Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Chelsea Eaton, Bob Hayes, Riley Berseron, Ral Hussein, Ed Vera, Morin Hopkins, Tim D. Ro, Andrea Westby. Thank you. Uh, next item of business is the minutes. The minutes of the February 10, 2026 meeting as well as February 19 special meeting. will take a motion on the February 10, 2026 meeting minutes. I could hear a motion. So moved. So move for acceptance. Second.

Thank you. There any discussion about the minutes or are they fine as presented? Seeing no discussion. All in favor of the minutes as presented as for February 19, 2026. Uh again, uh could I have a motion to approve? Move to approve. Thank you, Tim. Second. Seconded.

Thank you, Bob. Uh any discussion on the February 19, 2026 minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor. Thank you. That passes. Planning board business. election of a planning board representative to serve on the SNRB committee. That's the sustainability natural resources. What's the B? Board committee. Board committee. Okay. Um, apparently we've been asked to uh nominate and then um trade or at least lend I guess lend is a better word for it somebody's talent from this board to be on the SNRB board committee. Is there anybody who would like to do so? Anybody want to self volunteer?

I'll volunteer. I've been serving so I have found it to be an interesting committee. So I just assume continue. That's great. Um I'm going to take a second and I'll have a question. Can I have a second uh for second? Thank you very much. Bob, what is your capacity right now on the board? Are you just a person of interest or are you a just a representative? So really various committees that come as part of that really looking primarily at sustainability whether it be land or a waste stream and so forth.

So I think it all is interesting. I should be reporting back really to the pling board from some of those meetings but uh so you you've been attending. Were you appointed to the committee or do you just attend the meetings and I think this comes up I'm not sure if it's annual or but I was nominated or volunteered earlier so I have been serving so in the same as the planning board's representative exactly oh very good thank you I'm sorry for the confusion

any discussion seeing none all those in favor of miss Bob representing uses very good thank New Associate Planning Board member Chelsea Eaton is with us this evening. I understand Chelsea, I wasn't at the meeting on the 19th of February, but that you were. Well, welcome again. Thank you. Nice to have you. One of the advantages of sitting there is you got more desk space than the rest of us. So, take advantage of it. I get desk space, but I can also see absolutely everything. I don't

Very good. Perfect. U recognition of Adolf uh our student representative of the planning board. It's end of his term. He usually sits over there when he comes. He's not here, but we recognize that he has been the student representative and we will wait to hear whether there is another nominee for that position in the near future. Old business public hearing site plan and final subdivision review. Danville Corner Road application by Teridan Consultants LLC on behalf of Timothy Millet for housing development for with 69 single family homes and three multif family buildings with eight apartments each. The property is located in the general business district and will be reviewed under chapter 60 articles 16 division 2 site plan review and division 4 subdivision. This item is continued from the December 9, 2025 meeting. We'll hear first, I think, from uh our planning coordinator who will bring us up to date and then we'll hear from the applicant.

Sam.

Um yeah, so this is a uh continued item from December 9th. Um at that meeting, the board voted on preliminary approval with a few conditions. Um, one of those was to show contiguous open space. The second was to show 10,000 square foot leased area per lot. And, uh, the third was related to a traffic study as well as a letter from DOT regarding uh, traffic impacts. So, since that meeting, the applicant has changed from a lease land agreement to a condominium. So as a result, the single family homes are now on one lot and the multif family are on a second lot. So the single family homes are part of a condominium. Um the applicant has met with the recck department as well about the open space. Um and they're proposing to pursue uh the fee in lie of providing the necessary amounts of open space. Um so they went from about 7.7 acres to now about 4.46. They're showing open space around the perimeter of the property to meet the contiguous open space standard. They also have retained VHB to do a traffic study. Um, and in addition, you'll notice in your packets, there were several uh emails back and forth between DOT and and the applicant. So, DOT doesn't usually provide a letter stating that traffic won't be impacted. So, they uh deferred to our city engineer, Chris Bennett, who I uh emailed back and forth with, and he has reviewed the proposed development and says he has no concerns about the traffic. Um, just want to reiterate the timeline on this one. So, this received preliminary approval. This is now a final plan review. So according to the ordinance, the board has 30 days to issue an approval or denial unless a timeline is agreed upon by both the applicant and the planning board. So as

staff are recommending that the board take final action on the application. If the board votes to deny the project, a finding has to be referenced. And if the board is unable to take action at tonight's meeting, um it has to be clear to the applicant what else they need to to submit to get final approval. Has everybody had an opportunity to review the new package that's been submitted by the applicant? I have and I would like to take a moment for a little bit of clarification.

Absolutely, Jim. Um in uh in our packet after divider number two we have the de the condominium declarations. Am I correct to understand that this packet provided to us it would be legally binding or whatever to move forward. The reason I ask is if so this declaration is not for this condo complex. This declaration is even titled and addressed to a completely different condo complex owned by Mr. Millet. So I'm confused if this is an example of the declaration that would be for this complex or if there's been a clerical error.

Yes. So you're you are correct in that it says that the document is uh is Tim Millet LLC I believe. Um I think um the engineer maybe can speak to this a little bit more. My understanding is that it's it's draft language, but the language will be very similar to what's finalized. I don't think they have actually like an HOA um company yet to manage the property.

I can appreciate that. I just wanted it noted that what we had in front of us was for a different complex at a different address, still owned by Mr. Millet, but different from what uh this project would have. and and we can hear further from the applicant, but I share some of Tim's concern if that's not too strong a word. I mean, it refers to recording the plan in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds, does that in a couple of different places. It talks about the Andogen County Registry of Deeds, and it refers to record. Um, and it's not clear to me that the plans that we have that were submitted this time around make any reference, but the applicants can speak to this to a condominium. Um, I don't think that we can look at those plans and know where the limited common elements are. I don't think they're very well described in this uh this uh South Grove residences declaration of condominium. But if that's all the applicant wants to go with, I just think that it's a recipe for confusion in the future. But we can get down to that when the applicant addresses us. Are there any other questions for the staff at this point?

Yes. Uh so my question has to do with the traffic impact analysis. I know that that's what staff had recommended. Uh, so I guess my question is did that uh did the estimated trips from that trigger the traffic movement permit? No, it did not. Okay. Thank you,

Sam. I noticed in the in the parks and recreation committee's letter, it refers to a plan uh for the open space, but our application materials don't include any plan for open space. Um, the original plans as well as the supplemental plans or replacement plans that we received for this hearing tonight do show a small area interior of the the uh interior in the development and they do show a walking path through there, a 4ft wide one. They don't show anything around the perimeter of the property as you just mentioned in your opening remarks. Is there a plan that we can see where this uh uh this perimeter walking trail is? Have you seen it?

Um my question is whether you've seen it or not, whether the applicant can talk to me about it. Have you seen it? I can't recall. I think it was probably part of an older submission, but the what I was saying about the perimeter was the open space is now around the the perimeter of those of those lots versus in the middle of the road. And does that open space include the uh detention ponds, the gravel wetland areas for which we have detailed plans? Yes. And how much of the open space is taken up by the detention ponds? Um I'm not sure. I think that's a question for the engineer.

Very good. Okay. Any other questions for the for staff before we open it up to the applicant? Okay. Ready to hear from the applicant's representative. All right. This on to clear up the open space there. There is no perimeter trail. This plan um up on the board, the detached area is the proposed open space at 4.46 46 acres. Can you Well, well, slow down. Yeah. So, the plan up here, what is that? This is um C 1.0. There is no

This has shows the open space. Um the parks and wreck letter is referencing the areas outside of the open space from my understanding, which is the two trail systems. There's no other trail systems proposed. There's never been one proposed around the outside. It's been shown to parks. You've got to slow down a little bit. At least I'm having a difficult time. Sure. Hearing you. Sure. In real time. I apologize. I'm a little I'm a little nervous. My kids's sick at home. My wife's home with three kids. I'm just Okay. You know, if you need to if you need to take a call or anything like that. Yeah. No, I apologize. We got six-month old spiking fever. So, I'm a little nervous. So, we've all been there.

My apologies. So, um C1.0 is the plan that shows the open space. There's no other plan that was provided to um parks and wreck. This is the only plan that that we've had there. So that the hatched area on the outside is 4.46 acres um that we're proposing as the open space. The only trail systems are the two that are shown on the plans here. Um they're the 4T wide. They come out to be about the 5250 square ft in area. Um which we're proposing to use the inloo fee for. um which um the and so as we reviewed the the requirements for open space the only standard that it has in there is that the area. So it it says like in in in one um section A there it says the standard established by a city is the area and then it gives the the areas how you can break it down for the inloo fee and that as well. So we do have the gravel wetland is in there it's 75 of the 4.46 46. If the board would like, we would be happy to um if if it be open to a conditional approval for be happy to take it out. Um there's additional monies that we have above and beyond the inloo fee that for the park for the trail recommendation, it could go towards that um the area, but we would still have the rest of the areas contiguous around the outside. Um and then as um Sam mentioned, we had VHB do the traffic study. um we've sent over the do they said um you know they don't typically approve those things and the city has delegated review so they would go to the delegated review of the city engineer for that um which he would be able to review these permits on DOT's behalf um and then for the um the condo association documents unfortunately I don't I believe he's

going he had toyed with naming it the South Grove residents, but um and the address on there is his his business home address, business address. That would be for him as the declarant. Um but unfortunately beyond that, um without the attorney, I I couldn't give you any more. Um I wish I could, but I'm not an attorney. Um and I think those are the the biggest things um I think I had to discuss. So, as Sam mentioned, he he he moved away from the land lease um and is now looking to do a lot two and a lot three instead of just the second lot. So, lot two is um just shy of 12 acres and it will have all the single family homes. We've shown the limited common elements around those those homes um for their spots that they'll own in addition um well, we've shown the the extent of limit elements. they'll own everything outside will be owned by by the homeowners association. So the the trails while they don't count in section 60-1367 as open space for that section ordinance they're going to function just as open space. Um and as we were reviewing you know the the ordinance and the plans there's no definition for what needs to be included open space. So, you know, in theory, you know, we had looked at it like the roads could be included as people be walking and and um riding their bikes on those using the sidewalks, but we felt it didn't meet the intent to include it, which is why we have three separate areas. Whereas for this for the section of the ordinance, the hatched area and the outside is the larger contiguous one. If we had included the roads and that people could walk on and everything, you know, we'd have over 8 acres, but we felt that the intent of the ordinance was not to include the roads. We're

trying to to meet the intent of the of the ordinance for the open space and provide something for the residents to use. So, in the larger one, the the trails generally slope from like 6 1/2 to 7% slope, which is very walkable. For example, like the max you'd want for a sidewalk is 8.3%. That's the max allowed for um standard. So, it's it's very walkable. And then the same with the um one over on the right of the page behind units like 54 and 53. Um that that's generally the same, but that smaller loop, we provide a two to 2 and 12% slope to allow people who can't handle the larger the the little bit steeper slopes to be able to walk on a more flat surface. I'm sorry. Can Can you

Yeah. Is is the interior walkway shown on that plan? I say the interior one in the loop. Yeah, sorry. Is that the flat one? Uh, no. That is that'll slope with the land. So, that's about 6 and 12 to 7%.

Um, over on the right of the page that small there's the loop and then there's a smaller loop in there. That smaller loop is the more flat one and then the the larger part of that loop as it goes down would be about 6 1/2% as well, which is still very walkable. Um but it's not flat. So um ADA requirements for a flat walkable area, you know, this is not this is not going to be an ADA paved trail, but like for example, that's 2 and 12% is your maximum slope you want to have for ADA. So we we kept it to two 2 and 1/2. Um it's going to be like a like a subhumus bark material. So it's going to be soft and cushiony, but it's going to be um 2 and 1/2 to 2% to you know for some more accessibility areas. And then we have seven benches proposed throughout both of the trail systems. So, we're really trying to meet the intent, what I believe the ordinance was set out to be for the open space out there. Um, we met with parks and recck twice about it about a couple different options. Um, I know in their letter they said that they unanimously did did approve it like this one as well. So, happy to answer any other questions about it.

Yep. Um, could you clarify for me the three multi-unit buildings? Are those condos as well or are they going to be annual lease by lease typical apartment buildings? Typical apartment buildings in conjunction with the 69 single family condo homes.

Correct. Yeah. So, it's a total of 93 units and that has remained the same. Um, the only difference is that the lot line in between them. So, they're going to be rentals that he's going to keep. Um, and then the the homeowner association, the conduit association I should say, is going to own everything on lot two. That's going to be one common ownership for the homeowner association. I appreciate the evolution of this project at its uh I think everyone can understand the confusion and the gray areas that existed when we first saw it where like what is this? It was kind of undefined. And I appreciate that uh

we now have a single label for it. Um, am I correct in assuming that Mr. Millet or his appointees would be landlords or whatever serving as declarant as the condos? He would also be responsible for the rentals. Yes, he'll be he's going to maintain the rentals. Thank you, Riley. Um, for the uh solid waste disposal, it says that it'll be the responsibility of each individual homeowner and it will be disposed of properly. Is that true for the condos as well? I don't I don't see a dumpster on the plan. So,

yes. Yeah, it is. if the condo association wants to to sub out a private hauler, they'll be more than able to do that. But um in order to keep the cost low, I know there's a couple spot I know there's at least one spot that's less than 3 miles away where you can drop off household waste for free. Um and that keeps the cost as low as possible for people. If the association wants to implement a private thing, they they could do that as well. It's a really good point, Riley. I hadn't even considered that we have 96 96 families that have to get rid of their own garbage.

The apartment buildings he'll privately have out um and know that there's internal there's going to be internal areas for trash that will be hauled out from there. So, but no municipal services at the ends of those two driveways serving the complex. Correct. What's that? I'm sorry. No municipal services of those two driveways to the complex for trash pickup. Correct? No municipal services. Yeah. Um I will say in the

sample declarations it does say that in article 6 section 6.2 in the maintenance of common elements that um trash removal is considered something that the ma the uh association would maintain. So, I don't know if that would

I think they'd have to have the a majority to get that out there to decide what they want to do. Um I would I'd imagine. But um well, the declaration says that that's going to happen. So, where is it going to happen? Where on this plan is there going to be a common spot for people to dump their garbage at the end of the driveways? because I gather that the city is not going to drive into this private development to pick up trash at every one of these 69 houses. They they would hire a private hauler that would do it similar to the municipal services. All right. So they people will be putting their trash out curbside. Is that what you're I believe so. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Because there there are private haulers I believe that do that. So yeah. So, is there a plan that shows me this trail that you just described in the outer perimeter uh area? There is no outer perimeter trail. There never has been. So, there's So, where that cursor is pointing right now, I don't know why it's pointing there. Is that the open space area that you're talking about? It is.

Okay. So, the boxes are the 2,000 square foot areas that we discussed at our last meeting. Is that right? Yep. That and that and the driveways are included in that as well for that. That what that and the driveways would be included in that as well would be their that they would own.

Well, they Okay. So I think the app the documents say the driveways are common elements and only the parking space is personal to the but that's not our hunt I don't believe so as I understand it then it's common area between each of those rectangular spots and in those rectangular spots is where the the houses are supposed to be constructed right.

Yep. So that then they'll have their own it's a five foot on side of the homes and then 10 foot off the back for their own kind of personal area that they could put a patio or put swings at. I mean put chairs for a patio kind of thing. They can kind of do it. That's their spot that they can put things out if they want to. Yeah. That's how my I I'm in condos and that's how my condos are set up. It's not uncommon.

Yeah. Um so how wide are those spots? Um, it's it's five foot off the buildings and 10 foot off the back. I don't have the dimension off the top of my head for that, but I can say it's 5 foot off each building and 10 foot off the back. So, looking at the plan, I'm looking at I'm looking at plan 2.1 because I want to ask you a few questions about that that one in particular.

Sure. So when I see I don't know pick a pick a unit number um unit 14 um where is the 2,000 square ft and where is the house that will be placed within the 2,000 square feet or does the house not show the house is there? So, um I wish the mic worked.

We don't have any dashed lines on uh I see it on what I printed from there. We have one our more recent should be on there. Okay. They're they're kind of light on this plan um because the emphasis was to have them on the the subdivision the site more than anything else. I see them. Thank you. They're on the they're on the more recent submission. Thank you. So the dashed area is 2,000 square feet. Correct.

Okay. So looking at that plan 2.1, okay, that shows us where the storm water collection area is located, right? Yep. That's what's up there in that northeast corner. Yep. So that's playing a dual purpose. That's also part of your open space calculation. It is in there. Yes. Yeah. So kids from the development can run around in there and play and recreate.

No, but it would be preserved area um set aside. I mean, like I mentioned before, if if the board wants us to take it out, we'd be happy to to do that as a condition if that's possible and add it to the Inloo fee. Um there's nothing in the ordinance that describes what needs to be in there. Um, we typically include these things in our open spaces all over the state. Um, but if the board does not want it, we can take it out and add to the end of the fee if that would be um what you you seem to acknowledge that open space could include, but you were reasonably not including roads and driveways. Correct.

Yeah. But your contention is that our ordinance would allow that in

technically the um from what I've seen the ordinance does not define anything of open space does not define anything that needs to be in open space um as as a as a thing. The only thing that I saw as a as a established rule by the city is the contiguous area um that defines the size and then the the subsequent ones kind of go over what you can do in lie of that. Um, and we we've made, you know, the the trails aren't in aren't required to be in there as well. You know, we could have worked with the city and put something somewhere else potentially as a thing. We're trying to enhance the site. We're trying to make it as good as possible out there. Uh, we're not trying to pull a fast one um or anything like that. Um, we're trying to give a good recreation space out there.

I I appreciate it. And I'm not thinking that you're trying to pull a fast one, but I'm going to read you the definition of open space. Sure. Okay. Open space, common open space,

means land within or related to a development which is not individually owned and is designed and intended for the common use and enjoyment of the residents of the development and may include such complimentary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate. So I read that to say that if it's designated as open space and I live in that development, I have every right in the world to enjoy it, not just look at it. So I think you are double dipping when you include a a a very large portion of your four some odd acres of open space as storm water retention ponds. Because unless you tell me that it's okay for my resident children or anybody else to be traing around in there just like they would on any grassy field or null, I'm thinking that that's not really open space. It's a lot like a road. It's serving a function that is not open space. It is storm water management. And I although your storm water management plan um for its operations and procedures doesn't specifically say that human activity in this area is not allowed or is discouraged. I think that you would discourage it, wouldn't you? Well,

it's going to be there's it's a wetland, so there's going to be wetland plants and wetland activity in there. Um but it's a wetland that's serving as your storm water retention area, right? Yes. All right. So, I want to ask you now that that plan is up there as well about this grading. Um, I'm looking at one, two, three, four, five of those structures are in an area where it appears that the grade changes is greater than it. It's big. It's like 10 ft or so. Yeah, they're walkout basement. What are we Huh? They're walkout basements on those. They're walkout basements. I have the um I have um see I labeled the basement floor.

They have 13t basements. Yeah. The tall basement on some Yeah. And along the side of the homes it's it's it's the unchanged. It's going to be a 13t. It's going to be there's going to be um Yeah. It's going to be deg graded down. Yep. Wow. Okay. Some epic sledding. Yeah. Yeah. But no, they they are um they do have walkout basements on those. Those are the only ones that have basements. The rest are all on slabs.

Okay. So if the open space didn't include that area, your suggestion is that that you would just increase the So yeah, I can I can do a breakdown of the fee there. So before before you get to that though, yeah, of course the the trail the interior trail and actually you can see see that one on this plan too right there. That was already shown on your earlier plans. Correct. Y so but now you're saying hey we're going to pay a fee in L and we're going to use that fee in L to build the trails that we already said we were going to build on the plans correct yes does that strike you as double dipping no

no no I mean the ordinance allows for it I mean um it's it's still a benefit to the community um it does yeah and it was going to benefit the community before you reduce the open space area.

Correct. Again, I think we could have I I feel like I could have made an argument for the roads being included in there based on the definitions you can ride your bikes on them and walk on them. I think it's a fair I mean, it's it's not probably the strongest argument, but I do think, you know, by not include we we didn't include them because we think it's best, but again, we're we're trying to meet the standards of the ordinance that are provided to us, and we're not trying to to bend the rules. We're just trying to have a good project. and something that people will use.

I think you made the correct assumption not including it because whether or not it's defined, that's not my interpretation of open space. A paved anything is not. And similarly, I share the same concern with the retention pond being counted towards that.

Um, but I would be comfortable if they were going to take that out and increase the fee in lie of Yeah. So if if I could, so the fee um in L the just for the trail was about 15,750 I believe and the fee in L was I forget the exact number is 14,000 something and then on top of that there's also the benches that are going to be provided and you know a conservative a low estimate for the benches probably $500 to get a bench out there purchased and installed. um just the benches and the extra of the trail is is over $5,000 of additional improvements to the site. And the wet pond, the gravel wetland area is is about 3/4 of an acre. And if you go by the calculation of 43115 per acre, you're looking at about 3500 $3,200 of additional inloo fee. So there's still going to be more put towards the trail systems and the benches than we would be using for the in fee. I also share the chair's concern that those were going to be paid for already without the fee in lie of in the prior plans and now the fee in lie of which is meant to benefit the open space intent which is for people to public enjoyment is going to pay for something that was already going to be paid for by the developers. So, I don't I I would be

I would be more comfortable with the family going to the park department and having them do something that they didn't want it. They they didn't want money. They didn't want to have to manage it. They liked it being on site. That's what they've told us. That's what they wrote in their letter. They liked it. They like it being put on site. There's no amenities in the city down here, they said. And they love it that it's on the site and being used to improve the site. Um, so the the fee in L would be to cover construction costs of these trails in the acquisition of the benches. Correct. Correct. That's what it would cover. So say someone buys their condo, they pay fees in Lou, they sell it. Does the next buyer have to pay those fees as well?

No, the fee is the fee is going to be as it's built by the developer. So it's not going to transfer to the homeowners. Do the renters contribute to the fee in L? The renters won't. It only it's only triggered the open space by the single family homes, but the renters get to utilize it. Anyone in the city technically could use it. Anyone in the city can use, I believe. So, yeah. So, where's the parking when the seven nine of us decide we want to come out there and use it? The street's big enough to as city standards to have on street parking as well. It is. Yeah. It's 24 foot wide. And that that

I I think you can see the point that Ed Riley and I are making that fee and Lou is striking a chord for something that was originally going to be included for no fee. Is that fair to say? We're part of it. Yeah. We're just we're we're not judge or jury. We're not a legislative board. All we do is make sure eyes are dotted and te's are crossed. But you can appreciate where we are in this position.

And we've reviewed this with parks and wreck and we're we're following the standards of the ordinance to put it in there. I mean, we're happy to put the fee wherever, honestly, if the city wants it, but the parks and w was was elated to have it on the property. um if they want it, he'll give the feed to whoever. That that's if it if it is the under the parks adisement to use it on the property, then I'd say use it on the property. But I would want that acreage of the retention bond taken out of the open space and calculated into the additional fee in L of that that that's fine.

Do we Yes. Yes. So, while we're on the topic of uh like green space and open space, do we know who is going to be able to maintain uh the green spaces? That would be under the um the homeowners association or the condo association. I keep saying home association, the condo association to do that um to maintain those areas. Okay. And those are going to be like the owners of the different lots. whoever whoever the association would would contract out to to maintain it.

It's the declarant who's the developer. The way the condos work is the declarant's responsibility until the association has enough members to become a fully functioning board and then the association which is a group of all the owners have to bid out and pay for that through their condo fees and such. Okay. Thank you. and they need to understand that it was a condition of approval. If it's approved, that it needs to be maintained. They can't decide that times are tight and we're going to stop maintaining the benches and stop maintaining the trails, this and that. Yes, Chelsea. Um, can I ask a question? Yes.

Um, I'm just curious. What what's the time line or the time frame for this entire project from day one to when it would be complete? Is it months? Is it a couple years? I'm just curious. Um, as fast as he can construct it, he's going to just get out there and and build it. Um, it's not planned on, you know, there's no long-term phasing for it. It's just going to be he's going to go out and construct. I don't know how long it'll take him, but he's not going to be doing like one section and coming back in two years. He's going to be going right through.

I don't know if this helps you. They they would, if this answers your question or not, but they would need to break ground within a year. As you can see later on the agenda, uh a product that project that was approved but hadn't started is back for reapproval. So, the project would have to start within a year of approval. Um, but that doesn't necessarily say how long it's going to take to finish. Um, we understand. Sam,

just a question about the storm water. So, if you were to take out the wet pond, would your storm water still work? Because I know you have to be compliant with with SLOA because you're um you're at uh three uh over three acres of impervious. Well, no, we we'd still have the wet pond, just wouldn't be in the open space calculation. Yeah, the wet pond the wet pond's not going anywhere. Um, we would just take it out of the the open space calculation. Okay. So, it would be 3 acres instead of it's it's 4.46 acres now.

Yeah, it'd be like it'd be like three and a quarter roughly, you know, because it's about almost four and a half. So, it' be just under three and a quarter. And then it would have to increase the fee by that whatever that is. I just want to circle back for a moment to uh Chelsea's question and and Riley's right. When we issue a permit, an applicant has a year from the date of the issuance of the permit to start construction and then so many years after that to finish. But once it's started, it's really not the the condo development itself could take 10 years before these 69 units are built. It could take 20 years. Um, at some point in time when the certain number of the condos, a certain percentage have been sold, then the developer uh or declarant as they're called in our documents, no longer controls it. and the homeowners association controls the day-to-day operations of of the facility. Um, but the thing about the condo that I think is important and and I do wonder are there any references to the limited common elements on this plan? Do we know what are limited common elements? Does it does is a buyer going to know that? Is this consistent with the condominium act and other and I'll ask it a different way. Did you make any revisions to this plan once it was determined that the development was no longer going to be a land lease, but rather it was going to be a condominium? Did you make any changes to the plan that would reflect the fact that it had changed from one form of ownership to another? Um I we we changed the lot lines for out there and then um that would be what we've what we've done so far out that I

believe I think if I'm understanding your question correctly. So do you understand and and I think this is correct. I could be wrong but once this plan is approved that's what you got to build. There's no changing things on the fly. Correct. So you're comfortable that what you've got there is

correct? Yeah. No, that that's we're not changing anything in terms of layout. No layout has changed. We've had the lot lines out there, but we're not proposing to change any any layout unless there's comments on the trails, but other than that, no. Bob, you've been uncharacteristically quiet. Well, I guess uh my concerns are more offsite than on-site at this point. Y and I think that we do have now a traffic study before us.

Uh but I think I read and I was trying to see where I read it, but I think even today or this week, the plan for what's uh for the intersection onto Washington Street uh is out to bid March 11th. March 11th. Yeah. So, tomorrow

tomorrow in that plan, of course, the state didn't really want to commit anything because they're putting the approval really back on to the city and city staff. But I think that I'm not I haven't seen the plan, but I it would be useful for me uh to know just what that plan's going to be. supposedly uh that intersection I kind of gathered it even the way left alone they were suggesting it would be okay even with this the traffic to be generated u but I'd like to see what improvements are going to be made uh to help what we know just common sense says it's not a good situation right now

I don't I don't have DOT plans for that. Well, I guess what I'd like uh probably from city staff and I think we do have one of our uh engineers in the audience so maybe it'll come up that we could for the audience and for myself and hopefully for the board we could better understand you know what problems are being addressed and how. Are you referencing the Washington Street study that's ongoing for for Washington Street to create traffic calming?

What do you primarily just the intersection that is existing right now coming over the railroad and down the hill uh onto Washington Street now allowing both a lefthand turn as well as a righthand turn. Yeah, that I believe that's part of the that's part of the Washington Street study that's going on right now. So, is that what is out to bid and not the intersection improvements? Do told me. Yes. So, I guess that's what I'm looking for. Some

Wait, wait, is there someone in the back of the room who's offering comments? Dian Goyette, the director of engineering and capital investment for the city. I'm sorry, Dan. Just don't is is do you I you okay with him addressing us? That's fine. Yeah. Go ahead. So the you're talking about um Beach Hill Road and Washington Street and Corner on the other side. That traffic light is currently out to bid by Main D. Are they going to allow both a lefthand righthand turn out of both? Yes. Streets coming in.

Yep. with the light it'll be a signalized intersection. So I think that earlier on we understood that this project came before for preliminary review after uh those plans or consideration of that intersection was out for public review and that maybe the plans were developed based upon the input that came in for the period that actually closed prior to this project coming forward.

I'm not sure of the timeline there. I haven't been tuned into this project at all. So I Well, thank you. I that uh is helpful, but uh I still have concerns because that remains in my mind uh a dangerous intersection. We've had some serious uh collisions there and loss of life. So certainly this is going to contribute to the flow of traffic through that intersection and I remain concerned. Um I uh Chelsea, go ahead.

Am I supposed to ask like wait for Well, I I I glanced up and I thought Riley was about to say something, so

Oh, okay. Okay. Um, I I agree with with what Bob said about concerns um for that intersection specifically coming, as you said, down that steep. You go over the overpass over the railroad tracks, then you come down the steep and then you're at the stop sign. Um, I guess I guess I just I'm I'm agreeing with everything Bob said, but I personally just to educate myself, if nothing else, I would be curious as to what data or methods the city engineers use to determine that that this development will not negatively or adversely affect it. because we do have it says uh it's right in our packet that this the city engineer doesn't foresee an adverse effect and I'm just I would just be curious to see the data and I think that's basically what Bob is saying as well

s before just Sam can you can you address that do you know what Chris had to review before he offered his opinion that it's not not an issue

yes um Chris reviewed the traffic study done by VHB. And um that traffic study is is the information that the board has to go off of to make that decision. Um in the letters between uh the applicant and DOT, DOT offered to do a peer review of the traffic study. Um as staff uh since we have delegated review um we're advising that doing a peer review at this stage in the application is not necessary because the engineer the city engineer reviewed it. We have dele delegated review and so um I think that's really where the information is coming from. Um, I don't know at this point. Like I said, doing a peerreview study of BHB would be necessary because it's already been reviewed. Yeah, the uh the traffic study that was included by VHB does say that the uh there would be delays, but then it says when the intersection is signal operations improved substantially for the minor street approaches with delays reduced in the sections it lists on both peak hours. And so they it both this this study and our traffic engineer says that it's safe and that's what we actually get to make our decision on is what they say. Uh but also it is encouraging that it's that there is going to be a a signal put in there cuz not only would it be safer, but it seems like they would also improve the the traffic flow based on the models that BHP ran. And just to point out that the signal I believe is slated to be constructed this year as well. Um so that'd be we would there would not be all these units in

there by the end of the year. That just wouldn't be possible to build them by the end of the year, but maybe a couple, but by the time that's online, that'll be online. Should be online before all these units are finalized and there's occupied. So I I do have a question about the traffic analysis. Um, do we know uh whether your consultant was on site? Um, I believe they were. Um, did in this report anywhere that that you could direct me to? Not off the top of my head. No, I believe they were, but I can't.

And here here's why I I I asked the question because

Sure. I I accept that the level of service is going to be improved with the signalization. Um I accept it in raw numbers. Uh apparently the raw numbers are that this isn't a problem intersection. But what I haven't seen is the additional traffic that cues up at that spot where you cross the railroad tracks down to Washington Street off Danville Road. I mean, there are going to be three to four months of the year when conditions aren't good, and I can't help but imagine that the number of cars that that queue up there now is going to be increased by some number, a significant number. And I didn't see anything in a report that suggested that that was a safe alternative. I can understand three or four cars queuing up on a relatively flat surface, but that's far from relatively flat. And if car number three doesn't stop and car number two does can't stop and number one doesn't matter if there's a signal there or not at that point. So I'd love to know that your traffic engineer took that into consideration. I haven't heard anything about the the steepness of that grade as you approach a traffic light um as not being a concern. Um, and maybe they would report back to me that I shouldn't be concerned about that and I'm not necessarily going to feel good about that. But right now, I don't have anybody telling me that number of cars parked on a hill waiting for a light is a is a good situation.

Sure. I can certainly ask ask them that. Um, what would you ask them about the queueing to address what you what you said about the and if they say they've been on site and they viewed that and they took it into consideration, but didn't specifically mention it, that's all I would need to know. I believe they were, but I I I don't know their report off the top of my head, unfortunately. I apologize. Just it didn't strike me that they had been because all of the numbers that they use, I gather they uh it doesn't say we were there and we counted cars when it talks about lefthand turns, rightand turns, etc. I don't know where those numbers came from, but it doesn't suggest to me that they counted themselves.

Yeah, I' I'd have to confirm to to 100% tell you either way. Thanks. I believe they did, but I I can't say with certainty right now. All right. Are there any other questions for the applicant? We have another opportunity after we have the public hearing if there are. Oh, wait. There the there is another offsite question or somewhat concern I have but I think it is more of a to staff after comments from the audience.

Okay, questions from any other board members. Thank you very much. Um I'd like to suggest a bit of a change in procedures if we could. This is a public hearing. We're about to enter into a public hearing and we have to have a public hearing and as such I find it unduly burdensome to ask for a motion to go into a public hearing and a second and a vote on that. I would rather just declare the public hope public hearing open unless there is an objection from a board member saving our staff from having to write down who's making motions and seconds and all of that stuff. Uh so if if there isn't an objection to that

I do not object to that. Riley loves to make motions. So I want to make sure that you're not you're going to object to that. Okay. All right. So I will declare the public hearing open unless there's an objection from anyone else on the board. Hearing none. Public hearing is open. Anybody may approach the the microphone, state their name, their address. Uh please limit your comments to the subject at hand and you've got five minutes. Yes, sir. Robert Fornier, uh 625 Old Danville Road. I'm trying to figure out on the map where the Spurwing building is. Okay, let's start with that. Can somebody bring up a plan that would

the one closest to Danville Road? The biggest one

road. here on the corner of right here. Okay, now you got to return to the Now that you know where you are, you can go back to Thanks. Go ahead. So, I'm wondering how much of the woods they're going to clear behind the spur wing cuz our wood line is there. I'm wondering how much of that they're leaving in there because there's quite a bit of woods behind us. You know, we get deer in our backyard all the time. There's a lot of animals out in those out in that area.

And we're curious how much you're going to clear behind us. Can we can we pull it up on the parcel viewer? We have to show where's the spur building. So could you tell Mr. Fornier that all the areas that

I'm not understanding it from where we are. Yeah. So this is It's the same as

this is not this is the Sam, can you just pull up the the partial map real quick? I think it's it'll be helped visually. You scroll down just a little bit more. So we have that property. All right. So can you see where your property is now? Yeah. So, that's your property right there.

Okay. So, that that that red uh part that's in your backyard, if you can picture that as where the tree line is, it's going to be cutting up pretty close to your property line. Ma'am, you'll have to wait to approach if you have a question or you can ask is this your husband? You can ask it for you if you want since he's up there, but otherwise we got to get your name and all that stuff. Um, can can I make can I make a comment or ask a question? Yep. Sam who?

Sam, can you go can you please go back to the the the plan the previous page you were on? Yes. I think Mr. Fornier he went up to the screen and put his hand up along that dashed line. Yes. And I think he mentioned he said that is he asked if that is the tree line. Is that a topography line? What is What is that line? Oh, okay.

Okay, I see it now. Okay, thank you. They're going to hate hearing my drums. Are you Are you all set? M. Do you have anything else, Mr. Fornier? No, that's pretty much what we want. Find out.

Anybody else care to address the board? Steven B575 Johnson Road. Uh I'd like to state at the outset that I have no financial or any other uh neighboring interest in this property, but I am greatly concerned about the processes and the functions of the board and uh the nature of this application. This by my count is the eighth or ninth time this application has been before the board beginning in January of last year and continuing till about September October of last year and then December and now presently this evening. Uh and although the planning board is not required to hold uh two hearings on a matter like the council is uh this matter uh is really not positioned for a final review given the nature of the first review that the board gave it last month and uh requested that a number of issues be addressed. What has come back before you tonight is not a direct uh response to the questions and issues that the board raised but an entirely new presentation of a new type of project which raises new issues. Uh Mr. Dro suggested that the declaration of condominium that's been offered is not for this project but is a pro-form declaration of condominium for some other project and even in another county by the same applicant. in which case this applicant doesn't presently have a standing to present this matter to this board. I don't even know if the condominium has been formally declared and if it has that document has not been offered as the fundamental starting point for presentation of this application here this evening. I think

this is all very preliminary in addition to the fact that a number of the issues that were present in previous iterations such as the area of the retention ponds, common areas, uh 2,000 ft of space that was to be accompanying the individual buildings. Mr. Fornier, uh Mr. It's really unfair. The applicant is trying to pay attention to what's being said, I think, but sure he'll give you whatever time he can, but it'll have to be after the meeting. Go ahead.

So, there are many open issues that are just not addressed in the presentation here this evening. uh much as one would hate to suggest it, I think that uh if this application is going to be correctly presented and correctly entertained, the applicant needs to go back to the drawing board again and do the fundamental things necessary for a condominium, however named, uh to come before this board with a correct completed document and uh also with some information that does a better job at presenting the neighborhood context. It was only in the last couple of minutes of the prior presentation, the prior remarks that I was able to find Danville Corner Road. Uh the other adjacent nearby buildings are are not well depicted. Uh with regard to the traffic issue, there was a public comment uh period for that Danville Corner light which I believe closed on October 22nd. I had extensive communication with Mr. Leurge of MDOT on this matter. They addressed a number of concerns. There is one major concern that I continue to have uh which I don't believe is immediately before you this evening, but uh the exploration of the Danville Corner light continues to be of general concern. Uh and this particular project with its additional numbers of trips per hour that will be engendered uh does not diminish or in any way reduce those concerns. Thank you.

Steve, can you stay for a second? Yes. So, are you are you suggesting that a declaration of condominium needs to be uh filed or a condominium association created in order for an applicant to have standing before this board? Yes. You seem pretty confident about that. Well, you asked me what my position was and I responded good straightforwardly. Yes. Yep. Um

the fact that a a declarant or an applicant may have declared a condominium under certain structures uh in other locations may be very heavily dependent upon the topography or other features of that location. And clearly the topography and features of this location are very central to the kinds of placement of functions, buildings, structures and other uses of the land. And I think that the condo ought to be declared for this parcel first.

I guess I reviewed the declaration or let me see what it was called. See you just a second. Condominium documents. The declaration of condominium that we've been provided. Frankly, I brought this up, but I think Tim Millet's LLC was just a placeholder that some wordsmith put in there, not knowing what the actual owner's name is, quite frankly, because I think this happened at the last minute based upon some of the feedback that the applicant got from the board about the impracticality of the original proposal. And the fact that it says Cumberland County, I think we've all made those mistakes in the past. it plainly. It's just it's sloppy. It's it's downright sloppy. But my question, I guess, is how could you declare a condominium without being able to refer to the plan to which the condominium relates, which is what this board is considering. So before this board approves a plan and you identify it and we approve it and it's recorded, how can the condominium declaration refer to it? Well, the plan doesn't necessarily have to have been finally approved by this board, but there ought to have been a plan applicable specifically to this site with its unique features created so that elements of the condominium declaration can relate to these features in terms of use, participation, costs, uh, sharing, and things of that nature. Ed, I I see where you're going with this. The uh declaration of condominium does refer back to recorded plans, which can't be recorded until they're approved. So, I agree with you. This is sloppy. Um I would like to see some of

the references cleaned up in here. I'm not sure that the exhibits are correct and um obviously the references to the various counties. Um, and also noting that there's some blank spaces referring to the number of units. Um, but I don't agree that the declaration of condominium itself has to be recorded prior to submission. Thank you. Yes, sir. You're next.

Steve Warren, 241 Danville Corner Road. Um, it's the only residence across the street from this development, proposed development. And I've spoken previously and expressed some concerns and I have to um express my appreciation for the way that um this process has uh changed the proposed uh legal. Uh I was very concerned about the the uh original proposed legal uh layout in I think this has improved um that from that original plan. I also expressed uh concerns uh about the open space and how that seemed the the plans uh did not seem to uh meet the spirit of uh the open space. They've redone it, but it almost seems like they've actually reduced the open space and said that they're going to put money aside to improve certain elements of it. But I still think that that goes against the spirit of what 90 units are going to produce in terms of number of residents who need to be able to get outside and have some open space access. So, I would recommend that the money be put aside for the city to dispense

with to actually produce some additional open space. Um, or potentially the the developer uh has adjacent property that is not being um considered for open space. And I'm not sure why, but um seems like that's another option. Uh but I think that the the intent of having the financial set aside is to increase, not to just throw money at uh these these lots these spaces here are roughly the equivalent of my front yard and backyard. And that's not going to be adequate for who knows how many young people to get out and have some space. And it's so close to the back of each of these units that I don't believe those people are going to be comfortable with having hundreds of users in their right outside their back door. Um so I think something needs to be done to expand the open space access. Um, other issues it was mentioned that uh there will be on street parking here and I'm concerned about fire trucks being able to navigate these corners if there's um on street parking. Uh I'm not sure if that's been

taken into consideration in terms of um emergency vehicles being able to get in there. Also, school buses. I'm not sure if it's been considered whether school buses are going to come in here or whe they're going to pick up out on the street. If they pick up on the street, loading 20 or more kids onto a school bus is going to back traffic up in a way that could be very detrimental to safety and potentially impact the already difficult situation at Washington Street. Uh and also the traffic study related to this project uh says that the current hightra hour is about 150 vehicles going down to Washington Street and they suggest that statistically there's going to be an additional 90 or so vehicles in the busy hour. That's a significant impact to Washington Street intersection backing up and becoming uh less safe. I I would say that adding a light is also going to back things up and with the additional traffic, it'll probably back up beyond not just the railroad overpass, but the highway overpass and especially during the winter with snow buildup, those are already tight spaces. So, I think there are a lot of concerns that need to be uh addressed before giving this a final approval.

Thank you.

Good evening. Stephanie Mard Damian. I live at 703 South Wam Road and I go down that road a lot. Um, I've come to if it's busy, take a right-hand turn onto Washington. Go down to the turnaround and come back instead of risk my life at that intersection. My husband actually used to tell his kids, "Don't take that turn and I will pay you not to when they were growing up as teenage drivers." Um I have I kind of ditto everything that he said in respect to the open spaces. I think the in lie of paying money um is a can't find a word besides copout because they could take a few buildings away and have some more open space. For example, instead of instead of making people walk through uh supposed neighbors yards, the other concern I have is with the layering and the topography. The mowing, the reality of mowing this very steep incline that you mentioned is going to be very challenging to actually maintain. The other thing is if people want to have a dog or a dog, you know, surround, then you're going to have 10 ft wide

from the back of the house and that's all you're allowed. So, there will be icy fences happening because we don't want dogs around. I'm just I'm just thinking it's it's very compact and it it could be spread out a little bit more and maybe a few less units so there's more of a livability. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Seeing no one coming forward, I'll declare the public hearing well before I declare the public hearing closed. Will that make a difference if we don't make a final decision tonight or could we continue this if we choose to close the public hearing? If we just close the public comment, we can keep the hearing till we make a motion. Okay. I'm going to close public comment for now and refer the board now to uh any internal discussions that we want to have or discussions with the applicant and staff. Tim,

um we had a couple people bring up a couple good points and it was right in front of my face the whole time. We're being told this is a final review. Is that really um a legitimate consideration given it's our first time seeing it as a condo plan? I'm glad you brought that up. Um I would I don't know if you're sharing a concern or simply asking a question. I I do both.

Yeah. Um I do question whether it is. Um and the term final is just to contrast the fact that our earlier review was preliminary. It doesn't mean that we only have one chance to make this decision. We can certainly um we're the masters of our own decision. If we decide that we're going to continue this for further digestion or additional information, we we can do that. Um I think the fact that it is changed, I'm not so sure the fact that it simply changed to a condominium concept um is is all that um decisive. Um but

I think it's good that we got it narrowed down to know exactly what we're looking at and exactly what we're considering because it was so gray before that. So now that we know we're looking at condos, we can examine it with that lens. I also agree that this uh is not a final in the sense that we're looking at a new site plan. So the preliminary approval for a different site plan and so I don't think it's relevant or I mean it's relevant to the a lot of the bases that we've set up and the many times has come before us. But I think this I I would be fine treating this as a preliminary review. Is this the first time we've seen the site plan?

This Yes. So this is obviously different from what was presented back in December, but it's not a totally new site plan with a new applicant, new development. Um there have been some changes, but it's still at this phase will be treated as a final plan review. So, if tonight the board isn't isn't ready or feels that information is sufficient to make a a final decision, they should know what they have to come back to submit. So, I'm hearing concerns about um the open space. So, even though they met with the recck department and the recck department said that their propo proposal was adequate, ultimately it's up to the board to make a final to make a final decision on that. And so the finding for that is is the open space adequate for the needs of this development? That's the question.

Well, my answer would be that I would want to see a revised plan of the open space because I would want the this retainment ponds taken out of the open space calculation and added to the fee in lie of. So it would be a different structure for the fee in lie of and a different uh site plan as as regarded to the open space. So that my my if as if if we're moving to discussion at all, my my opinion would be that I would want I would want to postpone this to a date certain of next month to see a revised open space plan and also to have a updated uh declaration and more complete declaration of condominium. So, those would be the two things I would be asking for the applicant to bring back in the case that uh anyone agrees with me on.

Yeah, I think that's that's valid. I I would ask um also the board if they're willing to consider those items as conditions of approval because taking out that wet pond um won't really change or taking the wet pond out of the open space is not going to change their overall plan. and and declaring the condo documents before registering uh with with um uh Andrew Chicago County of Deeds, the the subdivision plan. That's already a condition of approval. I I would be actually comfortable with making it a condition of approval for the the um open space calculation because that is a simple that's not changing the site plan. I I guess it would be up to the rest of the board how you feel about because it wasn't just the declaration of condomin just incomplete but had like incorrect information on it. So, I don't know if the board's okay with staff accepting an updated one on and approving it or as a condition or if you wanted to see it again and postpone it.

It's for me, it's not seeing the declaration filed with the um with the deeds. For me, it's seeing a declaration that's written for this project. Um, and I am not comfortable personally giving um that kind of flexibility on a document I have yet to see. If that that answers your question about having that be a condition of approval, I'm I'm not going to give approval on a document I haven't seen.

Is um um just a question for Craig. Is uh Tim Millet able to revise that um condo draft to make it a final document at this point in time? Yeah, I believe he would be able to. I I can't I I completely appreciate and understand it not being registered with the register of deeds. I get that. I I know what you're saying, but I just want to see a document written for this complex because that document itself could open up some questions and clarification as well. No, that I understand. And then um I would just ask for any other clarification on if there's any other changes to the open space that the board would like to see.

I want to see if there are going to be walking trails in the outer part, if there are any. There aren't. I want to see the I want to see where open space is shown on that plan as open space. Like type the words open space. Sure. We do have that on here. You do? Yes, it is. It is here. It's a I apologize if it's too light, but this is open space 4.46. It does include the take out, but it it is on there. I can I can I can do a figure with like a pastel hatch so it stands out better. And the interior ones as well. They are um

I didn't label as open space cuz technically by the ordinance standard they aren't. But I did try to describe in my letter that they will in all intents and purposes other than that ordinance they are open space. Um I I'm happy to put a hatch on them and and put them as open space because this is going to be recorded. Um, the reason they're not hatched there is just cuz per section that the open space standards, they're not open space, but in all reality, all that land is going to be owned by the condo association and function as open space. Um,

so I'm happy to put the hatch for all that. I'll just designate that like maybe I'll have it open space, 12, three, open space one is for the standard. I can I can do a breakdown for that so it's more clear. It' be great. Um, and to to to further Tim's point a bit if I could, I think if there are limited common elements, as that term is used in the declaration of condominium, I think the plan should also show those limited common elements so that we know where they are so that your buyers know where they are, what it is, and so that there's some they're not relying on the written document and then looking at the plan and say, "Well, Well, I think it includes this.

Sure. It does or it doesn't. Which is why I asked the question whether there had actually been any revisions to the plan once the condo concept was adopted. Sure. Successful condo plans are an asset to a community. Poorly executed condo plans are an eyesore. And I we're looking for the asset. I hope you can appreciate that. No, I I understand. Bob, you had another outside of the development question.

Yes. And I'll come back to the first one with respect to again the intersection, but the other kind of a question to staff. It's a hard one to define as far as a finding that a project will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area. aesthetic and of course it goes on historic sites or rare or irreplaceable natural areas. How do you define that? How do you objectively approach that? You know, it seems to be very subjective and I guess it kind of goes with our discussion with respect to flat lanes and so forth. And even now going back to the intersection issue, I'm almost thinking this is one of those projects that requires an on-site visit. Uh in the sense that it's hard to look visually at maps, topography, especially an area that this is a major project that it has been very much open land. Uh, so I think it does get down to the subjective view as well as the contours that we've been talking about. And I'm really still concerned with that intersection. And I guess I'd like to see the actual plan that the the city now has. And I gather from public comment that then some concerns even with that plan that's uh is out to bid now. I guess you know it gets back to it' be good that all of us could ride by this area independent independently and

I think we should uh but supposedly from earlier discussions were kind of handcuffed from doing that. But I think that I'm not sure the elevation of the the bridge over the tracks and going down that hill if people even coming down that Danville road can really see the light before they're truly on it. That if we're going to put more uh particularly outgoing traffic coming down a Washington street to go north or south uh you know I'm I have a question in my mind. Would there be uh should there be a light even before the bridge or just at the bridge so that people are more aware of the stoplight ahead to have an earlier warning because I'm still concerned that people like to beat the orange to red and this is not it the approach down that hill to be trying to get through the orange before it goes red. Can I

Yes.

Um, if I could just very briefly expand on what Bob is saying. Um, I I wonder if there's been any thought or consideration taken into the narrowness of that railroad bridge overpass. And then you've got that very narrow bridge, one one lane in each direction and then a very short distance and a steep downhill to the intersection. And it seems to me almost that that would want to be two lanes, one going straight and right and one going left or or what have you. It almost wants to be two lanes, at least in in my mind. But then you don't have space between the intersection and that very narrow rail railroad bridge to to bring two lanes up. Um I'm just wondering how that is going to play out because it doesn't seem to me like you could change that bridge.

Um I I agree actually the also the point that you brought up about slope. Um what we what you can what we can do is we can ask our city traffic engineer if the width or the slope were included in his calculations on to whether or not it's safe. Um but once they do determine that that is what the ruling that we have to accept as it as being safe. Um, so if if you wanted to ask the in the in the month or if this happens to be postponed a month and you were to ask the city staff to ask the engineer whether or not the width and the slope of that intersection were included in these calculations, it would be I think it'd be worth asking them.

Yes. So, uh I think you know one thing that's making me uh hesitant uh with the project is I mean we got the letter from the parks and wreck um committee and you know I feel like they may have looked at something that we aren't looking at but it talked about the benches it talked about different uh like we talked about the open space that's going to be up on the upper left uh of the site. Uh but not much in specifics in terms of where these things are going to be located. And when I think about open space, green space, whatever you want to call it, I think a place that brings people together, has a sense of community, and I'm not seeing much of that in this current plan. Uh and so that's what I'm kind of hesitant on seeing the fully fletched out, okay, these are going to be where the benches are laid out. These are going to be where the exact trail is. uh that kind of connects to here and and and so forth. And so uh that's kind of

I can if I can the parks and recck has seen the exact plans you guys have that the the trails and the benches are outlined on there. Um it's you can see

that's the same layout that parks and wreck has been provided. So I I can I can assure the board that parks and w hasn't seen a separate open space plan than has been presented to the board. And also just to clear up a qu another question from a member of the public. The those roads are wide enough for buses and fire trucks to get in and out. Yep. They're designed to city standards or city standard um dimensions. And is it something that's going to have to be determined by the condo or is the bus entering the property a decision that's already been made? Um I can confirm that when we submit. I don't know off the top of my head. So, I can't

That would be another that uh that would be another piece of information that would Yeah, I I don't know that off the top of my head. And would would the turning radiuses and all of those things for emergency vehicles be met if there's on street parking? It should. Yeah, I can provide a figure if you if you'd like. Yeah, I I think I would like that. And to my earlier question, I would like to know whether your traffic engineer was on site and had evaluated the steepness of that grade onto Washington Street. Yep, I've got that noted.

And as for open space, I just want to make the general comment that I think that our ordinance requirements for open space are woeful. I think the fact that you can buy your way out of open space for literally pennies is um it's unacceptable, but it is what it is. Uh and we got to we have to uh address that. Um I I do think that um it does warrant some consideration either by this this board or city staff that uh those on the open space requirements be revisited because I think this this application is probably exhibit one for something that is pushing the limits and I understand pushing the limits. That's fine. But this developer has excess property that he's not contributing to this uh to this development. Um uh he very well could. It would probably be a better development for all around. Um uh we're squeezing 69 units each one on 2,000 square ft and a pretty small acreage. And so I just think that um the comments made by some of the neighbors regarding open space are understandable. I share your concern, but I think as a board we've got some limitations that we have to live with. Um, and that's not to say that I won't look hard at whatever the final design is and the calculations and make sure that it's the best it can be uh for this uh for this situation. Um, so uh do we have enough uh guidance uh for this applicant? If I sense that the board uh decides to continue this matter um with the applicant's agreement, of course, if not we'll put it to a vote.

I would agree.

Okay. Um yes, Bob. I guess I'll say right up front, you know, we do have a growing need for housing and I think this is a project that I think addresses some of our housing needs and actually it not only for our own community, but it is an area that we are seeing ourselves as being a a community providing employment to the Portland area. more commuters going back and forth. So, I think it's located uh in an area that has easy access to the Portland market, but we want to make sure the project is good and we don't want to create hazards. And so I think safety within, but again I go back safety without and and I guess you know I don't think we need an on-site meeting but I guess I'm going to go in that area and drive those roads and I think we all need to and I'll say right up front and say that I will. Uh but I think that there is a real issue uh surrounding that intersection and I think we all need to have a to be more comfortable that we're not going to load that intersection and and have a situation we're going to reach some warning that's been another death or two at that intersection.

Uh you did you say you said Mr. Miller could come up with a declaration of condominium. Do you think that a month is enough time for that to be I I do. Yeah. Okay. Um is it is it relevant to ask where the the snow goes when these roads are plowed? Yes, it is relevant.

Um and is is that cons taken into consideration? You know, when these roads are plowed, where's the snow going to go? And when when snow banks develop, we I would want to make sure that it doesn't begin to olude intersections or inhibit a fire truck coming in or or what have you. Is there any c can you address that now? Would you prefer to wait till our next meeting? I I'll have a I'll address it next time. I believe they'd have to truck a lot of it off, but I'll before I'll vote

I'm sorry, what was the last part? Um, I believe they'd have to um haul a lot of it off at this location, but I'll address it formally and and probably should be addressed, although our attention has been entirely focused on the condominium aspect of this. The the four or three 8-unit projects, too. There probably ought to be a demonstration of where the snow gets taken out of there, too.

Sure. I do agree with you, Bob. I think this is a a project that moves us along in terms of housing needs. It's individual housing. It isn't just all rental. I think that's very important. Um I think a developer is entitled to push the envelope as much as they can given our standards. Um I just wish there was a little more uh on the give side rather than the take side for this particular application, but that won't change the way I view it ultimately when I vote on it. They're entitled to that.

I I love the I love the layout, the houses, the the number of houses, the the architecture, the style. I mean, it's great. It's great. We just have tees to cross and eyes to dot. No, I understand. Yeah. And I I know that out there technically he could do almost 250 units on the site based on the density. Um I know it does look busy, but it could be a much denser site. Anything further? I'll take a motion of some sort if there is one to be made.

I need some help with this one. Uh, I make a motion that we postpone a final decision to the April 14th 14th 2026 meeting uh with the applicant to specifically provide uh an updated declaration of condominium

open space uh and a revised open space calculation information concerning the traffic movement analysis other.

Oh, you're not done. Keep going. Semicolon. Semicolon. Uh, additional information on the traffic movement plan to include whether the slope and width of Danville Corner Road was taken into account in preparation of the traffic plan and the snow removal plan. Should have let you do this one. Second anyone? I'll second that.

Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor? Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Get home to your wife and children. Yep. Next we have discussion on an act I guess it's going to be action uh an act to regulate municipal parking space minimums. This item is continued from the February 10, 2026 meeting. Sam.

Yes. So this is a continued business from the last meeting. So, the state uh passed a law relative to minimum parking requirements, which is LD427, which requires that a municipality not allow more than one off- streetet parking space per dwelling and allows a developer to satisfy parking requirements through an off-site parking arrangement located within a quarter mile of the development. Um, so I'll walk through some of these inconsistencies that I found. Um the last time I discussed the mobile home park standards, they allow currently two spaces per dwelling unit. So that was taken out. There were a few other inconsistencies as well that I can go through um on the slides as just just now.

Sam, I'm sorry. Does the current ordinance allow or require two spaces? Because

it requires it requires two spaces at least two spaces. Okay. Um so there were a few other things noted as well. Um this is under plan unit developments on the slide. Uh currently the language says that the board um can increase or reduce uh the parking spaces for a plan unit development. So I felt that was uh a gray area that was a little bit uh inconsistent with with the intent of the state law. So I struck out those provisions and just replaced um with uh off streetet parking shall comply with article five of this chapter which has the off-site parking standards. Um the next

Can you tell me where where that is? What what that's in in in plan unit developments um which is uh section 6361 of the ordinance. So you you're striking everything in red and just adding the underlined paragraph two. Yes. Yes. Do people have questions on that? Um so then the uh next thing I found was on conversion of one family dwellings. This is section 6035. Um I can

So number two says there will not be less than one accessible off- streetet parking place of 200 square ft per dwelling unit. So I think this can be a little confusing because it implies that you can have more than one. So that was just taken out for consistency to prevent confusion of those standards. Are there any questions on that? You would renumber those paragraphs after two is okay. Yeah, I would wouldn't want anyone looking at that going thinking something was missing.

No. Yes, it'll be reumbered. Um there's another thing that I caught under um use regulation section 6499. I think this is uh GB2 if I'm not mistaken. Um it had the exact same provision for off- streetet parking for buildings located within 500 ft. So that's not compliant with the state. Um I I believe I caught that in another um in another district as well. So that's taken out. Um do people have questions on that? No. And I think um yeah, mobile home park standards. It says currently residential parking need not be located on lots occupied by dwelling units served by at least two such spaces per unit. So that whole section is just is taken out.

Can I go back to the the section 6499 use regulation? Seems like what you're striking there is is a a separate use. I I might decide to create a parking lot for residential uses. Why wouldn't I still be able to do that? Why Why shouldn't I? Why does the statute preempt that? I think I can keep the off- streetet parking as a use. Um, yeah, I crossed this whole thing out because it had in it that um such parking that the buildings have to be within 500 ft of the parking area. So now it's you can be within a quarter mile and I believe that same um language was listed in another uh section in in another district section. So that's why I took it out. Um but I can leave um off- streetet parking as the use.

Yeah, I think if we left off streetet parking as the use, then whether it's used for supplemental residential or commercial or whatever, it's it's an allowed use. A parking lot is an allowed use in the zone. And this I don't think it should be stricken, but So probably just the first three words off street parking. Okay. Could be left.

Yeah. Just the last thing that was uh under home occupations. Um I'm open to discussion on this one. This is on under section 6070 738. Um so currently it says provide one parking space on the property for each 150 square ft of designated home occupation use which implies you you can have more than one for just one dwelling unit. If home occupation is greater than 150 square feet and you have double that size, you could have two parking spaces for one residential dwelling or home occupation. So open to discussion on that if the board feels it necessary to keep it in or if they feel it's confusing and inconsistent with the state. Um just happy to hear thoughts on that one. Doesn't it seem that if someone is proposing an a home occupation that in that inherently is going to require parking and if the resident is limited to one space, I guess as would Well, it's limited by our ordinance, but anybody could propose two spaces, right? We just can't require two.

Yeah, anybody can propose two, but yeah, that's right. But if only one is provided and somebody then proposes a home occupation, they have to somehow account for the parking needs of that occupation and the customers or clients it serves.

Yeah, that's correct. I think the wording on this is related to square feet. So the number of parking is provided per square foot of home occupation which I think can be a little bit confusing because it's not based on actual the entire property. It's just based on the square footage that's used for a home occupation. Could you leave the first part of that sentence and just say provide one parking space on the property and not tie it to the square footage of the home occupation use? I I would just push back. I think uh you know I think we're trying to just satisfy the state statue and so I would be more comfortable I honestly on my personal opinion I don't think the state statue goes far enough. Uh, I think we we come here with the developers come here with their plans and I think they have, you know, a better idea or they know exactly how much they're going to spend on parking, right? Because they don't want to do any more than what they have to do, right? And so if we I mean, I'm in favor of just removing uh parking requirements altogether. But obviously, we're just trying to that's a conversation for another day. We're just trying to meet the state statute as it is now. But uh as we have more developments come before the board uh and you know we have different infrastructure uh needs that take place whether that be for active transportation whether that be for you know bike infrastructure and so forth. Uh we definitely want to be uh you know taking into taking into account different modes of transportation. And so, uh, you know, there's there's only

so so much space that can go around and the space that would have been for parking could now be for bike rack or could be for places for greenery and things to beautify the property, right? And so, uh, uh, I think limiting it to one will take us in that direction and, uh, so we should just be doing the minimal to do that. I uh I would to the question of leaving the provide one I actually somewhat agree um that striking it all together would be okay in that the if it's an applicant building something for sale then they would want to build something that they could sell which would be something with a parking spot and if they're building it for themselves they'd want a place to park. So I think the natural uh desire for a parking spot will not force their hand, but to the extent that I I don't know that we need to require it. So, I would be comfortable striking the whole that whole section.

Yeah. The way I read it is say I just built a 3,000 square ft home. According to this criteria, I would need to have 20 parking spaces. Well, no, this is for a home occupation. Well, can't use the whole house as a home, but home if the way it's written, one parking space on the property for each of 150 square ft of area designated for home occupation use. Designated for home occupation. So, if you're 3,000 ft house, you might use 500 ft of it as your home occupation, your home office, whatever you do.

But I think that also exemplifies the wording that Sam mentioned, too. But yeah, I I say strike it out. That's that's my opinion. So you would like to remove any parking requirement at all for a home occupation. Somebody comes to us with a home o they don't do we even review home occupation. Is that a staff level? Anybody know? Yeah, I think we do. Only if it was under a subdivision, which I actually wouldn't be if it was a subdivisions.

Um that seems You can just there's no parking requirement at all. Well, it's the it's the invisible hand concept. It's not going to they're not going to build a house if it's going to be useless to someone who wants a place to park.

Yeah. But I don't think people build a house with an intention. They usually buy a house. If you're with fewer people buy them than build, but you don't build a house necessarily with an intention of having a home occupation. I think more often than not, you you have a house and you decide to turn the garage into a hair cutting salon or a law office, you know, because you're not going to work in town anymore. You want to work from home. So, the house is there. Um, and now you're going to be inviting clients, one, two, three, however many, plus an outside employee, I think, is what our ordinance provides for. Where are they going to park? like that that's the whole gist of a home occupation and requiring parking is one of the key components of it. I think I I mean I could be convinced otherwise. I just think that it wouldn't be no one would build it if they were going to build if they were to be unusable. So we just reviewed if if that declaration that we just reviewed goes through it plainly I think prohibits home occupations.

Right. So the point I was trying there are going to be 69 units out there without any home occupation. What what where I think the confusion is is there's home occupancy saying you can live in this building versus this building is where your occupation is. Do you see you can you you can occupy a home you get your home occupancy permit when you build a house

or home occupation which is I have a barber salon in my house that's where the confusion is and I think that's where we there needs to be some clarification but I think the argument is that you know if you have a home suddenly you want to put in say a hair salon, you do need parking for your customer. So there is a requirement for the home itself, but if you have a home occupation in that home, you need another space for sure,

right? Currently, if you had a 300 foot garage that you turned into a hair salon, then you'd need two parking spaces for that. Yeah. And I don't see how this falls under the state statute regarding residential development and requiring only one space. This is not a residential use. This is a occupation. Yeah, I think that's a fair that's a fair point. We can also has to this the home occupation as a permit that gets reviewed every year. So if the parking were to become an issue, I imagine that would be part of the permit review process. I think once that horse is out of the barn, it's out of the barn.

I guess overall I have a real concern with what the state's doing to towns and cities across the state. Uh we know that uh parking is not just for a car. Uh we most families have some sort of toy that requires a parking space or two. So I it it's becoming and it you know almost puts more pressure on the cities in their budget to provide some off- streetet parking for neighborhoods in the future. is people or we're going to have more uh cars on the street or have a trailer with a boat or a trailer with a snowmobile. Uh and I think over time and again I said on the sustainability uh committee and my concern is the state is putting this communities in a a situation long term of not being sustainable because they're going to be asked to provide even more.

Uh to the chair's point though, it actually it could be it would be it would be uh useful to know whether or not that the home occupation would be affected by that state legislation because if it's not if it's if it's not directly related to businesses being run in the homes, then this debate could be put off for another day. I don't think it will be impacted by the state ordinance, but I think when I was looking through it, it seemed like a potential gray area. So, I brought it up for discussion, but I think based on the intention of LD427 is to make parking more permissible for new residential and new commercial developments. So home occupation um is yeah residential home business out of a home. Um it kind of doesn't fall necessarily under the same purview but like I said I just was a point uh that I thought was a little unclear. Um, but I don't think it's I don't think it goes against the intent of the state ordinance, but more of a issue of of consistency in our in our ordinance.

It's Yes, I think it's more of a wording inconsistency. I think I for one would not be uncomfortable leaving it as it is. I don't think it is

applicable to the reasons that we're trying to make changes to the parking requirements. And just on this topic generally, we did have the recent application on Academy Street where they had to find some off- streetet parking. And I think that's when this is going to come up is when you have more urban development, more infill. Every other developer that has come before this board is proposing more than the minimum required parking in our ordinance. I'm more concerned about that than I am about any but again there's nothing that prohibits them from making three spaces per unit if they want to. We have a minimum but not a maximum. I wish we did have a maximum but so we have a lot of revisions here. How do you want to take? Did Did I hear any is there any question? Well, does anybody have Let's start with what Sam is proposing and I'll ask are there any proposed changes to what Sam is proposing? uh the section 6499 B12 to uh remain and only keeping the off streetet parking as a use as a special exception use.

Okay, here. You got that one, Sam? Yeah. Um, why don't we put these to an individual vote if that's okay and maybe easier to keep track. Um, we have a second to Riley's motion. This isn't a public hearing, but if you'll hold on a moment, might be happy to. It is a public hearing. Well, all right. Thank you. Time out. We're going to take a timeout, Riley. We're gonna This is We're going to open a public hearing. This is actually a public hearing. We haven't done that yet. All right. I'm gonna open a public hearing unless I hear some reason not to. Okay. Go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm Stephanie Mardamian, 703 South Wam Road.

I am also uh the vice president of the Women's Literary Union that's on 19 Elm Street, right next to the Academy Street. And it just came to our attention a couple days ago about the proposed parking and lack of parking for that project, which raises huge concerns for that neighborhood and the flow of traffic and the proposal of that street becoming one way and what will happen to Elm Street. So I want to stop you. We we approved that project. Okay.

And we didn't approve anything about a change in a one-way street. If there's something I'm sorry, the the diagram showed that the parking would be angled in front of the and it would be there there was a diagram that um was it had nothing to do with the project whatsoever. We didn't approve any changes in the parking on that street. That that was an artist rendering that was nothing more than that and it was misleading but not by design. And it was just that's the way they it had nothing to do with our approval of the project. Yeah, we actually talked about that specifically. That was simply a picture. That's not what's happening to the street.

Okay, that is very helpful to know. I'm very glad I came because that is very uh important information for Elm Street and we have gatherings and things there and parking is already for us a cluster problem. So, um, yeah, that's and so this proposal I think or eliminating that allows for and maybe the state statute I'm not that verse on it, but maybe the state statute already limits how much parking they have to provide, but I guess I we have to go to council meetings and since you've already approved it. Well, the state statute that we're discussing limits how many spaces we can require. It has nothing to do with how many an applicant may decide to provide. They might have to meet a minimum number, but we can't make that minimum number greater than one per unit.

I'm with you, Bob. I think they're creating a mess that's going to last a long time. But I understand we need housing, so I get that. But I'm just conveying my concern about all of this and and uh protecting the character of a neighborhood. And um I guess that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Would anybody like to speak at our hastily convened public hearing?

Seeing no other people wishing to speak, I'll close the public hearing unless there's objection. Public hearing is closed. shall resume our discussion with Riley about a proposed motion for section 411 499. Uh so you you said we want to vote on this on each of the two potential I

if we only have two I can handle that if we have well let's see what we can cobble together. We've got this one. Maybe if you're willing to take the the the ore and and develop a comprehensive motion, I'll entertain it. Yeah. Um I uh well let me uh I make a motion to accept the changes by staff to the parking requirements before us with the exception of 60-499 B12 uh for that to include just the words off streetet parking so that that can stay as a special exception use but the rest of that section to be struck

the just to add to that um the changes next will be going to council. So in the memos that you guys have, the suggested motion is to move forward with the recommended changes to the city council for council for adoption. So just make sure to include that it's getting forwarded to the council as part of the motion. Yeah, this motion is to be forwarded to the council for adoption. You're not proposing any more changes?

No. Okay. Second. Any discussion? Well, I for one think that we need to do something with section 738 and the provision of one parking space. I think that needs to stay. I don't think that should be eliminated. So unless we're going to amend that motion or vote on a second motion that would address this, I wouldn't vote in favor of that one limited change.

Well, there's been seconded. Could you make it a a motion for an amendment and then we voted that up and down that way and then go back to voting on the original motion? Sure. I'll make a motion um if I could uh make a motion to amend the motion um to to not eliminate paragraph 9 of section 60-738. I second I second the motion to amend the motion.

Discussion on the amendment to the motion. to say I mean I feel like I made my feelings about this but uh known but we don't need more parking in the city. The last thing we need is a development that you know of course I get you understand the point about the maximums but limiting it to one uh gets us closer to zero than what is currently in the ordinance. So, uh, you know, I understand the concern about the home occupancy. I really do. Uh, but I think, you know, they can model their business to include other types of transportation or have some sort of driveby service where they can go into different communities and not have it at the home. Uh, there's different ways we can do businesses. So, uh, you know,

so you're you're you're picking on Yeah. the little home occupation person in favor of super clip cuts or whatever that's called. That's where you got to go for your haircut because they've already got a parking lot and I want to have one out of my house and you're saying no no no cuz you don't have adequate parking.

Well, I would I would go back on that though cuz what you're saying to the little person who wants to open up a salon in their shop that they now have to provide a parking spot. Well, it seems to me it only makes sense that you got to provide I mean you're h it's a house you got to get to that house. I'll tell you, I I go to a guy who has a studio. Uh, and you know, it's out of it's out of his house. So, he's a home occupant to So, he he's got like a little garage where I go in to get a haircut. And,

you know, I'm telling you, people that are in that business are pretty creative. And so, they can come up with solutions where they can either have some sort of temporary parking solution or uh they can park somewhere else and have the client come in to their own parking. You know, there's there's different ways we can go about this, but requiring like a single spot for these different businesses, I don't think is the right direction for the city. I think the less parking there is out there, the better it is for the entire public. I' I'd say my concern is um not necessarily the lack of creativity on the business owner, but the creativity of the people who are patronizing it and where they may choose to park uh to access that business if there is no parking spot made available to them. I can see concerns with people pulling up on lawns or blocking neighbors driveways um doing whatever they need to do to get into that business if there's no place for them to park. And for this specific uh example, well, um I I would think that because it is a home occupation and there's an annual review of the permit that if they were parking up on people's lawns that that would come up in the next review of that permit.

Well, so what if they are? Nothing says they can't. that could that could drive the the city to require them because they've created a nuisance. They're just I don't I I I don't think people are going to build a lot of businesses that they don't have any place for their their customers to park cuz they want their customers to come park. It's the it's the motivation for their business to be at their houses that that can happen. Any other discussion on the motion to amend? Uh, all in favor of the motion to amend. One, two, three, four. All opposed. One, two. Did I get your vote? I'm sorry.

You were for it. Okay. 5 to two. The motion has passed. Discussion on the amended motion. Seeing none, all in favor of the amended motion passed unanimously. Thank you. Next item, new business. Stson Road Multif Family Development request for one-year extension from the date of approval. The development is located at zero Stson Road, assessor's parcel ID 291-011.

So, this is an extension request for uh the Stson Road multif family subdivision. It was approved March 11th last year. The uh original design consisted of 50 residential buildings with 20 duplexes and 30 quadlexes. The applicant revised um their plan and brought it to staff August 19th, 2025 and changed it from 20 duplexes to six to 26 unit buildings. So, they're requesting an ex a one-year extension from their date of approval based on unexpected cost associated with the project. Um they state in their letter they're still exploring financing options. So, under the current ordinance, projects have one year to start construction, they may request a one-year extension. So, if the extension request is granted, their approval would now be valid through March 11th, 2027. Um, I believe in the applicant's rep is here to speak on the on behalf. Um, I have on the screen uh the amended plans um from the uh 20 duplexes and quadplexes to um what was revised and brought to staff back in August. They have um a letter of good cause which you'll see in the application as well that's required for extension requests. Um, I will say if the board feels that the information provided is not sufficient to grant an extension, it would mean their approval would be uh essentially invalid and they they'd have to come back for a new site plan review if the extension is granted. However, their approval now is valid through 2027. Before we hear from the applicant, I just want to make sure I understand the

dates correctly or the implication if if the applicant came back to the planning board on August 19th, 2025 to present a modification to the development to include 20 duplexes and 26 unit buildings, which we approved. Why wouldn't that be the date from which it starts rather than March? Um, so I think they I I looked in our files. I did not see um an updated findings of fact for August 19th, 2025. I only saw the one for um March 11th. Okay.

Um so I think even if they even if they did have an additional few months, it makes sense to request it now because the original approval is from that date. And I think the revised um I obviously wasn't here then, but I I think the revised plan was brought to staff committee and staff um basically reiterated that to the planning board stating that they were okay with the revised design.

Okay, we're here now. Great. Yeah, I think the Hi, my name is Jason Cambits. K A M B I T SIS. Uh this was brought back in August um for review and comment and we're here to not tonight, but we want to get it approved and we're trying to get that extension for that. So um you know, just a little update on what this is. Um we haven't changed the unit count. Uh we even changed really the the roadway network has changed a little bit based on the the um the buildings that we're doing. But you know just an update on what they are. Uh you can see the the building types there on the bottom. We had a more modern one on the right for the duplexes. And what we did in that meantime is we actually uh took our um Pittsburgh architects and got main architects. We actually using Woodh Hall architecture out of Portland. Um, and what happened is as we were, you know, building our project, we're finishing up on our other uh site right next to the BJ's on Mount Auburn. Um, the second building will be open uh for rental uh in May, June. First building is now almost full. I think we have one unit left. Um really what we're doing as we were getting in there is trying to meet the market. We know there's a need for housing. Uh we know that um you know Auburn especially uh down east Maine is always looking for new housing. And so when we originally looked at the town houses we had we actually almost went almost ballistic looking at the pricing what we would have to meet from a rental perspective which really was going to be above what people in in Auburn really were going to be able to to deal with. Uh so we kept the duplexes uh because we really wanted to u to do that that type. We think that's a a great house for here. It's a one-story two-bedroom home, so it'll be rented out as such. And the other ones are sixunit uh really a main architecture design um that really meets the needs of everybody. So, the fit and

the finishes are just like our other buildings. It's just it's in a more uh compact environment. Um you know, we met with staff even previously to August. I think we came in early in the summer and went through it and the re response that we got was they liked this better than what we had before. Uh, everybody was really amanable to that and liked it and thought that it really made a lot of sense. Um, I just want to say, you know, we love this location. It makes a lot of sense. I I go through all the um communities. I like to be on the ground. You know, I've I ran down Stson Road. I think it was probably in the fall and so we're going to add some uh sidewalks there and really uh you know spruce up the whole area there. Um you know I'm here to answer any questions you guys may have about it and anything you want to know more about. So

thank you. Do you think a year will give you enough time for the project to start or do you foresee any thing that could come up where we're I I don't I mean I don't foresee that. If we could get it longer, that would be great in case something were to happen. But we really we really have taken our time to come back and and and and relook at it. Um if we could get a two-year extension, that would be great. But, you know, tonight we're asking for a one-year. What does our ordinance say about extensions? Does anybody anybody looked at that? Do you know Sam by any chance?

Yeah. For for extensions of site plan approvals, it says you can request um another year for your site plan approval to be valid. Um so you currently have one year to to start construction. Does it doesn't specify whether that has to be uh substantial construction, whether it has to be like primarily or mostly complete. It just says start construction. For solar projects, solar projects have two years to start construction. All their projects, it's just one year. What about an extension? So, this gentleman's here asking for an extension. There can't be limitless extensions. No, it's just one one single one-year extension.

And the board doesn't have any authority to ex that. That's part of the ordinance and that's what that's what it is. Um, yeah, we don't need I mean, we really don't need more than that. I I I understand that was really Yeah. internal discussion. Sure. Allowed. Um, I think I saw I don't know if it was in the the staff's report to us or in your your letter. Is is financing an issue? Is that I mean, you sort of alluded to it. It's cost the project's costing more than you had anticipated.

Well, the Yeah. in order to in order to meet the demands of of the market, right? We had town houses and they were they were nice. Uh but in order to rent them out and make them work for everybody, it far exceeds what we originally envisioned once we got into it to do that. Um, we have been building these in other places and the rent is gonna, you know, for us and for what what we feel as we've been in this market, as we've been renting and and and getting people into this market and seeing what people um want to pay to be in Auburn and can pay to be in Auburn, the other design was going to exceed that dramatically. It wouldn't have made sense uh once we got into that. So the project is changing to the extent that the types of buildings that you're proposing different. The numbers are staying the same.

Numbers are the same. Yeah. Yes. Uh yeah. Could you I mean I wasn't here on the board when the gave its initial approval, but could you walk us through the uh pedestrian enhancements? I know you mentioned something about Stson Road.

Yeah. So, we have off-site improvements that are actually going to happen on this property. They actually will extend. If you look at the site plan, um what direction that would be going left, you actually we're actually putting in a sidewalk um all the way down to the YMCA. So, there's nothing there now. There's a sidewalk on the other side of the street and we're going to do um a crosswalk to the other side of the street as well. Uh so, that was part of our approval. Uh we're happy to do that. gets connect to um you know all the businesses and the YMCA down the street and then there's internal circulation as well. Okay. And Okay, that's my other question. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Anything else? This wasn't a public hearing, is it?

It's not. No. Right. Um I'll entertain a motion if there is one. Yeah. Um, I make a motion to approve the one-year extension request through March 11, 2027 for Stson Road Multifamily Development located at 0 Stson Road, City Assessor's Parcel ID 291-011.

Second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All in favor of the motion passes unanimously. Thank you and thank you for coming in and we look forward to your development. Thank you. We appreciate it. Have a nice Got a nice new covert down there, too. Yeah. I I couldn't hear you. What' you say? You have a nice new culvert down there, too.

Yeah. Yeah. It's great. Thank you. Public comment. This is an opportunity to uh address the board about something that's not on our agenda. Going once, twice, three times. Miscellaneous. City manager will present the updated comprehens excuse me, capital improvement plan for discussion. Mr. Crow, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, no comp plan for me tonight. And uh um so you've had a long night, so this should be at least a three-hour presentation. So we'll get you in and out.

We understand the strategy. Yeah. Um, just for for new counselors, just uh so you know, no, don't elevate us to counselors. We're not that yet. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, new planning board members. Thank you.

Yet, um this is just the prime the priming area to feed, right? So, uh we appreciate uh the opportunity to come before you, but for historically, just so that you're aware, uh by charter, uh the city manager brings the uh capital improvement plan before the planning board annually um for review and consideration. The what we would do is on your agenda packet for your next meeting, uh there'll be an opportunity for you to provide any feedback on the plan. I'm not expecting you to have feedback tonight. Um, this is for me to kind of walk through. I brought uh Dan Goyette, who's

the uh director of our engineering and capital improvement um capital infrastructure uh department to answer some questions regarding the bulk of our capital improvement plan has to do with engineering and road reconstruction. So, uh if you have questions regarding that, where we're targeting some of the work that we've done, uh we're happy to do that. Uh just for a little background for the board, um we currently um beyond just the capital improvement plan, we currently have approximately $75 million of infrastructure improvement that's underway in the city uh in one phase or another. So we have a lot of uh infrastructure capital type projects that we're working through currently. Um, we keep that in mind as we bring uh annually other capital projects. What's the capacity uh for staff to be able to uh manage those? Are we hitting our our time frames when we take out bonds? We do have requirements on when we spend those funds. We just can't let those funds sit. Uh we have to report out on where we're at regarding the our bond. Um but so one thing that we implemented recently within the city is a capital assessment management uh program. And so we're currently building that out. This is a multi-year uh project. every capital assess every uh um capital asset that we have uh within the city is being recorded and tracked as well as we'll be tying in all maintenance of all those assets and then we will be the next phase of this project is rolling out the capital predictor. So, this will allow us to be able to now generate um a report that really identifies our assets, which assets are at that point where they need replacement based on how

much we're spending on maintenance, whether that's an HVAC system or a facility that might be uh driving some of our costs. Um but we also are collecting every piece of asset as far as a street side um park benches uh conditions of those will be evaluated updated within our system. So what you will be seeing next year we're actually building out a 10-year CIP plan uh for the future. We've got some work to do on that. We've got some ordinance changes that we need to do. Uh then we have we're anticipating that based on the asset management plan that we have, we'll be able to build out a full 10-year plan for you. Uh that the uh predictor will help drive what some of those needs are. One of the uh accomplishments that the engineering department was able to manage this past year was completing a street scan uh for every road and sidewalk in the city of Auburn. uh that allowed us to uh really enhance the uh scoring and replacement schedule for our roads. And so uh we'll what you'll see in here as we talk about road uh reconstruction uh you'll see um that the staff used that scoring to determine which roads uh should be considered. Um you're all residents of Auburn. I know that we could spend endless money on road reconstruction. Um, Auburn is challenged and Dan will have the ex probably the exact miles, but the amount of miles of roads that Auburn has does not compare with any other community. Uh, if you were to go south and you were to take Portland, you'd have to take Portland, Westbrook, um, Felmouth, uh, Gorm, you'd have to take that entire area to even match what we have for road infrastructure here in the city of Auburn. U based on we're 67 square miles. So we're the we're the largest community with square miles east of the

Mississippi where u we are the ninth largest in the country. So when you look at our just our land mass as a city, we have a lot of responsibility. It's a lot of costs. It's a lot of maintenance. Um so those are the things that drive some of our budget uh requirements. Uh so that's just a brief overview of where we're at, what's going on currently, uh the work that's underway. Um I'm not going to go through each one of these line items uh with you. I'll just talk about them in general. Um and then if there's questions about any of those before I move them on to the next section, please ask and we'll we'll certainly answer that. Uh the first section that you see on that sheet, you know, I was supposed to put this on so the public could see this. Um, let you see that I didn't have my glasses on. Um, so the first section that you'll see on the report is a uh is from the airport. So the Auburn Lewis airport, this is uh the cost for items that would actually impact impact the city of Auburn. So those are our half of the share. So as a um sponsored community with the airport, Lewon um has 50% of that cost share for our capital improvements. Um I just want to mention too that this is a plan. This isn't when you look at FY27. Um by no means am I bringing a $25 million request to the city council. So for FY27, that that's not going to happen. um I wouldn't be here long I think if I did and uh so we we work through prioritizing that we're working with um the uh the staff and identifying what are those priorities but there are items like this one oftent times um the

911 center we have to also work with our sister city across the river um give me one second and I will get this up for All right. The public will be able to see this. Ask you a question since you've had a pause here.

Yeah. Can you define for us what constitutes a capital improvement? I mean, I understand it might be long lasting and it might be a minimum expense. What would those if those are the criteria or are the criteria? What are they?

Yeah, great question. I think we um it is a moving target for us. Um I'll tell you what it should be and then what we're historically have done, what we're moving towards and so it should be greater than 10 years of a of a capacity life life uh capacity on that. But then it also for us it should be greater than $25,000 in cost. So those are really the two two points for us. Um what historically has happened is there's been a lot of uh rolling stock that's been put in the capital rather than in the operating budget. Um I think two years ago um I started moving that before the council for consideration. And so we now have just over a half a million dollars what in what we call operating capital. And so that's now shifted out of our bond every year and is now just in our operating budget. And that's a lot of our rolling fleet like our police cruisers. We don't keep our police cruisers for 10 years. Uh those have too way too many miles on them. We're trading them out within uh anywhere between three to five. Um so um most are three. if they're five, it's because we're moving them into a non um emergency response vehicle and into a support vehicle. So, um so yeah, great question. Uh that's that's the standard. Uh we're we're working hard to get to that and we we have moved. Um what we'll continue to do, not this year, this is a very challenging budget. Not that they're not they're all not, but this year um will eventually continue to grow that operating capital and continue moving out bonded items. When you start bonding items that you no longer you're paying on them and you no longer own them, uh that's just not good financial practice. So yeah, great question. So, now that we're caught up here uh on the screen, um you'll see that the airport is again within the plan

recommending about just over a million dollars for FY27. And just to orientate you with this, this is five years. So, each of those columns or what we'll consider, um we do our best on the outy years. It's projects that we're aware of. It's projects that we may know that it's going to be teeing up based on growth. Uh the airport has a uh airport master plan and so the items that you see here, if you wanted to actually see more detail on those items, they're actually built into the master plan and so they're incorporated here. Uh one thing that we also um spend a decent amount of time talking about as staff and meeting with our congressional delegates is uh congressional delegate delegated spending CDS funds. And so we we uh oftentimes in here you'll start seeing matches uh for funds that we have applied for uh or that we've received. And so I believe the first one you'll see that on a hangar project uh there's a $68,000 cost that will come to us that will move into FY27 uh because that will be a match that we for based on an award that was given to the airport. So there are some that are fixed that we need to move forward with but others are based on what they're seeing for growth. Airport seen tremendous growth for fixed um fixed planes uh within the uh within aircrafts rather within the uh airport. Um I think we've gone from somewhere less than 30 to over 120 just in the last two years. So that are fixed and operating right at the airport. So, um, some of these, uh, requests are are meeting that, but, then it's also meeting a lot of the FAA requirements as far as, um, mitigation for growth around the airport, uh, visibility. There's a lot of, um, moving pieces with this, um, as far as, um, additional, uh, runway uh, reconstruction and, uh, and then we also

know what our needs are for our tenants. And so we look to see how can we accommodate a lot of that growth. Phil, can I interrupt for a moment? Sure. There were rumors a while back about runway extensions. Is that was that rumor or is that real or isn't that in the works? Yeah, I don't the the extension not ne not necessarily extension but it's more of a parallel uh secondary option within within the airport. And uh um you know I think that if you go to the master plan you would see that that that's what's being identified. There's probably in here related to uh the east ramp, some of the phases within the east ramp. I think that's part of that.

Can you just clarify for me? You you using the airport as an example, the capital improvement plan says a, $19,000, but you said that that's not actually what you're going to propose. Yeah. Okay. Why is it here then if you're not going to propose it?

Because this is the plan. We we we try to have a plan to then work off from. Uh oftentimes when we start when we started off FY27, we carried over the items that were not list that were not funded at FY26 into FY27. So that now those are rep prioritized to determine whether or not which ones will the council approve. We have a lot more work than we have funding for. And just one other question about the airport. It obviously generates some revenue, but it is subsidized significantly by the cities of Lewon and Auburn.

So, uh, cities of Lewis and Auburn, each city contributes $25,000 to the operation of the airport. The rest of the airport is funded by its own revenue that comes in. Um, that's taken the last couple years to get us to that point. there was uh some challenging years a few years ago. Um so that's that's where we're at based on uh the interlocal agreement that we have that $25,000. Um the council can't reduce that amount. So it's been it's stayed fixed at $205 for the last several years. Um but the council could increase it but they cannot reduce it unless the board brings that forward as a recommended um reduction as a result of um additional uh growth for revenue within uh within the airport. However, capital expenditures do come before both cities for consideration. And is that are the cities the sole source of those capital expenditures other than grants that you might get from the federal

or or what's being funded uh potentially through the airport if there's um you know I think that you know probably take a look at the uh one of the large hangers that's at the airport. They're they are paying um some of those fees. they were they came before the two councils maybe a year ago uh to refinance a loan that they had. They're paying that loan. And so uh so there are some items that they could pay um as a as an entity and then there's um capital projects that they will look to both cities to help uh subsidize. Is that the Lansza hanger? Yes.

Yeah. um with Auburn and Lewis's contributions and the revenue the airport generates on its own. Is it in the black? Yes. All right. Yep. Thank you.

So, if there's no questions on the airport, we'll move on. There's a few. Next, you're going to get to just some departments uh with some really what I would call real small minor um that records restoration. We've actually moved that out of the capital for clerk. we moved it into the operating budget. That shouldn't be in the c in the uh in the capital. And so we've we we've funded that within the c within the operating. We'll move that out. Um after this year, it'll drop off and it won't be in there. But then you'll see items like um within the clerk's office just meeting some some requirements. Next year, you're going to see $100,000 for a fireproof vault. Um that's just a you know, we have to maintain those records as a state requirement. Um so we're looking to come into compliance with some of those require those uh mandates. Um finance I'll jump down just to some highlights for you. Fire department um a lot of times when you see the fire EMS components um we do bring in um around about $1.7 million in revenue from EMS transports. And so we do pull funding from the EMS transports to a uh capital EMS account. So even though you'll see these items in the plan, all the EMS items actually come out of that revenue line item. They don't uh they're not bonded, but they're part of our plan. So when we actually move this forward to the council for consideration, there's usually about five categories of funding um buckets that we present. One of them is a bond and then that capital one might also come out of the EMS capital reserve. It might come out of another source of funding whether that be a grant um or um undesated funds that the council might have a fund balance. So there's there's other buckets that we'll pull in. So not everything that you see here is

necessarily bonded. We have been working on fire apparatuses. You're not seeing anything until FY29. Um we do look to rebuild some. Sometimes it's just um removing it and putting it on a new chassis. We'll do that. Um the we've really been challenged with um fire trucks apparatuses. They um it's about a three-year build now for for those. And so we've had to be um we've had to work with the council on how they move that forward because when you approve something, we typically like to spend that within that fiscal year. And so now we're we're approving things for future years, which is challenging because then it's a new council that comes in and now they're handed an expense. And so we've worked through our bond agent on how best to maneuver that and how to set that into an account. Um, however, that's the challenge when it comes to the fire apparatuses and some of these are going I'm sorry, what's

Yeah, plow trucks as well. Yeah. So when we talk about the PW plow trucks, uh those are three years out. And so that's uh so we really have to do a lot of planning because if we if we we need it tomorrow, it's not going to happen. It's going to be three years before we get that that piece of apparatus. And these are not cheap apparatuses. So anywhere between 1.6 million and the one that we have factored in here, but um some of the ones that we've looked at are over the $2 million for for one fire truck. um it this continues, you know, we continue to look at uh uh fiber connection. Um we've used uh the council had allocated a decent amount of money uh when we received ARPA funds to really build up our fiber connections throughout the throughout the city, building our own network. And so um so this is for us to maintain and expand where necessary is really uh what we're looking at here. Nothing's in here regarding L9 LA 911. Uh there is um LA 911 is moving out of uh Minet Avenue at the central fire station based on the new public safety building. They are moving in here to Auburn Hall on the third floor. Um the council has already approved that move. Um funding for it will be decided by the council on whether or not it will be within a separate bond for LA 911 or they'll just take it out of the public safety bond. The public safety bond was worded in a way that if there were any costs that were associated with with the uh the new public safety building, it could be within that bond. And so the council will make that determination. But uh no other radio improvements. That was a major project that we did maybe a year or two ago. Uh and that's been completed. Norway Savings Bank Arena.

Is there shared dispatching with Lewon? Yes, it is. Yeah. So, we also have a 50/50 share on capital expenditure. They'll be paying us rent and they will be paying us as as as has been uh they'll be paying for all all utility services. Yeah. I try to get every penny I can. So, I will do that. So,

yes. um Norway Savings Bank Arena and In and the Ingresol Turf facility, those are enterprise accounts for those buildings. However, capital expenditures come in under the city's capital improvement plan. Um and so we're the the Norway Savings Bank Arena is um I think 12 years right around 12 years old at this point. Um so we have you know we're monitoring um the replacements. We had just the council had already approved I think last year and the year before um a two-phase project on replacing putting actually a cement floor in on one of our rinks that was only um built with a uh gravel floor and it was creating some problems on maintaining the ice temperature all that. So that was a cost saving originally when they built the arena uh but we needed to upgrade that. So it was a good size upgrade for us recently. the Ingresol Turf facility. Uh this gets a great deal of rental. Uh both both obviously facilities. Norway Savings Bank Arena when it was built was built for um a priority for youth hockey and we keep it at that. Our largest um um vendor, well not vendor, but our largest tenant is youth hockey programming, our gladiator program. And so and then our next one is is related to the I think it's six high schools that have No Way Savings Bank as their home ice. And so uh so it's very much geared towards um the uh youth, but we also have um just a a step up from youth really when you look at some of our um our leagues uh hockey leagues that are there that are anywhere's in that Dan correct me about 16 to probably 18 years

16 to 21

21. So we do have a league there and that's the Nordics that are currently playing there. And so um so it's a very busy facility. Um as well as the turf facility that was converted when the uh ice arena was moved to Norway. And um one of the items that's in here for uh for Ingresol is actually now replace that turf. Uh when we bought it, we bought it used. Somebody else had used all the life out of it and we said we think we could get a little bit more out of it. Well, we got um I don't know how many years, but probably eight years anyway. Um eight years more out of it. So, we've gotten the as much as we can and so now it's time to replace that. So, that's that's in here as an improvement. Um and then a resurfacer is the ice resurfacer. These were that was purchased when it was first built and 12 years ago. It's time for replacement. And so, you see that as a large large item in there for for Norway. That's the Zamboni.

That's a Zamboni. That could be a money maker. I mean, you could offer that out for rides. I I was just going to say, you know what? Not not necessarily rides, but I think we could probably um let people go and um just have a time where they could come in and just drive it. Yeah. And everybody wants to be a Zamboni driver, right?

Um the police department, uh not a lot of requests here for the police department. Um they stay pretty consistent. uh cruiser and body camera system replacement is on, you know, they they move these um they they're not replacing all of them, but they they'll replace them as uh a portion of them as they move forward with uh life expectancy on that when really it's you're you're you're held by uh the vendor on a lot of that for replacements. Um but those are uh we continue to do that. Um when we when we introduced that, we actually not only brought it to the police department, but we brought it to our code inspectors as well. Um just as a safety measure for them as they are out uh in the streets uh doing inspections. Having that that uh body camera is beneficial for them if they were sometimes they're alone. If they were to fall into the prone position, it actually sends alert to 911. So it's a good safety measure for for our code inspectors as well as our officers. Um and then the rest you'll see is just um some train some equipment. What you'll see in a lot of this as you see some of these amounts these move into the capital operating account and they're not necessarily bonded. Um so the reason why Dan's here is engineering. So I'll let Dan kind of talk about uh some of the engineering items um and the plan that we have and where we try to hit annually for our replacement. We'll never get to a point where we're replacing everything, you know, the uh the schedule will always be behind on roads, but Dan can talk a little bit about that.

So, um rather than go through each line item, I'll kind of just describe what each one entails. U you'll see Brickyard Circle slip lane right there. That was part of a planning board approval. I believe it was two years ago or a year ago that required the city to build a slip lane on Washington Avenue so that um traffic headed northbound would have a safe refuge as they turn into Brickyard Circle on the other side of Washington Avenue. So that's that project. Reconstruction projects, those are typically our full depth new storm drain, new gravel base, new pavement, sidewalks if deemed appropriate. curbing. We've gone away from granite curbing because we can't afford it anymore. It has tripled in price in the last three or four years. Um so primarily you'll see concrete curb being installed on all our city streets. Um reclamation, that's where you'll see the big grinding machines go by. These are typically good for our non our rural roads um outside of the city center. You'll see the machine if there's good gravels underneath grind up the pavement. regrade it, you pave it, and you're good to go. Um, then you just fix drainage ditches, etc. Major drainage, that is our account that funds our MS4 program, as well as culvert and storm drain replacement. Big projects like the Stson Road culvert that was mentioned earlier, that was funded out of this account. Um, MDOT match 1.6 million in there. You can see so that we try to maximize our use of the municipal partnership initiatives, the v village partnerships initiatives and the um there's one more NPI, PPI and VPI. They're all different programs with MDOT where they'll give you a 50% match um to your 50% on state and no local roads. These are all state aid roads. um

they've gone away from the LAP program which used to be an 801010 80 federal 10% city 10% state. Those don't really exist anymore. So everything has gone to these new programs where it's a 50% uh match with the city. So we try to take advantage of that as much as we can to try to match our dollars and stretch our dollars as best we can. Um retaining walls, the city owns a lot of retaining walls. um not necessarily all the ones you think we own. That's one of the challenges with this line item. Um we've done we did a full inventory last year. We had an engineer go out and inspect and recommend all uh inspect every retaining wall that the city is liable for. We have a replacement program that we've starting to build so that we can go out systematically replacing the ones that are in the most need. Um and sidewalk repairs. These are our sidewalk sections that are reconstructed that aren't necessarily the the reconstruction isn't necessarily happening at the same time as the road reconstruction. So, if you have a road that's in good shape, but the sidewalk's in bad shape, um that money gets used in those cases, as well as for crosswalk and rapid flash beacon installation. So, places like um did one on Lake Street, uh in front of schools, uh what is it? like Auburn A. There's uh speed tables, those sorts of things that all that traffic calming and sidewalk money comes out of this amount. Um downtown walkability and small master plan study, that is where we're trying to maximize the dollars we have to spend in the downtown. The UPI is a I forget what the

acronym stands for, but it's a 50-50 split with the state. Um, and you need you need to have done a study to identify needs in order to apply for the funds and that's what that matches for. So, yeah, I guess I'll leave it at that. Could could I ask just one question? Yes. You you may have baited me a little bit. Um, the Brickyard Circle slip lane you described as something that the planning board I mean know I know we approved Brickyard Circle a couple of times and most recently last summer. Are you saying that as part of that approval process we burdened the city with a $350,000 bill to widen a road? Yes. Yes. That's what he said.

But that that slip lane pre-existed the Brickyard Circle. Correct. No. Oh, really? So, a condition of approval of that application was that the city would widen the road or do something to Yes, there were improvements that the the developer agreed to undergo and there were improvements that the city agreed to do.

So, the city agreed to it. It's not that the planning board said you have to do it. The city agreed to it before it came to the planning board. Let's be clear, we're not the ones spending your money. rather than going back in time. I'm not sure uh which came first, but um so yeah, it it was part of a planning board approval that that would be constructed. So, we're complying with the approval process for that. Not necessarily the planning board members, but at least uh an agreement came about on that project that that slip lane would be included. Now there's obviously there's um funding that we will recoup as a result of that through the through future development uh to cover that cost. Yeah. It's part of the typical Yeah.

And they're the the developers building the sidewalk from their project up Washington Street. So there someone else I'm just building. Dan just gets told what to build and he goes and builds and says what do I have for money and I'll make that happen. Um, yeah, good question. Any questions about roads? Like I said, you'll see we're pretty consistent moving forward other than when you look at reconstruction. I think in the future years, Dan tries to capture all that needs to take place in those future years knowing that we'll probably uh and road reconstruction will probably land in that one and a half million, 1.2 probably most years. Um Dan threw a number out to me years ago about how much it was costing us per uh

used to be $3 million a mile. Now it's like six. So we obviously can do that. We were doing less before. Now we can do even now half of that now because we're using the same type of the same funds. Phil mentioned earlier the street scan that we did last year. I direct you can go to the city's website on the GIS page. Um, if you are look under the new advanced parcel viewer that was just loaded, there's a layer that says street scan and it's colorcoded. So, you can actually see red is bad, green is good, and there's a bunch of colors in between. There's a chart on the side, but you can see where streets kind of the red stand out. You can see where those bad sections of road exist.

There's lots of them. Yeah. And it's probably there's a few. And it's probably good to know, too, a couple things. When we did the scan, there were several roads that we did not include in that because it it cost us money for every road that is scanned. And so if we had already just rebuilt the road, we didn't include that. So there might not be that that color code there or like we knew they were being reconstructed like center street, there was no reason to scan that. It was getting paid that summer type thing.

Yeah. And um so when we put them on the uh roads in that we're proposing, there are other factors other than just that it's in red. It's also is it tying to another project? does it make sense for it or is there a DOT match that we need to move forward with? Uh so there's a lot of factors when it's decided on on a road. I think that's I'm kind of speaking to the public here because I didn't want anybody to go and say my road's red. Is it in the budget this year? Um so there's a lot of factors that go into that. I just would urge you to stop paving the roads to mine it. Yes.

Just making it too easy for people to move to mine it. Um, still within this category of public uh within this category rather, we have uh planning and permitting really focused on dangerous buildings. There's a requirement that we need to to make sure we're complying with regards to dangerous buildings. Comprehensive plan, you'll see a little less in there this year, but you'll see in future years that goes back to about $400,000. That's because the comp plan is under under uh it's being developed now. And so there we don't have a lot of projects queued up for this year. Um and then the um and then we have file scanning. Um that's just to try to catch up so that we're not having we try to move as much that's in cabinets digital. And so that's just part of that getting on uh where we need to be. Transportation. And these are areas where uh has to do with um some additional traffic coming that Dan had spoke of that engineering does, but it's additional traffic coming as we look at other uh impacts within the community uh for high speeds, whatever it might be. Uh just maybe just congested road use. Um these are some funds that are available for some enhancements as well as a potential study. And then um and then also um LATC is the Lewis and Auburn transit committee. So this is our purple bus uh system that we have. That 50,000 just goes into account. We build that account up when it's time to buy a bus and um and then we when it's time to buy those buses, we're only pay paying for the local share. there's a federal um dollars that are provided uh for us uh for federal transit. And so that's just our local match. And then we have a interotal facility uh near the airport. Um that interotal facility is starting to get a little bit more use. We're

we're having more access there. Uh there's a need for us to do some enhancements to freight um access. And so this is to make some improvements to the uh the gate house and the uh the scale that's out there and modernizing um that for better access. Um as it pertains to uh public works as I mentioned before regarding all the the various road maintenance that we must do. We also have a lot of green spaces uh which require a lot of uh maintenance equipment to maintain that. Um we put those on a schedule. we we we chip away at this as funds are available. Um and then recreation and open maintenance. Same way we do have a you know I think it's been carried on here for quite a few years now is this dog park. We were working on trying to find a good solution for that. We thought we did off from um Gracelon Road, but then we found out um you know even though we were trying to keep it close to the edge uh that's a capped landfill. you can't dig into that landfill for any reason, even to put in a fence fist fence posts. And so, we're we're working on finding another location that's um accessible and and uh can be used because we do hear that often in the public uh regarding uh a need for a dog park in the community.

But does quarter million dollars for a dog park? Yeah. So, so we write grants and so uh so we have a grant out actually I believe it's still out. We haven't heard back on one of the grants. Um, so it would not be that. That would be what the total cost would. We hope to have a grant that would offset that. So there's a reason why that keeps getting kicked out from year to year because we're waiting. I have a field I'll sell you. What's that? Have a field. I'll sell you.

Yeah. Well, if you if you build it, it has to be by certain requirements as many of you would know regarding access um parking and all those um challenges when it comes to that. So um and then we also have um ball fields that we continue to replace equipment around our ball fields. Uh we have a very busy uh campus at Bentonill Park and uh maintaining those fields are really critical. We've we've invested a lot as a city and Lake Grove Park uh over the last u two years. I think we still have um I think one more phase. So, and that will be the parking that's being expanded at Lake Grove. And so, lot these are all those projects that get funded for those.

Lake Grove must have really picked up since Crescent Beach closed. I presume it's more the playground playground. Playground that was installed two years ago is tremendously popular. Yeah.

Yeah. um electrical improvements. Again, we um have needs regarding some of our poles. We we went through a a complete street light replacement not that long ago. We're able to put that now into just our operating replacement. So, we don't need to have that in our capital. Um but then we do have uh one thing that's changed. If you look at this, um each department used to put their own uh city vehicle replacements. Um that's all now being being um managed by uh public works. We have a fleet maintenance uh division there now. All those purchases are done there. They know when the vehicles need to be replaced and so uh we're on a much better uh fleet replacement schedule. We are looking also uh there's some value to some of the lease options for some of our vehicles based on what when we how often we use them. oftentimes we'll buy a vehicle and we don't it's needed, but we're local um inspections or something like that. There's not a lot of mileage going on those. So, we are looking at lease options um as as a cost-saving measure. Um but these vehicles are placed in here. Whether or not they're purchased or leased is something that we work through. our public safety command vehicle. Um, we've had this for many years. Um, we'll have it in here. It's not necessarily being funded this year. We'll probably move that out for a couple more years. Eventually, that vehicle will need to be replaced just uh based on its age. Um, fortunately, not on its use.

Um, what is car number 93? Gets a special number. What's that all about? It's just a specific vehicle. It's go parking garage. The old Ford Focus. That's the little gray Ford Focus that if you drive it, you'll know why it needs to be replaced. You're going to replace the Ford Focus for $50,000. No, that's just a placeholder. They didn't it they The public works puts in a number and then through the budgeting process, they decide what vehicle. It wouldn't be a $50,000 Ford Focus. Be a nice Ford Focus. It would be a nice one. Yeah.

Yep. Um and then facilities and engineering energy rather. This is another one where um all of our facilities are now consolidated. We now have a facilities um director that works through managing um all of our facilities. One thing that we took over maybe two years ago was we now manage and maintain all the facilities for the school department. So that's all consolidated within the city of op the uh the city side of the operations. Uh so the school does not need to um manage that or even worry about that. They can be focusing on education within their facilities and then our people do what they do and that's maintaining facilities and and getting that all on its same system HVAC system. the person that we actually have in this uh seat actually his office is at the new Edward Little High School. Um that new facility is a beast all on its own just to manage the um the HVAC system, everything to do with that, the geothermal system that's in there. So there's there's a lot to what he does, but he's also um focused on all of our other properties, but he's he's based out of the new high school. So,

does the school department pay the city for this service?

They do. Yeah. Yeah. So, we have anou with the city and uh they cover our costs uh for uh for not just that position but multiple positions that oversee and provide administrative support as well. So what we found was that there was times when the school was renting a piece of equipment for a project and we actually own that piece of equipment at you know it's just been more efficiencies is is what we were able to accomplish. Schools loves the idea. They can they can just put in a work order and it gets done and so um so a lot of lot of benefits to that. Um, couple things that I would point out is that we are we're currently about 22 years in this building and so we know that there's going to be we moved in here in 2004. Uh, we know that we'll have some some the building's in great shape. I think it's been being maintained well. Uh, we have been uh working through uh boiler replacements, HVAC replacements, uh doing some of that, but we know we have some other um window glazing. We know we have some other things that we must do on this building. Um, and so you'll start seeing some of the um, Auburn Hall uh, maintenance appear. Um, engine two is a a project that's being built. So, all of our engine two references for facility upgrades have been removed. Engine five are the ones that you're seeing in here. We're pausing on engine five. Um we've uh placing engine 2, building a new public safety building which will be the for the central station and then engine 5. There are some improvements we need to make there. Uh it's important to make sure we have good separation from um fire equipment that comes in, especially their turnout gear and where they sleep. It's a small building that proximity is very close. We know we need some upgrades that we need to do in that building and and it's it's in it's in queue. We're working through that. Uh

but we will we'll have that done within the next couple years. And there's a new station being built on Minet Avenue and then the one on South Main Street. South Main Street. Yeah, that's engine two. Engine two.

Yeah. Yep. Um yeah, that's a $9 million project. We'll have EMS and uh and uh engine two. the engine uh will also operate out of there. Um it's important to get that project done because we'll be moving all EMS operations when we demolish um the central fire station on Min Avenue. We'll be moving EMS to the new engine 2 station. will be moving uh the engine operation for Central the firefighters to 67 Kittyhawk was which is a a building that we purchased um for this reason um because it we can now build this in one phase rather than two and try to patch the the building together. It's more efficient and cost-saving. We saved over a million dollars in doing that. Um the uh and then uh when fire moves back out of 67 Kittyhawk um public works will move into 67 Kittyhawk. And so that'll be a great location. So we have PW working on North Side and Southside. We'll have um really a great option for us. Yeah. To be able to use our equipment, our layown material. you're not driving all the way back out to Gracelon Road. If you're up in South Auburn working on a project, you could actually go for material right on Kittyhawk. So, um we're building as we're we um fit out 67 Kittyhawk, we're keeping in mind how will that be used for uh PW when it goes there. The what you see in here for the uh salt and sand shed uh for that's actually 467 Kittyhawk. we don't have enough space for um at Grayson Road for enough material. Um and so sometimes we're running short. We ran short at the most recent large storm that we had uh because of deliveries just waiting in

queue for a delivery to come. And so having that separate uh sand shed will be beneficial. Um I think I covered Oh, library is another facility that we we own. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Before we get to library under um we've been talking so much about fire stations and public safety. What's going to become of the I'll call it the old police station. It'll be the old old one when the new

So we don't own that. So that's that's the same owner that has the old barn or the L suite building on Minet Avenue. Uh the large building the same owner of that building owns the old PD. They bought that. Oh, I think more than that. So they it's because we've been we've been out of there the PD's been out of there for about 14 12 to 14 years probably. And so they purchased it right after that. So they own that building that is being worked on currently through uh the planning office and legal um because of some um um I guess the building is not being maintained and it's a dangerous building and so we're working through that with legal but they own not only the uh one mined avenue which is the old PD they also own uh 67 mined avenue which is the Lunuite building and then they also own that small little garage that was down kind across from Elm Street. So, that's that's the block that they own and we're working as best as we can with the owner on um addressing the needs of that facility, those three facilities.

Thanks.

Yeah. And then um the uh library is another facility that we own and and the city's responsible for capital improvements of that facility uh on uh at library a uh recreation some of that's just like major equipment. Um there are times when they have equipment that they come through. This major equipment though you'll see in actually not bonded. It would be in our operating capital operating. It's we have programs that sometimes need to outfit the entire youth hockey uh I'm sorry the youth uh football program and so we're buying equipment through that but it's under operating. So a lot of moving pieces. Hopefully I I gave you enough detail. And again, if there's any comments you have that you want to provide to staff, uh they'll have that on um um on the next agenda item. So, if you have anything that you want to forward to the council for consideration, uh you can do that through there. Or if there's anything that's not here in here that you feel the council should consider, you could provide that and staff would put that as a report uh back to the council for consideration.

So, we don't meet again until April 14th. How many council budget meetings will there be after that date for them to take into consideration? Yeah, the council does not. They'll have it before the adoption of the budget, which I'm not sure their schedule. They they have until June 30th to approve the budget. Um I thought I saw something in the paper that recently said when budget considerations going to take place in front of I I have a tenative schedule um that I try to get things accomplished. We'll have uh first reading on May um I think it's May 4th. Okay. And so, um, but I'm we'll see we'll see how they do their work, but they have till June 30th. Gotch. So, that's why the next meeting would give you plenty of time to get your comments back to the council. Thank you.

Thanks. Thanks for your time tonight. Great. Appreciate your time. Well said.

I maybe Riley can confirm this. I think procedurally for us to take on new items after 9:00 p.m. we need to have a vote. Is that accurate, Riley? Yeah. The the chair would ask if anyone objected generally to new business. Thank you. Does anyone object if we continue on with our agenda, which is pretty light. Um we've just got to agree on some days for future meetings. We can put off the staff will present planning board the number of approved projects. We've got that. We can talk about that next time if we want to. Let's just get our meetings. I'm okay with covering item B. Yeah.

Okay. Everybody okay with covering item uh 7B before we adjourn for the night? I think it requires a unanimous vote. If it doesn't, I'd ask for one anyway so that everybody's not in duress. Is that okay? All right. All right. So, let's see if the meeting dates of June 9th and September 8th need to be changed apparently. How do we feel about that first of all? Doesn't matter I guess. But usually we try to do it on keep it on the Tuesday. Okay.

Generally what we have done. So the following Tuesday in June is the 16th. I'll just ask for a consensus on that. Is that works? Just does it not work for anyone? June 16th. I'm I'm looking at everybody. Great. So June 16th will be our June meeting. same time, 6 pm. Yep. And then we're looking at September would be the 15th.

I don't want to make it sound like I don't have anything to do, but that's fine by me, too. Fine with everybody else. That's fine. I don't play that farhead. Same. Thank you. All right. Um take a motion to adjurnn unless somebody has final comments before we do that. So moved. Second. We are adjourned. Thank you.