed by the husband. Okay, great. You know, I'll do one clarifying question. Can the city describe how you handle project phasing now? There's no master development plans, so you know, a second project on the same parcel stuff that like doesn't trigger the threshold now, like, say the TDM, how is that handled over multiple projects? So typically in those cases we will look back every time, so in the future if there's a separate phase of development that comes in, it'll be presumably a common ownership scheme for the site, and so from like a TDM standpoint can be cumulative across the entirety of the development, so it, you know, phase two might, for example, trigger a TDM if the use and the programming, you know, surpasses the city's threshold between the two projects. There's nothing that says in the city's ordinance that they need to do a phased development plan, so essentially what we're seeing right now by right, they openly acknowledge that there might be future phases, but you know, for the board's awareness, right, but the city has a phased site land option available, provides obviously some predictability in terms of how things will get flushed out over time, but it's not by any [39:33] Speaker E (unidentified): means for the park. So okay, thank you, and [39:39] Speaker D (unidentified): I think we're sorry, so because one of the waiver requests is for a built-in zone, I noticed that just the, just the first floor is the 12 and a half foot step back, but the subsequent floors are set further back. How do you treat multiple stories? Is it, is it the whole facade, or yes, typically what they [40:02] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: built to it is the entirety of the facade, including, it would be including the ground floor in that measurement. Okay, in this case because it's pushed back they require an extension because we want the entire building needs to be within the whole, the whole frontage if that makes sense, but the [40:17] Speaker D (unidentified): side needs to be within that build to though, right, which they're in, say two and a half feet from the first floor, but quite a bit more than that. Yeah, but if that, so that other floor would have to [40:28] Speaker E (unidentified): It would have to be pushed out. [40:30] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: It would have to be flush. [40:33] Speaker D (unidentified): OK, so there's like, I think I understand what you're saying. Typically, you'd have a flat building on the front. All of that would be within the building. OK, so here, I think it was called out initially as just like a 2 and 1 half foot waiver, like a pretty minimal. But it's actually quite a bit more than that, I guess, though, as far as I understand. So put it back. OK. [40:54] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I think in general, to clarify, it's not a waiver. [40:57] Speaker D (unidentified): It's an exception that you would be granting. [40:58] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Things so it's different in the sense that you would be fun, you would be basically setting a different bill too in this case instead of what's required by the zoning. Okay, yeah, yep, okay, to follow up with what you want with the zoning administrator. [41:17] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Is it possible just to add on to? Yeah, I think another key element of just the living experience for the residents, if you walk down the sidewalk on four step at that point is pretty loud, and the cars are moving pretty quickly there, and hopefully as more development occurs, more residential housing is built there, people will get a sense that there are people living here, and that's not just a fly zone to Westbrook or wherever folks are headed to, but in the stands now, I think the living experience. Of having residents directly on the sidewalk walk would have, would not be ideal, so having it step back a little bit will, I think, provide it will be more enjoyable living experience nonetheless. [42:08] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: We're going to follow up to get more clarity around that, and we'll look at the opportunity as well, and the staff memo. Was mentioned as a potential like solution for that widening the sidewalk, and so sidewalk was wider, it would reduce. Yeah, that counts as, I don't think the intention was to say that. [42:27] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): If widening the sidewalk, it would remove the need for the exemption, because widening the sidewalk, I wouldn't write them there, but it would just essentially reinforce that scale treatment also, just because this is a fairly, you know, busy corridor. [42:48] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: This part of the city is a priority corridor in Portland, so I think part of that is creating more of an externalization, starting with sidewalks, starting with sidewalks, so it creates more of an urban feel. With the topography, would it be difficult to widen the sidewalk there, you know, period? I think you would be feasible. It may just the esplanade that we had kind of laid out to provide a little bit of an offset from the curb line. Right now the sidewalk is at six feet, but you know if it was desiring to get towards you know seven or eight feet, yeah I think that could be interesting. All right good for now. I'll sneak one more in. We're no longer doing the interim gravel drive. Is the intent still to leave the existing pavement up top and what I assume would have been overflow parking with that drive? Yeah and maybe I'll try to share my screen here just looking at the overall site plan where we've got the green patch. I mean that is that's a large a large portion of pavement that would be coming out and re-graded and re-vegetated. But otherwise, everything to the west of that, we don't see the need to remove that and add kind of cost and disturbance as part of phase one when we're pretty sure phase two is coming and it would be more economical and efficient to then address it and really redevelop it holistically at that time versus just ripping it up seeding it and to disturb it in the next year or two. But we are proposing in Kate at the other end so you know it would be effectively unused along with the building coming down. Okay I've also decided it's not in great shape so [45:01] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): maintaining it for use would have required investment [45:05] Speaker E (unidentified): investment that didn't seem exactly wise within the additional service in the future. We'll [45:17] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: move the public comment now. We'll start within the room. A reminder you have three minutes for a public comment. Please state your name and address and you can come one at a time up to the podium and part of let you know when the three minutes is up. So anyone that would like to give public that comment is welcome to come up now. Well [45:46] David Hingston (Public Commenter): thank you my name is David N Hingston, H-I-N-G-S-T-O-N. I have to say I am a member of the Friends Meeting. I do not represent them and that's not quite the way it could work, but we have met with Ryan and with the best of several times and I thank them for that effort. We are very excited and enthusiastic about this project for the most part. We're looking forward to good neighbors there, site redevelopment, and also to the program. We've had our own challenges with homelessness in our cemetery for several years now, so we're very much aware of this issue. There's just a couple things, most of which have been mentioned, that we have talked about in-house and that I'd like to bring your attention to. One is that this is an active cemetery, and so we need to ensure that those whose loved ones are buried there for many generations now, they come actually periodically from all over the country to visit graves there, and you need to ensure their privacy and their quiet and appropriate environment. Number two is there's an existing sort of ad hoc path between two properties. We want to make sure it's not, that is closed off, and that we have a robust fence and buffer plans between the two because of acoustics, because of lighting, because of privacy, and we're quite confident that will be provided. I just want to emphasize the robustness of that buffer is important for us. Number three, and I was excited to hear that Avesta is planning on flashers for the crosswalk across Forest Avenue. We actually share parking with the mosque across the street. They use our parking lot on Friday afternoons for their own services, and we often, for the most part, use some of their parking spaces on Sunday mornings. So we want to make sure that there's a robust crosswalk, not just for us and for the mosque and for the residents, but also to ensure, I mean, the convenience store is right there. So you know we want to make sure that there's a safe way for people to cross Park Avenue. We're very disappointed. As I say, we're enthusiastic about this, and we look forward to working with the best in any way that might [48:03] Speaker E (unidentified): be appropriate, hopefully in future communications. That's all, thank you. [48:35] Cheryl Harkins (Public Commenter): Cheryl Harkins, an advocate with Homeless Voices for Justice. I'm also the regional representative to the statewide homeless council and co-chair of the COC's People with Lived Experience community. I was here a while back to ask you if you would be so kind as to be zoning properties for the Oxford Street shelter replacement. And I want to thank you all for doing that, but today I'm going to ask you for another favor. Today I'm going to ask you to help, excuse me, I'm going to ask you for more help for those who currently need it, the most vulnerable. The gaps in needs shows that Cumberland county alone needs an estimated 749 additional permanent housing units to meet our needs. We need homes. I'm asking you today to approve a home located on home for good location at 1871 forest avenue. The structure would have 33 units available for someone chronically homeless on the sidewalk or in a tent that they can start to move in and start to get their legs about them and end their broken lives. I've been an advocate for well over 10 years. A person with lived experience of approximately seven years outside because of domestic issues. I know the hopeless feelings of trying to get my life back and not knowing which way to turn. Another thing I do is attend the conferences in Washington at the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Coalition for Homelessness. I make a lot of new friends and colleagues, and I always ask them how their Home for Good programs are working in their areas. Every single person I have spoken to talks about success. I've seen it. I'm going to share a short list of why you should approve this. The best thing about a Home for Good is they have a qualified 24-hour casework staff the support system to be sure that the security of the building and the tenants with their professional crisis management backgrounds they use these skills to make sure that people are okay there are any emergencies 30 seconds there are a lot of security doors services for everything from NA to DV and I'm trying to cut this down but I'm also a person who lives not even a mile from now. And I'm telling you that with the amount of statistics that we have and the common sense, it's just telling you that we need more of this type of home. The Home for Good models work, and you have a chance to take 33 individuals off the street to give them a chance of literal survival. Please allow us the chance to make that happen. Approve the construction for 1871 for a staff and give people a chance at life thank you for your time thank you good [51:58] David Hingston (Public Commenter): Evening, I'm Mark Foster, I'm the owner of the property of 1901 Forest Half, which of us the property through the west side there, it's a five-bay auto shop, we've owned the village for a number of years. There was a comment earlier that somebody mentioned the path of the community meeting at the circus church there, that was me. I know there's a path that I have across the property to Hanifers, it's that's been an area of concern for a while, there's a lot of people who hang out down here in the day. We've had a few fatalities from over the races in the woods, I think that's primarily due to the fact that this logic is vacant for years. I think having active on there for people and some attention to the property will go a long way to solve that problem and make it a safer area in the community, so I'm fully for this project. It's a great opportunity for the community, there are a lot of people working hard to address the homelessness issue in the city, this is a great step in the right direction. Thank you for bringing us forward others. [53:03] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: In the room that I'd like to comment good. Afternoon my name is John Egan, I'm the director of real estate development at FSF, we work closely with Ryan, other members of our team are here at the length and Sir Cap from our construction services, Heather's the development officer. We're we're all here collectively because our business model is a team approach to getting these projects moving forward so that we can help solve housing shortages everywhere we're able to be active. I'm going to be very brief and read a letter from Commissioner. Mike Soscheck who is familiar to this city after his long-term career here, I'm just going to read excerpts of this letter. It's safe to say that my professional opinion about home for good has evolved since the opening of the city's first housing first development Logan Place in 2005. I'll freely admit that as a new patrol sergeant I was uninformed but leery a program that proposed but 30 of our super utilizers in quotes were consumers that had frequent contact with criminal justice behavioral health and shelter systems under one roof. My mistake was focusing solely on the housing component which in and of itself would have had great value and not on the critical support often in the form of intense casework and connections to community resources necessary to maintain housing. Those supports were imperative to the success of Logan Place, Lawrence House, and ultimately Houston Commons. I would be remiss in not openly stating that programs focused on the chronically homeless population suffering from behavioral health issues will have bumps in the road periodically as new tenants move into the program and new residents move into the neighborhood. However, these minor issues are all surmountable with ongoing communication and the on-site 24 7 supported resources that are central to the proposal. One prime example of how this style program can act as the often talked but seldom realized win-win situation involves a male and a female that fell under the chronically homeless definition. I won't go into great detail here, but one of the behavioral health liaisons in Portland did some research during the recent legislative session and I thought it would be powerful for you to hear. These two individuals were involved with hundreds of police-related calls, including VIPs, layouts, fights, criminal trespasses from dozens of places around the city in the five years before their placement into a Housing First building. 30 seconds. In the five years since being housed, they have been involved in zero calls for service. Sadly the gentleman passed away, but he did it in a loving and safe environment called home. The short version of my testimony should have been at home for good programs with the supportive and stabilization services envisioned by this project our national best practices. That's from Commissioner Mike Soscheck, former police chief, long-term career police, public safety. Thank you others [56:11] Charlotte Ruddy (Public Commenter): in the room I'd like to comment it [56:15] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: being done in the room. I think we can move to the zoom. George, you should be all set to unmute. [56:29] George Roe (Public Commenter): Yes, can you hear me? Yes, right, thank you. George Roe, Hanover Street. So I think most everyone is in agreement that there's a huge need for this project, and I think the focus of course is just on how this planning board can make sure that it's a successful one. Elena's Way is the most recent version of this. It's not exactly a quote unquote home for good project, but it's really struggled on some levels, certainly from a public sort of public relations point of view, because a tremendous amount of non-project related activity is basically hovers all around it. And it kind of, whether or not that's affecting what's going on inside and the people who live inside Elena's Way, it certainly gives the public a sense that it's, you know, quote unquote, an out of control project. Project and it's not doing what it's meant to do, which is to stabilize people and give them an opportunity to get back on track, hopefully. So, you know, what I look at when I see this, aside from other things, like I think this is actually a terrible use for this plot and this land, we're under building here in a tremendous way. You know, we could have had youth and family outreach relocate here and not have to destroy the Preble Chapel. We could have had the Boys and Girls Club of Southern Maine possibly even relocate here and have a lot of land to work with. But we have what we have. We're trying to put 33 units of subsidized secure housing here. So I don't think that the residents who are living in this project have good options for outdoor space. I think there should be at least two patios. There should be a front and a back. I don't think that they should have to be enjoying the outdoors in a secure area right in front of one of the busiest thoroughfares in the entire region. I mean, we're talking, I don't know what the car counts are, but we're talking thousands and thousands of automobiles and truck traffic all the time. That is not a very amenable space to me for a whole group of people. And I also think that the city and Portland Trails should basically work with Avesta and take over that byway, that informal byway between Forest and the Hannafords and make it a real path like people want to go through there they're going to go through there one way or another a vest is going to have to take a lot of time to deter that they might as well just formalize it make it into an honest to goodness pathway deed it to the city or portland trails and make it a real thing so there's a lot to chew on here, and I hope the focus should be on what we need to do for the residents of this project rather than the neighbors. Thank you. [59:46] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Thank you, George. Others on the phone that would like to comment, please raise your hand. All right. Doesn't look like anyone else is raising their hand on Zoom. So we can close public comment period. All right. Just going to go through a couple of the things that we heard in comments, and then we can turn it back to the board as well to ask additional questions. Since it came up a couple of times, can you just talk about the informal path, and I know that I saw in some of the things you submitted there's been conversations, so can [1:00:29] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): You just go over that with us, yeah. I mean, I think first and foremost the path goes to Hanford, and I think Hanford is an important part of this conversation. They own the property where the path goes to, and they have fenced, they have fenced off the path, and in my conversations with them they intend to continue to fence off the path. And as mentioned there has been some vandalism that has destroyed the fencing, and a lot of people continue to go through there. I think over time continue to try to repair the fence, but the reality is Hanford is not interested in having that path be formalized at this point, and perhaps that could change in the future, and we're certainly willing to continue to engage them. In addition, to formalize the path, there would need to be significant investment. The path is along the backside of the site. I don't think it was mentioned, but there's a pretty steep drop-off down to the retention mentioned pond that was I believe created them kind of for this built for stormwater runoff, and you know they're gonna have to do some safety barrier between the footpath and that drop-off as well as lighting and just making sure that path is a safe place for people to traffic between Hannaford and wherever they were going. So those are those are two main concerns, the investment to improve it. And then secondly, the partnership is with Haverford who owns ultimately the outlet which this path is good to. And we've heard mixed reviews. We have a neighbor who owns the out-of-body shop who I think we prefer the path not to utilize. I mentioned that in his comments. You know, so we have to weigh the concerns of everyone that has an interest in this and could it be something being reconsidered during phase two development, perhaps, especially since the phase two development will be closer to where the epipath is currently located. But at this point, our intention is not to formalize that with that. [1:02:50] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Can you just trace where it is? So it comes in approximately right here, and then kind of meanders through to the foot stem here. Yeah, and so if someone were to approach you and including Haniford in that conversation, they were interested in making it safer and formalizing it, you're not against it? [1:03:18] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Yeah, we're definitely not against the conversation. I think it would require all stakeholders to be part of the conversation. It definitely does not make sense during phase one for us. [1:03:41] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Can I ask a quick question? I know we're not considering the expansion, but when do you think that would be in play? [1:03:57] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Phase two? Yeah. We are just about to have a meeting next week for the first time to discuss what that might look like. So given how long things take, I would presume we would be talking about that until maybe next year at some point. And certainly with main housing, we'll need to apply for financing for that through main housing, which would not be until September of next year. So we're a little ways away from that becoming reality. [1:04:36] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Yeah, and I know you haven't had any conversations, but just a thought of following up on one of the comments about not a lot of outdoor space in phase one, maybe a consideration is some common outdoor space, because you have phase two, so there is more outdoor space available. Yeah. [1:05:02] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): I can speak a little bit to the location of the patio and why it is where it is, but I there was a lot of the design process exploring other locations for that where that could be situated due to the grades and also just the need to collect drainage and water around the building as well as other utilities and also desire to sort of have this sort of visual access across the property so that there isn't sort of a hidden space anywhere along the property we've located it in that front spot there's also just the desire to keep sun sort of accessing this patio by placing it sort of at that northern corner it would be fairly shaded just by just staying mature trees and also the building and so we didn't really want to create sort of a cold dark space but give it as much light as possible and then obviously, there is sort of these outdoor walking paths that would be accessible to forced abs, so there is some mobility that's still out into the parking lot area as well, but that's sort of why we had situated it that way. [1:06:15] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): And I think we also, I mean, especially in the summer, envision the community space and the patio sort of being one in some ways, you know, having sort of this space that people can both be inside and outside and still sort of be part of the community at the same time i think there's a real advantage to the location of that is honestly pretty atypical for the best of properties we don't usually have a patio in such close adjacency to the to a community gathering space i think there's a lot of really good opportunities for programming around it thank you [1:06:57] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Okay, questions from the board, additional conversation pieces, I'll just pick up two more. Public comments, there's one on the buffer to the property to the right, are you maintaining the [1:07:10] Speaker D (unidentified): existing tree line, adding plantings to it? Sure, I can also speak to that. So our intention is to [1:07:15] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): keep as many of those trees as possible. As part of one of the comments we received, seeds from the plant staff, we did recently conduct a full tree survey that measured the diameter press height of those trees, so we have a better sense now of those individual trees as well as their sizes. We will be sort of internally going through a process of just determining, you know, what is a safe root protection zone with each of those trees, so that we can both limit a construction zone around that trees, but in some cases closest to Horse Ave and that pinch point, there may be instances where the tree themselves, their root zone, does really overlap with the footprint of the building, but in all of these areas the intention is to really supplement the existing tree buffer. Obviously a lot of these trees, well perhaps that's not obvious, but some of the trees are pretty large pines, and so they sort of blooms up over time, and so by enhancing that buffer with more robust shrub level undershore planting that will create more of that ground level vegetative buffer in addition to that higher sort of canopy level buffer. [1:08:32] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Thank you. Yeah, okay, should you also talk about the cemetery, right? Oh yes, that's what we're [1:08:37] Speaker O (unidentified): We're going to go to the next question. [1:08:38] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Where are these graves? [1:08:42] Speaker P (unidentified): Show me the bodies. Yeah, [1:08:48] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: so zooming in here, you've got this red property line up and down the page. The existing structure is shown here [1:08:56] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): and the parking lot in front. [1:08:58] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: So the cemetery would be right where this north arrow is and then off the page to the north. And so we've taken pretty a pretty close look on how to, you know, not only maintain the statutory 25 foot setback, but then also provide some additional buffer. This pink line actually represents, you know, a 25 foot setback off the property line, and where, you know, the corner of the building would seem to kind of suggest the end of the cemetery, we've then gone an additional 14 feet at this pinch point, so you know the zoning ordinance is actually a zero foot size setback, we're at 39 at this corner, so we feel like we found the balance to not only provide some of the buffer opportunities that Alex mentioned, but also really respect the cemetery and not disturb that. May I offer? Sorry, public comment. [1:10:03] David Hingston (Public Commenter): OK, I just wanted to mention. [1:10:05] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: We can, at the public hearing, we can offer comment or written comment as well. [1:10:13] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): And there's an opening in events from behind the building, your public comment. And then closing that, I believe, is what was said. [1:10:26] Speaker E (unidentified): And I think that's something. [1:10:31] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): Actually, I thought they had one in the open, so I'm actually pleasantly surprised they didn't want to close. [1:10:36] Speaker E (unidentified): That'll be a good improvement. [1:10:41] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): We should also note from the point in which we initially submitted the plans, we have shifted the building approximately four feet to the west to create a little bit more space between the property line and that cemetery proper as well as the tree. So that is really part of our thing to do to help. [1:11:06] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I guess I just wanted to bring up the bicycle parking waiver and discuss that a little bit more. I understand you have lived experience with this program and the usage of bicycle parking, but it also doesn't feel like a huge lift to have more bicycle parking. I know it takes up space. These are pretty small studio apartments. I mean, I'm assuming there's no room inside to have like a small indoor storage facility for bikes. As you mentioned that Tennessee folks prefer to have their bicycles stored inside and so a lot of buildings in Portland try to have indoor bicycle storage. I'm assuming since you're thinking not a lot of cars, I know we're relying a lot on public transit, but that could also mean a lot of bicycle commuting from this area. Is I think about maybe adding some more from my opinion some more bicycle parking either on the outside or look for some options inside yeah It was 40 percent I think it was 15. [1:12:19] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): I think we'd be open to adding more I think definitely I think The 40% requirement was certainly in excess of what we thought would be reasonably used, but if the board would have some feedback on what number fits better, we would certainly be open. [1:12:41] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, the multicam says one for two claw units, at the minimum, by parts and basis what is that 17 yeah or yes I think that does seem maybe a little excessive I think three seems like not enough a lot of numbers between three and sixteen yeah I mean yeah like eight or ten seems like the right number to me yeah the yeah so I think we're again I [1:13:15] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): think we're open to that the reason for our luck and our experience with the usage is rather limited you know folks are not as much ridership as you might see a typical residential building where the population is not coming from homelessness and with various health issues and so forth but i think i think we also can be responsive to your feedback on finding a more half a median than what the zoning requires and [1:13:58] Speaker D (unidentified): Maybe actually you're showing six, right? Is that [1:14:01] Speaker E (unidentified): correct? Okay, that seems, yeah. [1:14:06] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I'm still comfortable with an exemption for the 40 [1:14:11] Speaker D (unidentified): percent, but we'd like to see it correct two year back. Yeah, Sam has already figured out [1:14:26] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: We talked a little bit about the Bill 2 zone exemption. Any more kind of comments on that from the board? No, I mean utility relocation, like you said, that's not a cheap thing to do. Yeah, it wasn't clear to me if widening the sidewalk by two and a half feet could even get them out of that. If it does, I mean it seems like a modest change, but if that still doesn't keep the rules. I [1:14:55] Speaker D (unidentified): would favor keep the mask on. I think it's nice to given like the how traffic force happens there. Yeah, actually [1:15:02] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I'll just note so I think from our standpoint one of the goals was one obviously Forest Avenue is a pretty high trafficked corridor in the city and so it's a, it's a fairly narrow sidewalk now so any additional well received. I think the other thing too is trying to bring like the perceived edge of the public right-of-way closer to the building so we were mentioning two and a half years think we were more positioning it on the other side of the sidewalk so not eating them not so much but more towards where the line is retracing so the applicant feel about that [1:15:37] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): So the one I, the one against rebuttal to that is that we are sort of have this grade change so we are sloping at that point and right now it's about 20 percent so that allows us to plant to carry them robustly and easily. When we get steeper than that by creating a flatter sidewalk it starts to create a steeper slope so that's just a consideration. It also creates a little bit of a different quality as you're walking along. [1:16:07] Speaker D (unidentified): I think an exception for you know two and a half feet seems reasonable given the challenge with utilities but I think you can get more clarity on how it should be applied to the second slope. [1:16:19] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Maybe take a look at the layout Two to nine people. Yeah, I think you're great. Sure. Yeah, just to recap, the existing sidewalk is five feet. We're proposing a six with an offset, and we'll take a look at the grading implications. And then the other topic that maybe we should cover is the landscape parking island waiver. So you're looking to put shade trees along the perimeter rather than in that planted landscaped island. So you're still doing one tree in a landscaped island and then three trees immediately adjacent to the parking area. Yeah, I think you're still meeting the intent of having trees and shading the parking lot in general. It's not a large parking lot. lot. So landscape island feels that's that's always been our take too is one wanted to cut down on the footprint of the parking area as much as possible. So like it's got a large expanse parking lot makes sense to break it up and provide some shading, but in this case it's pretty small. Those trees are providing some shading. Okay all right any other comments? Bev, do you have anything you'd like to review with them? If we are all set, do you guys have what you feel like you need from us to move forward and come back? Yeah, thanks for your time. Great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you guys. So that was the only item on our warming up again. That's for break for 15. Okay, do I need to be muted? I'll now enter into the public hearing portion of our meeting. Andrew, can you do yes of course federally you 'll make here [1:27:55] Speaker E (unidentified): Austin Smith here. David Silk refused. [1:27:59] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: BE USED, NICHOLAS NACINA HERE, ARIPTON HERE, JOSEPH ROBERTSON HERE, JOSEPH ZAMBONI ABSENT. [1:28:07] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: ANY COMMUNICATION OR RECORDS FROM STAFF? NO. ALL RIGHT. THEN THERE'S THE REPORT OF ATTENDANCE AND REPORT OF DECISIONS FROM THE MEETING HALF ON APRIL 28TH AS WRITTEN. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON THOSE? THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM, which is actually unfinished business, and that is the major site plan at 221 Congress Street, and the applicant is Green Mars Real Estate Services, which was tabled from our April 28th planning board meeting. So I'll turn it over to Eric to give us a presentation. [1:29:05] Speaker O (unidentified): Good evening Chair, Vice Chair Robertson and members of the board here for the from here in the major site plan application at 221 Congress Street. As mentioned, the applicant is Green Mars Real Estate Services, represented by Woodhull Design. 221 Congress Street is located within the B2B zone. This application involves the construction of a seven-story, 87-unit mixed-use building with ground floor retail space and residential amenity space, as well as public sidewalk reconstruction. This application is subject to site plan section 13.6, inclusionary zoning, as well as the B2 and B2B design standards. 221 Congress Street is located in the East End neighborhood and kind of a prominent location right at the intersection of Congress Street and Washington Avenue. The site is bounded to the west by a gas station and is bounded to the southeast by an existing four-story building which is located within the India Street. It's located across the street from the street cemetery. Site is served by multiple trains around this as well, the 9, the 1, and the 7. Site is located entirely within the B2B zone and is directly adjacent to portions of the India Street from the base code zone as well. Site plan for the proposed building shows sort of the overall wedge-shaped design building, and shown here are the new street tree wells which will be installed along Washington Avenue frontage of the building and portions of both Washington Avenue and the public sidewalk that would be reconstructed as part of the purpose development. And shown here is the ground level of the proposed building which proposes a retail space, retail unit at the corner of Congress Street and Washington Avenue, the ground level of the proposed building would also feature secure bicycle storage, mechanical space, a trash room, which would have direct access onto the street, as well as a residential lounge and a rear garden area. One key aspect of the staff's recommendation for approval for this application is ongoing coordination with Metro regarding potential off-site improvements to two nearby transit stops. In coordination with Metro staff have identified two nearby transit stops in proximity to the site, kind of closer to the corner of Cumberland Street, Cumberland Avenue and Washington Avenue, which could potentially, there could be room for transit improvements at those two locations, so staff have drafted a condition of approval which requires the applicant to work with Metro to identify a potential off-site of transit improvements that's at the locations that are identified on the slide. Overall elevations of the proposed building as shown here, seven story building. I would note that the roof level of the proposed building is supposed to be accessible to residents with an open air patio, with a roof accessible patio residence as an amenity space. A perspective rendering of the proposed building shown here. looking up Congress Street, and a similar perspective rendering looking along Washington Avenue towards the Eastern Cemetery. The applicant held their required neighborhood meeting on March 23rd. It was held at East End School. There were 12 members of the public in attendance. A neighborhood comment focused on building height, massing, construction management, and parking. So far staff have received six items of written public comment for this application. Public comment has similarly focused on. building height, massing, neighborhood parking, and view corridors. We would note one item that was included in both the approval letter and the staff report for this application is standard language around subdivision exemption. So as under state law, this application is a multi-family residential project, which is subject to site plan review under Chapter 13, Article 13, Chapter 14, Article 13. Site plan review includes stormwater management, sewage, water supply and other statutory items that are included as part of subdivision review. So for that reason subdivision approval is not required as a separate item. Just wanted to note that was included in the approval letter and in the report. Staff are recommending approval of this major site plan application. As mentioned, we have a couple key conditions of approval which are identified here. here one regarding ongoing coordination with Metro for potential off-site transit improvements, and then their standard affordable housing agreement conditions for at least 22 of the proposed, and with that we can turn it to the office all. [Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: right.] Thank you, I appreciate the introduction to the project. I think you covered quite a good bit of this, but I'll keep my comments non-pretended as I can. Thank you, good evening. Here's the board, I'm Patrick Booth, I'm principal architect with Wood Hall. With me is Travis Loyer from Remars, and also Caleb Johnson. We're pleased to present this new housing development. It's a joint venture between both Woodwall and Green Mars at 221, and as Eric mentioned, it's a seven-story mixed-use building, and it's at a very prominent corner of Washington, Congress streets, and so it is our objective to transform this key intersection from an underutilized parking lot into a vibrant anchored for that neighborhood, providing much needed housing that lies in Portland's comprehensive plan. One of the elements to note here that underscore was that it was thanks to Rico that this project is can be at a moment of economic feasibility, by having to go to 75 feet is a critical factor in making it possible. We have Caleb is the owner of the property, and we have lived at the site for many years, and so this is this is an opportunity to actually have some good legs to it, so really excited about that. This is the site plan that you've seen before. Jumping into the architecture of the building, it is it's a it's a six over one type massing. You can see how we keep the ground floor is all retail, and it's dedicated to retail entry space from Congress Street, and then on the Washington Avenue elevation, as you can see here, is where the residential entry would be at the ground plane. We're proposing to use a thin brick masonry just to allow for a nice pedestrian scale with durability for that location. The upper six stories are all intended to be 86 residential units, all on the studio size. We selected the use of vertical metal panels in a color and texture that complements traditional red brick of the industry's neighborhood, and then the window system itself integrates with louvers, the high heat pump systems to allow for the individual operation of heating ventilation for the units themselves. We employ these like double story shifts in the building to allow for a nice distinct feel, but also this vertical rhythm that has a feel as if it's a more four-story type building. It's a it's a something that is the detail that's done elsewhere in historical buildings downtown. We thought it was a nice modern way of approaching this scale as well, but in addition to that, what you there are actually many six over one Buildings on the common tree you want to wind up the road and how they had done in the past was by using a lot of brick detailing to help cut down scale and by adding shadow lines and so forth. So we're doing that in a more contemporary way via these for detailing with windows and account systems themselves. If we could afford to do a full brick building, as many developments would, we could, but that's not the case. Moving forward, and here's a couple more views. We didn't have all these. I think this is another view that wasn't shown on Eric's presentation. I think it's another image to show, another image to show the kind of context that's around and how it constitutes itself nicely into the neighborhood. So as Eric had mentioned, the ground floor is meant to be in many spaces for the their residential uses. You see the units are small, and so that's balanced by having a lot of newbies in the building itself. You can see here there's a large, oversized living room, leasing offices, package rooms, deliveries and so forth, a large trash room, so that's done sensibly. Gathering space in the front corner in your Washington Avenue would have a nice entry experience for residents, as well as a bike storage room that has direct connection to Washington Avenue, as well as larger building storage. As you make your way to the other floors, the next six levels are very, they repeat itself with the exception of the portion of the building in the next to the adjacent where Jerome's bar is building. You see a little circled area that's adding additional mini spaces to the building. As you go up, it's different co-working spaces for a fitness room. And then once the that space is above the height of the other building becomes another unit again just allow your opportunity more units of things to be a square footage so woodwall and green bars are committed to building units that can be accessed to a broader market and these market rate units are designed for efficiency to keep rents more accessible than typical new construction on peninsula in addition as mentioned this project will fully follow all inclusionary zoning requirements to Provide essential workforce housing for Portland on the upper floor. As Eric also mentioned, there is a another many floor residents being an open-air roof deck to enjoy the beautiful view back to the harbor, but also not much today. One last thing we should be have just, we have, we are a full-service construction company, we are intended to build this project as well, and we submitted this loan for application. It's estimated 15-month construction period. We anticipate a closure in Washington Avenue for seven months while the structure is erected, and that pedestrian traffic will be safely routed with clear signs and barricades, and we'll coordinate closely with public works regarding any temporary lane closures on Washington Avenue to support construction activities. Remars and Woodwall would like to thank you for your time tonight, and thank you to city staff and Eric for working with us as we develop this plan. We are excited to bring this project to reality and appreciate your support [1:40:37] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Thank you. Clarifying questions for staff, for the applicant, from the board. I have, I have one. We'll start in the report. It mentions that two shade tree plantings are required, and it says that the sheet trees will be provided within the rear garden area, but then there's no landscaping plan because there's not landscaping to be done, but in the site plan it just showed patio pavers. So I just want to confirm that two shade trees will be planted. Is that like for your patio I think, I think we're planning on putting an additional street tree in front of the building that requirement the back patio with the street treat here. Yeah, so there's one existing street trade right there, and then we're planning on those [1:41:39] Speaker P (unidentified): That's all. What other [1:41:41] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): requirements there [1:41:45] Speaker O (unidentified): There is landscaping proposed within the rear, the rear patio area, I believe on the site they refer to as the garden area. Yeah. And that landscaping, the site [1:42:02] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: landscaping standard allows for either a shade tree or for whatever reason, if it's a shade tree, there's six alternative plantings. So that those additional plantings would be satisfying for one, we'd be comfortable accepting additional street trees, you know, if they're required. Okay. Okay, so replacing one with an additional street tree and then plantings in that back patio garden area. Yes [Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Okay] That was my clarifying question I have a question. I don't think I cannot remember an application where the storm water system was directly below the building. I think that's rather unusual, and I guess for staff, was there a peer review of this by an independent [1:42:54] Speaker O (unidentified): of engineer? And yes, so both staff from water resources and our third party peer review order and current did review this. There were a few other clarifying questions regarding maintenance and upkeep and capacity, and some materials provided by the applicant did meet the, did satisfy [1:43:11] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Thank you. And my next question is, I think Patrick, you described the base as thin brick. Are you concerned about durability and the use there? Could you describe the thin brick, what it is? [1:43:24] Speaker O (unidentified): Yeah, we actually had that conversation. We had some of the same expectations ourselves, especially the way it would be just directly to here to like a solid substrate, so that mitigated our concern, and just another option for us to keep costs down so that these can be made a perfect market rates for. Thank you. Yeah [1:43:58] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Can you go over your construction management plan again? Are you proposing to close one direction of Washington [1:44:05] Speaker O (unidentified): Ave or just one of the two lanes in that one direction during it? This is, this is a part of, this is a preliminary plan. I don't have people from our construction team to speak in this, but the idea was to still keep two legs open so you have two-way traffic, that we might have to purchase, you know, a period of time for this parking space. There's a lot of benefit. I assume you'll need a crane to construct this. We are looking at an option of a crane that can build. Yeah, that couldn't, I think that is going to be one of the trigger things for us to, we have a couple of elements and work about the direction logistics of this take say right, because you're building up the entire lot, but it wasn't a tower crane, it was going to be a tariff with a crane that would work within this kind of order. Yeah, just think about that when you're thinking about how the space would be. Yeah, I think that once we have further understanding of the construction execution of that narrative that we would have further discussions with the city about aging and similar to other, you know, urban info construction sites, any street closures, sidewalk closures to provide accessible detour options. [1:45:25] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: One other question. Sorry, Nick. No, go ahead. There was a mention in the staff memo, too, about parking. There's no on-street parking, right? Right. And what is the procedure for people moving in and out? How do you see that? Would they, you know... Would you do it with a proposed loading zone? [Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): that's] marked on the street and signed as a loading zone yeah okay it would be in between [1:45:57] Speaker O (unidentified): the two streets this should get shown right here we strike the paper tonight this yeah it's not the it's not the size of it yeah sorry it's a little [1:46:12] Speaker E (unidentified): small it's [1:46:17] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: essentially the area between okay thank you i think that's this time Bev. Thank you. And we'll move to public comment now, and then we can circle back after public comment on any other things we'd like to discuss. So opening up to the room first, folks who would like to make a comment, come up to the podium. You have three minutes, and Carter will let you know when your three minutes are up. We did read the public comments that were submitted in writing, and please state your name and address. Thank you. [1:47:03] Cheryl Harkins (Public Commenter): Hello to the planning board. [1:47:04] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): My name is Wendy Cherabini. I live at 99 Federal Street, just six blocks from this site. I don't know how many of the planning board members remember, but this used to be a dry cleaning. So it's great to see housing growing on one of those kind of a toxic sites. I think I'm excited to see this for a number of reasons. It's on multiple metro youth routes. it's in an extremely walkable distance from right to downtown and we really need the housing even though it's a creative a creative use of housing there's small units but I think it's sort of cutting edge and it's exciting to see it happening here in Portland. We code anticipated projects like this at this density and this height and it goes and it's good to see such things coming forward so quickly at so much short time since recode i know there's complaints about little parking but i'll just note that there's little parking at the casco seems to work fine right downtown i live on 99 federal street which is pretty walkable for parking in the street neighborhood and i think there is parking there when i wake up in the morning there's parking so it seems like there's there's vacant spots and I hope that this project will go forward and that you'll see it later. [1:48:29] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Hey, I'm Hans Goudy. I live on Smith Street, up on Smith Street, just two blocks away. I just want to speak quickly in support of the project. I think the opportunity to turn this open lot, which really feels like the end of Congress Street as a place to be, into a real place is wonderful. I think this is exactly where DENT's housing should be in the city, if I had to choose, like this is the spot. I mean, we sell them for tall buildings for a reason, so I think that's important. Their best services in the city are right here. Free bus routes, grocery stores, recreation, shopping, it's all right there. Walking distance, which is huge because we need more people downtown, not driving downtown. I think that's great. And those also help create downtown, make it into a place, and bring tax revenue, market pressure to reduce rent, and lots of new neighbors, and I think all those things are great to support the project. Hello. [1:49:45] Cheryl Harkins (Public Commenter): My name is Lynn Soucy. I live at 208 Congress Street. I'm president of Washington Square Homeowners Association. Washington Square is composed of 30 townhouses, 12 along Montcote Street coming up to the corner of Congress, six along Congress, and another 12 along Ponce. We are concerned about the effects this building will have on our homes and our neighborhoods. To be clear, our objection is not to the possibility of a building in that corner. It's the size of this building and the plans. I submitted public comment in writing in which I addressed the standards that the Planning Board uses to assess development projects. One standard is to protect environmental quality. I already addressed the lived environment and the increase in cold streets, more traffic, and icier sidewalks. I addressed the lived environment in talking about the parking and how tight the parking is now, and it's not reasonable to think that 87 new residents in not one car, maybe 50 cars, is more likely, which would crowd the already tight parking all over the hill. I addressed the standard of promoting economic growth and I don't believe this kind of project would promote growth. In fact, the lack of parking, difficulty of more parking, and the difficulty of more traffic on that corner would dampen the economic activity of the businesses that are already there and any new ones. I didn't quite fully address ensuring neighborhood vitality. Neighborhood vitality is the result of families moving in, couples moving in, individuals moving in, who will be in the Neighborhood, plan to be in the neighborhood a number of years. Not one year, go to grad school, hurry down the street to school or work, and then hurry back to your condo or your apartment where you get your meals delivered. And again, we saw the traffic in the area. Neighborhood vitality is also enhanced by working businesses, not businesses that are cut to close down because their customers can't get there. 30 seconds. Thank you. It's clear that this project reacts negatively on all of the standards the planning board uses to assess development. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. [1:52:26] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Others in the room that would like to comment? Hello. [1:52:36] Cheryl Harkins (Public Commenter): My name is still back here. I live at [1:52:38] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): 8 Montgomery Street, which is essentially behind the proposed project. I'm generally in support of the project. I think the additional units are really great for the name of it, like that's a [1:52:48] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: cost is generally low. [1:52:51] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): I would love to just voice that Montgomery Street is a one-way street. There's a lot of traffic due to the fact that none of the majority of residents in 5 and [1:53:03] Cheryl Harkins (Public Commenter): and seven Montgomery Street don't have parking. So there's a lot of, we actually have kids, [1:53:10] Speaker I (unidentified): my kids, my neighbor's kids, they all play on the street. [1:53:12] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): So that's just one consideration I want to bring up. I know that may not be the responsibility of the developer, but perhaps just the city might be thinking of this as an opportunity to create more signage. We already got a lot of cars that are in the wrong direction down that street. So I think particularly from Uber's lens, that would probably cater to this project. There's the opportunity to really not know the area very well, go in the wrong direction, or just keep down that street. Also, just a question about trash, and whether or not they'll be all trash units or a dumpster. And then I would request, if not already on the plan, so if you may need it already, [1:53:55] Speaker I (unidentified): if the street treatment has structural soil or is some sort of pre-graded to enhance its viability. Thank [1:54:06] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: you. Others I would like to comment in the room? I'm not seeing any others. I think we'll turn to Zoom. George, you should be off that time to unmute. [1:54:28] George Roe (Public Commenter): Great. Can you hear me? Yep. All right. Thank you. So I'm in support of this project. I think it certainly has, you know, better than an empty lot. lot. But I do have one specific question, which is the inclusionary zoning requirements here because of the 25% is very robust. And there's been a lot of discussion about perhaps that rule changing. And so currently this project's applying right now under the 25%. So I'm just wondering what happens in terms of any rule change, whether this project would be able to take advantage of any kind of abatement of that. I'm just trying to understand if it has to come back to the planning board, perhaps. So that's a question. And exactly how the developer is sort of sensing how that might go down. The support I have for this project has a lot to do with history. And I think people forget that this neighborhood used to have a tremendous amount of, basically it was one of the densest parts of Maine, a lot of multifamily housing. Peppermint Park had a very large multifamily. I think it was sort of segmented into a couple of different maybe standalone buildings, but they were sort of all connected. But all of the small duplex homes that were just spoken about earlier in an earlier public comment, all of those sat on sites that had large multifamily buildings. Across the street was multifamily buildings. And there was a tremendous amount of destruction. I wish the developer had been able to get somebody to do a little map of all of the buildings that were there in 1924 or even 1955 and that are now gone. So anyone objecting to density and congestion and lots of people living in this area, you're probably only there because a ton of people were displaced and thrown out a long time ago. And you're sitting basically in a nice position because those people were pushed out of Portland probably forever. And so this is an opportunity, somewhat imperfectly, this building's not going to win any architecture awards, but it's an opportunity to bring back pretty much what Portland used to be 100 years ago, the kind of sort of golden age that people love to talk about, but they actually wouldn't ever have wanted to live there. And so that history is pretty much lost, but it needs to be recovered at moments like this because this is a huge opportunity to finally bring back some of the vitality that once existed at this crossroads and isn't just affluent tourists going to a brewery or having a- [1:57:39] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Greater Portland, Denmark, you should be all set to unmute. [1:57:46] Alison Frazee (Greater Portland Landmarks): Good evening, I'm Alison Frazee, Director of Advocacy for Greater Portland Landmarks. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. This project site directly abuts the India Street Local Historic District, which is an eclectic mix of buildings with a variety of heights and expressions. It's also directly across from the historic Eastern Cemetery, a local landmark. So it is important to consider the visual and urban design impacts of the design, scale, and massing of the new building in relation to the protected historic character of these resources. GPL feels that this proposal is responsive to its context and though taller than the nearby buildings it follows the architectural lines of the historic buildings at its retail base it is contextual and design and materials and it infills a missing block in the urban wall so we are supportive of contextual contemporary design activation in and around historic neighborhoods as well as the creation of housing thank you thank you Charlotte [1:58:46] Charlotte Ruddy (Public Commenter): You should be all set on unmute. Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes. My name is Charlotte Ruddy. I live at 114 Leland Street, and I just wanted to speak in support of the project and in particular in support of dense housing on this site. Obviously there's a need for housing throughout the city. This is a really great location for it, and as for parking, I just want to note that research has shown that adding new parking just reinforces car dependence. And this is because as spaces buildings farther apart, it essentially ensures that residents will need a car rather than giving them the opportunity to live without one. This particular site is close to bus routes, grocery stores. And if we need to reduce car dependence in Portland, which we do, this is a perfect place to be doing it. We've already taken the important step of removing parking minimums across the city. This is a crucial component of climate change mitigation. It's aligned with our comprehensive plan. And we should be making the most of this policy to create dense and walkable housing in an area where people could feasibly get by without a car. So I would urge the planning board to approve the project. Thank you. Thank you. [2:00:08] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Anyone else on Zoom that would like to comment, please raise your hand. And not seeing any, I think we can close public comments. So turn it back to the board for additional comments and questions. I will bring up one or two that I heard from the public and then feel free to also bring some of those up. I think for staff, the potential change in inclusionary zoning, how that may affect this project if they come back to the planning board for reduction. [2:00:42] Speaker O (unidentified): Yes, so this application is being reviewed under the current code. Any changes to prisionary zoning are still entirely undetermined and if there were to be changes to the IZ ordinance given that IZ is a condition of approval that the board is signing off on, that would have to come back to the board at a later date. As of right now, they're being reviewed and approved under the current. [2:01:08] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: a comment on increasing like making the streets shadier colder until icy sidewalks assuming that there will be a plan by the building to keep sidewalks clear safe for pedestrians in the area [2:01:27] David Hingston (Public Commenter): Yeah, I believe we submitted a plan involved and [2:01:37] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: we're essentially rebuilding the [2:01:39] Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): the same [2:01:44] Speaker O (unidentified): as it is. So keep in mind that the Washington Avenue elevations are practically north-facing, so the sun angles to the snow and that kind of realization. [2:02:03] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Kind of along that line, any other comments about the shadow study that you want to bring up? [2:02:09] Speaker O (unidentified): no the fact that we haven't had to do one before so that was did a research from what websites are able to do that quickly cost effectively because otherwise but yeah we were surprised to know that we were concerned about casting shadow on the on the eastern center but seeing that in all those different seasons of the year seeing that it's that facade is somewhere facing that and he said it's casting shadow onto Washington Avenue but nothing really else in public space so it was it was good to see that reinforce that didn't cause any kind of undue corrections [2:02:54] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: maybe some signage on nearby one-way streets and other streets with the increased potential of unfamiliar drivers in the area I think Nick was looking it up there is a one-way sign on one end at least of montgomery but just something for the city to consider like there are a lot of small streets in that surrounding area and there'll be some traffic it's like looking at the signage of the surrounding streets to make sure it's clear and with those enhanced and new street trees is there a plan for Tree grates for something to protect the viability of the trees. It is, it is being proposed with a [Speaker E (unidentified): planter] you know, essentially matching what's out there. [2:03:46] Speaker O (unidentified): Apologies, street trees are required to be technical annual standards which are outlined, so the street trees that were planted by the Department of Public Works I believe in 2024. Again, as perhaps a similar standard [2:04:05] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I think the technical manual is a raised granite bed. And that was a result of the consequences of salt. A tree grape that's flush, the tree has a higher probability of success than the raised granite bed. Can I just ask a big favor? Can the gentleman in the blue polo speak up a little bit? It's hard to, for whatever reason, the microphone is not catching your voice very well. So I'm not catching your answers to the thing. Thank you as far as questions others, if you pick up any other questions maybe just call the comments on parking, the city can describe how parking minimums are no longer thing after we [2:04:53] Speaker O (unidentified): do so. Yes, this application one, given that it is recognized in the corridor, is not subject to any off-site off-street parking requirements. We do however have bicycle parking requirements which are, yeah, it is meeting by providing secure bicycle storage at the ground level of the building. A number of proposed like spaces meets what's outlined in section. So the intent behind that is to try to encourage the use of transit and providing limited space for bicycles for residents of the building. You know we have other examples of larger scale projects in the city that similarly [2:05:32] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: not proposed option parking. So certainly not. I mean, regardless, parking is not a requirement. [Speaker E (unidentified): Thank you. Any] other comments from the board? I have a few. There was a public comment concerning your design. I appreciate your narrative and the explanation. And that sort of double story shift gift is very distinctive, so it's very nice. I also applaud the fact that you accommodated the inclusionary zoning requirement within your building rather than paying you, so it's actually, we actually get those units that are affordable. And then I also appreciate the fact that you specifically mentioned the benefits of Rico and how that benefited this project. I know there are a great deal of public comments about the massing of the height of the building and Also about parking, I know with recode we always sort of recognize there would be an area of transition and this building will seem out of scale initially, but there are other 75 story buildings proposed on Washington as well, so it's just part of the growth and you know parking will be a challenge. BUT I THINK HOPEFULLY THAT WILL LEAD TO A MORE ROBUST METRO SYSTEM, MORE RIDERS AND SO FORTH. SO AGAIN, RECOGNIZING IT'S HARD AT FIRST, BUT BENEFITS OF THIS CHANGE. NEW SPEAKER NIC, ANY COMMENTS? NEW SPEAKER I THINK SOMETHING WENT WELL. [2:07:10] Speaker E (unidentified): NEW SPEAKER GREAT. I [2:07:16] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: THINK I ALREADY HAD ALL OF MY COMMENTS. That's pretty good. I would entertain a motion. I will make a motion based on the information the application plans reports through testimony at the planning board hearing and other information submitted by the applicant planning board adopts findings conclusions and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing on May 12 2026 for application PL003525-2026 at 221 Congress Street relevant to the State Plan regulations and finds that the plan is in conformance with the State Plan standards of the Land Use Code, subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to applying for a building permit, one out of Britain. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, two as written. And prior to release of the housing replacement performance guarantee free as written [Speaker E (unidentified): ] the conditions just to clarify Eric you want to yes the language housing replacement [2:08:37] Speaker O (unidentified): that would be hired prior to issues yeah so we can amend that to be number two [2:08:51] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Okay, so prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 2 and 3, is that correct? That would be correct. Okay. Yes. [2:09:16] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Just as in voting options thank you very much [2:09:39] Speaker D (unidentified): on the basis of findings conclusions and recommendations [2:09:47] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: contained in the planning board report the public hearing on baseball 12.6 for the application PL-003525-2026 for 221 Congress Street which is attached to the draft approval letter and incorporated herein the planning board adopts the findings and conclusions in the blank page of the planning board report and the approval letter is drafted in the planning board's decision for application PL-003525-2026 and authorizes the planning board chair to sign the approval letter as drafted are [2:10:29] Speaker E (unidentified): we you'll make yes Austin Smith yes it is confused necklace all right we [2:14:05] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: will move to our last item on the agenda our new business which is major site plan at 9 Cedar Street. Boys and Girls Club of Southern Maine is the applicant, and Eric again will review for staff. Eric, if I can interrupt you. Chair Robertson, I did want to state that Avesta Housing is currently a client of my office. I'm not directly involved in them. I know the subject of Avesta Housing came up in the workshop. They are not actually the applicant, and I feel as though I can participate in partial signal objections from [2:14:39] Speaker D (unidentified): from the board the best is not the applicant I see no issue exactly yeah that's not being [2:14:48] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: an applicant it makes me very comfortable participating thank [2:14:54] Speaker E (unidentified): you good [2:15:09] Speaker O (unidentified): evening again Richard Robertson members of the board I'm here for the hearing for nine Cedar Street the applicant at the nine Cedar Street property is the Boys and Girls Club of Southern Maine represented by SMRT engineers and architects. 9 Cedar Street is located within the B3 and a small portion of the RN4 zone. This application involves the construction of a two-story, approximately 13,000 square foot addition to the existing Boys and Girls Club, as well as the demolition of two existing multi-family residential buildings on the site. This application is subject to site plan as well as the B3 design review guidelines. The applicant is requesting one waiver. this is related to landscape buffering specifically buffering between a non-residential and a residential use standard requires at least a 10 foot vegetated buffer and the applicant is requesting a waiver given space constraints at the rear of the site which prevent the planting of the required buffer the applicant is proposing fencing along the rear of the site and staff are supportive of this waiver request a workshop was held for this application on april 14th at the workshop the board requested the applicant provide additional detail on a few key items one was masking and screening the board requested the applicant provide additional detail related to the screening of rooftop utilities the applicant has since provided updating rendering updated renderings which show rooftop utilities with screening related to housing replacement The Board requested additional detail regarding the total number of units to be removed and replaced. The applicant has clarified that a total of 25 existing units on the site would be removed and replaced by the 30-unit major site plan at 19 Cedar Street, which is currently being reviewed separately as a major site plan, which will come to the Board at a later date. And related to site landscaping, the Board requested that the applicant provide a tree removal plan which has been provided by the admin is included in the staff of the board packet the existing site as shown here located at the corner of Cumberland Avenue and Cedar Street highlighted here are the two existing multi-family buildings that exist on the site as well as the several mature trees located on the site that would be moved and replaced and as well as the informal driveway area access off of Caesar Street on the site as well. This application is located predominantly within the B3 zone as outlined in Section 5.2.3 of the Land Use Code. There are provisions that when a subject property is located within split zoning, that the dimensional standards of the more permissive zone, which in this case would be the B3, can extend up to 30 feet into the adjacent zone. This allows for the substantial majority of the site to be considered B3. And also there are no structures proposed within the RN4 zone as part of this application. The only portion of the site within the RN4 is the weir courtyard area and Scotland Creek area. The site plan again as shown here showing the proposed building extension extending towards the corner of Cedar Street and Cumberland Avenue with the rear courtyard area accessed via an existing curb cut off of Cedar Street. The rear courtyard area would also include a half basketball court playground equipment as well as some maneuvering space for vehicles entering and exiting the student workshop at the [2:18:59] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: basement level of the building. [2:19:04] Speaker O (unidentified): Related to housing replacement, this application is subject to the housing replacement requirements outlined in Section 17.1 of the city's Land Use Code. This requires that the owner of any of the housing units that are demolished or replaced be converted demolished or being converted to non-residential use that be replaced and as mentioned earlier the applicant has partnered with the best housing to satisfy these requirements through the construction of new housing at 19th Street which again is being reviewed separately. Staff have drafted conditions of approval requiring the applicant to adhere to all the housing replacement standards outlined in [2:19:39] Speaker E (unidentified): Section 17 of the latest code and [2:19:44] Speaker O (unidentified): as shown here, this was included in the previous presentation as well. This is a project site and the spatial relationship to the proposed housing replacement application further down Cedar Street, and shown here is a updated rendering of showing the proposed building addition with the rooftop screening of materials, and a similar rendering, an older rendering showing the building as seen looking up Cedar Street with the rear garage and the beautiful garden. And at the request of the board, the previous workshop, the applicant provided new renderings showing the building as a perspective view along the applicant held their name required neighborhood meeting on March 9th, 2026, at the existing Boys and Girls Club at 277 on Avenue, for approximately 10 members of the public in attendance. Neighborhood comment focused predominantly on construction management, development timelines, and traffic impacts. There have been eight items of written public comment received from this application since the April 14th workshop. Public comment has focused on the housing replacement aspect of the project, building character, project financing, and site zoning. So staff are recommending approval of this major site plan application with several key conditions of approval highlighted here. Number one being that the applicant shall need to provide finalized electrical service easements, which are being requested from several budding property owners. These would be need to be provided it for acceptance and approval by the planning authority in public works, as well as conditions related to housing replacement requiring the applicant to adhere to tenant noticing requirements and yeah, to ensure the replacement of the 25 housing units that are being lost. And with that, we can turn it to the applicant. [2:21:48] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Thank you. I think we can present now. I'm [2:22:09] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): happy to. It would be helpful to hear a quick [2:22:11] Speaker I (unidentified): overview of our project again and why now, please. Yeah. [2:22:20] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Okay, does anybody hasn't heard it in the last time? We didn't get here last time, but you know, if you want to, I will always talk about it, so [2:22:28] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): twist my arm. Boys and Girls, as you all know, has been a long-standing community partner in the area and a process that we're making for generations, grounded in one simple purpose, to make sure that young people believe in and become the best versions of themselves. We serve thousands of youth every year across our organization, and many of those youth navigate significant barriers such as food insecurity, limited transportation, gaps in academic support, and truly a lack of structured opportunities during the most critical hours of the day. There is a growing gap between when school ends and when caregivers are available, and during that gap, risk increases, and it's exactly where our club and our team are able to step in to provide safe spaces, meals, mentorships, high-quality programming across all of our program areas so that our young people can succeed, build strong character, [2:23:21] Cheryl Harkins (Public Commenter): lead healthy, productive lives. [2:23:24] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): But what we've seen over time is clear. Many people think we're just an after-school program that serves elementary kids. But that gap intensifies as young people become teens. Teens right now are facing a different kind of gap when rooted in a lack of direction, belonging, and preparation for what comes next. Many lack access to career exposure, workforce readiness, financial literacy, and consistent membership. They're asking bigger questions about where they belong, where their future is headed, and without necessarily a lot of support systems to answer them. That's where our team steps in, and our organization has taken pride in the work of generations. This project, A Place for Growth, is a mission-driven expansion centered around our Bridge to Success team program, and it's designed specifically to meet our young people at this moment. It's not just an expansion of space, it's an expansion of purpose and our mission. It'll allow us to double the number of you served at our Portland Clubhouse while creating a dedicated, age-appropriate environment for teens, a safe place to belong. It'll provide hands-on workforce development, meaningful trade exploration, academic support, and leadership opportunities all under one roof. Just as importantly, it'll create a place for teens to be seen, heard, valued, and connected just in this neighborhood. And while the building is in Portland, the impact will certainly expand across southern and made the programs partnerships and curriculum developed in our teen center will strengthen outcomes for youth in every one of our clubhouses in many communities. So we're strengthening families, we're building our workforce, investing in the long-term vitality and economy of our entire community. It's really a meaningful investment in the future of me [2:25:22] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm going to talk about the site plan and that comes up a little bit as well. This is the existing situation there now on the page south along the bottom. That's from the line on page left is Cedar Street. There's two, the large white block is the existing Poison Growth Club. The little up out here is their existing entranceway, with a concrete ramp up to that level, which is higher than grade right now, and then the two apartment buildings that will be, and then the existing, this gray area in the middle is their existing parking place to use. Our proposed work is a 13,000 square foot building on two levels, so it's probably please 6500 square foot floor plate essentially aligned with the existing building on Cumberland Avenue. The a new entranceway act grade is essentially in the same place as the existing entranceway a little closer to the street. It's accessible has a nice little plaza with some bicycle racks. We have some landscaping along the face. We're going to reconstruct as much as we need to the sidewalk along Cumberland there are existing street trees here and then over here those were recently planted and going down Cedar Street we will replace that sidewalk along our property line and what this area will be planted and well it will be a combination of plants tree of some small trees with their more floating size large shelf size tree and this will also be stormwater capture air and treatment area. This curb cut is roughly pretty close to where the existing layers that's shifted a couple will be just to make everything work right and it's 12 feet wide. The whole back courtyard area is fenced in with a eight foot all the wire mesh fence. It'll be black pretty nice looking fence along the property line with the residential neighbor. We have a stone block retaining wall roughly about four feet high at the highest point which is the back corner of their yard and that is to facilitate the keep maintaining the grade on our site right now. That apartment building is literally on the property line and it's holding up this yard so and their yard is a little bit lower so we put that retaining wall in to maintain that the grade change and the fence there will be on top of the retaining wall and that will also have a screen on it so that could be significantly opaque from that vantage point. Within the courtyard we have a half court basketball. This whole area will be the gray area will be asphalt. The basketball court will be painted and the play area which will have a play structure that will be a matted tile protected padded sort of thing and that just adheres to the asphalt. This tannish area is just a concrete apron just to give the area outside a little bit more support. There's a ramp concrete ramp that will go into they'll access both the existing building from here and then a new building down this way so that will they'll provide access to both areas to the courtyard and then along the very back of on the on the inside of the retaining wall this green area is another stormwater feature, it's synthetic turf on the top, which synthetic turf has a very, fast infiltration rate, but almost like sand. And below that will be treatment oils that will treat the stormwater before it drains out to the municipal system in Cedar Street. [Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Okay, there'll] be two crash gates and a fence on Cedar Street, right where my hand is, as you can see, and the other one at the far end, and then there'll be a sliding gate at the curb. We're proposing to repaint the 30-foot-wide crosswalk at Cumberland Avenue that connects Boys and Girls Club with Portland High School. school one high school i did notice the other day that the city has recently restarted in their process of repainting that's right so we may we may pursue that art project down the line somewhere but for now that 's been repeated and our utility connections will be in cedar street that will be sanitary and storm we'll we're going to have one storm connection in company to replace the one that's already there 'll be a pinch cut here we're not proposing a new water or gas those things are going to be connected within the building within the existing building we are proposing into electric from chestnut street on the other side of the poison girls club and to a new transformer former we're going to cross our the current site that we the current is that 11 or 15 Cedar Street that's that's one of the properties that will be turned over to a Vesta so we're proposing an easement for electric bill a three foot wide easement for some conduit and then the same three foot easement through the neighbor's property and that will come across to our new [2:32:20] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): building [2:32:27] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: If you like sure so I'll just go over kind of a high level and people have questions we can get into more detail but as when you pointed out the left hand side in that blue outline is the addition and it does now enter at grade so people can enter through that vestibule and be able to then navigate up some steps into the existing clubhouse or use the elevator there right at that junction where the new meets the old and then they can transition down a ramp down to the back door and further down another ramp to make that transition and as you flow in the left that back half of the building is dedicated to those three career labs which were large enough to hold a car or other items to learn to work on in various trades and then on the side facing to Cumberland Ave the far corner is a is the teen we call that area team recreation area lounge which will have activities in it such as pool tables and a dropped out movie screen. And so that is all a great visibility in and out. And then the center there is restrooms and they have the large room for a study hall of sorts. And then another room for virtual reality and gaming. And then as you go upstairs, there's an open monumental stair with a connection back into the second floor of the assistant clubhouse and the primary space you encounter when you come up is very open and transparent you can look back across at the high school or out through the windows to the back plot to see what's happening outside and then we have a series of rooms for different educational programming on this floor and an emergency exit stair on the far left and new toilets in the center So That is the extent of the plans here, and you can see how we have again tried to honor the scale and volume of the original building by maintaining that alignment with the face of the building and the height of the parapet with the original structure, and then it sort of carves away at that corner to lend more visibility, which really enhances things like safety in that area. You do now see the screening for the rooftop units. They're really kind of tucked away in the center there. It's even those We're looking at the exterior views from the street and you barely even see the screening, so it's really tough back there. [2:35:33] Speaker I (unidentified): Are you looking if you were standing in front of high school see just the top portion of that [2:35:40] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: screen right and it is all going to be a full white masonry brick on this on this building. And we can just look around there's other what other views do you have this is the last one so the most visible part of that mechanical screening on the roof would be from this vantage point in the back side where it's closer to the edge of the roof. [2:36:13] Speaker I (unidentified): Talking about the bottom of cedar street looking up happy [2:36:21] Speaker E (unidentified): to take questions thanks thank you. [2:36:26] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Okay four questions clarifying questions for staff or the applicants is [2:36:37] Speaker D (unidentified): there anything to highlight as far as like changes from the workshop to now of any of the plans [2:36:42] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: No there really aren't any changes you did have the mechanical screening. [Speaker D (unidentified): Right.] And just i know you touched on the easements for the electrical work what is the current status like they've been requested is that the current status [2:37:01] Speaker I (unidentified): Really the attorney is almost done wrapping that up the boundary surveys are done the document has been written up and we're just now getting the neighbor to sign it. [2:37:20] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): Yeah. Just the neighbor needs to produce one document that they're procuring and then we'll be all set. Yeah. [2:37:28] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I'm also not that concerned because it's a condition that it's prior to issuance of building permit. Maybe the planning authority has to review and accept it. So i don't see that as an issue i assume that facility would be operational during construction and you're eliminating the handicap ramp is there a way to get handicap access to the building during construction yeah we are so we're working with ray ryan to develop that plan and so we have a couple different strategies to do that which we haven't finalized but the we're looking at an option to come in from the original entrance and then there is a egress door down along just that is a line of The sidewalk so it's very close there, so that lower level is good option. Okay, then I think we will move to public comment at this point. We will start with folks in the room. Again, you have three minutes and can come up to the podium. We've reviewed all written comments that were previously submitted, and please just state your name and address when you come up to the podium. Anyone in the room like to comment? Seeing anyone in the room, we can move to Zoom. Please raise your hand if you would like to comment on Zoom. George, you should be all set on mute. [2:39:27] George Roe (Public Commenter): Can you hear me, please? Yes. Great. Okay. George Rowe, 28 Hanover Street. I've previously objected to the two major conflicts of interest of the two board members with the workshop, and then I guess just one board member tonight. This whole project hinges on the housing displacement and the housing replacement being provided by Avesta, so it's sort of kind of absurd to suggest that 's incidental or not fundamental to this application. And that, you know, people with business with them would somehow, you know, not fear objecting to this arrangement. Nothing in the ordinance with respect to the housing displacement explicitly authorizes an applicant to outsource their replacement obligations either financially or physically to a third party. The staff in their presentation suggested that this was permitted. It is at best silent. At worst, it is not authorized. And again, all applicants facing this ordinance should be treated in the same manner. Not everybody has friends at a Vesta that can quote-unquote donate land that they probably didn't even acquire with their own resources. It was, you know, obviously a donor, and then turn around and claim that housing, that new housing, which right now is going to be low-income housing tax credit housing, it's going to be public, publicly provided housing. It's not being provided by the applicant's resources, and so the math that hasn't been done and shown to the public is exactly what their in lieu of contribution ought to be, because that's the only way any other applicant with this requirement would have to deal with it. They would either find it cheaper to replace the housing, or they would find it cheaper to pay the in lieu of fee. And at a minimum, the applicant should be putting that kind of resource into the new housing. Otherwise, they're not providing the housing. Somebody else is. I have made it clear that the lack of historic preservation standards being applied here is offensive. It's a violation of the comp plan. Bayside has been treated horribly under our preservation regime. And it's kind of ironic that the new director of the Boys and Girls Club here is actually taking advantage of a West End historic district to live in while destroying houses that are probably as old as the Civil War at least here. I'm also make clear that the trees should be preserved, perhaps moved. I'm also worried about the large tree in the neighbor's yard at 11 Cedar or 15 Cedar Street or the house adjacent to the project on the northern side. I feel like that large tree is going to get armed by the demolition of the neighboring building and that hasn't been addressed but again most of my comments have already been made in writing but george a lot of objections here other [2:42:51] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: folks on zoom that would like to comment please raise your hand i'm not seeing any hands coming up so i think we can close public comment period okay address some of the comments that came in regarding historic preservation standards this is not in a historic preservation district so those standards fly putting that out there actually with the trees on the site in the packet there was the workshop comment response letter and then it said that there were two attachments which are the building renderings which i saw and then the tree plan the attachments are actually included it's just the cover letter i don't know if you're eric you're able to pull up that tree plan that was submitted if you've seen the building renderings that goes over the existing trees on the property the existing it should have been attachment number [2:43:59] Speaker O (unidentified): 12 in the materials. Okay. I was in two. Okay. It highlights the existing mature trees here. I can share my screen. Oh, yeah. It 's just highlighting the existing trees predominantly within that existing area. The existing entrance area inside the building. [2:44:43] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: And all of those will be [2:44:47] Speaker O (unidentified): yes and the applicant is although the applicant is not proposing shade trees they are proposing numerous smaller plantings which are again satisfyingly and [2:44:59] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: The any are you able to comment on the tree and the property next door and if you think that will be [2:45:05] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): compromised during construction. We have looked at that and we have flagged it as [2:45:11] Speaker I (unidentified): we need a protection. Okay. Right. Ryan has a plan to get to take care of that so we hopeful that it will it will survive. I haven't actually seen it so I'll see what kind of [2:45:30] Speaker O (unidentified): back with where it is and [2:45:33] Speaker I (unidentified): I'll comment on the condition of the tree itself and how close it this property alignment. We have a problem. Okay. Nowhere that it will be included in the [2:45:42] Speaker D (unidentified): construction. Okay. [2:45:49] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: I don't know that the whole housing removal and the plan here with using Novesta and it being a separate project. I mean, we've covered that in the workshop, but if you remember that again, kind of what the staff's comfortable with the plan and the way it's [2:46:10] Speaker O (unidentified): sure. Yeah. So within the housing replacement ordinance there is no language that prohibits an applicant from working with a third party. Regardless the applicant is going to be the one who is responsible for posting the performance guarantee for the housing replacement so they are they are very financially intertwined in that and what they are proposing does satisfy the housing replacement requirements as it relates to the number of units and you know their location within the same census block so staff are comfortable with that with that arrangement [2:46:43] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: and the land being donated seems not really the application right like that doesn't happen no if anything I think it actually supports the case that this is a transaction that's happening to support the applicant's housing replacement requirements to provide that land to us [2:47:13] Speaker D (unidentified): I think George's comment about the fee-in-lieu of development, I hear as concerned as being like you can't just say you're partnering with something that's already going to happen in lieu of paying the fee-in-lieu. So I think walk us through the whole partnership. [2:47:36] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): it I will let Dan speak to it because Dan was part of the initial purchase of the property with the organization of the initial purchase party but we currently do own the property and we'll be donating it to about that and then you can speak to this specific yeah we purchased the [2:47:52] Speaker P (unidentified): Property about six or seven years ago for eight hundred thousand dollars. The land was appraised for tax purposes in 800 at 450 000 for each lot, so 900 000. And then we worked with the city to talk that particular piece of property did not require housing replacement because there were two lots with two-year buildings on. So that was clear for that purchase. Originally that was our desire was to build on that side and extend it to the back of what we're building and come back that way. And then the neighbor James was with the two buildings. That changed the whole perspective. It made it work out beautifully, actually, because you saw it on the screen. The much more practical arrangement, and especially getting into the traits that are in the elevation, just worked out perfectly. It so well we often she went out and looked at it as a void do we build on a lot we're not in the house and business with the club business and the mission of the club but we were willing to take and build on that for the 25 years the best are being in the neighborhood. We approached them and I talked to the prior director of investor. We came to an arrangement where we would provide the land and some money so that they could develop the site there so we end up with and I just went to the Neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago beautiful buildings going in there fits in the neighborhood has a nice older look with the brick front and just a great improvement to the neighborhood. So everybody to me makes out in this deal and we did save ourselves myself so it worked out and it fits the rules. I worked closely with the past playing director Christine and Amber shadow and so many who have since retired and put it all together back then and now it's coming to fruition so I just think It's a great way to be it works for housing thing works I [2:50:15] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): Think it's I think the vested interest is in our youth housing is a very real problem for using their families and so the partnership was intentional on behalf of the work you know the organization is intentional about the partnership because we wanted to be part of [2:50:29] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: The broader solution not you know problematic sure we're really hoping that our staff takes [2:50:37] Speaker P (unidentified): Advantage of being able to break down I'm sure corporation counseling would have raised any [2:50:43] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Any issues they need any of this like partnership we [2:50:52] Speaker P (unidentified): Will not be part of the partnership other than our initial deal. We want to own part of the building. We won't control part of the building after we execute the deal, which we won't execute until we know that you're going through the best of plan that they're going to build it. Otherwise, we'd be forced to go out to a different [2:51:15] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: And I'll just know too, I mean, again, reports reference one of the conditions is around hosting that performance guarantee. So that's, that's the complete sum of money that would be required to be played to be paid into the city's housing trust fund. If for whatever reason that investor project could not move forward, then that money would be, they would be responsible for paying that [2:51:37] Speaker P (unidentified): So they would, that's the fourth, the four billion records that's paying for it or developing it [2:51:45] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Yes. Yes. And our understanding is obviously that's a placeholder or a surety to make sure. I [2:51:56] Speaker D (unidentified): Don't want to be a stick in the mud, but I have more questions because I think it's a fair concern. Like if you had donated the land on the outskirts of town for $150,000, that does seem to not be equivalent to developing those summer units yourself. So like it's 800K for the lots, plus you set a financial contribution, are you able to [2:52:17] Speaker P (unidentified): Share what that is rather than not until the deal is all complete. Fair enough. Yeah, and I would [2:52:24] Speaker O (unidentified): Note that housing replacement is required to be within the same system. So you know, in an instance [2:52:30] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Where they were to put it in a far out thing, so our priority is obviously if housing is lost, we want to see that housing is placed within close proximity to where it's lost. So that we have to maintain similar housing stocks, similar housing facility across the city. So even if, again, I think with the proposal to build 30 units essentially right next door, and it satisfies that and maintains the RFP all [2:53:03] Speaker P (unidentified): That we're replacing, we have five additional units that will replace them. So there's more here in some houses and there's more value than the items can monster who only paid six years ago, I [2:53:25] Speaker D (unidentified): Think, I think I'm, I understand less of the arrangement with the vessels that I felt they did at the workshop, because I hear, I heard last time like, oh, we're replacing this housing, but it's, you're supplying the land and a financial, some financial contribution, but, and I guess that's a partnership, but it's not it. And I don't expect you to become developers and go do it yourself, but it seems to me that the intent of the ordinance might be that if you are taking custom units away, you are on the hook for doing the development, even if that means going out to hire the developer. But with Avesta bringing in outside capital to do it, I don't know whether that satisfies the intent. Have, and maybe it doesn't, yeah. [2:54:23] Speaker P (unidentified): I don't know the end result accomplishes the replacement of passion, which is the initial ideal, and replacement, the end result is 30 units of housing. The approach or the value of the house of replacement is to provide replacement housing. This provides 30 units of replacement housing. So we need an intent from the ordinance by replacing it. So we get the same end result. How can we have that smooth? [2:55:08] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: It doesn't appear that there's a financial obligation beyond just that surety to make sure that it happens. That's why our standard isn't being written into [Ron Effecto (Avesta Housing): to the value] of the replacement units shall be a median cost of units. That's not part of it. So there is no [2:55:34] Speaker E (unidentified): written value of that development. [2:55:37] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: That is our understanding. I mean, again, we are comfortable [2:55:41] Speaker E (unidentified): with this. [2:55:50] Speaker P (unidentified): You need to approach, but we can't admit it yet. [2:55:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, the thing I do see is that those units cannot be built without your contribution and without, you know, absent a dollar value or an expectation that the contribution of the housing trust fund is equal to, like, roughly equal to the amount that we'd spend on assuring those housing units get built, then yeah, I [2:56:22] Ryan (City Staff/Presenter): agree with the question. Other comments from the board is [2:56:29] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: that anything from you? I don't think I have any more comment in my notes. Entertain a motion. Okay, I'll make a motion starting with waivers based on the information of the application, plans, reports, and other information submitted by the applicant, findings and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing on May 12, 2026, for application PL0035202026 at 9 Cedar Street, relevant site plan standards of the land use code and Portland's technical and design standards and other regulations and testimony presented at the planning board public hearing. One Buffering and screening the Planning Board finds, based upon Planning staff's review, that extraordinary conditions exist or undue hardship may result from strict compliance with Section 13.6.2.B.2.C of the City of Portland's Land Use Code, which requires non-residential development abiding a residential zone provide a landscape buffer of no less than 10 feet in depth and six feet tall, that substantial justice and the public interest are secured with the variation in the standard and the variation is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The Planning Board waives Land Use Code Section 13.6.2.B.2.C to allow for a fenced buffer of less than 10 feet in depth. [2:58:13] Speaker D (unidentified): Second. Okay. Yes. Beverly Ulinick? Yes. [2:58:24] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Austin Smith? Yes. David Seltz, Accused. Nicholas Messina? Yes. Eric Dinn? [2:58:29] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Joseph Robertson? Yes. Joseph Zamboni, Absent. [2:58:35] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: Hey, site plan review based on the information in the application, the plans, reports, testimony of the Planning Board hearing, and other information submitted by the applicant, Planning Board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the Planning Board report public hearing on May 12, 2026 for application PL003520-2026, the Nine Cedar Street, relevant to the safe plan regulations, finds that the plan is in conformance with the safe plan standards of the Land Use Code subject to the following conditions of approval prior to issuance of a building permit. One is written prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Two and three is written prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy or as written and prior to release THE HOUSING REPLACEMENT PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE FIVE IS WRITTEN [2:59:37] Speaker D (unidentified): BEVERLY YES [2:59:41] Speaker E (unidentified): AUSTIN SMITH YES [2:59:45] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: DAVID SELF-REFUSED NICHOLAS MESSINA YES ERIC DEN YES TELSEY ROBERTSON YES JOSEPH ZINFONI ABSENT IN PLANNING BOARD DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE PLANNING BOARD REPORT PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 12 2026 RELATED TO APPLICATION PL L-003520-2026 for 9 Cedar Street which is attached to the draft approval letter and incorporated herein. The Planning Board adopts the findings and conclusions in the May 6, 2026 Planning Board Report and the approval letter as drafted as the Planning Board decision FOR APPLICATION PL003520-2026 AND AUTHORIZES THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIR TO SIGN THE APPROVAL LETTER AS DRAFTED. NEW SPEAKER Okay. NEW SPEAKER Federally Uhlenhik. NEW SPEAKER Yes. [3:00:46] Speaker E (unidentified): NEW SPEAKER Austin Smith. NEW SPEAKER Yes. NEW SPEAKER David Sobh, recused. NEW SPEAKER Nicholas Messina. NEW SPEAKER Yes. NEW SPEAKER Eric Ginn. [3:00:52] Speaker D (unidentified): NEW SPEAKER Yes. NEW SPEAKER Chelsea Robertson. NEW SPEAKER Yes. NEW SPEAKER Joseph Zamboni absent. NEW [3:00:59] Unidentified Chair/Presiding Officer: SPEAKER Thank you. NEW SPEAKER Thank you very much for your time. NEW SPEAKER Thank you for your time. NEW SPEAKER Have a great night. NEW SPEAKER Thank you.