Lewiston Planning Board approves Bates fitness center, mosque parking expansion

[0:06] Shanna Cox: Welcome and good evening. My name is Shanna Cox. I'm chair of the Lewiston Planning Board, and I welcome everyone here. I also call this meeting to order. We call the roll please. Michael Marcotte present, and Penthia Burns present, Zoe Lidstrom present, Lucy Bisson present, Shanna Cox present, Amy Smith present, Alex pine here, and great Darren Golan I'd like to start by saying thanks and welcome to our new newly appointed associate member who is in a non-voting role, but your first meeting tonight, and i hear we've got another appointed member who'll be sworn in and joining us next time. So welcome and thanks for your continued public service everybody. Please let the record reflect that we also have city staff in the room. We have Shelly Norton our deputy director, we have Craig Tebow our land use planner, and we have Linda Tripp our administrative assistant. I think I'm supposed to recognize additional staff in the room in attendance, but yeah, could I get some assistance? I don't want to mess up. Yes, you have Jeff Bully City Engineer, thank you, and I believe that's it. All right, welcome Jeff. All right, we are going to get underway this evening. Is there any adjustments to the agenda? No, there are not [1:28] Bryan Kaenrath: any correspondence? Yes, I do have a list here of correspondence that was emailed to the board. There were comments from an abutter on 240 Bartlett Street sent on February 18th, staff additional information about 240 Bartlett Street sent on February 19th, a documents request from Dennis Theriault sent on three, to a memo regarding main dot comments on 240 Bartlett Street sent by myself on March 3rd, and then three additional emails which were comments from an abutter on 240 Bartlett Street received on March 6th, March 8th, and [2:09] Shanna Cox: March 8th. Thank you very much. Please let the record reflect those being entered, as well as noting that we all have either been made available the printed copies today, but we've also received them electronically prior to today. If anyone didn't receive a copy and not some, you can ask, I think Shelly might have another one, happy to share. Thanks. Right, we're gonna enter into our public hearings first. I'm gonna make a quick statement about public hearings in case this is your first time. If you are Joining us in public comment, I'll note and open the public comment period. If you're here to make a public comment, you'll walk to the podium, you'll announce yourself by sharing your name and your address. You'll be limited to three minutes, it'll be timed, and we'll finish public comment before the board reconvenes. Yeah, and just to be clear [3:04] Alex Pine: that's three minutes per item or per public comment period? You can comment on [3:09] Shanna Cox: multiple items? That's correct, each public comment period, each individual [3:46] Jeffrey Swift: my small library. No problem at all. Yeah, happy to jump in. So this project would involve the demolition of the existing annex building that currently connects the alumni gym and the gray cage, and its replacement with a new structure that's proposed. The project, you know, is part of the Bates facility, but it is categorized as an athletic facility, which is accessory to an academic institution. It's a permitted use in the underlying zoning district, the institutional office district. They are proposing some site improvements including landscaping, installation of dark sky compliant wall lighting and pole lighting, redesign of the pedestrian access, redesign of the vehicular access and the parking layout. Part of the proposed site improvements are within the public right-of-way along Central Avenue. That's going to require a performance guarantee, that's as a condition of approval. There's no additional off street parking proposed for the project or required for the project given the nature of building being serving exclusively staff faculty and generally not open to the public, so no real change in foot traffic is expected or vehicle or vehicle. Yes, you'll see on the back there's some reference about state site law approval. This project does qualify for a state exemption due to the educational institution and the total amount of impervious area, or sorry, the total amount of disturbed area not to be revegetated, so they meet that criteria to be to get a waiver, and they've notified MDP of their intent to utilize this waiver, and no further action is really needed from the city here. You'll see there are five recommended conditions of approval and a recommended motion. I'm happy to address any further questions on those conditions or anything else really. [6:07] Shanna Cox: Will invite the applicants. If they'd like to get comfortable while we check any questions from the planning board for staff while the applicants. Okay, great, we'd ask that you introduce yourself and Thank you [6:32] Jeffrey Swift: for having us tonight. My name is Jeffrey Swift. I am the treasurer of Bates College. I have been the treasurer of Bates since November of 2014, so about 12 years. As you just heard, we are here to talk about an athletic facility. This is critically important for the Bates College campus. Bates is a residential liberal arts college that is highly dependent on student tuition, and we need to make sure that we have a competitive offering to draw students to want to come to Bates, and this is a very important thing for students these days. This is not a new thing for the college. about 25 years ago we did a campus master plan that highlighted our need to improve our athletic facilities. their athletic facilities have not gotten better since then. they don't age like a fine line. we have been improving some of our turf facilities like the fields as you may have seen, but this really dramatically improves the actual fitness experience for the students faculty and staff. so about 25 years in the making in that context we've been planning with our partners for nearly 10 years and as was announced last week we have got some remarkable excuse me remarkable philanthropy that helps make this happen. so that brings us to why we're here today. I'm [7:43] Jan Wigman: Jan Wigman project manager with Wright Pierce and with a site engineer for the project and just a quick run-through of article 8 section 4 the requirements and I just if you'll bear with me just a moment. so the building itself will have again pedestrian access primarily it would put up the site plan probably that's it'll be pedestrian access primarily from Franklin Walk and from Central Ave. as you can see there's going to be some new paths that come to the front door of the of the of the facility that will be facing the into the campus. there'll be a back access that will also be available to Central Avenue. just pausing [8:33] Jeffrey Swift: for a moment so just in terms of this slide assuming that's the right one yes and as [8:50] Jan Wigman: craig had mentioned it'll serve student body and faculty so and staff so there's no additional parking. it will have a bus drop pick up and drop off area off of central ave that'll serve for teams you know to bring teams in and out. stormwater management's accomplished through collecting roof runoff from the facility and there will be an underground treatment system on the Franklin walk side of the of the building that will connect into the separated storm drain system that goes out to campus Ave And there will also be some roof drain connections to storm drain system that's being built on Central Ave. That'll be all, both of those are separated. Water supply will have a new water connection on from Central Lab for the building. Sewer again will be connecting to the sewer system in Franklin Walk. That's internal to the campus but connects out to Campus Ave. Other utilities will have a new electrical service from Central Ave, and natural gas will also be served from Central Ave. Site lighting, as Greg had mentioned, it's all dark sky type lighting, and there'll be new lights along the sidewalk on Central Ave from the facility down to the corner of Campus. Currently that's lit by street lights on the opposite side of Central Ave, so this here will be pedestrian scale lighting on the sidewalk itself, and we're coordinating closely with Jeff Boley and his team on the design of Central Lab to make sure it meshes well with this particular project. And that's about it for my part. [10:46] Kyle Richard: Hello, I'm Kyle Richard with Sasaki. We're the architects and landscape architects on the project, so I'll make a few points just about the building and the site in general, since Yon has covered quite a bit to orient you a bit on that plan. That's okay, I'm the site plan for now, thanks Jeff. The building, the square shape building on the left is Gray Cage Field House, and the rectangular building towards the middle is Alumni Gym. What we're proposing is a two-story addition which would take the place of the existing brick connector between the two, so it's an existing built-on site, it's an infill site, and this new addition would become the new fully accessible entrance to each of those buildings, because they are currently only partially accessible, and that would have new site connectivity on the campus side on the page up on the site plan with a new network of pathways that would connect to the existing pathways with a new stone plaza and some seating and new lawn, and on the opposite side on the Central Lab side we'd have a new sloped walkway that would navigate about five feet of grade change between the street and the building and a new stair, and a big part of the project is to improve the pedestrian connectivity across the site and in the wider site. So we are putting a proposing to put in a new sidewalk that would connect where there currently isn't sidewalk on the project side of Central Ave, that would connect from Commons Dining Hall, the building on the right, all the way down to campus on the left side of the site plan, and that would have new site lighting poles, new street trees, and a fully improved pedestrian experience along that row. Besides that, in terms of landscape materials, wherever we're disturbing, we'd be replacing with new lawn or planting beds, and we'd have some ground cover in shrubs that are close to the building to provide some screening. Will [12:59] Shanna Cox: your dining common small self-fulfilling garden be untouched or [13:03] Speaker J (unidentified): replace? They do have a nice little garden outside. They do, yeah, with seating, yeah. That would remain [13:10] Kyle Richard: as is. That's great. Thanks. [13:13] Shanna Cox: Questions from the Planning Board to the applicants before we go to public comment? Mr. Marcotte? [13:19] Speaker K (unidentified): A couple if I can orient my mind here. So the parking we see in between, is that the dining hall? Dining hall, alumni. Yeah. That parking will remain where we see cars? Correct. That remains, this is a service entrance. [13:36] Shanna Cox: Okay. And the department remains. Okay. That remains. [13:42] Speaker K (unidentified): I noticed in your packet, and I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, on the page number, project data, second page in, says proposed impervious area 30,733, and on the previous page the first page of project data says proposed the previous area thirty thousand four seventy eight, difference of 255. Am I just not grasping something? Is there a typo? Is it the [14:20] Shanna Cox: difference between the no it still says proposed? Yeah, it sounds like it's the same thing. Maybe we're just slightly different, just an update. Yeah, it's it may have been a couple hundred feet. It [14:32] Jan Wigman: may have been a typo in terms of us putting or making a change with a walkway or something like that. We had to we added in, we captured it in one spot but not in the other. It's [14:47] Shanna Cox: all here for now. Thanks. Other questions for the applicant from the board? I have a question for Jeff before we open it up to public comment, and I really appreciated the applicant speaking to this a little bit, but that stretch of Central has been in rugged shape for a little bit, and I have not memorized the capital improvement plans repaving schedule, so forgive me, but are we holding off on making improvements to both sidewalks and streets in that area until post construction and in alignment with some of this work? No, we're actually it's out to bid right [15:23] Kyle Richard: Now opening next week for construction this summer, so we've been coordinating with Bates really for literally for years on this project with a lot of different ideas, but our work will end at the curb line where this building is, and then there they'll finish the sidewalk behind the curb so that we don't have to wait until the projects entirely done. They'll get their utilities in before we pave. Tempest coordinated all this summer so that the road is done by August, but they [15:55] Shanna Cox: can continue their work off-site. I also just think of what happens with construction equipment to the condition of the road, and we have a long history of paving and then tearing up the road, putting in storm water, gas lines, and having seams in newly paved roads. And so are we doing everything to avoid that, or am I, what I'm hearing is saying we've tried to for a bunch of time and we can't, so we're just going to do everything this summer, see how it lands? No, I think it's pretty well coordinated. Okay, and so the paving will be after the street disruptions are complete for anything that might be underground, right? Great, thank you. Thanks for coordinating on that. [16:37] Alex Pine: Any other questions for Jeff while we've got him? Alex, I was wondering about the new crosswalk that's being shown in that rendering right there. Is that interconnected to anything on the other side of the street? It's hard to tell from, you know, there's trees sort of over the top of something that could be there. There's an existing crosswalk that's well, there is a little [16:58] Kyle Richard: bit. Okay, from the, they can explain it better than I can, but we're gonna be making those raised crosswalks with rapid flashing beacons. Got it, cool. [17:12] Shanna Cox: Jeff off the hook, thank you so much, I appreciate it. No other questions from the board. I'm going to open this up for public comment. If you have a public comment, I encourage you to go to the podium. I would make a note for you that we won't answer questions raised during public comment until the public comment period is posed, so feel free to ask them, but don't, don't think that we'll be able to answer them. Okay, opening public comment for this agenda item. Anyone who seeks to speak on it will make their way to the podium. Last call. I'm closing it. Thanks. Any other discussion? Please go ahead, welcome. [17:56] Kyle Richard: We talked about that. I am an employee of Bates College, so while I'm not voting now, I thought [18:01] Shanna Cox: I should disclose that before we move forward. Thank you. And given that, as we discussed, you don't have a 10 share in the interest of Bates College, you're welcome to participate in the conversation. We don't believe that there's any risk there, but thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from the board? If not, I would be happy to entertain a motion like Mr. Marcotte, sorry to make a motion at this [18:27] Speaker K (unidentified): time that the application submitted by the president trustees of Bates College for the construction of an approximately 14,000 350 square foot fitness and well-being center in the space between the gray cage and alumni gymnasium at 130 Central Avenue meets all of the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code including but not limited to article 13 section 4 approval criteria and the approval be granted with the following conditions number one prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall coordinate with city staff on final language for a post construction stormwater management performance guarantee meeting the standards of article 13 section 15 once complete the applicant shall record the guarantee with the registry of deeds and provide the city with a copy of their records number two prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide the city with a performance guarantee meeting the standards of article 13 section 12 for the proposed improvements within Central Avenue number three during construction ms4 site erosion control inspections shall be required number four prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the site will be permanently stabilized otherwise a performance bond will be required number five prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy a professional engineer shall provide a stamp statement indicating all site improvements have been completed in [19:57] Shanna Cox: accordance with the approved plan second thank you thank you any discussion Mr. Murkoff I as [20:05] Speaker K (unidentified): I was reading it I was remembering some of those points that I wanted to make I thank you because I was very impressed with the financial material that was provided very informative since that's sort of I'm not at your level but I see these kind of numbers all the time and I'm very impressed is this the largest project you have going now this is yes this is far and [20:32] Jeffrey Swift: away the largest project we've got going currently last ten years we've had a couple big projects on campus but this is certainly the largest current one [20:40] Speaker K (unidentified): Because I was noticing the number for this one versus other things that are outstanding, and I'm impressed with the largest of the number for this rather [20:50] Jeffrey Swift: of the small area. Yeah, I got a question. There's a, there's a lot of deferred maintenance. It's addressing an adjacent building, so putting the number to 15,000 square feet is addressing just the fitness area. There's a lot of stuff happening and a lot of important improvements for the campus. I'm curious [21:10] Speaker K (unidentified): because I didn't ask it earlier, how deep does this go? What, one basement level? [21:17] Kyle Richard: Level down? Yeah, well, we're down 13 feet, 13. And the height, like how many stories? It's two stories, two stories, yep. Each one is 13 feet with a sloped roof, so the total height varies. [21:32] Speaker K (unidentified): Oh, okay. I'm not sure if I saw that rendition in the packet because I remember wondering what it's [21:38] Jeffrey Swift: going to look at, look like from ground level. So in this image, the basketball court is on the left, the gray cage is on the right, and an existing connector is coming down, that's going in. So there's the underground piece that was just described and the two stories above. So part of the work is improving the 1915 structure on the left. Anyway, so. Number 15. Alumni gym is over 100 years old, and it has many systems that appear to be original, if not are original. [22:07] Speaker K (unidentified): And the gray building? [22:10] Jeffrey Swift: Gray cage is over here. It's a large, it's basically an open space athletic area that's also used for acapella concerts or other items. [22:20] Speaker K (unidentified): Because I remember something like 50 years ago, one of those two buildings, I can't remember which, had an indoor dirt track. [22:28] Jeffrey Swift: That would be the item on the left. That no longer exists, but the interior otherwise will look familiar to you. New floor, but it's the same four walls, and it is just an open volume. [22:38] Shanna Cox: Any other questions from the board? My only question is you brought three and we only got to see two, so you might as well flip the last slide so we can see it. I'm sure these gentlemen next to you feel the same way. That's the one we didn't see. This is from Central Avenue. [22:55] Jeffrey Swift: So now the gray cage, the large empty volume is on the left, and the basketball gym is on the right. So now we're looking at the facility from sort of, you see the grass here is perhaps with the back to the baseball field. There's a dip down to get to grade to Central Ave. And that crosswalk that was shown on the earlier depiction is a dormitory just to our left. Students often use the crosswalk and cut over. The dining hall is to your right. [23:20] Shanna Cox: I wouldn't want the architect to come and not be able to see us see his work. Appreciate that. Yeah. I do, too. They work very hard. They're wonderful partners. Can we call the roll? Michael Marcotte? Yes. Penthea Burns? Yes. Zoe Lidstrom? Yes. Lucy Bisson? Yes. Shanna Cox? Yes. Amy Smith? Yes. Alex Pine? Yes. Thanks. Motion passes. Congratulations. Thanks so much. As we get ready to move to the next agenda item, please let the record reflect we've been joined by the director of planning and code, Mr. John Connor. Welcome, sir. It's a pleasure. Our next agenda item is agenda item B, and this is a mom Abdi Qadir of LL on behalf of Mr. Juice Alum and has submitted a development review application for an approximately 5,000 square foot parking lot expansion that will allow for additional parking and building occupancy on the existing 0.91 acre lot at 240 Bartlett Street. We have our applicant in the room. Hi, and welcome. Come on up. Shelly, I believe this is yours to introduce and for staff, because we have had a couple misweathered opportunities, we should be looking, fellow board members, at the item provided with us today with today's agenda. You'll know it's the current one because next to the date it will say January 21st, 2026, minor revisions February 3rd and March 5th. That is your most current staff memo. Thanks. Just want to make sure we literally were on the same page, since we have a handful of pages today to keep track of. Shelly, take it away. This [25:05] Bryan Kaenrath: application is for the expansion of their existing parking lot at 240 Bartlett Street by 5,000 square feet of additional size, as well as a request to increase the occupancy of the building to 192 people. In 2012, the Planning Board approved the use of this building as a mosque and limited the occupancy to 94 people and approved a 25-space parking lot. And the occupancy was limited due to the size of the parking lot. The building itself has capacity for more people than they're asking for this evening, but it is parking that's the limiting factor. The design tonight shows improved drainage for the parking lot, includes a redesign of the existing parking area, which includes closing one of the curb cuts on Bartlett Street, and there was a change noted that they, what they submitted shows a total of 60 parking spaces with an increase of 35 parking spaces. However, the dumpster does need to be moved 10 feet from the property lines, so they will likely lose one parking space and possibly one will have to become a compact space, so they're probably Have 59 spaces with an additional 34. The design also uses the existing 20 foot wide access easement that was granted to 256 Bartlett Street as the primary entry and exit for the site, so it does leave the access open for use by the neighbor. The easement that was provided to the abutter stops partway down the property. There was a question about how it's shown on the plan because the architect did show that extending further back. The plan before you works either way, so there's access to 256. Bartlett Street, it's really how 256 Bartlett Street designs its own interior, you know, circulation and parking spaces that would be impacted by whether that easement is extended or not. The easement hasn't been filed at this time, and that's up to the applicant whether they want to grant an extension of the easement deeper into their site or not. You were involved with making a recommendation to counsel on the sale of property adjacent again for 256 Bartlett Street. That sale did go through, so the. 100 by 100 lot behind mirrors is now owned by mirrors, but again, that really has no impact on the project before you this evening. So as far as parking requirements themselves, the requirement for religious facilities in our standards is that there be one parking space provided for every four seats where fixed seating is provided in the facility. Those of you who are on the board a few years ago when we looked at a similar project for them will remember that the applicant requested 10 square feet. Per person be used since they don't have fixed seating because of how the space is utilized. So in your, in your March 11th, 2024 meeting, the board at that time made a finding to use 10 square feet per person for religious assembly when fixed seating is not provided. So you could choose to utilize that same formula. That's what the applicant has used in their application. If for some reason you want to reopen that discussion, of course, that's a possibility as well. The ordinance requirement therefore, based on the building, the occupancy that they're requesting, would need 48 parking spaces for the 192 occupants, and they are proposing more than that, proposing 11 spaces more. If we take out the space for the dumpster, sorry. [29:45] Shanna Cox: Can I ask a quick question about, yeah, I saw that as a condition. Have you gotten updated information that reflects the dumpster being located and the so that would still be a condition? Yeah, that would still be just assuming you don't know which ones, but a couple of spots are going to make way for dumpster. Yeah, I mean [30:01] Bryan Kaenrath: Our standards are a nine foot wide spot, so if they move a space, move it 10 feet, you know, one space would be taken up, and then you can do a compact space that's only eight feet wide. So that's my assumption is that it would probably be one spot that would be lost, but that would be, we can determine that afterwards with the applicant. So I did want to point out, mention this in the staff review, that occupancy limits for buildings are a little bit difficult so for staff to enforce, and we've seen that With the limits that were placed in 2012, so we did recommend that the board discuss that with the applicant, and we have a condition of approval that the off can provide information to the city as to how they will regulate their occupancy to keep it at 192, whether they have somebody that is counting on Fridays or how they handle that, so that we have some thing as staff to look at, you know, if there becomes an issue with occupancy regarding traffic. They did provide a preliminary traffic Impact assessment from Haley Ward board, the estimates were using the ITE trip generation manual, which is a standard engineering manual for traffic, and they used the code for a mosque. It shows existing peak trips of 64 with an additional 35 anticipated for the additional use of the building for a total of 99 trips. The current trips are, you know, have been in place for ten years, so those are considered to be grandfathered, so it's really the increase in traffic that would be looked at when we determine if a traffic impact and now permit is required, and so with 35 new trips it's not required. Normally we wouldn't have MDOT review something like that because the numbers are so low. In this case because there were questions raised, we did ask MDOT to look at that, and I did provide a memo with the response from Them to you where they agreed with the assessment from Haley Ward that no traffic impact permit was required. [Dan Moreno: There] Was also a question about site distances, and for existing conditions, this is an existing driveway. We normally wouldn't apply the site distance standard. It would only be for new driveways. If you have questions about that, Jeff Bulley is still in the room and he can address that. So I do have a couple of recommendations for conditions of approval for the project, which the chair pointed out, and I don't have any changes to those to recommend at this time. [33:01] Shanna Cox: Still summarized as one through five in your memo? That's right, thanks. Appreciate. that any questions from the board for staff before we hear from the applicant welcome introduce yourself and if there's anything you'd like to start by [33:18] Dan Moreno: sharing please do can you hear me yep my name is Dan Moreno I'm an architect with five associates and I'm helping Adam on this project he couldn't make it tonight I nothing really to add other than we're totally accommodating to the five recommendations of staff and those other things that were noted so [33:42] Shanna Cox: thanks yeah I have a question for the board before we get underway which is as Shelley pointed out and a number of us were here back in the ancient times where we our ordinances used to reference only churches and we made a language change in definition that reflected any house of worship and in doing so we needed to clarify how parking would be allocated for places that do not have a fixed seating for worship and in doing so we did agree to 10 square feet and so before we begin i would like to make sure folks have that historical context and to suggest that we would not change that finding as it's the one that we both base prior decisions on and that the architect's been working from and i want to address that before we begin so this would be your opportunity to propose a rediscussion of that and if i do not hear from anybody then we'll assume that we are still committed to that which we've decided previously great questions for the applicant from the board sorry [34:50] Alex Pine: yeah i was here on the board for our the previous submission that we had you know in recent time for this and i remember you know one of the concerns was the space behind the formal parking lot would occasionally or sometimes be used as an informal parking area. So people basically parking on the grass. [35:12] Shanna Cox: Just sorry, in this image where you're referencing, is it like dotted spots above? Exactly, yes. [35:19] Alex Pine: And I'm wondering, it's hard to tell from the plan, is there a slope there or what's sort of being done with the curb treatment to maybe avoid that happening? [35:30] Dan Moreno: It's a drainage area, okay, so there's no planned parking in there at all, got it. [35:35] Shanna Cox: Right, is there the ability for unplanned parking which I think is really what the [35:39] Dan Moreno: Yes, point is, I would say no only because it has to drain to the back there, so if you put a curve or something like that it would, but we can make sure that there are signs that say that you can't park there, and is there a [35:52] Shanna Cox: Slope that goes into it's very shallow, okay, answer your question, other questions? Okay, I'm gonna open it up to public comment. For those who might have joined recently, for public comment, we ask that you go to the podium. You announced your name and your area of residence. And then we ask that you keep your comments per public commenter per agenda item to three minutes each. And a footnote to that is oftentimes folks will ask us questions or ask the applicant questions. There isn't a back and forth engagement during public comment, though we will take note. And if we're able to answer those questions after public comment is closed we'll deal with it at that time, and with that I open public comment, welcome. [36:50] Dennis Theriault: Point of order, does an impacted [36:54] Shanna Cox: A butter kept more than three minutes maybe five, everybody gets three minutes, yep. [36:59] Dennis Theriault: Thanks for asking, then prepare yourselves because I'm going to read pretty quick. Hello, my name is Dennis Terrio, owner of 240, 241, 243, 245 Bartler Street, and proud of a family owned for well over 100 years. Tonight I have presented the city planning board with endless documentations and rebuttals. This has been going on for quite some time, that's what staff gets. After I was a city councilor five years, planning board, and on the finance committee besides other committees, not my first rodeo with staff. I haven't uncovered false plans submitted to the public, false information on the plans, have submitted a written and signed clarification letter from Mr. Mayotte, owner of Mayotte Sausage, as to deceptive misinformation on the plan regarding Mayotte Sausage truck location on red box plan. Two sets of the plans exist right now. At this moment, all in the city's hands. Plan C-101 has two versions, one with no comments in my possession tonight, the second with red box illustrations that depict a fabrication of Mayotte Sausage truck located on the plan. Plan. The red box rendition is deliberately false and misleading. You are in possession of those copies. Two plans with different information, yet with identical revision boxes. Explain box. Okay. Architectural seal, date of permit. You people understand those, hopefully. Revision box for any changes. None were made. Both plans say original date 11-11-25. Drawing issue description permit set 12 9 2025. There were no further changes at all on both, yet both plans are different. How and why? How did a plan copy end up for public distribution, which I got and paid for, you have the receipt, with no revisions in the box, with a red box rendition, and up in your hands? How did it come to exist at all in the city's hands? Show plan I. Okay, did planning staff obviously don't have the time for me to show you the two plans so we can compare, but again, here we go, both are different in contact distance. The law in Lewiston is, and I quote from the Haley traffic study page three, last paragraph, in your possession, and I quote, for driveways entering a roadside with a posted, speed of 25 miles an hour, the city of Lewiston, Maine, requires a minimum sight distance of 200 feet. The red box plan shows 150 feet existing per those false statements. The actual, where the truck really is in the photo, you see it in photo two of Haley Ward report, is actually really 120 feet of possible line of sight. The photo is correct, but the distance was fabricated. Not 150 feet from the point of measure, but actually 120. Add to that the speed on Bartlett Street, actually not 25 miles per hour, the stacking going on into Moss, then they are stopping in the street on both sides entering because they can't figure out where to go. Now, add a fire truck in the mix or an emergency vehicle or dump trucks, look at the photos I provided, 38 pictures. Photos don't lie. It's in there and now part of the record. Last line, and I quote from page 3, Haley Ward. The south entrance to the Mas'ad Salaam Mosque does not conform to the City of Lewiston driveway minimum site distance requirements in its current or proposed, the review is over. Is the planning board without council approval now allowing the mosque to use Magua Park as a satellite parking for which they have been doing [40:34] Shanna Cox: to achieve overflow parking? Sir, I'm gonna ask you to end your comments now. [40:37] Dennis Theriault: What are you gonna do, have me hauled out by LPD? [40:39] Shanna Cox: Sir, I'm not really trying to do that, no. Go ahead. [40:41] Dennis Theriault: The reason I ask is if you're going to set a precedent of allowing that type of use, then I am sure. [40:45] Shanna Cox: I'll let the record reflect that you have been notified and that you are acting disrespectfully in a public. [40:48] Dennis Theriault: No,, no,. You people are covering up and you're acting disrespectfully. [40:52] Shanna Cox: I'd like to adjourn the meeting. Not a problem. We're just going to take a quick break. [40:56] Dennis Theriault: We will end up in court and you people are going to go to jail. [41:02] Shanna Cox: Sir, is there anyone else who would like to speak at public comment? I'm happy to reopen public comment. [41:13] Matthew Terrio: Welcome. How are we doing? My name is Matthew Terrio. I'm the general manager for Leonard Heavy Rescue, owner Mid-Valley Motors and a couple other businesses that are right in the same building there, 243, 245, 240 Bartlett Street. That's there, nothing new. When we brought this up and nothing has changed since we've met with you folks the last time, except we're just going to keep adding to the problem. My businesses are directly affected over there. On Fridays we had Williston PD come down for a few weekends and it was actually Ryan Gagnon that came down and said, this is a nightmare. He says, I can't believe this is happening. He was getting people, trying to get them out of my yard, stopped them from blocking the entrance so my trucks could come and go. And then that basically just stopped. It was like, yeah, well, okay, PD did a few weeks and now we're back on our own. As of recently, as of just this past Friday, we're still ending up. Cars parked, they block right at the end of my entrance. And we're not talking like, well, they just cheat a little bit. They literally park right in the middle, get out, walk across the street, and we're told we'll call the police department. We're an emergency response company. We handle rollovers for the state police, for tractor trailers, we handle PD calls, everything else. We need to be able to access and leave our property. By the time we call the police department and they come down and they go, well, we're not quite sure which vehicle and who it is over there and whatnot, we're 30 and 40 minutes before we can even leave our yard. Adding to this, nothing that you're doing is actually going to increase the parking that they're already using. There's more pictures. We don't even have to provide pictures at our end. Look at the GIS overfly. Look at Google's overfly. They are already using the parking that you folks are looking to pave now and say, oh, this is going to add to the increase inside. They're already using the area. Somebody explain to me what magic difference between parking on grass and parking on pavement is going to fix this issue. They already don't have enough room to fix the issue that they have now, and you're going to add to it. I've got pictures of cars trying to back into the street completely at a 90-degree angle to Bartlett Street, cars coming down around the end, the curve, one of them ended up swerving, ending up on the sidewalk on the other side just so they didn't hit the car. This isn't made up. I've got camera footage of it. My cameras shoot there all the time. It is a non-stop constant issue, and the fact of you guys looking to add to this issue without clarifying or fixing anything is, I hate to put it this way, but plain ignorant. I don't know what more to say at this than adding more to this is directly affecting our business, and what am I supposed to do at my end? The next time that we get a call and I lose one, we actually, we documented it and I spoke with you folks the last time. $30,000 is what I lost because we had to turn a rollover over to another company because we couldn't get our heavy records out of our yard. The next time, do we just hook this and move it? I've got the equipment. I can absolutely destroy vehicles and start stacking them, and that's what I will do if we have to. Obviously, you guys are going to make whatever decision you want, and it doesn't seem like following common sense seems to be a thing, but I guess we'll see what you [44:31] Shanna Cox: guys have in store for us this evening. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in public comment on this agenda item? Give it one more option. I'm going to close public comment. I took a couple of notes as we heard from the public, and Shelly, is there anything that you or your team can speak to about the C101 map and any renditions around that or updates? Only to say that what [45:05] Bryan Kaenrath: was posted to the website and what you have is the most current that we're aware of, so [45:12] Shanna Cox: suffice to say any renditions in between what was shown previously in this one, what matters most is that the one that was made public in notification of this meeting is the one that we're reviewing today. [45:22] Dennis Theriault: That's right. And how do I possess a plan that I think that would fall from what you have, sir? I'd [45:29] Shanna Cox: love to find a way through this agenda item that shows a mutual respect, which is literally all that I'm asking for, and you can discuss it in court. You're going. I appreciate your time. So okay. [45:44] Speaker K (unidentified): Before we move on to another bullet item, sure, I would like to get an answer from staff with regards to how the public gets a different paper or mylar copy that does not look like what was on line or in our possession, I [46:01] Shanna Cox: don't, how somebody could purchase independently one because that is what I'm hearing, yeah, so things [46:10] Bryan Kaenrath: change over time, right, so depending upon when he came in and asked to buy it, there may was new information that was submitted [46:21] Shanna Cox: Sir, I'm going to ask that you respect this room and the staff and our proceedings, that's all, they don't respect what I have, we provided the packet, I'm not going to ask over and over, I don't know what to say, Michael, I'm going to adjourn the meeting, take a break and take your advice to ask for somebody from public security to come in and help us, it's not really how I'd like to handle this meeting, do you know of alternatives, director Connor, okay, I'd like to, I'd like for you to be here and witness these proceedings, I'd like for you to engage in this process in a helpful way or at least a civil way, I do not want to take any steps that would prevent that, so please don't encourage, I gave you the same three minutes everyone got and we are also supplied with multiple pages from you with photographs and multiple comments that have submitted to the record and to our review that which you say is making the case, we have access to it, you've done a great job preparing us, Shelley, were you finished, I am, I'm not because [47:27] Speaker K (unidentified): I didn't get an answer, I'm looking at plan that's not the block where the architect signs says November 11th 2025, there's a legend to the left of it with the red block that represents a certain vehicle that's parked in front of Mr. Mayor's, happens to be a vehicle that is sometimes parked at an angle at an actual dock and sometimes not, this was November 11th, now plans were put online probably ahead of the january 26th meeting, now the applicant from my understanding made a purchase of these plans after, well maybe just before the 26th or between the 26th, Mr. Marcotte, did you mean the applicant made a purchase or public, yeah, I stand corrected and a butter, sorry about that, and a butter made a purchase of the plans after November 11th, that's unarguable. It was after November 11th. I don't know, I don't know what its receipt says. I didn't have a chance to read thoroughly the packet that we got today or yesterday. It might have arrived yesterday and I just saw it on my email today. I skimmed it as fast as I could. I know there's a receipt in there. I believe the receipt is 2026. So how does it change from November 11, 2025 to the time that the abutter purchased a set of plans to the ones that we're seeing in our packet and sent to us by electronic medium. How does it disappear from the plans? Intermediately. [49:13] Bryan Kaenrath: So, it's not uncommon for staff to have comments on an initial application that's submitted. And in this case, because there were a number of cancellations to the meeting, we had comment on the Haley Ward traffic impact analysis and this figure that you're talking about that goes with the traffic analysis. It's not really part of the design per se, it's information that supports the traffic analysis. I'm not [49:46] Speaker K (unidentified): referring to comments. I'm referring to a document that looks like this. Yes and [49:51] Shanna Cox: that may, I take an attempt at asking this question in a different way because I think I'm hearing it from a couple of different folks. I think the question might be what might have happened here and what would it take going forward to ensure that any time a plan has a revision that it's noted somewhere updated on so that we can keep the revision history and then separately which I think is a follow-up question and I don't imagine that there's an onus for the city but if somebody comes in and purchases version 2 in November or December and version three or four or five is iterated before that and version six and the most recent is publicly made available in advance of the public hearing, is there any, is there any reason that somebody who had purchased any prior version would be notified that a new one was available? No, I mean we [50:47] Bryan Kaenrath: wouldn't keep track of people coming and looking. You know, people will come in all the time and say I'd like to see the project file for such-and-such project and they come and they look at it. So if something subsequently changes from them coming in to look at it, you know, we don't notify them. The website is kept up [51:04] Shanna Cox: To date, okay. And the first part of that question, how can we better track, and is that part of what happened, that, yeah, the version that this gentleman has, the version that we're looking at, the version from two sessions ago, we're actually different versions. And there was nothing from the architect or from staff that noticed a different version for our ability to track that. Yeah, typically there is a [51:27] Bryan Kaenrath: revision note made on a drawing. Sometimes the consultant doesn't do that, and sometimes staff misses the fact that it should be noted. So we apologize for that oversight. Thanks. I think that's [51:39] Shanna Cox: the how we got here question that you were asking. Yeah, when you're talking about architectural [51:45] Speaker K (unidentified): architectural plans and can make any changes to it. I believe these date stamps change with it. The date stamps aren't changing. That's part of the problem. How somebody gets a set of plans that does not have this block. Somewhere after November 11th, before today, and nobody's saying that this is not the official plans. This appears to be the official plans with the red block. How does one get distributed to the public without this block? Because then we look at what it's actually referring to on the diagram, and it's referring to this vehicle that is sometimes parked at this angle and sometimes not. If somebody who's lived in this community for a very long time, and Mayotte's has been around even longer, they park vehicles sometimes over here. Probably about 10, 15 feet from the property line. And that's where it is now. What about that one? Now, you claim that this is 150 feet. I don't argue with the distance, but this one here is about 30 feet closer. That's 120 feet. And in either case, even by Haley Ward, it says 200 feet is our code of ordinance. We're giving a waiver because it's 150 feet, that's 50 feet less, and there's another vehicle that's even 30 feet less than that, and there is a line of sight problem coming down that hill. Two years ago, I mentioned what happens if Engine 3 comes down that hill, slingshots around, and there's somebody unloading a car in front of the mosque. Somebody's getting creamed. Who gets sued? The city, the Planning Board, for violating our own code. I don't want to be in a position to being sued by the applicant because we didn't follow our [53:41] Bryan Kaenrath: code. So I did point out when I had made my introductory comments that the 200 foot sight distance is for new driveways, and this is an existing driveway. It's a [53:53] Speaker K (unidentified): Life safety issue. Sorry, that's what I'm gonna hang my hat on, life safety issue and a few other items when this is all said and done. Thanks. Is there other comments from the [54:03] Shanna Cox: board of Pantheon? Were you reaching? Well, I mean, I appreciate that concern and that doesn't mean that's still not a legitimate driveway, right? And that the existence of the driveway there isn't, I mean, it's not in defiance of the regulations. What I would offer and I'd love to hear from others, and usually I wait till the end to speak, but even in the public comment that we heard, we're dealing with two issues. One issue is that which we are required to do as planning board members, which is to review this application, ensure that it is compliant, review the conditions, attach them to our motion, and do that all in the context of our comprehensive plan. The second is the issue of concern related to enforcement, which we heard many comments about, and that's not in our planning board purview. I don't want to sit up here and say please call the police. I don't think that's useful instruction. What I can say is that we don't have enforcement in our purview, both lack of previously or future enforcement needs, and the reality of this driveway specifically is that because the driveway is not being moved, it already exists by the current property owners. It is a, it is a, you know, legally fair driveway for this application and for this property. Should it have been new construction or a new driveway, would be reviewing it under different terms, and that's the challenge of sticking to our purview, which is not to say comments haven't been heard. Happy to come back to you, Mr. Mark. Let me see if there's anyone who hasn't spoken yet would like to speak, any comments for any other board members. Mr. Marcotte, thanks. Thank you. [55:51] Speaker K (unidentified): Since my train of thought was on what you were saying, technically it may not be within a purview because of an existing curb cut, but it is a life safety issue. Life safety issues don't come and go with new developments versus none, redevelopments or add-ons, what subtractions. As far as not having purview as a planning board over the enforcement aspect, none, that may be not very true. However, I don't think the people at Whitesnake, none, we're very happy with the city and city itself, the planning board. In that Rhode Island town when they had a fire and when you pack people into a place and you have an event like that, hey, the lawsuits are gonna run crazy later. They'll uncover everything we did or didn't do at this stage of the game. We're over intensifying this property very much so. There is more parking down there now than even what's asked for. Do none applicants have the ability to just simply use city property for the overflow parking? I think in any other case that would be enforced by local PD if that was happening anyplace else. So that's another concern I have is over intensification along with the life safety issue. While I'm at it the third category is an adverse impact to the neighborhood. You've got existing businesses in that area that are being adversely impacted without a traffic study. I asked for a traffic study two years ago of the architect that was representing the applicant at the time. Never came back with it. That final vote was 07. That was probably one of the reasons. Probably everybody had a different reason or multiple reasons. But to come up with a number like ninety nine point one nine less than one trip one less than having to have a full-blown study we have existing businesses down there that are being impacted now they'll be even more impacted when and if this goes through I'd [58:26] Shanna Cox: Like to clarify on the we did get the traffic review with this architect and with this application and it's a hundred new trips and so our comparison or shortage is 35 to 100 and not 99 to 100 is that accurate that is okay is there did you have any comments or anything that you'd like to contribute I didn't mean to not give [58:50] Dan Moreno: You another no I didn't want to add just because I think it's spoken for us as far as that is [58:56] Shanna Cox: Thanks. I would be looking for a motion from the board so that we can move and have discussion. Okay. I'll make a motion that the application submitted by Masjid Salam Mosque to expand the existing parking lot at 240 Bartlett Street to allow for greater occupancy of the building meets all of the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code, including but not limited to article 13 section 4 approval criteria and that approval be granted with the following conditions one that prior to signing the final drawings the site plan be updated to show the dumpster outside of the required Setback and the parking space is provided updated to account for any spaces lost with the dumpster relocation. That prior to that, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a professional engineer shall provide a stamped statement indicating all storm water site and site improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plan. Three, that prior to the expansion of occupancy in either section of the building, the applicant shall get a building permit and be issued a certificate of occupancy if required. Four, that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide to the city materials detailing how they will regulate the occupancy limits. Five, that the approval is limited to a maximum of 70 person occupancy in the northern portion of the building and 122 person occupancy in the southern portion of the building for a total of 192 persons in the building. Thank you. Is there a second? Thanks. I'd like to open it to the discussion for the board. Any discussion? [1:00:48] Alex Pine: I'm wondering if there's been any conversations with the applicants so far around what the city is looking for in terms of materials around regulation on the occupancy limits. I know you've mentioned this a little bit in the opening remarks, but I don't know if we could go into a little [1:01:11] Bryan Kaenrath: more specificity on that. Yeah, we haven't had any recently with them. I know previously when they had applied, they had some suggestions in that application, but at this point we're really looking for the applicant to submit a plan for how they intend to do that for staff to review and make a determination that it seems like something that's workable and should you [1:01:33] Shanna Cox: find that it's not, you would fail to submit an occupancy permit so [1:01:41] Alex Pine: what I'm wondering is you know in the case that the plan to regulate occupancy isn't satisfactory to the city's standards or you know to staff's expectations that would basically mean that you know maybe the parking lot has already been constructed but it could not be used and the mosque could not be used until the occupancy issue was resolved or what 's exactly sort of the flow of things there [1:02:20] Bryan Kaenrath: So it's prior to the issuance of a building permit, so they shouldn't have constructed. [1:02:24] Alex Pine: Okay, so no construction until there's a solid plan that staff approves of that's going to deal with, you know, the occupancy issues where those aren't being followed. That's right. Okay. [1:02:40] Shanna Cox: What's What's the mechanism? I mean, this is a Planning Board and we have a roles so, but what's the mechanism when there is conflict around butters and how and who can help facilitate neighbor to neighbor resolution that really works? To me, I don't know how we address it in a planning kind of way, but I hear it and I hear the frustration and the request for help and I don't know who to direct that to, but would love some attention to go to that. And so I just, I don't know what to say besides that. Yeah. [1:03:39] Dennis Theriault: Can I make a comment to that? A brief one. When he passed and went talking, I appeared in front of the City Council in regards to it. I was told by Larry Gilbert, would you agree to go see Judge Clifford, Supreme Court Justice? And I did, and he called me. And I went over to Chambers on a Saturday, and I said, Judge, what have I done wrong? He said, Dempsey, you haven't done anything wrong. You have a perfect right to use your property as long as you follow the code north it's still the city and the state statute and he said other people you tell them to get the hell off your property it's all mocked and other than that obviously now we have a tow company and a large one largest in the state and I don't know ma'am mediation I don't know how do you make people realize don't park at McGraw Park. It's full. Their section is full. They park on all the streets up the Italian Bakery. Brandon can't do any business at Italian Bakery. They park in Mayo Sausage. I provided all of that. So, ma'am, what do I do as an affected abutter other than bring it in front of you and go, who do you want to send me to? [1:04:58] Shanna Cox: Do you want me to send you to counseling? I don't know. Thank you for keeping it brief. Thank you for raising the question. I think what you hear from Penthea is a desire to find a solution. I think what we're hearing from you is a recognition that you have not yet men met one that has been a solution and what I would offer for my colleagues on the Planning Board is the frustration that we hear every time this application or applicant comes before us is real. We have heard it a number of times from you provided ample information for us we under we truly understand I feel like you've Done a great job giving us the information to understand. I hope you hear us recognizing that right now. And so what I think I share with Penthea's frustration because this precedes your arrival to the planning board. So yes ma'am times a couple is the desire. And I think what we see is these applicants and it's not just this particular site in this particular application but that applicants come to planning board A because we're a lovely bunch of folks and we have a lovely public comment period, But B, because this is an opportunity to interface with the city. And the frustration that we hear is oftentimes the compounding of business issues with enforcement issues, with street care issues, with how we're deciding on an application and the reality, and it is an unfortunate reality, and I hope you heard that in what Penthea just shared, is that we are not the mediators, and I am hearing a desire, not just for maybe a judge and a mediation, but something that will help an applicant navigate what really is like five different departments within the city That are impacting you and your business of which we cannot mitigate in this proceeding. And a desire for that to be recognized and supported with some coordination inside City Hall. So I'm gonna put a fine point to what Panthea just requested and encourage staff to follow up internally at a director's meeting about how you might coordinate conflict resolution across multiple departments when you have a taxpaying business and citizen asking desperately for a solution and a recognition that we are not going to be able to solve it in the confines of this meeting with our apologies because we do hear frustration. If we were really doing point of order, sir, you wouldn't be speaking because this is the public comment is period and for Robert's Rules of Order I'm just letting you know it's not a point of order you can simply ask okay as a business thank you thanks I'd ask Shelly and John to follow up with your other department heads who then bring this to us should that be factual which I have no reason sir to think that you are not telling the truth I would say that is significantly unfortunate for all Of the other departments I'm sure we will and it'll be so helpful for everybody to see the contribution of communications among department heads that place this at planning board's feet each and every time that is unfortunate madam chair sir speaking of [1:08:21] Speaker K (unidentified): Code enforcement, and I'm troubled when I hear the planning director say that it's impossible, it can't be done, it's ineffective, whatever the words that we used earlier. Because I can think back when I heard the reference to 2011, I know that it was even before that. I was on the planning board, so it must have been 2009, late, or 2011. Before the transition of the property, there was an attractive nuisance on that property. There was a big hole that has now been filled in that used to be a basement entry for trucks to unload stuff when it was screen printing. When I brought that attractive nuisance issue to then Gil Arsenault, it got taken care of immediately. That's called code, planning and code. The enforcement needs to happen. It needs to happen at the director of code and planning. It needs to happen with the Lewiston Police Department, even the fire department. All of the public safety entities [1:09:28] Shanna Cox: entities in the city need to address this. I'm sorry, but I'm going to ask you to bring it back to the motion on the floor. Oh [1:09:37] Speaker K (unidentified): I think I covered what I wanted to cover. Thank you, and I'll have one very quick comment when we vote yes. [1:09:47] Alex Pine: So earlier there was a question raised and a concern about the fact that we're working with a plan set here that doesn't have revision marks that indicate some of the revisions that have happened over the time of application. Are there any procedural reasons that we should not approve? No, to restate the question [1:10:13] Shanna Cox: that we've already had answer, the plans that you see in front of us reference throughout the evening at the red box plans were the plans that were made of public record with the notification of God eating meeting, all notifications. So should we have had a different one presented to us today separate from THAT WHICH HAD BEEN PUBLICLY SHARED AND RECORDED ASSOCIATED WITH THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS [1:10:34] Speaker J (unidentified): WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RECORDS, BUT GOT IT, THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT CLEAR. [1:10:41] Shanna Cox: I'M GOING TO ASK FOR THE ROLE PLEASE, MICHAEL. [1:10:46] Speaker K (unidentified): MARCO DUE TO THREE MAGIC CATEGORIES, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK ME AFTERWARDS, LIFE SAFETY, ADVERSE IMPACT AND OVER INTENSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY AND SPILL OVER ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG BOTTLET STREET. THAT'S WHY I'M VOTING NO. [1:11:07] Shanna Cox: Penthea burns I vote yes, Zoe Lidstrom yes, Lucy Bisson yes, Shanna Cox yes, Amy Smith yes, Alex pine yes. Thanks, that motion passes six to one. And the note has already been recorded for its reason. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, sir. So I appreciate you raising the comments that you did, and I do hope that we're able to address some part of that coordination within City Hall and the multiple departments. Our next agenda item is agenda item C. Aging Development LLC has submitted a development review application to amend the previously approved application for a six-story mixed-use building including commercial space and 152 residential units on the existing 0.7 acre lot at 55 Middle Street. Let me dig out of some papers to find who gets to do this one. Shelly, I found it was at the bottom. Okay, all [1:12:22] Bryan Kaenrath: right. Okay, so this project is an amendment to a prior plan, so you saw it in 2023, and then an extension of that approval was granted in August last summer, which will expire in 2027. the project before you is an 18 524 square foot mixed-use building with 152 dwelling units the first floor containing just under 1600 square feet of commercial space and residential leasing office and services as well as some residential units and then five upper stories that will be entirely residential units a little bit about what's changed since you saw this project before the revised design increases the building footprint from seventeen thousand nine hundred eighty two square feet to eighteen thousand five hundred twenty four square feet it increases the number of apartments from 150 to 152 moves the courtyard from the north side of the building to the south side facing Lowell Street so it's really just flipping that courtyard changes the building entrance locations and there are changes to the floor plans as well for site work changes include where the water connection is located where the electric transformer is located where the trash and service and electrical rooms are located. They have also added a dog walk area to the north of the building, and the first floor elevation has also been lowered or sunken a little bit on Middle Street at the east end of the building. So those are the primary changes that have happened. This application is requesting seven waivers total from standards. The prior approval involved the granting of three waivers. I wanted to point out that when it was originally approved in 2023, the Sontraville zoning district had a zero to ten foot Front setback that was changed since then to a five to twelve foot setback, and this building, because There's Chapel Street, Lowell Street, and Middle Street, has three front setbacks. So Staff made a determination that where the prior building footprint was approved for less than five feet, We would let them keep it in that location, but not go any less than that. So you will, that is why there are a couple of setbacks that are less than five feet Which doesn't meet today's standard, but this is an amendment to it to a prior approval, okay, related to parking, just to refresh your memory, the applicant owns 26 Chapel Street, which is a parking garage that's across the street and they plan to provide the required parking for the applicant for the, sorry, the apartments in that parking garage, and there is a recommended, a condition of approval that there be an agreement with the parking garage for that. No stormwater review was required as part of this amended application. The plan shows a location for the continuation of the future extension of the riverwalk across and identifies an easement across their property to allow the riverwalk to connect to the city sidewalks along Lowell Street. Did want to point out that the complete streets committee has looked at this project and is likely to have a second meeting this spring, probably in April, to look at it further. That application does include a proposed design, if you will, for the redesign of Lowell Street. This is work on the city property, and they've clearly identified on the plan, you know, what's work to be done by the city versus them. This design though is provided in case you have any feedback on it, does, it's not part of their approval, and it's not required for you to approve that street design tonight. The intent is that is still going to be worked out with the city over the course of the spring before the bid documents are put out to bid. But if you have any thoughts on it, you know, we'd be happy to hear those. So as far as the waiver requests, I did list in the staff memo and the applicant did as well, the three that were approved previously. They still, they no longer need the waiver for the frequency of the Entrances along the commercial building. They still need the other two waivers, and in both cases They need a different, a differing amount. So it's probably easier to look at the portion of the memo that details the six new waiver requests, if you will, Which is a repeat of those two? Prior waivers with a clarification of the current need, and then the additional four waivers, and then there's a seventh waiver that is not from the design district standards, it's from the active area, which we used to call amenity area, which is from article 13. So I'm happy to go through those individually. I'm hoping the applicant is going to do that and go through waiver requests, and I do just want to point out for the board that you should discuss each of those waiver requests individually and make sure you know that there, if there are any issues, that you clarify for the record what the concerns are with a specific waiver request. A motion can either be done individually or one motion for all the waiver requests, that's up to the board depending upon where you guys are sitting on the individual waiver requests, and then when you look at the portion of the staff review that talks about approval, we do have, you know, two different motions, one is on the waiver requests and then another one on the actual action on the application. [1:19:10] Shanna Cox: Thanks. Before we give the applicants a moment to talk, I want to offer just a little bit of history in context, some of our newer planning board members, which is six of these seven waiver requests are relevant to the design district standards. That's something that this planning board undertook in six years [1:19:28] Bryan Kaenrath: ago, five years ago, yeah, 2020 I think it was when it was first, it might even been [1:19:33] Shanna Cox: before the pandemic, and that was intended to provide not form-based code but the ability to have neighborhoods and downtown areas be in context of each other and in street scale, and in doing so it was a little bit cutting-edge, which we're pretty excited about, but also means that as we implemented it we've been following a pattern of where waiver requests might occur for the wedge would that the first one of the choice neighborhoods, we had a number of waiver requests for that project as well, and so I offer this both for staff as we take notes today and hear the request from the applicant, that we have entertained before, not just a specific waiver request but how that waiver request might be instructive to us about areas that we should review of the design standards, because for example the glazing waiver request that's coming before us today has been prohibitive for others, hasn't been great for keeping heating and cooling costs down, and has been expensive in the cost of actually creating Buildings and specifically housing, and so we've had conversations about some of these items before. So I would know for the Planning Board as well as for staff as we go, not only is there precedent for us to have heard a number of waiver requests before, don't don't get sticker shock at seven, but that it's instructive to us and something that's a little bit new, especially when you take the time horizon of city planning out to its full perspective. We're like a little footnote in the last bit. So for those of you who are newer, I just wanted to offer that context as we hear from the applicant these requests today. [1:21:08] Bryan Kaenrath: Day, okay, so I did want to point out that since the staff review was written, the applicant did receive their capacity to serve letter regarding water and sewer from the city. So when you look at conditions of approval, number three is no longer needed. Number [1:21:39] Shanna Cox: three, water and sewer, that's right. Okay, great. Thanks so much for real this time. Welcome. Please introduce yourself. [1:21:49] Mike Tatema-Wieland: Great. Hi. Good evening. Thanks for having us. My name is Mike Tatema-Wieland. I'm a civil engineer with Teradyne Consultants, and Aubrey Bennett is the project architect with Market Square Architects. Thank you, Shelly. Excellent introduction. I'm gonna actually skip a lot of what I intended to say because Shelly took carrot for me. Quick intro, and I do have a presentation on the on the TV behind you folks. [1:22:22] Shanna Cox: Does the second TV turn on today or not so much? It's like largely me who has to turn around and just curious. I think we can make that happen if the power button is all that it takes. Great, if it's like an act of congress, don't do it, I'll just yarn around. Okay, perfect, I'll jump right to [1:22:40] Mike Tatema-Wieland: here's a an aerial photo. Just I know everyone knows where this site is, but just to give some context within the city, this site is bound by Middle Street on the East, Lowell Street to the south, and Chapel Street actually dead ends into the site. Just to the north of the site is a CMP substation, and to the sort of the southwest is that parking garage that Shelly talked about. This is where parking for this project will be provided. Here is what was previously approved, so this was 2023, and again just For context for orientation, Lowell Street is at the bottom of the plan, Middle Streets on the right, and Chapel on the left. You can see the building takes up a lot of the site and vehicles, vehicle access to the garage is sort of a continuation of Chapel Street, and then and then they curl around to the left to get into the garage. One thing to sort of notice here that probably the biggest sort of visual difference between this footprint and the footprint that is proposed is the location of that courtyard. As you can see on this plan, the courtyard used to face the north, which is a substation directly next to that substation, so that was, that's, that's probably the biggest change visually on the site plan. Anyways, so now I'll jump to the proposed plan that represents the amendment. This is that, a little different scale, so, but the orientation is the same. The those tan hatches represent the buildings, of course. The sort of that the you upside-down U-shaped one is the six-story residential structure, and the large rectangle on the left of the plan is the parking garage, which obviously exists today. I'm gonna zoom in a little bit with this next slide. So now we're back to sort of a similar scale to what we saw with the previously approved plan. So again, the shape of the building is generally the same, it's just rotated 180 degrees, still a six-story building, and then Aubry will go into details of the floor plans and the elevations and the facades and so on and so forth. The one thing to note, the site does actually drop 10 feet from Middle Street to Chapel Street, which is when we get to the waivers, that's what, that's the reason for the need for some of those waivers to maintain sort of consistent floor levels. Obviously it's difficult to do, and one end of the building is 10 feet higher than the other. The major differences in the programming are two additional units, so previously approved was 150, this is 152, obviously relatively minor change. The commercial space, there is a commercial space on the first floor, kind of on the western side, adjacent to Lowell Street, that's slightly bigger than it was in the previously approved plan. I think the previous one was 1,500 square feet, this is 1575, so very similar but slightly larger. Also on the west side of this building, adjacent to that Chapel Street extension, is a trash room, so that's where obviously a trash vehicle will come in and pick up solid waste from the site, a the electrical room Is also down in on the west side of that building as well as some, storage for, use by tenants within the building, so sort of the west side of the building has, again, has some of the common areas, it has the commercial space, and then it has some of these, sort of the service areas within the building, that's on the first floor anyways, and as we go east towards Middle Street on the first floor, it's, it turns into residential units. I'll let Aubrey talked a little bit about entrances a little bit more about entrances, but I will point out that the, sort of the primary entrance into this building is, it's on the, sort of the western branch of the U, if you will, right off Lowell Street. There's another residential entrance off the courtyard, there's also an entrance directly into the commercial space from another portion of the courtyard, that's to the west, and then there's also stair access into the building off Middle Street. The dog walk area that Shelly mentioned is in the top left corner of the plan, you know, it's, it's an area that the applicant was important to the applicant to give folks a spot to relieve their pets in a sort of a safe and neat way. There's, there's, there'll be some, you know, a bag, doggie bags and a trash can out there in order to keep it neat and tidy, and the other, the other thing I'll point out on this, sort of on the west side of the plan, is an easement for the city's Riverwalk to across this, to cross this parcel. So I'm actually going to go back a slide if I can, so the river walk is going to come down Chapel Street alley, which is to the west of the parking garage, and then it'll travel east along the north side of the parking garage, and this, that's where it will cross the site. So there's an easement, the applicant's going to grant an easement to the city to cross the property, and then the river walk will continue east around along Lowell Street, and I, and I believe it'll, and then it'll go north on Middle Street. So granting of, defining and granting that easement, I believe, is a condition, a proposed condition of approval of the project. Well, let me go back one, so Shelly mentioned the reconstruction of Lowell Street, that'll be done as part of this project, and we have been working with public works, and as well as, I think we received some comments from the complete streets committee. The idea is to create a safe, low speed, pedestrian and bicycle friendly area. Ultimately, I think the plan is to create more residential development in this area, so I Think it's important to create a safe space for, or safe street for, folks to be walking and biking and so on and so forth. So the, I did provide a cross-section in the plans, and this is, this is what it looks like today. As Shelly mentioned, it's still subject to some more revisions based on feedback from public works and complete streets, but it features two 10-foot lanes that would be shared between cars and bikes, on-street parking, and then flush, and this is all flush, so no raised curbs, so it goes right into a pedestrian area protected with bollards as well as light poles and street trees and a couple of raised tree wells. Also, if you look at the site plan, so again, while not part of the approval or this board review necessarily, we are welcoming any [1:31:40] Shanna Cox: comments you might have on this cross-section. Sidewalk would be the [1:31:48] Mike Tatema-Wieland: riverwalk sidewalk, correct? Yes, so on the left here, the left-hand side of this street is up against the proposed building. You've some avid [1:32:00] Shanna Cox: bicyclists on this planning board, and so I'm not gonna pretend to speak on their behalf. It would be really great, I'm, I am concerned about the shared nature of that, and it would be really amazing to have the bicycle lane protected inside the parking lane, which we recently piloted on Canal Street as a solution, and you guys are laughing because you talked about it once, and applicants pretty excited about that idea. Jeff looks enthusiastic back there. The record reflect that Jeff also absolutely maybe doesn't love it, but it just feels like a better way to, if we are truly, and this is, this is where it's fun to be a planning board member, welcome again new folks, first meeting, when we're planning our city and the potential not only for these 152 bonus two units but for additional residential, which includes the riverfront island master plan and the island point proposals that we've seen in kind of the bigger picture of some municipal owned fun space as well as maybe a boutique hotel or something that has other kind of walkable uses down there and a truly robust river walk slash maybe a trapeze that gets us over to Auburn in one version of those plans at one point. If it's, if we're really planning for something robust and walkable for the future that we hope we see for our kids and for pets and quite frankly for our tax base, Mr. Marco would love to see tax. IT IS WITH THAT I WONDER ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR TREATMENT AND I GET THAT IT IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW, BUT SINCE YOU OPENED THAT DOOR, WE MIGHT HAVE A COMMENT OR TWO ABOUT IT. [1:33:44] Mike Tatema-Wieland: WE WELCOME THOSE COMMENTS. THANK YOU. [1:33:47] Shanna Cox: WHILE WE WERE ON THAT SLIDE. ALEX, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT [1:33:50] Alex Pine: BEFORE HE MOVES FORWARD? JUST BE QUICK ABOUT IT. COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THE TRANSITION FROM CAR SPACES TO MIXED USE SPACES AND HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE HANDLED? SPECIFICALLY, ARE THE CARS GOING UP INTO OR ARE THEY GOING a shared space or are pedestrians going down into a car space so from curd to street yeah basically what research shows is that it's more effective for cars to feel like they're driving up onto the curb and now they're on a sidewalk and they have to tread lightly rather than pedestrians being forced to go out into the street understand in this plan there are [1:34:30] Mike Tatema-Wieland: pedestrian only sidewalk areas so there aren't really shared pedestrian and [1:34:39] Alex Pine: vehicle spaces necessarily to be specific about that I mean in terms of the intention for the space that it's not a space for cars that happens to have a sidewalk it's a space for people and cars and everything in the sense of the whole street just to be clear about my comment largely Lowell Street [1:34:59] Shanna Cox: and yes block of which you are giving this treatment and not these 10 feet opposed to these 16 yeah okay [1:35:09] Alex Pine: I'm not sure I know okay fully as folks [1:35:15] Mike Tatema-Wieland: turn [1:35:20] Shanna Cox: from the parking garage and they're going in front of this building and it invites increased pedestrian use this entire street that you have up right now yes what you're hearing from Alex is our cars taking a right or a left onto that street and feeling like they are coming into a pedestrian area or our pedestrians stepping from the parking garage or outside the building across to maybe a future development and feeling as though they're stepping into a street [1:35:45] Alex Pine: that's the juxtaposition he's our is the you know is the sidewalk in a grade down to street level or is the street can a grade up to sidewalk level understood [1:35:53] Mike Tatema-Wieland: right now with this design the sidewalk and the sidewalk against at least this stretch of Lowell Street in front of the building the sidewalk is flush from the up against the building what I'm calling sort of the dedicated pedestrian area because vehicles can't get there right there's there's protection from bollards and street lights and street trees into the sort of on-street parking area. And then into sort of the vehicle and bicycle travel lanes. [1:36:33] Alex Pine: Yeah, this isn't the answer I'm looking for. If we can go back to the map, I'll point you to the exact section. So I'm in a car here. I take a right. Is it like I'm driving onto a big speed table for the whole length of the street? Or is it I'm a pedestrian I walk off the curb here go down through a curb cut walk across and then it's just flat [1:36:58] Mike Tatema-Wieland: So Lowell Street's not proposed to be raised at this point. No, it's not it is [1:37:06] Speaker J (unidentified): There we go. Yeah, it is the same in between is for cars. Yep, I would [1:37:13] Alex Pine: Encourage us to look at a way to make it feel like the car is going up into a space maybe directed more towards the city engineer okay you could buy the street [1:37:24] Shanna Cox: maybe I don't think he wants to own the street I know you have a prepared [1:37:34] Speaker J (unidentified): presentation please keep it moving great yeah that's it for me actually I'm gonna turn it over to her chance I like I'll give you the first floor plan give you [1:37:47] Mike Tatema-Wieland: that controls the property perfect thank you so a lot of some of this is a little repeat but i'll just read through it and hopefully answer all the questions that may come up as we go the lowell is a six-story building of approximately 108 000 square feet located as michael said between chapel street and middle and extends from lull to the substation the building consists of 152 residential apartments with a mix of studios one bedroom and two bedroom units studios making up the majority the construction type is five levels of fire retardant wood construction built on one level of steel and concrete it's a common and efficient approach for residential buildings of this type due to the grading of the site in multiple directions the bulb the building has three different first floor levels and this is what michael was speaking to a little bit where the main entry is located here, this is at grade at this entry. This entry is also at grade at a different elevation, and this courtyard is also at grade, but this one also has an internal ramp that helps alleviate the grade difference between the floors. so this area in pink and blue are all related to this elevation everything in the residential of Wayne corridor green purple the units here are related to an elevated elevation that meets this grade and the reason for the multiple grades is as Michael said it's a 10-foot difference in grading from left to right and by code we need to provide accessible entrances the [Speaker K (unidentified): building also] Includes a variety of amenity spaces or active spaces for residents designed to provide both convenience and places to relax. These include a leasing office, lobby seating area, package room, tenant male area, fitness room overlooking the courtyard. Those areas would be located in this blue as you enter the building in the main entrance. Leasing is here with package room and mail room, and then over here in this larger blue box is the fitness room. In addition there is also allocated space both interior and exterior for a small commercial element, something like a coffee shop or grab-and-go cafe would benefit the residents as well as visitors to the area. And that as Michael had mentioned, That's this pink box here, and it has its own exterior courtyard in this area. Both the resident and commercial street entrances share a single vestibule that will allow the building to manage security while still providing flexible access to different areas throughout the day. For heating and cooling, each apartment will have its own compact all-in-one mechanical unit. This approach reduces the need for large amounts of rooftop equipment typically seen on multifamily buildings. That said there is some equipment that will still be located on the roof to serve the building's shared spaces such as the corridors and amenity as well as the future commercial space. And it should be noted that in preparation for the commercial space a Fire-rated shaft has been implemented into the designs so that the commercial space Mechanical elements can be directed to the roof seamlessly and easily at the time that there's a tenant. Other building utilities are being accommodated with dedicated electric and water rooms, and on-site rubbish will be handled with a chute that has access at all levels. So as Michael had said back here is the electric room, on this side is the water room that's off of middle, this is the trash holding room and has a chute. And because again the grades the first floor residents actually have access to the chute as opposed to having a separate room with bins in it, so it's it's a little different but it's a nicety to have for sure turning so this is a replicated floor two through six as i said the majority of the unit building is residential units so this is basically the floor plan as you go up from the first floor and all the way up to the top floor is [1:42:34] Shanna Cox: There a color code or legend that you can, yeah, down here right in here, for folks viewing from home, greener studios, the blues are one [1:42:43] Mike Tatema-Wieland: bedrooms, and the lighter brownish, tanish is these two beds, yep, and then the gray in this corner, on different floors, this area serves as residential storage or laundry, can you [1:42:59] Shanna Cox: you give us the total count of the makeup of studios, twos, and ones, of your [1:43:05] Mike Tatema-Wieland: 152, we have 90, your eyes are probably better than here, do you want me to say [1:43:14] Shanna Cox: that loud for you, 90 units of studio, or 59%, 51 units of one bedrooms, or 34%, and 11 units of two bedrooms, or 7%, for everybody. Yeah. Thank you That's good question, how many floors have laundry facilities, does each floor, every, so there are, there are three [1:43:41] Mike Tatema-Wieland: Floors that have laundry, and then the opposite, it's alternating, The studios do not have in unit units, so they will be accessing the public laundries, thank you, mm-hmm, does that [1:43:54] Shanna Cox: mean the ones and twos do you have washable, correct, yes, moving forward so [1:44:03] Mike Tatema-Wieland: turning our attention to the exterior, the building is cladded with both brick masonry and fiber cement siding, both are common and durable materials for multifamily style buildings, the best filling the building facade draws inspiration from the traditional surrounding architecture context, while integrating modern elephants elements that reflect the city's evolving character, the architectural approach emphasizes clean lines, disciplined proportions, and minimal detailing, consistent with the building's modern character, starting at street level, the large storefront windows located at the amenity and commercial areas, which on this plan would be in this area, activate the streets frontage and strengthen the connection between public sidewalks and interior spaces, while the brick masonry adds a sense of quality and durability at the pedestrian scale, the brick extends up to the second floor and around the building along the three major elevations of the streets, the brick color breaks tradition and is primarily dark, except within the courtyard, we chose to change the coloration here just to add a more interest and more depth to the building, as you can see in the elevations, This is the dark transitions to the lighter brick, dark again. And then this is a Chapel Street Elevation that shows the continuation of the dark [1:45:30] Shanna Cox: Sorry, before you progress from this slide, and if you have more to say before you carry on from this slide, that's great. I would just, this seems like this slide that would be best suited for giving us more information about the waivers, specifically three, four, five, and six. Do you want to talk about those? We do. We're in fact everything we're saying is really lovely, but we're really here to talk about the waivers, and so that's the part of the conversation that we'd like to sure structure some of the presentation towards. If it's helpful, we can start with the commercial first floor entrance being recessed, and if you want to show us kind of how the recession or less recession for the commercial entrance is showing up and discuss your waiver for that one. We're gonna try and do it. Great. It's sometimes just slow it to be responsive, just give it a second as it goes and it'll like readjust. Okay, this [1:46:42] Mike Tatema-Wieland: may be a better slide to show the entrance so we've zoomed in this is the main entrance in the waiver is asking for reprieve because the guidance is to have a recessed entrance because we want to utilize as much of the interior space as we possibly can what we have created here are flanking pilaster columns that give the impression of a recessed entry with a with an above canopy yes thank you with an above canopy so it gives the impression that it's recessed, but it is not actually recessed. [1:47:24] Shanna Cox: Can I ask a question while we're out? Because that one's really nicely linked to number five, which is about weather protection. And it names that the request is for a stoop, porch, or landing, and what you've provided is a canopy. Can you speak to the depth and its ability to provide weather protection of the canopy that we see? [1:47:43] Mike Tatema-Wieland: So the canopy, it may be a little hard to see in this because it's dark. [1:47:47] Shanna Cox: Could a girl like me stand in it and not get wet? Yes, you could. [1:47:51] Mike Tatema-Wieland: That's what we're looking for. You will not get wet. [1:47:56] Bryan Kaenrath: Yeah. You will open the door. Yeah. [1:47:58] Mike Tatema-Wieland: It is coverage beyond the door swing of about 10 to 12 inches, something to that effect. Yeah. [1:48:06] Shanna Cox: Because canopies can in this lovely aging French town, we sometimes see canopies from, I don't know, the 60s or 70s that haven't been maintained that are like the cloth canopies on the birdcage structure. Sure. Tell us about your canopy sustainability in lieu of a porch [1:48:22] Mike Tatema-Wieland: For chance. So this particular canopy is built right into the banding. It is not cloth. It is not metal wired, but you're describing it is part of the building element. It has a roof. It has a drain that's integrated into it and will not be going anywhere. It also holds the signage for the building. We haven't fully discussed lighting or signage at this point, but this is where we envisioned the different sightings for the commercial and the building itself would come up [1:48:57] Shanna Cox: With something fresher than signage for this and commercial you're committed and commercial [1:49:02] Bryan Kaenrath: Well while you're talking about it can you clarify if that's the same type of structure for the residential entrances so please hold are [1:49:30] Shanna Cox: You trying to go to a different page yes. It's up here. [1:49:33] Mike Tatema-Wieland: See this? Oh, thank you. Yeah. [1:49:37] Shanna Cox: There we go. Okay. Oh, I loved it small like that. [1:49:44] Mike Tatema-Wieland: Okay. So actually we can probably grab both of them at this point. So at the opposite end of where we just were is this is a recessed residential entry. Now this is primarily for the residents. That's their own access. So we have their own key card not made for public entry or access by any means. It's just another way into the building. And if you look back here this canopy, this is a metal Awning style canopy. It is a structure that is attached to the building and this is primarily what is over the stair doors. And the utility entrances as well [1:50:30] Shanna Cox: Also not fabric yeah and weatherproof like it's not a pergola it's a three foot deep yep covered [1:50:37] Mike Tatema-Wieland: All the way covered but not the jutting out on either side of the door it extends a little past the door so that you don't have direct water or snow yeah yep just [1:50:54] Shanna Cox: Making sure we got the residential ones in t-shirt You're the one that this might be great too but the depth of recession and the difference between the first and then the second through six floors for the waiver around yeah jams headers and sills on the two and a half inch yep so in brick masonry it is [1:51:21] Mike Tatema-Wieland: natural construction that the windows are naturally recessed from the brick face i don't know if zooming in it will help there's a you can see maybe over here you can see that there's a bit of a recess that 's just a natural if you look at all brick buildings that's just what you see when you start to put fiber cement on buildings something that's a little more flatter a little thinner the windows are less recessed to the tune of an inch or less depending on what you're using for your siding so That is why we are asking for a waiver where the masonry provides the intent with the two plus inches, but above levels two through six it does not. What [1:52:16] Shanna Cox: is the recession there? It is an [1:52:19] Mike Tatema-Wieland: inch, I believe, and maybe a little more than an inch. I think we had it in our, I [1:52:25] Bryan Kaenrath: thought it was three quarters of an inch, the three quarters, [1:52:28] Mike Tatema-Wieland: less than an inch, but no more than what we're not, what you're looking for. While we're talking about [1:52:38] Shanna Cox: windows, do you want to talk about the three-quarter percent glazing, two percent off? Yeah, so on Middle Street, well [1:52:56] Mike Tatema-Wieland: actually it's part of this here too, so as we, as this building is primarily residential, the commercial and amenity spaces here and foster high-end glazing and high-end, I mean a large amount of glazing. When you come into the residential side, which is mostly this side, really from this door to the right at the first level, you want, you don't need the high glazing, you don't want passerbys looking into your window, you don't need all of that showcase type glazing. So on this side we are asking for a waiver so that we do not have to meet the required six, the required glazing, because we have provided windows appropriately for the units that they [1:53:51] Shanna Cox: are serving. Do you have a sense of how much wall is between the windows on both sides of that door [1:54:01] Mike Tatema-Wieland: in terms of feet? Yeah, specifically feet, four to five feet, something to that, it's here to here. Oh, from there to there, that's 15, I would say, [1:54:20] Shanna Cox: yeah, to bring forward some, yeah, to bring forward some prior discussion, figure two on page 16 of the [1:54:28] Bryan Kaenrath: architectural, of the updated one. Yes, exactly. Did you say figure two, page 16 of 27? It says it's number three on the bottom of the page, so it looks like you're in the 10 foot, nine foot range. And I also want to point out the question about the depth of the window is figure five on page 19, which is three quarters of an inch. [1:54:58] Shanna Cox: I'm going to give a little context for our planning board as well as for you on why I asked that specifically. So when we've reconsidered waivers and glazing requests before, part of what we have heard is specifically that people who live in a unit just don't want that much glass. They want to be able to live their life in some privacy behind the scene, which makes a lot of sense to us. Historically we have specifically a blank wall item in one of our ordinances that is for 10 feet or more, I believe it's 15. Okay, yeah, great. So then you're good, but it is meant particularly, and I will speak on my own behalf, I won't speak on behalf of the board, but when you see the visible components of glazing and texture and street scale and human scale on the left composed against this kind of like, bare door, four windows, lot of space in between. It does scream that it is not commercial use, which I think is beneficial for people not trying to get into the residences to go shopping or do whatever they're doing, but we look historically to make sure that there is visual interest at the street level. And so you might hear some discussion, I might be raising some, about how to make that right side a little more interesting without making it match the left side and not trying to require more glazing in all of the residential floors up above, but really about it being street scale. And we, for what it's worth, prior doesn't mean that you have to add a window. We've talked about architectural treatments, changes in materials as means of doing that for what that's worth. And so it is not about not enough glazing specifically. Anything I missed from my okay great onward? I just want to mention one other [1:56:47] Mike Tatema-Wieland: thing along that frontage there is a relatively narrow but there is a landscape strip in front of that building intended and what's proposed there is switchgrass, so you know sort of a columnar relatively high perennial but sort of intended- [1:57:11] Shanna Cox: Most visible in the six months a year when the weather is up. [1:57:14] Mike Tatema-Wieland: Right, but intended to at least provide some of that visual interest, as well as some amount of privacy to those folks, and just sort of separate the building from the pedestrian way there. [1:57:26] Shanna Cox: I think you'd find that we're pretty agreeable to understanding the need for privacy, and have had other conversations about that kind of blank wall effect at street level, specifically in residential, but though it comes up in other types of uses, is it can, it can be as simple as like varying the material used, creating a column effect with a different type of brick in between those that creates a little bit of texture without adding windows or too much more expense, but that creates some of that Visual interest at the street level. I don't, I don't know that. I mean, it's ten feet. I don't think we have anything to stand on. I'm just offering it as something that we've had much discussion about before, and that it's not about your glazing waiver specifically so much as it is the likeness of the wall, which is less than 15. you verified that it was 15 shall we sorry i'll do that right now yeah double check us i think that 's correct i think That's what she said was 15. I think that's right. It's just, you know, in if you're building in, yeah, a different building, yeah, keep that in mind, that if it's 15 feet we like to see some kind of textural change, you know, a fake window or just, like, a different type of brick, a different color, just to make, like, a column or a square that kind of looks. [1:58:53] Mike Tatema-Wieland: Different. A visual interest. A visual interest, right. [1:58:57] Shanna Cox: It is by a mural alone. We have had that discussion. That's mostly a welcome to the team, and now you know that. [1:59:03] Bryan Kaenrath: Just confirming that it is 15. Thank you. Yeah, and we have made changes to the glazing requirements. [1:59:10] Shanna Cox: We reduced them a few years back from 25 to 18, right? Yeah. Yeah, so that's already reflecting some of that. Thanks. I'd love for you to continue on with anything that will specifically address the waiver request so we can take your application under consideration. [1:59:25] Mike Tatema-Wieland: We probably should stick with the waiver requests then if that is suitable. I don't know that, do you. [1:59:33] Shanna Cox: Think you've spoken to item one, the only part that you haven't maybe specifically talked about is the elevation for number three. This again gets to privacy, and we're not unfamiliar with it, but if there's any specific thing that you'd like to call out, Shelley, because you've been spotting those pretty quickly, or a slide that the applicant would like to show about the elevation for the windows and the residential along Middle Street, this is where ankles show up out of windows and people can see. Folks enjoying their living room, both sides to that coin, folks, you're inside, you're outside, could be gonna love urban living. Yeah, truly though, you do actually there's. [2:00:17] Mike Tatema-Wieland: A lot to love about it, there it is, so on that, this is Middle Street elevation, and the finished floor at this level is six feet, well, it's six feet below the main entrance, but it. [2:00:31] Bryan Kaenrath: Is, can you show the stuff on the right which will actually show us what the red line is and what the other dash line, sure, yeah, numbers right, I don't three. [2:00:49] Shanna Cox: feet two inches between the average and level one you're trying to get to the solid line 194 [2:00:59] Mike Tatema-Wieland: 7. Okay, so we are about two feet difference, roughly, between the finished floor elevation and the middle street elevation. So we're, we're sunken two feet from the middle street when you're in that building, when you're in that unit. These sills are at about four feet, just under four, so inside, yeah, so your waist-ish high, depending on how tall you are. Somebody like, right. And what's not shown here, as Michael had mentioned with Lowell Street, is that there is a about five foot landscape buffer between the pedestrian sidewalk and these windows. What's also nice, are they closer to the curb or closer to the building? The landscape strip is between the building and the sidewalk, so there's building five feet of landscape, then sidewalk, and then more landscape in Nickel Street. Thank you. What's also nice about these window types is that they're, they're awnings, so they're not hung, double hung windows you're pulling up, and yeah, they've sweep out like this, so it offers fresh air, some security sense, and the visual impact. The intent is with the landscaping 5-foot buffer is that it's not, you're pressing your nose against the window when someone's eating their dinner. [2:02:37] Shanna Cox: There's central air throughout. Sorry, go ahead Amy. No, so with the grass, what you're saying is they're [2:02:41] Speaker R (unidentified): going to swing with the grass, they're going to swing open over the grass, so you're not walking down the sidewalk and running into the open windows. Correct? Yes. Okay, yep. Is there central [2:02:51] Shanna Cox: air throughout the building? There is. Okay, so there won't be, oh, window units in all of those little square windows that we saw are okay. Correct. Good. Okay, any waivers left untouched at this point? I think we've hit on four, three, two, one. Yeah, I think we've hit on one we addressed. Would you like to speak to number seven, which has its own little carve out and is a waiver request outside of the design standards? Sure. So the activity [2:03:34] Mike Tatema-Wieland: area requirement is 50 square feet per unit, yes, and we do not meet that, which is why we're asking for the waiver. So between, in talking with Shelly and staff, what we have accounted for, and this is on page 26 of the, of 27 for the packet, what we are allowed to account for in the activity space was the lobby area, the residential, the river walkway that's on the property, the dog area, the fitness room, and the residential outdoor courtyard. So adding up these spaces, we came to about 5,700 square feet. Which provides about 37 square feet per unit, which is [2:04:37] Shanna Cox: under the 50 that is required, and 680 of that is the river walk, which is really just a sidewalk hoping it connects to something someday. Me too, just checking that is what it is, correct. Are there plans in the conversation between you and our city engineer to activate that Riverwalk prior to it going anywhere on either end, or are we really talking about some unfinished sidewalk until a future point to be determined? Fingers crossed though, I'm here for it. That's a, you're welcome to, you're definitely an applicant, sir. Just make sure you say your name, I [2:05:18] Jason Levec: don't need a chair. Jason Levec, applicant. Yes, you can't see it here, but even if the river walk isn't fully connected off to the west where the riverwalk crosses along, would we actually, oh yes, there is a beautiful grassy area abutting the river that right now is a disparate pair, it's owned by the city of Lewiston, it'd be on the northwest side of the parking garage, yeah, to the left, nope, all the way down here, that is where these bushes are, and north of that, yeah, but it's a big space, it's grass, it's flat it's got gorgeous views and that's part of the try to make a pocket park and i've had conversations with city staff before i'll even go there and mow it really doesn't need much work to be a really nice outdoor space great greenery but that is kind of I would love to get that done obviously the Riverwalk there has been many conversations it's in your river your River Island master plan as well it probably comes out of funding in time on that one but I do think engaging the entire neighborhood, and I like to say, and I did this when Argo at 64 Lisbon Street was approved back in 2013, when we had waivers for break room requirements and so forth, because the break room was the city of Lewiston, that is your activity space, and we do not want to, you know, keep people inside of this building, we want them to engage in the community, hence the reverse of the courtyard, the engagement of the street, the Universal Street, the one earth design, we don't want them to be in, we want them to be out. So however we can facilitate that, and hopefully how you can facilitate that with increases in pedestrian flow and bike flow down Chapel to Maine, safely crossing Maine to lower Lisbon up to the hospital, turns out we can't [2:07:11] Shanna Cox: actually connect all the pedestrian pathways across the city, but we'd love [2:07:15] Jason Levec: to but you can probably and that's a really high pedestrian Avenue right now. This is like the walking groups from Central Maine Medical Center are there. [2:07:22] Shanna Cox: so this is gonna help facilitate the space that you described off to the northwest i think it was owned by the city or someone else okay and the river walk space as identified in your page 26 this little slice over here that is what is the plan for that in this development that you actually have control over and aren't dependent on the city doing [2:07:50] Mike Tatema-Wieland: something too so that 'll be it'll be a constructed sidewalk as part of this project Okay. That'll be constructed as part of the site development. And is your roof got any plans? Rooftop. On the building? Yeah. [2:08:09] Shanna Cox: Yes. No. Not on my roof. I have a hip roof, you'll roll right off it. You definitely aren't talking about my roof. Well that's definitely an activity [2:08:18] Alex Pine: there, you know. Okay. [2:08:21] Shanna Cox: Anything else that you would like to say? So you're looking to go from the 50 that we recommend to the 37 and inclusive in that 37 is a sidewalk mm-hmm future potential opportunity for green space in amazing ways that might or might not be planned for in the future correct love optimism was there any other salient points that you really wanted to make about the application as it relates to the waivers no I think we covered everything i'm going to see if there's any questions from the board before we open it up for [2:08:57] Alex Pine: public comment mr pine shocked so yes shocking amenity space ask about bike racks let's go why is that a question so i noticed in the revised plans that you have storage every other floor you know alternating with the laundry facilities is there any intention to have that be indoor bike storage again best practice like people aren't gonna chain their bike on the sidewalk if they live here that's not great and if we're talking about making sure this space is activated when it's built as opposed to you know future when the riverwalks finished that's a big part of [2:09:35] Mike Tatema-Wieland: it yeah no we talked about bike storage what do you do with it you don't want necessarily folks putting it in their units you know yeah so one of the options is that there is a building storage on the upper left up in this area that has the opportunity to be a bike storage right in here the other option is potentially in the garage there is the applicant owns the garage as stated and there is space in the garage that could be dedicated to bike [2:10:07] Alex Pine: Storage as well, got it. Yeah, I mean, you know, around the questions of, you know, what will people use this sort of outside amenity space for, I think having facilities where you can store things that can actually use those spaces is really important. Yep, agreed. Other questions from the board? [2:10:30] Shanna Cox: Lucy, it's not a question, was to comment. I do, I do like the way that you flip the building over. I really wasn't thrilled that the courtyard was going to be looking at the electrical station. I mean, it's really this way they can look at and when you build the other building across the street, you know, duplicate, you know, flip it over again and courtyard to courtyard, that would be fantastic. I [2:10:58] Mike Tatema-Wieland: think, yeah, absolutely, that was part of the discussions earlier too as well. Nobody wants to look at a substation except for maybe the CMP guys. I don't [2:11:09] Shanna Cox: know, I don't know that they're in their office being like, that's awesome either. [2:11:12] Mike Tatema-Wieland: One of the best decisions for this building was to it had its back turned to the to the street, and that's not really what you want. You want to entice, you know, the public. You want to encourage, you know, interaction between this, the streetscape, the walkway, the river walkway. However that ends up being, that is the intent and the building by flipping it opens that up for the residents. It opens up for the commercial space in the building and exterior. It really activates this area which is really nice to see. [2:11:49] Shanna Cox: Other comments from the board? Of course. I just had one question [2:11:56] Speaker R (unidentified): about the parking garage itself. Right now the parking garage is owned by the same person who is doing this project. And long term, how do we guarantee that, I know they said there'd be an agreement, but will the agreement contemplate if the parking garage is sold separately from the development? [2:12:13] Jason Levec: I actually have a legal deed drafted between myself to myself that I just have to execute and I'm wavering on it and, but yes, it's going to be deeded 172 spaces including handicapped spots for the building in perpetuity. Great, thank you, Minister Pine. [2:12:31] Alex Pine: So with this outdoor amenity space, so just making sure I'm understanding, there's the section on the left that's really designated for that commercial space, and I'm guessing, you know, the intention, especially with the shaft up to the roof, is that becomes food of some sort, right? Like that seems to be the intention in terms of the programming. For the other space, there's going to be height differential between the two, right? So you're not really going to get commercial flow into the residence space. Looking at this, it's just an open courtyard, so no trees, no shade. Is that, is that right, or am I not visualizing this well? Yeah, so there [2:13:18] Mike Tatema-Wieland: is, they'll be landscaping around the perimeter. Okay, of this, so these white, sort of the white areas on this shown on this rendering are intended to be is [2:13:32] Alex Pine: landscaping, and there's a planting plan that should, I saw that, but yeah, I guess my thinking more again about the outdoor amenity space and making sure it's useful for the residents, you know, if I took a survey of folks here, how many people hold a barbecue in their front yard versus their backyard, right, in thinking about, you know, sort of how the public space and the private space and that intermediate, there's a term for it, I forget what it is, but that intermediate sort of space, how that's going to get delineated within this area this functional area is something I wonder about just because I 've seen in other cities I grew up in a city that you know sometimes you have these big open courtyards by big high-rise buildings and because there's no reason to be there it's a place you pass through they don't end up getting used and you know again we want these amenity spaces because it's important to the residents and if we're gonna grant a waiver I think we want to make sure whatever is there, because we're granting for less, is meaningful for them. If I could answer that very [2:14:47] Jason Levec: quickly, sure, absolutely, right, so this is part of the long-term marketing, marketability of the property. I've engaged with the main college of health professionals, they're putting together a focus student, a focus group of students and staff to look at everything from this specifically, and as well as on the other amenities and community activities that they might want to see, because it's going to be a large percentage, a good percentage of these units will be rented to staff and students from main college healthcare professions. They desperately need it. I wanted to keep everything fairly open other than the fountain, and there'll be gas lines there for potential use. For example, outdoor fire pits. Fountains are pretty cool. Like a fountain, that's cool. But the initial concept was to keep things at least flexible so it can be changed seasonality or for different uses or based upon what tenants say seven years from now got it so that's why we kept the perimeter because that's important from a safety standpoint a privacy standpoint as well as a curb appeal standpoint but inside of that it's really I want the tenants to look at it there'll also be some contests about six months before opening online where people can actually vote on what type of fountain they want to see as they walk down the Riverwalk and so forth and how do you engage the public because even though they're gonna be discouraged from going up there and maybe playing chess or something the public's gonna walk by it the public's gonna see it and the public I'd like to engage them through that process that's great to hear it [2:16:19] Alex Pine: would be too hard to go back to the rendering I yeah that makes me think a lot about the entrance into that space just really quickly okay yeah so it's fairly flat, so you're just coming in off of street level. [2:16:42] Shanna Cox: Any other questions from the board? Okay, so noting that this is a public comment, I'm gonna open it up for public comment. If you'd like to speak on this agenda item, help yourself to the podium and say your name. Just gonna give it a minute, in case anyone wants to find their way. And seeing none, I'm gonna close public comment. Bring it back to the board. Any final questions before I seek a motion? Mr. Marcotte. I'm just curious when you're gonna break your arm can you say that again I'm [2:17:13] Jason Levec: sorry I missed it groundbreaking well we have it approved financially we're waiting on this is a hot insured loan so they have to go through a cost certification process which are halfway through now anticipating May 15th yes yeah this yes with the tip open by August of 27 better hurry up on that Riverwalk I put my full faith and allegiance in the city of Wilson is [2:17:41] Shanna Cox: playing go Riverwalk any other comments from the board I'd look for a motion okay I'll make a motion that the application submitted by Aegean development LLC to amend the previously approved application for a six-story mixed used okay building including commercial space and 152 residential that all residential units at 55 Middle Street meets all the necessary criteria contained in section 245H waiver requests and article 13, section 83A, and that the following waiver requests be granted. Okay, so... Let's try it with all seven out of the gate. How about we try all seven and then... Let's cut to them. I didn't see any concerns raised. Right. Okay, one. One, commercial first floor entrance not be recessed so long as alternative weather protection is provided. Two, residential first floor doors and windows be reduced to 16% minimum. Three, residential first floor elevation be reduced to 24 inch below grade instead of 21 inch above for a 45 inch reduction. Four, residential first floor window sill height be reduced from 60 inch minimum to 21 inch minimum for a 39 inch reduction. 5, residential entrances not be required to have a stoop porch or landing so long as alternative weather protection is provided. 6, upper stories not first floor be allowed windows that are flush with the walls and do not have an architectural surround at the jams header and sale. 7, active area required be reduced from 50 square feet per unit to 37.6 square feet per unit. Thank you. Making a note that we have a second motion will consider separately seeking a second on this motion. I'll second. Thank you. Discussion, Mr. Marcotte. [2:19:53] Speaker K (unidentified): Curious these seven items fall below the action necessary that was [2:19:59] Shanna Cox: motioned there are seven items above that one this what you saw is the first motion under actions necessary that references the seven waivers once we act on this motion we'll take up the second motion which will speak to the conditions that are noted in the staff recommendation okay so gotta go back further okay yep that is correct hearing no further FOR THE DISCUSSION, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU CALL THE ROLL. MICHAEL MARCOTT. YES. PEN THEA BURNS. YES. ZOE LIDSTROM. YES. LUCY BISSON. YES. SHANNA COX. YES. AMY SMITH. YES. [Alex Pine: ALEX PINE. ABSTAIN.] THANK YOU. AND A SECOND MOTION. OKAY. I would like to make a motion that the application submitted by AGN Development LLC to amend the previously approved application for a six-story mixed use building including commercial space and 150 152 residential units at 55 Middle Street meets all the necessary criteria contained in the zoning and land use code, including but not limited to Article 13 Section 4 approval criteria and Section 5 combination of state subdivision law, and that development and subdivision approval be granted with no conditions. Sorry, just please let the record reflect that it was coordination with state subdivision law. Okay, that's it. That was that was the last of it. You have to read the staffs them. Oh, yeah, okay staff recommendation, okay, so with these following Conditions one prior to signing the final drawings the comments by engineering Regarding the dog walk area be addressed to prior to issuance of a building permit proof of financial capacity be provided Three prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide a parking agreement to it. Well Three was already she said that at the beginning that three was already taken care of Okay, start over again with three prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide a parking Agreement to ensure adequate residential parking at 26 Chapel Street acceptable to the city four prior to the issuance of a building permit a subdivision plan stamped by a licensed land surveyor be filed by the registry at the registry of deeds and five prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the easement for the sidewalk be filed at the registry of deeds okay I'm sorry it's largely the same thing right now but we're optimistic okay the easement for the riverwalk be filed at the registry of deeds is there a second oh just kidding oh sorry nope that one's number six now six prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant's engineer shall certify that all improvements have been completed in accordance with the approved plans including but not limited to utilities pavements and plantings and building exterior materials well done really on the group support we got there thank you so much yes is there a second to the motion second thank you any discussion you [2:23:23] Mike Tatema-Wieland: call the roll Michael [2:23:26] Shanna Cox: Marcotte yes Penthea Burns yes Zoe Lidstrom yes Lucy Bisson yes Shanna Cox yes Amy Smith yes Alex pine yes before we move from this agenda item did you want to make any comments of your reason for abstention on the [2:23:40] Alex Pine: first motion yeah we 've talked a lot about a revising the design standards because we're often doing waivers and we have done that in the past i did realize through this process i think there's sort of a convergence happening between making sure your walls are decorated and making sure that there's glazing and i'm wondering if at some point this year we could think about it again and maybe figure out a way that we can give applicants more options for sort of meeting the visual interest whether it's windows or whether it's, you know, other design elements. Yeah, this is us, you abstained. Yeah, so I can make the statement. I know I could have, I could have, but it, that's, that's how it worked [2:24:25] Shanna Cox: out. Thank you so much. Thank you to the applicants. Go forth. Thank you. Okay, we have another business item, the planning board initiating changes to the no name pond overlay district in article 11 section 24 of the zoning and land use code. I feel like no name comes back [2:24:50] Bryan Kaenrath: every once in a while for us. It does. Yes, I'm not right. You're not wrong. So we don't have, you thank you, we don't have a staff memo on this item tonight. What we were hoping that the board would do is initiate it for the opportunity to discuss it at a workshop next week when we have our meeting on the 16th so that we could potentially still do it as a public hearing on the 23rd if the board wants to move forward with that. So there was an issue that came up recently where we identified something in the no-name pond overlay that doesn't really make sense as far as protecting the lake but is also providing a hardship to a property owner, so we just identified [2:25:43] Shanna Cox: that as something we want to talk to this board about. Then I'd like to make a motion myself that we initiate changes to the no name pond overlay district in article 11 section 24 of the zonian land use code for us to consider in a future workshop. Second. Thanks. Any discussion on the item? Can you call the roll? You're doing great with that tonight. Michael Marcotte, yeah. Benfia Burns, yes. Zoe Lidstrom, yes. Lucy Bison, yes. Shanna Cox, yes. Amy Smith, yes. Alex Pine, yes. Great. Great, in just a general housekeeping, and I mean that from like the most real sense of the big box, I just want to make sure that we're clear we're not discussing the disposition of 85 Park Street. That's the six, that's on the 16th. Great, yeah. And we are also not discussing the disposition of 38 Water Street, also next week, yeah. Okay, and those were items we had been previously holding from meetings that had gotten canceled due to weather. Yep, so we and the public are all on the same page. Will you be requiring that we keep these because they will not be anticipated to be provided to us again [2:26:55] Bryan Kaenrath: Let's read, let's give them all to you again, so we'll be getting a packet together in the next two days fresh, and we'll do all the dispositions for Monday because we have, I think, four that we're gonna be bringing to you, so we'll [2:27:07] Shanna Cox: reprint those. And the record reflects that I am absent at next week's meeting, you'll have a chair stepping in. Thank you so much. I'm also absent, which means are they'll both be voting. All right, make sure it's worn in. Yeah, Mr. Markoff, [2:27:29] Speaker K (unidentified): since we're still another business, what's planned for the 23rd? We have a [2:27:35] Bryan Kaenrath: number of property dispositions and we want to talk to you about this ordinance change for the no-name pond overlay. To be clear, that's the 16, oh I'm sorry, the 20. He asked about the 23rd. We have a contract zone request, we have at least one development review application, the other one we are confirming tomorrow morning before we post the legal ad, and then we have two ordinance changes, one would be the no name pond overlay and the other is housekeeping items for article 11 that the council didn't move forward because they were concerned about that minimum building height, [2:28:12] Shanna Cox: and so to move the rest of those items forward, so that'll be on the 23rd. Yes, not that i want to miss any of them, but it'd be nice to be here for that one. Yes, okay, any other business? Great, we do have minutes. I'd be seeking a motion to adopt the February 9th 2026 draft minutes as presented. Second, no, I'm seeking a motion. I know I was trying to get somebody else to make the motion. Sure, everybody's getting real comfortable with Lucy making all the motions. There we go. Well participatory PROCESS, FOLKS. THERE WE GO. [2:28:51] Alex Pine: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE FEBRUARY 9th, 2026 MINUTES. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. [2:29:00] Speaker K (unidentified): MR. MURCAT, DO YOU HAVE AN EDIT? WELL, I FORGOT THE MINUTES AT HOME. THEY DIDN'T GET INTO THE BOX WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. DOES SOMEONE HAVE A COPY? [2:29:09] Shanna Cox: No. I don't know. I don't know what I do. I'm sorry. [2:29:12] Speaker K (unidentified): My concern was somewhere in the body, in the text, I was quoted correctly and then at the very end did you just say you were quoted [2:29:19] Shanna Cox: correctly directly in the body and that was your concern no okay at the tail [2:29:25] Speaker K (unidentified): end it was pretty much the same subject matter and I don't know if it's a double negative that's what I'm looking for but it read a little different for me okay but under the reading of minutes not beneath that it stated he stated that he does agree with not notifying about his schedule change which reads opposite of how it was under the could you propose [2:29:56] Shanna Cox: how you would like the text to read now for our records would you be maybe editing that last bit to remove the double negative when did you have a suggestion on a correction that might make sense [2:30:19] Speaker K (unidentified): I mean either I can try to find where it reads in the in the other pages or just [2:30:28] Shanna Cox: strike the line because it's already stated can we just strike the line yeah will you make a note of that do I have to change my are you agreeable to that friendly amendment sounds good thanks and our second was are you also agreeable to that any further discussion call the roll Michael Marcotte yes Penthea burns yes Zoe Lidstrom yes Lucy Bisson yes Shanna Cox yes Amy Smith yes Alex pine yes thanks so just a reminder to folks we do have a meeting off schedule next Monday followed by a meeting on schedule the following Monday It's a busy month. We have two new folks. I'd like to welcome them and say it's not usually like this way to stick it out See you next time. You're gonna love this And thanks to everybody for the time they put in with the box of materials this week their motion to adjourn motion to adjourn Thank you. So moved all in favor. Hey, I'm a wonderful night