Portland Planning Board approves 33-unit supportive housing at 1871 Forest Ave

[1:41] Unidentified speaker (Chair): All right. Welcome to the planning board meeting for June 23rd, 2026. This meeting is being held in a hybrid fashion, both 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 are made available to the board for review. In order to provide public comment during the meeting, must be provided verbally members of public attending remotely via phone or computer do not have speaking privileges enabled but joining the meeting in order by public time members of the public must indicate their interest speaking at the appropriate time and participating in the meeting with computer use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest this is turned on and off the hand icon at the bottom of your screen please ensure you are logged into the meeting under your real name not an alias or username so we can call you properly if listening to the meeting on a phone, such as a cell phone, you may indicate your interest by pressing star nine at the appropriate time. In either case, after you have called on, please wait until the moderator asks you to unmute yourself. Once unmuted, please state your name and address. You will have three minutes to provide your comment. At the end of the period, your microphone will be muted again. If you experience problems during the meeting, you can email planning at PortlandMain.gov. Staff will try to monitor the email and respond as appropriate. And with that and or can we hit the roll absolutely beverly here austin smith accused for the first item [8:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair): david silk refused from all items tonight nicholas and cena here from eric finn here anthony robertson here and joseph zamboni here so in our minutes we don't have any communications that i see so we can move on to new business is there communication yes there is [9:21] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): go ahead i'm going to be very serious so in your packet tonight there's a memo we're excited to share that the department kicked off the city's first comprehensive transportation plan number 30 years two weeks ago so portland in motion It will be a holistic view of our transportation network. We actually appreciate Nick Messina, he is representing the planning board and some of our stakeholder groups. But we had our first kickoff meeting on June 10th with the stakeholder committee, as well as some meetings with internal departments that include Jetport, UPW, parks, sustainability, and the whole gamut. And on June 11th, we held our first large public open house, which was held in person at the public library. And we'll be holding a series of more data networks throughout the summer, fall, and winter. We anticipate it's going to be a 14-month process overall. And we're working with Stantec, Spec Dempsey, and Nelson Nygaard to support us with consulting efforts. We're really excited. The last plan was done in 1992-93. So I think it's a really critical time as the City's Council has really put a big emphasis on complete streets, Vision Zero. And we've really been pushing on major transportation projects in the city of Libby County and Franklin Street. So we wanted to make sure the board was aware and the public. Certainly, we encourage all of you to engage. There's a project website and survey that's also available for folks if you want to participate in that way. And we also have a statement, comment, written, email, how would you like to send it? I wanted to make sure we shared that with the board. I hope to take any questions if you have any. Appreciate that. [10:57] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Big announcement. That so any questions from board members thank you to Nick yeah no questions but it should [11:03] Speaker D (unidentified): be a great effort you know a robust stakeholder engagement process and forward to it show just [11:08] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): off the agenda I also want to share one of the communication I don't know if any board members have worked but Rob Winner and all this has been with the department for over a decade in our historic preservation division he is retiring it's a long time coming we're very happy for him but his last week will be next week you're just actually recognized by Greater Britain Landmarks with an award for his work in Portland and just want to share that with the board or any members of the public have worked with Rob he's a fantastic individual his last [11:35] Unidentified speaker (Chair): week which city will be next week thank you for a service anything else from board members edits communication okay well thank you I missed a big one the new business we have is a major site plan, 1871 Forest Avenue. This is a Vesta Housing Development Corporation is the applicant. We are holding a hybrid public hearing to consider the application for the construction of a four-story, approximately 28,000 square foot multifamily building at 1871 Forest Avenue in the B2 community business zone. The proposed development includes 33 dwelling units, 100%, which will be affordable and eight parking spaces. As project and plan summary are available for viewing on the city's CSS portal referencing plan number PL003538-2026 and I will kick it off to the city. Thank you members of the board. [12:38] Rosa Callister: My name is Rosa Callister and I'll be talking providing an overview of 1871 for SAG major site plan application for our hearing tonight. As you just said right this is at the Best Housing Project, represented by Acorn Engineering, located at 1871 Fordstaff in the B2 Community Business Zone District. It is a 33-unit multi-family residential building. In our previous workshop, we discussed a number of items, one of which is the visiting footpath that occurs on the left-hand side of the parcel. The applicant stated that Haniford is not interested in pursuing that formal connection at the time, but further discussion may be addressed in future development phases. The board also discussed the proposed waivers or requested waivers and exceptions that this applicant submitted during our workshop August 12th, and among the conversations, the board encouraged the applicant to provide the plan to show additional bicycle parking spaces. The board also discussed the landscaping buffers and the stormwater technical waivers. The board also discussed the build-to exception. There was a request from the board for a determination regarding the step-back that occurs in the proposed structure. And upon review, staff did determine that the step back is an allowable facade articulation as part of this building, but we will get into, later in my presentation, there's additional items of consideration on this building. So just as a reminder, this is our project location to the west of I-95. The project is located in a commercial business district but has a number of industrial, residential, and other commercial uses in the nearby area. This site itself is currently home to a vacant restaurant structure, no longer used. It experiences a fairly large grade change across the site, especially towards the rear, and does have, as I mentioned, that existing footpath, as well as wetlands to the west. These are our proposed elevations. Again, as a reminder, they're providing eight parking spaces, six tree trees, three sidewalks, crosswalks, and transit stops, along with the residential programming under the Home for Good program, which, as discussed last time, is a program for unhoused individuals seeking permanent housing. So, since our workshop, the applicant has submitted a handful of revisions, namely, they have provided, as shown here, an additional bike rack, providing eight rather than six bicycle parking spaces. They have also revised their Bill 2 request to 32 feet. As shown here, it's the furthest part of the structure. The maximum bill to is, again, 10 feet in this zone, and this request is larger than the 4.5 that was originally requested as well. The applicant has submitted additional considerations for the board regarding topography as well, except for stating this waiver. As discussed, there are a handful of waivers before you as part of this application. One is the to not provide a landscape island as part of the parking lot, the bicycle parking, rather than providing one for every two units, they're providing eight bicycle parking spaces, and then a waiver from the technical manual section for a private connection staff [Speaker F (unidentified): from] water resources have again reviewed this waiver and are generally supportive, but we have included conditions to further clarify that connection. And as mentioned, there's also this Bill 2 exception before you. So according to the Land Use Code, all portions of the front façade need to be located within that Bill 2 zone. So in the case of public plazas and outdoor space bounded by the building façade, that is also included in the speculation. However, this patio shown here is private and for residents only, so the determination would be made that but it did not count for the bill to be for signage. Therefore, staff directed the applicant to consider revising the plan to move the patio to a different location and bring the building up to the further part of the structure, or to revise their bill to exemption to the furthest point of the structure. So that's what they chose to do. I'll put the nurse's attention on here. Asking for a bill to exemption from the furthest point of the slide. So as a reminder, the board can provide an exemption exception to the bill 2 zone for unusually shaped blocks as long as there is a continuous pedestrian edge along that frontage. So the applicant has provided additional planting and I'll turn it over to them too to provide a little bit more detail on that. But in essence, the staff is recommending a handful of type of conditions relating to the drainage, utility, and site plan. You can see this whole list of conditions. And as a final note, three public comments have been submitted as part of this proposal, as part of this application, one of which I'll just call out, which is urging the applicant to consider salvaging historic material or features from the building from the existing restaurant structure. So while there are no local requirements mandating this, staff will refer to board let's use the applicant to explore this with the third party prior to demolition. [19:00] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Good evening Ryan, thank you. Best of housing, thank you for having us once again. I promise at some point I will be out of all of your care physically. I'm filling the planning board but thank you for your time. Just to remind the board of the programmatic details of this development. This is a proposed Home for Good site, 33 units. Vesta is proud to have three existing Home for Good properties here in the city of Portland. The Home for Good program is an initiative of the Maine State Housing Authority and there are five other developments across the state that are also sort of in similar stages of development as ours here in Portland. So it's great to see the state take on this initiative to provide permanent supportive housing to people who have experienced chronic homelessness. We have experience doing this and we're excited that we're going to be able to build this development on Forest Ave. We had a few changes from the last time we were here that Alex and Sam from Acorn and Pat from Simons Architects will be happy to discuss with all of you. I was very encouraged at the workshop that we had, both of our directors come up to the meeting in support of the development. It's good to have that support and also that working partnership with our directors. It doesn't happen all the time and we're certainly grateful for their encouragement and support of this development and look forward to your questions tonight and if we can address the lingering concerns that result. [20:51] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Become the first meeting. Thank you very much. I'm asked to like you landscape architect with [20:58] Rosa Callister: a court engineering. So I'll just kick off the presentation. We wanted to start with a brief refresher of the site location, which is represented here in red. You can see it's close to Canterford Market, South Scott River, the I-95 overpass, as well as bigger friends to be announced, and east within the Riverton neighborhood. As has been mentioned, the site or project proposes a 33 unit housing development home for good support those who are within quantity homeless. It's a 24-hour staffed building, has a number of landscape features incorporated, as well as paths, bike racks, small parking area, lighting, security fencing around the perimeter of the site, as well as many other features. One thing that is unique about this site is the shape of the parcel. All this is a regularly shaped plot, as you can see, it sort of looms out on the edges and compresses in the center, which is further accentuated by an MDOT project that took a portion of land along the course of five of the parcel during a street widening project. Due to this fact, this is a regularly shaped lot, as well as a significant grade change from the street side along to the back of the parcel, we are utilizing this provision within the code to request this bill to favor. It should be noted that the existing restaurant, which is shown in the center there, is about 15 feet at its ground floor level above the street, so there is a pretty market change in grades. There are other factors which we've been considering within our site layout and development. As represented in red, we have that overhead three-phase power line, which carries its own construction setback, which is represented in the blue patch there. You can see that kind of overlaps in parts with the yellow dashed line, which is that built-in zone. But despite that, we've made great efforts to sort of utilize the features of the site and really build a project that caters to the future residents, and also allows for future development as well. We've also made a number of changes, which have been mentioned, to the site plan since our prior presentation. We shifted the entire building a little bit closer to really that built-to-zone at the front face of the building. Additionally, we widened the sidewalk in portions and made it a little bit closer to that frontage of the building, sort of parallel to that frontage. We've added the bike rack for eight total spots. We've also added interior bike storage area represented by that little pool. Additionally we've added some trees along the planned east property line to enhance the buffer there and despite that you know there are some elements that we felt were important to preserve namely this front patio area which we'll get into now. So in terms of dual location of that front patio space as I mentioned at the last meeting and the reason that this is a private space versus public is that it was really meant to really cater to the residents of this housing project and really value their privacy along the busy frontage on forest ave yet we felt this was the best location for this patio space for a number of reasons. One to start with is that the building has fit within this grade change that has been mentioned. So the grading kind of comes back onto the site here. Another important consideration I'll let Pat kind of discuss and some of the other [25:31] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): questions. Sure. So I'm down there. These are the floor plans updated. On the left is the ground floor plan and you can see in the front portion of the building we've located the staff or sorry we've located the residents common areas and gathering spaces for the staff admin support building services in the back of the building and on the right side you can see in green or in the 11 studio units that exist of course two three and four but you know in understanding the build two zone you know we still felt that putting all of the common areas in front of the building would help activate the street. We'll talk a little bit about the daylight exposure there as well, but also the adjacency to the community room and the kitchen and the staff security desk. Go to the next slide. You can see circled in orange is that security desk that's set 24-7 and having an adjacent great baths and all of the common areas including the front patio is essential for this program. But it also allows some good interrelationships and adjacencies between the front portion, which is a sitting and gathering space, and then the kitchen, which is directly page north [26:50] Speaker H (unidentified): of that patio. So there can be some relationship and activity between these seats. [26:55] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): And again, with the trash enclosure at the rear of the building, these spaces, it's a lot better to have everything condensed to where it comes from. [27:02] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Another [27:08] Rosa Callister: part of our reasoning and thought process in locating this patio space towards the front of the building was shade and sun access. This is a shade study. The patio is represented in that red square at the front of the building and the alternative location that had been mentioned at the prior meeting was towards the back of the building. This top row represents the spring fall equinox. The lower row is the summer solstice. You can see there is some significant shade throughout the day of that back area. While we can always bring shade into that pattern area through umbrellas or overhead structure, it's hard to really bring sun into an area, and so we want to give this make this space really comfortable for the residents and allow them to enjoy it particularly in the shoulder season. The code does allow for the enhanced fencing along the street frontage to compensate for this separation from the built-in zone. So we've really made an effort to create a fencing plan that activates the street frontage. This includes a number of street trees, a variety of species, both trusses, as well as amelite here, as well as native shrubs and ornamental grasses and ground cover species. The hope is that this will really create a dynamic and interesting pedestrian walkway for those crossing Forest Avenue. of view. We also think that the fence itself is really kind of interesting and dynamic itself. It's not really just a blank facade but meant to be an articulation of the building facade itself, so that you have this sort of layered fencing scheme which will blow up with the topography to the building, but should be an active sort of more pedestrian-scale exterior view. [29:21] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): So you have these next two slides. The exterior views largely have changed from last time. But just to reiterate the sense of this, does actually feel like a prototypical form of a home, like dormers, a porch, and a garden in front. And we feel that porch really does a lot for the sense of the buildings, how inviting it is. I think we've talked about the Blake wall last week, or last month, and the ground core window comforts at a rate of about 85%, so we'll have some connection there. Now, to explain that existing buffer of trees, adding a few more would create a nice screening element. [30:04] Rosa Callister: And one thing we'll just close with is that we only see the site within this urban context, and so the neighborhood itself has a varying degree of separation from that built-in zone. Obviously, in the future, things will move towards that built-in zone as the area is developed. But we really see this as really fitting within that existing pattern and network of different buildings. So we think it will complement the existing research in the neighborhood. [30:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Thank you. Appreciate the presentation. [30:50] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): So let me ask questions from the board. What would you public comment? [30:54] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I actually need to bring up a federal conflict, I guess. So I'm only reminded of this because I see how they're over there. But one of my clients from my side of the firm is a project manager. [31:04] Speaker H (unidentified): Here this project I still feel like I'm biased but [31:11] Speaker D (unidentified): Board members is it project manager with Acorn or no that's not heaven [31:20] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I get your title right [31:23] Speaker H (unidentified): I mean [31:31] Speaker D (unidentified): Historically like David and Austin have recused themselves one of us that was their client right so sake of consistency in her in her personal capacity oh in her personal capacity not as an invest employee. Okay. That's good for me then. Yeah. Okay. [31:52] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Bev, I assume you're all right. I haven't seen anything. [31:57] Speaker F (unidentified): Yes. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. [32:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Anything else? Just one quick clarifying. One of the public comments from the first workshop was about access to the cemetery. Has that been clarified or resolved we did provide yes we [32:22] Rosa Callister: Closed the gap for providing a small kind of extension of existing fencing to close the gap within that existing fencing and are working with [32:31] Unidentified speaker (Chair): The meeting house to complete that okay yeah we anticipate that we'll need to upgrade the [32:42] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): I'm getting the commission a lot of trees are going through it but we will close the consistent gap [32:56] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Okay so what we will do is we'll open the public comment portion people allowed to comment if you're online or on the phone we'll do in the room first then we close the public portion and we'll start discussions where we may continue to ask the parties at the table questions so start within the room feel free to come up please just identify yourself and your address and we'll let you know when you get close to three minutes thank you excuse me David Hingston 158 Danforth [33:32] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): Street and a member of the Quaker meeting, and I want to reaffirm our support for the project. We are acutely aware of the homeless issues in the neighborhood, I would say, and we completely support the bestest creative approach to dealing with great questions of homelessness in general [33:47] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): and housing throughout the city. [33:50] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): They have taken note of our interest in the tree buffer and also the fence line at the property line to the east of their property. We're also very interested in the crosswalk that they propose across Forest Avenue because we and the mosque across the street share parking. They park in our lot on Friday afternoons and for events, and we use their lot as well on Sunday mornings and occasionally for events. Fence. So we're very pleased to see that crosswalk and flashing lights. And that's going to make everybody feel better crossing the street. And the last one I would say is that we're glad to see the way that they're addressing drainage along the property line that has been somewhat of an issue in the cemetery behind the meeting house. And again, we're very pleased. So that's really all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it. [34:38] Speaker F (unidentified): Other folks in the room, okay. [34:44] Unidentified speaker (Chair): So if you are online or on telephone would like to speak on this particular applicant's package now would be the time. You're here for another one, you will have a different chance later on. Good. [35:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, John, you're also to unmute. Okay, thank you, John. [35:16] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Egan, I'm the director of real estate development at Avesta. I'm just going to confirm what you've already heard, that we've been working with this design and development team for quite some time to have what we consider to be a statewide leading example of providing supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals. Avesta is a leader in this particular development field and we've been doing this for more than 20 years. There's now funding and an organized effort to address these types of projects across the state, and Avesta is pleased to be a part of that cohort and in fact leading a lot of the conversations with the other participants. So we're extremely pleased to be able to deliver this project in the city of Portland. This will be our fourth one, I believe, if helping the city address its housing needs for people that are persistently homeless. I believe what you have heard tonight is that we addressed all of the concerns of the board and of staff, and we look forward to being able to get going on this project. Thanks. [36:23] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Thank you for being here, John. Others online or on the telephone? Justin, you should be all set to unmute. Justin, we can't hear you. [36:45] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Can you hear me now? [36:47] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): Yep, that's better. Thanks. [36:49] Justin Bragdon: Hi, good after you. My name is Justin Bragdon. I'm with the Portland Fire Department. I am the station captain assigned at Engine 9, which is at [Unidentified speaker (Chair): 1606 Forest Avenue.] My major concern with this project and trying to read through the numerous documentations is access for fire and emergency services. I did read something in there that with the length of the driveway at 150 feet, there had to be a turnaround in the proposed drawing that you had, Site Plan 1, kind of that two-dimensional drawing. Is your expectation for us when we access the building to turn around at the end by the dumpster or to turn around in that sharp corner by the station? And this is mostly for safety, not only for us and for residents, but also if we had to back out on Forest Avenue. I was just wondering how that works. [37:43] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Thank you, Justin. I will pose that question to them after the public comment period. Okay. Thank you. [37:54] Speaker F (unidentified): Others? Going [38:00] Speaker H (unidentified): once? Going twice? [38:02] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I will close the public portion and I'll just question from the chair if you want to respond. I don't know if you're in a minute, but yeah, happy to pull this up and back out. [Speaker H (unidentified): Great. Thank you.] All right. Good evening. Sam LeBeau with Acorn Engineering. So the way that we approach the emergency access to this facility is that when you come in off of the curb cut off Forest Ave, we have 28 feet of width at the curb cut. That then goes to 22 through this small section, and then the rest of the dry vial is 24 feet, which is a pretty standard dry vial, something you'd find everywhere from, you know, Hannaford to a mixed-use property. property. And so, through the process, the site plan review, our understanding was that even though we are slightly above 150 feet to this retaining wall, that the request was to just keep the access clear with signage and striping. And so, the intent, if a vehicle such as an aerial firetruck, a vehicle of that size, where it would need to come into the site. They could, of course, maneuver through this driveway. They would need to back out, but not on the forest app. There is space. There's a sufficient space where the curb line opens up to about 30 feet in this area. So happy to share auto turns as a, you know, as a condition to show, you know, that functionality in the turning movement, but fire truck could back up into this stub driveway and front out of Forest AB. The intention is not that they would need to back out onto the roadway. And you're okay with that condition? We have not to provide all the turn, yeah, movements demonstrating that, yeah, that, yeah, we're okay with that as well. I just wanted to know. So the project did undergo a life safety review, so we did have staff from the city's permanent inspections department who's our life safety reviewer, who provided comments saying as long as they provided, I believe it's a no, essentially a restriction on parking in that rear area between the snow storage and the dumpster, that they were satisfied with the site layout. But the board also can have that condition. Thank you. Questions from the board? [41:39] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): I'm just reading through the [41:41] Unidentified speaker (Chair): written comments again that we've received. Open it up for the applicant if there's anything where you want to speak to on those. Some that I think are probably outside the scope [41:54] Speaker N (unidentified): of what we do. [41:58] Unidentified speaker (Chair): It sounds like you've done good community communication. But if you do want to add anything, feel free. [42:06] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): I think there was a comment related to the existing building and whether or not there'd be anything salvaged from it. And we did go on site with the existing owner of the restaurant to see if there were any elements of it that we might bring into the new building. And I think this is very accommodating. And there are some things that we likely will preserve and bring into the new building. None of which is, it's historic in the sense that it was part of the original building, the farmhouse, but it's certainly part of the restaurant. And I think the elements that people who come into the property in the future will appreciate having some homage to the Tortilla Flat restaurant. In addition, we did a name, there was a request from fire to, or from dispatch, dispatched to have a roadway named, and we have the name approved of Cannery Court, which is a tip of the hat to the original owners of the property who founded a corn canning business, the first in the nation. They were considered canning pioneers, and so we are also recognizing the family history, [43:28] Unidentified speaker (Chair): the familial history of the site, the naming of the site. Do you think you'd be happy with those? Yeah. Thank you for meeting them on that concern. [43:44] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Well, it's up to you guys on the [43:46] Unidentified speaker (Chair): For sure to use that for that kind of information. Bev, anything I don't want to forget you? [43:57] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I do not feel forgotten, thank you. But no, I'm good. [44:03] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I am not sensing we're in conflict, so I think we can check through the bill too. Yes. So that, just so I am clear on that, increased the exception, the requester exception increased from 12 and a half feet, which was mostly driven by approximately two power lines, to 32 and a half feet because you decided to call it to the, to the building facade on and not like not including the porch area, right? Seems like a pretty big increase that's more than three times the what the code calls for built-in zone and I the way I read the exception language it doesn't I don't really see how it applies it's a regularly shaped loss can you can you pull up the site by again maybe sure yeah while I'm pulling it up just to clarify, we actually moved the entire structure closer to Fortis to have by two feet, which is the absolute closest that we can be without running into a whole host of other complications that Alex went over. And so that bringing the site plan up, we are interpreting this as a regularly shaped lot, not only horizontally with all the zigzags, the regular frontage, there's really no consistency see with the curb line but also vertically with the topography there's about 20 feet of grade change from one side to the other so you know again we think it does meet that definition in our interpretation and we have designed the best site that we think is possible over the course the past year to you know work with this housing program [45:54] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Yeah I think I think we you know we contemplated again contemplated having the patio in the back of the property and there are a number of issues that we ran into that I mean that is honestly the place where we thought was most ideal frankly so like if it were feasible on the property. That's where we would have gone naturally. But the grade is one issue. The internal programming is another issue. We have office space in the back. There is not resident access to the corridor that goes from the communal space through the offices. In order to have a patio built into the grade and then also provide access that's internal, you would have had to completely shift around where the office space is located, which would have basically consumed the front communal space, likely shifting it towards the middle or towards the rear, and then you have you have dead space essentially at the front of the building. So instead of having this sort of lively communal space, you know, lights on, people interacting with one other, when you drive by or walk by this property, you would have people typing on computers in an office space. That doesn't feel like, I think that the spirit of the ordinance is to bring life and to activate the street. Feels like shifting this program around internally to accommodate a back patio so that we would have the facade completely built up to the line would actually not achieve what the ordinance is supposed to achieve. [47:43] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Yeah, I agree with everything you're saying. I think if our role here is to mash that into the limits of the land use code, then the argument of a regularly shaped lot, yes, the whole thing is regular, particular, as it pertains to the built-to-zone requirement, I would not consider this a particularly irregular lot. Unless if I'm missing something. The corner of the lot where the building is sited is pretty square. And so the exception is for regularly shaped lots, provided the front setback where a built-to-zone is met to the maximum extent practical. And so I think what we're talking about here is giving the exception for the presence of this front porch, which I agree with you does more activate the street. I like the design, but there's no what could I add, so there's obviously so there's two findings basically the board we need this discussion. So one the lots of it is a regular shape and two if it's set back more than 10 feet there needs to be a scale edge treatment which includes street trees, implement plantings, sometimes you know I'm not in this case but a fencing or a brick or some wall. I know they've provided an updated plan here that has you know some additional trees and plantings in that space between the patio and the sidewalk, and so the board you know your role is to you know one find yes we determine that this is a regular shape lot based on x y and z. It could be a multitude of factors, we don't have a cut and dry definition when it comes to a regular shape lot, we just say regular shape lot, so it's up to you to determine That and then determine are they providing enough with their plan that is creating a pedestrian scale treatment, I guess, in this case some sort of street wall along that portion of the forest, that helpful, thank you. If can decide one more thing too, you know, the left and half of the facade is at 10 feet, it's really this right hand side, so it's a it's basically a technicality that we have to measure to that 32 foot dimension, and the irony of it is that to Ryan's point, it's actually more active right than patio, the creative wall and fencing, so yeah, we really do think we're meeting spirit of it and hope you guys are able to agree with that interpretation. Yeah, and that's like your meeting spirit event, yeah, so I think tricky that during the workshop that's not [50:41] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): how it was interpreted, and so coming after the workshop interpreting into the setback area is a difficult job to make. They would now have to update the entire plan because of a different determination and that they moved the entire building two feet closer. So yeah, since it's up to us to make a determination on regular shape plots, we can add in the [51:08] Rosa Callister: vertical priority. [51:13] Unidentified speaker (Chair): And Ronan, what was what was the staff determination on why like the staff act from story one to two is acceptable to not occur, including the portion. [51:23] Rosa Callister: So in the definition of the bill percentage, because that's kind of where this came out of, there is a kind of a call out that excludes facade articulation, so it's just a determination that planning and zoning staff needs to step back if it's considered a facade articulation. but then the further reading of that definition that close to the attention of the outdoor space that bothers being publicly accessible, that's where that this determination was made that bill two percentage would not be met if the bill two zone was full and the moving of that full zone back to the furthest commission patio [52:09] Unidentified speaker (Chair): was public there, they would be they would they would need to request succession, correct, so like Sam was saying it's technicality that's [52:19] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): the standard that's in the code and that's how it's defined, okay, I think it also said outdoor [52:24] Rosa Callister: dining, yeah, not necessarily just a you know park space, it could be a in [52:33] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): a multitude of ways but [52:36] Rosa Callister: the determination was made that this did not that okay [52:44] Unidentified speaker (Chair): We've got a very long motion that we would do being Kelsey probably, so I just want to make sure that we don't ever read that unless we're all on the same page, and I get the sense we are mostly on the same page. Other concerns from board members? Not seeing any, no concerns, okay. So that I'll entertain a motion. [53:12] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I will make a motion on the waivers and exceptions based on the information in 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 June 23rd, 2026, for application PL-003538-2026 at 1871 Forest Avenue, relevant to the site plan standards, the land use code, and Portland's technical and design standards and other regulations, and testimony presented to the planning board public hearing. One, bicycle parking. The planning board finds, based upon the city's review, that extraordinary conditions exist or undue hardship may result in strict compliance with the land use code section 18A, which requires one parking space for two dwelling units, that substantial justice and the public interest are secured with the proposed variation of the standard, and that variation is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The Planning Board waives the Site Plan Standard Section 13.6.1c.2.b to allow eight bicycle parking spaces to be provided. [54:32] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): We are actually in the revised plan providing enough bike parking to meet the code, so we no longer need that exception. [54:43] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Was that shown in the plan, Brian, that you provided? Or was that physical parking located in the bike room? [Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, okay, no.] I mean, that's where, I mean, your compliance, so we'll make sure that we confirm that on our end. [55:06] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Neighbors and exceptions to parking lot landscaping will make a motion. The planning board finds, based upon the city's review, that extraordinary conditions exist or undue hardship may result from strict compliance with the site plan standard 13.6.2.b.3.a, which requires one tree for every 750 square feet of asphalt planted in landscape islands, that substantial justice and the public interests are secure with the proposed variation in this standard, and that the variation is consistent with the intent of coordinates. The planning board weighs the site plan standard section 13.6.2.b.3.a to allow for one tree to be planted in a landscape island with additional trees planted around the perimeter of the parking area. Okay. [55:58] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Do you I said you can do it all at once, if you don't disagree with me. Board will take a vote on the motion. We'll do the vote separately, but we can read it together? Yes. Well, maybe we can do the vote separately. That would still be okay. That would be new. We'll read the motion. Board will take a vote, and then we'll go on with the next waiver. I guess you just I guess if people weren't moving up that size what grade it is [56:33] Speaker H (unidentified): If you do that again or you can just go into it I'm not saying just [56:38] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Read the rest of that one you'll vote on each question before yeah but just make sure you have the size [56:43] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Yeah all right waiver exception three private connection to city catch basins the planning board finds based upon the city engineering review that extraordinary conditions exist or undue hardship may result from strict compliance with technical standards 6.9.7, which prohibits private connections to city-owned catch basins. That substantial justice and the public interest are secured with the proposed variation in the standard, and that variation is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The Planning Board waives technical standards 6.9.7 to allow for connection to the existing catch basin on Forest Avenue. And the poor, billed to exception, the Planning Board finds that the subject properties are regularly shaped and that the applicant has demonstrated. I wanted just to add for that [57:27] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Motion, there should be an addition because I mentioned two findings need to be found. I mentioned just the regular shaped lot, but we also need to add in the finding that they're providing a pedestrian scale edge treatment. So I just wanted to add a sentence for you. Okay. Is that just be after the regular irregularities along the frontage and topographical variation across the site and provides a continuous attractive pedestrian scaled edge treatment between the street and the building facade apologize an attractive pedestrian scale edge treatment between the street building facade the street and the buildings thank you 're welcome. Thank you for interrupting. I want to make sure you guys have the right language in the motion. [58:31] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, I [58:34] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Will start over on 4, bill 2 exception. The planning board finds that the subject property is irregularly shaped and that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed bill 2 zone meets the standard requirement to the maximum extent practicable due to the horizontal irregularities along the frontage and the topographical variation along the site and provides a continuous and attractive pedestrian scale edge treatment between the street and the building facade. Planning board exempts compliance with the build 2 zone to allow for a build 2 zone of 0 to 32 feet in accordance with section 7.5.6.b. I would say we have a motion on the floor that is [59:18] Unidentified speaker (Chair): waivers and exceptions one two three four as spoken and is there a second on that motion yes i think probably just vote differently than one yeah i think what would be helpful for us is just to point out the bike room real quick on the site plan. Sam, if you could, thank you. So we have a motion and a second. I just want to clarify that. So now we can do discussion. Nick, could you second? Yeah. Okay, thanks. [1:00:12] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Thank you. Yeah, so that's the life storage there you can see. Is it 17 in there or is it? We have 16 in there. What's the additional? Okay. [1:00:28] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Thank you. I think that works. yeah or you'll yeah so then you we can remove we [1:00:48] Speaker H (unidentified): located it close enough to the end i wonder [1:00:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair): just open on the record if you want to make a motion to withdraw number one okay i will make [1:01:00] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): a motion to withdraw number one of your waivers and exception number one bicycle parking from [1:01:06] Unidentified speaker (Chair): prior motion from my prior motion 30 seconds okay any discussion on that not hearing any andrew we need to roll on him absolutely being watched by the speaker i gotta do this [1:01:21] Speaker D (unidentified): that's really eulin hank yes [1:01:26] Unidentified speaker (Chair): austin smith recused david silk recused nicholas messina yes eric finn yes chelsea robertson yeah just as i'm going yeah so the amendment promotion passes so we are now at number two and any discussion on number two parking lot landscaping seeing any the roll on for two [1:01:53] Speaker H (unidentified): beverly you and hick [1:01:59] Speaker F (unidentified): yes austin [1:02:02] Unidentified speaker (Chair): smith accused david silk accused nicholas vecino yes eric den yes kelsey robertson yeah joseph zamboni yes number two parking lot landscaping passes number three any discussion private connection to city catch bases not seeing any we do roll federally yes austin smith recused david silk recused nicholas messina yes eric den yes kelsey robertson yeah joseph zamboni yes number three passes number four bill to exception any further discussion on bill to exception not seeing any can you do a roll Yes, Beverly. You and Hink? Yes. Austin Smith? Refused. David Silk? Refused. Nicholas? Yes. Eric Din? Yes. Kelsey Robertson? Yes. Joseph Zamboni? Yes. Okay. Site plan review. Unless, do we want to do, you want to add that into the application? Yes. Okay. [1:03:21] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Yep. Okay. I will make a motion on site plan review. Based on the information in the application plans, reports for the 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 for the public hearing on June 23rd, 2026 for application PL-003538-2026 at 1871 Forest Ab, relevant to the site plan regulations and finds that the plan is in conformance with the site plan standards of the land use code subject to the following conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit one through three as written and I would like to add a fourth condition that the applicant shall submit an emergency vehicle turning template to the city for review [1:04:10] Unidentified speaker (Chair): and approval. Motion. We have a second and second. Further discussion? Not [1:04:21] Speaker D (unidentified): seeing any. Can we do a roll? Beverly, you and Hank. Yes. [1:04:26] Speaker H (unidentified): Austin Smith, recused. [1:04:28] Unidentified speaker (Chair): David Silk, recused. Nicholas Messina. Yes. Eric Din. Yes. Kelsey Robertson. Yes. Joseph Zamdani. Yes. Okay, and then the entertainment decision. [1:04:40] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Make a motion on the planning board decision that on the basis of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the Planning Board report for the public hearing on June 23, 2026, related to the application PL-003538-2026 for 1871 Forest Avenue, which is attached to the draft approval letter and incorporated therein, the Planning Board adopts the findings and conclusions in the June 17, 2026 Planning Board report and their approval letter as drafted as the planning board's decision for the application PL-003538-2026 and authorizes the planning board chair to sign the approval letter as drafted. Motion. Do we have a second? Any further [1:05:26] Unidentified speaker (Chair): discussions? Not seeing any. Can we take a role? Beverly Human Pink? Yes. Austin Smith? Refused. David Self-Recused, Nicholas Vecina. [Speaker D (unidentified): Yes. Eric Din.] Yes. Kelsey Robertson. Yes. Joseph Zamboni. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you, Romans. So for folks in the room, [1:05:51] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): we have two more business items. [1:05:52] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I think it probably makes sense to do the five minutes break now. So we'll do a five minute break now, and then we'll come back with our two other items. Okay, good. Welcome to those in the room and online. Mind, we're back and we will be moving to zero Dalton Street. Main Land Development Consultants is the applicant. The Planning Board is holding a hybrid public hearing consider application for the development of eight new dwelling units across two lots. Each lot will contain two family buildings totaling four units per lot with eight off-street parking spaces in total. Subject property is located in the residential neighborhood R and three zone. Project and plan summary are available on the city CSS portal by referencing plan number zeros PL dash zero three five dash 2025. Just noting that this item had been tabled at the May 26 2026 Planning Board meeting and I will pass off to the Andrew Perfect shares him voting that also is now present. Yes, for the record we have an additional board member [1:13:07] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Good evening chairs and members of the board. Tonight we are hosting a yearling for the proposed development at zero Ralphine Street. The applicant on this project is Main and Development Consultants and Medicine Property Services. The subject property is located within the RN3 residential neighborhood zone. The applicant is proposing to construct two family buildings. This application is being We refer to the Family Board of Compliance for the City of Portland's Land Use Standard, Site Belt Standard 13.6.4 and Subdivision Standard Section 14.4. The subject property is located at Ballard Street. The site is currently vacant, partially renovated and unguided. The surrounding area is mainly residential in nature with low to medium density housing including a single family home to the north and east side of the roadside. Here is a rolling vortex map. The subject property is in the RM3 and is surrounded by RM3 roading district. The proposed major site plan would facilitate the development of home to family residential building on each lot. Total of eight dwelling units, eight parking spaces would be provided in ground level garages with one space per unit. Some key features of the proposed development include a prime seat fence, transformer pads, enclosed dumpster pads, no storage areas and a 14 pedestrian pathway connecting the proposed unit to the Race Street sorry I mean as part of the proposed development seven earning treaties are proposed along the access driveway. Additionally 22 plantings are proposed along the along both sides of driveway to provide thinking from the adjacent properties. These are the elevations for the proposed project With total building height of 34 feet 10 inches, the project proposes an underdrained chamber system and a wet pond is designed to free runoff from the proposed development. The staff requires the applicant to provide a vehicle turnaround easement over the private access driveway to ensure adequate emergency access and vehicle movement. Additional easement for utilities and storage are also required. The applicant will continue coordinating with the staff to finalize these areas and this requirement has added as a conditions of approval. The applicant has requested a waiver for sidewalk installation along the property frontage. As the ethnicity currently does not have any sidewalk, staff finds this that the installation of the sidewalk with this project will provide limited public benefit and therefore supports the waiver. These are the conditions of approval of the project. Applicants shall revise reading utility and stormwater plans to address erosion control, complete stormwater design details, and clarify outlay structures. Detailed information on these conditions can be found in the public staff report. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 28, 2025. A total of three members of the public attended the in-person meeting. take comments from this attending center on stormwater management and the type of the building being proposed i'm [1:16:40] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): jimmy garland manuel development consultants here with jill nelson you know super opportunities niha has summarized it very well but this is a small development off in dalton street that will bring four two-plex buildings in we've done our best for this site there's a lot of wetlands you know this project and what is not winchester woods so we've been a really good job of staying out of those wetlands avoiding two major utility easements and maximizing the use of the property while still trying to keep this tucked into the back of the development i hope the board has any questions [1:17:22] Unidentified speaker (Chair): board members you know [1:17:26] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): i knew we couldn't there was a request for a sidewalk waiver but the documents seem to show [1:17:33] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): A sidewalk along Trillium Way on so the waiver is on the end of Dalton Street don't shoot itself is a narrow road that frankly without taking away somebody's from their house that probably wouldn't be the sidewalk in so our request for waiver is for the bottom portion where we meet the we're totally winning stolen Street especially in the fact that Dalton Street ends at the attorneys at the end of the property Austin we're gonna just pull up the [1:18:05] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Plans to show you what a team was deciding thank you yeah [1:18:25] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Along Dalton Way is where we're proposing no only before sidewalk but we have put in a walk path a lot of a long Trillion Way [1:18:33] Unidentified speaker (Chair): For money to get up into the house itself awesome just to clarify so the requirements for public streets what they're proposing way that they've done initially thank you thank you yeah [1:18:47] Rosa Callister: You might going back to that sidewalk waiver slide that you've had [1:18:53] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): And so is there a connection to being like a path being made to that other development on the right-hand side? Yeah, that path down there, or is that totally separate? [1:19:09] Unidentified speaker (Chair): There's an existing informal path that connects the two sites, but then there's, that's basically a ravine. [1:19:14] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Oh, so the school's on the other side of that, correct? Correct. [1:19:18] Rosa Callister: Yeah. Oh, I didn't know if there was a way to cut over [1:19:22] Unidentified speaker (Chair): To the school for walking. Thanks. Looks like a gravel path with a bridge. I think there is. Yeah, I'm trying to remember the details of that project. But [1:19:33] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Yeah, so yeah, I don't know if that was part of the [1:19:36] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Winchester. It was there. I think there was discussion of doing a small public open space there in a path connecting to too dull. So I think that's what that's showing that already exists. And I hear the buildings are 3410. So that's right under the 35 foot max. And with all the elevation on site, is that you're gonna be able to achieve that for all the buildings or? Yes. [1:20:18] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): The next question we'll talk about, we'll show you how it should be done. [1:20:25] Unidentified speaker (Chair): And Bev, are you all set for preliminary questions? [1:20:30] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I am. I'll just flag that I'm having a really hard time hearing some folks. So if you could speak up in the room, that would be fantastic because some of it's coming in kind of muffled. [1:20:41] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Thank you for letting us know. Okay, so I will move into the public portion. If you're in the room, we'll start with in the room. If you're online or on the telephone, we will go to you next. Folks have three minutes to speak. And afterward we close the fellow portion and we may continue to ask both the city and party questions so folks in the room anybody hi Thanks Jandy Parker 30 Dalton Street and just have a couple of questions and comments you know you know this law is going to get developed we've been talking with Nelson for a while about different iterations of it so it seems like we're getting down to the brass tacks here. So my thoughts are, as the director of Butters, it's really about sort of some of the stuff that I've seen in the North Sika recent plant. So native vegetation on the site is one question. In other adjacent developments, you know, a lot of native vegetation has been removed and then we got enough with like sort of a not weed invasive, you know, result. And so it seems like any chance we have to leave existing native vegetation that has any value, that would be great. So, you know, I just asked the applicant if there are opportunities on the site to leave, you know, There's some valuable maples right adjacent to our properties, like a pear tree within the 10-foot buffer zone. Maybe that stays. I can't tell from the plants. But it's really thinking holistically about the whole site. Can we leave more trees than maybe are planned to and work around them as much as possible? I always think that's going to be more valuable than denuding the site and then planting grass or even a bunch of arbor bodies that may or may not live, may not be tended to later in the future and might not thrive so that is just a kind of a general comment details about the planning you know you talked about some everybody screening our house which is fine but I'd love to be a part of that conversation and maybe that can happen in the fact just by like favorite kitchen window that looks out On a kind of nice western view, and as much as I appreciate the buffering, ideally it wouldn't be like too big guard everybody's right in front of that view, so just range we can talk about that. I wonder about the road Dalton Street in its entirety, so between and before I lived there Winchester Woods was built, then 36 whatever it is, 37, the other side, cross street from us was built more recently. The road is in terrible shape, and I have to think the very end of it was paid. I have to think that the road has suffered from all that, you know, heavy trucking coming in and out. So is there a requirement, or is there a commitment, or is there a thought about saving Dalton Street and repair this, really, you know, and it's gonna obviously get worse with it, with more, another year of construction, so just asking that question, throwing it out there. Last thing I want to mention, I imagine my time's getting short, is the sidewalk Trillium. It seems like Dalton St had those sidewalks whatsoever, it's kind of a shared street, so I support the waiver, but why are we then adding impervious on for eight units? Why can't we do a shared street for them? It would save money, it would save a payment. Okay, so I asked that question to both the board, and that's a general question, like if they wanted it, they didn't want to put it, I knew you don't need it. Thank you, appreciate you being here. Others in the room like speak. [1:24:51] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): My kids grew up 24 adults, I don't want to be divorced or anything like that, but a lot of our concerns are the same as Amy's. We were there for Winchester development, the green space ended up being just a giant field of not, we did, we it takes off our children after they go play in it, the roadway, has been, oh, sorry, I'll go back to that little walkway we were looking at through there. There's now a post-it sign saying private property on that. So some of these things I'm just bringing up post-hence because after you guys are done with it, the owners of the lots kind of do what they will with it. And that is a main thoroughfare for kids to go to school and stuff like that. And it's a real great neighborhood builder. And now there's a private property sign and all violators we prosecuted because it walks right up to someone's like patio doors. Now I understand that 's something convenient for them but that was supposed to remain Portland Trails and then off to the right is the green space which is just a field you know. So these are things that are just troublesome. I know that they don't pertain specifically to this and I'm sorry to kind of go back but Nelson set a hand in developing all three of these projects and it's not their fault, but as the owners take over or whatnot, you know, we've had FBI raid at 29A for some meth dealer. You know, we have recovery houses on the road now, which is fine and well. But I feel like the tenants aren't really notified. The other homeowners in the street aren't. And as a main thoroughfare for kids going to school and stuff like that, these are things that we're slightly concerned about. So you know, and the road wear and tear has been a big thing. Winchester was not supposed to be developed up and down Dalton. They were supposed to build their road and do it to Sherwood. That did not happen. It got entirely struck up Dalton. Now Dalton has a very steep incline, and it is actually failing towards where you meet Veranda Street. There's a big crack. If you have like a low-lying kind of Civic or something like that, you're going to bottom out on that if you're not going two miles an hour. So there are definitely signs of failure all over down the road which again it happens but if there's a plan put in place to maybe repair and repay or something like that would be wonderful because i contacted the city and there was no intention to repay them anytime soon because the dead end looked you know i think i'm not looking to stop this development is great in the city but conscientious development is paramount and Whether it be on the ownership or the developer, the homeowners would really appreciate if what is promised to us is followed through on, and that if things just don't get bait and switched on us in actual practice once the development's over. I know this has nothing specific to do with Nelson, but these are just my concerns, so thank you. [1:27:46] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Thank you. I appreciate you being here. [1:27:49] Speaker F (unidentified): Other folks in the room? [1:27:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Not seeing any. We will move online. If you are here on telephone or Zoom, now a good time to raise your hand. I think we've only got one person in the waiting room. [1:28:07] Speaker F (unidentified): We've got a second. I'm [1:28:12] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Not seeing any indication, so we will close the public comment portion of this and open it up to board members to discuss or ask questions. I will say that we had a couple of comments about native vegetation, quality of the Dalton Street private property for the private property sign for the walkway, split it up, the city or the applicant, if you want to speak to any of those to start. I [1:28:47] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): think first, as far as the private walkway sign, that's not on this property's property. [1:28:54] Speaker N (unidentified): So I don't have, we want the Y. [1:28:57] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): As far as the native vegetation, we fully agree with the landowners, we'd love to keep as much native vegetation as possible there. It is a balance and sometimes the dance meeting the city's requirements to keep that native vegetation. The site itself being under an acre in other communities would trigger extensive stormwater management permitting. However, it does. Oh well and it does so we do have to convey the storm water getting the mystery facilities which then causes the pictures in on the soils which is going to take down some trees. I know the applicant will work with the butter as far as location of those but everybody's there so we can help maintain a view where appropriate. Right now they may be looking at the Winchester Woods retaining wall across there but and then with the site itself as large as this site may be for a property in the city of Portland it's rather constrained it's got a ravine in there that is wetlands former storm water system for the city and then there are two major sewer easements through there so we've done our best to preserve as much of the land we can and then use what's [1:30:07] Speaker N (unidentified): available to design this project. I [1:30:14] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): would also like to add that as a part of the LID center fluid like the W3-7. The applicant is using the construction for the energy. I can see from your plan you really intervened in almost every square inch of that small site. There's really not a lot of opportunity to keep the native planning because, again, a lot of braiding, throw water systems, paving, footprints, etc. But I would encourage you to consider alternate plant materials. Work with the neighbors if they would like to see something other than Arborvitae, basically comparable cost with something. Maybe they prefer deciduous trees for shading or views, whatever. It's an easy suggestion. [1:31:06] Speaker N (unidentified): We'd love to have those conversations. [1:31:08] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): And a design critique. It's an unusual site because you've got this drive, and that drive is your access. That's paved from base of building to base of building, you know, sidewalks, garage doors. It would have been a great opportunity to sort of change that paving and have something that's Wunderful-like. It could be like a muse, and it could change it to a different paving that, you know, could even incorporate some plush tree grates. Again, the suggestion that, I know there's cost associated with that, but it would also enhance the marketability. And looking back at the design review documents, I saw that you had an extended conversation with the staff, that you changed the footprint completely for their suggestions, and each and every suggestion you seem to have incorporated from the design you're presenting, so that's [1:32:01] Speaker N (unidentified): to your credit. Thank you, Mr. City Board. I want [1:32:17] Unidentified speaker (Chair): to speak to anything about updating paving streets. Sure. Yeah. So as part of this project, they would not be responsible for updating, taping the street. I will say, if they're doing any utility connections or they're cutting into the street, they'll obviously be responsible for pairing the street to, you know, business city standards. But, you know, as far as like the, you know, I'm interested in the condition of Bell Street. If you go any closer to Veranda, it's in pretty rough shape. I don't have exact timing, so it's a city street, so the city is. [1:32:59] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): It is difficult, though, that a lot of the wear and tear has been from construction vehicles. Like that it's a dead end street, it has that much, it's that degraded. Probably because of multiple construction projects. [1:33:16] Unidentified speaker (Chair): And I will say it's not directly applicable, but so any project that comes through the city case, in fact, needs a dual-tooled bridge. Was a number of things again albeit in this instance likely not the reagent of Dalton Street but goes towards other city beth [1:33:47] Speaker F (unidentified): I don't want to forget you all set right [1:33:55] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Do we want to move into a motion I'll just know for the record further written comments correct so just [1:34:12] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Comment we received today. Okay, I will make a motion on the waivers based on the information in the application, plans, reports, and other information submitted by the applicant, findings and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing June 23rd, 2026, for application PL-003335-2025 and Sierra Dalton Street, relevant to the 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, sidewalk installation. The planning board finds, based upon the Department of Public Works and traffic engineers review, that extraordinary conditions exist or unview hardship may result in strict compliance with the technical manual standard section 13.6.1.b.2, which requires sidewalk installation along property frontages, that substantial justice and the public interest are secured with those variation in the standard, and that variation is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The planning board waives the technical manual standard section 13.6.1.3.2 to allow no sidewalk installation along property frontages. [1:35:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair): So motion. We have a second. Second. We have a second. Any further discussion on the one side block installation? Not [1:35:43] Speaker D (unidentified): seeing any. I wanted to roll. Yep. Deborah Lee, you and Hink? Yes. [1:35:48] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Austin Snid? Yes. David Silk, absent. Nicholas Messina? Yes. Eric Tin? Yes. Jesse Robertson? Yes. And Joseph Zambon? Yes. [1:35:59] Speaker F (unidentified): That is unanimous. Okay. [1:36:03] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I will make a motion on site plan review based on the information in the application, plans, reports, through testimony at the planning board hearing, and other information submitted by the applicant, planning board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations containing the planning board report for the public hearing on June 23, 2026, for application PL-003335-2025, relevant to the site plan regulations, and finds that the plan is in conformance with the site plan standards of the land use code subject to the following conditions of approval prior to issuance of a building permit, one through four as written, and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Bias right motion [1:36:45] Unidentified speaker (Chair): here, a second. Thank you. Push on the second. Any further discussion? So [1:36:54] Speaker H (unidentified): what can you do the role on site number three? Federally unique? Yes. Austin Swift? Yes. David Silk? Option. Nicholas [1:37:06] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Casino? Yes. Captain? Yes. Lucy Robertson? Yes. And Joseph Zamboni? Yes. Okay, we'll now make a motion [1:37:14] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): On subdivision review based on the information the application plans reports through 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 FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 23, 2026 FOR APPLICATION PL-003335-2025 RELEVANT TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND FINDS THAT THE PLAN IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS OF THE LANDING CODE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING INDICTIONS OF APPROVAL. PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE PLATFORM PLANNING BOARD SIGNATURE 1 AS WRITTEN AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 2 AS WRITTEN. [1:37:54] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Motion to have a second motion the second any further discussion [Speaker F (unidentified): and] Roll off subdivision with you federally you would make yes Austin Smith yes David Silk absent Nicholas Casino yes Eric Jim yes Kelsey Robertson yes Joseph Zamboni yes [1:38:16] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Entertaining a decision in motion right I'll make a motion on our decision on the basis of the findings conclusions and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing on June 23rd 2026 related to application PL-003335-2025 for zero dollar street which is attached to the draft approval letter and incorporated therein the planning board adopts the findings and conclusions in the June 17th 2026 planning board report and the approval letter as drafted as the planning board's decision for application KL-003335-2025 and authorizes the planning board chair to sign the approval letter as draft [1:38:58] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Motion for the second any further discussion not hearing any individual role on the decision Yes. Austin Smith. Yes. David Silcapsen. Nicholas Encino. Yes. Eric Dinn. Yes. Chelsea Robertson. Yes. Joseph Namboni. That passes. Thank you very much to the applicant for implementation. We have another item on our agenda for the evening. This is 16 Carrington Way, Mainland Development Consultants is the applicant, Planning Board is holding a hybrid public hearing to consider application for the development of eight new dwelling units across two lots of a one or family building with eight off-street parking spaces. The subject property is located within the residential neighborhood, RM Pre-Zone project plan summary available for viewing see it city css portal by referencing plan number zero three zero two dash twenty five and again I'll note this item was tabled from the May 26th 2026 planning board meeting and I will kick it off again to city [1:40:28] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): So between each other the name and members of the board connected hosting of California. The applicant on this project is Mainland Development Consultants and Municipal Property Services. Subject property is located within the RMT Reservation data zone. The applicant is proposing to create two 4-family buildings with 8 public spaces. This application contains reference to the Planning Board for compliance with the City of Providence Land Use Code. Side by side of 13.6.4. So this project went through a planning board workshop on 23rd September 2025. Based on feedback received during the workshop, the applicant has revised the project to include a pedestrian walkway. The applicant has also replaced the proposed wet pond storm water management system with a jellyfish treatment system and updated the grading plan. plan. The board also discussed the need for having visitor parking space. In response, the applicant proposes to accommodate this within on-street parking along the day street. However, the street width appears insufficient to safely support on-street parking and no formal on-street parking is currently available on the day street. If the board headlines providing visitor parking on-street, the applicant will coordinate with the staff to revise the site plan and include visitor parking space. The subject property is here which is at 174 Ray Street, currently the site is undeveloped and vegetative. The site has an existing informal trail on it. Parking being on, the site is surrounded by single family rooms and to be south most of the area is undeveloped other than the former St. Joseph's retirement complex. The proposed media site plan includes the construction of four 4-family residential buildings with one 4-family building on each floor. A total of eight parking spaces are provided in ground level garages with one space per unit. Some key features of the proposed development include transformers, include dumpster pads, store storage areas and a 4-feet wide pedestrian walkway connecting the proposed units to the raised street. As part of the proposed development, 7 new street trees are proposed along the front range. Additional 9 new plantings are proposed along the eastern side of the project site for additional buffer from the adjacent projects. Here are the elevations for the proposed project showing a maximum building height of 34 feet 10 inches. Staff thickness at the average base shall be clearly shown on the elevations for each building and shall confirm that all buildings do not exceed the maximum promulgated height of 35 feet. This has been included as conditions of approval. The afternoon is requested for 20 feet wide driveway where 24 feet is required. Staff have reviewed this and does support the waiver given the anticipated low volume of vehicle traffic policies. Here is a view showing the existing site and the current trail located on the property. Portly Trails requested that the applicant relocate this trail to the edge of the property in response the applicant has proposed a trade easement at the south west corner of the purchase site allowing the connection to continue this trail along the Idaho paper street to main This easement is to be finalized by the city as conditions of approval for this project. These are the conditions of approval for the project. The African shall revise the utility plans, update their stormwater model, provide additional bomb details and complete the required test grid. the african held a neighborhood meeting on may 14 2025 a total of 13 members of the public attended the interperson meeting comments from the article surrounding on site access buffering traffic field connection timeline of construction and potential of busted [1:44:54] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Yeah, Jamie Brown with Mainland Development Consultants, Asia, last time we were here meeting with the city, there was some comments about access from the back of the buildings, the parking which was brought up for guests, as well as potentially some vegetation with the stormwater pond, we heard those comments, we had the walkways around the building, So they get rid of the pond, work for functionality and maybe some more requirements. And it proposed an underground ground storage system that'll allow for a grassed area over the top of that. System went completed. The big one is the visitor parking. We've gone through iterations on this with the city. We've been very collaborative, but every solution leads to another problem. I guess the best way to put it. So our beacon is we're putting in the sidewalk along Ray Street that would be allowed to use it for gas parking. While I know it doesn't appear that's allowed going down Ratio, there are cars parked along Ray Street just past Dakota, there are cars. And so we asked the city to consider that one consideration we've taken as part of this project is the pull and trail system that did by a second property. This will formalize an easement that will live on past all of us for this trail to continue on and so it'll get solidified and allow it to go into paper a place that doesn't need to move in the future. Again it's a small site, we've done our best to navigate all the requirements and maintain some semblance of the neighborhood that's there, this project. As you enter in the site, the road does go down and a 7% grade going down and levels up in front of the garage. And so that's what you see when you see the elevation uses their steps foundation going down so that we can follow the natural contours going down through the property. Number of requests for regards to the mission for the test beds. That's one of the things we want, we don't want to go cutting down trees and digging into the woods before this project was approved, so that was why I support them and [1:47:14] Speaker F (unidentified): that's all I got, so many questions board members you're [1:47:25] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): you're putting in a sidewalk on Ray along your property [1:47:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair): like and then there's no sidewalks on either side, yeah the last time I read the planning board we [1:47:35] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): requested a waiver from this because there is no sidewalk along Mary Street. It's going to bounce back and forth and we ended up conceding the claim of the sidewalk. [1:47:46] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): And that would create [1:47:47] Unidentified speaker (Chair): more of a shoulder off the road as well. That'll define an edge along the road. Parking Director Tony Vorkas has indicated that the right-of-way moment is wide enough to accommodate austrian parking, so it's it's not it's not wide enough to accommodate austrian parking on that portion of gray street, so it would be prohibited. Yeah I don't know if there's signage that really exists, but that was just the information that we [1:48:23] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): received for that, it doesn't look like it but it's awesome doesn't look like somewhere that [1:48:28] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I mean I mean at the end of the day I mean obviously folks are going to then you know It's just not as important, but I want to listen to Kate with the right away with this and it was determined a third space for it, but there must be a third. [1:48:48] Speaker D (unidentified): So the surface over the subsurface stormwater is grass. Why don't you that the department. [1:48:58] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): One getting down in there, we've got snow storage trash areas again. Again, the site is just constrained going through there. You'd be navigating a very tight window to go over that and have to check that those contact units are just that, are operated. I would not recommend putting the vehicles down. We're okay. We don't have to have any visitor parking, but it's something that came up. We'd like to work with it. And there's been a lot of concessions to sidewalk and easement for a trail. And again they've recognized the portal trail system is there and there might be some successive arrangements formalizing easements to the city maybe the long term and so again we're okay [1:49:45] Speaker N (unidentified): Without having to visit the park will [1:49:49] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): There be signage on peering to the way that there's no parking on the street I guess I'm concerned because of the waiver to go down in 20 feet and then if people are also parking on the street even if they're not supposed to will there be [1:50:02] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Like within the private driveway yeah I guess it's private it's probably not [1:50:09] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I guess yeah and that makes me a little concerned about the paper [1:50:13] Speaker F (unidentified): You reduced the width just [1:50:30] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Out of curiosity what is the old Saint Joseph's banner what's the status of that property is empty they yeah there has been some initial discussions But what triggers the requirement for a private way versus just having like a driveway share access. Essentially, I think, how were we since the driveway, the service multiple lots. Sure. Life savings. Yes. Three buildings. So it's good. [1:51:25] Speaker H (unidentified): But I got you. [1:51:29] Unidentified speaker (Chair): All right. Why don't we go to a public comment? We'll come back to questions from city so in the room if you'd like to make a comment just go up to the podium you have three minutes make sure to state your name where you live if you're online waiting we will get to you very shortly hello [1:51:47] Rosa Callister: My name is Shannon Stanning it's up here at last meeting three Dakota Street I sent in a couple emails with comments in the biggest weeks about this I haven't heard any responses from my email but some of my comments today have to do with some of what I mentioned and I announced. The first thing is the stormwater management plan claims that the property is not located in a compared watershed, but it is located in the watershed, which is. Second, the low-impact development scorecard claims that there are no wetlands on the site and points to the project for there being no wetlands. However, there appear to be wetlands on the site. There are wetland delineation markers actually on the site. I don't know who did the wetland delineation, but just living near there, it's pretty clear that there's some water there. And around the property, talking about the St. Joe's property, there is a potential that's been located in St. Joe's property as well as other wetlands. They actually did an approximate wetland boundary before they sold the property. And the boundary goes over the Parrington Bay. I'd say one of them is almost a street. And it's buried right back there. Third is the trees, which I brought up before. I know the LID card says 40% of the trees are being preserved on the site. I noticed some of the trees that are proposing to be preserved are in an area where the slope is being re-braided two to one. Trees that are kept in place with such substantial braiding around them tend to die within two to five years without terracing retaining walls or drain structures to prevent them. So even though they're counted as being protected in the LAP scorecard, I would say they don't have a great chance of surviving. Also, I noticed there was a construction movement added outside of the boundary of the property, wondering how many trees have taken out for the temporary construction boundary. And then lastly, noise and vibration. There will be blasting associated with this project. A lot of our homes are built on ledge around there. It looks like a cave under my house. So we're just going to make sure that blasting procedures are followed, that monitors and inspectors come out to our houses before to take note. And then I know this doesn't say in city regulations, but that someone comes out after as well to check to see if there have been any changes. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it. [1:54:49] Unidentified speaker (Chair): All right. Jamie Parker for the trails this time, appreciate the addition of the trail easement and look forward to working that out with you guys honestly tonight, and I was reviewing the material because the first I heard of it, so don't be afraid to reach out, we want to work with you guys, and we're doing a lot of projects, similar comment is maybe it's general, there's seven street trees being planted along a new sidewalk, there's a lot of really mature trees there right now, can none of them be saved in that Edge of sidewalk zone that would obviously be more valuable than a, you know, newly planted street tree, which has a 50 at best of surviving. You're curious, like, this one's flipped. There's sidewalk required on the frontage where there's no sidewalk on the street, different than Dalton streets, which is a dead end and not on a bus route. Totally get that. Like, maybe we do want sidewalks on Ray Street, but then there doesn't appear, unless I'm mistaken, to be any sidewalk on Parrington or whatever it's called. So it seems to be flipped in this case. Just wondering what the rationale is, and is it arbitrary, is it, I mean, so this is kind of acting like a shared street, which is great. I think these short little streets are great shared streets, and they should be treated as such. So I'm not advocating for them to have to have sidewalks in the internal. I'm just curious how it comes about, like that. And I'll note that there's a trail directly across the street, the continuation of the existing informal trail system on this side continues on Marble Street across. I don't believe that the applicant is on the hook for a crosswalk, but I'd like to work to think about where people are going to cross. I brought this up with Jeremiah Bartlett in the city about this is part of a much longer multi-mile trail network that comes through here and cuts over to Main Avenue. New. So we just want to make sure that this is a cohesive, you know, good alignment makes common logical sense. And can we accommodate that somehow into their any curb work that's happening? Or will people be simply using the tip down from the driveway apron, which may be fine, but has that been taken into consideration? [1:57:08] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Question I have, so. [1:57:12] Unidentified speaker (Chair): And I'll just note that it's really hard to hear folks out there, and maybe you've heard this before, but like, they see on everything, so [1:57:20] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): there will comment like, thank you, thank you for being here, thank you for your comments, Ben. Are you able, are you missing a lot? Yes, [1:57:34] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): the microphone is not picking up the applicant very well at all. So I've tried to piece some things together, but I definitely have questions, but I'll, I'll ask this when we get to that. Thank you. Hi. [1:57:52] Rosa Callister: My name is Maroon Magat. I live at 86 Ford Avenue. The blasting ordinance for the city of Fortland is way out of state. It does not keep our safety state that has happened in our neighborhood, and there's some real concerns, and that has never been followed up with by the staff or by the city, and we have some new people won't have real concern, and that needs to be addressed. Thank [1:58:19] Unidentified speaker (Chair): you for being here. Others in the room, if you are online and would like to speak, be your chance to raise your hand. If you're on the telephone, press star nine. Judy, [1:58:35] Unidentified speaker (Public Commenter): you should be all set to unmute. [1:58:44] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Judy, you should be all set [1:58:45] Speaker H (unidentified): to unmute. I can't seem to hear you at the moment, Judy. [1:58:52] Unidentified speaker (Chair): It looks like you're unmuted. Can you speak? [1:58:54] Judy Murphy: Yes, I can. I'm sorry, my name is Judy Murphy, and you can hear me now? Yes, perfect. I live at 39 Dakota Street. I've been here for about 35 years, and I think Shannon addressed the issues around the wetland areas down there very well, and the trees. My concern is on the parking situation. So, there's eight units, and every family in one of those units gets one parking spot. And so, if they have an extra car, like a lot of families have two cars, they have to park along Race Street. I took my car down and parked on Race Street, where they're talking about parking. Your car has to be halfway into the lane in order to not be all the way going into the shrub, into the woods. When you open the car door on the driver's side, you are almost taking up the entire lane, and it's a very busy street. It's a cut through for folks going to Falmouth. It is a cut through for cyclists coming the same way, a lot of families. It is also a section of Ray Street where the sight line coming from either direction is not great until you're right upon the area. So I just was wondering, like, are we concerned about that? I have a lot of concerns about it. There have been accidents along there. People that live in this area don't like walk, even walking as it is now, never mind adding cars parked on the side of the road. You know, if any of these families have a, have a gathering, you're talking about adding another multiple cars. There is no way you can park that many cars along there to accommodate eight units. Perhaps they should go down to six units and use that space to add more parking spots. [2:00:39] Unidentified speaker (Chair): That's all I have to say. Thank you, Judy. We appreciate you being here. I believe that's the only person online. I will close the public comment period, open it up for board questions. I was curious if you wanted to start with blasting. [2:00:58] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): They did a lot of blasting in fall, Brookwoods, that was where the blasting was done widely [2:01:04] Unidentified speaker (Chair): and recently. Yeah. Yeah. So the city does have a blasting ordinance. Our department does not oversee it, and it's not part of the segment process. So there's a separate permit that they would be responsible for paying to the entire department. and the requirements around that includes requirements around doing a pre-blast survey going around documenting any existing damage that with blasting occurs notifying applicants for the butters of blasting protocols time of day things like that schedule and then there is a part of that the blaster actually go out into a post blast survey what is the committee of jurisdiction that would make changes to the blasting ordinance that would be through the city's fire department it's challenging so concerned citizens obviously real concerns they would probably talk to their city councillors and fire department [2:02:24] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): so joe i would ask the question too if you've done a geotech report do you know where the ledge profiles are will blasting be necessary and don't anticipate that you have basements in these so the only excavation would be for frost and footing so the frost walls as well as the [2:02:42] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): storm water pond area okay if you looked at we have not done any gf4 out there split area it's not required as part of design for this project and i would say as if i would say in any project. If you find Ledge, there are two methods to deal with Ledge. The rock and the run it. Break it up and fracture it. Or there is to use reputable firms that are capable of blasting. Go through, and I recognize here a lot of folks have problems blasting. I don't want to minimize it. But the regulations from blasting companies and things they have to do to protect their liability, my client's liability, are extremely high. And so, to be evaluated to do the way there are some ledge out there that's very shaling so you put a rock in there to it breaks away and there's some that's just it's hard it's not seen it buried in town by your district so our approach is that we're going to cross that bridge on the best nothing to remove that ledge to get outside and actually find out what we're getting there's [2:03:46] Unidentified speaker (Chair): a couple other issues to ask about but open it up for board members if you want to jump [2:03:50] Speaker D (unidentified): in yeah so did you get a wetlands elimination survey i was trying to find out what one [2:03:55] Speaker N (unidentified): scientist was out on site and submitted that i'm trying to find that as well as my i [2:04:01] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): can't get the word the points sheet they'll be kind of later so i was trying to open that i would gladly pull it up here when i get sent in with that if i can just go down through there have been local iterations on this project working closely with the city so there may be older forms out there I know I do put in state and Algerian parachute questions came up I was able to get that because I have it here our stormwater report that's current but the city does classify the urban parachute so There's been a lot of iterations of the stockings going back and forth. [2:04:34] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I just don't know what's there right now. Nick, can I address that? Sure, so it was determined that those weapons were just training areas. So the city has a lot of sustained waterways, water courses, that might not, there's, you know, they may look like wetlands, but they're not traditional wetlands, how we define them in the land use code, and that's why delineation is required after working in consultation with our colleagues in water resources. And so in the land use code we define what was different ways. We have fresh water wetlands, I will try to define this, areas of 10 or more acres, but then we have traditional smaller wetlands that are about, if they, the soil quality, poorly drained, etc. There's actually three different ways of defining it, or criteria that need to be met. In this case that was the case for this property. And then for urban impaired watersheds, there is nine watersheds in the city. Majority of the watersheds in Portland are impaired, that's why we have low impact development standards for that reason, in this, to try to mitigate and reduce pervious services throughout the city, and also incorporate more natural infrastructure, stormwater management infrastructure, bioswales, etc., that we see them with many projects. And so it's a requirement of cities and sports events just to have them go on L.A.D. So I just wanted to clarify that when there's an urban impaired and stream, but for the watershed I should say, the compass is usually a vast area, a couple of miles in this case There's multiple in the city forward or sub-watersheds. [Speaker H (unidentified): Jason's work I] don't know that I can't mention vernal pool, but is there a vernal pool there, is that all there? So I believe there's only a few areas of not mapped vernal pools from, we'll follow up. You might, if you, yeah, one other question, we'll come back here. [2:06:54] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Another question, go ahead. One, there was a public comment about the number of preserved trees being unrealistic. Is there document in the package that pinpoints existing trees that will remain? I have the same issue. It looks like grading goes almost to the property line. I don't see any document that says these particular trees will be preserved and [2:07:19] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): protected. General plan would have been a red right sheet in there. I do agree some of these are close [2:07:25] Speaker N (unidentified): but within the city's definition [2:07:30] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): of 14 trees we may have a little attitude to talk about Washington parking figure we're going for everybody again the applicant is okay putting aside no parking along Great Street property where I'll stay putting signs on the curating way to Houston and self-serving as we've gone through these iterations of looking at this I think that the tenants of these properties would self-regulate somebody parking [2:08:02] Speaker N (unidentified): just today because they're not going to be able to navigate LC so if it's a case of putting aside [2:08:07] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): and go parking to retain that minimum access with the tenant for this area we'd go that approach [2:08:22] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Along those lines there was discussion about crosswalk or curb walks that had those [2:08:29] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): discussions or you know i frankly i put that back to the city is that 's that path is inclusive well before this project was envisioned and all we're doing is formalizing the path this up on the property but they're crossing the street it might even be outside the purity of this project you [2:08:51] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): know if the trail across the street lines up with the [2:08:55] Unidentified speaker (Chair): new Puritan Way curb cut or you know if it's along the yeah so we tied the opposing area into where the [2:09:07] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): I'm showing still waiting a lot let me share yeah you should be on as a panelist [2:09:15] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I think I have a reach. I apologize. [2:09:22] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): I don't want to make them do everything. So yeah, short answer. Where the trail currently exits, it will exit onto the sidewalk posing in there. And that's where the pedestrian will go. Recording in progress. [2:10:39] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Do I have permission to share? Do I have permission to hear you? If you don't mind, though, just be a day for yourself. And I'll just remind everybody to speak up. I can see Bev kind of turning her head, which means maybe it's not as loud as it can be. There we go. [2:11:23] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): So on the existing property, the trail comes down through this dash line. We are proposing rewriting it around the buildings, but it will empty the trail into the sidewalk [2:11:36] Speaker N (unidentified): that's proposed. And I can zoom out. I [2:11:48] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Apologize. The trail system will actually end up on the sidewalk, and at that point pedestrians need to walk down to Carrington Way and to there, where they can just walk across the grass and continue on to the normal path that they've emptied. [2:12:07] Speaker D (unidentified): Neil, you're sharing. Do you have a plan that shows the trees to remain? [2:12:11] Speaker N (unidentified): I mean share [Unidentified speaker (Chair): not] see that in my plans that have we [2:12:45] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): have some of the trees that we've been surveying [2:12:47] Speaker N (unidentified): the project and we have submitted those we'll pull it up okay just [2:13:16] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): these are some conditions planned we have I might be mixing this up with all the trees probably a little more evolution of this and show the trees that were staying [2:13:27] Speaker F (unidentified): regardless [2:13:31] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): these are all the trees on [2:13:32] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): the site so [Speaker N (unidentified): towards the again] the northern part of the property formerly st joe's banner that is on the slope i believe those trees are going away in the core where the building setback is those trees are going away if [2:14:10] Unidentified speaker (Chair): the board is comfortable with it we can add a condition that says essentially provide a tree protection plan showing you know minimum 30 percent trees 10 inches dvh or greater setback areas being observed and then that'll be reviewed [2:14:23] Speaker D (unidentified): yes but 40 percent for the dollar a score 40 percent there you go yes where [2:14:32] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): and where is the construction that [2:14:38] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): don't i'll put a construction reason on this property and we have construction constructed berm notes and there may have been in one of the [2:14:49] Unidentified speaker (Chair): iterations. I'm not. This is the easement for the trail access on view. [2:14:56] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): One of the public comments mentioned a construction and additional trees being removed for the temporary construction. I am not. I'm looking at the construction management plan, but I don't see any [Speaker F (unidentified): trees are they] mostly just utilizing the driveway that will be added yes there's two easements on [2:15:34] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): this property for the water so there's 15 foot wide water easement going down the center about the center of the property itself it's to the left of the driveway portion there [2:15:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair): you're not getting that mixed up with your evolutionary team [2:15:56] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): so i've been looking at the easement for this plan but the construction is that i don't follow on here i mean i [2:16:24] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): see a material lay down area in an area that will have buildings and there's trees noted looks like in the drawing where the material lay down area is so yeah i guess it would be helpful to see the plan that shows what trees are [2:16:43] Unidentified speaker (Chair): you want that language again i can draft it then i [2:17:01] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Would also, I know the applicant said they'd be comfortable adding no parking signs on Peerington Way. I would, I spent with the waiver, I'm not comfortable with the waiver to 20 feet without marking it of no parking because that seems like a crazy ass issue was [2:17:22] Unidentified speaker (Chair): the discussion of no parking size also at base two [2:17:25] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): or we would along that parking lot. I mean, if you put, it's curving up a sidewalk, folks are naturally going to want to go. So if the city like us to put the parking on there, we would do that, but our operators specifically along our property, I think, I apologize, I'm looking at the trees were on the landscaping plans earlier, it's not turned on the plans, but so we have that prepared, it's ready, we'll gladly send it back to the site. But yes, I'm sorry, short answer, down Carrington Way, putting a couple of cents in the park. Like I said, it will self, I know we don't trust this, but it will self-regulate. One person parking in front of the first house going in is going to cause enough chaos that the rest of the [2:18:15] Speaker N (unidentified): tenants would have a revolt on them as well, but we'll put the signs up to help. It's not that [2:18:22] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I do hear the public comments on thanks the street parking on Ray Street, and I think you have, you made the comment that if you have sidewalk there, it gives people a place a park whether you're supposed to or not, but I think that seems like a, I almost want to see no sidewalk there and keeping that on uninviting park because I know this part of Gray Street is, it is pretty challenging, for example centers, and I'm worried that the sidewalk just kind of invites people [2:18:55] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): but hold on, we really support your sidewalk for this project [2:19:03] Unidentified speaker (Chair): i mean i think at the end of the day with the waiver i mean i think the city's provided our stance on that we think those sidewalks are going just because we understand that development happens ad hocly in the city and at the end of the day you know the city has almost always so much sidewalk that we'll be providing ourselves building and if we do rely on our private of partners to help implement a robust site on that 's helpful i mean if the board decides otherwise you are the review authority here, you can, you know, provide your own reasoning why not provide one, if that was one of them, Eric, I just wanted to try that on this, that oftentimes this is how sidewalks are built, unfortunately. You might have one piece at a time, and then eventually, maybe hopefully, down the road, there's more of a complete picture Sure. There's also [2:19:50] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): A specific waiver. Can I ask, can I ask, can I butt in and ask a question? Yeah. This was asked earlier and I can hear the planning board perfectly. So it's not that there's not good volume. It's that the folks on the side tables, it is really hard to hear and the applicants really hard to hear. So I know it's been asked before, but why are we looking at a 20-foot road instead of a 24-foot road? I could not hear the answer to that. And is it just cost, or is it that it's physically not possible? [2:20:30] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): This was one of the design constraints, and I believe it's in the city's ordinance that it does allow for a reduced 24 feet to 20 feet to narrow things up. We could widen this up on the entrance piece if needed. But again, the project works with 24 wide road [2:20:54] Unidentified speaker (Chair): going in there. Vehicles can go into the project. [2:20:57] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Trash trucks can get in here. And so again, just trying to add a little bit more green space to what's a little less there on this site. [2:21:06] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): If the road were wider, does that allow for parking on the side of the road? [2:21:13] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): No it does not thank you and just there was a question on with the parking not the parking yeah the sidewalks we do but the request of the board at the last meeting we were here a while ago we did put walkways one of those sidewalks in the back of each building so that kind of came up on dull street we had a path that got down to the buildings and on this one it doesn't go down the road instead it goes to the rear of the buildings where there's extra waste screenshot unit but it does look Different but it's achieving the same [2:21:47] Speaker N (unidentified): Same piece in it and [2:21:53] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): The trash truck turning template also applies to emergency vehicles [2:21:57] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Same training type of thing I'll check on that I only saw trash truck when not an emergency [2:22:04] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Vehicle it has gone through the life safety review for this project we're only 100 feet I believe we're only 100 feet into the furthest building that was property [2:22:21] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): So you can get a waiver down to 20 feet and you don't have a reason but I feel like that's also kind of the best question like you can just get approved down to 20 feet because you want to [2:22:35] Unidentified speaker (Chair): no so i would say again the typical two-way driveway is 20 feet now in instances where there is an expectation there's going to be like low traffic volume for example will often and allow for that width to be reduced down to 20 feet we've seen instances be less i think in this case again it's eight units in total we're not expecting this it's a major traffic generator and so we're comfortable with you know narrowing of that driveway in order to reduce the impervious [2:23:08] Speaker D (unidentified): area space, but it was reviewed by the city's third brain trap. Yes, I'll see, I can share. We have [2:23:16] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): guns so many five-mile width variances. At one point I questioned the technical method. Should we change it because we do it so often? Every parking garage we do, we shrink it from 24 [2:23:29] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): feet to 20. That's just, yeah, I guess my only concern, I almost beyond it, but a parking garage versus there are going to be visitors and they are going, they are going to have to find a park, and it just, and I know we don't have parking requirements, I am just concerned that they're going to park on the street. That's the only place to go, so there's, yeah, I don't know where they're going to go [2:23:59] Unidentified speaker (Chair): And to be clear, I do want the sidewalks right, but I also don't, I also want it to be safe for sure. Yeah, absolutely. And I think that if I were forced to choose between like making sure that people don't park on the street or having sidewalks, I'd choose in the street, like the sight lines going around. Yeah, anyway, I don't have a good suggestion [2:24:26] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Anything else? I wanted to sort of praise you for reconsidering the stormwater pod and putting that subsurface. I think that's a much better solution. Thank you for adding pavement to the back of the houses and connecting all of those areas, and also thank you for the easement. That's a great improvement. I did have one suggestion, your planting plan has two plant materials, red maple and again the arborvitae. I would ask you to work with the arbor, city arborist, and get some plant diversity in there and not have a variety of blending the street, any other evergreens, fruits, broadleaf evergreens, just some varieties so you don't have a monitor, you know, mix it up, get some different trees, any variety. Where are [2:25:19] Unidentified speaker (Chair): four members at the no parking signs? Who's in favor of one? We should probably have a sense before we move forward. When I should, I would like, thank you for experiencing life, and what about on race [2:25:41] Speaker H (unidentified): even though [2:25:45] Rosa Callister: I don't know now where people are going to park, but neither seems safe. Yeah. [2:25:50] Unidentified speaker (Chair): I agree with it. Sorry, I was going to say you could put the signage on long-range streets for a frontage of a property for that portion, so there's a set distance to play concerning your building, so you could place the signs to be placed strategically [Speaker F (unidentified): for that reason.] Yeah. And I agree that within the parcel of that 20-foot drive, it is going to be self-regulating park. Probably nobody's going to get a pass, and it's going to be clear that 's an issue. And actually increasing it to 24 would, I think, make that too easy to park there and not have an issue. [2:26:32] Speaker H (unidentified): So I think indifferent [2:26:36] Unidentified speaker (Chair): about no parking signs on Carrington. [2:26:38] Speaker H (unidentified): It's fine to do it. [2:26:41] Unidentified speaker (Chair): And then Ray Street, I think, definitely needs no parking [2:26:44] Speaker F (unidentified): signs at all. [2:26:47] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): I don't know how effective they're going to be, though. [2:26:50] Speaker D (unidentified): So we will well to Andrew, to your point, like based off moments the site distance too, and for the property, can this be like something that's submitted to the city's traffic engineer to determine the limits of like where are they? Yeah, I mean condition exact locations, but [2:27:07] Unidentified speaker (Chair): no review by the city's third party traffic, and then after, you know, that could be prior applying for a boat, for example, so they can work with us to facilitate that review, you, and then that's when we can, you know, determine the exact locations. Great, I would support that. Yep, and then but previously you had said that there's there was somebody who said that there should not be any pressure anyway. Yeah, so the parking director was just indicating that the peers were right away with when you get able to accommodate a portion of their stream, that's all they said. All right, yeah, all right, yeah, I'm good with that. Do we [2:27:52] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I don't mean to harp on no parking, and I just when I worked with the assistant car chief in South Portland in the fire marshal, this is like he was obsessed with this, so you know we can't get our trucks in and do car parking where they're not supposed to park. I have that same concern, Kelsey. I think I have one [2:28:16] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): consolidation to this. These are sprinkler units. I can say as a fire credit over a decade in Bama, [2:28:24] Speaker N (unidentified): the location of these [2:28:25] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): who have access to the buildings from the right side street of this and going down in who have great firefighters in Portland who can put a fire pretty quick by the sprinklers [Speaker N (unidentified): they shut down] bourbon contents are. Great, thank you. [2:28:42] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): Beth, did you catch that? I'm sorry. [2:28:47] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I got to tell you that my, so I put on the captioning so I could read better, and it says they shut down the bourbon content, so I have no idea what that meant. [2:28:58] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): It says he doesn't belong down here. I was just commenting on how great the city of Portland's firefighters are and shutting down roman contents fires and structured fires alike, but on top of that the buildings have sprinkler systems which are designed to do that, shut down roman contents fire well before it takes over and envelops the whole house. Thank you. [2:29:43] Unidentified speaker (Chair): So we're waiting for prior to apply for the building permit. Yes. Or we can want to start with the waivers. Yes. Okay. [2:29:53] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I will make a motion on waivers that based on the information in 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 June 23, 2026 for application PL-003302-2025 at 16 Peerington Way, relevant to the 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. 1. Parking Mile WIP Waiver. The Planning Board finds, based upon the traffic engineer's review that extraordinary conditions exist or undue hardship may result from strict compliance with the technical manual standard section 1-design standards. Figure 1-16A for a minimum pile width of 24 feet for 90 degree parking that substantial justice and the public interest are secured with the proposed variation in the standard and that the variation is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The planning board waives the technical manual standard section 1.10.7 to allow or reduce parking [2:31:06] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Out of 20 feet, is there a second? So we are on proposed waivers. We have a motion, a second. For this question, no. [2:31:23] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): But I would maybe like to further like this conversation on the that we do this paper so often and kind of talk to us like we do a staff talk about that a little bit more. Sure, I guess I'm having extraordinary conditions exist for undue [2:31:41] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Hardship, I'm not finding that in this one, but okay. We so well, no, we did speak with that standard back in the city, updated the technical in 24. And so as a part of that, as part of those discussions, the public works standpoint is that we don't want to then have to, there are certain instances, so essentially, we don't want to condition what we then have to fire the minimum standard. Yeah. And so essentially that was what led to us keeping it where it was. But I think it's a valid thing to say that it had variations. And that's what you drive out. [2:32:40] Speaker F (unidentified): Is it just [2:32:52] Rosa Callister: always the waiver language? [2:32:55] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Extraordinary conditions and systems. Yeah. And that's the language that was set aside. [2:33:00] Rosa Callister: Yeah, that's just the... Are [2:33:06] Unidentified speaker (Chair): we up for the waivers? Yeah. Yeah, okay. So we can do that motion. Yeah. We have a waiver motion. My statement's seconded, and we can take the roll. Okay. Beverly, you and Hank? [2:33:20] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): I'm having a really hard time with this, because I don't feel like I can hear enough to... I'm going to say no on this, because I just don't think that the extraordinary conditions exist unless someone heard something in the room so I would rather abstain but if I forced to vote I would vote no. That's abstain? Yeah let me do that because I don't feel like I have enough information to feel comfortable saying yes. I also don't want to deny it if the rest of [2:33:54] Unidentified speaker (Chair): the room feels like it's okay. Yeah I'm not forcing you so it felt like an abstain. Okay [2:34:00] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Stapp, Then I will do that. [2:34:01] Speaker H (unidentified): Stapp, Awesome sir, yes. [2:34:04] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Stapp, It is so absent Nicholas Messina. Yes. Eric in. Yes. Stapp, Yes. [2:34:11] Speaker H (unidentified): Stapp, Joseph Zamboni. Yes. [2:34:14] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Stapp, So we have a waiver that is passed. Stapp, Are we close to site planning. [Speaker H (unidentified): Stapp, Yeah,.] there's to be just if the board could clarify so in this condition what's asking that essentially the applicant coordinate with our department to update the site plan food no parking signage along the property frontage in coordination with the department of course we could include our third party yeah and is that 's part of the building permit yeah prior to the issue So the signage wouldn't be installed until prior to, you know, essentially as part of your build out, you would then put in the signage, but we want to see where the signage is going to be before we start charging. It should be a period. I fully agree. [2:35:15] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): I still want to, I would hate to hinder building a unit on something worth agreeing to. Again, just look at this pathway of fair and equitable. We're putting the sidewalk in, we're going to work for the city, we're going to put signs up on the stretch that will define no parking here, that people can be taken from civil actions. I'd just like to be able as they cut the road in, put things in, if they can apply for a building permit, I need to have that level all. [2:35:42] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Working through, no, I know that's why we're going to do it for prior issuance of a building, so you'll [2:35:47] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): be able to go fly for a building. I'd still like to have the building feel like we're doing that, [2:35:53] Unidentified speaker (Chair): but there's several other conditions that we're requiring prior to issuance. I agree with you, but [2:35:57] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): this one is evolving going signage. I just I feel everything else is something I can control, the stormwater narrative of the homeowner stocks, but this is what we're going to be working with the [2:36:10] Unidentified speaker (Chair): public works department for signage. Well, I mean, I'll just be clear, I feel like these things are pretty typical, you know, just completely turn around. I don't expect that to be a big pull-up as long as the city will work with us. Yeah, we will, but you know, typically with these things when it comes to signage, it's you know finding a suitable location and our traffic third-party traffic engineer is actually really quick at turning around these things. I'm just more [2:36:35] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): fearful about the neighbors around us all of a sudden, it's you know parking signs go up, that's turned into an iterative process. That's all the reason I asked. [2:36:42] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Well, I mean, it's clear in the record that this is happening, so. Are you comfortable? We're comfortable. Do you have the language? Yeah, Matt's right here. And thank you for working. [2:37:03] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): Don't bother. Never mind, I'm supposed to work again. Don't worry about it. I'm just saying. [2:37:21] Unidentified speaker (Chair): That we, if you missed any of that, we just made sure everybody was comfortable with the language that Matt is now writing up and I think that the sound is often the air conditioner, it's been an ongoing problem, right, oh yeah. I think it's also the location of this stuff where the mic, the audio is picked up, unfortunately it's very much funneled towards you, yeah, it's we usually don't have a chair [2:38:01] Speaker D (unidentified): it's probably well I'm big, I get very quiet, well she said those sides, I think it's pretty. Very nice. [2:38:07] Unidentified speaker (Applicant Representative): How should we do that? Beverly, are you having a hard time hearing staff too? [2:38:12] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): A little bit, yes. Okay. It's definitely, if you're facing toward where the TV sits, I can hear you incredibly clearly, everything's fine. It's when you're facing, particularly if you're looking at the planning board members while you're speaking,, which I think is what the applicant does, which is appropriate, then anyone who's online can not hear. Okay. It's no. Okay. I also think that an owl in the center of the room would be good so we could see who's actually talking because the clarification of who's talking actually would be helpful too. I will make a motion on site plan review. Based on the information in the application plans, reports through testimony at 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 for the public hearing on June 23, 2026 for application PL-003302-2025 5 at 16 Parrington Way to the site plan regulations and finds that the plan is in conformance with the site plan standards of the land use code subject to the following conditions approval. Prior to applying for a building permit, 1 as written. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 2 and 3 as written. 4, the applicant shall prepare a landscape preservation plan that preserves a minimum of 40 percent of all trees within required setbacks measuring 10 inches dbh or greater. This plan shall include appropriate measures for protecting selected trees throughout the duration of construction and shall be reviewed and approved by the planning authority and city arborist. Five, the applicant shall coordinate with the planning authority and public works authority to update the site plan to include no parking signage along the property's frontage on race [Speaker F (unidentified): street and] prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy six and well four and five is written [2:40:29] Unidentified speaker (Chair): but updated to six and seven. Okay, thank you. We have a motion for site plan review as written with some amendments that Kelsey read and just some light renumbering. Is there a second? Any further discussion? City, do you feel like that was read correctly? Okay, [2:40:55] Unidentified speaker (Staff/Presenter): not hearing anything, let's do, let's do a roll fairly. You and Hick? [2:41:02] Unidentified speaker (Chair): Yes, Austin Smith, yes, David Silk absent, Nicholas Messina, yes, Eric, yes, Chelsea Robertson, yes, Joseph [2:41:11] Unidentified speaker (Board Member): Yes. Make a motion on the planning board decision on the basis of the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing on June 23rd, 2026 related to application PL-003302-2025 for 16 Purinton Way, which is attached to the draft approval letter and incorporated therein. The planning board adopts the findings and conclusions in the June 17, 2026 planning board report and the approval letter is drafted at the planning board's decision for application PL-003302-2025 and authorizes the planning board chair to sign the approval letter as drafted. [2:41:51] Unidentified speaker (Chair): UH WE HAVE A MOTION TO A SECOND UH AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ON DECISION NOT HEARING ANY UH ANDREW CAN YOU DO A CALL YES CAVERLY HEAL AND HANK yes austin smith yes david silk absent nicholas messina yes eric dinn yes kelsey robertson yes joseph zamboni yes so that classroom majority that's the end of our agenda i just want to apologize to anybody that's online for the audio i'm sure we'll we'll continue to work on it thank you for everybody thank you for your presentation thank you, Dean, I appreciate you. Thank you all. Thanks. Bye.