Speakers labeled via automated voice-based diarization + AI name-matching against the city's official roster. Automated transcription can still mis-hear a name during fast speech (e.g. a rapid roll-call vote) -- clear near-misses are auto-corrected, but this is not manually verified line-by-line. Treat names as a strong best guess, not an official record.
[7:13] Speaker A (unidentified): I can. Can you hear me? Yes. Are
[7:22] Speaker B (unidentified): we recording ready to go? Yep. All set. Okay. Sorry, panel members that I'm not in the room. I just had a late call. So welcome to the remote hybrid planning board meeting for October 13th, 2026. This meeting is
[7:45] Speaker C (unidentified): being okay we lost you can
[7:51] Speaker B (unidentified): you hear me now so try talking again can you hear me now
[7:57] Speaker A (unidentified): [8:01] Speaker C (unidentified): nothing changed on my screen
[8:04] Speaker A (unidentified): just try speaking again can you hear me now yes we can it's
[8:13] Speaker B (unidentified): all good yeah so welcome to the planning board meeting for october 13th 2026 this meeting is being held hybrid via zoom and in person. Before we begin, I'd like to address some housekeeping issues regarding public comment. Any written comments received prior to the meeting were made available to the board for their review. In order to provide public comment during the meeting, it must be provided verbally. Members of the public attending the meeting remotely via phone or computer do not have speaking privileges enabled when joining the meeting. In order to provide public comment, members of the public must indicate their interest in speaking at the appropriate time. If participating in the meeting with a computer, you'll use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest. This is turned on and off using the hand icon located 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 on you properly. If you are joining us on a standard telephone or cell phone, you can indicate your interest at the appropriate time by pressing star nine. In either case, after you're called on, please wait until the moderator asks you to unmute yourself. Once unmuted, please state your name and address. You'll then have three minutes to provide your comment. At the end of that period, your microphone will be muted again. If you're experiencing any problems during the meeting, you can email planning at portlandmaine.gov. Staff will try to monitor the email and respond as appropriate. And with that, Andrew, will you take a roll? Yes, Mr. Chair.
[9:47] Speaker A (unidentified): HAB-Masyn Moyer- federally unique here Austin Smith here it's like absent Nicholas can see that absent Eric in your Chelsea Robertson absent and Joseph's in boni here.
[10:00] Speaker B (unidentified): HAB-Jacques Juilland- Should we do a vice chair to start since kelsey's not here. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Sure. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Does that make sense.
[10:12] HAB-Masyn Moyer: HAB-Masyn Moyer- The information.
[10:17] Speaker C (unidentified): you can make a motion to have austin be the vice chair tonight and then have somebody second
[10:24] Speaker B (unidentified): That and then go to the technicality second. Well, so Austin, thank you so much. Would be vice sheriff this evening. Any further discussion? Andrew, can you do a roll on that? Yep, early.
[10:43] Speaker A (unidentified): Kimberly Ulenhink. Yes. Austin Smith. Yes. David Silk-Absett. Nicholas Kucina-Absett. Eric Fenn. Yes. Kelsey Robertson-Absett. And Joseph Zamboni. Yes. Great.
[10:55] Speaker B (unidentified): Great. So I think we can move to our workshop today, and this is technical manual and complete streets design guidelines. City of Portland is considered the applicant. Planning board tonight was holding a workshop to consider amendments to section one of the city Portland technical manual to implement the city of Portland's adopted complete streets policy. Board will also consider a draft version of the city's complete streets design guide. More information will be posted on the city's agenda center under this item. And with that, I'll pass it to the city.
[11:33] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes, good afternoon, members of the board, chairs and Boney. So the purpose of this afternoon's workshop is to provide the board with a first look at the city's draft Complete Streets Alpine Guide. We also wanted to provide some background on what has brought us to this point, and then also explain how we envisioned this document, shaping how Portland streets get designed. So in case you are unfamiliar with the concept, complete streets is an approach to street design that considers the needs of all users. So pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists, etc. And it's really about creating safer, more accessible streets for everyone, while recognizing that an appropriate street design will vary depending on the street, its function within the city's street system, as well as its surrounding context. This approach also supports the city's broader transportation goals, in particular around Vision Zero and creating safer streets for the city of Portland. So today, I want to reiterate, this is a first look at this design guide. We're looking for preliminary feedback on the overall approach that we're taking, and then in particular on the street typologies, which I'll be talking to here in more detail here in a minute. And we'll take that feedback and then use that to provide more in-depth design and detail on the, you know, the complete content of the of the design guide as well as the performance standards in the technical manual which we'll be bringing forward at a later date so in terms of background the city of portland adopted its first complete streets policy back in 2012. It then later updated that policy in August of 2025, and that update largely built off of the original policy. However, it also placed greater emphasis on implementation of the policy and included more measures around accountability, including new annual reporting requirements, which are reflected in the 2025 Fleet Street Annual Report that was included as part of your packet. And building on that work, the city has also been updating its design guidance and technical standards, which is the reason we're here before you this evening, to start that process as a way to translate the goals and objectives of the 2025 streets policy into a regulatory framework to actually implement it going forward. So in terms of the regulatory framework, it consists of four interconnected pieces. The first of which is the Complete Streets Policy, which establishes the overarching policy objectives for our transportation goals around Complete Streets. There's also the Land Use Code, which defines what development outcomes we're hoping to
[14:47] Speaker E (unidentified): achieve with new developments.
[14:49] Speaker C (unidentified): And then there's the Technical Manual, which establishes detailed standards, engineering specifications for how our streets and public rights should be built out. And then this last piece here, this is, again, what we're here to talk to you about today, is the design guide, which builds off of those and provides practical guidance as well as illustrative solutions for designing streets across a variety of different nonprofits that exist here in the city. And again, so for the purpose of today's conversation and going forward, we'll be looking primarily at the tech manual and the street design guide. As I mentioned at the outset, the tech manual we will include some red lines to that we'll be bringing before the board that will implement the design guide and adopt it by reference, and then it would also include some additional performance standards which we'll again we'll bring for the later date, and then again the this design guide would be a supplemental resource that would be that would be looked at as part of all street projects that happen here in the city. And the purpose of the design guide, so there's two primary purposes. First, to establish a consistent framework for evaluating street design across different project types. And then the second is to support context-sensitive design, recognizing that Portland streets serve different functions and that their design needs to balance competing transportation priorities, for example, for example, surrounding land uses, as well as physical constraints of the public ride or drive. And then stepping into the design guide itself, the first concept I wanted to highlight is this idea of street zones. So the design guide breaks streets out into three separate parts. So there's the pedestrian realm, there's the curbside zone, and then there is the travel way. And it then provides design parameters for elements in each of those zones. For example, information on sidewalks or furnishing zones, bicycle lanes, loading zones, et cetera, and recognizes that the configuration of those elements and their dimensions, that they need to vary based upon how the street or what purpose the street plays within the city's broader transportation system, as well as things like the constraints of the actual right-of-way. And what is the surrounding context of that street? And then one of the central elements of the design guide, and this is, I think, where we want to spend a lot of our time today, is this idea of street typology. So what the design guide does is it defines each of the streets as one of seven different street types. This recognizes that the streets across Portland vary. So, for example, there are quiet residential streets, there are, you know, major downtown streets, there are busy commercial corridors, there are industrial streets, and each of those street types has different transportation needs, land use contexts, and physical constraints. Streets. And so what we, again, what we are hoping to get out of today's workshop is really to provide an overview of what those different street types are, and then also hear from you all as to whether or not this captures the universe of streets that exist here in the city of Portland, whether those designations make sense, or if there's any additional thought that needs to happen around the breakdown of those street types. And then drilling down from the street typologies map we have included this table this again is in the in the design guide this is a matrix that provides some design parameters around those different street elements you can see there 's information around you know widths of sidewalk depending on the street type whether or not a street type is appropriate to include on street parking or not information on loading zones traveling widths Etc and so this is intended to provide some structure as you know again as designers are evaluating our streets and designing projects to help understand what the configuration of the street should be based up based upon its context. And then again this is just really here for illustrative purposes primarily. This is as you will have seen in the design guide, there were a number of these spreads that were provided based on the different street types. And so this provides kind of more detailed information on the various street types, typical cross sections, typical kind of operating conditions, and some you know narrative guidance around what the city is hoping to achieve with that with that street type. And then the next major element of the guide is what we are calling our street design treatments. So while the street typology has established different types of streets that we have here in Portland, the design treatments identify specific improvements and design elements that can be incorporated into those streets. And the guide organizes these treatments into five different categories, those being pedestrian, bicycle, transit, curbside treatments, intersection treatments. And then the guide, similarly to the street typology breakdown, includes a matrix that identifies kind of when and where those different treatment types are appropriate. It's not a one-size-fits-all, so it does call for some exercise in judgment as to whether or not they're appropriate or not. But again, should be, you know, an important first stop for someone who's designing street improvements here in the city to understand, you know, based upon the type of outcome that you're hoping to achieve, you know, what types of interventions or treatments are most appropriate to achieve that outcome. And then again, this is again largely for illustrative purposes, but really is the template that we've been working off of to convey more information on those different treatment types, what their benefit is, when to use them, and then some kind of high-level guidance around how to employ them. And then finally, I just wanted to touch briefly on how the guide would actually be used. So one important point is that not every street project would be evaluated the same way. So for example, a full street reconstruction would have different expectations than say a resurfacing project or routine maintenance on a given street, and the guide is intended to help city staff, engineers, developers work through those differences and determine what improvements should be considered for a particular project, and that would involve looking at the type of street, its existing conditions, what the project is intended to accomplish, and then from there users would consider which design treatments make sense, take into account the city's technical standards, and then constraints that exist right away, and then ultimately the goal would be to provide a consistent approach to making those decisions while recognizing that again, every project is different. And that concludes our presentation. We are happy to go back through anything or consider any questions that the board has. Thank you, Matt. I appreciate that.
Public Comment
[22:55] Speaker B (unidentified): Should we take, excuse me, should we take any preliminary questions and we'll do a public comment on this? Does the board members have any preliminary questions and we can do a public comment? All right. I'll let folks in the room take over the public comment period. No comments? I think we have one online.
[23:44] Speaker C (unidentified): Zach, you should be all set to unmute.
[23:49] Zach Berowitz: Hi, my name is Zach Berowitz. I live on Hunter Street, incidentally Hunter Street. It's a street without sidewalks, I and I from what I could tell from the presentation, I guess it's not uncommon, and in some cases you would consider adding sidewalks at some point, so I guess like to get clarification on that, but generally speaking this looks pretty good. It looks to be similar to the South Portland Street Design Manual, or whatever the name they have for it is, kind of using a typology approach. I suppose one of the challenges of doing it that way is that making sure that you've got the typologies right and the context right so that when the street does come up for redesign, that the guidelines are actually correct. Correct. I mean, I'm also looking at things like heights of speed tables and whether bricks and driveways are placed flat or row lock or the distance between bike rack and bike corrals. Which, you know, these sort of like small details that become quite irritating, you know, in practice. But that's for down the line. I think that's my comment. Thanks very much.
[25:39] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you, Zach. Any other comments? Going once? Going twice? All right, I'll close the public comment portion and just a reminder that we're in a workshop and so open it up to board members for thoughts and feedback for the city.
[26:08] Speaker G (unidentified): So mine's more of a I feel like let's see I'm new to Portland tell me what we're doing here not about the design work but about implementation and when it happens or when it's envisioned to be happening. I assume we have some impact fees that people pay there's legislation that was proposed last year about impact fees and cutting those off but you know like stopping how long you can hold them before you actually do something can you talk about when the design is put into place is it when a new Development comes in and the developers responsible for paying for it is it part of the impact fee what's the schedule for improving all of the streets as we go along etc how does this like play out in real time particularly given the new legislation yeah what can happen with it so pretty sure yeah
[27:18] Speaker C (unidentified): It's very complicated we work very closely with our finance department where they track that we're spending and allocating impact fees on an annual basis to the CSAP process. All projects have to pay impact fee related to transportation. They can get a waiver if they actually build that infrastructure as part of their project site plan review process that you would receive. There are a couple different ways that the money gets allocated or spent. There are paving projects that go through a regional process, and that's one of the goals here with this document is to be able to say, this is the universe of streets that we have. So when DPW gets inventory of these are the streets that are coming up for paving with Maine DOT, we can kind of go off the shelf and say, okay, this is a local street. This is a neighborhood connector. The neighborhood connectors we're envisioning, ideally, with the right-of-way, on-street parking, bike lane, so-and-so, let's start to pull that maybe together so that we can ensure the paving project operates in those respects. But in terms of impact fees for transportation as well, that money also has to be spent on roughly, I believe, 10 projects that were identified with an impact fee study. So those projects have already been vetted, and then that money can be allocated towards that type of project. So like Franklin Street is an impact fee eligible transportation project, the impact fees cannot just be used for any street upgrade in and of itself, if you're asking specifically about that. But they are allocated to larger projects. There's some that's also allocated to sidewalk work that DPW does more broadly. Generally speaking, the intent with this document is to really give a clearer vision of what the policy is trying to achieve and start to actually put a roadmap to it so that folks aren't working in silos. Right now, I would say everything that's in the design guideline that you've seen tonight is very, drafty, but everything that you're going to see in this final package are things that the city either already has just in different places but not really well articulated in terms of a vision for a clear understanding of which streets will achieve so that's one of the core goals of this is to help not just developers when they have to make street upgrades but also our companies btw or at the region when they're working on locals right
[29:42] Speaker G (unidentified): It's really it's it's about making sure that I appreciate that the design guide is for the insider city but also making sure that it's not happening block by block right and how does that all come together and making sure that we're not putting something
[30:02] Speaker C (unidentified): Into place that can't be used yeah and that's yeah that's one of the things we want to make sure this is a holistic vision be talking about this more but the city's comprehensive transportation planning effort is one of those goals to make sure that everything that we're doing is aligning and we're not building various segments that don't have a long-term vision because there's a lot of work happening here and a lot of great advocacy but there's a ton of it and we want to make unlimited dollars We want to make sure those resources are reset well to
[30:34] HAB-Masyn Moyer: that point too i think it would be a huge challenge because you 've got to for example brighton avenue it has to be viewed holistically you can't go from two lanes to one back to two so that's the challenge i did like the document i like first of all i love the illustrations that really makes it clear so something i really appreciate but it also seemed to acknowledge that we're an existing city with an existing infrastructure and you know it seemed to provide wiggle room in there for engineering judgments and site specific constraints because, you know, if we've got a limited right-of-way, there has to be a process for prioritizing what goes within that right-of-way. And the document did that. So I think that's good.
[31:19] Speaker C (unidentified): One of the major concerns we heard from our colleagues at DPW as well was that, well, that's great, a 60-foot right-of-way, that's not being the case. We might have a 23-feet foot right-of-way. They want to make sure that there was more options available, and I think that's one of the key people with this is this is giving you the toolbox for what you can pull together the various treatments I
[31:49] Speaker B (unidentified): I love this draft and I looked really hard to pick apart something in the typology just so I could be helpful, but I found that they were really good, so I don't, I don't have any helpful feedback other than I think so far it's looking really great. I went back to the aging-friendly state plan that came out in 2020, because I know there was a transportation section in that, and there wasn't a lot of overlap, but the 2020 age-friendly state plan said moving towards complete street policy, so I think it aligns with that, too.
[32:33] Speaker C (unidentified): Sure, if you don't mind, I just want for the context for the board, too, as we start to see this more and more, let's see here, I think we looked at a lot of different complete streets design guides to help inform us. We were worked closely with GP COG, if you're not familiar GP COG, the regional planning agency, they already have an adopted complete streets design guide, so we want to make sure we were building off that as well, so we had two documents that were also speaking to each other that helped Inform the eight typologies that we landed on. We did not keep the exact terminology because we felt that some were not consistent with maybe Portland's context and maybe more geared towards a different type of community, but we made sure to try to align street typologies in the two. We also looked at our peers in South Portland, but we also looked at Providence, Hoboken, Portsmouth to try to get a sense of how communities are doing it. What's Hoboken's being a really great is the national best practice, so I'm trying to be informed by these different communities have had a document like this in place for several years, but also wanting to make sure it spoke to our local context, so appreciate it.
[33:42] Speaker E (unidentified): I think
[33:46] Speaker A (unidentified): there are some of the neighborhood connector streets that are wide enough to support something like a dedicated or like separated bike lane. I think, you know, having seen the Backstreet project recently, yeah, I think that was a really missed opportunity to do separated bike lane. It's because cars cut, you know, it's a curvy road, it's, you know, you can see where the paint is from right off the road, so I think I don't know whether that means that some, there's some more of a detail to do a separated bike lane in the neighborhood connector or whether some of these get better look at whether they pass them, I think, yeah.
[34:29] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I think that's that's really good feedback. I think one of the things we want to look at is actually not just even saying that connectors or corridors have to have separate bike lanes, but maybe starting from a hierarchy of our first preference is always protected, regardless
[34:43] Speaker A (unidentified): if the right-of-way allows, and then to go from there.
[34:47] Speaker C (unidentified): So I think that's good feedback to make sure that we're not giving it the cure as if one street gets fired for another. Some of those, I think, ideally, in that sense, would be going on a separate street or something like that, seeing where it works, where they go. That's good feedback. You
[35:06] Speaker G (unidentified): talked a little bit about some of the other cities that have done it and have had a complete streets process in place and a design set up. What were the things that you saw that were negatives that you have a chance to correct for us?
[35:23] Speaker C (unidentified): I think I'll let Matt go, but I think one of the key things we want to focus on with this document is making sure that it is concise space and helpful for residents developers boards committees and not so much a sales pitch and a document that has too many pages. So I think that was some of the ones that we found to be more challenging was where there was a lot of explanation on what is complete streets what is this what is this and if I page 15 you're like okay I get it but really what you want this document to do is to set okay I have this type of typology and then I go to this and start to use. So we want to make sure it's more of a usable functional document more so than like a comprehensive plan of transportation. Yeah no so the only other thing I would add to is we saw we saw a few examples and we've been working on up with the department of public works involving this draft where a lot of the guidance was pretty precise and that's challenging in and of itself as we've discussed already but other streets have wildly different right-of-way widths and constraints and other issues and so wanting to make sure that it you know one that it doesn't back us into a quarter on a specific design while also giving some predictability to community to us you know as the designers as to what these streets are look like how they're going to function. And so I think that's one thing that we've tried to incorporate into this it's really developing ranges for everything so sidewalk that's things for different you know facility types to help account for the fact that it can't be a city that has very much an existing
[37:11] Speaker G (unidentified): if that well to just blow up houses and name in the name of making the street look better
[37:26] Speaker B (unidentified): other thoughts sure
[37:31] Speaker C (unidentified): I'll just wrap up and share I think we envision a series of workshops as Matt mentioned there's a lot of other work that's associated with this but we really want to give first look at the document just to get some early feedback as we start to refine and really put some text into some of these documents. So we will be back with again more defined details more refined typologies map try to get some input but then also again working with our colleagues in dpw on actual changes to the technical manual that need to be associated with this so we had to do more workshops and public engagement sessions and then hopefully adoption sounds like
New Business
[38:13] Speaker B (unidentified): A good plan. Anything further? Thank you for your work on this. I agree. I think the draft is really nice, and all the visuals were quite helpful in figuring out what how it related to the text. Okay, we can move on to next business. I do want to mention communication reports. We have report of attendance at the meeting, reports of decisions at the meeting held on September 22nd. Any edits to those from board members? Not hearing any, I'll move into new business. So this is a major site plan amendment, 64 Pine Street. 64 Pine Street LLC is the applicant. Planning Board is considering a major site plan amendment to a previously approved major site plan application, PL-002678-2023 at 64 Pine Street. The proposal would increase the number of residential units from 9 to 12 modify the commercial space and parking area and update site improvements. The property is located within the B1 neighborhood business zone. A project and plan summary are available for viewing on the city's CSS portal by referencing plan number PL 003677-2026, and with that I will pass it off to the city. Thank
[40:02] Speaker G (unidentified): you chairs and members of the board. My name is Ron McCaster. I'll be providing an overview, but I am just logging on. Yeah, I'll give a quick presentation. So in front of you tonight is a hearing for 64 Pine Street. It is the applicant is 64 Pine Street LLC. It is a major site plan amendment, so slightly different than what I've been in front of before, and the location as I said is 64 Pine Street in the B1 zone. The primary changes that are occurring as per this month Amendment are to increase the number of residential units from 9 to 12 as well as to decrease the parking spaces as you can see here from 18 to 12. As well as some other minor changes. The project is located in Portland's West End neighborhood. It's surrounded by other neighborhood business uses as well as the Reiche Community School and is surrounded in large part by other residential uses in this area. This is our current street view. The parcel is currently a vacant commercial one-story structure. And as this is an amendment, we do have a major state plan that was approved in 2024, as I mentioned, for nine units with some ground floor retail and a mechanical stacked parking system for 18 spaces. You can see the state plan here. They received a handful of waivers. I want to mention two of them here, though, a waiver allowing an 18-foot driveway. As you can see, there is an 18-foot opening off of Pine Street, which is allowed to be a waiver, as well as a waiver to a 20-foot drive aisle that is adjacent to a right-angled parking space. That was both granted as part of the original approval. The current proposal in front of you tonight, as I said, increases to 12 units, and in doing that the applicant is required to provide three workforce housing units or corresponding via move. The mechanical stack parking system is no longer in place and instead they're providing full parking spaces with an 18-foot driveway and a 25-foot drive aisle adjacent to the operating parking spaces. There are some other revisions to the proposal reduction in commercial space, an addition of a basement, revision to a roof programming, an increase in bicycle spaces, and a rear yard patio and a brick sidewalk leading there. So you can see that side by side here. And I wanted to take a moment just to call out the waivers. As you may have seen in the report, it's slightly unique. We wanted to call your attention to that 18-foot driveway way width that was originally established in the approved site plan, but has been continued into and further into the site, as you can see on the left side of the proposed site plan shown in red. And so that 18 foot again extends further into the site than previously before. So we wanted to flag that for you tonight. However, they have adjusted, the applicant has adjusted and widened that drive aisle adjacent to the right angle parking spaces to meet the standards at 25 feet. So that waiver is no longer applicable. But we are proposing or provided a waiver motion to address that 18 foot driveway width. These are our, these are the building elevations. There are very minor changes from the previously approved And last but not least, as I mentioned, we're suggesting, or we've provided a waiver for the 18 foot driver's width in addition to the regular proposed motions, and have recommended conditions relating to Fair Lease or Fair Lease standard for condominium documents as well as the inclusionary zoning addition of 3. meeting. We've had two public comments received and the applicant did not, it was not required
[45:17] Speaker E (unidentified): to hold those public comments on this floor.
[45:26] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you. Appreciate it. Let's go to the applicant.
[45:32] Speaker E (unidentified): Thank you, Rowan. Appreciate it. So it's been only two years and I've seen some familiar patients, some new patients. So it took, I think, about eight months to get through the initial process, and we went to historic, and it was, it was a good process overall. And we went to, I think, two or three of these meetings after that happened. We went back and worked with the general contractor, which is going to be grateful construction, to look at the plan that we had in place, and with paris, with cost construction, with the puzzle parking, and the whole variety of other things. We just couldn't make it, and even with adding those units and the potential for paying the fee and loot, it turned out to be something that was something we had to go in and direct on this. So we even worked diligently for probably the last year to tweak these plans, and I know that the planning staff has been involved in this, and so has historic. Since you understand that, and historic has signed off on the overall view of the 360 of this as well, knowing that again aesthetically is very close to what was originally presented. So the hope obviously is that this is more of a, you know, I'll just use the phrase rubber stamp to get back through the process, and since it was already previously approved, and if anything we're just adding more housing to it, aesthetically it's pretty much the same. And we had again tried to go on the path of giving two parking spaces for these public parking systems, especially coming from germany, or we understand that current administration rents, it becomes very difficult to do this type of stuff. So we're scaling that back, but still getting one space per unit. It's still a generous retail space, which we're happy about as well, to activate that street front, you know, going back to the historic side of things as well. It's not a historic structure, I don't believe, in the 50s in that range. It's been a variety of things over the years, and they get for a while as we tend to get close to the demolition and destruction, but it is, you know, it's modern, a spaceship, it's not a glass cube, but it's unmistakably something that's not a replica, and purposely not a replica of the old in that neighborhood. So again, this is, you guys are coming into it, some of it from the beginning and remembering this quite well, and then others again seeing it for the first time. But I'm not trying to steer the ship in any way, but it would be lovely if we're just one and done, and we don't have to sort of go way back, just sort of go forward. And maybe, you know, some of the planning staff can talk to that. We have had conversations with Devin and Andrew and others about having to even come back to this meeting because it really was just an increase in units. Really, I understand we have to, and it's a major site change. But again, the idea and the hope is that it's quite expedited. I'll turn it over to you.
[48:58] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, I just wonder if I need to give a presentation. Things like Rowan already did a great job. I can definitely pull up drawings. But otherwise, exterior, we have to change the whole site plan. I think it's already changed a lot. lot that's from going with a puzzle parking system to just run for floor parking
[49:21] Speaker A (unidentified): so i can definitely pull up the drawing so i defer to the board chair
[49:28] Speaker C (unidentified): [49:30] Speaker B (unidentified): panel members to you would you like to see additional not hearing any you're welcome to do it as part of your presentation but i'm not hearing any requests for it okay
[50:03] Speaker A (unidentified): well is that the end
[50:11] Speaker B (unidentified): yes okay sorry it's a little delay so sometimes i don't get it so any preliminary questions from board members and we'll do the public portion of this
[50:26] HAB-Masyn Moyer: I do have one question, Joe. One of the public comments said that there was an additional floor being added. That's not the case. The envelope remains the same, correct? Basically, everything
[50:39] Speaker G (unidentified): externally is the same. So the only thing that changed is we used to have the elevator and stair go up to this roof deck. And we had solar panels kind of creating a covering. Now we don't have the elevator and the public stair going up anymore. But we do have the two front units have like 10 houses so a spiral stair going up. But basically it didn't really change in volume from what was on the roof before because we used to have the two staircases going up and an elevator and now which is the
[51:25] Speaker E (unidentified): massive if anything has gone down because we had a solar canopy up there as well and it was much more sort of activated we
[51:37] Speaker G (unidentified): didn't add a floor or anything other
[51:44] Speaker B (unidentified): preliminary questions all right let's move into public comment I'll just note that we have somebody online and we will do that second we'll do that in the room first
[51:59] Speaker A (unidentified): if you want to speak to me please come up to the stand i'm
[52:16] Speaker E (unidentified): Kurt Sacks. I'm a licensed architect. I've lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. I hate this project. I wrote to the board my rights. I'll try to be sequential with my thoughts. I don't know if anybody got a copy of my email that I sent to the board. As you admit, there ain't no historic context to this program. It angers me because it's a historic district. And every rendering I look at is cheap materials, cheap materials, is and incremental the incremental cost to you to put some history into this thing is negligible. I know your contractor really well. They are the best in town. Okay, you gave no thought to getting any historic context to this building and it's everywhere around it. So it's a cheap building. It looks cheap. And this whole reason for me tonight is you can reduce it to greed. Okay, because you have no, there is no contribution to the neighborhood in changing it from 9 to 12 units other than probably two and a half to three million dollars per unit in your pocket. Neighborhood gets nothing. The city of Portland gets a crappy building with cheap materials. And you won't be gone from town, you'll be in Bermuda by the time this building fails. I like it if you hold off on your visuals. The I don't know how you got away with alleged four-story building with the change to the sky exposure plane. 30 seconds. Keep the 30 seconds. Do we
[55:19] Speaker B (unidentified): have further comments in the room? I didn't hear that, sir. Do we have further comments in the room? It's not up here, so no. Okay, thank you for your comment, sir. Appreciate you being here. We'll go online and I see a hand's already up.
[55:40] Speaker C (unidentified): Zach, you should be all set to unmute.
[55:44] Zach Berowitz: Hello, Zach Berowitz, Hunter Street. I'm going to speak in favor of this project, at least provisionally. Having a retail space such as Aurora Provisions was and will be a benefit for the neighborhood. Having three more units is also a benefit for the neighborhood. More people, more spending power, more cultural interaction. Having fewer parking spaces is a big benefit to everyone. One car per unit seems ample. The area is well, very accessible, public transit and walking, good cycling conditions. So unless something comes across to change my mind, I'm in favor of these revisions. I had to step away during the presentation. So I have a question. One thing I didn't understand is to add these extra three units without adding more stories, are you just making all the units a little smaller? How does that work?
[57:15] Speaker B (unidentified): Exactly. Or trading parking with- Yeah, the questions will come from the chair after the public portion is done. So if you have more questions, just keep asking. No,
[57:28] Zach Berowitz: I guess that's my only question. Thanks.
[57:30] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay. Thank you, Zach. Appreciate you. Other folks either in the room or online? Last chance for public speaking. Okay. I will close the public portion. Thanks for folks sharing input. I'll put to the applicant the question you just heard as we start off here.
[58:00] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, exactly, you know, we didn't increase the floor plate, so you have to divide the units up, and they went actually from, I think it was around 1900 square feet to, you know, hovering around 1550 square feet. So if you apply the same price per square foot, they do become in air quotes more affordable. So yes, we're not, we're not really increasing Anything or plate wise, so you're just making you so we'll configure a little bit different, which is a, you know, it's a bit of a puzzle to try to figure it out and still be quite livable.
[58:40] Speaker B (unidentified): Great. Thank you. And I'll open it up to board members for questions, comments for the city.
[58:49] Speaker G (unidentified): There was a question about the height of the building. The zoning actually allows for a five-story building, but we decided to just go with a four-story building, so you know, the comment about how is this possible to get a four-story building, you know, there it is an option to build a five-story building at this location, and if we would do affordable housing, you could do the six free loan. Thank you.
[59:26] Speaker A (unidentified): You called out that the request for the waiver kind of expanded because it goes deeper into the building. That's a technical manual standard, and does is driveway defined, or does it do they
[59:38] Speaker G (unidentified): have jurisdiction over the inside of the building? You know, it's a good question. My sense, we took a look at it, we thought it would be best to have you take a look again at before, but our understanding was that the dry vial continues in the building. I
[59:58] HAB-Masyn Moyer: have a question too. If you supported those driveways and parking with turning radius, I assume you have and have ever reviewed that with staff and the proper review process. We have. Yeah, I do think from my perspective, the actual parking works better. It looks like you have generous aisle, more generous aisle width and so forth. I didn't want to address the comments on the aesthetics. I acknowledge that we all have our different perspectives. I personally like the contemporary building speaks to its Time and I also take a certain amount of comfort in that this has been reviewed by historic preservation, right? So it's gone through a rigorous review of the design to deem it appropriate for that historic district. So again, like I take comfort in that, and I also, I'm pleased with this amendment, the fact that we get $558,000 for the city's housing trust. It's a positive outcome for the city. More units, more tax income, and more people.
[1:01:10] Speaker B (unidentified): I agree with all that. Bev, Eric, other comments?
[1:01:16] Speaker G (unidentified): I have a question, actually, for the staff. To be clear, because they have not changed the envelope, of we actually at this point do not have the right to deny anyone an amendment because of
[1:01:34] Speaker C (unidentified): how a building works, correct? So in this case with it being in the historic district, so to Austin's point, it went through a separate review on its consistency with the design standards for the West End Historic District. So that is outside of the board's purview. Obviously, it's a major cycling amendment. It rises to the level of being a board level purview. So what is in the packet related to all the cycling standards, that is all there.
[1:02:15] Speaker B (unidentified): We feel like we've got our questions answered. Are we aligned? Do we want to move forward or do we need more information?
[1:02:26] Speaker A (unidentified): Yeah, I'm good to move forward.
[1:02:31] HAB-Masyn Moyer: Are we ready for motions?
[1:02:33] Speaker B (unidentified): I would entertain a motion. Okay.
[1:02:36] HAB-Masyn Moyer: Waivers, driveway width, the planning board finds based upon the city's review that extraordinary conditions exist or undue hardship may result from the strict compliance with the technical manual standard section 1 standard 1.5.1.B, which requires two-way driveways to be within 20-foot minimum and 24-foot maximum. That substantial justice and the public interest are shared with the proposed variation in the standard and that the variation is consistent with the intent of the ordinance planning board waves the technical manning section one standard 1.5.1. point B, to allow for an 18-foot-width driveway.
[1:03:22] Speaker B (unidentified): Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion by board members? Not hearing any. Andrew, can you do a roll?
[1:03:35] Speaker A (unidentified): Yes, Mr. Chair. Beverly Delibnick? Yes. Austin Smith? Yes. David Silk, absent. Nicholas Messina, absent. Eric Dinn? Yes. Kelsey Robertson, absent. And Joseph Zamboni?
[1:03:47] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes chair will entertain further motion site
[1:03:53] HAB-Masyn Moyer: Plan review based upon the information in the application, plans, reports, through testimony at the planning board hearing, and other information submitted by the applicant, planning board. The planning board adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing on October 13, 2026, for the major amendment application 64 Pine Street, PL 003677-2026, relevant to the site plan regulation, and finds that the plan is in performance with the site plan standards of the land use code, subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to the issuance of building permit one as written, prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy two as written, for all other conditions of approval referred to major site letter approval letter.
[1:04:46] Speaker B (unidentified): We have a motion. Do we have a second? Motion and second. Is there further discussion? Session. Not hearing any, can we do a roll on that motion?
[1:05:04] Speaker A (unidentified): Beverly Ludnick. Yes. [Speaker C (unidentified): Hoffman-Smith. Yes.] David Silk, absent. Nicholas Pesida, absent. Eric Den. Yes. Helser-Robinson, absent. And Joseph Zanzoni.
[1:05:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Yes. And with that, Chair, we'll entertain a motion on decision.
[1:05:21] HAB-Masyn Moyer: Planning board decision. On the basis of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the planning board report for the public hearing on October 13th, 2026, related to the major amendment application PL003677-2026. 64 Pine Street, which is attached to the draft approval letter and incorporated therein, the planning board adopts the findings and conclusions in the October 7th, 2026 planning board report. The approval letter is drafted as the planning board's decision for application EL003677-2026 and authorizes the planning board chair to sign the approval letter as drafted.
[1:06:08] Speaker B (unidentified): Thank you. Is there a second? Second. We'll have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Not hearing any. Can we do a roll?
[1:06:19] Speaker A (unidentified): Beverly Ulinick? Yes. Austin Smith? Yes. David Ritzel, absent, Nicholas Messina, absent, Eric Dinh, yes, Kelsey Robertson, absent, and Joseph Zambulain, yes,
[1:06:31] Speaker B (unidentified): so we adopt the decision, thank you very much, I apologize that I couldn't be in the room this evening, thank you to planning board members, thank you to Rowan for an excellent report, and thank you for community members who came to provide us some feedback, see you all in a few weeks, that's the end of our business.