Saco Planning Board Approves 955 Portland Road Warehouse Project 4-1

[8:26] Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed members of the Planning Board, and valued community representatives, I welcome you all to this evening's Assembly of the Socko Planning Board. As chair, it is my privilege to convene this gathering dedicated to the thoughtful planning and development of our community. Today we come together with a shared commitment to shaping the future in our city that reflects our values, respects our heritage, and fulfills the needs of our residents both now and in the future. Our agenda tonight contains important matters, each requiring our careful consideration, expertise, and collaboration. As we engage in our deliberations, let us remember the profound impact these decisions will have on the lives of all, keeping in mind we're residents like you. It is our duty to maintain transparency, fairness, and inclusivity in our proceedings, ensuring that the voices of all are heard and respected. Together, we must embrace the responsibility entrusted to us by our community, working diligently and thoughtfully to chart a course that fosters growth, prosperity, and harmony. WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2026, SOCO PLANNING BOARD TO ORDER. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS AND MEANINGFUL OUTCOMES THAT LIE AHEAD. WITH US THIS EVENING, MYSELF, MATT PROVENCIL, THE CHAIR. AND TO MY LEFT, OUR VICE CHAIR, JOYCE LARRY CLARK, ALONG WITH PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JEFF BROCHU, KATHRYN PAILINI, AND TO MY RIGHT, PLANNING BOARD MEMBER CHRIS GAGDON. OUR CITY STAFF MEMBERS WITH US THIS EVENING ARE LISA HARMON, OUR PLANNING COMPLIANCE MANAGER, AND CHARLES TELLEMAN, OUR CITY PLANNER, ALONG WITH OUR WARD 7 CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, NATHAN JOHNSON. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR THIRD ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH IS OUR REVIEW OF OUR 2026, OR EXCUSE ME, SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026 MEETING MINUTES. Do plenty board members have any questions, comments, or edits on that draft document, Mr. [10:34] Joyce: Chair, I move to accept the minutes from the September 15th, 2026 board meeting as presented. [10:40] Jeff: I would second that. Thank [10:44] Chair: you for the motion, Joyce, in the second, Jeff. Any additional thoughts? THOSE IN FAVOR, CHRIS? YES. JOYCE? YES. JEFF? YES. KATHERINE? YES. I'LL VOTE YES AS WELL. MOTION PASSES 5-0. OUR NEXT ITEM, OUR AFTER THE FACT PACKET, WE DO NOT HAVE ONE THIS EVENING. SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO ITEM 5 ON OUR AGENDA, WHICH IS OUR CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE On this list this evening, 4 Lerner Road, Map 69, Lot 8-2. This is, again, an application of completeness review for site plan application for two buildings light industrial use within the business industrial zoning district, and we have 0 Silver Pine Drive, Map 91, Lots 9, -1 and 9-2, an application of completeness review for preliminary sub division and site plan application. Charles, anything to add on either these [11:58] Planner: items? Nothing specific to the completeness of those. The memo discusses that I did get in touch with the applicant ahead of this to try to schedule some times and dates for a site walk, so those two dates are listed in the memo for recommended dates or preferred dates from the applicant. So I gave them a two-week window with that Tuesday morning, which has been our consistent meeting time, the Tuesday morning, 8 a.m., for that two-week period for these two items. So the date would be Tuesday, October 27th, and Tuesday, November 3rd, for the site walk meeting for those. And those dates have been confirmed with the applicant team. Okay. [12:49] Chair: That was going to be my next question, if those dates are preferred, they must be, they must work for the applicant. All right, back to board members. Any questions, comments on those items? I [13:12] Planner: would also add that I'll share an update later tent that relates to this, but also remind you that these are two areas that are sent will be sensitive to wetlands, so while looking at this it may be a good option to consider inviting the conservation commission for advisory review as well, specifically for the for learner road application. Great, [13:35] Chair: thank you. That's [13:43] Jeff: Jeff. Yeah, I would, I would agree, and especially even the Silver Pines, because we've been there before, and that's another very, it'd be great to have their input for that matter. Thank you. Great, [13:57] Chair: thank you. So no other thoughts from board members? Perhaps a motion which would include the dates as recommended in inviting the Conservation Commission for both site walks that [14:16] Jeff: works for board members? Mr. Chair, I would move that we adopt the consent calendar item for both the four Lena Road and zero Silver Pines Drive, as well as scheduling the recommended site walk dates proposed by the planner, and requests that we include the conservation commission. »» I'll second. [14:42] Chair: »» Great. Thank you for the motion, Jeff. And the second, Joyce. Any additional thoughts, questions, comments from board members, discussion? [14:54] Catherine: Catherine. »» I just want to clarify, we're doing the Lerner Road one on November 3rd and the Silver PINE ON THE 27TH? [15:04] Planner: Other way around. So zero Silver Pine Drive on November. No, you're right. Zero Silver Pine Drive on October 27th. And then November 30th. [15:18] Catherine: You're right. Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you. That's what I have to do. Show up at the right place. [15:26] Chair: Any other thoughts from Board members? All right. Those in favor, Chris? Yes. Joyce? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Katherine? Yes. I'll vote yes as well. Motion passes 5-0. Our next item on our agenda this evening is Item 6. This is our Planning Board public hearing guidelines. This is a document developed by the Board and City staff outlining the procedure in place for our public hearings held. This explains the purpose of public hearings, the outline procedure of reviewing an application, public comment, presentation, and meeting duration. If anyone has any questions regarding this document, please let us know. There are available copies at the rear of the auditorium along with digital versions as well. Item seven on our agenda this evening is our public comment period. Our public comment period is an opportunity to hear from members of the public. We limit this agenda item to a total of 15 minutes for items or topics not under Planning Board review. The Planning Board appreciates public comment and recognizes that public comment about matters before it can help the Board understand neighborhood concerns, review an application, or help understand additional items. Those wishing to make statements about an application currently under Planning Board's review are asked to provide those statements during the applicable public hearing period. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. However, if there are multiple members of the public looking to speak, we may reduce that time per person to accommodate all speakers. So if anyone is with us this evening that would like to speak, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. We will collect comments and address them accordingly. All right, seeing no participation this evening on this agenda item, we will move to Item eight. This is our planning applications under review and public hearings this evening. Our first item, 8A, is 83 Jenkins Road, Map 89, Lots 32 and 32-1. And this item has been requested to be tabled. Do we have a date for that item? New speaker. No. [18:06] Planner: Because we were given some extra time for this item, we were going back and forth on could we prepare findings of fact, conditions of approval, and there's some substantial pieces that outstanding specifically for this project as it relates to the stream crossing at 83 Jenkins Road. So that we were looking at that stream crossing design and getting that peer reviewed, and we're not comfortable, you know, bringing that forward with that as a condition of approval because it is quite a substantial piece of this project. So the applicant has said let's get, let's get this in, let's get it reviewed before we come back so we have all, everything in front of us, because I don't think that's something we would feel too comfortable conditioning a project on, especially knowing nothing at this time. So they're looking at the design of that stream crossing based on, you know, final or initial geotechnical things that we have required, not a geotechnical engineer, so I don't want to speak too further. Sure. So we don't have a [19:06] Chair: a date for that. So when a date is decided upon, you'll renotice? Yes. Okay. So no actions required from the board then? [19:15] Planner: No. It's just there to notice. We reached out to a few of the members of the public who have been involved in this process ahead of time. It wasn't us. It was Lisa. [19:24] Chair: So shout out there. Sure. Great. Any questions from board members or staff on this item? All right. Great. We will move then to item 8B. This is 95 Portland Road, Map 62, Lot 21, and this is continued public hearing and application review. And this is to construct two commercial warehouses in the Portland Road zoning district. [19:54] Planner: Just one. Go ahead. Just one. Just one. Sorry. No, I lied. It's two, but phased. Sorry, I'm zoning out for a second. It's two buildings in one phase. There anything else to add? Yeah, so we have prepared conditions of approval and findings of fact for tonight. There are a couple items in there that remain for the planning board to discuss, so just as we go through, if you haven't noticed already, I'll run through it real quick. Item G for landscaping, looking at the heat island effect, protection of significant trees near property boundaries, and as looking at the proposed landscaping. So it is under the buffer section, but we're not too concerned about the perimeter buffering of the lot, but looking really at the landscaping from a design perspective. The next item would be v vehicle circulation and pedestrian access. Again, this relates to more specifically to that design standards of pedestrian connectivity for industrial sites, and I have talked with the applicant on both of these items, and they're going to kind of provide a little bit more insight into that. And the final piece which I will just talk through here, which I don't think will be a huge piece of conversation tonight, is just what some of the conditions of approval relating to the water recovery resources department. They have been looking at how they're kind of taking in effluent from each site, looking at different type of chemicals and materials, and really just to ensure that PFAS aren't entering the system or we know how much are. Again, I'm not speaking to directly to that, so they've requested a few things from the applicant, which is going to take them of time to go through and report back, so that's prior to issue into building permit. So there's some things that you know staff and the applicant have come to agreement on that are reflected in these conditions, and that's one of the big pieces. So i can go the applicant go more into that, and i can kind of provide some of howard's and his team's opinion on that, but really the focus for the remaining things are kind of identified in the in the findings And i did mention this before when i got the number of building's confused, so I apologize on that. Right now, staff is recommending a five-year phased build-out for the application, so that's the first condition of approval. I know that the applicant has requested a little bit longer of a build-out, but right now, staff is really only comfortable with a five-year phased build-out, so we can really also chat about that as well tonight. [22:45] Chair: Great. Thank you, Charles. Any questions from board members? [22:52] Jeff: Jeff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Charles, did we get some clarification, condition of approval M for stormwater? It looked like DPW was requesting at least an analysis of replacing a 24-inch culvert crossing with a natural bottom crossing, wildlife crossing. Do we get that analysis, or is that still kind of out for us to discuss as well? [23:21] Planner: It's it's not something that we've, you know, can hold to. It's kind of a best practice recommendation for that 24 inch culvert to look at upgrading it, but the applicant isn't really proposing going anywhere near it, so we kind of concur with their analysis of that, looking at the replacement, that it is possible, but it's not something that we're requiring or can be required, as more of a if you're in this area and doing work, could you replace it, but we're not really touching that, but if it prior to That final stormwater management plan review, based on any final things, if it does become required, we may look into that, but right now it doesn't seem to be 100 necessary, and I think the [24:05] Jeff: Applicant team can speak to that a little bit more too. Just so I'm correct, this is not the lip spreader that they're relocating. This is the culvert on the back easement where their sewer line is going to be going across it, so they're gonna be near it, but they're going over the top of it. I can point it out real quick on a plan [24:26] Planner: But yeah, it's not the lips, but it's not that, but I'll pull it up and let the applicant speak to it too. All [24:41] Chair: Right, thank you. All right, with that, we invite the applicant up to give us an update, and we'll go from there. Hello, good [24:52] Tanner Goodine: Evening, my name is Tanner Goodine, well Tanner Goodine from Subago Technics, here on behalf of the applicant. Rochelle here with me, I have Brad Fries from Northland development, Rochelle as well as Sam Bebo from Subago Technics, who is the design engineer on the project. I'll provide a brief recap. We were last before you for this application in July. At that point, further additional information and comments were provided that we have responded to. We responded in August to substantial comments Following that, we received further comments that we responded to in September, ahead of the September 15th meeting. We were on the agenda for that meeting, but of course that meeting went a different direction. Since then, we have discussed some of the findings of fact that Charles mentioned, namely the heat island as well as pedestrian safety and connectivity, which I'll get into a little bit later. We have also, since the September 15th agenda, we received our NRPA tier 1 as well as the additional NRPA PBR Section 9 that we submitted as part of the work related to that sewer crossing heading to Waterfall Drive. So now I'll begin discussing some of the additional findings of fact that Charles mentioned, which is the heat island effect and the significant tree buffering as well as pedestrian connectivity. And this is specifically the first one. The landscape is specifically related to third-party review comments where in the design criteria it is mentioned that heat island mitigation is encouraged to be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Based on our site design, we believe that we have satisfied that design criteria. There are no further comments related to the parking in front of the building to the to the to the to the left of the plan in front of you. There are no outstanding comments. The landscape design is satisfied. Upfront, this is specifically the comment is specifically related to the loading and circulation of operational vehicles in the rear of the building. The comment was specifically related to how can we minimize heat island in that by either providing additional trees, breaking up the pavement, or providing a material there that is more solar reflective, which kind of relates to concrete. Again, we believe we've met this standard by minimizing the footprint of that loading area to only what is required. For circulation and access to that face of the building contains several loading bays and overhead doors, which providing maneuverability and backing in space to those is a challenge. If you begin breaking that up with internal landscaped islands, it actually requires greater pavement to make that circulation work. Additionally, providing a large concrete apron in the rear of that building not only becomes costly, but also with becomes maintenance. There's additional maintenance for that for in which. Providing that in lieu of pavement, there's really no benefit to that other than heat island. Additionally, as I mentioned, providing more maneuverability space with the heat island effect encroaches on where our stormwater management BMP is, which would then further increase impacts into the 175 foot buffers along that stream. So we believe minimizing this to only what is required for maneuverability is the best approach versus breaking it up or providing an alternative material. The other comment. That is outstanding. For findings of factor that is warranting further discussion would be pedestrian connectivity, and this is in relation to a comment from Public Works requesting a pedestrian connectivity, a pedestrian connection to Portland Road, which is approximately, which would require approximately 1000 foot long sidewalk connection. The design criteria for industrial uses relating to site plan requires pedestrian facilities be constructed along streets as well as between parking stalls and the building. So since there is a sidewalk connected to the building from the parking, the parking lot in front of the building that you see on that plan, as well as an existing sidewalk along Portland Road, our determination is that the standard or this design criteria is met. Additionally, the access drive aisle is not a street, so a per the design criteria, pedestrian connection or a pedestrian sidewalk along the driveway is not, is not warranted because it is a driveway. Additionally and lastly, I'll mention that this industrial use is distribution and warehousing, and pedestrian use of this site is very unlikely to the point that a dedicated sidewalk connection would be warranted. We just don't expect that this site will really experience pedestrian use. I think those are the only two outstanding items. I will leave it to the applicant and maybe if we want to discuss phasing once it's back to the board for discussion. So with that, I'm happy to pass it back to the planning board and happy to answer any questions you may have. [30:53] Planner: Great, thank you Matt. Can I also provide a little context? I was just looking for the right section, so I was looking at Regina, our landscape third party peer reviewer's comments, and she does reference the design techniques that reduce heat, urban heat, reduce urban heat island effects, and that's in that commercial, multi-family residential, mixed-use proposed development of the design criteria. So those comments don't really apply to this type of industrial development, which is section E, and they and I just confirmed that, you know, we're treating this as a warehouse and distribution facility, which is an industrial use with allowed use in the Portland Road district. So it's something I probably should have caught and kind of help guided Regina. I can work with her going forward on that. But, you know, looking at this, that's obviously something that can come right to Regina, right to her mind as she's reviewing this. But that design standard is technically not applicable to this project. So we would just be looking at industrial development. So, you know, the landscaping stuff, it is, you know, I concur with the applicant team that this is meeting at least the landscaping portion of the design. So those comments technically don't speak to a standard that's relevant. All right. [32:13] Chair: Board members, any questions for the applicant? Catherine. [32:18] Catherine: I have a couple small questions, which maybe are for the applicant. Second, how many employees are going to be in the building for Phase 1 versus Phase 2? Because I see a note about parking with 34 spaces for Phase 1 and then an additional 36 during Phase 2. But another part mentions 34 employees per day, which would be all the spaces, or maybe all the spaces. So is there going to be that many employees for phase one? [32:57] Brad Fries: Brad Fries, by the way, he introduced me, but I'm a partner with the development firm. So yeah, the user is going to have 20 to 30 folks parked in the employee parking lot for phase one. And in reality, assuming that they stay on site and they occupy all of phase two, they're really not going to add too many more employees you know you know maybe five or ten so you know we feel that it's over parked but you know we are meeting the standard i am you know i believe and this is for the entire building you know the office and warehouse and the [33:34] Catherine: drivers but you think there's sufficient parking for phase one with just the 34 spots yes and then i had a question about there was a i saw a notice for a public meeting and it did look like a member of the public came did he did that person have any concerns were there any do you remember i think [33:55] Brad Fries: the meeting was in June. Yeah, he, yeah, there was one person who showed up. He had some concerns that didn't really apply to our development. It seemed to maybe apply to some other nearby developments in terms of smoke or vehicle exhaust or noise, none of which would be generated from our site. Those would be consistent with the type of use that's already on site for a package, since this is essentially the same kind of use. So he didn't seem too concerned about it. It seemed like more of a broader issue that he should bring up with the board. So he didn't seem to have too much of an issue with the proposed use after we explained it. Okay, thank you. Great, thank you. Any other thoughts or [34:42] Chair: questions from board members? Jeff. [34:46] Jeff: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to touch a little bit on basically two items. What I had, the pedestrian access, I can understand some of your views. I don't think you were quite present on the site walk, but we had fairly lengthy discussion then. We walked the majority of the site and actually some of the public roads around the site, and I thought we were pretty clear from the board's point of view is that we wanted to really understand how this use is going to fit design standard wise and connectivity with the mixed use of the Portland Road. The Portland Road's got a lot of permitted uses, and how do we navigate this? One of it was the hope of some of the people that are in the high density residential possibly being able to be employed here and promoting our walkable community, which is designed or is called out several times and in our designs and comprehensive plan to have the this if we're going to allow this mixed-use to have the reason to kind of cut down some of the traffic and walkability would be important to that. So to say that you don't anticipate ever having, you know, any foot traffic along your private drive makes me wonder how is it fitting that mixed-use walkable community. The next piece, which is a more important piece, is we had discussion of the scale and the massing and the height and the design characteristics, and I know I had asked and I think the chairman actually had kind of elaborated on what I was trying to communicate as some of these conceptual drawings, perspective drawings, kind of like from the entrance off of Route one or if you're sitting at jenkins road, and i noticed in the packet all we have your architectural profiles that were kind of just repasted and you put a couple descriptions on there and that really wasn't what i was anticipating or thinking of just because of the mass of these buildings to try to really help the board get a good perspective of what the appearance will be from our route one corridor or sitting at flag pond road getting ready to turn out, and we had talked and i think it was important to try to leave the creative scope for your team to meet our design standards and you have several very long walls that really i don't know how you're interpreting that they meet our design standards and i'm usually the first one on the board to say hey industrial uses we kind of embrace this and i realize those design standards are particularly difficult to fully encompass in an industrial park and this is this starts to look very much industrial park like and i 'm trying to weigh out we want to welcome you to our community we want to have this opportunity for development but what are we doing to enhance and try to make it flow, because the city's town, city's vision for Route 1 is a lot of this mixed use, and how do we make it look harmonious where we don't have big warehouses stuck in the middle and then put some high density residential. We talked about that a little bit in the flow and I don't even see... We asked about your HVAC, your mechanical systems and you were very clear you didn't want them on the roof, makes perfect sense. I don't see anything proposed on how you're planning on putting these on the ground and where you're planning on screening them on any of these. So I was kind of hoping, did you have a submission that came in later or is this all you have for prospective architectural drawings for us? [38:52] Tanner Goodine: So I believe, sorry, okay. So these were submitted as part of the September 11th comment response. I believe as part of the August 14th response, we submitted a perspective from Portland Road. It should be, if I remember correctly, it should be within the architectural renderings. I would say that would be it. It's tucked in the back. So that would be the view of the proposed building behind the pack edge from Portland Road slash Route 1. [39:42] Brad Fries: Yeah, we were... I do recall that conversation, Jeff. We were under the impression that you guys were asking for a kind of rendering 3D perspective from Route 1 showing the proposed building whereas as you can see you really can't visually see the Phase 2 section of the building and really only a portion of the Phase 1 section and then the architectural exterior elevations is you know what we kind of expanded to show the entire building here with Phase 1 and Phase 2 you know because you can't really see it all here so we're hoping that answered your questions but maybe it didn't well [40:21] Jeff: I missed this. This is what I was looking for. I was thinking we had kind of talked about more from the alignment of the controlled intersection, the traffic light, because at that angle, that's where these buildings start to really spread out. And it almost looks like it's going to be all building between the package building over to what you can observe from the stop line to the lumber yard. And we also had concern about off of the Waterfall Drive and the clearing that's going to take place there. So those were the two ends that I was kind of looking at. So this is exactly what I was envisioning, but maybe from a little bit different perspective, because obviously going square on to your parcel, it does make that footprint look much narrower. So I apologize that you did include it. I just, I was searching, I couldn't, couldn't find it. Yes, okay, yeah. [41:16] Brad Fries: and you know apologies we I mean we could create the same perspective you know from further south on the route one we just didn't understand that 's what you were looking for and you know the same for the perspective from a waterfall we just didn't really you know walk away from that conversation you know thinking you know but you know we certainly could you know today you know you know during phase one of the project it's going to be a whole bunch of trees you know that could be more cleared someday, but you know, we have a pretty good tree buffer between the proposed building and Waterfall Drive. [41:48] Jeff: Yes. I think we noticed that your property has a very good buffering, but then there's a city stormwater retention feature back there, and that's what we were kind of touching base on is, geez, those trees weren't really mature, but they were kind of overgrown. What happens when that gets maintained? That was kind of the perspective, because remember, Waterfall Drive ultimately is going to be an entranceway into the larger communities, the multi-use communities that are behind there, and do we want them to feel like they're driving through an industrial park? And I guess it really boils down to me is I didn't see a lot of changes or proposals to try to soften some of those design features. And if your team feels like they're met, then that burden falls on us as a board to try to say, yeah, we think it's met, or no, it doesn't. And I know we had talked about creative ideas for the mechanicals, right? And they're not shown on here because we thought you might be able to tie that in with some design features that would have helped to soften this. And walking around the neighboring building, right, we want to talk about compatibility. The lumberyard had, you know, different types of material that they were using. They had some arches and some pillars and a little bit of timber frame. Don't get me wrong, it's still a very massive building, but they had made attempts and the board approved that. So I was just trying to communicate that, you know, I struggle with our role here to accept design criteria and I wanted to kind of get that out before we got to this point in saying that I'm not really seeing much in design variation here. [43:24] Brad Fries: Yeah, we should look at the previous version because we did talk about that and we did make some revisions to the exterior facades. We added some windows, I think we added a canopy, we added some different color variations, which is consistent with what we did on the Pack Edge building when the planning board brought up the same issue. So we feel like we're responding in a very similar manner as the Pack Edge project, yet it seems like the feedback we're receiving is quite a bit different. So, you know, we want to try to find a way to please you folks and, you know, to find some common ground. On the mechanical units, we are showing it. We went back and we talked to our contractor. There is actually only one outdoor unit, and it's a small unit that is placed. It's not shown in this plan. It's shown on the site plan. It's on the, yep, so it is on the northwest side of the building. So the facade-facing Route 1, kind of on the northern side there, it's a small unit that is placed on a concrete pad. It's really just an outdoor heat pump serving the office space. We confirmed that we don't need any large mechanical equipment anywhere in the warehouse area. There would just be some simple ventilation. But there doesn't need to be any equipment, which is a good thing because we were talking about on site the potential need for some large equipment that we would have to place somewhere on the ground. But we actually confirmed after that meeting that we don't actually need that equipment. [45:21] Chair: Thank you, Jeff. Any other thoughts from board members? Chris? [45:27] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, I agree with a lot of what Jeff said. For me, as far as the design of the building, I think if it was on its own and the package building wasn't there, it would be easier to blend it with, all right, it's a building, it's a warehouse, it fits the space. But when you add the package building in front, it kind of all blends together to one massive kind of superstructure from the eye, even from your rendering where you're head-on you can't see much of the building way out back but it because they're similar color schemes they kind of blend together so I think and maybe I'm misinterpreting what Jeff saying but I feel like that's kind of where we're at is like it's not necessarily this building on its own that's the issue it's how it blends with package and when you have the contrast of the lumberyard right next to it, where they've clearly made an effort to make it a more visibly appealing space, it kind of just comes right to mind of like, well, if we could do that here, why can't we do it over there? And obviously there are different buildings, different functions, the lumberyard also has more of a showroom type vibe to it, so I'm not saying it has to be apples to apples here, but I think that is the challenge, is where you have a large existing building that is pretty similar color scheme to the new proposed building I think it can kind of blend together and make it difficult to have it fit where it doesn't just look like alright we're in a warehouse district and then to the pedestrian access and whatnot I completely understand where you're coming from where it's a private drive it's not a road and yeah there's not going to be hundreds of employees 20 to 30 people odds are currently as is they might not be traveling everywhere but in that same complex there's a gym that's rather popular there's aroma joe's there's several other small businesses as waterfall drive continues to be developed as jeff pointed out there's going to be all kinds of housing that connects and it's not A stretch to think that some of those people, when they're on lunch, will go to the local businesses and get food or drinks or something like that. Or at the end of the day, they'll walk over to the gym and work out and then go back and get in their car and whatever. Or that they live on one of the communities, you know, serviced by Waterfall Drive, and they want to ride their bike to the facility to work and home. So for those reasons, I think it would be important to have some sort of connectivity. There is already some sidewalk on the package building in front of there. Even if there was a way that we could connect the two up, I think that would be an ideal way to go about it, particularly if the second phase of the building, you know, isn't taken over by the same tenant and now you have even more people there, even more people potentially traveling, going to businesses. If it was set in stone where both buildings were going to be built today and we know exactly what's going to go in, it'd be I think an easier pill to swallow to say maybe not, maybe this, but where half the structure is just a complete unknown, I think it would behoove the board to err on a side of caution of it could be someone who, it's a building that has more customer coming in and out type of deal, and if there's residents nearby, they might want to come there in a way other than a car. So that's [49:20] Tanner Goodine: kind of my thoughts on that matter. Sure, I can, I'll respond to them. Actually in reverse order, the sidewalk piece, I completely understand the development that surrounds this site, commercial, coffee shop, gym, and potential employees walking to these spaces. I think our point or justification of that is since this is a driveway similar to any other driveway, realistically, people can walk up and down the driveway that currently exists, just given that the volume of that would be so minimal. I do completely understand the connectivity to the potential future walkability piece of this. However, I think the pedestrian, again, the pedestrian anticipation of people walking to the site would really be limited to employees only, where that would be from Route 1 on the driveway up to the site, similar to other industrial uses. as far as waterfall drive goes it's it's currently not developed and so I completely understand but I think that's our justification I would be happy to continue to discuss it but I think that's where we stand in relation to the building differentiation to pack edge I just I'm looking for a little bit of clarification are you are you hoping that the building looks different than package it doesn't [50:58] Speaker H (unidentified): necessarily need, I mean, it's a warehouse is a warehouse, there's only so much you can do. I just, I think that the feeling is it's because they look so similar, it ends up being looking just like it's a big warehouse area, which, you know, practically speaking, it's a bunch of big warehouses, so there's only so much you can do with that. I think to, you know, Jeff's point is that you guys are, you know, I'm sure this isn't your first project, you have lots of other templates and things that you've done in the past, and you know, personally as a board member, I don't want to sit there and say it has to be exactly like this and there's no, you have no say, no creativity, you know what I mean, I'm just saying, and obviously cost is a factor too, you could make a whole cathedral and, but where the funds for that come from, so I would say the feedback from me is that I agree with Jeff and that the design could be better. How far you want to take that in a reasonable sense where you're not just blowing out your budget all on decorations, for lack of a better word, is where I'm sitting on it. The more is better, but I don't expect you to completely redesign the whole building and make it something totally that it's not. [52:21] Brad Fries: Yeah, just a, you know, it's a little challenging to hear this at this, you know, at this stage. We've been spending a lot of time and money on all the design efforts and our due diligence, and you know, you know, to your point, it's a warehouse building, you know, we really can't dress it up that extensively, and if we are being asked to do that, you know, we're gonna have to walk away, because, you know, that would cost probably hundreds of thousands of dollars and time, I mean, we locked in a rate recently, you Know interest rates are continuing to climb, you know. We're hoping to get approval on this, you know. This didn't seem like a controversial project overall. It's an approved use, you know. If that's what the board is asking, then we're probably going to have to bow out and go to another town. I mean, frankly, we had this, we have this project approved in Gorham, you know. That's where this user originally kind of, you know, wanted to go, and we steered them here to Saco because we had a very successful project for a package and we thought this was a better spot for them. So I mean, if that's what, if that's where this conversation station is going, yeah, this is probably going to be it on the pedestrian sidewalk, you know. If it is being mandated, you know, that we provide one, you know, you know, to piggyback on Tanner's comment, you know, I think we would propose to place that walkway from the proposed building out back towards Waterfall Drive, you know. Placing a sidewalk through an existing site is going to be pretty challenging, you know. It is not as simple as just putting in a paved walkway through the package site, you know. That's going to impact stormwater, it's going to impact, you know, there's some landscaping, you know, like a Tanner said, that's, you know, that's close to a thousand feet, and then it's bringing folks up to a Route 1, whereas if they want to access the coffee shop and the gym, they'd be walking through a site that, as we pointed out on our site walk, there are no sidewalks. So it's just we would like to work with you guys and find some kind of compromise. So we would like to propose placing a sidewalk from the building back towards the Waterfall Drive area. And [54:57] Tanner Goodine: just one more piece to add to Brad's point about pedestrian connectivity. In addition to stormwater landscaping, the existing overhead poles that are in place there that connect to the cell tower that are owned by CMP would also be impacted, which would add considerable significant costs to adding that sidewalk. walk. Those would all have to be moved if that were connected to Portland Road, which further justifies connecting it to Waterfall Drive. And lastly, on the building architecture, I think what you're seeing as a similarity to Pack Edge is actually our justification or response to findings of fact, item C, 6.01C, for compatibility with neighboring buildings. We're not trying to, I guess I would say, we're not trying to reinvent the wheel with this building. We're trying to keep it generally compatible with the surrounding industrial uses while also providing an appealing aesthetic. Thank you, Chris. [56:08] Joyce: Joyce. I have to respectively disagree with Jeff and Chris because I think the applicant has done a really great job of changing colors, adding a lot of windows. I'm sure all these windows aren't necessary. They're put here to break up the structure. And they've been careful to create an area on the corner which is obviously the welcoming area for customers to come to. So it draws them to a particular part of the building. building, it seems like there's a good way finding here. And the consistency with Pack Edge, I think we talked about this when you were first here, I mean the blue stripe along the building, trying to keep things harmonious within the area. So I feel like they've really tried to check the boxes in terms of changing materials,, changing colors, adding windows, breaking up the facade. [57:22] Catherine: Thank you, Joyce. Any other thoughts? Catherine? Can we see the rendering again from Route 1? I had a note to mention it because it didn't, like Jeff, I don't see it in my packet. Just to see how they look together. [57:55] Planner: It was part of the previous packet. [57:58] Catherine: Yeah. Yeah, I had a note, like there was a section 12, and it said in this section, we'll have these things, and then it didn't have them. But I definitely could have missed them. Back [58:10] Planner: up, back up, back up, back up, back up, back up. [58:13] Catherine: I mean, I know it's just a rendering, but I think I agree with Joyce that it looks... [58:17] Planner: Is this the rendering you're looking for? [58:18] Catherine: Yeah, that it looks different enough from package. You can see that it's not, it's like it is two separate buildings, and it's not just one giant mass of buildings. I think the colorings are going to be enough to make it not, I think it will look okay from Route 1, my feelings. [58:38] Jeff: Great. Thank you, Catherine. Jeff? So, Charles, if I may, no offense to Tanner, you've said several times you keep saying it's an industrial building, it's industrial use. I just want to touch base, unless I'm misinterpreting our Table 3-3 for permitted uses in each one of our zoning districts, in the Portland Road District, the only thing under industrial are breweries small, distilleries small, commercial vehicle, and those are both conditional use, and then light industry is conditional use. The only permitted ones are supply yard and a warehouse and distribution facility. And I get it. This proposed use definitely fits into warehouse distribution, but this is kind of my struggle, is it's not an industrial park where all of these uses are permitted, and we've got this mixed use going on. And like I said, I'm typically the first one in an industrial park to say, hey, you did some color variation and some windows, and it meets it. In this sense, I tend to start looking back at our design standards, and just design standards as a whole in Section 179-5.03, yeah, our findings and facts said you didn't use highly reflective material and I agree with that, but I'm being asked to hold this to these other criteria that are particularly hard for me in a mixed use area. The commercial multifamily residential mixed use proposal development shall have continuity and compatibility and building scale and massing, which I can get right, you guys have kind of met that, I think Joyce pointed that out, but we're not getting much screening between the buildings and the sense of light. The length of walls is a big one for me. The length of walls shall not extend greater to 15 feet on the first floor and 25 feet on the second floor without an architectural features, a window, dormer, recessed, corner, plaster, cornice, porch, or visually compatible door. And again, it's still a big building, but there are some sections that you must have 90 feet without any characteristic. And six, for the frustration, the windows and doors should be visually compatible with the architectural style of the building, and on walls that face the public right of way, Opening should create a pedestrian interest and promote safety through the eyes on the street architectural details. I guess I'll leave the chairmen usually way better at articulating these things than I am. And I get it because that front corner where the quote-unquote main entrance is, the customer flow, that's great. That's phenomenal. It's phenomenal. But there's a lot of building that's visible from a lot of different sides that... And I felt like we... I know I felt like I communicated, hey, what are we gonna do to break it up? And we talked about, hey, you had some sloped roofs over one of the doors, maybe you could do something similar to that over your mechanical equipment, just add a couple things to give a little bit of depth to the side wall because of the district and the mixed use just changing colors for me. I don't know if it if it satisfies this criteria, and I'm That's just kind of where my struggle is right and so I'll just add some context [1:02:25] Planner: Again, you're right that I want to say that this use is an industrial you permitted industrial use in the Portland Road District. So we have this is the table 3 warehouse and distribution so when we look at this as an industrial use the challenge with talking about an industrial park mixed-use complex, we're really bound to the site. So that's why I keep pulling up the parcel map for this. This is really the site we're looking at. Yes, it's part of a larger mixed-use zone, mixed-use site, but the other only use on this site is industrial, and it's really hard to pull in design standards that are commercial, multifamily, residential, mixed-use proposed development. When there are specific design standards for industrial development, and this is a permitted industrial use in a mixed-use zone. So we shouldn't be applying these commercial multifamily design standards to an industrial development. We have the industrial design. We're not doing zone-based design standards. It's based on the type of development. So we don't have these design standards that are tied to every use in the zone and every use is bound to all of these. We would really be bound to the standards in E here. So while we have A, B, C are all pretty general for applying to this. This D is the one that you're referencing about length of wall heights and things like that. Our commercial multifamily residential and mixed use only. Only. That's the way we are looking at reading this ordinance, and I think if you disagree and read it differently, we can get that clarification. I think it's pretty clear that this design standard industrial development applies to the industrial development. We're looking at this as it's under the site plan ordinance. So we're not looking at, you can talk about compatibility as it relates to some of these. I can, I think some of your, some of what you're, you're saying is relevant to these standards, but to specifically call out, like I said about the urban heat island effect, those design standards can't really be applied to this project, if that makes sense what I'm saying. I do understand that looking at the compatibility does play into this, and I don't disagree with looking at the surrounding uses as this site fits into that network, but when it comes to these design standards I would encourage you to really focus on A, B, C, and E because these specifically relate to the industrial development. Thank [1:05:18] Chair: you, Charles. Any other thoughts from board members? Okay, I'll go. The yes, as Charles mentioned, he was, how I was looking at it as well. I still feel it's challenging. It's a warehouse, it's a distribution facility, it's, it's a large building, but more importantly, I think from my opinion is it's still the Portland Road, it's not the industrial park, it's Portland though, where we are looking to develop it, we are looking for it to be a mixed-use area, it's a mixed-use zone, so I think landscaping is important. the pedestrian circulation and walkability is important which this section that charles mentioned e does reference so i think the for me the building itself is could be improved based on what we have on site with the pack edge building and the other buildings there they're they're large buildings I think the scale in the massing it fits I would like to see more in the articulation in the massing there's no numbers like the 15 and 25 feet in the other section but I think for me more importantly is the landscaping component and the walkability, otherwise this is turning into an industrial park. It's already getting that way very quickly, and if we keep cutting down trees and no one can walk around, then it's an industrial park. So that's not the intent of the zone here. So I guess those are my thoughts. Obviously not to detract from the from what you have here but i think it's i think it can work i know those are the things that jumped out as at me as well i see the second piece to the building there's obviously a lot of effort that's been put into the architecture here but again i think i can that aside i think I think the landscaping and walkability is equally, if not more important in this scenario. [1:08:33] Tanner Goodine: So for the pedestrian connectivity, we are, at this point, I believe, committing to connecting to Waterfall Drive with a pedestrian connection. Does that satisfy what you are looking for? It provides pedestrian connectivity to a public right-of-way that currently has pedestrian connectivity to Route 1. [1:08:57] Chair: I don't know. I haven't thought about it in that sense. I mean, we're, I don't know, I think that obviously warrants more discussion, but we're, it's it's the walkability of the entire, you know, how it relates to the entire area and zone. As you know, there's there's sidewalk from the package EDGE OUT TO PORTLAND ROAD. I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR A LITTLE WHILE, BUT I'M TRYING TO SCRATCH MY MEMORY HERE, AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THE OTHER SITES AND OTHER PROJECTS DON'T HAVE INTERIOR SIDEWALKS AND CIRCULATION EITHER. [1:09:54] Tanner Goodine: YES, I DO KNOW THAT PACK EDGE CONSTRUCTED THE SIDEWALK ALONG route one during that project approval and also provided the pedestrian connectivity to the front building. I know the adjacent hail trailer building does not have a pedestrian connection to the front to the building itself. It is building a sidewalk along route one but does not have connectivity to the building, which is why we believe that a connection to waterfall would provide the connectivity I think that you're looking for and connected to the surrounding network and eventually waterfall drive when it's constructed and be a good middle ground. And since you mentioned landscaping, I am curious what specifically for landscaping you're looking for. Again, the peer reviewer has no further comments on the parking lot pedestrian at parking lot landscaping, so I'm I'm curious what else what you're looking for specifically. [1:10:55] Chair: Well, overall, landscaping, I mean, we don't have our landscaped islands. I believe that was a waiver. We're okay with that based on the circulation and everything, and then we have the heat island effect, and so we've, I guess, acquiesced to a lot of landscaping that we would otherwise typically have, so I'm trying to make it more robust throughout. I think your rendering was great to show the big lawn in the front. So trying to avoid lawns and massive buildings right on Portland Road, which is where we want sort of our second little node of Saco. Lots of warehouse buildings now, I don't think that was the intent of how we saw or how we envision Portland developing, so I think sure, more landscaping helps. Do you mind flipping [1:12:03] Planner: next one? I want to say this is the updated, so I have to go back and pull it up. One second. Yep. [1:12:13] Chair: Gotcha. Any other thoughts from board members as we continue the discussion here? Joyce? Well, [1:12:21] Joyce: yeah, I mean, Waterfall Drive is going to be built up pretty soon. It's certainly going to have sidewalks, so I personally, given the fact that there's sidewalk to patch it, pack edge, and it's a, it is a driveway, I mean, the standard, which of course isn't up now, talks about sidewalks along streets, and this isn't a street, so I do like the idea of the sidewalk to Waterfall. Go back up. [1:13:01] Jeff: I guess for me I have concern, yes, it's a driveway, but it's a driveway to a warehousing distribution facility, all large trucks coming in and going out. That sense I start to worry in the sense of public safety and walkability. The inverse, and I like the creativity for Waterfall Drive, but if we remember when we did our site walk, that area that we walked down to specifically see the crossing of where the sewer was going to cross the ditch, that's a fairly long area. And most of that land, if I recall, is kind of wetland and you're not going to be developing that chunk. So we have this large vegetated area, maybe 400 feet long, that we're going to now consider putting a sidewalk through for connectivity, and what do we, what do we gain from public safety with that regard? It's kind of, I mean, I don't want this to turn into having to put lights on a sidewalk to get out there and policing that sort of an area. I think we all kind of viewed it as it was a right, a utility right-of-way. They were anticipating it overgrowing again once that sewer line was put in it would Just kind of be, you know, kind of a mode blocking area or utility corridor, so that at least the utility company had access. But I'm just a little bit concerned about trying to intentionally send public traffic out to Waterfall Drive. Even when it is completed, it's gonna be just kind of a wooded area. I don't know if it'll be the safest idea to send people through. Well, I think we would have to light it in [1:14:46] Tanner Goodine: either scenario to some degree, because there would, there would not be any lighting going the other way either. So we would have to light it to some degree in either scenario. I don't foresee that being, I don't believe it's 400 feet long through there from that connection from the edge of the pavement to Waterfall Drive. It's, it's maybe more like a hundred. So it's a very short connection from the edge of pavement to Waterfall Drive. That area is already void of trees, so we would propose likely a sidewalk connection from the building that would run over that proposed sewer connect to Waterfall Drive, roughly within the middle of that clearing, and it would connect to Waterfall Drive, which then would be constructed and have its own street [1:15:37] Brad Fries: lighting and as [1:15:46] Jeff: I look at your plan though, you're, you're showing roadway driveway lighting along the southern border. Yep, correct. Now is that in conflict with the existing utility lines? [1:15:57] Tanner Goodine: No, it's on the opposite side, and the reason I would not propose it on that side would be it would further move the light poles as well as likely impose steep grading along the property line that would likely encroach on the adjacent property. Any [1:16:25] Chair: other thoughts from board members? Chris? [1:16:29] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't see a huge issue going the other way towards Waterfall Drive. I think that's a reasonable compromise for connectivity. The only minor concern I have is if someone is going from Waterfall Drive and they're going to Route 1, there would be a void where there is no sidewalk. Walk, but again, that's more of a minor concern. I guess if you wanted to be perfectly safe, like baby in a stroller type of deal, you would just have to walk all the way around. Not ideal, but it would give some connectivity. Yeah, and I hear that, and I completely understand. [1:17:14] Tanner Goodine: That this is a private site, so it's not really this site's responsibility to fully connect Waterfall Drive in this location to Route 1 when it is already connected along Waterfall Drive to Route 1. So I completely hear that and understand that, but I think this project is trying to do what it can to provide what it needs to based on the ordinance and to provide a safe site to serve the site in the best way it can to achieve compatibility. Sure. [1:17:48] Brad Fries: You know, going back to the building design and the massing. You know, we can keep going back and forth on us trying to guess at, you know, what you guys would like to see. You know, we have put some effort into modifying the design. We feel good about this. You know, we feel like this meets, you know, the standard. So we can just keep coming back here every month and getting it wrong unless you just, you know, I think you guys just need to tell us exactly what you need. Make it happen and [1:18:29] Joyce: the choice. Oh, Charles had the landscaping plan up again. I thought it would be helpful to discuss that because that, I think, that meshes well with the building design. [1:18:40] Tanner Goodine: Question. Yeah, so I know you mentioned kind of the green space or lawn in between Pack Edge and this development. So we are proposing screening on the left side of the parking lot to screen that, but additionally there's proposed stormwater management BMPs in that green space. So I wouldn't necessarily classify it as green space because we can't really do anything else with it that would otherwise impact those stormwater management features. So they're, they're kind of, they're to remain as they are. And we can't really do anything different with that as far as heat island goes. Again, I'm happy to continue discussing that. I think our justification or belief is that we meet that criteria because we are providing the minimal amount of pavement in the rear of that building to meet the circulation that's required for the site, and adding more landscape islands to the rear of that is not a very common practice, but also increases the amount of pavement needed, which then increases the amount of heat island mitigation needed, etc., and it would impact the existing buffer along Waterfall Drive that is along that stream and clear that out more, so it actually be even more visible to Waterfall Drive. So I think we meet that criteria as best as we can. [1:20:10] Brad Fries: Just to add one more comment, just, you know, as a whole, this site, we do envision this as a mixed use site, okay. We, you know, the pad site at the front of the site, you know, we haven't talked about yet, we haven't brought something to the board yet, but we are very much planning on some sort of retail use at the front of the site, you know, which would be a standalone building. It'd be much different looking than these two buildings. So I know that, you know, we're not committed to anything yet, we don't have a user, and that may serve, you know, that may be several years down the road, but you know, that is a plan of ours, all right. You know, we do not envision this as a industrial site only, all right. We do feel that these two uses, you know, being the package and, you know, this proposed building, you know, meet the zoning criteria, but yeah, we'd like to figure out a way to make it work, you know, just from a site design standpoint and a building design standpoint. You know, we are hoping, you know, to not extend this out any further, you know, you know, doing so is going to have some pretty negative consequences on our financing and our costs. You know, we just got some cost increases, you know, from our contractor a couple days ago, you know, cost continued to go up. So you know, if we, you know, if we need to address the pedestrian sidewalk, we would like to ask for that to be included, you know, with the conditions of approval, you know, for us to collectively work through the design and the details of that and to work with staff on that and the Sebago. [1:21:49] Chair: Great, thank you. Any other thoughts from board members? Yeah, thank you, Brad. I mean, it's good to hear that. It kind of goes into what I was thinking, sort of my concern. So there's the condition five years that you talked about in there, Charles, right? To build out the, that second phase, and if that tenant, if the tenant isn't ready to expand and take that other half, there's, I mean, you could build it out anyway and find a new tenant for it, and it could be any of the permitted uses in the zone, right. So that's sort of the circulation and the landscaping, that's where that, I keep kind of falling back to, is we've had as a board and with the city and council the walkability of Saco and moving folks, and I'm, I'm just wrestling with how is it, feels like I'm looking at the industrial park that's all I'm trying to I'm trying to understand what the difference is you know between this zone and in our industrial park and I'm trying to you know make sure that we treat this accordingly that it's it's a Portland Road it's not it's not an industrial park there's so that 's all and I again and I usually I'm the one to have the big concerns with the architecture but I think it's like I said a moment ago I'm less concerned about the building in this scenario and more concerned about pedestrian movement and walkability and what the future of this site looks like or just this area in this zone with this building and We know nothing's forever. So that's that's all that 's where my comments are coming from. So [1:24:22] Tanner Goodine: there is, there any specific item that We could consider that you could, any feedback that you could provide us that would address what you're looking for. I know you've mentioned landscape and walkability, but i'm not, with the options we proposed, i'm not sure if i'm hearing that your comments are properly addressed. yeah, i'm not, i guess [1:24:50] Chair: i'm not sold on the connectivity to waterfall, i guess i haven't had enough time to think about that and seeing how that benefits the whole, i guess i'm looking at this as how does it benefit the whole zone, the whole zone, the whole area. i understand it's the properties back from the road, some of the other properties are closer to the road and perhaps that's why some of the decisions have been made in that right, but I guess I'm just thinking out loud. So to answer your question, I think landscape-wise, I think overall I guess just more landscaping. I know that there's stormwater areas and retention ponds and there's BMPs and understanding all of that, but again circling back to the, this industrial park, large storm water areas, large buildings, large pavement areas in no trees, so that's trying to, I guess for a lack of better term, just trying to everywhere we can get landscaping, we sort of get landscaping would proposing edge [1:26:26] Tanner Goodine: edge landscaping around the perimeter of the loading area help if we did it around the perimeter of the pavement. It would provide additional screening. It would shade some of the pavement. It wouldn't break up the pavement and add more pavement, but it would, I think, go a little bit further to... [1:26:51] Chair: Yeah, I think that would help. I'm sort of looking at this plan here and wondering how, I can't see from here, but on the left side there, how far can landscaping go there before it starts to encroach? It looks like there's something happening there. Yeah, right where the- Deep right there. Is that some more, I think there's more storm water. There's some rip rap in that area, if I remember correctly from our site walk, right? So understanding we can't put a tree everywhere. right i [1:27:31] Tanner Goodine: would say we could approach adding landscaping around the perimeter of the loading area. I would request that to be a condition of approval that we come back for prior to signing if that feels appropriate or comfortable. I think that's a fair request if the [1:27:53] Chair: board finds that works. It's, you know, we have the wrestle of with any site, it's not, it's not your site, but large mature trees and significant growth, and then we come back with small trees. So it's a matter of the scale of taking out all these tall trees and then understanding the use again. We understand, but the stormwater areas, yes, the large parking, the large building, and then we come back and we get small trees. So obviously we understand you're not gonna transplant 20 inch trees, we understand that. So just thinking about an understanding growth takes time, so we do, I guess I think the board does understand that and get that, but all right, I'm done rambling Jeff. [1:28:45] Jeff: Thank you Mr. Chair. So I just want to kind of play this out, you know, it's great that there's an opportunity for mixed use out front, right, but there's nothing that says this particular tenant, we're all basing parking calculations everything on this particular tenant growing to expand to phase two, and like the chairman pointed out, it could be we get close to our five-year mark and this tenant's not ready to expand, but you as investors go ahead and build that, and one of the permitted uses is, you know, a brewery, a small brewery. Great, they have the distribution facility, they could have a small tasting room. Now we've got some walkability issues. Maybe your frontage road becomes a bridal shop, and all of a sudden it's like a one-stop shop, right? You can get your bridal gown, you can walk out back and get your rental tents and chairs, and you can walk over and have a little tasting thing to see if you might want to have that at your place. Right, all of these things are just unknowns, right, that could create some walkability. We've talked, we haven't really talked about, I seem to remember the package building is still part of your portfolio, it's still in your control, that lawn area that we see between the north side of the driveway and the package building I thought you had mentioned was slated for a possible expansion of that building as well. Is that correct, or no longer on the table? That's correct, for package only. Okay, because one of, you know, we don't like to get into helping design stuff, but was, who, we use that lawn area to create a sidewalk that doesn't have to interfere with the driveway and the stormwater and the utility easements. But now as a board, right, we need to keep that piece in our mind is that when we talk about massing, that pack edge has the right or interest to be able to do another expansion there as well, gonna change our frontal view again. So this lot could very much change than what we're just looking at for approval of two phases today. And I think that's some of our concern, is that if we knew 100% that your proposed tenant's gonna be there and there would be no chance of pedestrian walking, you start to play those what ifs. But every time the board has ever done that, we end up with neighborhoods that have a section of sidewalk and all of a sudden you get to a new street and oh, now you gotta take your carriage into the street because we go 500 feet without a sidewalk. And that's kind of, I think, the struggle that we're all wrestling with because of the intended design build out of the Portland Road district. And I get it that this is a permitted use, but you have to see that we're here to try to uphold our ordinances and meet these other design criteria for some connectivity. [1:31:31] Brad Fries: What if we proposed, it seems like you guys are stuck on and pretty intent on having a pedestrian walkway go out to the front of the site, that's all I'm hearing. What if we proposed to fulfill that with phase two of the building? That gives us time to design it properly, which can take a little bit of an effort. [1:31:56] Chair: I think that's something that I can support, that as part of the phase two build out would include additional connectivity, pedestrian connectivity, and then during that, during that time there's opportunity to work that through and get the, get the phase one going, and I could support that, Jeff. [1:32:28] Jeff: Just devil's, devil's advocate here. What if things change and phase two 2 never takes place and tenant changes use and it's a different use, and now we've missed that opportunity for connectivity. It's just putting it out there, and that's the continuing struggle for me is how we are asked to apply these requirements of our ordinance and if we let it go in the hopes of the next one, right? If we say, okay, this isn't a big deal, we're going to get the mixed use on the front when that comes in. And there's some certain standard of holding our line today for what is being proposed and. [1:33:09] Chair: Sure, so I think not to speak for Charles, but he's very clever with words and I'm sure we could include a condition. I think that would for discussion, but it could be amendable that clearly captures the board's intent if we're in agreement. Agreement, but I agree with you, we do it maybe far too often. But I think where this, historically where this area is developing and there is activity and things are happening, I mean, time, everything takes time, but I do share your concern. I guess I'm optimistic about being able to create some verbiage that yeah those [1:34:02] Brad Fries: are fair points Jeff, you know I don't have a good answer for that. Sounds like we got a run a sidewalk out front and we got to figure out a way to pay for it. I don't know how we're gonna do that, but you know if that's what is going to help move this project across the other finish line that let's just, you know, make it happen. You know I'm really not interested in extending this any further. You know this seems like, you know, what we thought was kind of a home run of a project which is proving to be a lot more challenging, yeah, than any of us [1:34:33] Joyce: thought. But Mr. Chair, that means they wouldn't be putting a sidewalk out to Waterfall. I mean it's, it would just be connecting to Route One, not to Waterfall. [1:34:45] Chair: Fall also, well in my pea brain here I am thinking that we, the pedestrian connectivity I think is important if this discussion happens again, you know, at the at the build-out, let's say in four years, we have a five-year in our condition, if it's, if we revisit this in four years in the area looks different [Jeff: we it's] It's the what if perhaps Waterfall Drive is the most appropriate connection. Is it to Portland Road? I think today, yes. I don't think today it's to Waterfall. I think that's probably my,, the hurdle for me on saying yay or nay to Waterfall. I think it's, I think it's more important to Portland Road today. Did I answer your question? I didn't really. [1:35:58] Joyce: It was pretty gray. I guess I'm thinking about the conditions of approval in 2026. What are we [1:36:06] Speaker I (unidentified): writing into our conditions of approval? Sure, so if the condition of approval talks about it [1:36:12] Chair: connected to Route One, to Route One, to Portland Road, and then when we, when we see it again for or an amendment of sorts, I suspect, then it could be part of an amendment to do something more appropriate, I suppose. [1:36:31] Joyce: Yeah, but I mean, since this is a phased project, they wouldn't necessarily be coming back in five years, [1:36:35] Chair: four years, whatever. Well, I think we've done it before where we've come back as a condition of approval to review with at least city staff that connection. I don't know, can we, as a condition of approval, can we implement a condition that talks about pedestrian connectivity and then prior to the start of the construction we come back to the board? [1:37:04] Planner: The language, the original language for phased approval that we had here is that this approval remains valid provided that substantial construction of Phase One starts within two years and substantial construction of Phase Two starts within five years of Planning Board approval. The applicant may apply for extension blah, a new, which this might be a good, you know, middle ground between the applicant team and the Planning Board reads this approval remains valid provided that substantial construction of Phase One starts within two years, within two years of Planning Board approval. The applicants, the applicant shall submit a minor site plan amendment for Phase Two that incorporates a pedestrian connection from the Portland Road, the Portland run from Portland Road to Phase One and Phase Two structures, and then and in that we would, in that approval we would discuss when Phase Two expiration would be. Thoughts [1:38:06] Chair: on that, Joyce, Jeff? [1:38:09] Jeff: I think that summarizes a lot of where we're going. My only suggestion is that minor site plan amendment for Phase Two that must incorporate a pedestrian. My world must is very powerful and that way we're not going to allow any change. [1:38:31] Planner: Do you mind if I specifically I did minor site plan here so it would be less of a burden. I think what we're talking in this approval does include the phase two design elements. So I think we can come back to that in a second, but for this it would be we would need a minor [1:38:49] Chair: site plan that shows the pedestrian connection. Yes, so to be specific, in fairness to the applicant, that the minor site plan amendment would be for the pedestrian connectivity, and that would be the only thing under review. We wouldn't we wouldn't be reviewing the building again, we wouldn't be reviewing anything other than the pedestrian connectivity. Not but the intent isn't to have the app come back and then we start talking about phase two all over again. That's great, that would not be the intent because it's the [1:39:23] Planner: in within these findings if you find that tonight that the design is meets the kind of the amendment wouldn't be changing any of that, we would just be adding this. So we would update the findings to keep maintain the same conditions, same findings, we would just update it for this amendment. And you know I wouldn't I don't I wouldn't want to limit it in case there's you know new LID infrastructure that they can incorporate in two years and things like that, so I wouldn't want to say this is the only thing, but I think we're requiring that this must be included, and I think Jeff's addition to that kind of [1:40:01] Joyce: strikes that balance. So are we putting in a timeline for construction of phase two? Because I know the applicant proposed ten years and then we said five years and now we're looking at something happening in two years. Well losing you [1:40:24] Brad Fries: guys now, but now I think yeah we had originally asked for ten years on the phase two, you know commencement of development, and the city is saying no, but you're willing to do five years. You know we were we were trying to ask that five-year time clock commences upon certificate of occupancy, but it sounds like you know the city is just not in favor of that given all the other challenging issues going on. You know maybe we focus on trying to land the plane on everything else, you know the five years So, you know, you know, frankly, the five years is challenging for us because, you know, through this whole design and site plan approval process, we have to continue our negotiations with the tenant. We can't wait until after we get site plan approval. That's just not how this world works. So, you know, we already promised to our tenant that they would be able to proceed with the phase two to development five years after CFO. And so that doesn't jive with what you folks are proposing. So that's not your problem, that's just our problem, which we need to figure out and we'll deal with it. [1:41:39] Joyce: Oh, I was just trying to get some sort of specific timeline here, because it looked like the goalposts were shifting. But Charles is busy typing. I lost you. [1:41:49] Brad Fries: Can you guys clarify what you're talking about now? [1:41:52] Joyce: I was just wondering when substantial construction of phase two was supposed to start. [1:41:57] Planner: So I was going to address that we would just address phase two expiration as part of that approval, but I just added back in after what I said before. Phase two approval remains valid provided that substantial construction, it's the same five-year language, starts within five years of planning board approval, and it says the applicant may apply for an extension provided the request is made before the applicable phase of the site plan approval expires, and that's and that's fairly consistent, so usually do two years when people will apply for a 12-month extension under circumstance, under certain circumstances they can request longer, but just to speak to the point of what the applicant is saying, we kind of when we looked at the 10-year phase build out for this site plan application, it's not something we're feasibly like it's not reasonable for us to, you know, have that in our queue for that long to monitor it, and we really want to be encouraging developed to be, you know, current with code and ordinances for this type of project, it's difficult to, you know, gauge what's going to happen, I think the planning of the planning board members have brought up some of city staff's concern about future tenant future approval future market and it's really difficult to forecast that for both city staff Planning Board and the applicant but our feeling is that it's easier for us to monitor and you know keep you know awareness of construction for five for five years our typical approvals two month is two years so giving this phase we're giving phase two three years an additional three years with the possibility for an extension so that could be you know, up to 12 months, so we're looking at six years. I think when we start looking at that, we get into some of the timelines for like master development build up, larger 100 lot subdivision buildouts that we see elsewhere. So for this type of project, we think five years is good, and if it, they need to come back, it doesn't kill the project. They would just have to come for re-approval, and I think that's reasonable. Any [1:44:07] Chair: other thoughts from board members? So circling back to one of our findings of fact, landscape buffers, in chair [1:44:23] Planner: Chair, before we jump into findings, did we hold the public hearing for this item? [1:44:32] Chair: Thank you for the reminder. We have not reopened that. [1:44:35] Planner: I think you're making a nice pivot into deliberations. This came up, the finding came up in conversation because this was kind of the last piece we wanted to talk about, and it kind of actually blended together two of the outstanding items. But before we go into more deliberations, I will remind you that this is a public hearing. And thank [1:44:58] Chair: you for the reminder, Mr. [1:45:02] Jeff: Chair, I would move that we open the public hearing for a 955 Portland Road. I'll second. Thank you for the motion, Jeff, in [1:45:10] Chair: the second, Joyce. Any discussion on the motion to open a public hearing on this item? All right, those in favor, Chris? Yes. Joyce? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Catherine? Yes. I'll, I'll vote yes as well. Motion passes 5-0 to open the public hearing. If anyone is with us this evening that would like to speak on this item, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record, and we will collect comments and address them accordingly. [1:45:47] Jeff: Mr. Chair, seeing no members of the public choosing to come forward, I move that we close the public hearing. I'll second that. [1:45:57] Chair: Thank you for the motion, Jeff, and the second, Chris. Any additional discussion on the motion to close the public hearing on this item? all right those in favor Chris yes Joyce yes Jeff yes Catherine yes a vote yes as well motion passes 5-0 to close the public hearing all right back to the board so we've I think we've discussed the circulation regarding the pedestrian and access excuse me item i and then going back a few steps here to jay we spoke a little bit about the comments from the peer reviewer regarding landscape does any the board members have any other thoughts questions comments concerns i [1:47:05] Jeff: thought if i may mr chair i thought one of the items for conditions of approval that we needed to make a motion or a finding on was item g for landscaping yes i'm sorry i didn't say g no i heard jay i'm sorry then i had i item i for interior or vehicle circulation and pedestrian access which we've been working on i had the question on the storm water culvert versus live bed but it doesn't sound like that was much of a point and then the audio visual buffer kind of tying in with landscaping i guess was an area that I had to discuss it. I think they had the finding solid on that, but I think getting back to some of your feelings about landscaping, I thought we should [1:47:54] Chair: maybe just touch on that one. Yes, my apologies, I do have G and I as well highlighted. We can hit some of those other items that you discussed as well. So if we sort of in order G, any other thoughts from board members on G? I [1:48:16] Jeff: just wanted to weigh in I don't really have concern I feel like almost every applicant that comes before us really struggles with this heat island effect when they want to do truck loading docks and vehicular access it 's a real bear and I would rather see them keep it keep it relatively tight and clear so they just have the paving area and hit their loading docks. That probably plays into why some of the buffering that you're touching base for that back loading dock area. But I feel absolutely comfortable not trying to enforce any additional landscaping for the heat island effect. I think it creates a greater hazard. [1:48:53] Planner: Would you want me to include that in the findings? [1:48:57] Jeff: If we're working on this, I think we probably should try to come up with some wording. [1:49:03] Chair: Yeah, I agree. Let's capture the board's position. I guess that's my goal here. [1:49:17] Joyce: I thought it was somewhat addressed by the last sentence in the existing proposed finding. The landscape peer reviewer confirmed that internal parking lot landscaping requirements have been addressed because of the fact that this is an industrial use, industrial parking. It doesn't hurt to add this additional language, but I think the fact that we're accepting the peer reviewer's findings is significant as well. [1:49:47] Jeff: Yeah, I think it's great to have both of them. That means that we consciously reviewed it as a board and took into account the peer review, so I like the additional language. Yeah. [1:49:58] Joyce: When you're talking about additional plannings for the rear parking lot, you're talking about the loading area, right? Around the loading area. Yes. I don't know if you want to be specific in that regard in the rear loading area. Oh, sorry, I was, I was looking at the next one. Yeah, [1:50:20] Planner: I think this kind of, I think we're all in agreement on this was the applicant. Bring that to us. They did add the reference to the condition of approval and added this standard is met and they would, these will not be read in the final version. Sure, just for editing. [1:50:41] Chair: Go with G. Any other thoughts on G? Sorry. All right. [1:50:50] Joyce: I. This is what we just talked about as far as the pedestrian connectivity. [1:51:07] Chair: Any additional thoughts from board members on that verbiage? Chris. [1:51:17] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't know if it would fall under the I specifically, but if we're talking about the pedestrian crossing, to circle back to one of Jeff's point about what a phase two doesn't happen, if we could figure out a way to put in some language saying that, say, within X amount of years, 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, whatever it is, that some sort of crosswalk or pedestrian crossing must be constructed. That way there's some sort of guarantee that if for one reason or another phase two doesn't happen there is still that need and that need gets met by this process rather than some other process down the road where the city has to step in and say something or a future project that doesn't necessarily have to do with this has to address it. [1:52:12] Planner: Just to kind of close that way, so I think looking at this condition, the language here that says within two years the plan would approval, the applicant must submit a minor site plan of amendment, they would need another building, so basically the back end of this, and it kind of came up in our training that they would need a building permit for phase two, and when that building permit come up, they would be looking at these conditions, and if this condition is not met for phase two, then they would be out of compliance, so in that case we would issue a, you know, notice a violation to them, and one of our thing, and we can add that language in there, but it having it as a condition is kind of the enforcement mechanism in itself, and we can be, it doesn't hurt to be redundant, that you know we would want to see this, but if they don't within two years of this, so two years on October 6, 2028, whether it's me or someone else or Lisa, whoever is in the position of enforcement on this, we would come in and say you know you're now out of compliance, so they wouldn't be able to get a building permit for phase two, and the request for compliance would be adding that pedestrian connection for phase one, or they would submit it and add it, Mr. [1:53:28] Jeff: Chair, if I may, yes, I mean respectfully I interpreted what Chris was asking for was if phase two doesn't happen, if phase two never happens, do we have a thing that says at year six from initial approval, the sidewalk will be constructed regardless of if phase two is even in queue. So they'll have five years, six years, whatever, but we're saying, and it sounded like the applicant said they'll find a way for phase one to do this, and we're going to give them that grace period out to phase two, and hopefully to kind of package some of their environmental studies and for the sidewalk. But if not, if they never do phase two, they have that five year mark to implement the sidewalk, that way we're not just leaving it hanging, so [1:54:24] Planner: I just added that in, so within two years they can submit a minor site plan for, so that's incorporated within phase two, within five years they need to construct it, any [1:54:38] Chair: Other thoughts as part of that, Charles? Oh, sorry, I had delayed as part of the amendment, the applicant as part of any connection proposal, as part of their proposal, they can propose anything, right? Where I'm sort of getting and beating around the bush here is that they can, I mean, yeah, it could be sooner, there could be part of something else. I mean, where I agree with Jeff and Chris and sort of, you know, ensuring that the connection is made, I appreciate that, but just sort of saying it out loud that in two years having a design projecting to be built in another three years is up for, I guess it's flexible, it can be a little bit fluid, right? Is that where, yeah, okay. And then we don't do it in Saco here much, I have seen it in other towns and perhaps you as well, not knowing where we're going to be in two years or three years, I'm in a little bit of the historical roles here in the city of Saco. Can we add approval by the city planner and chair, whoever that is, that something that we can do for as a minor amendment? And I appreciate not having to come back to the board and I get that. I'm just trying to ensure historical knowledge of, I guess, what's happening. I mean, we hope you're still here in two years, everybody's here in two years, but I guess I'm just, because we know things change and just, I don't know, that's a, that's a question, not a hard quest [1:57:05] Planner: Yeah, I would say that my two immediate responses to that is that a minor, the city planner can always refer a minor site plan to the planning board, I believe that's in our code, okay. And then the other piece is that's kind of the intent of the minor discipline, so I report back on all minor site plan approvals in code, so you guys would be kept in knowledge. But the piece of this is that, you know, it's, it's a minor amendment, the, you'd be trust, you'd be entrusting staff to do that, so if you did want some kind of review authority, some, that then it wouldn't be a minor site plan amendment, which is fine, but it's a little bit easier and I think for, if we're just talking about a pedestrian connection, I think you guys would be looking at staff because we would want the best connection to our existing sidewalk network, the details of that, it's [1:58:00] Chair: Okay, I just want to make sure that we're not, that's my plan, no, okay, that's, that's fine, yeah. I don't want to over burden staff and I don't want to over burden the applicants and having to come back, I want it to be streamlined, but I just want to make sure that it's, there's really no middle [1:58:18] Planner: GROUND FOR MINOR SITE PLAN AND PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. UM, I JUST I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A way, like it just it doesn't, I could text you, but nothing that I don't think we [1:58:28] Chair: want to put that into the no, it was more of the intent of, yeah, the burden of you getting in and going, oh, you know, is it is this really what, you know, we were looking for, that's all. Okay, I'm done. Yeah, no, I hear what you're saying, but I [1:58:44] Planner: think in this instance it's if that's the one piece for phase two that is outstanding and kind of that was the negotiation between the applicant and the planning board, I think this allows us to, regardless of who's here, regardless of public work staff, city staff, I think it shouldn't make a huge difference. Okay, I just want to make sure we have a lot of [1:59:07] Chair: discussion. I just want to make sure that we have as much clear direction as we can for the applicant and just what we're, where we're going. Okay. [1:59:21] Planner: Chris, to your point, the condition is the condition, and this is just references that. Any [1:59:30] Chair: other thoughts from board members on I? And then, Jeff, you had mentioned, and we had early discussion. I'm not sure if your question has been answered, [Planner: but was] it with the wastewater? [1:59:55] Jeff: No, it was item M with the Department of Public Works had requested the analysis of replacing the existing 24-inch culvert with a list or a stream passing structure and the applicant responded that it may not be feasible or it's not required. I [2:00:20] Tanner Goodine: don't know if I'm able to answer that or talk [2:00:22] Chair: to that right now in this part of the meeting. I think add more clarity. Sure. [2:00:31] Tanner Goodine: So the comment that this is specifically looking at is that the Public Works Department asked for a feasibility study of why the culvert couldn't be replaced and it's not so much that it's not infeasible to replace, it's one not required by local ordinance or state or federal permitting for the work that we're proposing in this location. So while it could be replaced and theoretically most culverts could be replaced, it's not required. And in this findings of fact where it's related to stormwater, we're not altering any drainage characteristics of this culvert. It's functioning exactly the way it is in the current condition from a stormwater perspective. So there's no adverse impact to that culvert and the work's not required. [2:01:23] Chair: Does that answer or satisfy your question? [2:01:26] Jeff: Yeah, it absolutely does. It's just, I remember previous trainings when we talked about those kind of live natural bottom structures for wildlife passage and how important it was, and the fact that DPW brought it up, I just wanted to make sure we kind of touched on it and understood it and kind of makes sense, right? They're not, they're not changing anything out in this area other than digging down the existing kind of gravelly road to put their sewer line in, so we're not changing flows, so I don't think it's real important to pressure it, so thank you. All right, thank you, Jeff. And then was it item T that you had mentioned? Yes, sir, I was just kind of the auto visual buffer because you had kind of brought it up for the site, and I was, I just didn't know if we wanted to add any existing wording. Sounds like the applicant before us tonight has said they would do some more to kind of buffer that rear loading dock area, and I guess where you guys have more concern about that would be a good spot to kind of tie it, tighten it up a little bit. [2:02:32] Planner: That's in G though, it's, it's not, it's captured in G. We can add it to T as well, it's not [2:02:42] Chair: Yeah, I think we've done that before, so with that, any other thoughts from board members on any of the findings? So [2:03:20] Joyce: Mr. Chair, I'd move to approve the proposed findings of fact and conditions of [2:03:25] Planner: approval as amended. Just a point of, point of order or not, sorry, there is a waiver to vote on as well, so sorry, this is a lot of text. This is just after speaking with an attorney recently, this is how they would like to see waivers in the future, so I did just add this in today, so just the way, and just to make sure that we have a vote on the waiver specifically, and for order of operation to be voting on the waiver, then voting on the conditions, and voting on the findings as they all kind of go in that order, just an order of operations thing. »» [2:04:04] Joyce: Sure. Well, Mr. Chair, I move to approve the waiver to provide 70 spaces of parking at full build-out. [2:04:15] Speaker H (unidentified): »» I'll second that. [2:04:19] Chair: »» Thank you for the motion, Joyce, and second, Chris. Any additional discussion on the motion? Jeff. [2:04:27] Jeff: »» This is one that's always challenging for me because, you know, going by numbers and we're looking at the proposed use and I just have a hard time because you know we don't know what the second phase is going to be but usually mr. Chair, you're the ones able to kind of sway me because you look, hey, if we just go by the book and our peer review is saying that the proposed use is only gonna need 30 spaces and 60 total, then we have all this impervious area that we just created and now have to deal with more heat island effects. So that's kind of one of the struggles that I have, but the logical side of me says what about the next possible use of the space. So this is always just it's it's a hard one for me to want to wave. Because when we have a change in use and not enough parking, it becomes problematic all the way. [2:05:19] Planner: Around, so Jeff, I have a I was thinking about a good response to this ahead because I've been wrestling. We look at like those industrial flex spaces and I've been looking at how we can look at our approvals, especially when we're waiving a specific standard, a zoning standard that the planning board is allowed to as it relates to parking. I think that these standard conditions of approval, the compliance with the approval, the developed site according to plan kind of add that layer of protection so that if they came in and they build out phase one, they build out phase two, and then it turns out that the first tenant doesn't need it. They're they only are approved for 70 parking spaces, so if they came in for another use they'd be out of compliance in our zoning ordinance. So the that is one of the conditions that's on every project that kind of gives that level of protection for you know what happens if it comes in and it's a giant brewery. They would need waste, they would need water, get their wastewater discharge application, we would look at how much more parking do they actually need, and then that would lead to the need for. A site plan amendment because the site is being developed for an industrial with the way distributing and warehousing, so I've been kind of wrestling. [2:06:41] Speaker I (unidentified): With that in a similar way, but well thank you, they're limiting their own options in the future. [2:06:46] Joyce: I suppose by limiting the number of parking spaces. Well thank you, I like that analysis that. [2:06:54] Jeff: They're coming back to be re-evaluated and I can appreciate the Chairman's view was that hey, we don't want to be creating all this impervious space. And the part that would probably allow me to vote favourable for this waiver is that the peer review reviewed the applicant's statement and saying yes, this should be sufficient versus we have a lot of applicants that come before us and say well my experience has been that we'll have enough parking. Having our peer review is where I'm going to put my weight of my vote. [2:07:23] Chair: Great. Thank you, Jeff. Any other discussion? All right. Those in favor of granting the waiver as presented? Chris? Yes. Joyce? Yes. Jeff? Yes. Catherine? Yes. I'll vote yes as well. Motion passes 5-0. [2:07:50] Joyce: So, Mr. Chair, I move to adopt the conditions of approval as amended. [2:07:56] Chair: Do you want to do findings of fact first, or your previous motion included both? Just making sure you want to do conditions before findings. I know. Well, to your comment a moment ago, because Joyce is doing exactly what you said, conditions and then findings? Is that? Yes. Okay. Sorry, because we have been historically doing findings. Most importantly, my sheet that I created for myself has findings. [2:08:29] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah that sheet's all wrong now it's all wrong yeah it's my paperwork has waiver and then [2:08:34] Joyce: conditions of approval so I'm I'm going with my final answer here okay conditions of approval [2:08:39] Chair: Thank you for the motion Joyce I'll second that second by Chris thank you any additional discussion to adopt the conditions of approval as amended this evening all [2:08:54] Jeff: Right those in favor Chris? »» Yes. »» Joyce? »» Yes. »» Jeff? »» No. [2:09:01] Chair: »» Catherine? »» Yes. »» I vote yes. Motion passes 4-1. »» [2:09:14] Joyce: Mr. Chair, I move to adopt the findings of fact as amended. »» [2:09:20] Chair: I'll second that. »» Thank you for the motion. Joyce and the second, Chris. Any additional discussion on the motion? [2:09:32] Speaker H (unidentified): All right. Those in favor? Chris? »» Yes. [2:09:35] Chair: »» Joyce? Joyce? »» Yes. »» Jeff? »» Yes. »» Catherine? »» Yes. »» I'll vote yes as well. The motion passes 5-0. »» [2:09:48] Joyce: So Mr. Chair, I move to approve the application for Site Plan and Site Location of Development Act, filed by Rochelle, LLC, for 955 Portland Road, Map 62, Lot 21. [2:10:04] Chair: »» Thank you for the motion, Joyce. »» [Speaker H (unidentified): I'll second that.] Second by Chris. Thank you. Any additional discussion on the motion? All right, those in favor? Chris, yes. Joyce, yes. Jeff, no. Katherine, yes. I'll vote yes as well. Motion passes for one. All right, does that capture everything, Charles? Yes. All right, thank you gentlemen. All right, moving on to our next item this evening, item 8c. This is Zero Ricker Road, Map 101, Lot 25, and this is our adoption of findings of fact and recommendation to City Council, and this is in regards to our contract zone petition to allow the construction of a new wireless telecommunications facility in the RC zoning district. Charles, anything to add on this item? Is there anything [2:12:04] Speaker I (unidentified): just a point of order? Are there any recusals on this item? Yes, Mr. Chair, I am. I'm recusing myself [2:12:12] Joyce: and we'll go sit in the audience for this portion of the meeting. Thank [2:12:18] Chair: you, Joyce. Get to it before me. [2:12:23] Planner: I'm using my Roberts Rules tonight. It's very fun. [2:12:30] Chair: So with that, with Vice Chair Clark recruiting yourself, anything to add on this before we review or any items of note? [2:12:43] Planner: So just a reminder that we had made the Planning Board had voted at the last meeting on each of the four findings for the contract zone. So tonight we're not going to be rehashing the vote, reconsidering anything. We are simply going to be looking at the language that was prepared to you by myself and our attorney based on the conversation. So I took a bunch of notes. I kind of tried to, I re-listened to the meeting, and I tried to capture it, kind of what you guys were saying, what we were talking about as you were voting, as that related to some of the conversation we had during the night. The other thing you'll see, and I did state this at it, you guys voted, so you guys voted in yes or no. If you voted majority no, I said you voted three, two to find a negative. So I just did the inverse of that, which we all talked about. So just saying that it's a negative, because we're technically not voting yes or no. It's more of is it a positive or negative finding. It's weird language in the contract zone and weird voting. So but I said yes is positive, no is negative. If three of you said negative, the whole finding is negative. Great. [2:14:02] Jeff: Thank you, Jeff, Mr. Chair, that was my question, so and I know that we had the city attorney here and I'm presuming that he looked at this draft because we had previous training before Charles was here that said we should always be making our motions in the positive. And we did, and I was just surprised to see it in the negative. And you know what, at the end of the day, as long as we've had legal review on it, I'm fine because I liked how very clearly they reference the minutes in the recording at the beginning, so it's like all documented. It's there, but I was just a little taken when I saw it because it made sound like we made the motion in the negative. [2:14:36] Planner: But yeah, we it's that you're making a negative finding and that's why I put negative in the parentheses to be clear that this is a negative finding because it's not the content is important to the finding but it's not you I wanted to be clear and I want to make sure that it wasn't confusing so I did inverse the votes but I we discussed it at the meeting so and you needed to make a negative finding it's it's like a triple negative inverse and I think I got it right yeah and our [2:15:10] Chair: and our attorney concurs. Yeah, I had the same when I saw that, just like Jeff, I said, oh, I think that was, I had to go back to my notes as well and say, okay, so I followed board members looking for questions or comments. I reviewed these and not we can go one by one if you'd like, but I think they, I think they're very clear and very well written and I think they capture everything, but back to the board. Jeff, with that, Mr. Chair, I would move that we [2:15:54] Jeff: adopt the draft findings of facts and recommendation for a zero Ricker Road map 101 lot 25 five as drafted. Thank [2:16:09] Chair: you for the motion, Jeff. I'll [2:16:16] Speaker H (unidentified): second that motion. Second by Chris, thank you. [2:16:22] Chair: Any discussion on the motion to adopt the findings of fact? Sorry, Jeff, did you say did you include the recommendation as well to the city council? Yes, sir, I did. That's what I thought you did. Okay, thank you. Any additional discussion? All right, those in favor? Chris, yes. Jeff, yes. Catherine, yes. I'll vote yes as well. Motion passes 4-0. Thank you, Charles. So with that, we will, we can move to item nine here as we wait for Vice Chair Clark to return. Any general correspondence items, Charles? There are no general correspondence [2:17:37] Planner: items tonight. Do you want me to go look for her? If she's just sitting out there, I don't know. I'm not going to go that far. [2:17:48] Chair: No, we can... I'm going to take a five minute recess then. Thank you for that short recess. We'll continue this evening with item 10, planning department updates and discussion items. [2:22:06] Planner: Not too much going on. We are kicking off our open space plan. So we've already kicked it off. We're going to be sending out a flash vote survey, hopefully this week. So if you haven't yet signed up for flash vote, if you've seen it, 's on the city's website to sign up for flash vote. We'll be sending out our first five question survey for the first flash vote and the first one on the open space plan. We're also going to be having an open space plan public listening section on October 27th at 6 p.m., Tuesday, October 27th at 6 p.m. at Dyer Library. So we're going to be doing a little presentation of what we're doing, hopefully reporting back on some of the flash vote survey results and kind of engaging in a community dialogue on open space, treating it as kind of like a visioning session, trying to get conversation, talking about how we use open space, how we access open space. And how we support it and that relates to the planning board as we've talked about open space and our subdivision requirements so we want to kind of unpack that so getting your opinions would be good and I'll bring this back to the planning board for a concrete discussion later on but we hope to see you there October 27th and sign up for flash vote and be it's really cool I signed up as a South Portland resident and it takes two minutes to do a survey and it gets really good statistically valid Feedback so more people who sign up the better great thank you I do believe we do have long-range planning is meeting tomorrow continuing our work on implement implementation of LD 2173 so that it that work is ongoing that will also be coming before the planning board it may be a joint planning board meeting with City Council in the future but it will be definitely before the planning board for your review as well great [2:23:58] Chair: Thank you we also see a few 10b a few items minor site plans and conditional use approvals one for four lily lane one for 507 main street and one for 75 spring hill road yeah just for [2:24:17] Planner: Lily Lane is a in-home family daycare facility, probably one of the last my department will see before LD 2173 implementation makes that permitted by right. So it would just go to code moving forward. 507 Main Street was just a change of use. They were, there's the Jersey Mike's and Chipotle. That middle unit has been vacant for quite some time. They were envisioning it as a retail space. It's now coming back as like another food, commercial food place, something called Pliable. Don't know what that is. Don't know if that's pronounced right. It and then 75 Spring Hill Road is a minor site plan for a building expansion for American Steel and Aluminum. The reason it's a minor site plan, although it could trigger site plan, is that it's in our industrial park covenant. So in that covenant, they have to be reviewed as minor site plans. That [2:25:12] Chair: was the only question I had, because it at 10,000 plus square feet, it didn't [2:25:16] Planner: seem minor. So yeah, I think, I believe off the top of my head, I think it's up to 30,000 square feet an industrial park is a minor site plan, and anything over than that would go to the planning board, even if it's in a industrial park covenant. Don't quote me on that, but it's roughly that. Sure. [2:25:37] Chair: Any thoughts from board members, questions, comments for staff on any of the department updates? All right, with that item, 11 Planning Board comments, thoughts from board members, concerns. I think as Charles had mentioned, if everyone did or did not hear it last night, City Council appointed another Planning Board member, so we'll look forward to seeing that person here as soon as they're confirmed with Michelle Hughes. I think they're [2:26:18] Planner: they're appointed. I look to you, they just have to be sworn in. Yeah, so we'll get, I'm gonna reach out to them tomorrow, hopefully before I leave, so sure, we'll get them hopefully here for the October 20th meeting. It'll be a late agenda for them, and then it'll be a good time, and I'll send out, I'm gonna send it because now we have four site walks scheduled over the next month, so I'll get you guys those dates tomorrow as well, just so you have them all, where we're GOING, WHICH STAFF YOU EXPECT TO SEE THERE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT WILL BE GOOD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW PLANNING BOARD MEMBER GOES TO THESE. YES. [2:27:00] Chair: ANY OTHER THOUGHTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? ALL RIGHT. WELL, WITH THAT, WE WILL LOOK TO ADJOURN HERE AT 822 P.M. AGAIN, THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR BEING WITH US THIS EVENING.