Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Hopefully they'll join us. Um, roll call to my left. Bilal Hussein, Ed Barah, Morin Hopkins, Tim D. Ro, Andrea Westby. Thank you. Uh, first item of business is the minutes. Uh, has everybody had a chance to review the minutes? And if so, could I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second.

Any discussion on the minutes? All in favor of the minutes is presented. Thank you. Well, the next order of business is election of a planning board chair and vice chair. Um, I sit here as a temporary chair having been put here in January. Um, so I guess it's my job to call for nominations for a chair. I would nominate Ed Bear for chair. A second.

Thank you. Are there any other nominations? Are there any other nominations? No. Um, all in favor of Mr. Bearer. Okay. Next item of business is the uh uh election nomination and election of a vice chair. Do I have any nominations for vice chair? I nominate Moren Hopkins for vice chair. Second.

Very good. Any other uh nominations for vice chair? Any other nominations? No. Seeing none, Moren, are you prepared to serve? All in favor of Moren being our vice chair. Very good. All right. Next item of business, and we work from a prepared agenda for those who are joining us or those who are watching from home. Uh the first item of business is continued public hearing, site plan review, subdivision review, and I believe special exception uh review uh of 15 Academy Street application by Goral Palmer on behalf of Auburn Town Center Apartments LLC for final approval of construction of a 53 unit residential development. This property is located in the traditional downtown neighborhood T-4.2 two district and will be reviewed under chapter 60 article 16 division 2 site plan review division 3 special exception and division 4 subdivision. I think that we'll hear first from staff can bring us up to speed on where this application stands and then we'll hear from the applicant. Um yes. So the the application was last brought to the planning board for the public hearing on January 13th. Um the board decided to continue the public hearing to for the applicant to respond to the requirements under special exception. Um there are a few provisions in the ordinance under formbbased code that would require an application to be reviewed under special exception and that was uh the size requirement of of the the building and development. So uh since that meeting the applicant has prepared responses to those conditions in the ordinance. Um I do want to remind

the board this received prelim preliminary approval December 9th 2025. Um so in accordance with section 601362 um within 30 days after the public hearing the board needs to vote on the final plan. If the final plan is not voted on at the public hearing there has to be an agreed upon timeline by both the applicant and the planning board. So that's the reason why this has been continued for the applicant to have time to respond to the requirements in special exception. Um, we are recommending that the board vote on the final application at tonight's meeting.

Any questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? I just had one observation before you begin, Caleb. I thought it at the last meeting it was clear. I went back and watched the tape. Maybe it wasn't as clear as in my mind it was, but I would have expected I I would have expected something in the form of a letter demonstrating your client's financial capacity beyond what we have in the file, which I think um I know Mr. D. Ro and I both were concerned about the really lack of any evidence of financial capacity. So either you need to be prepared to address that somehow or explain to us how that letter satisfies that standard.

Sure. You don't have to do it at the beginning, but at some point before we vote. Go ahead.

Yep. U so for the record, uh Kale Brasso with Gorl Palmer. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um so just to kind of reiterate what we have provided for you here. Uh we were last before you in January and left with uh some additional uh information needed for the special exception standards. So, we've since reviewed with staff, provided uh some information here in this updated response package. So, um there were several ways in which a project could uh trigger a special exception. As we had reviewed, one would have been within the formbbased code, a specific use might be designated as needing a special exception. That wasn't the case for us. Uh what was the case for us was that we were doing uh two things. One was the building had a uh total square footage including all floors over 12,000 square feet which we do have and then the second was that we were requesting a waiver and within the formbbased code. Um so of course we've talked uh about the waiverss that we had and we actually had voted and the board had approved at that last meeting our one waiver for the building length uh along our frontage. Um but in general uh I I just wanted to go through here. I I think um really in summary what we discussed at last meeting are same kind of feelings and findings that uh a lot of this information that I'm providing here to uh demonstrate the special exception standards uh and our compliance with those is a lot of the same material that we've already provided um and just kind of reformulated to meet some of these. So, a lot of items on uh safety, uh compliance with general, um traffic patterns, master planning elements, um and elements with um city services, character with the neighborhood. A lot of those things uh we can certainly touch on if the board has any questions, but I think certainly we provide a lot of evidence between site plan,

subdivision, uh specific standards with the formbbased code. Uh so, I I'm feeling confident that we're certainly meeting those. Um that was generally what I had for my presentation here now. Uh the applicant uh he is here with me tonight as well and can speak to uh some of the financial capacity elements as you noted Mr. Chairman there and so uh applicants been working with staff and is ready to uh to discuss some of those elements with you this evening. But um with that I know we still have the public hearing open so I'll end my um my presentation for you all. Uh certainly if you have any any questions for me specifically, happy to answer, but uh we'll just leave it and turn it back over to you. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant before we move to the public hearing stage? Does your client want to address the board before we move to the public hearing stage? Your perview now or Sure. I think now be

Hey, good evening Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm Matt Leonard. You've heard my name as part of the development project manager. In reference to the financial capacity letter, there's been a lot of discussion over the four months of planning board meetings that we've attended. However, I would point out that the financial capacity letter that we submitted was not the one raised in public comment last meeting. The one raised in the last meeting was an old letter when which we updated in November which the board accepted and used as part of our package for preliminary approval. So with that said also recent projects have the similar letter that were approved and we verified that with staff that that letter and its formatting and language has sufficed to this point. So speaking with the bank, more specificity for a small group is not feasible. You know, I was in Puerto Rico for trying to winter there and came back specifically for this meeting and I asked if I just went over there and dropped off a $3 million check, they're not going to write specific language to that effect. And we played a theoretical game up to $100 million. So the differences in letters being more of a bank relationship letter has been the standard that this board has accepted for recently approved projects and the letter in question was accepted by y'all for the preliminary approval.

So you have nothing new to offer. Okay. Is a preliminary approval is not a final approval. Correct. Okay. Um, the letter really doesn't tell us anything about your financial capacity other than you've had a relationship with Main Community Bank.

That's it. Um, I don't know what the board's past practices have been, but I do know that we've raised it with a number of applicants in the last few months. Um, and we've raised it in this instance, and I'm be surprised if you went back, you wouldn't see it raised at every meeting when this application has been before this board. Um as we said before the last meeting uh we would expect I would expect at least that the letter of financial capacity would say that one as far as the bank is concerned you have the financial capacity or you have the ability to raise the capital necessary for a project like this. The letter as I recall the November letter simply says that you have a relationship with the bank

and they are aware of the details of the project. We've been working with them with soft costs. We've already spent $400,000 on the project. The project is is in the works and monies have and are being spent. The issue is the bank doesn't know. There's no commitment letter which the board has explicitly said they don't expect. But so before a commitment letter, that verbiage is open to different interpretations.

Well, it may be open to different interpretations, but I think it's the board's interpretation that matters. So I so I would ask if if recent projects a similar letter has sufficed and that letter sufficed for preliminary approval what would change in the interim and I would accept ask to the extent in which there's explicit and objective standards for letter submission and further I would ask to what extent are those letters validated and verified are members of the board or staff calling financial institutions to verify that in fact it's a factual letter and from what source it's an entirely subjective standard that was met previously. So to pull that out at the formal hearing would cause question. Any other questions with the applicant? Thank you. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to address uh uh the board this evening. You will need to limit your comments to those that are relative or related to the special exception use permit application that is before us. The public hearing uh has otherwise been concluded on this uh the uh subdivision and site plan review applications. Good evening.

I have a uh statement I'd like read into the record. I have copies for you if you you'd like that if uh distribute. And I have a uh statement for I've been canvasing the neighborhood and uh I've been uh asking the neighbor neighbors if they agree with the statement that I made and they've been signing on. I would like to submit those as well. You should introduce yourself and give us your address. Excuse me. You should introduce yourself and give us your address.

Oh, I'm sorry. It's Ron Russell. Uh 20 Elm Street in Auburn. And I've been a uh I've lived there for 52 years and I've been a Auburn taxpayer. Does the applicant have a copy of whatever we're looking at? I make a statement and respectfully request it enter to into the record of my opposition to the proposed Auburn Town Center at apartments on 15 Academy Speak Street, particularly the waiver the developer is requesting in advance of the project. Waivers are intended for rare and exceptional circumstances, not as a means to bypass standards meant to protect neighborhoods. In this case, the waiver would permit a building that far exceeds the city's intended limits, including a continuous wall more than two and a half times the allowed building length. The di the design is fundamentally out of scale

with the surrounding neighborhood and would permanently alter its character. The Academy Street area is longestablished neighborhood with limited capacity for increased traffic, parking demand, storm water runoff, and visual impact. The scale and mass of this project, made possible only through a waiver, would place disproportionate and lasting burdens on nearby residents. Equally concerning is the precedent this would set. If zoning and design standards can be waved for projects of this size, they lose their purpose as meaningful safeguards. Future development will expect similar treatment, further eroding neighborhood protections. While the city may have met the legal requirements for public notice, conversations with neighbors make it clear that the notice was not sufficient. Many residents were unaware of the project or its scale until very recently, suggesting the process did not adequately engage those most affected. Auburn can support growth without weakening its standards. For these reasons, I urge city officials to deny the the requested waiver. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else care to address the board on this application? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing with a motion to do so.

So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor? Let the record reflect that Riley Berron did show up at 6:05. Just when Tim D. Ro said you would. Very good. Um deliberation amongst the board or questions with the applicants still. I I have a question for staff. Sure.

Um staff, could you I uh Mr. Russell spoke of sufficient notice. Um can you review what the city's um rules are for notifying neighborhoods about projects and whether or not those um standards were met through all aspects of this application.

Um yeah, I do know that the standards for noticing a butters was met throughout the whole process. Um, we're required to notify Butters for public hearings 14 days in advance. We mail notices. We post a legal ad in the Sun Journal uh 12 and 7 days before the meeting. So um they were uh we did follow um the ordinance as far as notifying a Butters. Thank you.

I would just add that um there are some communities that define a butters differently. Um, some communities define them as direct abutters to a project. Auburn defines it as property owners within 500 ft. Um, so Auburn chooses to do a larger notification than some other communities that we did that. So Auburn chooses to do a 500 foot radius from the application site and that is what was followed. Yes. Thank you. The record can reflect that Bob Hayes has joined us now. My apologies. No problem. To the chair, to the board, to staff. Thank you, B.

Uh, yes. Yes. I have a question uh for staff. I kind of got shuffled around with all the different packets, but do we know if uh the project uh triggered the traffic permit, the traffic movement permit at all?

Um, no it did not. So the traffic movement permit is triggered by a 100 trips in the peak hour. So the traffic study was part of the larger package that's posted online and it did not trigger that. I I would my recollection is that at the last meeting we did vote on the waiver and if we were to reopen that it would have to be by a matter of motion for reconsideration. It would have to be somebody who voted in favor of it making that motion at all. I'm not suggesting one way or the other whether that should happen. I'm just pointing out that we did vote to grant that waiver u at our last meeting. Before we move to a vote on this matter, I just want to confirm with the applicant again that a representative of the applicant at the last meeting indicated that the the color the texture and the materials um as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant are indeed what will be uh constructed of this plan is approved and you would agree that you would accept a motion uh conditioned on that and I just want to reaffirm that that's the case and I would be looking to staff to give us some uh guidance on what exactly to refer to if indeed we are going to ask the applicant to construct what has been shown Yes, we we have a rendering including in the packet that the board has as well as staff. We can show that on the screen, but I think that would be the best reference for the materials and and

appearance.

Okay. the building revitaliz pulling up the downtown revitalization plan which will show the inspiration of where the work started four years ago because I think that's going to explain and address some of the comments that were made um in aggregate. So, four years ago, we met with the city based on their desires for this development project and basically more or less won the bid to buy that city-owned property. So, there was never an idea where an individual could come in and buy it and do whatever they want, whether they keep it at a lot or to build something in their mind. So, these forale properties were city-owned. We met with Jay Branchek and came up with what the city would find to be an acceptable development based on the downtown revitalization plan. And if we continue to scroll down, we see that our development is smack dab in the area for that development. And I'm going to point out two things. One, there's there's a rendering of the type buildings they wanted to be built, which we would say see is similar to our design as well as an scroll down the read. So you can see we're right right in the heart of this area. So these this zone these three specific name zones wanted specific things one of which were buildings that covered 80 to 90% of a lot. Hence hence one of the design decisions that required the waiver greater than last meeting. We continue to scroll down to the rendering of the

example. You can see the rendering and inspiration of what they specifically wanted in this area which informed our design process. We elected to not do retail on the bottom floor because of the neighborhood and because of future projects planned, the the brewery at 186 Main Street and the retail for the parking lot out here. So keeping in mind of what was desired the formbbased code the desire for buildings to reach 80 90% of lot coverage and a a larger building covering that surf area surface area that's what we came to which comes to my point this has been a project four years in the making geotechnical studies engineering studies structural studies all that are done so from a cost estimate standpoint point the materials have been selected. So to answer your question very specifically the rendering as shown are the selected materials which are intended for final build. There is no change in color change from Hardy Ward change um the terraces or the balconies etc. So very specifically that design is the design that is the final plan. That's a final final iteration after four years. what you were mentioning about the Whit earlier, we have to revote on that or we just have to approve the project based

on the the review that we're doing today since we preliminarily approved it last month. The waiver was voted on at the last meeting and approved. So, at this meeting, the board will be voting on final approval.

Okay. final site plan, subdivision, and special exception approval. You envision three different votes for each of the uh I if there's agreement with the recommended conditions in the staff report. I think you could do them all as one. I think if you want to edit those or modify those, then it would make more sense to um vote on each standard if there's a question about whether or not they're met. And you're referring to what exists on page five of six of our packet for that. There's a suggested motion in the memo on the last page that includes all of all of the it includes the motion includes for subdivision site plan and special exception and uh a list of three conditions. So there's two options. You can either uh read the motion that generally encompasses all three requirements or you can go through each condition and vote on each one individually which would take longer but it would be more thorough. So it depends how the board wants to to vote. Oh.

Oh, wait. Yeah, go ahead.

Um, before we get to the motion part, uh, I just wanted to say a couple things. So, um, obviously we've heard a lot of public feedback about this project. Uh, some of it good, some of it not so good, but, um, I'm of a mind that, uh, that the developer has come before us with this plan. Um, you know, it's no it's no secret that there there is a huge need for housing in Auburn. Uh, and there's no promise that this will deliver all of the goals of that of of filling that need, but it's one step to fill that need. And so, uh, um, you know, I'm I'm moving uh, in the direction of moving in favor of the project. And so, uh, so that's where I'm at with this currently. Anyone else want to offer any preliminary observations?

Uh just just a thought. Um and just stating for the record that uh at the last meeting I opposed the granting of the waiver on the basis that um I believe that this is wildly out of character for the neighborhood. Um and I still believe that and think that it fails to meet the criteria of the special exception. Um, the special exception is triggered because of the size of the building being over 12,000 square feet. And, uh, I believe that granting that special exception will alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

Thoughts? Bob,

I guess just a question to staff. I know in the past we've had some developments that been presented with the architectural design, coloration, facade, so forth, but it did change after approval. Uh so I think we're trying to lock in which I agree with. uh is there latitude at the staff level to allow for some variation as we proceed even after approval? So for the building design, the board is approving what they're seeing. So that rendering that you're seeing and the materials they're using is what's being voted on ultimately. So if they were to change that or alter it in any way, they would be in violation of their site plan one or um they may have to come back for an additional review and amendment if they were changing the building so much so that it would affect the site plan review criteria. So ultimately the board is voting on the rendering that they're seeing and beyond that it's out of the board's control. And I you could make that explicitly clear as part of a motion as well. Um there are some alterations that can happen due to things beyond the developer's control after an approval. Um but given this discussion of the board and the focus on um on that those specific materials as part of this, I would suggest the board just make it clear with an additional condition if you're inclined to um that any change to those materials or appearance would have to come back to the board. But we could get into a lot of minutia doing that because that rendering doesn't show extreme detail where there could be some things where like this fixture and the

rendering looks like this but the real fixture is actually this which is irrelevant to the large scale rendering we see. If we go down that road, I think we could get into a lot of sticky minutia if we want to get overly detailed. That probably a generalization of sticking to the current rendering is probably the best thing. That's just my opinion. Anybody else want to offer any thoughts before we move to motions? I will say that I um I voted in favor of the waiver. I think that this was a good project. Um uh I will probably be voting against it because I don't think that you met your very simple burden of demonstrating financial capacity and fact that you came in here and chose to argue about it rather than bringing in more information. It was troubling for me. Um so uh with that in mind um I certainly will um I would support a motion that contains a condition for the uh um project to be built um as shown on the renderings that we have uh seen and if it's approved that that would be the case. But I'm probably not inclined to vote in favor of it. I make a motion to approve the proposal on behalf of Town Auburn Town Center Apartments LLC for the construction of 53 unit residential development at 15 Academy Street pursuant to chapter 60. Article 4, division 14 formbbased code. Article 16, division 2, site plan, division 3, special exception in division 4,

subdivision with the following conditions. No permit shall be issued until 15 additional off- streetet parking spaces are secured or the applicant otherwise provides the spaces by requiring the ordinance spaces required by the ordinance at the time the permit is issued. Also that the prior to the insurance the insurance of building permits the final subdivision plan shall be recorded at the aisken county registry of deeds and no plan shall be recorded no permits issued until the applicant demonstrates that final easements are signed and recorded.

I'd like to put an addendum to those conditions. Well, I think we'll need a second on that or else we'll have to let

perhaps you can tell Riley what your addendum would be and maybe he'll alter his motion. I was also going to add in referencing the architectural rendering already in position of staff for aesthetic standards in the exterior presentation with the additional condition that the renderings given to staff any significant changes to the renderings given to staff would need additional board approval. Can you second? Yeah.

Second. Motion by Riley, second by Belil. Any further discussion? Doesn't Yes, Bob. I was late, so I'm not sure if I can vote or not. I think we've reviewed this project for a few months. My personal observation would be that you've been here for 99% of what we've discussed and uh so but you you can make that choice for yourself, but I certainly think that you probably have sufficient knowledge of the project. Okay, thank you.

Anybody see it differently? Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion? All those opposed. Motion passes 5 to two. Thank you. Our next item, the public hearing, chapter 60 zoning amendment. An amendment to be considered pursuant to LD 427, legislative document 427, an act to regulate municipal parking space minimums. Staff will be presenting proposed changes to the chapter 60 zoning for compliance. I will say that when I first read this, I thought we were changing the standard. It no longer had to be 20 by 10. was going to be something else, but we're talking about the number of spaces that are necessary for approval. So, staff.

Yes. Um, so this is one of uh three new housing bills. Um, uh, this one pertains to to parking on on parking space minimums and regarding off- streetet parking. Um, so parking can add significant cost to housing development. So, this was passed to um sort of make uh make it easier on the developer to not require uh uh minimum parking. So, um a lot of towns require a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Um that adds a significant barrier to developing and to design of of housing units. Um so this this ordinance addresses both um minimum parking spaces and off- streetet parking. So for the most part, Auburn is compliant with the minimum parking. It allows one space per dwelling unit in most every zone. Um the second piece of that is the off- streetet parking arrangement. So, uh, currently the ordinance says, um, if you can't meet the parking requirement, you, uh, can have offsite parking within a,000 ft of your site, which is what 15 Academy did. Um, this new, uh, uh, state regulation says you can be within a quarter mile of the development, so it makes it um, more permissible to have parking. Um, that has to be through a shared parking agreement as well. So this is the uh the statue that I pulled up here. Um you'll see in your packet that there are some uh red line changes of certain sections. Um so the first you'll note is the formbbased code. Um for multifamily, it currently allows one space per dwelling unit plus one guest space per four

dwelling units. So it adds up I think 1.25 spaces. So that was taken out. Um, and you'll notice also there's a few changes in the off streetet parking section as well. So, we took out um that first sentence which says required off- streetet parking as permitted in the formbbased code areas. Um, so we went general saying anywhere parking is allowed in any residential or commercial zone this applies. And then we crossed out uh parking off streetet parking can be within a quarter mile of the principal building or use. And then if the developer is engaged in off-site parking agreement, they have to provide documentation demonstrating that there is sufficient parking at the offsite facility. Um the other thing you'll notice in this section is there was language in the multifamily suburban district on parking that was taken out. uh that language was uh confusing. So we took that language out and copied it into the off- streetet parking standards. And this is not really a requirement of the state uh statute. It's really just allowing the board to impose um certain standards for parking in a business if it absuts a residential use. So to allow like landscaping um and screening and drainage. So it's not directly relevant to this but it made it confusing having it in multif family suburban uh which didn't make sense. And then I think the final thing is um we added a definition for parking agreement. So, that's uh an agreement between a property developer and the owner of an

off-site parking facility to provide required parking within a quarter mile of the development site just to meet um the statute here. Um and I believe those are all the changes we made. Um, I think one last thing to add that um I just noticed recently that's not in your packet is um in the uh mobile home park overlay, we still allow for a minimum of two spaces per dwelling unit. So, we will take that out. So, that's another recommendation that we have, but um I'm happy to answer any questions on that. Um, we ask that, uh, if there are no further questions that this moves forward to to council to be to be adopted.

Thank you. This is a public hearing, so we'll take questions of staff, then we'll open it up to the public. Go ahead. Um just to clarify the genesis of this change is LD427 from the state. Correct. Yes, it's from the state. So your revisions bring us into compliance outside of the few little things you spoke about at the end which are basically housekeeping and taking care of some superfluous issues that you see in the formbbased code. Is that accurate? Yeah, that's that's accurate.

Thank you. I had a question about uh in the the section 60-607 the number 10 that first the the addition where it says a planning board shall impose reasonable conditions for off street parking is that is that in every instance so it's a case by project by project deciding what's reasonable.

Yeah. So that's case by case and that's if um you have a business that abotss a residential district. Um so you would you could require like additional buffering or screening of that parking area, the business's parking area. Yes. Doesn't address the number of parking spaces needed, but this bill only is addressing residential development parking needs. Correct. And what you're talking about would be something affecting the a business activity.

Yes. This this would be something that would affect a business activity. It's not directly relevant to this ordinance. Um it was moved here purely for clarification purposes. I guess my question is just or my thought process is just with the phrasing reasonable because that is very subjective. Yeah, that was pretty much my thought about it. Okay.

Yeah, we can um um amend that language. I I think the sentence still works if we just strike a reasonable shall impose conditions for street parking serving a business. I think if you're going to if you if if there's consensus to remove or I guess it's staff's proposal perhaps it would want to remove it. But if they do that then I would I would change I would like to change shall to may. So the board may otherwise we Yeah. Yeah. that reads better.

So, do I understand that this hasn't this isn't being sent to us by council? This is something that we are initiating to council. That That's correct. This is something the board is initiating to council and you're having a open to public comment on it. Okay. And are we on firm ground to add the language regarding the mobile home parking situation if it wasn't part of this proposal that was notified? You know, this is a public hearing and all. Are we okay to add that mobile home parking provision?

Yes, I I I believe you're okay to add it even though it wasn't in the packet. Um but that's the recommendation that we have and it was it was missed in this review. Okay. And you your action will be to recommend that the council um you know approve or not approve a change like this with any edits that you also recommend. Right. Um, so there will be another public hearing that the council would hold before it becomes so when it gets to the council that if we agree with the the suggestion that you've made about the the mobile home park or we make any other changes like has been proposed by Riley, um, that's what the council will have a public hearing on.

Yeah, we would ask that you you recommend those changes as part of any motion. Okay. But yes, we would make uh a draft that um completes your recommended changes and that would be included in the council packet for public.

I'd be interested in hearing members thoughts on the word agreement. I don't really understand I understand what an agreement is but for this agreement perhaps with the project that we just approved um is there a minimum duration um the you know is there uh you know if a project might exist for 25 50 or 100 years are we expecting that the off- streetet parking arrangement if there has to be a remote site within a quarter mile that it would have a similar lifespan. What What do we What would we expect to see in one of those agreements?

Um, yeah, I think that's a great point. Um, because some people are obviously um, you know, could be using like city parking and the and the court street garage for only a temporary period of time. So, um, I think the definition we went pretty general. We didn't give a time frame and I don't believe the state references a time frame either. So, it could be for a short period of time or for a long period of time, but we wanted to keep that pretty open.

I think we we could react to a situation where we wanted to make sure that city parking garage passes um public parking passes were a possibility, but those are annual renewals. Um if somebody had an arrangement that ceased um they'd be in violation of their site plan approval. We would have to do u take some land use enforcement action for them violating their site plan approval. Um but it's we do expect that somebody could meet their parking need in different ways over time um as long as they continue to meet that with an with an arrangement. I also think the agreement would would most likely reference the terms of the parking duration.

I'm not sure looking at um section three of the legislation that we have the ability to impose any additional requirements. Um the last sentence of section 3 says a municipality may not impose additional barriers to the approval of such parking agreements beyond verification of the adequacy of parking supply. So I I agree that this is vague uh and could very well lead to a situation where you have an agreement that is not adequate for the duration or the scope of the project. But I'm not sure we have the ability to specify any parameters beyond just the number of parking spaces. Yeah, that doesn't that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Um the what you said makes perfect sense. the legislation itself. We're supposed to verify the We can't do anything more than verify the adequacy, but I'm not really sure that you would find it adequate if somebody came in and had said, "Yeah, I've got a six-month arrangement for parking." Um, you know,

we have no enforcability. You know, we have it. The municipality doesn't have any enforcibility other than saying yes, the parking exists, but we cannot further limit it. in in any way from that. Is that correct?

I don't know that that's correct. I think the Marine's raising a good point, but I'm not sure that I guess that we will I I'm not I'm not terribly uncomfortable leaving it unsaid to what what what the terms of an agreement have to be. We can we can address it. I mean, if somebody comes to us with a six-month agreement, I'm going to have some heartburn with that. And if maybe we would draw a line in the sand and say now that's not adequate. Um that's that's a ruse to come in with a six-day agreement if it could be a six-month agreement. So okay is is it within our purview let me ask two questions. Has in your experience have developers found the parking requirements that exist in our ordinance problematic.

I I think um a few years ago, don't quote me on the exact number of years, we eliminated commercial parking standards um and we reduced the requirement for residential parking. So, I think the the motivations behind the state law to limit a municipality's uh ability to require more than one space are not driven by Auburn. Certainly, they're driven by places that are using a much more stringent standard. U but no, I I think Auburn, at least in recent years since the changes, um has been viewed as pretty flexible. We're just not quite in compliance with that state law of one space per unit. So, um I can recall at least one project that we recently approved where the number of parking spaces exceeded the number that we required and the developer was not interested in simply having the required number of spaces that wanted to have more creating more impervious area, more runoff and all that stuff. In your experience, are you familiar with whether municipalities can limit the number of parking spaces?

I I think you can. Um and it's pretty common that people are proposing more parking spaces than what we require, especially retail uses and even residential um market rate units are quite often proposing one and a half or two parking spaces per unit when we required one and a quarter. So, do you think that we would have the authority to insist that the developer comply with the one unit, one parking space per unit as opposed to choosing voluntarily to build twice as many parking spaces as apparently the legislature has decided is is necessary and adequate.

If the ordinance was written that way, I think you could limit the number of spaces as well. Um we've more often looked at the um traffic engineers estimate of demand and kind of looked at it as um we want the project to supply the parking that's needed so that they don't impact um other uses in the neighborhood. Um, but a a big box retail is one example where I know there are communities that will limit the number of parking spaces because they're designing huge parking lots to meet demand for the few weeks around Christmas maybe and uh the rest of the lot is a lot of the lot is vacant for the rest of the year. Um, our ordinance is not written that way, but that's something we could consider if you wanted to. Would there be any interest on the part of the board to have staff consider that? Is there a time limit that we're under? Let me ask whether there's any interest. If there's not, then I don't need to ask my next question. I guess not. Guess it's only me. All right. Is there a time frame within which we have to act on this legislative?

The this state law is already in effect. Um so Auburn is in effect in violation of the state law at this point. Um so we'd like to move it forward, but there's no exact timeline. I don't there's not a great risk if you needed another month. Unlike a lot of the other changes made to the state land use laws that don't take effect until 27 or whatever it is, this one this one's in effect now. Okay. Well, I'll open up for public hearing. Is anybody member of the public would like to address the board on this? Well, let me ask for a motion when for a public hearing first. So moved. Second. Been

moved and seconded to have a public hearing. Steven BO575 Johnson wrote, "I had not intended to speak on this matter until a subject came up uh in the course of discussion between staff and the board and I'm concerned that the there was a class or a category of additional property types and areas added to the motion. that's under consideration, namely mobile home parks. Uh this is different from adding a couple of spaces or reducing a couple of spaces or increasing or decreasing the width of a space. Uh this is a substantive category of additional properties at issue areas of the community. And I'm thinking back to the adoption of the T42B zoning ordinance three years ago when uh there was an additional category or areas of a zone added that was added by the council to what the planning board had recommended and that was uh advised against by the city attorney at the time and the matter was uh reorganized and then presented with that additional area incorporated in a whole separate time around here the addition is within the planning board but the matter that at issue is the public notice that was given and if the notice didn't include reference to mobile home parks is being included I think that's a substantive addition that would require public notice one person's You

would anyone else care to address the board? A motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Then moved. Seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor? So done. Um to Mr. Beer's point, there's a motion says I make a motion to approve the proposed changes. Does that if it's not in the packet, does that actually include the mobile home thing or would that be something that would just have to come back a another public hearing in the future? So if I just say the proposed changes, the proposed changes are what was what is in the packet which doesn't have the mobile home area. Correct.

Yeah, that that's correct. So the change regarding mobile home parks was not added. It was um an oversight uh that was missed after packets went out. So the motion that we would recommend would be that the proposed changes and also the uh amendments which include uh under number 10 uh for reasonable conditions around parking. And then the second which would be to amend the mobile home park standards to eliminate uh having two spaces per dwelling unit. So um we're recommending that that those changes be included in the motion for tonight. But if if we're if I if I share the concern that he had that it maybe wasn't publicly noticed correctly and I make a motion to approve the proposed changes and I'm only referencing the ones that we have in this packet, that other one can come before us in a separate public hearing in the future. Right. It it could I think um if there's concerns about that notice um and that's a legitimate argument um you could postpone action and ask us to bring it back um to the board uh next month and wrap that into it. Either way, I think it's it's easier to kind of consider them as a package probably. And if it takes an extra meeting, that's not a problem. If we were to approve it, we're approving it to be forwarded to city council and it can be further deliberated and clarified at city council. Correct.

Yes.

Yeah. But um Mr. Beal raising that argument. Um, I think it's relatively low risk to try to incorporate um matching the standard for all dwelling units with mobile homes, but um that's a legitimate argument that could could come up. So, it may be better to not act if you want us to include that in the public notice for next month. Um, we could bring that back and then you could forward it to council with a recommendation. I I personally I'm not uncomfortable with it. I I asked the question even before Mr. Beal uh spoke um on the topic. Um and I guess I'm not uncomfortable with it because that's what a public hearing is about. I don't think that things come to us cast in stone that can't be revised and discussed. I acknowledge that the notice didn't specifically mention mobile homes, mobile home parks. Um but in this instance, what we're trying to do, as Mr. Dro pointed out earlier is simply bring our ordinance into compliance with state law. And if we didn't include mobile home parks, I gather what we're saying is that we're not still not consistent with state law. It's going to require a change whether we make it now or we make it later. Um I think if we were to recommend the applica the uh proposal presented to us with the additional limitation of one parking space per mobile home in a mobile home park. But the there'll be another public hearing and an opportunity for anybody to come and argue against that. I guess I'm just having trouble understanding how anybody can argue against it if it's a state law that we've got to comply with. Okay. Can we make this more confusing?

I'm ready to make a motion. Okay. I I make a motion to postpone a decision made on this topic until a date certain of our March meeting so the trailer park uh information can be included.

Second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Unanimous. Next item on our agenda is other business. Comprehensive plan update. staff and chair of the comprehensive plan committee will be presenting an update on the future land use map policies and actions to date. What? Oh.

Oh, sorry. Yeah. Section 6044. Thank way ahead of myself. Sorry about that. And

Oh, got it. Oh, okay. the the the unseeded lots. All right. Uh, next item on our agenda is actually um proposed amendment to section 60-44 buildable unseeded lots here from staff. Um, I'll give a little background before Sam gives you the details on this proposal. There is a public hearing um related to housing laws that was scheduled for today uh with the state legislature that would modify some of the provisions um related to sewer in particular 20,000 foot lots. Um it was supposed to start at 1:00 today. Um it didn't start on time. Um, it was third on the housing committee's agenda and it might be happening right now if it started at 7, but we're going to recommend that you accept any public input on this one, but delay a recommendation till we have the the benefit of what where the legislature is headed on that. So, so because the public hearing has been scheduled, we should give the public a chance to speak. But your suggestion is that we then table the matter.

That's what I'm suggesting. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Any discussion amongst ourselves about that? Everybody comfortable with that course of action if it comes to it. Okay. All right. We'll open the public hearing for comments on proposed amendment to chapter six, excuse me, proposed amendment to section 60-4 for unsured lots. Steven Beiel still at 575 Johnson Road. I did intend to speak on this matter. Um I would urge the board to be very careful in reddrafting uh any parts of this ordinance uh because of a substantial areas that are affected by this may already be subject to other controls. There is also an ordinance section uh which is uh 60-42 I believe it is um which says that the regulation doesn't uh reduce lot size requirements in residential districts having larger minimum lot sizes and there are some of those. Most importantly, the uh ordinance uh will not be effective in virtually all of the Lake Auburn watershed area in which there are no uh septic systems permitted in that part of the watershed which overlies the agriculture and resource protection zone. That's 73% of the watershed. The other 27% of the watershed largely lies in the lowdensity country residential district as a result of some original earlier zoning and amendments to the rural residential zone in the watershed which was converted in its entirety to all lots which were

rural residential which had a 1acre minimum in the watershed to lowdensity country residential now requiring three uh acres as the minimum lot size uh in the watershed. Uh so there are virtually no lots that would fit outside of either of those two categories. There are a few lots in East Auburn which are on the public system and there may be a very few lots perhaps a handful uh in somewhere along outer Turner Street and approaching the East Auburn area which are not either in agriculture resource protection, lowdensity country residential or on public sewer. But there are so few of them that it almost looks like spot zoning if you attempt to modify a whole ordinance to fit a handful of lots. So that covers the watershed topic that I had in mind. The other huge landmass area in the city is the agriculture and resource protection zone. And the ordinance there was very substantially overhauled three years ago now in which there was a committee formed had both public and uh affected land owners uh on the drafting committee. Mr. cousins and I were on that committee and in the course of that uh it was developed that there were only uh nine lots in the entire city that were in the egg zone outside of the watershed uh which were 20,000 square ft or less. Again, that looks like when you've got nine lots in some roughly 13,500 acres of a zone in which you're going to modify an ordinance to fit that number of lots, that looks pretty spotty to me, just as

a general proposition. And further there's a very substantial characteristic of the a zone ordinance now which requires that a parcel of land uh will support a house and a septic system only if that residence is accessory to the principal use of the land for a farming other agricultural natural resource or recreational use. I can't envision a lot of 20,000 square feet uh in that very large zone uh which would support uh any legitimate farming or agricultural use or unless it's some unique natural feature a recreational or natural resource use. I'm not aware of any of those unique features uh in our city. So I would again suggest that any attempt to modify this ordinance uh is going to be narrowed down to some very small number of lots uh in areas of the city unless they are in other residential lots uh which are more urban in character uh than certainly than the watershed or egg and resource protection zones uh or that part of the low density country residential zone within in the wershed. So I urge very careful drafting if you are going to make any changes to this ordinance. Anyone else care to address the board?

Shall we close the public hearing? So moved. Second. And moved and seconded. All in favor closing the public hearing? Public hearing is closed. Given the uh given Mr. Cousins instructions or suggestions to us regarding proposed legislation that might bear on this, do we want to have any further discussion this evening?

My thought is under the guidance of Mr. cousins and public comment. I think we should table as we discussed earlier before we I I just would like to know if if we do visit this issue again. Um which I guess it's going to the ball is going to be in your court as to whether we visit this issue again if state law preempts us from doing anything that you might otherwise urge us to do. I guess I would like to know if if it's possible to see a map of how many 20,000 square foot or smaller unscrewed lots are there uh in this uh community. We can get a sense of whether this is a an answer to a problem that doesn't exist or not. Any other comments before we take up Mr. Ro's motion which is that was that a motion? Not yet. That was a thought. Okay. I have a motion. I move to table uh the discussion relating to uh the unseed lots and the proposed zoning ordinance changes to chapter 60 relating to unseed lots. I'll second.

Moved and seconded. As proposed, would this then require additional notification if we if this comes back to the board for public hearing? If it comes back, it will. Yeah.

Okay. And we're all comfortable with that, understanding that that'll be the case. Okay. All in favor of the motion to table? Unanimous. Thank you. All right. Now to other business, comprehensive plan update. Staff and chair of the comprehensive plan committee will be presenting an update on the future land use map policies and actions to date. Good evening.

Evening. Um, just as a way of introduction, um, for those who may not know who we are and for the public, I'm John Cleveland and I'm the chair of the comprehensive plan committee and with me is Lauren Cafe. She's the long range planner in the planning department who's been working steadily on the comp plan with us. Um, so we're here to give a periodic uh update of where we are with the comprehensive plan and uh where we're going to try to keep yourselves and then later the city council apprised of our work. Um, tonight we are going to cover several subjects. I just want to quickly go over them so you'll be aware of what we'll be looking to do. So uh we're going to review the project timeline. and Lauren will redo that and uh Lauren will also review our final vision statement um and the required components of comprehensive plan. Um I will review policies and action section of the plan um to we're going to review a draft future land use map. Lauren will go over that with you and then I'll go over the u next steps um uh in the plan and also what future opportunities will be for the public to participate and of course at the end we'll be happy to take any questions or discussion that you have. So with that I'll turn it over to Lauren to review the project timeline.

Thank you John. So as you can see on the screen, we had phase one of the comprehensive plan but from March to August in 2025 and that was the inventory and analysis that was paralleled with public engagement and visioning. Then we moved into and are currently doing action plan development. So that includes future land use mapping and policies and actions. Then we'll look to finalize the plan from May to October of this year. So, in the fall of 2025, following community engagement over the summer, the committee came to this vision statement that states, "Auburn is a resilient, connected, welcoming, and intentional community where everyone can thrive, abundant, and healthy farms, forests, lakes, and rivers surround Auburn's vibrant neighborhoods and its dynamic commercial, industrial, and mixed use centers. This vision statement has a few guiding principles and along with that are eight goals you'll see on the board on the screen, excuse me. Those include community, housing, economy, transportation, natural environment, parks and wreck, infrastructure, and land use. And those goals will come up again when John discusses the policies and actions. So the required components of a comprehensive plan are the inventory and analysis, the vision statement that I just showed you informed by community engagement, future land use map and the future land use plan, policies and actions, regional coordination approach and implementation strategy or plan. So what is a future land use? Lovingly called flu, it's a vision, a long-term vision for how land should be used. It guides growth, development, and infrastructure planning. The committee has determined three growth area categories they would like to use for the future land use map. These include what we're referring to as high growth or high density areas that should see the highest amount of growth, density, and infrastructure investment. Then

followed by moderate growth or moderate density. These are areas that should see a moderate amount of growth and investment and could serve as a transition between high and low growth areas. And then we have low growth or low density areas that should see the least amount of growth, density, and infrastructure investment. Now, the future land use map is not zoning. It informs zoning changes and development priorities, but it is not a zoning map. Multiple zoning districts could fit into one growth area, and it doesn't establish specific information like building height requirements, setbacks, or floor area. alongside a future land use map. And within each of the three growth areas, there are land use categories that further breaks down the development that the community would like to see over the lifespan of the plan. They provide definition and guidance within each growth area. They describe different kinds of places that exist or could exist in a community based on how the land is used, the types of buildings, and how people live, work, and get around in those areas. The committee will start drafting those land use categories at our February meeting and continue into the spring. So our draft and I will emphasize draft future land use map is up on the screen here. The areas in red are the high growth highdensity areas. The committee to get to this point determined some foundational principles uh that they worked off of. High growth areas in red include areas served by water and sewer areas with planned water and sewer extensions, industrial areas, and areas along major corridors. Our low growth area is the area in green. This includes the Lake Auburn wershed, the Taylor Pond wershed, and most areas zoned AGRP today. The moderate growth areas are in yellow and those include all those not in red or green.

I want to speak to you about um the next phase or the phase we're working on right now, which is developing policies and actions for the comprehensive plan. Um I just wanted for a moment to um refer you back to when you saw the page with the the red on it crism. Um these are the goals of the community. Um there are six of them that were working for policies and actions that include uh general uh goal of community, housing, the economy, transportation, natural environment, parks and recreation. So these policies and actions relate to each one of these six. So there'll policies for each of them and then under the policies there'll be action plans going forward. um policies and actions really provide essential direction for the implementmentation of the comprehensive plan. Um the um comprehensive plan committee uh met and over a number of meetings uh developed policies uh 45 of them and 274 actions that would be taken to implement the policies. Um those were then reviewed by administrative staff here across all of the disciplines in the community highway transportation education so forth um to get their input which was very useful in doing that. So the policies are generally um provide a direction for the implementation of the comp plan um going

forward. Policies are somewhat broader uh statements but um they're also statements that um are informed by the public input that we receive through this process. um and they're clear enough and specific enough so it's understood what the outcome of that policy would be. The actions are associated with the policy. The actions are what you specifically want to do to implement that policy and get it done. Um, and you want to be specific enough so that it's a usable um, document. Um, this document is intended to be a guidance for the community, elected officials, staff, planning board, um, to be able to implement and know what the outcomes are going to be. If you're too general in developing those policies and actions, uh it will be difficult to implement them because it won't be clear what the outcome is supposed to be. What is that supposed to look like? We're trying to achieve a comprehensive plan that the community will actually be able to use on an annual basis both with the policy makers as well as um with the administrative staff who will be charged for implementing them. So we need to spend some time on it uh going forward here. Um the next stages in this is that we're going to now take all of these policies and action tasks and we're going to review them with a little bit smaller group um both some from the committee as well as

administrative staff to make sure that they're clear and direct and we know what the action is that needs to be taken. Um then once we finish that, they'll come back um to the comprehensive planning committee. They will review it again and we'll also then have an opportunity for public input on those particular policies and actions. Um there is a some slides that show you uh a de demonstration of sort of how uh they're constructed and related to one another. This is an example from where our consultant had done a plan in Ellsworth. So on the left hand side it shows the policies. Um and then it on the right hand side shows a specific action and which policy it's related to. Also added into that will be a timeline and a designation of either a department or an organization that will have primary responsibility for that implementation. All of the purpose of this is to give clear direction and have the ability for the plan in Auburn to meet the visions of what the community asked for but actually be useful in being implemented going forward as well. So I think that brings us to the next steps. So, uh, the next steps that we we're going to be doing, uh, we're going to have, as I indicated, uh, board review of the, uh, policies and actions. Um, we're going to further develop the future land use map, um, with the categories that describe what,

uh, the different areas, particularly residential areas, may look like. um going to have community input on the draft map and the policies and the actions. Um then we'll finalize the map, the policies and the actions and work on developing the the final comprehensive plan um with the implementation section in in it as well. What's your opportunities for to participate? Lauren,

we still have our website. So, it's tinyurl.com/plawuburn to engage on that social pinpoint and add comments and pin areas on the map to view our community engagement um summary and also the inventory analysis and other documents. That website has a lot of good good stuff there. We will have uh community engagement on the future land use policy and actions and we're aiming for April and we have a comprehensive plan committee meetings on the fourth Tuesday of every month. So with that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have or um any discussion that you'd like to have that related to the comprehensive plan.

We've covered all the bases. That sounds great. I think it's great that there's a group of people dedicated to the um growth and future of the community. It's very easy to get caught in the daily mundane. Yes. And it's habitual and it's human nature. It's it's nice to see that there's a group and a movement looking for opinions and making changes as they see fit and I appreciate what you guys are doing.

Thank you very much. Um uh also the plan ultimately has to go back to the state for review and we have to have them sign off on that we've met all of the requirements. Um and we're being careful to do that.

Well, that's a good segue for I think it is for my my question. Um when does that state review occur? Because as I understand the process, when your committee is through, you're going to hand us a comprehensive plan and by our ordinance, we're the ones who are to prepare, not really. You did it and recommend to the city council the comprehensive plan.

So, will the state have looked at it and given you feedback before it comes to us and then on to the council or at what stage will that occur? That that's a good question, Ed. I'm not exactly sure u which one comes before the other.

I would think that public hearing and the public city of Auburn process comes first before the state review, but that's a good question that we should get confirmation. And I have it on a timeline. I just can't picture my timeline right now. Um and the state review is basically to see that we've in we followed the correct process getting public input having public citizens and also there are certain requirements that they have in their um dealing with in some environmental issues and other things that they want to see that we have included in our current policies and actions. we we have included those. Um and then they they sign off and say you you met all the requirements um the state law imposes on you.

Well, and I guess to follow that up that we we don't have a robust state planning office as I understand. I'm not sure if that's changed recently or not, but I think the process is that there's a planning office that essentially uh circulates the plan to all the departments at the state level to try to get some feedback from each department that yeah that we are u doing what we're supposed to do according to you know state requirements or whatever. But I I agree it it's good that we have the local community working on this plan that we follow what we have to do but uh I give you both credit in the full team that you're working with because I think the team has held together. I think that uh it's been a very good approach and I think people have been truly involved. Uh so I guess what flexibility you know is we come up with the plan it's really we still go was essentially a 10-year plan and usually it overlaps into closer to probably 15.

But during that period what flexibility is there in the plan? Uh so is you know we we look at it today but things happen uh we hope for the better and we hope we can follow that plan. Uh so is you know you know we go through the process now it's taken you know a good year plus. Uh so it then it really comes down to administrating it and really at the staff level. Uh so what flexibility during that 10 to 15 year period is there for changes?

Uh well there there should be some flexibility in regards to the policies and actions. Hence why you want to make them somewhat broad although clear enough so you know what your outcomes are and you have to anticipate that we won't know none of us will know exactly all the changes that will occur in the community over 10 years. Um so we need to be able to be somewhat flexible in doing that. So in that section you have some opportunity to do that. um if you're going to make any significant changes um say like you want to change the land use map um that has to go through a public process and that uh has to be a committee and the community has to work on it and it goes back to the state. So um any big major changes have to go back. the the underlying premise here is that the comprehensive plan is based in law. So it's the method by which a community um by reaching out to its own citizens in a public process determines where they see the future of their community that they would like to go and in particular what the land use would be. that then results in a whole different process and permits a community to do zoning, land use zoning. That has to be consistent with your land use map going forward. Um, so that's why you you just can't a small group of folks can't just decide, well, we're just going to change this because we want to do something different because it's based on that. And if it would be challenged at court, if you would

the community decided to zone an area that was inconsistent with what um the land use categories are, that could be challenged in court. And the challenge would be this was supposed to be for example low density development and you're making it high density development. That's not what the community the people wanted and therefore that's zoning is inconsistent. I actually have a little experience with this because when I was mayor, um, my members, some of the members of the city council thought we ought to make some changes in the zoning that were not consistent with the land use plan. Um, they had they had the right as a legislative body to do that. Though I did advise them that there would probably be a legal challenge to it that would be difficult to defend. It was challenged and the changes were voided by the court because of inconsistency. This is part of this real legal process of providing a legal basis for a community to go forward and make determinations or restrictions on how land can be used because you show that it was a public process and that ultimately the community in Auburn through its representatives um have adopted it. I was talking with someone the other day and became aware of a a law court case um was argued last Wednesday in which the city of Bath's comprehensive plan or changes to their zoning ordinance were being challenged as being inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. So that'll be one of the first law court decisions I think on

that topic and it probably will be out in a month or two. Yeah. certainly happens from time to time. So, we're trying to keep us within the law. Thank you very much for the opportunity to

I've got Yeah, sorry. No worries. Uh so, thank you for for the presentation. Uh you know, I just had my first meeting with the comp plan last month. Uh thank you all for uh you know allowing me to serve in that capacity. Uh it's quite a group that we have. Um, my question relates to I know I'm pretty late in this process as well, but has there been some sort of like report back from different city committees, whether that be like agriculture, natural resource uh, committee, complete streets committee, all these different committees that are doing great work and that are addressing a lot of the issues that citizens have brought up in those surveys, whether that be more trail access, more walkability, and more neighborhoods that have like a sense of community and things like that. I find that on the planning board, our hands kind of get tied in terms of what projects get brought forth. We don't we we object we we have to look at it objectively about, you know, this is what's being presented to us. Does it fit the ordinance and does it fit in the comp plan? And so I'm wondering like what different changes that you're seeing citizens bring up and how how you guys are implementing that in the plan and how we can take that on. Well, I'll start and Lauren can add because she's actually doing the work. I just I just show up. Um, so that's an excellent question while and part of uh what we're doing right now as I suggested to you is going to more re going back to refine and review these policies and actions. So the group of folks that we want to help to do that and in addition to administrative folks and some planning folks is to invite committees or boards a representative from committee not the whole board to sit in on that process. So

sustainability and uh committee would be invited to come. Recreation committee would be viting invited to have someone there as well. Um in housing in housing for the unhoused committee would be asked. So those committees that have been doing work and looking at it in more detail u we want them at the table and helping us refine these policies and actions. Awesome. Uh, it's great to hear and I and one thing in particular that uh is a sticking point to me is like the complete streets because I know that Auburn has a complete streets ordinance. I think they're partnered with Lewon and it's like a joint kind of thing. But uh uh I'm curious to see more of that work in terms of uh the projects that we that come before this board, what exactly they're doing to ensure pedestrian safety, bike paths, if it's going to be somewhere in a high dense zone and like all of those things that we want to see in those type of neighborhoods. Are there other components to this comprehensive plan other than just the land use components that you've been discussing tonight? Is there a capital improvement plan that uh is part of the comprehensive plan and a housing analysis and things of that nature?

Yes, there is. In fact, Auburn has uh done a very intensive housing need. Um that plan is we reviewed that that's going to be incorporated here talks about the different kinds of housings need the amount of housing need so that will be incorporated in it but there'll be a lot of policy and action items that are going to um say um what do we need to do in the recreation department what do we need capital items capital items for facilities capital items for uh road maintenance and new roads being improved. Um so it's going to be down at the level of saying these are things that you need to do to implement it either with expenditure of funds or policies or getting other organizations involved um to help address a number of the issues. So for example, those that are unhoused, there'll be some effort at the city level, but there are a number of nonprofit organizations that are working with this as well who we're looking to engage in this process as well.

You're doing great. Okay. Anyone else comments, questions? Thank you for the presentation. We appreciate it. I assume we'll get another one before this all wraps up.

Yes. So, we're we're hoping to um complete the plan by August of this year. Um something close to that. Um, so yes, as we finished up the policies and actions of the sections, implementation sections, we want to come back both to you and the city council, bring them up today. And by the way, if you have comments, um, you have both Riley and Ali that are representing the planning board. Um, you know, they please bring those suggestions to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Von. This is an opportunity for any member of the public to address the board with any public comments on anything that wasn't on our agenda this evening. Stephen be back once again. Quick question if I may. Uh what is the status of the subcommittee that was working on revisions to the board's policies and procedures and is there going to be any opportunity for public comment uh either at the subcommittee level or at the full board level on those proposed amendments? So that subcommittee which consisted of Moren and myself and the former chair of the board met twice last summer hasn't met since. Um, I think we had a brief discussion last month about reinvigorating it or moving forward with the

That's why I raised the question because it had come up briefly last month, but I didn't see any uh forward disposition that would require a meeting and we haven't had Thank you, Steve. Yeah, to that point I was going to I made a note to bring that up again during the miscellaneous because uh you know our agenda is all structured but there's never really time for any new uh things. But yeah, that's what I was going to uh bring up was sure

the status of that committee and just moving that along along the process. Uh, let me ask Meen, do you still have an interest in being on that committee? Do you remember when we last met? Uh, I, you know, I I don't recall us having a full meeting with the three of us. We didn't.

Um, we attempted um to set some meeting times, but were never able to actually have a meeting. So, there are there are no proposed amendments. Uh, we really didn't get very far other than just a very high level discussion. So, um yeah, I I would be willing to continue on um and would love to have um you know, wide participation across the board. I think last time uh we didn't we only had three people. Um so, yeah, let's do it. Would you like to have more board members if if that I I think that's appropriate. I think um you know anyone who's willing and interested in participating

who might want to participate it would be meetings that basically would probably be late afternoon um couple of hours uh the two that we had with Marine and I in attendance included the uh city planning staff um and it's to basically look at the rules and procedures that we have and see if we think there are necessary or desired changes that we would want to bring to the board for full consideration. That sounds like something that anyone is interested in participating in. Yeah, I'd be interested. You would? Very good. I am as well. Okay.

Well, good. Um then I'll arrange with staff to have a meeting or perhaps when we finish tonight anybody who's participating um can let me know what days work for them and I'll try to coordinate something so that we can get started. Maybe have a goal of having met once before the next full planning board meeting. Not with anything to report but other than that we have met. Okay. All right. Yep. Another item.

Yeah. Another item uh relating to uh an article that I've been prompted. I've read it. I've some community members mentioned it to me from the Sun Journal relating to the projects that this committee has approved over the last year or so. Uh, you know, it's great to hear it in the news, but I would love to see if, you know, the bo board's recommendation if we can have staff sort of prepare like a one pager of like different things that we've culminated over the last year, whether that be like an annual report uh of just x number of projects this board have approved or the x number of units. Uh, I don't know if you guys know what I'm talking about, but there was like a a sort of highline of of all the things that the Auburn City of Auburn has approved over the last year. But we don't have to do it for 2025, but just something forward uh for the next couple years or however long we do.

You know, we do track um all projects that have been approved. Um, we'd be happy to put together a spreadsheet that shows all approved projects within the last year. We also keep track of all the building permits as well, residential and commercial. Um, yeah, just like something to just have on hand. Uh, just in terms of numbers, you know, I think that'd be perfect if that could be like a little letter or like, you know, we could break it down by commercial properties or whatever, but you know, something that that's easily accessible to the public. Does that sound like something, Sam, that you could put together and perhaps send out with our next agenda? Yeah, I I can put something together in Senate.

Well, yeah, certainly support that because I think it's always interesting. We meet, we either disapprove or approve, particularly the approvals to have an update as to what's the progress on projects that we have approved. Have they progressed or have some died? I think that would be important and and and the reasons why exactly like financial capacity.

Anything else? We have one other item. I guess I have to turn the page. This is very small print. If if by any chance we could make the print bigger for the next agenda. The city council is working on a draft ordinance that proposes to strengthen protection of natural resources for solar and residential projects to inhibit projects that impact prime farmland soils, soils of statewide significance and wetlands. Okay.

So, there will be a special public hearing on February 19th. Um we do have most members who will be present at that meeting. Um so that will be where we bring the proposed changes and the board will open public comment, review the changes and then authorize those to go to the council and the changes really pertain to additional protections in the a zone for solar and for residential permits. Um so prohibiting development on prime farmland soils um and within wetlands and other natural resources. So in the thing that I just read where the word inhibit projects that would pro it is that what you meant or did you mean to say prohibit like you just said?

Yes. It would it would not allow uh um you would not be allowed to construct a solar project on prime farmland soils. I think the way the language is currently worded is it says uh something like shall be discouraged from um it's a little more it might be a little more open-ended. So we want to discourage anything from uh any new solar from being on on prime farmland. just just solar projects and residential projects as well. So there's a meeting on the 19th.

Yes, it it would be a special public hearing. I'm not here on the 19th. Will you be? Yeah, they called me. I'm going to be there. I will be there. I was contacted. People aware. Right. Good. Thank you for that. Motion to adjurnn. So moved. Seconded. All in favor? Thank you.