Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good to go. It's time to stop the meeting. Where is everybody? August vacations. There you go.

Here comes Riley.

I'll give him a minute.

Good evening. It's just slightly after 6 o'clock, time to start our meeting this evening. This is August 18th. This is a comprehensive planning committee meeting. Before we start, I've been advised by those who do the live streaming and the recording that it's really important for us to talk really close into our mics, and I brought mine very close to me. And it's important so that those who may be listening at home online can hear us. And it's also important because it's part of the record and how they work on the minutes so that they can get those correct. So, just be a little mindful that when you speak to pull the mic very close to you so that we can hear all of your comments and get them recorded. So with that, we will start with our roll call to see who's here. I've been informed that some members can't attend. Jane Koslow informed me that she can't be here. Becky Conrad cannot be here. Malil Hussein can't be here. And Bruce Rio is not able to be here this evening. So with that, we'll stop. Riley, why don't you stop the roll call?

Riley Bergeron.

Kelly Butler.

Tim Cowan. Paul Jacques.

Dana Staples.

John Cleveland. Matthew Duvall.

Jeff Harmon.

Rick Whiting.

Dennis Bergeron. Rex Rhodes.

Carrie Ouellette. Lauren Cafe.

Decarlo Brown. Phil Kroll, Dennis is actually attending a different meeting tonight, so he won't be here this evening.

You haven't cloned them yet, huh? No. Okay, so we don't have minutes for July the 28th. Those will be ready for our next meeting on August the 29th to review. The next item on the agenda as usual is the opportunity for public comment. So I will begin by asking if there is anyone in the public who wishes to comment this evening.

Stephen B0575 Johnson Road. My comment is in the nature of a question regarding when the draft plan will be available for public review in the first instance and what the time frame of that is in comparison to when there will be a formal public comment period at a meeting. If the chair or others could enlighten me on that, I would greatly appreciate it.

That's a great question. I think that the draft plan is on the website now. It is not on the website. I am mistaken. So why don't I ask when that might be available?

Yeah, the website link that I sent to the committee is a private link, just because it's such a large file that uploading it and sharing it was going to be complicated. So it's not open to the public yet. The committee and staff will do their review over the next two weeks, and then we'll meet on September 9th. And at that point, if the committee feels comfortable, we'll then open the public comment period, which by state statute is 30 days, and we'll have our public hearing on October 14th. So between September 9th and September 14th, the plan should be made public.

And is that the formal 30-day notice period?

That will start the formal 30-day notice period, yes.

Okay. All right. And any time during that period, the public Could send you emails or?

Yes, the plan is to have the plan on our comp plan website. And it will be available for comment. And we'll do a similar survey feedback mechanism where people can comment, make general comments, fill out different survey information, and so on. So if they're not able to attend the August 14th meeting, we'll make sure to bring any comments we receive online to that meeting so that committee and the planning board, it will be a joint public hearing, can work through those comments.

Okay. And if I understand, I'll try again to see if my memory serves me well, but I think the planning board has been provided a copy of the draft plan so they can begin to peruse it?

Yes, that's correct. So the plan is that they can start just reviewing it, looking at the future land use map. So it gives them time. So we're going to have to give them an extended amount of time because they're going to be asked to start their comment period. They're very soon. And so it's a sizable document and we need to give them at least a little bit time to review that the same time.

Yeah. With all the dependencies and and the like it's I think about 471 Okay. So I think that answers public question. Oh, Jeff.

Yeah, just to confirm, on September 14th is a presentation of whatever the plan is that the comp plan committee adopts. There's a joint city council planning board meeting, I believe, right, on the 14th. So the public, if they want to get a good overview of the plan, that would be another place that they could get information in preparation for the public hearing on October 14th.

That is correct. We have these dates on our website in a flyer format and also in City Hall. And we'll work with our communications director to make sure that's very clear that the public are welcome to attend that presentation on the 14th, as well as the other meeting dates following that.

I think all what we'll do as well the benefit of the. And the public who may be listening. We'll have will go through the future dates here so that we can all be clear which dates and what we're doing.

I'll also add, in terms of noticing the public, we will be sending out a postcard sometime around when the committee adopts the plans. We open the public hearing comment period, and we know the hearing date hopefully will be October 14th. We'll send a postcard to every household in Auburn so they're aware of that meeting and that they can give comments online as well. So we're hoping that with our mailing timeline, they'll get that postcard about two to three weeks before the public hearing date on October 14th.

Okay, good, thank you then. Another good way of reminding people that there's opportunity to review and comment, which is good. So the next item on the agenda is future land use boundary changes. You were sent out an attachment. You remember at the last meeting the committee decided and voted to direct the staff to make minor boundary changes that will certain lots of being divided in this minor areas that where they don't line up with the actual lot lines to make some judgments on those they just that was done they sent you a copy of those I think is about 40 of them more or less that you've seen. There are two that do deserve more discussion and explanation. One of them will be the Taylor Pond area around the Taylor Pond. So we'll talk about that, get explanation on that one. The second one is in the Maple Point area. That was just a recent request from a resident who lives in that area. You were sent that email, I believe, as well as an attachment of where that is. We'll bring that up for discussion as well. But other than that, the other 40, I would ask if you have any questions about any of those or any comments on them rather than try to do each one of these little minor changes, which would be time consuming. I would suggest, unless you have questions about them, that we just adopt them all. So I'll open it up to see if there's any questions about that group of those that are in the minor boundary changes. Okay, seeing none, are you ready to make a motion to adopt all of those changes other than the Taylor Pond one now?

So moved. Second.

Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. All right, so let's look at the Taylor Pond one specifically. And Carrie, if you could pull that one up. So. I'll begin the introduction of this discussion. The staff can add more details to that. What staff noticed when we took a look at Taylor Pond, because it's such a small strip, we didn't notice it immediately. All around Taylor Pond is a 250 foot strip from the shore land going back. And that is actually currently zoned as urban residential. When we were going through the maps, particularly on the western side, we made a decision that it would be agriculture and resource protection from the shoreland all the way back. Those of you who know tail upon is quite a lot of development around the pond, including on the West Side, a lot of smaller lots. This historically from when camps and cottages were built there and

Taylor Pond was a distance travel to go on vacation.

And so they built those summer cottages, and many of them are now year-round homes. So it's really not appropriate to have those in agriculture and resource protection. And the suggestion, after looking at what our choices might be, and this would be for around the entire pond, you might remember that to the eastern side and the southern side, we had chosen to make those transitional areas, moderate growth. In looking at the choices, discussing with the staff, it seems as though that might be a good choice for that 250-foot strip all the way around the Taylor Pond as well. So that's my introduction. I'll turn it over to the staff for any additional comments you want to make.

I think you nailed it, John. The 250-foot buffer goes around the entire pond. And so you can see it in the eastern part, too. It's kind of hiding. It almost looks like it's the water extended on to the boundaries. And so when we were doing our parcel edits, I was going closer and realized that that was a low growth. And in our agricultural open space and recreation land use category, So to reiterate what John said our recommendation given the current development Pattern there and the city's intent on the eastern side and the southern side of the pond is to have that boundary 250 feet that includes the parcels on the northern side like the full parcels be in the moderate growth and neighborhood transition

And you'll also remember by state law, as well as our own ordinances, there is a 250 foot overlay district for shoreland zoning. So that will apply in any circumstances anyways, but it's an overlay zone. So our question really before us is what land use category is most appropriate on that strip we just discussed? So I'll open it up for questions, comments.

Jeff?

Yeah, I just want to make sure I'm clear what we're doing here. So if I understand this correctly, what we have up to this point, the western shore is not changing. It was ag in the past, and it's staying ag. And the question before us is the south side and the east side, the 250 foot strip, in some way, we continued a 250 foot ag strip completely around the pond. Is that right? And what we're saying is on the south side and on the east side, more conforming to the way it is now and the neighborhood transition will go to the shoreline?

Almost. It's currently urban residential on the eastern side and it's actually low density country residential on the western side. So on the left map is our current parcel viewer and zoning districts and so it's currently low density country residential and so if we kept it as it is on the right for the western side, we would be taking it from low density country residential and effectively putting it into agricultural open space and recreation. So our recommendation is to your point, which was correct, that the eastern side and the southern side will follow the 250 foot shoreline boundary that will continue around the whole pond to match more closely what is existing today. Because jumping from low density country residential, I wasn't sure if that was the intent of the committee to take that western side out of low density country residential and into a more agricultural open space land use category.

Yeah. Okay, so make sure I understand this. It is what's in front of the committee now. To change the whole 250 foot border around the pond to the transitional. Yes.

And to get moderate growth and neighborhood transition.

My only concern would be the western side. I don't think has public sewer. I think we did the eastern side pretty. probably up to the northernmost part of that white strip, but I don't believe there's any public sewer on the west side.

So this is where your shore land or state shore land restrictions come in. And actually why you all are thinking about restricting it to the 250 buffer because it doesn't have access to water and sewer. It's going to be restricted how many dwelling units you can have because it's going to be directly in shore land. And on your screen, you'll be able to see that pale green. That's the AG currently today. And then the LDCR is the more bolded and green. And so the intent is to match what's there today. It is a lower density area, but it still does allow housing. And if it went to AG, you wouldn't be able to get any of those uses.

Thank you for that explanation. I didn't occur to us that there was another land use category that fit better than transition. Certainly, agriculture resource protection doesn't fit up against the shoreland because it's already quite developed. Anyone feel it concerns them. Having the transitional zone. All the way around like a tail upon.

Yeah so I guess I would ask if we do a 250 foot buffer all the way around is that is that gonna encompass all existing dwellings in that area I know especially on the west side there's there are several places where you have buildings on both sides of Garfield Road there and I don't think the agricultural zone would necessarily make sense for where those dwellings are currently, maybe a little beyond them, but anyway.

Yeah, so our intent here would be to follow the parcel lines on the northwestern part of the pond. And then as those parcels kind of cut off, go to the 250. So similar to our minor changes, if we did 250, we would slice all of those parcels And we'd be back making minor boundary adjustments again. And so we're following parcel boundaries on the northwestern side until we get into the 250 shoreland zoning around the middle of the pond. All the way down.

Would you do the same on the western, the very western point there? Yeah, right there.

Yes. Yeah.

Yeah.

Remind us, what's the growth zone? I thought the west side is in low. Is that correct? And does that land use characteristic of neighborhood transition fit in that zone?

So the recommendation is that it would be moderate growth and neighborhood transition. Currently, the western side is low growth and open space recreation.

So if we didn't change the growth zones from where they are now, it would be what? It would be residential corridor?

Which growth?

Which part?

Well, I think the first thing we need to do is make sure we're all on the same page about the growth zones here because the way we have set the growth zones and the way they've historically been, the west side is in a low growth zone and the south and east side was in a moderate growth zone. So I think the first thing we should do is make sure we're all in agreement on the growth zones, and then we would then pick the land use characteristic that fits in that bucket.

I agree. So on the screen, you'll see the dark brown, which is low growth. And you'll see the orange, which is the moderate growth. And so in conversations in late winter, the committee decided that around Taylor Pond, it should be moderate growth. And so the recommendation in terms of growth area would be to have that Western boundary move from low growth, that dark brown, to the moderate growth, which is the orange, which would match existing characteristics today. of low density country residential development and it being highly developed.

Low density country residential today is in the low growth zone.

In some places, yes. It can exist in both.

Well, I think there's significant water quality issues on the west side. So I would think we would wanna keep that in low growth. And our options in low growth are what? They're watershed protection, which doesn't apply here, or the?

Ag, open space and recreation, land use category.

Well, no, we have some type of residential because we have the strips in the south part of the city, those are what?

Residential corridor, which are in the moderate growth areas.

Mr. Chair, Lauren, just a clarification. If we are to go out, change this as you're recommending, is it all the way to the western boundary of Auburn there, on the western side, or is it just on the eastern side of Perkins Ridge Road, or?

So it would follow, it would start at 250, and it would along the pond. And it will extend to, in the northwestern side, we have parcels there. And if we did the 250, we would cut those parcels. And so the committee at the last meeting said, anything that's 20%, adjust. And so we are adjusting that preemptively. And then as the parcels teeter off around the northern mid part of the pond, it would follow 250. It would not go extend to Perkins Ridge.

I don't even know what I'm telling Matt.

So I like to rethink things in terms of normal. It basically creates a rind along that western edge of the pond.

That's a great way to think about it, yes. It mimics our current zoning a little bit more accurately.

I'm sorry, say that again. I didn't hear it.

It creates a rind, a figurative rind along the west edge of the lake, right? So there's a little strip that just matches the current built environment.

Yes, that's right. And if you look at the lot sizes and the buildings on the lots, they're all very, very small. A few of them A few of them go back and larger, but many, particularly on the northwestern side, are very quite small. They're just little lots by the pond. So they wouldn't meet the usual sides that you would see in rural residential corridor, which generally are a little bit larger size lots.

So if we're changing the 250-foot strip on the western shore to medium growth, if I'm reading this correctly, in medium growth, the lowest density is a residential corridor, correct?

I would say residential corridor or neighborhood transition. Residential corridor, applied to our strip zones in Auburn today. And so you could consider it lower.

Yeah, the description's lower density, right? So, I mean, that's the other option here. If the strip's gonna be medium density on the western shore, we could, it seems like it would be closer to what's there today if we use compact residential. there isn't that big of a difference. There is some difference, but there's not a huge difference.

That's a good point, Jeff. Carrie, can you go to our packet again? So today, it is low-density country residential zoning on the western side. And our low-density country residential takes up a lot of our rural strip zones as well. And so that is another option for the committee. In my thinking, neighborhood transition was just a complete rind around the pond. But residential corridor is another consideration that would arguably even closely more match the current zoning today.

And of course, you know, as the column mentioned, there's going to be further restrictions because there's an overlay for shoreland zoning. So that's going to restrict development on those lots as well.

Correct. One other thing that I'll add to that is that because your moderate growth in this plan equals transitional and it's not high growth or the growth area, you have complete control locally over what density you would like to apply to there. So you have complete control over those areas, especially if they do not have access to water and sewer or you mandate that they will not have access to water and sewer. Once they get access to water and sewer, it becomes a different thing.

Yeah.

So if I'm looking at the in the plan the whole map and I think we should make 2 changes here, I think. The current area, this rural residential urban residential on the eastern shore on the southern shore. We instead of that being ag as it is in the plan now the neighborhood transition should extend over to the water. But I think On the western shore, we should use compact residential, because if you look at the whole city map, that's more consistent with what we've done going out through ag open space areas.

Did you mean residential corridor?

Yeah, sorry, what did I say? Yeah, sorry, residential corridor, thank you.

I think that's another choice.

So the committee can, I think, work through this in voting about the growth area. So moving the boundary, the 250 feet boundary around the pond from low growth to moderate growth, and then a separate on the eastern and southern part, and then a separate on the western side.

Mr. Chairman, are you looking for motions?

I'd accept a motion, yes.

So following along with Lauren's suggestion, I guess we could take these one at a time. So the first one would be to modify the growth zone in the 250 foot buffer to ensure that it's all moderate growth around the pond.

Second.

In which category that would be we're not to land use categories yet. This is just modifying the growth zone So the growth will be moderate growth, okay, and then we'll have a second motion All right Any discussion about that? Is the motion clear? You're in favor. Please raise your hand. I

Okay, anyone I think that's unanimous So then I would move that the in that Strip that we just changed to moderate growth on the eastern and southern shore that the 250-foot strip along the lake be neighborhood transition Second second

Any further discussion. Seeing none all those in favor raise your hand.

And for the 3rd item I would move that on the western side the strip that we change to moderate growth. The 250 foot strip on the western side the residential corridor.

Any further discussion. All those in favor raise your hand. That brings us to the other. Which is a maple point. I believe you should have all received a copy of the letter from Shauna Bowden. And that's the Tanish area in the center of the map. Hotel Road runs through it and Poland Road runs through it and comes to a point in the lower part of the map for that tent area and And if you had caught chance to read the. E-mail we see from Shannon she points out that she feels this area is more consistent with compact residential. This is one of those areas that. Historically developed. As a residential area and later on more commercial industrial were on the purple part that you see there. And then the. White purple yes. Is the transitional what do we call out the quarter. Commercial quarter. On that area. If you familiar with the area, it's as you can see on the map most all of it is very small lots They're short streets often narrow streets Mostly all developed with Residential homes on smaller lots The feeling is that that would be more consistent with some of the other compact residential that you see on the map, both to the north and then some to the south as well. As opposed to what is currently, we chose to put it in as a mixed neighborhood mixed residential neighborhood. I think that's what we chose. And so that's what we wanted to bring up and see what your thoughts were in regards to looking at this again. I think there was some discussion both ways last time we discussed it, including thinking about it as compact residential and I think because it's sort of next to the industrial area, the thought was it might be more of a neighborhood residential area, mixed neighborhood residential. But I think arguments can be made for both suggestions.

Paul? I can certainly see for those like that's where you actually want a little bit more development and the business side commercial side of it too. So I can't see doing like the whole area. But I might live with those like those 3 streets.

Let me help you make a good point. But if I remember our discussions in the past and the color maybe I'll let you clarify my memory. It seems as though when we talked about compact residential we talked about it allowing some businesses use particularly on the more highly traveled roads within the compact residential. And Decades back now they were some convenience little stores there that are no longer work there, but I Think compact residential would accommodate some of that business If there was an interest in that Yes for the compact residential was not saying that you're not having any business but it's it's more restricted in those areas to

and public roads and public roads and streets that accommodate, you know, basically on street parking. And so if you're looking at that, then if you're on Manly, there is an argument to be made that you could have some on street parking on Manly. I'm just looking at Google Maps right now for people to understand. So really, you're really discussing those interim places like Maple Point and what type of density that you want on those areas. As a reminder, because it's in the growth area with access to water and sewer, you are looking at fourplexes, where right now they're single-family homes. And that's nothing that you all have done. It's more of a state law. So it's really a question of As this area develops, what type of amenities do you want in this area?

Yeah?

Yeah, I had several conversations with this lady this weekend. And if I were to summarize this, I think she and the neighbors in that area understand the change. that you can have up to four units and that you can have some commercial retail in that area. I would sum this up by saying that they're questioning the intensity of the development in that area. I think it would be fair to say, given how this is all built up now with residential, their preference wouldn't even be to have fourplexes there, but they do understand the changes in the statute. So I think this is really a question of intensity, and I think their concern that they've expressed is The difference, the way this is on here now, you could have large apartment buildings and you could have much more intense and larger scaled up commercials. So I think they understand there could be some changes in the neighborhood. They're just concerned about the scale of the changes.

Yeah, and I can definitely understand that. It sounds like... The neighbors that you've spoken to want more of an incremental development approach where it does scale up because it's a new state law, but they're saying there's no need to jump over. And as a reminder, as the want for housing builds up and builds up, The way development works is that if you don't allow incremental development, it starts to jump until you get these 12 plexes and 16 plexes, where if you allow more smaller escape and allow them to grow in that scale, you're going to get that infill development first, the four plexes and whatever have you, when you have open lots. And I'm just going through Google Maps right now. There's a sizable amount of space between these homes. And so, you know, it is asking the question, do you want the more infill of 12 plexes there or four plexes or a mix of duplex, duplex, duplex, and that nature. Yeah.

I think that's a good summary of what they're looking at.

Yeah, the other, just the other thing that I would mention that the point that they brought up is, can you just zoom out a little bit on this? As you get out of the core, their point was it's not, it's transitioned out of mixed use neighborhood to the northeast and south of that. And that was another point that they made.

Just to add to Jeff's comment, I mean, we have the mixed use corridor, the light purple lavender color appropriately there by definition, but you could almost, if other than that, we probably have a contiguous yellow area that would bump up to that area that we're talking about tonight. So I hear their point. I mean, it And the yellow is compact residential.

Just looking at this area. I know there's at least a half a dozen multi units in here. I don't think there's more than one that's one or two that's more than a duplex. And it is pretty developed. It's an interesting point. I think The one thing that I keep going back to here is, You know, the public comment that we got over and over again when we asked for that was that we wanted to work on affordability of housing. And I think that high density is an opportunity for us to allow some different development patterns that would include some housing types that are more affordable than what currently exist. uh so anytime we talk about lowering the density in an area i'm very cognizant of a decision by this board to actively make an area zone in a way that will cause housing to be more expensive so that's that's what's on my mind

Yeah, I appreciate your comments, Dana. Kind of on the fence in my reaction, I guess. To me there's a tension of yes we need more affordable housing. I guess in my mind the question is do we have enough opportunity in other parts of the city with what we've zoned to accomplish that. And the tension with that of trying to meet that goal is the I think an unintended consequence of instead of the unintended consequence of more expensive housing is you're disrupting the feel of that neighborhood, which could then cause disruption in the values of the homes and the value of that neighborhood for the people that live there or the people who want that type of neighborhood. So I think that that's the other thing that I'm struggling with. This particular example here is that balance of trying to find A GOOD MIXTURE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND MAINTAINING THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE HAVE. SO TO CARL'S POINT, THAT JUMPING, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HAVING SOMETHING IN BETWEEN MAY ACTUALLY BE BETTER FOR OUR CITY WHERE WE COULD DESIGNATE SOME OF THESE LARGER APARTMENT BUILDINGS OR COMPLEXES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.

And so I'm just going to clue you into what the planners are thinking right now. This area is next to the industrial area, which is a workforce area, right? So there is another tension going on because you are thinking about housing for that workforce, which means higher density. On the other hand, you are also close to the industrial area and so you're also thinking about buffering from industrial uses. And so that is that tension between the two of what is the purpose in a general scope of this area? Do you intend this for buffering from those industrial uses or are you intending this area to be basically where your workforce can be and work in that industrial area?

Paul.

I was going to say exactly what DiCarlo just said. He's probably said it a little bit better than I did, but you can't get any closer to all of the manufacturing jobs in Auburn than that.

So just follow up on that to make sure that I'm making the right conclusion here. It's a great point and so thus the current zone, current classification we have is better suited because it allows the potential of a larger number of dwellings.

Yeah, and you keep people out of other major roads. They're on these roads that are while heavily traveled, they can still handle a much bigger load of traffic. It's mostly light industrial around there. It's not, I mean, there's a few of them that are not big noisemakers or pollutants or something like that. There's a few there, but...

I think this is probably a really good feedback that we received from a citizen for this process because you're going to get more. And I think if you could use this process as ensuring that you go back to that lens of the work that you did. Because you're going to have other feedback. Other people are going to see the plan, and they're going to have, well, why this neighborhood, not that neighborhood? So I think it's good that this conversation is happening, because just think about it as other inquiries come in, as you evaluate what will be the decision making. for changes. And part of this is about going back to, I think, a piece that Dana mentioned regarding you had the engagement process that started, right? The initial feedback. But then you had your own collective process in determining why were these areas important to identify. And so it's just going to be really important as these other inquiries come in, because they will, What's that process that you're going to use in ensuring that you keep in mind the lens that you initially started out with? And some of them might make perfect sense to change. There's other feedback. We want to make sure we encourage the public to do exactly this. But I think this is a good one for the committee, I think, to start with in determining why did we land where we landed and what's important for us as we move forward.

That's a good point, Phil.

Rick? Yeah, thanks for that, Phil. It kind of simulated some thinking on my part, where I lived on the fringe of that neighborhood. I used to run through it. I lived there for 10 years. And I think there was a little tension between industry and residential. But as a resident, I felt like, hey, everybody had a right to be there, as long as you had respectful you know consideration of residential versus commercial or industrial with screening and you know noise complaints or other kind of things that the city could take action on then you live with it and uh so i i think i'd be inclined to leave it the way we set it up um particularly in mind of what ducalo said about the you know proximity to the you know workforce you know uses with heavy not heavy but you know large employers in that in that area yeah yes i have a bit of a different take on this if you can you zoom out some

So I get the point that DeCarlo's made, but that's not what we've done anyplace else. If you look almost every place in the industrial zone, it's either neighborhood transition or compact residential, other than around exit 75. So I get the point about the housing. I think. That's a valid thought, but that's not what we did elsewhere around the industrial zone. The other thing I would say about this neighborhood is there's already a house on every single lot, and most of these lots are a quarter acre. So I would go back to DeCarlo's earlier point about leapfrogging this. I think we need to be a little bit careful what we're doing here. uh... when we first looked at this this makes sense to me the way it is now because it's between a mixed-use corridor and the industrial when you drill down and look at this this whole area is small lots small residential housing we're already going to have a significant multiplier effect even if we go to compact residential uh... you could get significantly more and I think we want to think about this is what I think the residents point was they articulated it in a different way but you know in this area there is one large complex and you come down Manly Road on the right there's I think three or four quite large probably at least ten unit apartment buildings together and I think their concern is that would be allowable to be dropped into the middle of this, and it would be a very, very dramatic change from what's there. So I think this is outside, going outside the core, and the compact residential would be more consistent with what's around that, the choices we've already made northeast and south of this particular area.

Lauren.

I want to add some context to the choices that the committee has made. I think the reason that we have compact residential around the country club and the airport is because the existing zoning today is where residential and suburban residential and low density country residential. And then we did our land use category mapping. That's how we did the overlay. We took the lower end areas, so the lower rural res areas, and put them into compact residential. And we took T42B areas, which is the existing neighborhood today, and that became the mixed use residential. I think other reasoning for keeping Compact residential near the airport was for the reasons it's near an airport and heavier industrial uses just going back to Phil's point about reasonings for decisions a big part of them and where we started was taking our existing zoning and Overlaying our land use categories and amending from there. So this is a newer one for the committee in discussing adjustments to that beginning point Yeah, yeah, so I would agree with that.

I would say A better comparison is to look to the east. So Pride Road, both sides of Poland, Trask, Ridgewood, Bennett, that whole neighborhood, it's surrounded by multi-use corridor and industrial as well, but it's all built up single-family residence, and we made it compact residential. It's not dissimilar to what we're talking about in this area.

Yeah.

I think the one other thing that taking all the points that have been said is we have our core out model. This represents we're getting less dense as we go out and suddenly we have this little spot where we get more dense. And then we go less dense again. And the reason is, as Lauren points out, it's currently T4.2b. And the planning board did that, but not other places. I don't even know why, but we did. So, you know, does it make sense? That you know to me if I'm going from the center of Auburn out in terms of density if I wanted to do infill then I actually want to make that the compact residential rather than the mixed-use as it is now.

Yeah. I just want to ask the planning staff. I know that along Poland Road on the southern end of this, there's a significant development that's currently being constructed. I don't really know what that development is. It looks like it's a multifamily, but I don't know how many units or anything like that. Could you guys enlighten us as to what that is? Do you know off the top of your head what I'm talking about? Yeah, it might be Breton.

It could be I think there's two There's one that is three units of manufactured housing two of which have already been put in the third one's not the back That's on the left Sort of across from where the warehouse at the corner of Rodman And the other one is a little further down. It's right next to a house, and it's four units, I think, connected, like townhouse-type things that are going in there.

It seems to me that this area is already pretty well developed. Smaller lots, single-family homes. that it's a little further out from the core. We're trying to focus more density. If you look at the whole map, there's a substantial amount of development areas for dense development in the city, particularly near the core and where the mixed-use residentials abut through that. I take Dana's comments seriously that part of a consideration is that there are adequate and ample places to have more density to help reduce the cost of housing. But in this particular area, Because of the state law, it's still going to amplify the opportunity for additional growth in that area. If there's an interest and a desire to do that, you can put up to four units on a 5,000 square foot area. That's pretty dense. And it also allows for some commercial use on corners and major highways. It seems to me that in our discussion, as you looked at our map and we looked where we put compact residential, particularly as we looked at Poland Road and the Trask area, I think that it would be consistent that our planning decisions would match that area for compact residential. It wouldn't be wildly out of place for that to be that way. So I'm inclined a little bit more to go to Carpenter Residential in that area. Even though it's near some commercial areas.

Yeah, so so we can move the question along I would move that we modify this area to compact residential.

Second.

There's a second. Any further discussion on the motion. Seeing none if you're in favor of making the change to raise your hand. Just for to make the change. Those opposed I believe it's eight in favor and three opposed It's adopted So, I don't think there any other boundary discussions or plan use changes so that will bring us to our Draft comprehensive plan. My thought in approaching this and we have another meeting scheduled as well next week would be to begin by the beginning of the table of contents and walk through it and get your thoughts or comments or additions that you want to make. I'd also note that if in your review what you saw was typos or some just minor changes, I would recommend that you send those directly to Lauren in an email or a text message. And no text. That's right. You don't have text messaging on your official business line. Send an email. I get text messages all the time. So I Would recommend instead of talking about those that you just send them send them to Lauren and she'll make that make the changes on those but if you have Brought a discussion we this would be the time to begin that discussion to do that So With that, I would begin, let me get to my, let me get to the plan here, just a second. Okay, so the first, The first area, the first parts of it are the introduction section and talks general. No, let me back up a little bit, because Kerry, you want to give us a kind of a broad overview for the public as well as for the committee on how the plan is structured.

Sure. So hopefully you all had a chance to review the draft plan. I'll go over just a bit about the structure just to know most of what is in this document. Information that you've seen before, it just is in a different format, looks a little bit different. And then I'll talk through what is new. So I see this really as kind of three We have the introduction laying the foundation for the plan. Why we're doing this was really packaging this for the typical resident who hasn't been deep in this as you all have been for a year plus. So giving them some background as to what this document is, the purpose. the city has gone through this comp plan process. And then the background as far as, you know, this plan wasn't just coming out of nowhere. It's built on a foundation of past comprehensive plans, other planning initiatives the city has engaged in, transportation studies, housing plans, things like that. And then so that that background, um, all of the information in the inventory referencing some of that here kind of giving the highlights, but not, um, bogging the document down in details, referencing the, um. inventory analysis in the in the appendix and um and then the community engagement so recognizing this is the guidance for this plan for the next steps for for the city um is really rooted in the community engagement and on all that feedback that came from from the public Again, referencing the community engagement summary, not getting too bogged down into details, but pulling out the highlights of what came from all of that engagement done over many, many months. So that's the first part, kind of laying the foundation for the plan. And then jumping into really the content of the plan. What is the direction? So the future land use land use categories And that is all that information that you've seen before goals policies and objectives broken down by Topic area and then what I see is the through the third and last section of the plan regional coordination implementation plan and that's really how this how the city is going to move forward with this document what what are the steps you're going to take to put this into action and I will start going through through some of this so broad overview of what the plan is again the history and some highlights from inventory, things that are important to set the foundation for this document, and then the process. So what were the steps that were taken to get to this point, to have this final document? Overview of engagement. Just looking at these numbers, it's pretty amazing all of the work that went into this from all of you and staff. So this the summary of Community engagement summary you've seen that's in detail in the appendix same with the inventory analysis So this text is really just pulling out the highlights from that as well as some some quotes from the survey and from other engagements and Then we have the vision statement guiding principles goals, all of which you've seen before. And then you'll see as we go through the document, the guiding principles, goals, those are all referenced back. So we're building from this vision down to goals and to policies and objectives, and then specific action items to be implemented in the implementation section. So getting into the the future land use plan again there's some introductory language here, but the text around the Future land use categories is what you've already seen. There's the the map to go along with each of the categories and then We have included these renderings to show what a site could look like, the massing, building orientation, density, to give the reader a visual of what this land use category is intended to be. Skip down to policies and actions. So for the goals, policies, and objectives, again, I think we had a comment about this. This doesn't make sense. It's intended to be hard to read. It's showing how all of the policies are interrelated. And so one of the common challenges with a document like this is that we break it down into these different sections, and then sometimes there's that each section is kind of reviewed in a silo, but we're saying we have broken this up for ease of reading and for ease of creating a document, but all of these things are interrelated and the success of one depends on the success of another and some of these policies impact housing and economy, for example, or other areas as well. So just kind of giving that understanding that this is, again, comprehensive planning. All of these things are related. So we have the, for each category, have included the goal and then listing policies and objectives related to that topic area. And then again, tying that into, tying that to the principles. How this how this goal and how those policies and objectives relate to the the principles and then what we've heard and what we've learned so key points from the inventory and analysis that background documentation as well as Feedback from from the community. What is rooting? These ideas where did these where did these goals policies and objectives come from? I And then for each policy, we have the policy objective. So there's a little bit of repetition, but I think it helps with ease of reading and navigating the document. And then we have some explanation of each policy. explaining a little bit more about where that idea came from and what information that we heard from the community or that came up with discussions with staff or others, where that was rooted in the background information. And so that's the same format for each of these sections. And then this final segment of the plan, regional coordination is a required section per the state, but it helps round out how the city will implement the plan. All of what is included here is related to what is included in the implementation matrix, so where we reference partnerships with other organizations or continued working with other communities. This is, there's the narrative here of all of the areas where there is quite a bit of regionalism to be considered, but that's all, there's specific detail around that in the implementation matrix. implementation plan guidance for how the city can move forward with implementing the plan using the matrix as a guide to track progress and using this plan as a guide for in the capital planning process And then the last thing is the implementation matrix. I believe you saw most of this, but there may be some additional detail with specific performance metrics and funding sources where that is appropriate.

Within that section, you added some more detail, whether it's short-term, medium-term, or long-term, and you've indicated what looks like that, as well as identified who primarily would be responsible for it.

Who would be responsible, yes. And then again, relating the related objectives, so relating that back to, and in some cases it's multiple areas. Again, showing that kind of how those things are interrelated.

And you do list the objectives still, so you can tie the actions back to the objectives. And I think in the fire right call. Talk about. What the reporting requirements would be in any particular section. We report back to the City Council for example.

So this column here, it's hard to see, performance metrics. So how can the city track progress on each of these items? And then on the far column, where it's appropriate, including links to potential funding sources so that when you're ready to move forward with that, that you have some resources available.

Yeah, and this is the section that's really the area in which you look for the performance metrics so that this becomes an ongoing document that's used extensively by staff, elected officials, planning board members to determine how we're making progress in the comprehensive plan. which is somewhat different than previous comprehensive plans or usual comprehensive plans, perhaps.

That is, the rest of this is the many, many pages of appendices, so I won't go through that. That's all information before, but I'll go back to the beginning, John, if you wanted to start there. Questions, comments?

Yeah, the first, The couple 100 pages is what you love outlined and then is the appendix and has a lot of data and reference material a glossary in it that's. Useful folks need to look for that specific kind of information. Any questions about how it's laid out. Good. Thank you for that overview. I think that's quite helpful. So we'll have this evening to talk about these sections and give you a chance to review, make comments. But we'll also be meeting again next week. So you'll have an opportunity again to have further discussion next week about the plan and ask questions about it as well. One of the things that as I read it, I noticed is I thought that our staff and consultants did a pretty good job of capturing the intent and direction that we all talked about over these many months. That's a bit of a challenge over all that long period of time, lots of different kinds of comments and direction. I generally found that the new narrative, information that we haven't seen is consistent with what a pretty much consistent with what our discussion has been you maybe you saw it a little differently than whoever chance to comment on that. I thought that was useful that integrated into the other material that we looked at in more detail. So with that, let's start at the beginning, the introduction part, where we have, as you looked over, is there any thoughts or comments or suggestions you have with that particular part, how it fits into the Comprehensive Plan? How about the building on a history of planning? Quite interesting to read that section where Auburn has had a long history of doing planning and land use regulation. Way before most communities started doing this. Thoughts, comments on this section? Lovely photographs, by the way. That brings us into the planning process and talks about how the planning process is developed. The inventory and analysis talks about community engagement, makes some highlights there. By the way, if you look in the appendix, for those who might be interested, in Appendix C, community engagement is very detailed. It covers a lot of the material that we saw at the beginning. Not all here, but it is in the document if anybody wants to refer to it at some future point. Talks about the future land use plan. John, over here.

Yeah, in the community engagement chart, as I was looking at that, I was wondering, well, we're not done that yet. We've still got planning board review and city council review. And do you anticipate changing numbers in there to reflect that?

Yeah, I'm assuming we'll see some engagement, hopefully, when the draft plan is out and when we have our meetings. And so we'll be able to include that in this graphic.

Good point, Dennis. Yeah. I think it's important to note that we still have opportunities for community engagement and encourage it so that we will entertain future discussions and comments, and I'm sure we'll have some going forward. So it's not finished until it's adopted, so we've got a little ways to go yet.

We can really get our numbers up. 5K maybe.

So we have the community engagement process that's outlined, summarized here. Any thoughts about this section?

Got a lot of pictures of Dave.

I'm sorry? The old picture.

There are a lot of pictures of Dave.

Yes, I noticed that. He was actively involved and I think he knew the photographer. A section on the what the vision for urban is that section on how that will what those are now that was developed you've seen that before. We have the future land use plan.

John, I just, can I comment quickly? Sure, yeah. So planning staff are also reviewing the plan and for these beginning pages and really throughout the plan, we'll work with Barry Dunn on some structure approaches too. So you might see on the 9th some structural changes to the first few chapters just for flow and things like that. just want to preface with the committee that there might be some changes that are coming from the staff perspective, not so much content, but more so flow at this stage.

Okay, it's good to know. Dana?

As things change between now and then, could you just give us a sheet that kind of outlines what those changes are?

Yes, they certainly will. So you're quite familiar with the land use plan and describing the various growth, moderate growth, low growth areas. Dana?

I want this to be a good time to talk conservation. So I sent a note to Lauren earlier today. There's a map on page 34 that outlines park cemeteries and conservation. I had expressed a comment earlier in this process that we probably shouldn't outline conserved properties that are not I would suggest we remove that from this, but then there are also other ones that aren't owned by the city that I question whether they should be here. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. Um, so I guess I just wanted to start a discussion there.

So I guess this would be a question for the staff. Things that aren't owned by the city, are they in a conservation tax status? Because I think even if they're private, if there's some types of conservation and they're in a tax status, it's public already.

So I'll add on to that. They don't even have to be in a tax status. Once you put a conservation easement on it, it becomes public knowledge because it's attached to the deed. And anytime you go to any register of deeds, you can look up any conserved land in your city. So that will be public knowledge whether it's on this map or not. But I definitely hear your concern. We want to I believe the concern is, hey, we don't want to be putting something out that might unintentionally communicate that this might be a parkland for people to come and visit rather than it's conserved land that we are conserving and we want to protect and we don't actually There's no intent by the owners for people to go there. I don't know if this map, it just says parsed cemeteries conservation, and it does make a distinction between those conserved lands. So it is a good point to talk about, though.

I mean, the headline there is preserving public spaces. It's not a public space.

That's a good note, Dana. That could be an adjustment to that heading as well.

Yeah. And could you identify some that might be not public? I see you have some on there, but are there others that should be identified as conserved but private?

That would require us going through each of the conserved land and going through the deed to see if there's going to be public access in those rights.

One thing that we were thinking about with this is now amending that header and adding in a clause or paragraph somewhere here that says just because it's conserved doesn't necessarily mean that it's for public use, but conservation land as a whole is an amenity for the city. And so just because it's conserved doesn't mean that someone can walk on it. Worded better than that, but.

Yeah, it could be conserved for nature preservation or natural resource preservation. Yeah, maybe some language that just identifies up front for folks. Some of this is conserved, but it's not necessarily for public use.

Wetlands, vernal pools. Jeff?

Yeah, a question for the staff. Since I see these green blocks way outside Auburn, I'm assuming that that layer came from someone. You didn't make this up, right? This is from some other public source of conserved lands?

Probably the state, I'm guessing. And that was actually one of my comments, was to remove the other green splotches that aren't Auburn. But yes, it would be a state database, I'm guessing. Or a non-profit, or...

Yeah, it might make it less confusing for folks. At least rephrase that, focus it more on Auburn as opposed to regional.

Yeah, I guess I would just add too that just because something has a conservation easement on it today does not necessarily mean that it'll have a conservation easement on it in the future, which I mean, I realize that's a pretty difficult thing to take off, but it's possible, especially if we don't own the land.

Well, yeah, I think that's true, but this is for our next 10-year planning process, so if things change way beyond 10 years, that's not much in our control, probably.

Could that be addressed by just including the word current a conservation somewhere in the you know, that's a good point.

Any other thoughts in regards to this a map. John, yeah.

Excuse me. Well, perhaps crazy ideas. Thinking of Lake Auburn and its limited use and its intent. I mean, it's conserved in a way because it's a water supply. I don't know whether there's... We have it on the previous map as a wetland, but I... understand this is showing land but I wonder if there's some way to connect in that that's a that's a large piece of our city that's in some way in my mind perhaps not really conserved but it's it's limited in its use

We could add a watershed layer to this that shows the Taylor Pond watershed and the Lake Auburn watershed. I think that the natural resources legend is also what the state clumps together as natural resources. So if we wanted to highlight Lake Auburn more, we could put a watershed boundary or have a separate legend item for it.

Hmm. I don't know if the water districts own it. There's an amount of land around Lake Auburn that is owned by the water district.

That's a good point. One of my questions was going to be, who owns the land under Lake Auburn? As planners, best practice is that for any type of conservation, literally, the question that comes up on everyone's test is, for conservation, what is the best means for conservation is always ownership. And so this is one of those things where the water district owns a lot of land and doesn't have to put it into a conservation easement because they actually own the land. And so that's it's a great point about the water district.

Yeah Jeff maybe you know better than I but the lake Auburn water pollution water protection commission Yeah, so this all But I think the Carlos hit on the critical point here so

Most of the land that the Watershed Protection Commission owns came from the waiver agreement and there was land deeded from Lewiston and Auburn and The Auburn land is mostly from the water district, and then they've purchased land as they've gone along, but I don't think any of it, we can check on this with Mike Broadbent, but I don't recall any of it being in some type of a conservation easement because they own it and set their own restrictions on it. which is probably why if this layer came from the state, it doesn't show up, because they're probably looking for places that have an actual deeded, some type of conservation restriction.

Along the lines of that, I don't see the Whitman Spring Road laid out here, so that's a very viable public space and trail system that people use all the time.

Yeah, very actively used.

So Dennis, I think, raises a really good thought here. What is it that we're trying to convey with this diagram or this image? Are we trying to convey, leave aside, I get the cemeteries and stuff, but on this conserved land, are we trying to convey the message that for land use purposes, this is conserved and you can't develop it, or are we trying to convey where there's recreational opportunities. So I think that's part of what Dana was pointing out is some of these you can and some you can't.

Yeah, that's a great question, Jeff. When the committee's been talking over the past few months, there's been a concern over having a growth area over a park, and what does that mean, and not pulling out the park for individual spot land use category. And so this is to show that there are existing conservation areas, parks, and so on, that won't be eroded as of today. with a growth area designation of high growth or a different land use category we can make that clear on page 33 it goes into that um about protecting natural areas as they are regardless if they're in a high growth area that would be helpful yeah i think that would be very helpful because if what we're trying to convey here is the thought of an o that will translate into an overlay

for future land use purposes of areas that you can't develop on, I think that makes more sense, but I think we need to have a clearer explanation of that.

Yeah, the more I think about this, the fuzzier it gets. I'm thinking about Rolling Hills Estate, which has trails behind there that connect with Pettengill Trails, and some are owned by the homes that are in that subdivision and some of its city land and then granite mills estates has walking trails behind there that the planning board required um but then you have andrew scoggin land trust the sherwood forest which is probably more public but are these other things really public so i i don't know the more you look the more you find the more confusing it

Yeah, Ellie and I went back and forth on this, is where do we stop the waterfall? And we talked about this last summer when we were doing inventory. We're forgetting this piece. We're forgetting this piece. This goes through my backyard, which is why in our actions we have a parks, trails, and open space master plan, hopefully. So to Rick, your point, if it's not doing the best job, perhaps a narrative would be more helpful here rather than a map that is missing, it seems like.

some important information because the purpose is to say Natural resources open space within a high growth area are will remain that So I keep zooming in just to kind of move around the map and so forth and I guess I just have to ask a question so on Taylor pond on the east shore of Taylor pond kind of a Southeast Shore there's there's like a little I don't know, dark area on, I can't tell if it's supposed to be like a conserved piece of land or if it's just a darker area. If you start where Mount Appetite is and you go directly east of it. Yeah, you just had your cursor on it. I don't know, maybe it's just a smudge where all the roads converge.

I will also say, some of you may have noted that this is a lower resolution document. That's the one that we shared with you. The real document will be better resolution.

But we don't, who's to say we'd be able to see it in the higher resolution one?

It's just slightly darker than all the other areas around it. I don't know what that is.

That could be Taylor Brook. Just looking at a different map, it's sort of shaped roughly the same.

So would the committee feel that it's more helpful to fulfill their intent of expressing the importance of natural resources and parks in a high growth area be just a narrative rather than this map?

Would you allow staff to review this a little bit? Because there is some value of knowing where our parks are on a map surface, at least the ones that we know of right now. But we definitely hear your point about the communication.

Yeah.

I think it would be great for you guys to really use your wise brains and meld them together and come up with some good recommendations. And I do value visuals, and I love the idea of the parks, but I think others... uh here tonight have highlighted an important piece and that is we have parks but we have trails and the trail you know i get i hear what you're saying lauren in terms of you know how much do you spread but those are a pretty important piece of what's of value and preserved in some of our more developed areas of the city and so i think as you're mind melting and and thinking about the best way if there is not too cumbersome way to to think about that that that could be of value to at least put in some of the more heavily used trails

I think the point that was made earlier in clarity in the narrative to show that even though there's higher growth areas and we haven't pulled out parks or public spaces, in our deliberations we were very clear That those areas are intended to be maintained and used for the public. And though they don't show up separately in the process of land use regulation, those have a special protected status. simply because of what they are, cemetery, or there might be a park or something like that. So I think it expresses what we're trying to do. I think your point was well taken, Lauren. Then let's try to do, let's see what we think about doing it in a map form. Some, maybe some, not everything gets put in the map because it confuses it.

One final point in the narrative. I encourage you guys to think about potentially some stats, being the data geek I am, but how many acres do we have that are conservation? How many parks? Just some of those numbers that can, I think, be very impactful in the narrative. Some people love visuals. Some people like the weeds.

That's a good point, Tim. Matt?

And I guess, so I just have a question that I think is related, is one of the action steps I recall, but I haven't looked at it in a while, is something about creating a resource about trails and parks, et cetera, that's available. That's what I feel like when I just glanced at this map, I thought, oh, it's trying to do that. And this map doesn't succeed at that at all. So I think I agree with your sense of let's maybe try a narrative if what we're trying to do is say it's really important to preserve land rather than map it. Because a map sort of shows me where I can go rather than tells me what I think is important. I mean, they're related, obviously, but...

Yeah, good point. For the comments. I haven't read every section of this, but I remember we had quite a bit of discussion which are are not conservation of open areas and we didn't separate the land use from there but it's the overlay zones like land use and stream protection areas that are here and other valuable natural resources that our intention is that those are still going to have regulation and protection and consideration and development. So I confess I'm not sure that I read it here, but I didn't read all of it. But I think that it's useful to state that that's in there again to show that we made consideration for important natural resources, for example, to be protected under existing state or local laws. And I know there was, we did talk about, there is some language about protection for habitat and rare endangered species kind of thing, so. I'm thinking of future people who will be charged with trying to understand what we tried to accomplish here. So we move on a little bit here and it goes through the land use categories and we have a land use category map and goes through all the land use categories and describes them. We've seen much of that. High density cores. I think it's interesting you have those little diagrams to try to give a sense of the density of what we're talking about.

John, I'll just comment on those diagrams because they're kind of funky looking. Why are they funky looking? We are going back and forth on whether to use an existing site today in Auburn to show redevelopment potential or what it would look like in a certain land use category and then decided that being parcel agnostic is more important because we don't want to alarm anyone like, oh my gosh, this is happening. So we decided to go parcel agnostic just to show a possibility of what a built up lot parcel could look like with parking, people walking, trees and so on. So it's very vague on purpose, but I'm curious what the committee thinks about those renderings. They're called illustrative massings.

Dennis.

um first i want to say i think this is a really high quality document and the consultants and the staff have done a great job putting this together and the lack of comments that you're hearing here tonight is a testament to that i do like these these illustrative diagrams i find a couple of them a little confusing Figure 10, the downtown, and figure 8, high density core, are a little, you know, the distinction between the two of them, I had to read it two or three times to actually narrow in on the distinction. And then the other one that gave me quite a bit of pause was figures 21 and 22. trying to distinguish the difference between those two. Where is it? What's really going on in 21 and 22 is that figure 21 is without sewer and water, and figure 22 is with sewer and water, but it doesn't actually say that until the very last sentence of the thing, and I think there's a bunch of different ways to solve that, but I had to read it a few times before I got the distinction. Other than that, I don't have too much to say, thanks.

Yeah, I like the diagrams. One of the things that stood out to me is looking at them one after another because they show you a relative difference between them. My comment on figure eight would be to make the building taller so it has more differentiation from downtown.

So along those same lines, and maybe this is just me, but I like seeing things next to each other in scale. So is it possible to have a page that has all the different types next to each other? So we're like, hey, this one is really smaller than this one. That to me would be very, to help with the issue that Jeff has just flagged, that would be very helpful.

That's a great idea.

I got I was a little confused with figure 16. That's the compact residential and it says it illustrates massing shows residential. Transition with one to 2, 1 to 4 family homes. Accessory dwellings units. A lot of setbacks. So I'm not quite sure what I was looking at. Is that one dwelling or is that more than one dwelling in that unit?

So I'll point you directly to you'll see a driveway and what you can't see because it's a 3D rendering. But just because I'm well aware of how these things work. behind the building is a parking lot which means that this is a multi-unit building and this this could be a fourplex and it has a pedestrian entrance to the front that connects you to in the sidewalk to pedestrian facilities but the cars are at the rear and you I'm guessing that there's an entrance over there too but because it's in 3d you can't see all all I mean, it's a good point of like it's it's difficult. It's it's really easy for planners to see. But this this document isn't for your planners. It's for the people of the city. Yeah.

Well, it says it shows. A duplex into 80 use. And I. I had a hard time. It was a little confusing to me.

Yeah, so I think that last sentence... would it is confusing because you you have a one to four family homes and then at the at the last sentence it says it shows a duplex and two adus on a lot that at a quarter acre lot so i think that can actually be amended um especially since uh we're not a jurisdiction the state doesn't do multiple adus is one adu um and so this might be uh Consistent with state law, it would be a triplex with an ADU. That's actually what you can do by state law.

Yeah, so John, we can amend that first sentence so that it's clear that this compact residential land use category includes one to four family homes. This rendering is of a triplex with an ADU.

As long as you put an ADU there.

DECARLO, TO YOUR POINT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO GET A VERSION OF THIS WHERE THE DRIVEWAY AND THE PARKING LOT ARE ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THIS 3D IMAGE? TAKE IT FROM THE LEFT, PUT IT ON THE RIGHT SIDE? BECAUSE THAT REALLY WOULD HELP, TO YOUR POINT. AS YOU WERE EXPLAINING, OH, YEAH, I SEE A CAR BACK THERE, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE AS IMPORTANT.

WE CAN DO THAT.

Anyways, maybe you take another look at these and see if they look clear to a less well-trained eye. Absolutely. Any other thoughts or comments about this section, any diagrams or the discussion of each of those land use categories?

I'll just jump in just that you asked the question I really do like these renderings as opposed to photographs in agreement with colleagues here.

Any other discussion on the land use category section. Figure 30 does show the drinking water protection as you probably noticed area It brings us up to the goals policies and projectors John and I love this diagram

Should it be a figure, though?

Should it be a figure? Oh, not a diagram.

Can I ask you a question about the diagram? Is it created just making stuff up, or is it actual data?

I think, I feel like Allie said she spent some good amount of time on this, so I feel like knowing her, she connected the dot, the objectives together. But it's not supposed to be used like that. But is that what you were asking about?

Yeah, there just might be other approaches to it, but that's neither here nor there.

Well, if you have any, it's not too late. Email me.

Well, I'm supposed to illustrate complexity. It does that quite successfully. And the point is, I'm not sure. I wouldn't try to follow all those lines around here, see where they all go.

Well, I'm hoping, as Matt said, that they actually, they're common linkages. If so, I'd like a big poster.

Exactly. And, you know, just to finish my thought, you could create a network diagram where it's with a circular layout where everything connects, which would be kind of fun.

although I don't have a constructed suggestion for you. I have to do it differently.

I think as the committee keeps going through their review through this over the next week and so on, I'd be curious your thoughts on the explanations after the policy and objectives are listed out. That's probably the newest information that we've tried to explain, the conversations that we've had. If your eyes haven't been there yet, I think that would be the most helpful place to make sure We've relayed well enough the intent of their work.

You know, at the next meeting, if you have a chance to review again and something comes up that we haven't mentioned tonight, we can go back just simply because we went through it tonight doesn't mean we can't go back and add something next week.

That's a dangerous statement, John.

That's dangerous. Just kidding.

I'd rather do it now than print it and then have to change it then. And when you then you when you go further down you get to the future land use and You see the policies laid out and the objectives laid out there That seems like a good structure to be able to be quite more readable and associate the policy with the objectives and And you do have a footnote that explains what the asterisks is which is useful for folks reading and the state requirement.

John, I actually have a question about that. So Jane couldn't make it tonight, but she emailed us about the clarity of that adderisk, and I'm wondering to the committee if it was clear, if the adderisk indicates a state requirement that you see at the end of page 68, would that be included on every page that there's an adderisk? Because you can forget once you get further down, you're like, what does this mean?

My general thought is you probably ought to include it. more frequently through the document. You may forget it or maybe you miss it when you go through it and you don't know what that asterisk means. Matt?

just one comment that threw me as I was initially looking at it is that you have policy one policy two and there's like a little summary of the objectives and the policies together and then the longer explication maybe just identifying that you're starting with a summary and there's a longer description but like some kind of Something to say, hey, you're going to see this again in the next page or whatever, I think would be helpful. Because I was like, hey, wait, policies were up there. Are they the same? And then I'm going back and forth.

Other thoughts Included in tying it into public comment as well You've seen much of this So the language I don't think should be unfamiliar to you Is there any part of those in any of those sections we have a future land use and we have the Community section the housing economic all of those that we went through Anything seem different to you than what you've seen before there. I Maybe we can just scroll right over to regional cooperation. Matt, yeah?

I am gonna read those newer sections that you just highlighted too for next week, so I appreciate the emphasis there, so thank you.

You note in the economy section there was a policy added that indicates that one of the first things we're going to do is take some effort to develop an economic development plan in somewhat more detail as early on task, short term task.

I'll just add, John, it wasn't a policy that we added. I think if the committee remembers, we were working through the economy chapter a little bit more, and we added an action item. So you'll see that in the implementation table to do an economic development strategic plan after this.

Yes. So regional coordination. This is an area that's new.

John.

Dennis, yes.

There are a couple of things in here that I'd like to point out in here what people think. At the top of page 123, we talk about Auburn as a regional hub for services and that Auburn serves as a gateway to recreational opportunities in western Maine for visitors and residents. I think it's you actually said something at one of the earlier meetings about it's not a one-way valve there Auburn is also a gateway for people from Franklin County and Oxford County to get to southern Maine through the Turnpike and that feeds into our transportation planning And then the other one is in terms of coordination, there's some talk about the coordination of Lewiston, but in our inventory we found out that the commuting traffic between Auburn and Lewiston is almost on a par. 2,500 of their residents come here to work, 2,500 of our residents go there to work. I'd recommend filtering a little bit of that in there, too, because we're codependent in many ways.

My only comment on this section is it's significantly focused on as is and not what can be. So I think I'm going to think about this a little more before the next meeting. When I read this over, that was my impression and i think that there's lots of conversations that the manager and i are involved in with other municipalities with the state about forward-looking opportunities for regionalization and i don't think we need to specify exactly what they are but i think we need to have a paragraph in here that talks about the benefit and why the city should consider regionalization of various services as part of a forward-looking plan.

Any other thoughts at this point on the regionalization? And Tim?

Just after a quick scan, I don't think I saw anything related to economic growth around the tech hub and the industry and the potential of expanding that as a regional center. I think that's key. Perhaps the airport as well.

Yeah when we look at this some more in more detail and might be an area where we have further comments next week. After the realization is the implementation plan. Talks about the capital improvement plan implementation approach. It talks about how it's structured. And then you come into the matrix. Where it lists out an action and it shows what the related objective is, who's responsible, the timeline, performance matrix, and in some of them they indicate some funding sources. We saw these when we reviewed them together, but I think structurally it works better by having in its own section And again you you've seen this well except for some a little bit of addition on timeline and And responsible group you've seen much of this. I Yeah.

Sorry, you got a little bit ahead of me. If I could just go back and make one comment on the implementation approach section. What we don't have in there that I think is important that we've talked about before is the integration of this plan and the city council's annual goals that they set with the city manager because that's really the link to how stuff actually gets done. So we need to just think about that a little bit and see how we can strengthen that in this paragraph.

Yeah, that's a good point. That's the funnel by which how things get accomplished. Again you've seen much of this again to each of the categories. Each of the goals. Late out there. Again if you take a little more time and you take a look at it to see you. You have a different view on. Performance matrix or who should. Perhaps maybe who else might be. There are other folks who might be involved in the responsible group. There's a glossary there you have a little more time you might take a look at the glossary to see. If that seems appropriate, you know if the language is. In that or something further should be added to the glossary. Appendix B includes the related plans and studies. Might take a moment to look at that and see if you know of any other plans or studies that might not be included there that you think should be. And if you do, that might be good to just let the staff know about that through an email. community engagement is you've seen a lot of that material when it was presented to us. It's all laid out in detail. I think it's useful to have it there. I think it reminds folks the extent of which we really try to get as much community input as we could in all kinds of different ways. I suspect it's... one of the more extensive efforts program and a comprehensive plan. And then the last section is the inventory analysis of database material that we started with. Any other part that you want to spend any additional time on or have additional comments or Which he had dennis's comment that you know that it really stands out to the high quality of the work that was done by staff and consultants here. Well constructed well put together well written. Thoughtfully structured. So that it. It's a readable document by an average individual, but it also is a very performative document that can be used and followed and provide good guidance for the future. So I think a very good effort was done putting this together. I'm happy to stay longer if you would like but if you think we've covered enough for this evening. We can adjourn and will in return to a discussion next week. Can we go through the the calendar. It's just make sure all on the same page with that.

Yes, we can. I'll also make a quick note about staff edits and Dana's earlier point. For our next meeting on Tuesday, I'll make sure to send ahead of time staff edits, and then we can work through them together to hear committee's thoughts on some of those things. OK. So we are meeting next Tuesday, August 25, to review the plan. And if necessary, we'll meet again Wednesday, September 9, to review and adopt the plan, to open public comment. On Monday, September 14th.

Let me back up a little bit. On September 9th, so that's when we're going to start the 30-day notice period?

Yes, we can see how next Tuesday goes. If the committee's feeling comfortable and doesn't feel like they need that third additional meeting, we could start it then. Okay. Just depends on our conversation next Tuesday.

One of those two meetings we need to pull the trigger on them.

Yeah So then Monday September 14th will be the joint City Council and Planning Board meeting to present the plan and walk them through what they'll be seeing over the next few months and then on wednesday september 23rd the planning board will workshop the comp plan and so work through it just as you all been doing and then on wednesday october 14th we'll do a joint comprehensive plan committee and public planning board public hearing together and then On Wednesday, October 28th, the planning board will meet again to review the comprehensive plan and make their recommendations to city council. We're thinking about the October 14th public hearing order of things. This comprehensive plan committee may be able to send the plan to the planning board and the planning board can make their recommendations at that meeting. Did that go to City Council? That seems like a lot to do in one meeting, so we're holding that October 28th for the Planning Board in case they need more time to make their recommendations to City Council as outlined in the Conference of Planning Committee Charter.

Can I interrupt there for a second? I don't think the Planning Board should be making their recommendations to the City Council until the public hearing has been concluded.

Yeah, the public hearing will be at the start of that meeting, and then they'll meet to discuss.

Right, so I understand the planning board's gonna work this, and they may have some thoughts on it, but we're gonna have that joint meeting. There'll be a public hearing. There's not gonna be any opportunity for the planning board to digest those public comments and take them into consideration. I don't think we should be scheduling that on the same evening.

Okay.

We'll keep that October 28th, then, as our time for when the planning board will make their recommendations. And then in November and December, between about three meetings of the city council will happen, the city council will hold a special meeting to workshop the comprehensive plan, and then they'll go to first reading, and then it will go to second reading for adoption. I will say when we open the public hearing, so when the committee releases comprehensive plan, we'll also send to the state to review for the checklist to make sure we're not missing anything major. This is a recommended step by person who reviews the comprehensive plans at the state. so that if there is something major we're missing, we don't need to restart. That's one less thing we would need to do to restart the 30-day or the public hearing process. So I'll just note that. That will be going out as well. And one more thing. I invited the Conference Plan Committee in a calendar invite to the meetings I expect you to attend. Do you want me to also send you invites to this adoption schedule in your calendar? Would that be helpful? Is that too messy? We'll be talking about you, but you won't need to be there. So I just wanted to throw that out there.

Well, I think it's useful to send it to everyone, and then they'll know what everybody will have the same calendar. Yeah.

And the only thing I'll add to the schedule is it's tentative. We have to schedule ahead of time just to make sure we have some schedule. But we understand that comments happen Edits happen. Life happens. But we need something to pivot from. And so this is our first scheduling of if everything goes ideal, then we have the schedules to rely on. And you can see, even in times that we seem to be ahead of schedule, there may be some reason that we need to hold off and have a little bit more time because it allows digestion of information or something like that.

Yeah, that's completely consistent with my view of how we're going to proceed.

And I'll also add for process, and when the comprehensive planning committee would need to meet again after that October 14 public hearing, that's if the planning board or city council says, we want the comprehensive planning committee to meet again, or we've been given a substantive edit that we need to convene the committee for them to go over whatever edit that might be. That would require another public hearing, not the 30-day window where we're stalled. But we would meet again. And so to DeCarlo's point, this is a tentative release. Your duties are done October 14, potentially, depending on feedback that we hear. We may need to meet again.

The police don't leave the country.

Yeah. Yeah, don't go anywhere between October and December.

Well that sounds good. We have a plan and intentions of how we're going to complete this before the end of the year. Hopefully fingers crossed. I think I would accept the motion to adjourn if you're ready. Let is ready to see one. Anybody else know. Motion to adjourn would be in order.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor? Unanimous.