Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Um, so if we could call the role. Chair Woodin here. Member Hicks here. Mr. Fox here. Mr. Santa Cruz here. Mr. Tarbo here. Miss Savage here. Miss Condraki here. Miss Rosenberger here. Councelor Todd here. Okay, we got full house. Everybody's here. Um, first item on our agenda is approval of the minutes from the November 19th uh, planning board meeting. Would someone like to make a motion to approve those minutes as submitted? One recusal. Sameus. Two recusals. I'll second. Got a move. Second.

Second from Dena. Uh, all those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. Just for the record, Jeff Santa Cruz, Amanda Savage both recused. They weren't here for the meeting. abstained from the vote. Sorry, that's okay. Uh agenda own overview. Anything uh I need to know about on the agenda overview?

There are a couple of items. U item 9A has been requested to be continued to the February 18th, 2026 meeting. That's the conditional use permit for the arts alley signage. Uh also at the request of the applicant, we are removing item 5A from the consent agenda. That public hearing will be held in conjunction with item 7B from the same applicant. And I also note that for the record that u item 9G was originally a consent item but has been removed at the request of the applicant. Okay. So we'll move 9G out of consent and onto the public. We need a motion on 9A to continue to February February 18.

So we got a motion and a second. Second motion and a second to continue 9A to the February. doesn't seem possible. We're already talking about February to the February 19th 18th meeting. Uh all those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. You don't need anything to move them out of consent. So we will look at the consent agenda items. Uh on our agenda, everything from 5 5 C 5C, excuse me, 5 C through 5H uh is consent. So, if anyone's here has questions or concerns uh regarding any of those items, if you could make yourself known. Uh Eaton, I conflicted out of 5e for family ownership of that property.

Okay. So, we're not going to take it out of consent. I'm going to ask you to recuse yourself on the consent agenda item in totality. Okay. All right. So, no no vote on the consent. Uh any member of the audience have any questions or concerns about any of the items five, what was it? C C through H through H. If not, uh we will take those uh recommendations made by architectural design review and the applications as they are submitted. Would someone like to make a motion to approve all those applications as submitted with architectural design review notes? So move second. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor?

Opposed? That motion carries. Just for the record, Mr. Tarbell recused himself on those and uh we did not recognize his vote. Uh moving right along to item C. You guys think this is going to move quick? We're going to slow down pretty soon, so hang tight. Moving through on item six, determination of completeness by consent. Uh we've got one item on the agenda for determination completeness by consent. If we could read that into the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is Will Cox and Barton Inc. on behalf of Dval Realy Associates LLC and Bank Chevrolet requesting approval for a major site plan application and conditional use permit for certain uses in the aquafer protection district for the construction of a parking lot and other state improvements at tax map 782Z lot 8 addresses 234 airport road and highway commercial single family residential and open space residential districts. Uh what we're looking for here on this is a motion and second uh to let me find my notes on that uh determine the application and condition use permit development of regional impact and continue the determination of completeness to January 21st.

Okay. So uh staff has found the application complete. It is a development of regional impact um and recommends uh finding the uh the application complete and opening the public setting up. Oh, sorry. Continuing determine Sorry. Uh, continuing the uh the application to the January 21st meeting. Would someone like to make a motion? No, it's not. Staff's recommending to determine the application of regional impact and continue its determination of I got you. I'm sorry. I didn't read my notes right. You wrote them right. I I read them wrong. So again, uh staff has found that is a development of regional impact and recommended to uh to uh push the determination of completeness to the January 21st meeting. Correct. Correct.

This way the budding communities, the regional planning commission can get their comments in before we actually have the hearing. Yes. We got a motion for the boards. Why? One major reason staff's recommending not completeness at this meeting is there's a zoning um thing they need to clean up but will would not impact any neighboring communities or anything like that. They plan on fixing that through design. Um and we feel comfortable with this section. Okay. Would someone like to make that motion? Move. Second.

Motion's been made to second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. Moves us on to our public hearing section in our in our agenda. Um why don't we read item 7A into the record. This is City of Conquered request public hearing in accordance with RSA 67454 for the renovation and construction of an approximately 18,000 foot building addition and associated site improvements for a new police station at tax map 53Z lot 10 addressed as four Bin Streets in the institutional district. for Bootton Street. All right, welcome back to the I'm going to recognize Mr. Tarbell.

I uh have a repeating theme here and I got a conflict for the budding property. So, I'll sit in the back. Sit sit in the hall. Go sit in the hall. There's nice comfy seats right outside. You can watch it on YouTube if you want. I do have a quick thing before we turn it over to Miss Fester. Okay. What do you got?

Uh this project, uh, as I noted, is for the construction of the new police headquarters at Fort Bin Street. uh calls for the adaptive reuse of the former Conquer Group Insurance Building and the construction of the 18,000 foot building addition and associate site improvements resulting in a facility approximately 57,000 square ft in size. Uh it's important to note that the city council's already appropriated the funding for the project uh which is CIP 643. So the focus of tonight's hearing is to uh be on the design and construction of the facility. Uh per RSA 7454, this is a governmental use of property. Uh and the project is subject to non-binding review by the planning board here tonight, uh the planning board should provide comments and feedback to the city's design team as the project proceeds in final design and the construction stages of the process. Uh in accordance with the state law, governmental land uses are exempted from local land use regulations, but we certainly welcome the feedback of the board relative to the project's design.

Perfect. Well, well put and I appreciate that and welcome back to the table Miss Fenster. If you could state your name for the record. Beth Fencmarker, director of special projects for the city of conquer. Perfect.

Um I'm the project manager for this project for this on behalf of the city and the police department. I'm joined tonight in the audience with our design team from Haramman on the architect and the civil team just in case there's any questions or things to address. Um so I'm just going to quickly walk through. Hopefully people have been watching this all along and kind of know where we're at. But um this is where we're at currently with our site plan. Um it's the existing building at for Boone Street that we're adaptively reusing. Um a new building addition. There are category 4 um requirements. We required uh to meet those category 4 requirements, we had to build an addition. So that's on the northern part of the existing building. We have a secure area where patrol and staff vehicles will be and they have direct access to the building and um garage bays there. The main public entrance will be the existing public entrance for the um conquered group building. So that'll be maintained and we'll be adding additional parking for public and staff in the non-secure area. This lighted entrance is going to remain as the main access point. Um we're working with the city's transportation engineer. There's a current CIP for the traffic signal replacement. So we're coordinating with them realigning that uh intersection and are moving forward with that. Um we are maintaining the southern entrance and the northern entrance. The southern will is required to meet the turning movement for garbage trucks, delivery trucks and fire trucks. And then this is an existing northern entrance will just be for staff authorized vehicles only. Um the landscape plan. So we went to ADR a couple weeks ago. There was a couple comments about um sort of softening this. There's a the secure fence that's along um North State Street, Bootin Street. They wanted to soften it with more plantings. So, we've added additional plantings. This is updated since what you saw. Um and also, it's been reviewed by the city's public safety um expert that was hired as part of the Haramman team just to make sure

that people can't climb trees and jump over the fence and um adding some other shrubs that can't be climbed and stuff like that. So, we're working on that as well. Um we've provided screening and buffer um along the residential property boundary. So on the northern boundary right here, there's residential uh apartment buildings here. So we have screening fence there and all along this um eastern boundary as well. Here it'll be a little bit more open so people can see into the site, but it's it'll be an anti-limb fence so people won't be able to get in. And then this will remain open um along the public parking areas there. Um we're working on storm water. Um there was some comments in the engineering report that we're working with um our engineers to reduce the amount of storm water leaving the site and that's we're actively working on that design as well but hoping to reduce the amount of storm water um to help relieve the impact on the city's uh water system. Um looking to reuse existing sewer systems coming out of the building. Also doing some additional work on that to figure out to make sure those lines are still usable. But we have to have redundancy in systems. So, we have a new sewer and water line coming to the addition building there. Um, we have proposed currently 98 spaces, which is exciting for the police department because currently they have about 30 uh where they are now. So, there'll be 98 spaces between the patrol vehicles, public spaces, and staff parking. Um, and site lighting also working on that. But, um, dark sky compliance um will be lighting. There'll be a little bit more lighting because this is a 247 operation, but trying to reduce the amount of light spillage onto private adjacent properties to make sure that we're not impacting them. And that's it for the site. Um, just some P images of this. So, this will be the type of fencing that will be along the street frontage. Um, there's that existing bus stop right there. So, adding some plantings. Um, obviously not

this, but um, adding more plantings to soften that. And then this uh security fence, this metal secure fencing for buffer along the residential property boundary. It's a little tough to see there. Um some renderings of the building. This is coming out of that intersection with North State Street and uh Bhin Street. The existing building here. We're working um on using that same mid-century modern um design aesthetic, but having to replace the curtain wall for um it's glass right now, so energy efficiency, but also security. and then blending the materials with the new addition there. Um this is the entrance where providing um a commemorative wall for retired police officers. So they have they're honored as you're walking into the main public entrance there. Reusing this uh wave pattern that's the existing entrance there, part of the mid-century modern building there and reusing the stone um facade and replicating it with different colors and patterns on the building edition. This is the entrance from the Seth entrance there. We'll be moving the prosecutor's office to this penthouse suite at the top that's existing. So, this will be their entrance here, the sort of that separate entrance for the prosecutor's office. And then this is the view within the secure parking area and um the various garage entrances for their operations. Um we provided you with some colored um elevations. You can see those materials as well. It's been through Heritage Commission ADR twice. um gotten great feedback from them. Um and I think that's all I want to cover. Just wanted to quickly go through that and then open it up for any comments that you may have.

So I had gotten some public uh questions, not public questions, I got uh questions from a member of the public that asked if maintenance and vehicle work would be taking place on this facility. So there is yes, there's a maintenance bay. Um there currently is one now in the existing facility. So yeah, just for um the because it's a 247 operation, we'd have to buy more patrol vehicles if any were had to go up to the comp and wait behind a plow truck, a school bus, and any other material um vehicles that the city has. So we're able to be more efficient with our operations by having maintenance on site, but it'll be the same um as it currently exists.

I'm glad you showed a picture of the fence because anti-limb fence. I had pictures of razor wire and barbed wire across across street and onto South self South Main. So, it's just a little picture. So, we did show a different image at AR a couple weeks ago and feedback from them it looked too much like a fortress. So, we've updated the design. Good. And just for the record, it's going to be it's going to be gated um that that the north the new northbound side will be gated across so there'll be no access to the public. Correct. Correct. Correct. Okay. Questions from the board? Jeff?

So, I have a couple. Um, when I look at this plan, I see that the bus stops all the way north, but if you want to cross the parking lot and go into the facility, you now have to go back through the signal, back down, and cross in the middle of the parking lot. Any thought of adding a crosswalk? Yes. On the upper part just so that less triggers of that signal means less traffic impacts. Um, if I I was going to ask that question. Thank you for asking. No problem. Yes. You said there's a CIP for the traffic signal. Yes. How is that going to be timing wise with this because you impact the mass artorm on the site? Yep, we're it's in the same um it's an FY27 fiscal year.

So, it'll be the same fiscal year. So, yeah, we've already met um our engineers met with VHB who's working on that project in Karen Hill. So, we're and there's also the CIP for paving. So, there's a lot of coordination um in the upcoming CIP to make sure that we're not impacting any of that. Did you say you're resetting the main entrance? Is it offset now? No, it just it comes if if you notice it now, you kind of come in and it immediately goes it like veers. So, we're straightening it out. Okay. But the but the curb cuts of the same. Go ahead. Sorry. So, another one I had is on the site plan. It doesn't show that the most southernly access is ADA ramps being construction. It just shows the crosswalk. And I want to just make sure that gets captured.

Okay. um in there and that um there doesn't exist an existing no left turn oneway sign out on the island. So that'll need to be added. Um one thing I didn't see on here storage. Yep. We're going to have to ship it off site. Okay. But literally you're gonna you're going to live haul it. So you're literally gonna come in here, scoop it, put it in the truck, haul it right off. So, it's going to get shoved um pretty much along here. We're g We're gonna have to It's going to be a challenge. The site is a challenge. We have to work within the confines of the site we have. Okay.

Um but there'll be areas that will be unusable until somebody comes and hauls it off. So, how does that affect the 98 car parking that you need? I don't know that they need it, do they? It's the the biggest turnover. It's when turnover. So, there's 65 staff members there during the day. So, it's more parking spaces than they need it. We're providing 68 because when they change shifts, there's the overlap of vehicles. I'm just I can see this being something that if it doesn't get removed, it's four, five, six, seven, eight, nine days. And we tend to push back on commercial and other developments that they need to accommodate snow removal. Um, and I didn't see that here.

Um, what was the other other one? Um did so you said you have run all the turning templates and everything meets it without crossing into any parking spots and anything of that sort. Yes. And that's so just so you know that's we the traffic islands or we have no landscape islands in here and that's because we have to meet the turning movements for tow trucks other um large trucks that are coming into the garage these days. Um unless I missed it granite curb currently. Yes. We're going to try to reuse as much of the existing granite curb on the site, but still maintaining granite. Yeah.

And then I I had Oh, on the lighting, you said you're already addressing the lighting, but I see two spots on the uh most uh north or sorry, southeasterly corner of the lot and anywhere the lots, the lights are actually along the left hand side, the northern side, you have more spillage than is allowed per code. We have an updated lighting plan we just got yesterday. So, we'll be working on that. Um, last one is you say you have uh future EV parking spaces, but yet I see no accommodations for conduit transformer pads, any of that equipment. Is that being designed and installed now? And it's just not on the plan.

Correct. The conduit will be that'll be in future. Yeah, this is 60% design says, right, but has anybody determined where the transformers? You can't just pull power off the standard pole. as well as I'm seeing how tight you are to the fence line on the northeast where your actual charging port's going to go. The the electrical engineer is working on that. Okay. I just want to make sure it's addressed because it's something you can't really easily retrofit after the fact and especially the one in the visitor parking lot. It would literally actually then indeed your accessible walkway the way it's drawn. So, just want to make sure these things are kind of taken a look at. Thanks, Beth. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dina,

if I may back piggyback on your statement, um, are you planning to have any solar panels in order to provide for the EV? Currently, no. That's been value engineered out, but the building is solar ready if in the future. Questions, comments from the board? No. Thank you very much for testimony. It's a beautiful building. Looks the the front looks beautiful. Question from the audience. Any member of the audience have any questions or concerns? Yes, sir. Hey, it's your turn to come up now. Sat through that whole other meeting just to get here. My name's

Again, just just I saw seen some people come in. If anybody wants to speak to this, it's a again, we're just here talking about the building and the you know, the aesthetics and the parking and the fencing. We're not here to talk about whether it should be built or shouldn't be built. So, okay. My name is Tom Coing. I live in Auburn Street and we're here for Concordia Lutheran Church in the daycare center. Right now on the southeast end of the U property, we currently have access through a gate there to fill the propane tank that services the uh daycare center. Okay.

Um what I'm seeing there's going to be no access there. So, we're looking at about a $3,300 expense for our our small operation that's basically at break even. And we'd like to know if there's going to be any way to change that or help us out with that that whole thing. And the other thing is the noise when uh the police officers get into their cars, they check the lights, they flip the sirens on to make sure they're going, daycare is going to be right there. Um just addressing a noise problem with that. All right, great. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Other questions, comments, concerns? Yes, sir.

Welcome back, Mr. Schwer. We haven't seen you in a while. Well, I guess you may see me more than once tonight. There you go. If you could say your name for the record.

I'm Roy Schwiker, and uh I have a question. at the city council hearing on this. It seems a very large communication tower that's presently on the police station and they're not going to move that to the new police station and I guess there was some concern about the residents of the historic district that they didn't want that tower moved. So, it's not getting moved. But on the other hand, one purpose of this new police station is that it's supposed to be hardened and everything. And I'm kind of curious about uh you know whether leaving it where it is when that becomes the welfare office or something else is you know going to really be appropriate or whether they're going to have to move that uh tower sooner or later when they find another couple million dollars to do it. And so therefore I my question is is there any plan as to how this can be done or we're just going to worry about that sometime?

Well that's an excellent question. I don't know. I think Beth is gone. Is Beth gone? No, no, she's here. Okay. So, we'll have we'll we'll ask that question of Miss Penseracher when she comes back up. Don't know that she's going to have an answer, but we can certainly get it on the record. Thank you, sir. Other questions, concerns about this application? No. Okay. Public hearing. You want to Yeah. Come on back up. Sorry. I know you love getting up here at the table. You can sit in the middle chair now if you want. hang out. Um, so you heard the question. So church access, if there's any opportunity or way to

So there's currently an existing gate there. Um, we initially did a butter outreach and there was discussion about closing the gate because of the daycare and didn't want people cutting through, but then I heard that it was a concern of their fuel. So I think that's definitely something we can add back in. It just hasn't been added back in yet, but that's noted. Well, so you got one. I don't know that you can help with noise, but again, and the the starting of the of the of the process, I know it's probably a process. They got to run through the checklist, make sure everything's good. It's a policy. I think

they it's fun to hit the button. So, they can always do it if it becomes a concern. They're the police have talked about it is changing how they do it is, you know, just hit it once. You don't have to hit it for 15 seconds. Um, but also don't do it till you get out on the road or something like that. So it is something that if it continues to be a concern um hopefully neighbors the police department will reach out to neighbors to make sure that they can mitigate any of those noise concerns. Okay. And any issue on the comm tower?

So the primary form of communication is fiber. So that we already pulled the fiber line to the building. That was part of the initial um site work that was done is correct. We're not moving that giant tower over there just because it's about $2 million to do that. Um but we share the concerns of the resiliency of that. But fiber is main concern. It wasn't because of neighbors or the um abuing heritage um in the historic district that I'm aware of. Um it was a monetary decision. So given its fiber backbone, is it a fiber backbone to that tower? I believe so. And and fire department and fire. So will that tower be needed in the future or could it just be dismantled and taken down?

I don't know. Do you know that? I mean, given the given the strides we've had in the communications and satellite and if it's a fiber backbone, would you would you need the big the big tower to to broadcast through the city in today's world? I don't know that I don't know that you would, but it's on the record now. So, if if there's an opportunity to to take it down eventually and not put it back up, that's that's great. It's a good question.

Go ahead. So the radio communications are line of sight and so we're using a repeater building to the fire station. Okay. It's really close by. So we have this great tower. Perfect. As long as then your mesh works. Okay. All right. Good. Okay. Other questions, concerns for Beth before we let her go? No. Welcome. Welcome back. We'll see you. Thank you.

Okay. And again, there's this is a 674 um 5 67454 application, so there's no motions uh other than recommendations. If we've got any, you heard testimony from the public uh and our testimony that we heard here tonight. Um so that will be part of the record and we'll uh we'll move forward. Do you need anything from me, Tim, on that? That's all we need.

So we will move on. Let's uh get to item 7B in our agenda. Uh this is two items uh to be heard concurrently. Uh the first is Alex Doyle on behalf of Monitor Statements L States Statesman LLC requesting architectural design review recommendation for exterior changes of a building at 10 pleasant street extension in the central business performance district. And Alex Doyle on behalf of the city of conquered requesting architectural design review approval for site improvements at tax map 7412Z lot 14 addressed as 75 store street in the central business performance district. All right, let's get a staff up. Is there an applicant here?

Yeah, Alex is here. I noticed uh these two applications relate to two separate parcels. U the former Lighting Place building at 10 Pleasant Street Extension and the Pocket Park. Mr. I have a question. The notes here on the agenda say this was continued to January 1st. We in the beginning of the meeting, we moved this at the request of the applicant off of the consent agenda. Sorry, this isn't

I'm going to try to woo you tonight. Good. Uh back to uh these were initially intended to be continued as incomplete. However, the applicant has paid outstanding invoices that were preventing formal action. Uh the applicant and the city have a license agreement in place to allow the use of the former of the pocket park uh at the corner of stores and Pleasant Street Extension on the lot that it contains the store street municipal parking garage. Uh the use of this park would be for an accessible entrance to the basement of the building as well as patio space and outdoor seating for a restaurant located at the basement floor of the building. Uh the applicant will be solely responsible for the cost, maintenance, and improvals of all the improvements on the city's property. Uh the architectural design review committee has made a recommendation relative to the city's property uh but also had not made a recommendation on the 10 pleasant street extension uh formally because the applicant had not been present at the two previous ADRC meetings. Uh while there are recommendations for the city parcel staff at this time believes that it's appropriate to continue both of these so that we have recommendation from ADR on both of the applications. Alternatively, if you feel comfortable doing so, you could take action on the city parcel given that we do have a recommendation from ADR and continue the application for the building improvements.

Okay. So, just to clarify Jeff's point, are we talking just 7B? This is 7D. This is actually items 7B and item 5A, which was the item that was continued from the was moved from the consent agenda. Right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, still a little bit of a loss because 7B is the one that said it was continued to January. You said you moved seven 5A. 5A was moved. We had not received an application fee to be invoice at the time the agenda was posted this weekend. Mr. Stoyle has paid the invoice which was the only thing preventing us from making a completeness. And the parcel design that you talked about for the pocket park

that I'll have to pull up because it's not I have it right here if I may. Thank you. Because that's the one thing. It's not on our application. No. Because at the time, this was a late addition to the change to the agenda that unfortunately didn't get changed. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Welcome to the table. If you could state your name for the record. Uh yeah, I'm Alex Doyle, uh representative of Revelto Coffee right down the street. Um and also the newly Ford Monitor Statesman LLC, which is turning me into a developer and I'm learning fast. And thank you all for your patience as I obviously struggle through this uh process. Um do you want to look at the park first? Sure. Okay.

Um so our plan um to to make this building really a viable part of let me start actually from the beginning. So, I bought this building in 2023 with my wife and we thought to ourselves, man, we could build another Rebel Stoke here. We can open a cocktail bar in the basement and we'll put apartments on the top floor and this will be easy. It's the building's already there. And as we've gotten into it, life and circumstances and business have have gotten in the way. Uh, but we feel ready in 2026 to hit the ground running. Um, so our dream for this building is a craft cocktail bar in the basement, which you can see the entrance to here. Um, as well as a more robust version of Rebel Stoke Coffee on the first floor above the basement. Um, which you could think of kind of like the same coffee that we have down the street, but with a full kitchen serving a more robust breakfast and lunch menu. Um, and the top floor, uh, for now is to be vanilla boxed and probably used as our personal office. Um but the apartments have proved to be um not viable as we've kind of moved through the the process. Um so we have you'll see in a minute we have dumped most of our design and planning budget into this park as it seems to be the more challenging um part of the project and and working with the city to to get an agreement together to be able to use the park. Um, but really the only way to use the basement um is to use the park because we need a a ADA entrance into the basement. So, this whole park project is really to try to get that one red door um as a handicap accessible entrance to the basement um that so that everyone can use it. There's not enough room in the building for an elevator. Um we've explored a lot of different options with that. So, this is kind of the only way to use the basement is what I'm going to take you through. So, um the I I believe I don't know what what I need to say or what you guys need to hear. Maybe it would be more helpful for

you guys to just pepper me with questions. Um but we worked with terrain landscape and design to get these plans together um to not only utilize kind of an under underutilized park in the city of conquered but also turn it into some outdoor seating with um life and and life happening uh downtown. So, so what, if I'm not mistaken, when I was on the heritage commission, we had a project that was going to put a train uh station historical marker represent representative there. Is that is that there? Has that been installed?

It's it's still there. I think it speaks volumes that you don't know that this park is empty all the time. No one's down there. Um, so we're trying to change that. Uh, but that's one of the recommendations from ADR was to keep the sign and move it. Um, I was a little confused by the wording in the recommendation, but I think it was to move it to the corner of Capitol, I'm sorry, of U Pleasant Street Extension stores, kind of near where the electrical box is right now. Yeah. So, again, just my my brain's old, but I do remember some things, but I and I did know that it was installed. I just didn't know if it was still there. It is still there. So the original idea on this was a was a semi-transparent kind of clear where you could stand in that park and look where the

that's not what it is now. I know saying what the original what the original vision was stand in that park and look and see the the like the man old man in the mountain. If you go up and look at that you you'd be able to see where the train station that actually makes sense because that makes the recommendation make sense to me. Okay. That's why the setting was set in that in that angle. the original and then it got too complex and it got too difficult to do and it ended up just being a plaque type type signage. So, um so you're recommending taking out of that park alto together and putting it somewhere else. It's going to stay in the park but it's going to be like kind of right in this uh corner right that we're looking at here. So you reference it and say across the street and you know whatot

yeah it'll be the same exact sign um just moved over there. Yeah, I'll just note the original plan ADR reviewed did propose a relocation and sign along Story Street. ADR wanted it to more in line with that original intent of looking through and I think they didn't want to go through designing the plan for you, but I think more of the intent was further up Pleasant Street Extension almost where that hydrant is. There's a little box out um if I recall that meeting correctly was kind of that intent there. Sure.

Yes. If you flip to uh a view that is looking Yes. So, as I recall as well, Alec, it's it's right next near the gate in in essence and I can't remember if it was on the left side or the right side of the gate, but that was exactly Yeah. to where that then it would be as I understand it where it is placed today isn't in the correct spot that they had intended and this would be closer to what they had originally intended to be facing in that direction towards what we now see as the as 110 grill and whatnot like that. So if I recall is that right?

No, I don't think that's right. I think that I think it needed to be down in that point of the corner if I remember that right. But that neither here nor there. As long as it's in the park still somewhere. I mean the intent to look through it's not there. So whether it's here or there it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. I do recall because Liz is on ADR and she also designed the sign and she was specific about it in the ADR notes. So okay that helps. Perfect. And she's she knows more than I do about it. So more than I as well. Okay Jeff. So, I'm kind of confused because I see all this seating here. Is the seating on the left going to be part of your restaurant and facility? All of it? Yep. It'll be

So, this isn't going to be a public park anymore. It's a licensed There's a license agreement that the city council approved that allows Mr. Stoy, his wife to utilize this park park for the seating associated with their future use of the building. Not un not dissimilar to what we do on Main Street. similar to what Cheers has for their arrangement for their outdoor seating. Uh, what was the original agreement when this park was built? So, I'm asking this because I'm wondering if we said this was a park and now we're suddenly changing and going back to saying, "Oh, now it can be used." What's the next park in the city that somebody's going to want to turn into a commercial entity?

So, when I built this park uh between 2005 and 2007, it was leftover space. It's actually on the property of the parking garage, the the Story Street parking garage. And it was done as a pocket park because we had this leftover piece of land that we wanted to beautify, make it a little more inviting, but there's never any specific plan to make it a dedicated park. Okay. So, it's not a separate designated park like Rollins or Okay, that's I just want to be careful that we're not going backwards and any grants or anything. Good question. Good question. Yep. I have a question. Yes. Is there a fee Mr. stores going to be paying for the use of this?

There is no fee for the license to utilize the park. However, they will be responsible for the resulting property taxes that will be generated by the use of the park by a nonpublic entity. So, they will be paying the property taxes for the use of that area. So, they'll be paying the property tax pretty much on that whole on that area. Correct. Yeah. Are there any So, does the city still have any governance and oversight on it? Oh, they have a lot. Don't worry. I I I worked with Alex and his wife for several months to get the license agreement that was ultimately approved by the council a month or so ago, I believe. Okay,

Mr. Chairman, I just have one followup. So, if the sign is theoretically being recommended to go in that flower area next to the fence, if the landscaping trees are all built around the remainder of that fence, its intended purpose goes away because I mean, there's a tree theoretically shown right to the left that would prevent you from seeing across the street, right? So, we need to consider this placement of the sign. I will happily get rid of the tree. No, I'm not. I'm just saying we we need to work with landscaping and whatnot to make sure that that doesn't impede or the traffic control cabinet, the mast arm, other things that are out there that

are not going to allow you to see through that to the theoretical where the old station used to be, right? But I don't know. The intent is not to do the see-through sign. It's to relocate the existing sign that's there today. That's what I was going to say. Oh, please God, no. Yeah, that sign is too big for that spot.

Has anybody actually measured the sign and see how it's going to fit in this space? There has not been a redesign yet based on the recommendations from ADR to this date. Okay.

The recommendations right now from ADR for this particular property are the existing heritage sign shall be relocated along the present street extension such that the reader is looking towards door street when viewing. The landscaping tree shall not be fruit or nut bearing. The detail of the fence shall be provided, including material. The license with the city be in place before final approval. And additional spot grades provided along the accessible route to show how the slope will interact and blend with the adjacent seating areas to assure safety and accessibility compliance. So my other concern is if the sign looking at street view right now that signs looks to be four and a half, five, maybe even six feet wide. I think we need to make sure that we coordinate with the fire department that such sign does not have any impedance to that fire hydrant.

There are additional comments relative to the hydrant that the fire marshall has already relayed to us that there has to be clearance on all four sides. Thank you. That's all I had. Mr. Chairman, it might not be a bad idea too if you look at that tree in the back. I mean, could could you take the sign and put it up against that lattice area? I mean, you just think about the back of the sign. You're going to be having people that are going to be sitting down in that beautiful area that are going to look at the back of a five foot a five foot sign that's going to be all gross on the back. So, yeah. So, let's And again, I this is the reason we we have ADR. This is this this type of information and this type of feedback is is what I rely on ADR. And I saw your hand eaten, didn't I?

Yeah. I was just concerned with the license with looks like it's going to be a significant capital improvement. Is there anyation or term that they can rely upon or we have the right to kick them out basically at the city's discretion? Truly by permission. Yep. You must really want It's a license agreement. A horrible agreement. Um, so again, you're here for approval and I and I I'm inclined to send you back to ADR to get to get feedback on sign location first and foremost. Will they feed Amanda, you were there. Will they feed back on the sign location or give us some options?

I mean, he read exactly what was said in the in the meeting and there was no discussion about what's on the other side of the sign at all, like the condition of it. There was no opportunity at the meeting because Mr. Sto wasn't there to have the back and forth discussion. Did you seen this plan? Excuse me at the meeting. Did you see this? Yes, we did. We did. We saw all of this. I mean, I like the looks of it. I I I think it's beautiful. Um ADR uh ADA compliant, you said, for for the basement. We had a lot of discussion about the pitch of the of of the the ramp and to make sure that if anyone was at still that they wouldn't just all of a sudden, you know,

want to eliminate trip hazards. Exactly. And so that was discussed ADA was definitely discussed in and in and length. The missing piece to this is the associated item which was 5A which is the actual building at 10 Pleasant Street Extension. There's no recommendation specifically from ADR on that because they wanted to have the conversation with the applicant. Y correct. And it it was in regards to certain types of windows, certain doors, certain things of that nature as I recall from that. Well, this has been through ADR in its previous life with Will Cox and Barton as well where they ran into the same issues and the same not same issues but windows and doors and and

because of the replacement of and keeping the character of if I'm as what we also just recently went through with the building that was across the street or whatnot. So that was the that was the deal is we wanted it to stay historically relevant and and be historically relevant. If I don't if I'm not mistaken, there was also an issue on the upside of that with a door that accessed off the alley as well. There is there is discussion in the in ADR's notes if um if I recall uh in regards to that door and also just um and and access to that side door that's almost that's going into the alleyway.

Well, it was ADA ADA compliant issues as well. Didn't they need to access that door to get ADA onto the first floor? Correct. And then they couldn't do it because of alley. I mean there was a lot going on in that and and I was not on the planning board during that time. So I don't remember or recall those discussions. It's shocking that I remember it. I don't know why but I do remember probably because I've trained you probably. That's exactly Mr. Chairman follow I I do have one thing that when you started mentioning ADA you br you you made me think about is having that sign has text that people will actually read. They got to be close to it, right? And that if you put it where it's proposed next to the fire hydrant, the street at that point is not. I don't think the fire hydrant location is a good location.

No, it's got to be down and I think it has to be at a more level landing area where people somebody in a wheelchair can actually. So I'm thinking behind that tree on the right. No, over on the right. Right there. If you had it, that's what it is today. But I'm saying if you had it up against the wall there, if you didn't put the lattice there and you put the sign up instead of the lattice or the lattice around the sign or somehow be able to put it there and got rid of the tree, you could walk right up to it and see it. I mean, it's pretty small. As a followup, though, if they're serving alcohol, that gates closed. This area would not be open to the public for them to walk in and just see that sign whenever. So, that sign has to be on the outside of the fence somehow. Good point. What about social

social drinking? Yeah, we got that coming. So, social social drinking, of course. Social No, social district, not social drinking. Social district. So, I think we have to be cognizant of where the sign's going to be. What if it What if it is down down here like by the by these bushes like it won't be facing the Well, it caution I have there is sight distance for the vehicles at the intersection if you're going that close to the intersection. Okay.

So, we need some we need some ADR. We need some ADR love on this. I'm gonna I'm gonna recommend that we kick yeah kick it back and and and get some clarification on again all the points that were brought up tonight. Have them as part of the record, but you know, close to the fire hydrant doesn't work for this. The backs of the the back of it maybe not work right where it is. Maybe on this line it works, but the sight lines are are an issue. Um do we have ADR issues with the building as well? That's what that was the original there's no recommendation on the building because they hadn't seen. Okay, I'm going to get to that in a second. I will say that it feels like if the recommendation in the first place for this sign, it didn't end up in the recommended place anyway. Yeah,

it seems a bit cyclical to just kick it back to ADR for them to it. You know, I think that this where the location of the sign is going to have to be dictated by the demolition of the park and figuring out, you know, what it's looking like with flat ground and sight lines and and shrubbery and and maybe it goes closer to the garage, you know, something like that. Yeah. Okay. I think there's an opportunity, yeah, to keep it kind of like where it is now, but just bring it out to the sidewalk and face it out and just lean it up against the fence.

Mr. Chairman, to his point, I think on the corner is the best spot because now it's visual from two different corners. We've got a lot more foot traffic there now with people going across to 110 grill. So, almost on the diagonal behind the mast arm in a flat spot waiting for the light. It's well it's far back from the signal and your sight distance when you come up to that intersection is you're looking left for a car coming right. Yeah. Because you've got a red light if the car coming from the right. So looking right is not going to be a sight distance impediment. Okay. All right. Are we comfortable pushing it back? Yes, council. Uh yes. Thanks. You know, I was going to say I agree with your comments. I just I don't know if ADRs is really going to be able to come up with a solution given all of these other Yeah.

issues, but because I think also there's the the lattice entry way that where's that going to go? what's going to happen. I don't know if ADR has already commented on that specifically or not, but um but that seems to be a part of it as well. Um there has to be room for all these pieces. In other words, if we're going to salvage them and keep them included in that area. So, and again, I think ADR's got to comment on the building as well once that once the building comes through. Did I see your hand? Yes. It was just I think there was comment in ADR to also to work with city staff and engineering in regards to the sign placement. And I I think that ADI is probably not going to weigh in too.

They're not going to weigh in because as just others have pointed out just sight lines of of the intersection if it's just so that it's not prohibitive for any car to you know to have line of sight or lack thereof. So how do we move it forward? I would the recommendation from ADR right now leaves it fairly vague that it just has to be on the Pleasant Street side, right?

I would think they work with engineering to find acceptable locations. The review of the park is being done for ADA accessibility, etc. And they're going to be back in front of us in January. Anyways, hopefully by then we'll have engineer have had time to review. So it comes back to us. We already know what ADR is thinking. I agree. I don't think we need to go back. Although I do agree, council Todd, that you know that arch is all like a metal looks like old parts of some sort of frame that was made out of maybe old train pieces that maybe there's a way to move that so the gates in between it if it's got the right width or it's in front of a gate or something. So it's comes a feature on Pleasant Street.

Could it be a feature on the building on Pleasant Street? I mean there's an awful not to march the sign. Oh, I don't the sign on the building. Just asking. No, no, no. I think you're too far up the office property at that point. Yeah, that's true. Off city property. Dina,

I'm looking at the the proposed layout and it looks like you have kind of two areas for seating um closer to the building and then where the rounded area is closer to store street. Do you need that entire space closer to store street? So maybe we can util put the sign in that area. Yeah, the first the first design we came up with, we actually didn't take up as much of the park. Um, and I I can't remember exactly why, but we kicked the design back and forth a number of times and it just wasn't working well.

Um, it kind of made more sense. It's like if we're going to if we're going to take care of this park, let's take care of the park. And I don't personally like I don't know if our concept in the basement is going to lend itself well to like all of that seating, but I think our goal if not if we're not using it for our seating is to make it a place where people want to hang out and and have benches out there. Um I think that all of that seating is like best case scenario if business is booming and we're gang busters, we afford to buy more and more tables, great. But I think to to start we want to create a beautiful park and I think the ta the tables that are closer to the door um are going to be the first ones that we use and prove concept with.

Right. And also for the purposes of alcohol and and and having a space that's public access. I think if you have that space that's closer to store street more public yes would make more sense. Agreed. Thank you. Okay. Um Are we discussing in the application the the 10 Pleasant Street extension the building? Yes. Yes. Um there's two separate motions to be made on this. One for the city's parcel, the other sounds like excuse me for that. Sounds like we've flushed out the the city. Yes. More than more than flushed it out. So what do we need on that Tim on 5A?

We have no recommendation at this point from ADR. I based on what I've heard from the board, it sounds like you're recommending to continue the application um and for the applicant to attend the ADR. I'd recommend the board advise. Was did I misinterpret that ADR for the building but not the sign? Yeah, the sign is part of 75 stores part of the park in the park. Right. Okay. Just want to because we're combining them and then pulling them back apart. So, I'm just trying to make sure I'm

sorry if I I misspoke. The way I interpreted the board with the park was to continue and I'd recommend the board advise the applicant to you know take into consideration from ADR from tonight's meeting and redesign the plan prior to it going to ADR because that was one thing the ADR found a lot of things and they didn't want to start designing the plan for the applicant particularly with them attendance. Okay. So, Alec, so it's pushing both of them back. If that's the will of the board to have no decision made tonight on these be to continue both of these items to the January

20 first agenda uh with the recommendation that u they return to ADR particularly for the building because there has been no discussion on the building. So the building drives it and then you can so the park the park we've we've we've flushed that out. I think there's some level of comfort with what we already have with recommendations. I don't think we need to approve that now. No, but I don't think it needs to go back to But it doesn't not for the feedback on the on the on the sign. Yeah. And I think they like the rest of it. Yeah. Yes. All all the way around. Yes. I don't think that there was any continued discussion for the park or the seating that's in the park. Okay.

For ADR because I thought that what we decided was that the city staff will make sure that the sign is in the right placement considering all of the elements around it. and that that doesn't need to go back to ADR. That sounds like a motion. Yeah. Okay. To move this to the January to both 5A and 7B to No, for the park, we don't need to move. We don't need to move anything. You could approve the park tonight. We can approve the park tonight as my recommendation um with the conditions that the sign is approved in placement with city engineering staff to make sure it's not um obstructing any views for the for the intersection.

Okay. So motion we got a motion in a second for the discussion on that and it's accessible from the sidewalk 88 capacity ADA accessible conditions that were there anyway. And so I'm I'm making a motion to approve the city parklet into the seating for the restaurant for the owner applicant to work with city engineering in regards to the existing sign placement uh to not obstruct uh view of for at the traffic intersection and also to be ADA accessible. Is that per the remaining recommendations made are in their December 2nd? Yes. And are we good with that? Did I

What did you just add? It's the ADR recommendations from the re notice of recommendation to include the ADR tree the nut bearing trees. The landscaping trees shall not be fruit or not bearing. A detail of the fence shall be provided including material. The license shall be in place prior to final approval and additional spot grades shall be provided along the accessible route to show how the slope will interact and blend with the adjacent seating areas to asssure safety and accessible compliance. Okay. Okay. And your and your point wasn't on obscuring the intersection. It was sight lines for turning vehicles and all that. Just so we're clear. Yes. Okay. Ju just that in compliance with city's engineering and that. So we got a motion and a second on the table. Council Todd.

Yeah. Just in clarification on your motion. When you say sign, you're talking about the sign and the trellis. Is that right? Not the trellis. Not the trellis. Just the sign. So what what I don't know. There's never been any discussion about the trellis. I mean, not that I'm saying that it can't be, but that's not been part of ADR. That's not been part of the application. Yeah. The the sculpture has been a confusing part of this because we were told at the beginning that no one really knew who owned it, uh, where why it was people know why it was there, but they didn't know what the future of it had to be or if it and we were told that it could it would and could be removed. Um, by who? By us presumably, but I wouldn't

No. Who Who told you that you could remove it? Oh, I can't remember. It was one of our initial meetings with the city about that. With the city? Somebody from the city? Yes. Yeah. Um, but again, that wasn't like an on record. Okay. So, I'm going to recommend that we bring that back to ADR because I think Liz Hen had some some knowledge. No, about that. She was there. Never never did it come up in ADR about the trellis. But I think she has some knowledge about the pieces. Doesn't mean it might not be the pieces of metal. the pieces of metal that he used, right? There was some significance to that and I don't remember gears and other I don't remember what it was. Yeah. My goal would not be to dispose of that. It would be to find it a new home or someone who cared about it and loved it and Yeah. Just not on your property, not on the city. It's never going to be my property.

Well, here's the thing. If it's relevant to the train station and the operation, it should stay not moved off. I I want to get some clarification on what that is and and why it's there. Yes, Matt. My suspicion is the Chamber of Commerce with the city runs a a public art program downtown and my guess is that that is part of the public art program just as you see other sculptures downtown. Yeah. But this has been there, but those didn't come that whole process didn't come in until Main Street got redone. Uh but we'll let me dig into it and we'll figure out what's there. But I I suspect that it's probably there as part of our program, I would think.

All right, I want to move along. We're getting bogged down here. So, we got a motion and a second on the table to approve the park with for the 75 course piece. Yes. Right. All of the um recommendations and and that we've addressed in the in the motion. Any other discussion on that topic? Yes. Just make sure we somehow clarify that the trellis will be addressed as part of the engineering. Yeah. So, perfect. Yeah. Thank you for making that making that clear. So, along with the other um points about the location on the sign. So, that is 5A. That one is 7B. 7B. So, do we have a motion? Motion and a second. Uh, no further discussion. All those in favor?

I opposed. That motion carries. And then 5A on this. You know what? I didn't ask for any public testimony on that. Mr. Schwer, I'm going to open the public hearing back up. So, how do we do that? How do we have a motion to reconsider the approval? Motion to reconsider. Do we have a motion to reconsider? Sorry, Amanda. Can I reconsider motion to reconsider? I'll second the reconsideration. Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? We'll open the public hearing. Mr. Schwiker. Sorry. I apologize. I I was moving too fast. I'll make this real quick. That's fine. I won't even sit down. No, that's fine. What I what I'm suggesting is

typically when I see a plaque or a thing, it's on the side of the whatever. So maybe since this thing doesn't have that visual thing, there's just a sign. We should look and see if it could go on the other side of the store street where the station actually was instead of on a lot that wasn't associated with the station. Thank you. Very good point. Okay, we'll take that into consideration as well. We'll Okay. Uh any other discussion? We'll we'll recognize you again if you'd like to make your same motion. Same motion. Same motion. What's that? Close the public hearing. Thank you. Same motion. Close the public hearing. We got the same motion. Do we have a second? Second. Same second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. That finishes that one.

Okay. And then 7B, do we want to handle that? SE 5A. Do we want to handle that separately? Just recommendation to return it to ADR for the or is that already done? That has not been done yet. That's that would be need a secondary motion. Okay. So, we need a motion and a second uh for architectural design review approval for the recommended. Uh

can I say one thing before before we y go ahead with that? So, um, this is like all my fault. Like, I'm very like I'm struggling here. You you're I feel like we're all catching on. But, um, so I I was able to dig up um this plan from the previous owners. If I can find my mouse. Uh, this was the plan that they had. So, basically all we're asking for um a planning board approval for the for the building improvements um is to move the door um from where it is, which is a step up into the building um right around the corner to the next what is now a window um which will create um an ADA compliant entrance. Um, again, it's kind of the only way to make this building viable for public use. Um, and utilize that alley as kind of the entryway to it. Uh, this was the plan, um, from Will Cox and Barton to do that, um, with a new, uh, catch basin. And great, I'm I'm not sure why I didn't in I I just dug this up. I it was the last minute addition, but um and this actually was approved by um ADR when they tried to do this. Um and here we go.

So I pulled up these minutes from um I don't know if you want to read all this, but this is from April April 20. Okay, this is it's already been approved by ADR though is is my point. And it's a very like again I I I understand that um you know this committee is about or is it a board this board is about you know making sure that we have all the plan in place to make these things happen and and it's going to look good but

but and again we follow a very regimented process and this this isn't it. So it's it's one of those things where you got to check the boxes to get to the next one. Check the boxes to get to the next one. Whether it's the same plan or not, it'll have to still go through ADR to to bring it back to the table with their recommendations. There was some concerns. Whatever the building issues were, I can't replace that window because it's architecturally historical. You know, whatever the issues are, I don't know what they are and I don't remember what they were, but I want I want feedback on them from from ADR. Okay. So, no product, nothing can move forward here tonight without getting some feedback from ADR on the process. The recommendation from ADR from December was the continue the application date certain January 21 planning board meeting to allow the applicant to return to ADR and provide a more detailed and complete application including how the relocated entrance will interact with the alleyway.

Yeah. So, you get some homework to Okay. and and go in and woo them. Um and then they'll give us a recommendation. Yay or nay? And we'll we'll hear it in the January meeting, right? Yes. The January 21st meeting. Sure. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you all for your time. So, I'm going to motion here would be to approve the ADR recommendation which would kick it back. Would kick it back. Okay. So, we got a motion to approve the ADR recommendation to have them return to the architectural. I'll make that motion for this application to turn back to ADR and for the January meeting. All right. I got a motion. Second. Second. Uh any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. You're all set. Thank you.

Good luck. Okay, what's next on our agenda? We move into the aids, right? Yes. Aday. Aday. This is Eastern Development requesting preliminary design review for certain amendments proposed to a previously approved 8-unit cluster subdivision at 15 Hot Hole Pond in the Open Space Residential District. All right, let's get a staff update on this if we can.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, the applicant here is requesting the board provide non-binding feedback as part of our preliminary design review application uh submitted prior regarding their previously approved 8 unit subdivision that was signed by the planning board chair and clerk back in June June of 2025. Uh specifically, the applicant is asking feedback from the board on the following items. One, the use of Cape Cod Burm in place of granite curbing throughout the common private drive. Two, to not require street trees along the full length of the common private drive. limiting plantings to the culde-sac area. Three, to allow the residential deadend common private drive to exceed the maximum length of 1,00 ft. Four, to allow three inches of hot patuminous pavement to be placed at the common private drive where normally 4 in is required. And then five, to increase the total number of units from 8 to nine. Uh staff recommends that the board review these requests with the applicant, provide non-binding feedback considering the materials provided from staff in the planning and engineering divisions as well as the fire marshall. all of which are in your packet. Uh this way, Mr. Taber will be able to make decisions as to whether or not he wants to formally submit a reubdision application uh based on the feedback he gets here from the board.

Okay. I had a question on this for staff. It says on my on my packet on number nine, it says staff recommends that the planning board proceed to determine the application for design review as incomplete.

I note that in this particular instance when the staff memo was drafted, Mr. Taber had not paid the invoice required for the application to provide uh the fee for the application to be submitted to the planning board in the utters notification. Uh statutoily there is no statutory requirement for completeness in a design review application because is because it is a preliminary step that does not require a public hearing. Uh the conquered regulations for whatever reason do have a completeness component to them. Uh but for purposes of this, staff has determined that the fee is really the only applicable piece to the completeness part of this application.

Okay, welcome to the table. If you could state your name for the record.

Ryan Taber. Right, Mr. Taber, tell us uh so I'll start off in a little bit different order. So I requested initially it was submitted for four amendments. Looking through them more looks to be three amendments and one waiver. So the three amendments, one would be the street trees modification to the street trees requirement. The other one would be the Cape Cod Burm in l of granite curbing and the other amendment would be 3 in of pavement versus 4 in of pavement. The waiver would be the road length. So I did correspond. I'll start off with the street trees. So um when Tim was talking um he's partially incorrect. I don't want to eliminate in these areas here. I just highlighted it because it's the easiest way to to show it right now. I'm not trying to eliminate all these trees. What I'm trying to do is minimize it in the areas that it doesn't make sense in this first 350 to 400 foot stretch is extremely it's one and a quarter to one uh grade or so it's it's very steep. So your likelihood of your trees surviving is very low. It's just too steep. surrounded by rip wrap as well. And you also have overhead lines coming up the road and then on this section you have underground conduit. So then with the trenching requirements for the city, it's a very wide trench. Um so at some point in time there could be root in intrusion into the trenching into the conduit. It could cause a huge nightmare for the residents of the development. So, what I'm asking for um is and there's also existing vegetation all around this section here. There's some here. This has been pretty much cleared out. So, this would probably remain as trees around the culde-sac obviously would remain the same. And then this area here because of existing vegetation. So, what I'm asking for is

not like a specific count right now. What I'm asking for is would you guys support I guess with engineering and the inspections down the road in guess either in construction or beforehand to walk the site during one of the inspections and determine where the actual tree should go. Maybe space it out a little bit more. Instead of every 50 foot, do it every 100 foot in this these specific sections. So you said it's all rip wrap all through up and through there.

Yeah. Anything over uh 4 to one, I believe, is rip wrap. So, and it's also one and a quarter to one. So, it's it's literally like this. I mean, it's it's very steep. So, the likelihood of the trees surviving is the biggest piece because you're going to plant it and they have a one-year warranty. That's great. But then after that, the residents have to plant them. And they're not cheap, you know, and they're big trees. It's a it's a process to do. I just don't want to see the trees get planted and die and die and become an issue with the overhead lines or the underground conduit because then the residents have power issues. You got to rip up the road. It just becomes a whole nightmare that

So, let's let's take these one at a time. So, then we'll just do one move on to the next one because again, it's not a formal process for us from the design review and and a lot to go on on the on the packet of info. I don't know if staff wants to weigh in on on rip wrap or the or excuse me on the trees, but like to hear from staff if we could. Yes, certainly. Um, so from what I recall, we also had some concern with the how those trees would go in on the rip wrap side of that and banking and you know the

um the applicant would be able to speak better and their landscape engineer but you know it was create level somehow create level areas and get them in there. I would certainly know if um our regulations do allow for trees if it's within 10 feet I think and non- evasive they can count towards those um so the applicant if those are if that opportunity presents itself those can count make go toward that count and then I believe we're over the plan that was approved from 2023 was overhead for about half of that distance it's overhead to about this corner and then the final utility plan to gain that separation brought that underground electrical um right in front of that it comes up here

right in front of those to gain as much separation from that the underground from the proposed trees okay which is difficult in some aspects because of the size of the trench and the grading of the lot just because you can see the screen down so the trees in this section I don't think it'll be an issue on this side is primarily the issue right here shouldn't be too bad because the overhead way Eversource designed it the poles coming up over. Actually, it crosses twice. Comes over here, then it comes back. So, there'd be a potential conflict in here. I'm trying to meet the spirit of the regulation, but I don't want to see, you know, you plant trees to to kill them, and it just doesn't make sense.

The city doesn't have a overwhelming objection to it. Well, um the trees that were proposed below the overhead were ornamental trees that the city construction standards have identified as you um appropriate below overhead utilities where the mature heights don't get particularly high. Um though, you know, I think that there could be good conversation about what is the the life expectancy of those trees on that slope and what could be done to mitigate that

um with grading and if we have to thin it out, that's certainly conversation the board could have with the applicant. I think the key in direction the board should give on this particular item is that there should be an understanding there needs to be conversations between the applicant and the city staff in the pre-development process before it is in front of you formally so that there's consensus of the approach that would be taken with the board at that point.

I know one thing um when I was going through the the pre-construction steps for this the inspections are laid out but on top of those inspections I believe there's additional inspections for the landscaping pieces. Alec, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that. I think that's what it was what it stated. So, what I was looking at is maybe um if we can either leave it as is and if you amend it as an asbuilt um once we do like an inspection or if it has to be done ahead of time. I mean, it six to one half dozen the other. It just depends because without having the road actually in, you don't really, you know, you can see where it's going to be, but you don't really have your your measurements from the existing vegetation to the actual road. And you want to be able to see if you have a, you know, three caliber tree, how that's going to sit in there with the existing vegetation that grows over.

So, it's Amanda. So, my point is is when you guys do go to identify what trees are existing and whatnot, um that making sure that you're counting trees and which are on your property line and not counting ones that are on adjacent property line. Because um we've pointed out in the past that um it is a very tight line and that should there be a um that owner come clear that you're counting things that are on your property line and not your the butter.

Yeah. When I some of this has already been cut. When it was cut it it went towards the property line, but it didn't actually go over the property line. So the remaining trees are actually on this property. So pretty much on this section through right here all the way up. I'm just making sure that there would be delineated when that time comes. Would be Yeah. That there would be

other thoughts on the trees. No overwhelming objections or approvals either way. So I think you're okay there to come back. To follow up with what you had indicated earlier, we would want to establish everything on the plan that is signed prior to obviously during construction things have to change, but we don't want to go into construction with that as the caveat. Like we'd want to establish that and you know potentially we, you know, preliminary layout prior to final approval or before we go through with your amendment, you know, perhaps we could get get together and try to get a better evaluation on how this may lay out with existing trees or something. And again a sidewalk or whatever try that. I mean

realistically the trees would go in at the very last last part of the project. So it's we be enough time. So what and what's the next one? So would staff support that based on that conversation? Yeah, I think so. Okay. Yep.

So the next one would be Cape Cod Burm. So as is depicted on the plan granite curbing. So under section 20.13 curbing for residential common private drives curbing uncommon residential private drives may consist of vertical granite slope granite concrete asphalt concrete material constructed and installed for the city of concrete construction in detail standards and details. So asphalt burm is explicitly listed as an allowable material. I know his previous comments about um or the the regulation states that anything over 6% requires curbing which obviously it's already addressed in the plans but over that 6% there's no material selection. It just rise back to what's allowed in the regulation. So what I'm asking is based on this road would I be able to do Cape Cod Burm? I've seen Cape Cod Berm in town in the city. It's newly installed. It's been installed. We've had this conversation. So,

yep. Anything from staff? Sure. I think, um, you know, I won't speak for engineering. Um, I think staff, this would be a waiver. Um, our construction standards allow for vertical granite and slope granite curbing. Uh, there are provisions within our subdivision regulations where where there's a conflict, the more restrictive applies. And that is how we've interpreted this is that city of conquered allows granite curving. Uh we also feel that where this slope of this drive is so steep, it's important to have a more durable reliable material in those locations to collect that runoff. So defer to Mike on that the

I don't believe the stand. Hang on. And Mike, anything you want to add to that? Uh no, I think that was that was fine. uh uh granite curb is is what's in the standard. So uh anything that's uh being proposed whether it's Cape Cod Berm or some other batuminous curb is going to be substandard compared to grant groups. Again we have to remember this is a private nonpublicmaintained road and the regulation should hold greater weight than the standards I believe legally. I don't know if anyone can answer that in this room, but I believe the stand the regulations supersede the standards. Okay.

Um, and the city installs it on roads. It's currently installed by the city on Hothole Pond, which is approximately 13% and there's no issues with it over the past 10 years. So, I don't see that as a completely valid claim, especially when it's allowed by right of regulation. So, okay.

Member of the board have any questions, comments, concerns? So, that's probably a tougher one that we're gonna we're gonna have to figure out once you once you come forward with a plan. I I'm not in support of of the Burm and I think we've addressed that in the past, but um and especially on on steep slopes. I think I think you need it whether it's can be done here, can be done there, it's done on this location, done on that location, this is the location that we're talking about, and I' I'd not be in support of that, but but again, you could certainly bring it forward and request a waiver for it. So, a waiver, but it would be it would be a waiver. How would it be a waiver if it's allowed by right of regulation?

The waiver would be to section 3504 of the subdivision regulations, which is the statement that says whatever provision is more restrictive or imposes a higher standard that shall control, which in this case is the reference to the construction standards. Who's to determine granite curbing is more restrictive than Cape Cod Burm or vice versa? I mean, it's explicitly allowed by regulation. Yeah, that's not it. That's the issue though is that's at hand is it's allowed there's four different types of curbing allowed in the regulations for common. I don't know if the standards are legally adopted into the regulations as the regulations are adopted by the city. So that's probably more of a legal question.

That's a topic for for city staff to to figure that out. So whether it's the solicitor's office or however the process works its way through, it comes to us with the recommendation that staff says yes, we'd support this waiver for the following reasons or no, we're not in support of this waiver for these reasons. So that decision isn't ours other than to be able to I mean the the ultimate decision is ours, but the the reasoning and the and the why for and and why we want to do it or what the city is saying we can and can't do and the fact that we need a waiver for that is is their decision. So if the city solicitor office if the city solicitor's office agrees that yeah by right of regulation the regulations are legally adopted the standards are not then the legally adopted regulation can't has to be enforced then you guys would side with that.

I'm not I'm not we're not based on opinion this is not opinion this is based on legal adopted regulations in fact all I'm giving you is feedback on my thoughts and process. The city is going to have to weigh in on that piece of it. Jeff, I I would note that standard D11 is for a private common drive to three to eight dwelling units and it specifically shows in the detail 5 in reveal slope granite curb. Yeah. So the city standard detail does specifically say granite curb. Okay. For three to eight units. I think the other regulation is if it's like a shared driveway with less than three. Yep. This is one specifically says three to eight dwelling units.

So I' I'd recommend, you know, if it if it's if it's granite curb, is it granite curb all the way up? Is it is it granite curb up on the on the I don't know. Again, I don't want to design it for you, but I'd look through some options to be able to present it back to the city and say, "This is what I want to do on this project." On eight units only required over 6%. So part of the road and all of it on nine units, it' be required on both sides all the way up. All right. So that will need some work on that one. So, how do we get So, what bes So, if I talk to the city solicitor's office, I mean, what's the next step here besides talking to them? How do I get you guys to approve this? Because it's you guys install it in the city all the time. That's the caveat, too.

Yeah. I I think Ryan, if you wanted to discuss with the city solicitor's office about why you you know think the reg where it states that that in the regulation supersedes everything and you know you're you know essentially permitted by regulation to install the puminous curve. That is a conversation in an opinion that the board would feel more comfortable having that coming from staff or in this case city solicitor's office and then beyond that depending and then the city solicitor you know will in staff will give the our position to the board where where it is. So that's something that you'll have to kind of determine with staff from there. It would be if you the waiver a waiver to allow it or not or or not allow the use of that material. I think it would be important for the board to give Mr. Taber some feedback here tonight that assuming that the granite curve is determined to be the required element and a waiver is required is the board support of that so that he has the feedback he needs to make decisions moving forward.

Right. I mean granite or Cape Cod bar said what I'm saying is assuming that the granite curb is what's required and that you would need a waiver to do Cape Cod is the board going to be supportive of that or not? That's I think the question that you need in order to make your decisions. Yeah. Didn't we vote on that? What's that? You by consensus because again everything here tonight is nonbinding, right? Yeah. So you want to vote on it? No, no, no. I'm saying is when we heard this with a different application, we actually voted when we when we were looking at the amendment that was previously submitted.

However, we got to that point. There was discussion and I believe before the decision was made to table to a date certain. I believe at that point the the consensus of the board and the direction of the board seemed to be that the grant was going to be required if I recall correctly. A split vote, but it was a split vote, but it was Yeah. So, is that still the board's position as the Again, I want to make sure we're providing Mr. Taber with the information he needs to make decisions on formal applications moving forward. Could I do a show of hands of who would actually support it right now versus We don't Yeah, we're not here to vote. Yeah, we're not here to vote on it, but we can certainly solicit some feedback if people want to give it. David,

uh, quick question on the, um, the viability between for you between the ninth unit versus the cost of the curb because it changes the guideline, right? So, if you were to weigh what it's going to cost you to put granite curbing all up that road, does that offset the sale of the ninth unit? I mean, it depends when you build it. Realistically, if you build it right now, I mean, your cost is going to be higher. You wait till spring, it's going to be less. So, realistically, I think that's a that would be part of your consideration.

Originally, when I designed this, it was nine units with curving up and down both sides. And that's assuming what I'm going back to, but I'm trying to go with Cape Cod Burm because it's in the regulations versus granite curving. Does it but my point is does it serve you better to back up one lot one go from 9 to eight and allow and and then address the issue because now you're in a different ball game. What do you mean do it? Wait. Well, 8 unit, my understanding is an 8 unit subdivision, right?

Um, that changes curving issues, does it not? Or am I wrong? 8 units is only curbing on uh 6% slope or greater. And then where deemed necessary by engineering. So, it's approximately 1,40 ft on this site as is. When this goes to nine units, it would be around like 2,300 feet of curbing. It's not a substantial. Does the ninth unit pay for the curbing, I guess, when it really boils. Absolutely. That's the whole point of trying to get the ninth unit that pays for the granite curbing. Yeah, it makes the project balance a lot better. Okay, that's my point.

So again, the question on the table is supportive of, you know, support. It is a good question. asphalt curve versus curving. Support of asphalt curving u Cape Cod BM versus granite curbing. My last comment then would be that I would rely on the solicitor to absolutely for a recommendation. Yeah. So, and I said that before. I'm not comfortable doing it until I know what the city staff's going to recommend. So, that would be my sensitivity. I think we're going to punt on that one all the way around. I don't know that we've got

correct me if I'm wrong, Mike. from an engineering perspective, regardless of the solicitor's interpretation of whether or not the pre the preference of engineering would be granite curbing because of the construction standards for this. Correct. That's correct. And that's what we'll come to. But this So then the the applicant would then request a waiver and need to have support. question for the solicitor is whether or not the section 3504 applies to the construction standards as it relates to the regulatory requirement which would allow. Right. You're reading it, staff's reading it versus the way Mr. Taber's reading it. Yep. So that's the case. If if I'm reading it correctly, then would everybody support that around here?

If the city solicitor agrees with you, I think we would. Yeah. Yep. Okay. All right. Next amendment was the pavement thickness. Similar circumstance. Can we move on from that one? What's that? Can we move on from that one? Yes. Y.

So the pavement thickness similar circumstance. Common private drive shall be serviced within minimum of 3 in of hot opportumous pavement per state specifications for concrete treatment per city construction standards. Other streets non-private drives require minimum 4 in. This is a common private drive. Section 21105 explicitly distinguishes between common private drives other streets. Table 20.1 20-1 provides guidance but does not override section 21105 of the regulations. Staff has commented that the detail states 4 in. There's couple issues with the detail. One, the regulations state a common private drive and a public rideway is two different types of payments. So it's two classified different streets. You have one detail for two types of roads. That factually doesn't work. So you can't have one detail for two types of streets. Um, so by right of regulation, the three inches should be allowed. Um, again, this construction standard detail requiring 4 inches does not legally override section 21.505 of the regulation. I'm assuming I'm going to have to get city solicitor input on this.

I was going to say it's the same topic and the same the same end result.

Um, the 3 in also supports NFPA1 section 18.2.3.5.2. um as possibly question for the as going into the road length amendment after this but it it satisfies the NFPA section so it shouldn't be a concern for the fire department if that was to come up. Um, so again, I guess from the board's perspective, if the city solicitor's office determines that yes, the regulations supersede the detail or however they want to regulate that, basically what I'm saying, then would the board support the amendment for the reduced payment from 4 in to 3 in. and with with engineerings, you know, with engineering weighing in as well, I I think we, you know, I'm not going to speak to the board, but I'd be much more comfortable if the if if we got some some grounds to be able to to rely on to to make that decision.

David, another quick question regarding from for engineering more than anything else. Is is there any consider because of the slope is there any uh erosion considerations going from 3 to 4 in the other way around? No, that doesn't apply with the paving piece. Engineering. Oh yeah, it's an engineering question, but it erosion doesn't that doesn't factor in because you still have the curving for the drainage in the pavement. All you're doing is going from 4 in to 3 in compacted. Okay.

And your real determination isn't your pavement thickness. It's your your aggregate subbase and the correct materials, correct compaction brought up in lifts that determines your strength and durability of your road over just the pavement. Thank you. I don't know if engineering wants to weigh in on that here or wait again for I don't know if there's anything I don't there's anything to weigh in on. You got engineering standards and their engineering standards. So, right. And there are details that are included in the regulations too. So again, if there's a if there's a if there's a waiver to be had there, it's going to you're going to need to get some some weight behind it from the solicitor's office.

So again, same similar to the COD BM if with the pavement thickness if city solicited office solicitor's office agrees with what I'm saying. Then would the board support that amendment? You guys all support that? I I will note the board previously denied this waiver. Yes, we did. Yeah, went on. Well, not this time. How come there's only one detail when you have two different types of roads? There's more than one detail. There's details for city streets and then there's actual common private drives, right? Both details show 4 in.

But in the regulation it Right. But so why do you have a regulation that says 4 in and then you have two details that go say 4 in? That one of those was changed when I got this approved I think in 2023 or 2024 because it came up around that waiver request and that's when it was changed. So you have to look at when that was changed too. Okay. So anyways, we good.

The last one uh road length. So this one would actually be a waiver because regulation state thousand foot. So, I corresponded with the fire department, Paul Soy, um, which is in the staff report. Um, he commented. I can go through line by line if you guys want. No, we've got them in the report. Yep. So, I have basically I took his report and I did the factual research to how this road length change would conform under all NFPA citations that Paul sent back. Um, and I have that here which I can email to staff. Yep. Um

so staff perspective on that request I think again we denied it before on the initial you did not take action on this to this design was revised to less than 1,000 ft before the final approval that's that time I believe staff recommended against granting that waiver um you we we limit private common drives streets all to a th00and feet you know as it's kind of measured out in our constructions you know thinking that this leads So just general safety applicability, proper planning, proper design of all infrastructure, driveways, roads, things like that. It would be something the board could consider. Okay. So it be something the board could consider.

I would say with my knowledge of the NFPA, most of those regulations defer back. They're there, but they defer back to what they call the authority having jurisdiction, which in this case would be the city fire chief. So even if the regulation says it's okay to do 3 in of pavement, it's okay for the fire truck and it's okay to have the extra length, if the fire chief here in the city, he has the authority having jurisdiction within the city. If he says he's not comfortable with it, that's the rule. That is my understanding of how those are written.

Okay, there you go. So one thing to state I mean dead end road length under NFPA there's no actual regul there there's nothing limiting your road length under any NFPA code under NFPA for single access we talked about secondary egress on this site it's not feasible because of the steep grades it's a very unique site specifically this whole entire section is over 15% grade and it's just we talked about that before I don't believe engineer would have got behind behind it because it's just it doesn't work um

but again it goes to it'll go back to the fire chief where if the fire chief has to back down there from a house fire at the very end of that road are they comfortable getting a ladder truck back down over the over the road. I mean considering the road's 24 ft wide and their minimum 20 ft and hot hole pond is I think 18. We're not going to decide it unless the fire chief gives us some some some feedback on it. But if the fire department's good with it, would the board be good with it? the fire department's good with it and says it's good, I think we'd be I'm not speaking for the board, but I think we'd be in favor of it. Yep. We would trust our technical trust. I mean, they know what they're talking about and they they'll give it straight to you. So,

okay. Okay. So, just to recap, you guys agree with the street trees pretty much for the amendment. We just got to figure out how we're going to proceed doing it. Cape Cod BM and pavement thickness amendments need solicitor input. And if it was along the line if if the regulations actually supersede is what I'm saying then the board would support that and then fire department has to agree with the road length and then the board would support that. Yep. And the ninth unit is dependent on getting the extra length essentially. You can't do the ninth without it. Without the extra length. Correct. So it just it doesn't work. Yep. Other feedback or anything the board needs before we move on? This is just a public meeting. There's no hearing component. So there's no additional

public testimony. So, we're good to go. We look forward to seeing the plan back again in front of us. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. What's next on our agenda? Uh 9A was continued. Continued. Yep.

So, 9B. Uh item 9B, TF Moran, Unitil Energy Systems, Inc. request approval for major site plan application, architectural design review, a conditional use permit for essential public utilities and impertinances, a conditional use permit for bluff buffer disturbance, and certain waiverss from the site plan regulations, including a waiver to allow the determination of completeness public hearing in the same meeting, the construction of a new substation at tax map 494Z law 44 addresses 1 to 7 Magguire Street in the industrial district.

Okay, so we've got a motion and a second to grant the waiverss to section 6.032. 032C and 11:05 which is a determination of completeness um not a development of regional impact and uh set the public hearing for the same night. Am I read that in right? Yes. The the reason for the support on the waiver is this actually has been on the agenda for a number of months. Uh has been able to go through get the zoning board approval needed. Uh so we're comfortable moving forward the applications public hearing as well as termination. Uh staff found the application complete not a development of regional impact. Would someone like to make a motion to accept the application as complete and open the public hearing? So move second.

Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor?

I opposed. That motion carries. Let's get a staff update on this if we could. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. As I mentioned, this application calls for the site plan architectural design review and conditional use permits for the rebuild on the existing Unatil West Conquered substation and an associated pole storage yard. According to the applicant, these proposed improvements to the public utility infrastructure are necessary due to the age of the existing infrastructure and the growing electric demand in the conquered area. Uh the site proposed the rebuild is an existing fully developed site that has office and warehouse buildings. that was built in 1965 as well as parking and landscaping. Uh the rebuilt station will be proposed is proposed in the southerntherly portion of the property replacing which right now is a large gravel area. Uh staff again is recommending as we talked about the determination of completeness as well as the approvals for the major site plan ADR and CUP in accordance with conditions in the staff memo.

All right, welcome to the table. If you could state your names for the record. Certainly. My name is Nick Olen. I'm a licensed engineer and principal with TF Marram. My name is Nathan Sherwood. I'm a licensed engineer and principal with unit. Great. Tell us a little bit about this project. We'd love to. All right. So, you've seen us before. About 11 minutes. I'm kidding. All right. I think you have told me in the past remedy is key. We'll be as succinct as possible. I'd only say that to you because I know you've been here before and you've seen how we work. So,

Yes, sir. Um, the reality is we've been here for other substations in the past and uh we're at a point now where we need to retire the next one. Uh the substation dates back to vintage 1940s acknowledging that the other portions of the campus as are shown on the graphic above um date back to more like 1965 time frame. Um so this project consists of retiring vintage substation equipment installing new technology uh current technology to meet the growing electrical demand in the conquered area and provide further redundancy for service reliability. So, as part of this, in order to accommodate that substation uh relocation on subject lot, an existing pole storage yard area will be relocated and storm water management areas being incorporated where there currently are none. Uh we did things a little bit different back in the 40s and 60s. Uh so, we will be updating to present- day methodology for storm water management. Um I mentioned the existing pole yard. I'll direct your attention to the big board. Um so, this is a fairly large lot. It's nearly 9 acres. Um but when we think about the area of work that we are doing, it is confined to this southerntherly corner. Um primarily this existing pole yard. Um so what we're doing is this is in part an efficiency program. One, we need to replace the substation, but also we need to relocate this uh pole yard. So what does this pole yard serve? It serves your needs. Um if there is an outage in the middle of the night, someone struck a pole or if there is a project that requires pole replacements or new poles, this is in part where they come from. um the elements that are prescribed on the site plans are specific to that need. So this is either an emergency response or this is otherwise a capital project where poles require replacement. Um one of the things you can notice u in the geometry we'll say of the existing pole yard is perhaps we're not making the best use of our space. Um, it requires a considerable area to navigate in with oversized vehicles to pick up and drop off poles. Uh, make a 180 degree turn to

then exit the yard where other uh, vehicles are currently being stored. Uh, when we take a look at our overall site plan, we can see some strategic differences that have been incorporated. Um so again looking at this existing conditions plan's a little little rough um in comparison to the overall graphic which is why we we went about it that way. So this is our our overall site layout plan. You can see where the proposed substation is located in really that southsoutheast corner. Um the heavy set lines are located within it are really it's the general arrangement. That's the electrical equipment. It's the strain buses. It's the transformers um that are located within that yard. um the other circular objects. As we kind of blow this up a little bit, you can see these are the utility poles for which you'd have outgoing lines that will tie into the existing utility infrastructure. Um you'll notice we have this large rectangular block that is hatched along the front of the property. This would be the relocation of that pool storage yard. Um it looks very similar to what's out there now and other facilities that Unil currently has. they've gone to using a a concrete surface. It's better better for maintenance. Um the pole is being picked and dropped. If it's on asphalt, there's potential there could be damage or otherwise. So, what is a what is a pole bunker? Um think of a field goal post. It's just a nice little frame sits on a concrete.

That's a pole bunker. It's a pole bunker. So, inquiring minds want to know on a plan there's a 15 by 15 pole butt bunker.

Yes, there's So, this is the pole bunker. We'll pass that around just so everybody has familiarity with that. Um the pole butt bunker. So we have to imagine what what is this facility for? We're going out and instilling installing new poles. Well, what has to come out? Some existing poles. So those are cut. Uh the the larger element of that pole is taken to an off-site facility, but those pole butts are brought to this facility where they'll then otherwise be recycled. So how do we store those? It is essentially a modular block retaining wall. Think of the big blocks that you would have for a wall. We encircle those around the edges. The open there's an open end on the near side so that they can be deposited in or otherwise removed.

So these all the nasty old creassoot soaked logs from 50 75 100 years ago. Is that what we're is that what we're storing in this nice little 15 by when you put it so pleasantly. Let me happily say yes. Uh the reality is yes that these are these are prior polls. Um they are managed as part of a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan that's associated with the facility. So we we do fall under that EPA mandate. So that is a regulated regulated get that into the record. Make sure we were

Yep. No, we're we there are many eyes and permits associated with these facilities beyond the approvals that are associated with municipality. Um since you mentioned that, so I'll I'll point that out. That's located right here. Directly adjacent to it um is a pearavevel storage area. Why do we have pravel? Well, when we install these poles, we back fill them with pravel. So this is again providing the necessary uh equipment and materials for unatil to provide and and there's a division into the where the actual substation is which is a gravel gravel lot right so there's rain water is not going to occur down into that gravel it's going to be

so we can actually I'm going to jump real quick and I apologize for the quick scrolling but there's a typical section um it's located within these plans that really shows how these substations are built um it is essentially an open void stone. Um, so we can see if we can't zoom in here a little bit. What page is that, Nick?

Uh, it's I believe it's the last page of the set, 16 of 16. Um, and it's located in the upper leftand corner. Just gives us a little bit of a feel for what's there. Um, the reality is we need to have a stable surface because there are electrical components and pads that are installed within these yards. Um, there's also a depth of this at which the grounding grid is installed to protect the people working within it and the people immediately outside of it. Um, and that's an important feature because that grounding grid does extend a minimum three to five feet outside the yard. So, if we were wanting to plant something, say landscaping, immediately outside that fence, not only would that be a concern because it would interact with the grounding grid, but also provides the opportunity for people to climb up the trees and try and jump inside of substations um because they have various materials that people think are valuable um such as copper that they can then try and resell on a secondary market. Uh, I know it sounds laughable, um, but having had the opportunity to work with both UNIL and Eversource for over 20 years, um, people have died trying to gain access to substations when they aren't supposed to. Um, it's a sad story. Um, but it's a cautionary tale. We bring up at meetings at times when necessary because it's very important for these substations to be open, for police and fire to be able to see in, to make sure that these are secure, that the people that are supposed to be inside them are, and the people that are not supposed to be inside them are not. Um, so we're we'll wind up talking a little bit about that when we we start talking about some some landscaping items um that are associated with this project. But if I can, I'll just I'll get us through the rest of what's laid out here and allow a little bit opportunity for for question and answer. Um, so we can see as far as how this facility lays out. Um, yes, this is the cross-section that is the substation would be a control structure incorporated within that. Uh we did seek and were approved for zoning relief relative to that structure to be located within a bluff buffer. Uh we were also granted a variance to manipulate

contours within that bluff and that was specific to a ravine which is located in this location here. In part because this is just some minor recontouring to accommodate those more formal storm water management area that I mentioned earlier. Right now the site just to that low point and it finds its way up. Um so instead we'll have the opportunity to provide more formal treatment um that'll have to meet alteration of trades and standards as although we have less than 100,000 square feet of impact just barely clip that shoreline protection area and meet that 50,000 square foot threshold instead. So an alteration of train permit as well as a shoreland uh permit by notification will be required for this facility. Um you can see on this plan that hatched area exhibits the area of the bluff buffer that would be impacted. Um it looks substantial but it the reality is it's um this is not your t typical bluff uh that's associated with this this project site. Um it has been highly disturbed. We had the opportunity to meet u with the architectural design review committee and then also conservation commission. Um it doesn't happen often but we were able to walk out with ringing endorsements from both. Um and that's in relationship to the design of the site, the buffers that are provided. Um and I think in importantly to look at and especially because there's some waiverss requested on this on this project that architectural design review approved it as presented. Um so this this is our overall facility. You can see this limit between the substation yard uh and the pole bunker. This is pavement. This is to provide an appropriate turning radius for those oversized vehicles so that poles can be picked and located in the bunker or otherwise removed. and to provide a safe area for them to turn around instead of driving all the way into the site and turning around coming all the way back. So, it really limits turning movements and decision points. What we don't want is people with big trucks carrying heavy things trying to look over their shoulder in order to make turns. This really absolves us of

those needs, which I think is a is an excellent component. Um, just overall to speak to the project merits. So the the existing substation that we're replacing which is located just offscreen right right here uh is approximately 4,000 square feet as our electrical needs grow as do the size of our substations. So we are now at a 145x 155 which is approximately 22,000 square feet. Um I mentioned the control enclosure here. Uh there will be utility pools uh for both inbound and outbound lines and that maybe provides a good transition to talk a little bit about landscaping if I can. And I hate doing this because I know boards don't typically like it but I have a graphic that I wanted to share that I created after having the opportunity to talk to Alec about landscaping and why we are providing it or why we are not. Um so what this is just color graphic that shows aerial what we were looking at before but what we've done just grab grab one and pass down please. Uh what we've done is overlaid some of the constraints. Um so I think in part it may be our failing to show what these constraints are in relationship to the buffer uh elements that we've requested a waiver for. Those requirements specifically being section 20.06 06 which is in relationship to solid waste facility screening. I don't know that we even need this in all honesty. I think we may be able to withdraw that. The reality is there is the outdoor storage that we mentioned for the Keystone and the pole that's surrounded on three sides where it's only open at the front and if we are to incorporate some additional screening perhaps as suggested in the graphic that we've handed out I think it removes the need for that waiver. Um two other waivers section 26.02 O2 which is mechanical equipment to not provide screening baffling cosmetic treatments or a combination of measures to reduce visual glare and noise impacts from ground mounted and unusually large

equipment towards a budding process. We took that as meaning we needed to somehow find a way to screen our substation. Um because of the location of that grounding grid, because of the location of those colored areas, which are existing easements that preclude the ability to install landscaping, we're really limited. Um, I'll admit that our landscaping plan of one um, maple tree probably didn't quite hit the mark. Um, but I wanted to be able to explain that tonight on why that is. There is an existing tree there now. So, we're putting it back. Um, and the remainder of that area is primarily overtaken by invasives. It's bittersweet and Japanese. So as part of this project, we have to meet the ND500 requirements at the alteration of terrain to address those invasives. So although we are removing a very minimal amount of trees, the trees that we're removing are are right now dead and dying because of those invasive species. So really we're providing some better here and that those invasive species would be removed. Now uh at Alex request I want to say Alex in in advance he said hey that what else can you do here? Like we understand you're an industrial facility. Um it's a little bit different than a retail, a commercial or a residential facility as far as landscaping because the onus really is is on safety, clear sight lines. Um but is there something else we can So the graphic I provided here shows the ability to install uh how many do we have here? Um two, four, six, eight. We'll say approximately 20 to 30 uh leprechaun arbuite. Now why are we choosing leprechaun arrives? Much like it name its name, it is intended to be somewhat dimminitive. Um, so it won't really grow too much taller than the height of that fence. Why is that important? Because we are going to be picking very large utility poles out of that area. And once they clear that fence, they are rotated and then dropped into a trout large truck to go about its merry way to make sure we continue to have power. Um, we're we're creating a dangerous

situation if we're we're going to try and install a lot of big tall trees there. uh it really doesn't provide a purpose. But if we were to install this in this specific location, um I believe this meets the needs of both 20 section 20.06 for the solid waste facility screening as it would be located in front of those bins that are located in the back of the site. Um and then also section 2603 screening of outside storage, but it is outdoor pool storage. Um, but we have a fence there. Providing a a fence with an opakqueness such that people can't see in it as part of a driveby is not in our interests, nor is it in your public responders, but providing some screening to a certain element with these types of plantings, it felt like a very reasonable compromise. Um, so should the board feel that this does meet intent of those requirements, we would look to withdraw those waiverss and show that that meets the intent of your requirements. Um should the board see that we do not meet that regulation to the perfect te, we would keep that uh waiver request and slightly modify it to state that we would provide these as supplement supplemental screening to meet the intent of the regulation because of the type of facility this is which we think again uh meets the needs of the public and is consistent with past approvals that have been issued by this planning board.

Alan, can you just make a note of that so when we get to that point we can address whe pulling it out or leaving it. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Um, I'll try and be quick. The only other thing I noted is staff aptly pointed out there was a bunch of waiverss we asked for we don't need. So, we would withdraw those waiverss as specifically uh stated within the staff report. And might I note this was a tremendous staff report and we've had an opportunity to do a lot of work in conquered over the years. There's a lot in here. Um, it took us a considerable amount of time to get through this, but it uh I I definitely hit on all the marks associated with the application. So, kudos. Wow. I'll leave it there, sir. Leave that. Leave it right there. Okay, perfect. Questions for the applicant from the board? Jeff, so in the lower right hand corner,

you have a driveway existing. Yes. You're proposing a gate that's actually narrower than the driveway opening. And I'm wondering why that's shown. They're not That's such a great idea. Well, especially if you're saying you have the large trucks, you do. And I'm assuming you did turning templates to kind of prove it out. Yep. It's included in the plan. So it's calling out for a 21 foot wide gate when it looks like a 204 foot wide opening. It's an excellent observation. So with that uh I believe we'll needing be needing to enlarge that great uh that gate to provide something that's comate with the sight drive. Your you have a drainage kind of opening in the curb that goes into a pond. Yes sir.

Could you explain how you're going to maintain that in the winter when it freezes?

Sure. So in lie of using the traditional rip wrap or stone uh curb cut where what we ultimately end up seeing is despite the contractor's best efforts those stones get piled up at the top of the edge of the pavement sediment builds up over time and then lo and behold we have a dam and storm water no longer leaving the pavement it just sits there. Um so what we're using is a paved apron instead. there's a sufficient grade elevational change there of upwards of a foot and a half that even in a snowy condition or otherwise it still provides the opportunity for that storm water to enter into that location. Now, just like anything, does it require maintenance? Yes. Um, so they need to clear the snow from that to make sure that it works appropriately. Um, being that this is an alteration of terrain permit, they do have maintenance requirements they have to adhere to and that is spelled out as a specific item in that document.

Perfect. Yes, sir. My last thing for Mr. Chairman, I seen here you're requesting a waiver from Granite Curb to Cape Cod Burman. If you've sat in the meeting for the last hour, barely clearly heard that. I I can tell you now I'm not going to support the waiver based on discussion we just had. If we're making another applicant, we denied a waiver for the sticky project to go to Cape Rod Burm for the limited amount of curbing here. I I would not support the change. I would agree with you, but we'll let Mr. Mr. uh go and uh I would tell us why you would like that and and I just have one more comment. So on your site plan where you show the snow storage area,

you actually show your swing gate opening out into the snow storage area. Could you clarify how if that's all piled with snow that that's going to actually work? We're either going to have to put a hinge on it so it's only opening in one direction or otherwise going to have to relocate some of that snow storage. Okay. I'm just, you know, those those are those maintenance issues that I just want to make sure that are addressed so the snow doesn't suddenly just get piled on the outside of the fence or on the inside of the fence to the

park. Yeah, that that fence is provided specifically for the purpose of getting the snow to that location. Um, so they'll have to leave it in an operable condition in order to use it for that purpose. All right, jumping back to curbing. This is a tough one, guys. Um, this is this is new for all of us in the development community as far as the enforcement of this regulation. So, I'm a step back from this project if I can, and I will not be longwinded at promise. Um, historically, the city has always allowed patuminous curb. Um it has been only through recent revelations that that has changed and that there is now a focus on the construction specifications as the leading implic implement to enforce this rule. Uh this site has puminous curve on it now as does many UN unit facilities is an unary expense to rateayers to require granite curbing where there's a perfectly suitable alternative that's currently in use. Um I have heard at length the board's discussion. Um if it's a waiver that is denied, sounds like I have to change the plan. Um, but I would ask you to to pause and and think of the number of projects that have been approved in the city just in the last two or three years. And I know I've pro several before you where that was considered a perfectly suitable element. Um, and that is not specific to conquered. It's not specific to New Hampshire. It's not specific to New England.

It's not it's not apples to oranges on on the other project that discussed it because of the grade. uh a lot of flat know you know a lot of the concern was on the grades so we'll hit it when we come to the when we come to the w I'll stick to the criteria so mentioned but on a on a larger view um this is new for us in the development community trying to understand what that regulation is it was suggested that a waiver be submitted and it's our understanding that it was being supported by staff make sure we don't skip over that just keep me honest on that other questions from the board council Todd yeah thank you um just wanted to note that the leprechaun arriv that's being suggested to to uh replace the bittersweet the problem area you have there with the vegetation growing is not technically a native species

I agree it is um you know it is a hybrid of native and non-native so uh did you consider any other uh native species that would in fact achieve the same goals we did we so Mike Kresinsky who's our landscape architect looked at several this is the and I'm sorry to say um this is the preferred um type of vegetation by Eversource right now for these types of applications. So, we brought it forth on this one. Um, it makes sense because of potential for overhead lines. It makes sense because of its salt tolerance. Um, understood it's not a native species. I almost consider it more of like a native improved species. Um, so the comment is noted, but we think this is the right selection for the state.

Okay. DY noted. Other questions from the board? No. Any member of the audience have any questions or concerns about this application? Mr. Schwer, come on up. Let's have you guys step back. Okay. Yes, sir.

Welcome back to the table. You you were holding true to form. You said you'd be back up and here you are. Probably another one too maybe. Anyway, uh my concern is not with this particular plan, but my understanding is at the same time they're redoing a substation on Bridge Street, which does not require approval. So that's why you haven't heard about it, maybe. But that substation on Bridge Street has been kind of a thorn in the side of the city for years in terms of any development of that area. And if they're going to be completely tearing out the substation, putting in new stuff, I don't know if they should be considering can any of that go up to Meuire Street or can it go somewhere other than where it is rather than just rebuilding it in the same stupid place.

Just for the record, you talk about the one in front of the Ralph Pill building, the old Ralph Pill building right next to right next to the highway. Still that is still Bridge Street even though it's a different bridge. Oh, good point. That's right. Good point. It is an eyesore. I agree with you 100%. So, it's not just an eyesore. in the way of potential holding up development. Certainly great point. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Any other questions, concerns about this application? Nope. Seeing none. Well,

prior to closing the public hearing just in case you wanted the applicant to respond, but um staff was recommending denial of those three screening waiverss. One of them would require opaque fencing. Um and we do not consider privacy mesh over a chain link fence to be solid and opaque. So that that waiver would need to be abide. But I want to call attention to the board that this industrial this site is zoned industrial. It abuts two mixed use zoning districts. One of which has residential uses and the other is more office. And you know we we felt it was important to make sure the applicant explored every opportunity possible not to encumber any of those sites or you know to visually protect those sites from this substation which was the basis of our understanding there are legitimate constraints associated with the substation

and again testing my memory but if I'm my memory serves the substation down by the common man restaurant the same question came up regarding the slat wall on the fence. And I think I don't know that it was an eloquent short answer, which is what I'm looking for tonight, but I believe it was I believe it was an answer on why that's not a good solution in this scenario. Correct. It it's this is a function of public safety. Uh police and fire have to be able to see in this as part of their drivebys. That was it. Okay, that was it. Um, yes.

If I could, with that in mind, could they consider could you consider putting the slats on the side that faces the residential to the south since you don't have access for police and fire around that side of the building and only have it from the other three sides that would actually be part of the drive-thru or driveby as you so eloquently put it? Um, it would not be our preference to shield just a portion of this and then be needing to maintain those slats. Um, I think the other element of this is what do what do you typically see when those slats are installed? You see them defaced by spray paint or you see them break as soon as it hits 10 degrees. Um, it will be uglier if with the slats in our opinion.

The public safety piece and the the police access to it was was I knew there was a reason. I just didn't remember what it was. Yes, sir. Uh, okay. Any other questions for Mr. Golden before we send them back? Okay, you're all set. Thank you very much for your testimony. Um, oh, sorry. Hang on one sec. You said there was three waivers. Well, there are three waivers specific to screening. One of them is for outside storage which requires solid opaque fencing. The other two

have language that the board can you know in the case of exceptionally grades or exceptionally large equipment can require the applicant to you know do the best they can and you have that discretion. So if you go that route whether it's the um for landscaping proposed here those waiverss I would consider satisfied but is that one that doesn't have that back door 9.4 4 A and B would be satisfied by the proposal by the applicant whereas 9C we need action. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now, do I need to add the final component that we would then maintain that waiver request relative to the opakqueness of the fence and it would be specific to public safety? Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay. So, keep me honest, Alex, when we get there. Yep. Do my best. Okay. And no more public testimony. We don't Nobody else wants to weigh in on that? No. So, we'll close the public hearing. Good. Alex, close public hearing. Uh, okay. So, any other comments, questions, or concerns from the board? I would just note for the board that there was a preliminary staff determination that this might be considered regional impact back several months ago. So, we do have comments in your uh supplemental materials from both Central and uh the town of Pemrook. Uh, but without that finding being made tonight, you could just consider those as public comment.

Right. So, that moves us to 9.2. uh in your packets uh using as our findings of fact the information the information that's in our packet the testimony that we heard here tonight. Uh and by the way, Mr. Goolan, you're on notice. We need to remove that uh that ugly substation down at the end of Bridge Street. So, we expect you back in sometime in 2026 would be excellent to get that roll and put apartments down there. It'd be great. Um again, findings of fact uh with the information that was provided, the testimony we heard, and the public testimony. So moving into 9.3, first up is to grant the waiver request below from the listed site. That's the Cape Cod B regulations which is supported by staff.

Okay. Any comments, questions, concerns? I I know there's I I would still say, Mr. Chairman, that the rest of the site does have some granite curb. Y even though it was indicated that it's not. I'm looking at it right now. It's a short section. Yep. It's where they're going to be pushing snow toward and doing other things. And I'm just I would like to see the grant curve. I don't think it's a huge expense to the project. I I think it's a reasonable consideration on that area. So, we'll take it one of two ways. We can take it to grant and see where we go. And or if we get a denial, we'll do it the other way. Let's take it to grant uh 9.3. If we've got a motion on the table to grant that uh that waiver request, I'll make that motion. Uh we have a second. Second.

Motion has been made and seconded. Further discussion. All those in favor? I opposed. I'm going to oppose. Three. So, we got four opposes. Myself, Amanda Savage, Jeff Santa Cruz, Dino, and everybody voted because sometimes when we do I understand, but when we do the verbal vote, sometimes I and I don't know. No, everybody. So, show we show hands. Show hands on the show hands on the yays. Just for the record, we got yay votes. Yeah. gave us five to make sure just for the record. Okay, so that waiver uh is approved and then 9.4 is to deny the waiver request below from the listed sub.

I think we've determined that A and B from that are not necessary based on the revised landscaping and C would be would require action from the so again the screening was the point. Yeah, take that back. Alec, why don't you go ahead on on a I think a from section 2006 is requires solid opaque screening around any outside storage facilities. Um so that if you know it would be a that if the board is looking to go with what was prepare prepared or proposed here that that would need to be approved or additionally. So let's pull out let's pull out um a a

Mr. Can I ask for a quick clarification on that? That regulation is for solid waste facilities. Right. This is not a solid waste facility. So, I'm not even sure how we're applying that to this application. Interpreting it as all solid waste disposal or waste recycling facilities, dumpsters, bins, or other outside storage facilities or areas. It certainly you can interpret it as you would like. I'd say that's a stretch. Yeah, personal stretch. The board can determine that it does apply in this situation if you so choose. Yeah. So, how would we make to make a motion to not approve not not apply or make a motion to deny uh to approve the waiver?

If you don't think if you don't think the waiver applies, you would by consensus of the board. You could say it's the determination of the board that you disagree with the staff interpretation and believe that the waiver is necessary. Mr. Sanders, would you like to make that motion for 9.4A 4 a that I don't believe that the solid waste facility screening is applicable to is applicable in this location. Okay. Second. Motion's been made and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. No opposes. Maybe an action item for staff to look into that a little further to to to clean that up a little bit. Um put it in a master plan. Um okay. 9.4 B and C then are not applicable. Do we need to do anything on those?

Uh, which one is still applicable? C. B, B and C. I believe A was the one that should be done. So, that is gone. That's good. So, do we need to do B and C or no? I think that you would need to make it clear in a condition of approval that those are being satisfied. Keep me honest when we get to the conditions of approval if we have to add a condition of approval. Okay, we can do that. Uh 9.5 it uh we're withdrawn. So, those do not need action. Don't need action on 9.5. I like that. 9.6 is to grant the conditional use permit for section 28-2-4j table of principal uses. Um would someone like to make a motion to grant that conditional use permit as outlined?

So moved. Second. Motion has been made and second. Any discussion? Is that with the recommended? I was just going to say so is that prior to approval of the accompanying major site plan application shall find. Yes. So is is that what Alec? It's just so that we can make sure that the expiration of both the site plan and the conditional use permit are concurrent and they're not different dates. Okay. Okay. So we had a motion. Do we have a motion and a second? Yes. And no discussion. All those in favor? That motion carries. Uh 9.7 is to grant a conditional use permit for sections section 28-4-4D. Conditional use permits required for certain disturbances of bluff bluffs and buffer

with the same condition to the same condition for for driving them together. So moved. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. Uh 9.8 8 grant architectural grant architectural design review approval for the relocation and construction of the existing uh Unatil West conquered substation and associated pole storage yard. Uh would someone like to make a motion to grant architectural design review approval as outlined? So moved second. Motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Opposed? That motion carries. 9.9 is to grant major site plan approval for the construction of a new electrical substation pole storage yard and other associated site improvements at tax mapap 494Z lot 44 addressed as 1 to 7 McGuire Street in the industrial uh in district. Uh would someone like excuse me we're going to go through this here precedent conditions and this is contingent on precedent conditions 1A through F F uh 2 through six. Any other conditions changes for the condition regarding the landscaping satisfying the requirements for the uh screening screening as discussed under the waivers. Okay.

And and that the gate gate will be widened to match the driveway width. Was there snow storage issues on the No, I believe Nick answered that and that was that was through I, wasn't it? Yes, through I, not F. Through Yeah, through I, not F, just for the record. Yep. That's okay. Uh and then 2 through six. No other additions on the on the precedents. And then we go to subsequence uh subsequent conditions one through 16. Any additions on the subsequent conditions? No. All right. Would someone like to make a motion to got to go all the way back grant major site plan approval as outlined? So moved. Second.

Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. You're all set. Thank you very much. You don't want to stick around. Come on. All right. Let's read the next item into the agenda if we could. Item 9 C is North Point Engineering LLC on behalf of Sowski Associates LLC and Phoenix Hall LLC requesting approval for a minor subdivision application for a lot line adjustment and the discontinuence of Phoenix A at tax map 6443Z. Lot 27 addressed is 56 North Main Street and tax map 6443Z lot 28 address is two Phoenix A in the central business performance district.

Okay. Uh staff has uh determined the application complete uh not development of regional impact. Would someone like to make a motion to find the application complete not a development of regional impact and open the public hearing? So move second. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. Public hearing is open. Let's get a staff update on this if we could.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. This is one of three applications on your agenda tonight relative to the Phoenix block redevelopment project. Uh this portion of the project is requesting the minor subdivision lot line adjustment and discontinuence of Phoenix A. That's a to facilitate the proposed development that is part of the other two related applications. In addition to the planning board approval for this particular application, city council approval is also required for the actual discontinuence of the public right ofway of Phoenix A. Um again staff is recommending the application be determined complete. Uh we are also requesting uh I believe with the applicant's concurrence that we continue this to a date certain of February 18th 2026 so that this public hearing and decisions can be made on the same night as the two accompanying major site plan applications which we are also recommending continuence to that same date.

Okay. And the applicants uh good with that? We are and if it pleases the board, it might make sense to read the other two matters in as well and we can hear them all together. I was going to say that if we're going to do this as a continuation, then we'll do the other two as one and then take public testimony as one combined if that is acceptable with the with the staff. If you're comfortable with that, I think we're we're multitasking and we have the ability to juggle. Um, so just for the record, if people are wondering what's going on, we're going to we're going to push off the issue regarding the discontinuation of Phoenix A uh until the February. So, Mr. Chairman, if I could just speak to that for a minute. I think the intention here is to

is to read each of the three into the record for consideration tonight. Yeah. to ask the board to deem each of the applications complete to grant a waiver to start and open a public hearing this evening but then to continue the public hearing until February 18th, 2026 so that we can begin tonight but completed in February. Okay. So with that I can read the other two if the board is comfortable. If I could just get a clarification. When does the 65day clock start? The 65day clock would start tonight and the applicant is understanding of that. Yeah. They can, right? But they can request it. They can request it. But if they choose to deny

it, then we have to make a decision. Thumbs up, thumbs down with no with no for your record, I did calculate the 65 days. And the February meeting falls within 65 days of this evening. And that would provide a decision point which we think will be favorable. But nonetheless, we can talk about where we stand when we get there. Okay. I just because of how we've had one that went a little sideways in the past. I just want to make sure open eyes everybody's there. The idea was to try to keep these on a on a path because there's a lot of moving pieces and other components to this that we have enough time for the applicant to address the concerns we have now submit revisions that we have time for a decision.

That's fine. Again, it was just a clarification. I want to make sure everyone on the board is aware of. So, and it's your intent to read them all into the record, get them on the books, and then make a motion to continue the first piece 9C to the February meeting. We we'd like to speak to each of the three tonight. Yeah. And then we can do three separate motions when we get to that point.

Go ahead. So we'll read the rest of uh North Point Engineering LLC on behalf of Sarowski Associates LLC requests approval for a major site plan application. A conditional use permit to allow a portion of the mixeduse building be constructed at a maximum height of 89 f' 6 in from area grade. A conditional use permit application to allow the partial obstruction of views to the state house dome and certain waiverss from the site plan and regulations for construction of a new eightstory mixeduse building at tax map 6443Z. Lot 27 addresses 56 North Main Street in the Central Business Performance District. So since we did this one, should we do this? I'm going to do the next one as well. Do we want to do this first before we go to the next one?

I we if you'd prefer to do the two motions, I can read 9E and then we can do the separate motions. Do Okay, go ahead.

So 9E is North Point Engineering on behalf of Phoenix Hall LLC requesting approval major site plane application circuit waiverss of the site plane regulations, the construction of a six-story edition and other site improvements at Tacmat 6443Z. Lot 28 addresses to Phoenix Avenue in the central business performance district. I would just I'll give my staff update here uh just so we have an idea. Uh this these applications are the second and third on the agenda relative to the Phoenix block redevelopment. Um these portions represents the approval for two major site plans, architectural design review and two conditional use permits uh as available through the recently approved zoning ordinance ordinance amendments that were adopted by the city council. Uh the two existing buildings on lot 27 will be removed to make way for a new eightstory mixeduse building with a connection to the Phoenix Hall building on lot 28. Uh the next new mixeduse building is proposed to contain some limited retail space on the lower level, office space on the second level. The third through sixth floors would include 36 residential apartments and the top floor is proposed to be a restaurant venue with an outdoor seating on a roof deck. Uh this redevelopment of the area surrounding Phoenix Hall has been long identified as a key road development location by the city. uh to the extent that it's actually specifically discussed in the city's 1997 downtown master plan uh for both of these site plan applications recommending that uh the board grant the waiverss to allow uh acceptance and determination of completion and the public hearing to take place in the same evening and then further to continue to February 18th later in the meeting so that we're all on the same night with the accompanying applications.

Perfect. So again, for the record, we've already determined the application complete on on 9C and voted on that. So we'll do uh is it okay to do 9D and 9E in one motion and and uh I would do them separately. Okay. So 9D in your packets uh again staff has determined the application complete not a development of regional impact. Would someone like to make a motion to find the application complete not a development of regional impact and open the public hearing? Grant the waiverss to allow the public hearing the same night. Grant the waiver section 6032C and 111.05 um to do it in meeting. So move second motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor I opposed. That motion carries and same motion

um basically exactly the same motion that the application is complete not a development of regularly impact and the waiverss to have the public hearing uh on the same night. Would someone like to make that motion to determine the application complete and the public hearing? Second. Motion's made and second. All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. Do we need another staff update or are we good? I will stop my staff updates there. Right. Perfect. Welcome to the table. If you guys could state your names for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Uh my name is Ari Pollock. I'm an attorney with the Gallagher Callahan and Gartrail firm here in Conquered. Um to my right uh is Mark Cberowski. Um he and I are here for two of his entities, Cberowski Associates LLC and Phoenix Hall LLC. Mark, as I think most of you know, is a conquered downtown land owner, landlord, developer, and uh Main Street fixture. And to my left is Jason Lome of S&P architecture. Seated in the there he is seated in the gallery uh behind me is Jeff Lewis of North Point Engineering who's been doing our civil engineering work on this project. Um it's it's 9:20. Um, this project deserves uh let's take a deep breath. Um, you've you've been working hard. Um, this project deserves uh some airtime and we're here tonight to start a public discussion of what's been Mark's long-term plan to redevelop the Phoenix block on Main Street. This is an ambitious project. It involves the preservation and renovation of uh the historic Phoenix Hall. Those of you who have been there know exactly what I mean. Um, and it depends on the construction of a new connector building in Phoenix Avenue and a new mixeduse building where today the former CVS pharmacy building and the ENTP hotel uh stand. Many of you are familiar with this project um because it's been discussed or at least referenced in a lot of different places for a number of years. And tonight's planning applications are really a culmination of work that has happened involving historic preservation,

economic analysis, zoning amendments, architectural review, engineering and utility discussions. uh work with tenants, neighbors, consultants,

and uh of course many members of our community, and frankly, each of those groups could um could take a half hour worth of description, but we don't want to do that tonight. In 2004, I'll highlight a few key points. The city council with the recommendations of this board amended city ordinances to authorize uh additional downtown building height and to allow some view obstructions of the state house dome from certain perspectives on the interstates. This project uh takes advantage of both of these opportunities and to add a seventh floor rooftop restaurant which will have indoor and outdoor seating and fantastic views of the downtown, the state house and the river. And both of these opportunities are now allowed by conditional use. Both are in your discretion and a cup narrative for each of those pieces of relief is included in our application materials and was provided by staff for your consideration. And since I think we're just looking for preliminaries tonight, I'm not going to go into the details of those cup criteria, but they are addressed in those narratives and they are addressed in the staff report. um and they are the subject of multiple submissions with the application materials. So, uh we will get there. We can get there. We certainly can take questions about it. Um but I don't want you to think we've taken those lightly. They are important pieces of the project and they're important pieces of discretion that we're asking you to exercise in our favor. Additionally, the applications propose a lot line adjustment which would have the effect of discontinuing Phoenix Avenue as a public street. Um

this itself is a question for the city council. Um but we anticipate a planning condition of approval that requires us to go get that um consideration and remedy. And since the a picture will really tell a better story than words, I'm going to spend my time tonight um just simply summarizing the project this way and then turning it over to Jason to show you what I'm talking about. the current streetscape of the former CVS building and EMP hotel, which itself was damaged by fire decades ago and is still in that uh condition, would be replaced with a new mixeduse building and a connector building to access a refurbished Phoenix Hall. The Phoenix building would continue to offer retail, restaurant, office spaces, and assembly spaces as it does today. But meanwhile, a new connector building would offer lobby and assembly space to support the hall in a way that simply cannot be done today and to preserve uh the public alleyway between Low Avenue and and North Main Street. And we have some views to show you what that um connection would look like. And uh as I mentioned, the new mixeduse building will offer retail uh office, residential apartments, and a rooftop venue with views of the downtown and the state house and the river and all that surrounds conquered. All in all, the project proposes restaurants, entertainment venues, new retail, existing retail, existing restaurant, and 36 new units prime Main Street apartment housing while preserving the connection between Low Avenue and Main Street and while preserving um in my

view the most significant historic element of Main Street, which would be the Phoenix Hall. Um, for these reasons and others, the architectural design review committee recently reviewed uh our plans, much of what you'll see tonight, and recommended approval of the elevations for the project. They also recommended that you grant both of the requested conditional use permit applications. Again, it's not discretion we take lightly. Um, it's discretion that we have detailed in our application. Um, but we were very pleased to receive the recommendation of that committee. Um, make no mistake, it's it's it is 9:30, but this project is it's big, bold, and beautiful. It's expensive, it's challenging, it's important, and it's relevant. It's frankly what Conquered needs, wants, and deserves. It's the right thing at the right time in the right place. And at a moment when Conquer is struggling to strengthen its tax base, protect residents from reassessments. Simply put, this project delivers on all of those fronts. For Mark, it's a project of his life, his legacy. It's his crown jewel at the top of Main Street, and it is truly a project of passion. Um, make no mistake, I've never met anyone who's more dedicated to a development project than Mark is to his hall. And only Mark would think of building two new buildings to support one. Um, thank you for letting me set the table for what I know will be the start of a conversation to continue in the new year. Um, but but this is uh this is exciting. Um, and I hope you're as excited as we are to show you what we've been working on. Jason, show them

what they've won. Oh, that's a tough act. Quite a lead in. Jason, you got a you that is that is a tough act to follow. Clever, pal.

And I am by no means as well spoken as my colleague here. Um, although uh he did speak of a passion project. Uh, S&P has been working with Mark on this project for over a decade. Mark has been dreaming of it for decades, but we've been part of that story for a long time. Uh what we are bringing tonight is really the culmination of that. It's through many conversations um both with city officials, with the historic um committees, uh with people in town, and with Mark personally. So, I'm going to start off with a video that we put together. So, this is a concept flyound um that uh Alec, thank you very much for your help on the technology. Um, so we can just take a quick walk around. Um, Ari did mention the uh lobby space which is fenistrated here with the the uh pass through the walkth through to Low Avenue. Um, we've broken the facade up into uh four primary pieces of the addition. Uh, so lobby space what we call Phoenix block, the EMP rebuild. So, it's a uh revision of the facade of EMP and then what we've um dubbed as the infill building, which is the northernmost portion. Uh as a as part of addressing uh snow and structural concerns with our northerly neighbor, um we needed to maintain uh a lower roof line. They'll be articulated differently. Um very consistent with Main Street. We were considerate of uh what the historic nature and pattern of a main street building is both in height and detailing um but also the length of the building on Main Street before we started to break facades apart. Coming around to the low A side. So this is a zero lot line for all the people who talk about parking and and curbing. We don't have those issues on this one. Um we have many others but not those. Uh on the low

AB side, there will be access to a parking garage in the basement as well as a small section reserved for future retail. One of Mark's dreams uh and goals that he gave us was for this building to become a catalyst for potential redevelopment of Loav as a secondary uh retail market. Um that's something we really uh did try to embrace. The upper portion is the backside of the residential units. So each residential unit would have a balcony or a roof deck on the back side, not overhanging the property line. We've recessed that piece um and articulated that as a different part of the facade up on the upper section. Uh Ari mentioned the rooftop restaurant and deck. So the deck wraps around. Um we were attempting for 360 degrees. We didn't quite make it. Uh but we articulated the roof deck in different ways so it could address different types of seating and events um on that would support the uh the restaurant venue. Uh taking a walk through the facade that we've seen. So the historic Phoenix Hall uh would be cleaned up um essentially remain unchanged, but it would be cleaned up and touched up. Um, if anybody has seen the, uh, the state of the granite sign band, we're hoping that some repairs could happen there. Uh, the, uh, the glass curtain wall is the lobby space. So, this is articulated as a twotory space. Anybody who's been in Phoenix Hall knows that the hall itself has a main hall and then a very large balcony, occupies two floors. So, this space provides that lobby area. Phoenix block um has the uh very traditional uh main street retail um brick up above with some uh bay windows. We've incorporated a very um large brick cornness line transitioning to a slate mansard roof. This is consistent with

some other buildings in on Main Street, but also we found that historically the original building that burned had a very similar facade type. It wasn't built out of brick, but it did have a mansard roof um similar in articulation. The EMP rebuild, our hope was um this building is two stories taller than the existing EMP facade. Uh but our hope is that if somebody was to leave conquered, this building gets built and they come back 5 years later. They wouldn't necessarily notice that it's distinctly different. So, while we're not trying to replicate EMP, it's definitely in the spirit of the existing facade right down to the brick color. And then the infill piece is a recess section uh with other brick facads.

Yeah, excellent point. Um, one of the pieces is we're hoping to salvage and repurpose the uh the existing co copper cornis on the EMP. Um, it has that great green patina that we all like and appreciate. So, if we can salvage that and reinstall it, that that is a goal. This is an elevation that you would see if you slice through that lobby section. Um or or frankly, we're standing on the roof of Phoenix Hall. You can see the pedestrian pass through with the stair. We did incorporate um a separate dedicated elevator, two-stop elevator at the back of this section so that um we can actually provide ADA compliant access for pedestrians on the street level to get from Main Street to Low. Uh the upper section of the lobby and then you can see the um the south facade of the new Phoenix block. That's

the low elevation. Uh again, there's that pedestrian pass through the back side of Phoenix Hall. There's that two-stop elevator. There's also a service elevator as part of repurposing and reinvigorating the hall. Um there will be a restaurant loca uh a kitchen located in the basement of Phoenix Hall. This elevator here will serve to bring food up to Phoenix Hall for service. Uh moving down, this is uh the main stair tower and uh the main core of the building and then the back side of retail and um and the office function. And then you can see the residential up above and then moving to the north side. Um the north side is is really uh facing the neighbor. So it's it's fairly stark. We did locate an idea, although I was it was suggested not to put the mural up, but it still lives because it's what was submitted.

So, what we don't want to do is have a discussion about whether you like or don't like that mural. What we do want to do is tell you that there might be some art there. Thank you. We'll save that for the February meeting if you have to. I still think we're going to put a sign there that says art to be determined. Yeah,

we did put together some daytime and nighttime views. Part of the uh the consideration of this being uh not only a a theater and a hall but also a restaurant is that the the night life of this um is is very important. So you can see the view um looking uh uh looking north from Main Street and then the nighttime view. So we are looking at facade lighting. I understand lighting was several points of uh of the staff report. Uh we do have a lighting designer on the team who we will be working with to uh uh better detail the exterior lighting of this building. Should we take a quick walk through the floor plans or is that ownorous given the hour?

I don't need to do that. All right, we'll just roll through. I don't know that it's ownorous but we don't need to do it. Yeah, I don't know that at 9:30 at night. I don't know that it's ownerous.

I don't think we'd be torturing you, but it's more detailed than is needed for tonight. I think we could suffice to say that the new mixeduse building proposed where CVS and um the ENTP hotel are uh the seven stories, it's groundf flooror uh retail. Second floor programmed for office. Third, fourth, fifth, sixth is your 36 apartments. nine per floor and then the seventh top floor with that conditional use for building height is the rooftop restaurant proposal. I can't tell you that that interior is entirely nailed down, but that is what has been proposed for uh program purposes.

Okay, thank you. Ari views looking south both daytime and nighttime on the rear side. This is the that the back side of the lobby and stair tower and the pass through. Um, part of the intent of this is to create a focal point from the interstate and I understand that in the past that's been controversial, but um, places like Hotel Conquered with the signage on the back with the lighting. Um, this is a focal point that we want people to see from the interstate and realize that conquered is a happening place and that they should get off and slow down a little bit. And that was it for the presentation. So, before we finish up, and I know you want to open the public hearing, but um the staff reports provide a good to-do list for where we're headed for a submission in January for consideration um in advance of the February meeting. Um we've had those reports for a few weeks now um because we had actually submitted in October. Um and we're we're hard at work. um we want to take those comments along with any other comments and make that resubmission. So if you wanted to consider this something of an informal design review, we would be happy to have that feedback.

Great. Perfect. I did have a question on the flat elevation. So that first picture that you showed, um it shows all the way across as a flat elevation. So, I know from tripping on the stairs coming from the south that you've got a two-step bump up in front of Phoenix Hall. Um, and then it's flat across Phoenix Hall and I think it dips down, doesn't it, Mark? It slopes down. It slopes down to the to the soap guy, the candle guy, right? And then it and then CVS. So, it's showing flat here. Are we restructuring the the sidewalk? Are we changing the sidewalk?

Uh, no. there. This this would transition very subtly behind that planter which is now a piece of artwork. Um that's the existing planter. Uh so I think graphically yes it is shown flat but I think realistically it drops I believe six in yeah five somewhere there roughly and you can see that there is a bit of a change between the first and the second floor. Um but it's too subtle to notice in a graphic that shows the whole streetscape and then the signage. I know it's way down the road, but signage across that stripe on the on the top above the glass on the first floor, right? Nothing above that. Um maybe some building names like you've got ENTP on the top there with the copper. Is that

those would be things that would be allowable through conditional use permits when we get to

just I'm just physically looking at. So I did have a question on bird friendly glass. Never asked this question before. It's been asked in meetings before. This begs the question. And I know there's not a long runway before this. Um, but if I'm not mistaken, there's a a a road right across the street from this opening, right? So birds content conceivably could come down through there thinking that the glass is is is is clear. I know they have bird friendly glass. Don't want to just want to mention it as a as a design uh as a design piece. We've had people in the past mention it specifically with large expanses of glass like this, especially in an elevated with an open space underneath it, that that could be a bird uh a bird heaven or the wrong term, but it it could be unfriendly to the birds. Uh and then on the back side of the filler building, it looks like that height doesn't go all the way back. Um, so the filler building on the left on the northern side. So it drops down and then there's a and then there's quite a distance on your on your uh on your fly through. Um, is there any outdoor space on that right there? Is there any outdoor space that goes through there? It looked like a flat roof, which is fine. I just want to make sure we're not putting a putting a patio or something out on that back roof. It looks

these these are these are p behind this cornis line are the private balconies for the third floor residents. Those are apartments. So on the on the little e the little building on the right is that going to have egress out to the to the roof as well. That one does not um that that patio is actually serviced by the one on the corner. It's part of the corner unit.

Part of the corner unit. And I again, and I I come back from it 10 years ago, but I originally when we had looked at this or we had I know there was some conversations, the the tie-in between the Phoenix Hall building and the new Phoenix Hotel or whatever we're going to call that other building. The reason for the flyover was that the only way to get to the second and third floor was there was no elevator and no capability to put an elevator in Phoenix Hall. Yet, we've got an elevator over here. Um, maybe I'm mistaken or maybe the designs have changed dramatically enough that you still need that fly over between the buildings, but I thought originally that was one of the drivers that that made you come to the You're right.

I don't I don't know what specifically you're recalling or what was in front of anyone then, but it it is true to say that this infrastructure is surrounding the Phoenix building because it needs that connectivity to meet codes and be assembly space. I don't know that there was anything in front of us, but Mark is very persuasive when you meet him on the street as you're walking down the street. My description resonated. Passionate is the word and certainly, but I I do remember a conversation regarding that. And that's fine. I just I wanted to make sure I understood the reasoning to to tie them together was was more now aesthetically to tie the buildings together to to make it a nice flow from one. It's a singular project

and it's great and I think I don't have a problem with it. I just I I just wanted to understand it from

as Ari mentioned the there it'll we have no lobby space now. You come up the that small substandard elevator which will be demolished along with the existing stairwell in the in the Phoenix Hall and uh we'll create a lobby on the main hall level and on the balcony level. on the balcony level. The lobby will step back about 20 feet so our so that distinct ghost sign uh gold medal flower and Coca-Cola will be fully exposed full height and not cut in half by a balcony will light it up. Um but importantly also in addition to creating the lobbing space the the stairs, elevator and bathrooms that all service Phoenix Hall are in the southern end of the new building. So all that critical in infrastructure is in the new building as well as the lobby space too as amenities for the hall.

I I will say I I'll let the board speak and we'll get some public testimony. When I originally saw the plan sets and I originally I didn't see that the fully baked architectural views and then the nighttime views would I almost saw it as too progressive or too, you know, glitzy and but it's not. I like I I love the building. It looks beautiful. you've done a great job from an architectural perspective. Um, you know, kind of melding in the old with the new, breaking up those surfaces so it's not just a long flat surface. It looks like there's four or five buildings in there and you've done a great job from that perspective. So, I won't belver that point, but I'll shoot to the board if we got questions, concerns, comments. David,

first question is that um I'm looking at um the start of this project. what do you anticipate um to be the timeline uh in terms of start to finish? And I as an addendum to that comment or question, I only ask because obviously what's going to happen is the same thing that happened with Dupri's project across the street from uh the conquered hotel in terms of tying up traffic uh and losing that lane of traffic going southbound on on South Main. It's a delicate dance in the downtown

construction envelope. Um I think it's probably a two season build anyway you cut it. Um and there will be some construction and traffic impacts. Um we'll work with city staff to minimize the disruptions. Um but you have to have space to swing cranes and build things. Um we'll all understand that it's worth it. Do you anticipate uh sidewalk interruption in front of those buildings? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Can't safely walk past something that's coming down without a hard hat. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. The side the sidewalk in front of Phoenix Hall itself will remain open, but the sidewalk in front of the new Phoenix block where um the old CVS and Hilltop in Hilltop Simon that sidewalk will be shut down for most of the construction period. And and I would anticipate we're going to lose the parking in front of all those. you you it'll be impacted. Whether it's the entire period or not, I think we don't know yet, but yeah, there'll be an impact for sure. Yeah. Thank you. There were 10 10 spaces in front of the Phoenix block. 10 parking spaces. Thank you. Other questions for the board. Jeeoff, I

I know you said you're still working on the lighting. I you know, are you might have heard this several times. I don't know if you've been or heard any of the board meetings. I'm a big proponent of our regulations say to limit uplighting and yet I see on all these wonderful night views up lighting up lighting up lighting. Please take that regulation into consideration when you start developing the lighting. And I know as we've heard before, oh well this building downtown has it in this building. That's not going to fly for me. What's happened in the past is the past. However, that got through previous boards. This is a big enough project. It's going to have a big enough impact in the downtown. We need to kind of consider that.

Please. Fair enough. Consider it. But again, you liked it. Aesthetically, I liked it. Yeah, understood. We'll try to walk that line without losing any votes. Walk that fine line. Other questions, concerns? Councelor Todd. Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the presentation. Could you just uh inform us of what the tenency plans are for the infill building? I don't know that there are tenant um spaces in the infill. Well, the the ground floor will be retail and the upper floors will be apartments. No, in the in the connector building. You talk about the northern end of the connector. I'm sorry, Brent. Which are you? I'm talking about the the right there. Yes, that's right. That that's very northern. Yeah. Sorry.

Yeah, that would be retail on the first floor and apartments on the upper floors. Okay. uh second floor may be office space because the right now the second floor of the Phoenix block is office space. So um whether the second floor may be office space or or three floors of apartments. That building looks separate but it really is a continuation of the program of the building to the right of it. So the retail, the office apartment. Yeah, that info building will tie into the main building. It it's walk from one. It's got a different appearance facade wise, but it will connect on the interior. Now you can show us the floor plan. Yeah. So, you didn't want to see the floor plan. Should have gone with my gut and

clearly I wasn't needed anyway, but that's okay. Thank you. Um the this recess portion, it it it's one contiguous building. Um, we're just articulating the facade differently to to facilitate that breakup and just create a little more dynamic facade on Main Street. Right. Just follow up. Yes, sir. And you could just I know you touched on this, but you could explain the reason for that is because

in in this particular case, it was because of um we can't create a building that adds structural snow load to our neighbor um without needing to re-engineer, restructure their building. Um, so it was more prudent just to hold our new building back at their roof line. Um, so we're capturing all the snow load and dealing with a structure on a new building. Okay. Thank you.

Y that other questions from the board. I did have a question on height. So I know there's lots of conversations about height, lots of conversations about seeing the the the uh the domes from the the um the highway. And I did notice on the southern end of the new building that there's a screened area for the um for the elevator, but then the the entire screen goes all the way around the back of the building, but there's nothing else up there. Is that is that right or am I just looking simplistically at it? Yeah, that's the parapit for mechanicals. Am I correct? Correct.

We did have a chat with the architectural design review group about trying to mute some of those colors. Uh and uh what you're seeing now is um the the version that was created before that meeting. Right. So you'll have mechanicals up there. They're just not shown on this drawing. That's correct. You'll have compressors. We have the need to conceal those things in its room. I absolutely I agree with that. All I saw when it floated around was just the the bumpout for the um for the elevator and I wasn't sure if it was just archite aesthetically or if it was serving a purpose. And it's serving a purpose. It is. We like to show the sterilized version. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, it's not not a problem. Okay, we didn't put any art on this wall.

Although, we do know there's going to be a big rooftop unit here in a building generator. Dina, this begs a question. You got to ask it. Pull up to that microphone and ask a question. Solar, any options for solar? We haven't considered it at this point. Yeah, it adds heighten as well. So, but I appreciate the question. I appreciate any other questions from the board before we open up public testimony. No. So, we'll send you guys back. I think we probably got some people have some public testimony. Who's first Rosenberger? Come on.

How are you, sir? I'm doing very well, thank you. And thank you all for your service late at night. Good to see you at all. Happy holidays. So, my name is Jim Rosenberg and I'm a member of the Store Street LLC. The Store Street LLC owns the building at 107 Store Street that houses Shaheen Gordon Law Firm, which I'm also a partner of. And I hope therefore my perspective on this project is helpful because we're literally going to be in the shadow of this building. And one of the design elements that I saw tonight and really really like is that pedestrian pass through. I think it um provides a safe harbor for our employees to get importantly from our back door to Main Street. And the other thing I like that I saw tonight was how important it was to Mark to beautify that store street or the low a valley alley. Um, that has always been in my view listening to you all an important thing to think about as downtown is redeveloped. It was something that my firm took seriously when we redid the facade of our back door to try to be um at the forefront of that priority and I love seeing that today. But I trust very much the plan for this project because it's going to be in keeping with our shared values downtown. And I trust it because I trust Mark and his history and his vision for downtown and its culture there. That vision, as you may recall, came to life when we all debated the Main Street um redevelopment. Mark drafted a memo um that you might recall at that point that the city, I felt like, turned to time and again to think about things as a guiding um kind of document when it came to parking and business and things of that sort. So Mark vision has come to life again to remake Phoenix Hall in the building next door, importantly the old CVS. And there's a number of reasons why I think that this project is critical to a vibrant downtown. One, it's the history of it. Two presidents have spoken there. Mark got married there. Um and too few of our fellow Concordians have put eyes

on that great hall, I fear. And this project is going to renew, revitalize, and reinvite um all of our citizens to it. But also the building next door, though I know Mark owns it, is blighted. It's terribly ugly. It's uh way underused presently and it's in a spot that ought to anchor uh Main Street north of Pleasant and it's not presently in keeping with its very handsome neighbors. Um and that brings me to my next point. My I was fortunate enough to be born in this community and grew up here and have seen the ups and downs on Main Street and forever in a day we together wanted for much more meaningful development on Main Street south of Pleasant Street. And finally, in recent years, we've gotten it. It's pretty stunning, frankly, what's grown up there. And now what's happened is we want for balance and symmetry north of Pleasant on Main Street. And I think that that's the area that badly needs a facelift. And what we all saw tonight really represents the anchor of that next step and that facelift. And as for the height um issue, which is an important one and has historically been an important one, the notion that you've got to see the dome from every split second on 93. Well, we all know, like it or not, that there's been new buildings on Main Street that briefly offend that site line, too. That that one wrong could make a right. But we also know that the state and the department of transportation have have over and over again tried to introduce to the city and its residents the idea of rebuilding 93 through conquered and in my lifetime that's happened before and the elevation of 93 is raised or the elevation of 93 has lowered and as it does necessarily they're going to either obscure the view of vehicular tra traffic of our main street of our dome or they're going to enhance it. We don't know, frankly, because every time I hear them listen to

the 93 project, it changes sometimes marketkedly. But the this is an ambitious project. It is an expensive project. And that rooftop restaurant is critical, I understand, to the vitality and vibrancy of it. I don't think without it, it's going to be a um effective uh project in terms of its cash flow flow. But the irony is this, and I'd ask you to consider this before I say good night. Um, the outdoor roof venue is going to provide a new perspective on Main Street for all of us who visit it. It's going to supply a new view of our Capitol dome for all that go there. So, what you might lose for a split second um for a passer by on 93, you gain in space when we all get to see a new perspective of our beautiful Main Street. Thank you very much and I appreciate your consideration. I hope very much you support Mike's Mark.

Just one question for you as a Butter. Any concerns with the discontinuation of Phoenix A as a or Phoenix? Yeah, Phoenix A as a streetway. Public right away. Um, not in the way it's configured because it looks like right now you can't get up Phoenix Avenue in a car anyway. As the main street was rebuilt, it closed off to build I always call it like the Spanish Steps of Conquer. That that um uh spot to hang out in front of Works. It closed it off anyway. And that was it is occasionally a bummer that that happened because we can get pinched um with ingress and egress at one of the two exits, but it's happened. Now it really is only a pedestrian only way. And and that's what I meant. No concerns.

I I in fact I'm excited about it for this reason. We've had some rough weather early on in this season. It it is hard to clear that. It is steep and slippery. Uh I am dextrous and deaf but still struggled to get my coffee at Bagel Works in the morning. And what I see here, I think, is going to much make a much safer um way for us to walk. And we're looking forward to that. Great. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you all. I saw this gentleman as well. Come on up. Come on up and kick him right out of there. Thank you for your testimony. He's just one of my neighbors. Yeah, there you go. Uh my name is Joe Conway. This is my wife, Theodora. We are the abutters to the north. when you ask about that

small building in between.

We have been working with Mark for a good two and a half years. We're excited about his project, but with that excitement came some came concerns because of the height. And the concerns weren't really about the project. It was about the engineering and the structural impact that such a project could have on an 1860 building in rooftop construction that wasn't structurally built to hand up additional snow load from an eight-story building next to you. So, we have been in numerous discussions. We've wor worked through a lot of issues and that's why you see that insert building so that can come up to our rooftop stop step back the building to accommodate for that additional snow load so that the majority of that snow load stays with Mark's building just the peripheral drifts over to ours so it keeps the structural integrity of our roof in place. You know, we've worked hard on this. Um, my engineers, TF Moran, have actually worked Mark's engineers to work through this. We've actually worked with both engineering groups on the structural design to maintain the structural integrity of that common wall because when that old hotel comes down, you have a common wall that's shared and that needs to be maintained structurally. and we finally came to a plan that we've both agreed upon, engineers agreed upon, and everything works well. Right. Mark's plan for this, I think, is wonderful for the city. I think it's wonderful for low. Maybe some of the

less than desirable traffic will change when this is all done, uh, which will be a blessing to all of us. But the restoration of Phoenix Hall, the reuse of that and what he has proposed is definitely a win for the city.

You know, this is a project that I know Mark has been working on for almost 20 years and finally it's coming to fruition. Um, it's an expensive project. It's going to put a lot of stress on Mark, his design team, and his construction team, but in the end, if it all comes together, it's going to be a win-win for the city, and I'm looking forward to it happening. Great. So, we just want to lend our support. Perfect. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? You want me to sign out? Yes, please.

Who's next? You got a little WD40. Thank you again.

Okay. Yeah. So, if you want to queue up and sit at the table there, sign in. Next person up, we'll grab you. Welcome to the table. If you could state your name for the record.

Yes. Good evening, uh, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Name is Ron Mayer, retired engineer. Uh, I have been following this project for certainly not as long as the applicant, maybe past four or five years. I've been totally in support. I think it is a great uh addition to North Main Street, to the city of conquered. agree with many comments stated previously. It's going to be an anchor. It's a very positive thing. Um, I also appreciate the fact as aside, God bless the recording secretary, whoever she may be. He I don't know how you're going to do all this, but if you get all this tonight, you're good. Um, but I also appreciate the fact that this is more of a public meeting than an official public hearing emphasis. I noticed that yes, the the um on all three CD& that they were approved, the applications were considered complete. But in my review of the staff report, there were a number of things that planning had mentioned. We need to address this further and tweak this. engineering had some concerns. So the formal hearing being deferred continued to the 18th of February and also concurred with by the applicant. I commend all parties.

Great. Um so I have three items that I really want to address. It would be best uh I think if I could address one, have the applicant respond. Don't take too much. I'm trying to do dialogue. Yeah, I I'm I'm okay with hitting hit hit us with three of them. They'll they'll make a note. Yeah, I just want to move it along.

Okay. Um the ENTP building. Hello. Yes, the ENTP building. Uh I'm aware it's in the uh National Reg historic district, but it's not on the National Historic Register itself. I have gone back and read uh some prior correspondence literature. Uh I'm aware that there was a fire. I'm aware it was severely damaged. I'm aware that there was a review by the Heritage Commission uh that approved the demolition of the building and it was also approved by ADR. So my question really on the ENTP building, what led to the decision to demolish and build a new versus that cost versus restoration and preservation? Was it made by the applicant going through with various contractors or did he hire an engineering firm doing structural analysis? that said it's not going to make it. That's item one.

Y

item two is parking. Uh I'm well aware that central business performance district uh it is not mandated that each unit have a certain number of parking spaces. Um and I don't expect the applicant to fix all of this. But parking is atrocious in downtown conquered. I don't think anyone here at the table would disagree with that. Um, as we try to develop and add more units, residential units, it's just going to make it worse. Um, he has indicated uh that I've read in the reports that there'll be parking underneath uh one of the buildings. I believe it's under the new the new ENTP building, but there's no number listed with 36 units. Throw out a number. There's going to be 48 to 50 cars. There's no number as to number of spaces underneath. I like the idea of retail space on Low Avenue, but that could also serve to house additional vehicles. So, was any consideration given to capacity looking at capacity of adjacent garages? Where are all these cars going to go?

Okay. Shame on the city for not I know their ordinance doesn't mandate it but in the absence of that I would suggest that the you and the applicant consider a payment in lie of for the number of spaces it's been done before

and in fact there is an applicant following Mark this evening conquered coach who will do just that a payment in lie of so that's parking the third is a Quick um question on the interconnection between uh the Phoenix block and Phoenix Hall. The it's referred to as an open air lobby. Will it truly be open underneath that glass enclosure? Air just go or will be doorways? Will it be glass enclosure? Uh you mentioned about the birds, but that's for the upper. Yep.

Um I don't know if open air lobby is truly meant. It's going to be wide open space, air flowing freely, or is there a glass front? Okay, that's it. Good. Thank you very much for your testimony. I think we're good. Well, yeah, just for a point reference, the architectural plans level zero actually shows 20 parking spaces on the floor plan in that lower just to kind It must be recent because I similar minds do think alike. I printed this a couple weeks ago trying to get, you know, up to date on it and but I didn't see any number on the floor plan itself that they were. Yeah. The floor plans that we kind of skipped tonight. Okay. Level zero that's in the packet said 20 spaces. 20 spaces show.

So I just want to be able to give you if my guess uh is about right. 48. So we still got a shortage of 28 vehicles. Quite a few. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Welcome back. Thanks. Haven't seen you in a while. Different role here. Yeah.

Uh I'll be brief. My name is John Shirley and uh I've developed or redeveloped a number of properties in downtown conquered and I am quite vested in its uh its future. I am a huge fan of downtown conquered. I think it is an absolute gem. And I think when you think of the list of people to thank for that, Mark is very high up at that that list if not at the top. Uh I've known him for a number of years and I know that he owns a number of buildings in downtown, but I I really think of him as and I think he thinks of himself as a steward of those buildings and not just those buildings, but really the downtown. I I always think I don't think Mark would ever do anything even if it were in his extreme financial interest if he didn't think it was good for the downtown. And I think in many ways I think of Mark as sort of the the good angel on the shoulder of all his fellow developers reminding us to kind of keep that beacon in mind. And I think those instincts are on full display with this project. Uh it's I've followed this long saga of uh trying to bring this to a reality to unlock this history and and promise of of uh Phoenix Hall and this is a grand ambitious lot of dollar signs project. I mean it's as a developer it's daunting. Uh, and I I've thought about the scale of it sometimes and I think that the scope and the scale is the point. Like I I've been involved in the development of some some big downtown buildings in conquered but I don't think any of us have ever really tried to do something that's monumental

and I think this is that attempt. I applaud Mark for the ambition of setting such a high bar for himself. I mean, nothing would make me happier than to see this project happen, and I hope that this board will support it in any way that it can. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Questions. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sue Maku and longtime resident and I own four businesses downtown. Um, and um, I'm at Hilltop Consignment, which is 56 North Main Street, one of the buildings that's gonna go. Um, it's a great project. Um, one answer is that I don't want to be in that building if they take the CVS building down.

The, um, the building is no longer I mean, it it's an old building and it's just not up to current code. There's one wall that's 100 feet long with not one electric plug in it. So there's, you know, and again, and the second and third floors, as people may know, are um not in great shape because again, it was damaged in what, the 1950s. Um so, but it is a great project. I was on the complete streets um uh committee and um Seems like a lifetime ago, doesn't it?

Oh my god. Yes. Um, but it so much has happened and it I didn't think downtown looked that shabby, but as soon as it was done, you were like, "Oh my god, it really was that shabby." And the CV old CVS building is shabby.

Shabby. Okay. Um, and even though I personally this is project is not good for me, but this is not about me. This is about downtown. And I have to agree with John. Mark really wants to do this and he really will take care of the rest of that hole in the middle of Main Street. That's the old CVS building. Um, and I know people really don't want to see the other the building Hilltop is in now come down because the facade looks really cool, but to redo the rest of it one again, you don't want to take down old buildings, but no offense, Mark is an old frugal Yankee. If he can pull something out of there and reuse it, he will. So, um, I am in complete agreement with this project.

Great. Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions? Thank you. Who's next? Mr. Schwiker.

Welcome back. I'm only going to speak on one item here.

Okay. I'd like to remind you that both times Kino has come up for a vote in the city, it's been voted down and there are many people in the city who are very upset that the planning board approved the casino on Lowden Road which fortunately has never been built. So I think people do not want Conquer to be Las Vegas. So I think we should in the new master plan forbid all uplighting and uh facade lighting of buildings. The original Phoenix Hall did not have facade lighting and up lighting. The new Phoenix Hall doesn't need it. The new building doesn't need it. And maybe when all the lights on the hotel conquered burn out, we should tell them not to replace them. But that's my take. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Always right on point, Mr. Schwiker. Thank you.

Any other questions, concerns, comments? No. You guys come by, if you want, come on back up. and then we'll wrap things up. Uh, so we did hear a little bit. Uh, Mr. Raineier had questions regarding the parking and I'm not going to get into that because I know I I don't think conquered parking's atrocious. I I don't ever seem to have a problem getting a parking spot downtown. I know that people do, but I can find a parking spot usually pretty easily. Um, 20 parking spots underneath is is sufficient even. You don't have to do any. So, um I think that works flaw

chair. I also recently purchased uh two six North State Street um about two years ago and that's a a surface lot with 18 spaces about what about a block away. Yeah. I have an additional 18 spaces there. It's 20 under the building. Um, I have my surface lot where where the old Chucks Barber Shop is, 90 a restaurant there, have a surface lot there, and then the ability to negotiate spaces in the in the uh garage as well. So, you'll find some spaces. So, there's Yeah. Parking is well well taken care of. There was a there was a question on the uh the fly over. Uh it's open air underneath and and glass doors and glass in between, right? Yeah. No glass. No glass. No doors. Open down below. Correct.

Yeah. at street levels open all the way all and then glass up above section glass up above no doors and then the other question was the EMP restoration and again private property if you decide that it's not restorable um I think we talked about this a couple of years ago when you were in when we were talking about how it's been sitting vacant for years and years and years and it's just not something you could so obviously was looked at if you could and Sue put it nicely you're a frugal Yankee if you could restore that building and get what you need out of it you probably would have done it right

yeah we looked we looked at in numerous different ways with with Jason. Um the the upper floors are 60x40. Um the lot line is 100 ft deep. So we wanted to get the extra depth. Uh we wanted to go extra floors. Uh the existing building certainly wouldn't accept extra floors. Um and above the third floors right now there's an extensive uh spans of brick on the existing building. um the fourth floor, if you carried the fourth floor of the new building across there, you you'd have to punch holes in that facade. You know, there's there was just many many reasons why it didn't work.

Okay. Any other questions that came from the testimony or comments, concerns? The only followup I'll give on in terms of the the ENTP hotel piece. U Mark was in front of the Heritage Commission back in uh late 2023 uh regarding potential for an RSA 790 application for this particular project. Uh part of that consideration because he's proposing the tear down building that's eligible for inclusion in the historic uh district uh is that decision from the heritage commission which uh did approve that. Uh so he has the ability to now move forward with the uh city council with the 79 79 application and it was approved unanimously by the heritage commission. Okay.

Uh okay. So we're going to close the public hearing. Are you okay closing the public hearing? Um it'd be table be basically recessing the public hearing until recessing the public hearing till date certain of February 18th. Um and we need three motions, one for each of the items. Anything else? Did I miss anything? Thank you. Uh you need three motions. So we start with 9C to table to continue to date certain of February 18th. Someone like to make a motion to continue item 9 C to a date certain of February 18th. Yes. 2026. Motion's been made and roundly seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?

That motion carries. Same motion for 9D. 9D to uh table no table continue uh continue the the uh the item until a date certain of the February 18th meeting. Would someone like to make that motion? Second and a second. All those in favor opposed. And item 9E to uh continue continue to date certain of the February 18th me uh planning board meeting. Would someone like to make that motion? Second. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. Motion carries. We are good. So, we will see you back here in a couple of months. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you.

The rest of the stuff was canceled, right? The menu is shaking his head. We really don't even need to wait to ask him to come up. He's like, "It's 10:14. I want to go." All right, let's read item item 9F is Nois Group on behalf of HP Hood LLC requesting approval for a major site application. Got you. Yeah, just for the record, Theresa Rosenberg accusing herself. Um, I'm going to say that we got a we got a quorum. So, if you if you don't want to stay for the last item on the agenda, you do not have to. What? Why would that have to stay while you're three items? I'm going to leave. No problem. I am recusing myself because HB Hood's a client. Yes, absolutely. Yeah,

that is continuing where I was and certain waiverss from the site plan regulations for the construction of a new 4,800 ft² wastewater pre-treatment building, installation of multiple process tanks, and other associated site improvements at tax map 491Z, lot 26 addresses 330 North States Street in the industrial, open space, residential, and neighborhood residential districts. All right, let's get a quick staff update on this one if we could.

Uh, Mr. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, this project is uh requesting major site plan approval, architectural design review uh to improve the HP Hood facility's wastewater quality through the installation of an industrial pre-treatment facility. Uh this facility is necessary due to the general service department's action against HP Hood requiring HP Hood to reduce their biological oxygen demand in their wastewater, which impacts our city's wastewater treatment facility functionality. Uh this part particular project will include a 4,800 square foot wastewater pre-treatment building located on the southeast portion of the site, installation of the process tanks, including a 125,000galon equalization tank, 100,000galon recirculation tank, and a 14,000galon moving bed bofilm reactor, an MBBR, and a 12,000galon sludge holding tank. Uh staff is recommending uh the application be determined as complete by granting waiverss to section 6032C and 11.05 so that we can have the public hearings here tonight again uh because we need to move this forward because of the pre-treatment needed with the wastewater. Uh we also recommend uh conditional approval of the site plan and ADR per the conditions in the staff reports and much like earlier there is a slew of waiverss that we believe the applicant can withdraw because they are not necessary based on a review of the application. Perfect. So staff has found the application complete and not a development of regional impact. So need a motion and a second to grant wavers to section 6032C and 11:05 to determine the application complete. Open the public hearing in the same meeting. Uh just for the record, the city has received comments uh from uh New Hampshire uh central.

That's that's a that's a bad copy paste there. We don't have that in this. I apologize for that. Okay. Proble on that. Uh so would someone like to make a motion to find the application complete and open the public hearing and grant the waiverss? So moved. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. We got a staff update. So we'll open the public hearing and welcome to the table. If you could state your names for the record. Evening everyone. I'm Chris Nato from Novvice Group. Uh good evening everyone. My name is Patrick Mason. I'm with HP Hood. All right. Well, tell us a little bit about this project, Chris.

Yes. So quite simply, um we we're proposing to build a 4,800 square foot uh wastewater pre-treatment plant uh on the hood site, which is at 33 330 North State Street. Uh the plant will be located in the back right corner of the the property, which is just a undeveloped area that's that's quite a bit lower than the rest of of the plant. Um let's see, here's site plan. So again, it's a 4,800 square foot building, four tanks for the wastewater treatment process, and then just a maneuvering area for the trucks to get in and out, loading area, three parking spaces for any employees that were working in in the plant itself. We did go to architectural design review. Um, their only comment was the color of the building. So, uh, they asked us to darken it up. It was kind of bright white before, so we've we've changed that to a darker gray color. the tanks will all match that color, dark gray, so they'll all blend in. Um, and that's really it. I mean, it's pretty pretty straightforward. Um, there are a few uh staff comments specific to screening that we'd like to talk about after we answer any questions. Also, uh, comment about connection to public sidewalk that we'd like to talk about, but I figured we'd just open up for questions first. And

Great. Well, I I had uh two questions from a a private citizen that's a neighbor in the area that didn't want to speak. Uh they asked about any pre-treatment that's being done now. Is there any pre-treatment on the site that's currently being done in any capacity? Patrick, you're going to have to ask. Yes, I can answer that. Uh technically, yes. We currently equalize and we neutralize the pH before we discharge it to the city's collection system. Okay. Um but this will be a a significantly this will be more. So the big question was is it going to smell? That was what the quest that was what she really wanted to know.

Yes. So we we've certainly considered that as well. Um so first and foremost all tanks are covered. Yeah. Uh the pre-treatment equipment is housed inside of the fac the building. Um and it is an aerobic process. So we're not generating bio gas or anything like that. it tends to have an earthy odor um if you were to, you know, try to classify that. So, she she asked me if it was going to smell like sour milk, so I got to ask the question. And

no, I mean, it's an honest concern. Uh but we all the the from start to finish in the pre-treatment process, it's under aation condition. So, we do not hold the product any longer than we have to to get it through the process to avoid that odor concern. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Those are those two. Yes. To

kind of add to that, I've worked in communities in the past uh that are major BOD generators. Breweries are a major BOD generator. And so our yogurt factories, I worked in London area. Stonyfield yogurt has a significant pre-treatment facility. They've had it for years. I think his depiction of what the odors are is very accurate. It's it's not a significant generator of odor, nor was the pre-treatment facility done at Anheiser Bush and Marramac during my time there. So I think it's it's an important component to getting to where we need to be with the BOD and the wastewater from the city's perspective. Just for the record, since you mentioned it, BOD BOD biological oxygen demand,

right? And that's we're getting pushed from the from the wastewater treatment correct facilities are being over the limit. Correct. It's it's the organic right strength of the wastewater. Um, okay. So, let's hit the let's hit the issues you've got on uh and I'll hit questions in a minute, but let's hit the issues you had on the waiver requests and staff comments regarding screening and sidewalk connection. Yeah. So, the first uh we'll start with sidewalk connection. I mean, this is an industrial site. Um just open up the overview plan. It's in the back, isn't it? Yes, it's not.

Yeah, it's in the back right hand corner. There's maybe three employees in in the plant itself working to build a uh sidewalk from that plant all the way to the public sidewalk through all these trailers and and truck traffic and everything just just doesn't make sense. Okay.

And then as far as screening, um again, we worked we we addressed architectural design review comments and changed the color of the building to to darken it to try to hide it a bit. Um That's not the photos I wanted. Sorry. Just looking at the front of the plant. Um, why aren't we gonna a second? Sorry. It's not going to let me open the pictures. Going to paint up top. Yeah. Erase your room. How about that?

I've got I've got some other photos here. So, uh, probably this bottom one here that's looking in the the main driveway of the plant. If you I don't know if you can see that or not, but um you can see the trailers and everything are parked in front. Uh you you're just not going to see the the building out back. Okay. there. So, um just asking that that uh the planning board take advantage of their their um their ability to reduce the screening requirements. Um

so you've got just as many waiverss as I've ever seen on an application before. So I think there's two full pages 9.3 assuming the applicant is comfortable with it can be withdrawn because they are not necessary uh based on the review made by us. Yes. And we we are comfortable with that withdrawing of 9.3A through H. 9.3A through double H. Holy cow. It was better safe than sorry to ask for them given the speed in which we wanted this project to move. Okay, we'll make a note of that for when we get to that point. Um

the right now if I'm reading the report correctly and I'll I'll defer to Alec regarding the sidewalk question. The waiver that we were recommending we're recommending granting of the waivers is a 9.2 and the only waiver we were recommending denial on was the screening of the mechanical ink. Okay. So let's talk about the screening questions comments on screening. Again go back to the same type of situation we had with Unatil. And this may be even different in the sense that it's truly more of an industrial space in front of it. Uh you're going to have tractors, you're going to have storage, you're going to have all kinds of of uh mechanical in up in front. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman, if I might, but everything's contained in a building or a tank. We're not talking any open storage, the things we were talking about screening, right?

The other facility. Yep. Good point. I mean, I'm comfortable get knowing the site, you know, knowing where the trailers and I don't think I've ever seen that lot devoid of some amount of trailers. It's not like all of a sudden you're going to drive by someday and no trailers in there suddenly the plant's going to be visible. I don't know that in my entire life. I've lived here my entire life. I've ever seen that plant without three4ers of those trailers there. I mean, if you could get them all to disappear because you're that busy, I'm sure you would love it. But it just doesn't work, you So is that is that in support of the waiver to to not not put the not put the screening in. Any other comments or questions regarding that? We'll come back to it.

Um so I'm going to recommend probably that we include that in our approvals and and recognize that as a as a waiver. Okay. Um so we is a public hearing. We have public hearing component. So we'll ask for anybody that wants to weigh in on this. How about this the sidewalk waiver? Is that Oh yeah, sorry. I'll come back to that. Nobody on the public side. Okay. Uh, so the sidewalk piece as well, you have Yeah, defer to Alec for comment on that. Okay, I'll come back to you, Jeff. Um, so I think that this might have been a requirement due to um of our regulations to connect buildings to sidewalks close to the realistic

and I don't think it was part of the requested waiverss. Yeah. So, it certainly could be something that in the public hearing the board discusses and grants not to require connection to this building. Okay, that's exactly where I was going. Okay, good. That's exactly and I'm always the one that says mark the state down particular case. It doesn't make sense, does it? Right through that parking lot in particular. Yeah. And and be be honest with you, this is a controlled area. There's a fence with a gate and everything else. It's not meant to be public. That hits all all your topics, right? Okay.

All right. Uh so with that, I think we'll close the public hearing and move on to decisions. Am I good, Alec? Yep. I'll have some verbiage waivers as well as adding one precedent condition just to require a state any required state and federal. Perfect. Okay. So, again, using uh 9.1 here is the uh findings of facts, the testimony that we heard here tonight, the information that's in your packets and the and the staff comments and questions regarding it. Um that's what we'll use as our findings of fact to handle 9.2. Grant the waiver request below. Um, and those are outlined. Help me out here, Tim. A through H. A through H.

And we're going to add item 9.4A. 9.4A. So, these are uh waiver requests. 9.4A will be Oh, no. That would be add to the waiverss to be granted, which is the screening. If you want, I could just read. There's a few others. Y.

So, you you read A through H. We would also want to add I which is sections 2005 screening of loading areas and 2605 of residential uses or mixed uses to not require screening. We would J section 21103 connection to public sidewalks to not provide a public sidewalk connection to the proposed building and section 2602 mechanical equipment to not require screening of mechanical equipment. So it'll be uh 9.2 A through J. Yes. All right. I'll make a motion. Someone like to make a motion to grant that waiver as request outlined. We got a motion. Second. We got a second. Any discussion?

All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. Uh 9.3, the applicant should withdraw. Uh those are all withdrawn. All withdrawn. Under 9.3 and 9.4 already did. It was already been done, right? Yes. Okay. So 9.5 is to grant architectural design review approval for the construction of a wastewater pre-treatment building. Installation of multiple process tanks and other associated improvements uh to tax map 491Z lot 26 addressed as 330 North State Street. Would someone like to make a motion grant architectural design review as outlined? So moved with a darker color. Right. With the darker color. Yeah. Yes sir.

Recommend adding another condition that we had missed here. is the prior to final approval. The accompanying major site application shall receive final approval and the architectural design reproval shall share the same final approval date for the purposes of establishing the date of decision by the planning board. Yes. To get those under 9 under 9.5. Yes. Okay. Um Okay. That does change your motion. Okay. Motion. Second. Any discussion? Yes. Dina,

just a quick question. Um in terms of it's a it's a um avoided water treatment plant. Is there any I'm assuming that there's no clean energy being used? He didn't propose any, but I'm assuming there is. I don't No, there's none on there now. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we got a motion and a second. Uh, all those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. And 9.6 Six is to grant major site plan approval for the construction of wastewater pre-treatment building and installation of multiple process tanks and other associated improvements. Uh and that is with precedent conditions 1 A through D

with the addition of the state and federal permits sections 1301628 15012612. The applicant shall provide final permit approval for all required state and federal agencies. Okay. Okay. And then does that bring us to two 235 and subsequent conditions 1 through 17 17. Would someone like to make a motion to grant major site plan approval as outlined? So moved. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. You got to get in the record somehow. Thank you guys. You're good to go. Thanks for your patience.

Thanks for waiting all night. Okay, let's move on on uh the last item on the agenda. Almost last last year plan. Yes. Uh this is item 9F Gallagher Callahan and Gantrell PC. On behalf of the city of conquered 9G

9G sorry I didn't fix that in my intent uh on behalf of the city of conquered and conquered coach lines Inc. request major site plan approval. Uh conditional use permit application to pay a fee in of installing required trees and waiverss from the site plan regulations for the construction of a temporary parking lot to support the state's adjacent bus terminal at tax map 641Z lot 92 an unadressed parcel on store street in the opportunity corridor performance district. All right, let's get a staff update on this if we could.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh this project uh is proposing a temporary parking lot on the city-owned property that would be leased to conquer coach lines for use as an over parking area to support the busing and transportation services operated by conquered coach lines, Manchester Transit, and Greyhound at the transportation center at 30 Stickley Avenue. Uh, Conquer Coach Lines approached the city with a request to lease this property for this parking use and a lease agreement with CCL is nearing completion which would allow the temporary use of the city's property for a period of time until the city is prepared to proceed with the improvements associated with the store street north project in CIP18. Uh as part of the lease agreement, uh Conquer Coach Lines would be fully responsible for the costs of the temporary parking improvements uh contemplated by the application, responsible for lease payments to the city and also for the payment of property taxes for the use during the lease term. And lastly, they would also be responsible for the removal of improvements upon the initiation of the Store Street North project. Uh staff is recommending that the application be determined complete that the waiverss be granted to 6032C and 11:05 to allow the public hearing to take place the same evening and then we further recommend approval of the conditional use permit and the major site plan for the recommendations in the memo.

All right. So staff has determined the application complete and not the development of regional impact. Um, so we'll need to uh grant the waiverss section 6032C and 11:05 uh to have the meeting and the determination of completeness in one meeting and open the public hearing. Would someone like to make a motion to grant those waiverss and open the public hearing? I find the application complete and open the public hearing. So move second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. Our eyes are getting a little little sleepy. All right, public hearing is open. Uh, welcome to the table. If you could state your names for the record.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman. The hour is late, the energy is low, but I am still Ari Pollock of Gallagher, Callahan, and Gartell. I'm here at this moment humor for Conquered Coach Lines. And with me to my right is Ben Blunt, the president of Conquered Coach Lines. And to my left is Tom Daguar, an engineer of at VHB. Um, this project falls under the heading of somebody needs to do something. Amen.

And and as you likely, uh, all know, uh, Conquered Coach is the local operator of, uh, Conquered of of Coach bus service in and around New Hampshire. Their buses are registered here in Conquered. Um, what does that mean? It means they go to sleep at night here in conquered. Um, their registration fees are paid here in Conquered. Um and they service the conquered area from the state's terminal that is located on Stikney Avenue where they are an operator. Um you likely also know that the state's parking areas for this bus terminal um are very often congested. Sometimes they are downright packed and during peak vacation and holiday periods, we're about to have one. um they can turn from their normally busy condition to a contact sport. And so uh to address this congestion, Conquered Coach has started conversations with the state DOT and the city on various levels on various ways to add parking and capacity and to make the less than safe more safe. Um, one of these ideas is before you tonight. It just so happens that the city owns a parcel of land that is essentially wedged between what is the new Brady Sullivan residential apartment complex uh the old highway DOT uh shed um the U-Haul facility and across the way toward the tracks the conquered center. Um, it's kind of a no man's land today, but it's actually perfect for some parking. And so, we've worked with city senior staff to arrange a lease of this parcel, and the leased area would be improved uh with the site plan improvements that are pending

before you tonight. Uh, the city has offered Conquered Coach a 10-year lease. That's the good news. The bad news is they've reserved the right to throw us out after 5 years if DOT actually makes good on its highway project and really uh builds something. Um we don't know when that's going to happen. You don't know when that's going to happen. Um 10 years seems like it's good enough. Five years seems like it's really short. Uh and because of that we've tried to really value engineer these things. Um, uh, Mr. Santa Cruz will say, "But I want it all." And this might be one of those occasions where you just can't have it all because it just doesn't justify the level of investment that we're asking the applicant, who, by the way, doesn't own the terminal, doesn't own the state's parking lot, and doesn't own the city's land, is willing to put forward as a global solution to help us all. Um, so, um, the term is short, the length is uncertain. For these reasons, we've asked for a series of waiverss to mitigate costs. You guessed it, we don't want to do any curbing. We don't want to show a landscaping plan, and we want to modify our storm water design. And we have also asked for a conditional use permit that would allow us to make a payment into the tree fund, which I have not used before and frankly before this project did not know existed. But basically what it says is instead of planting a tree, you can pay money into a fund and the city can plant it somewhere else. That makes all the sense in the world for this project because putting trees where we could park cars would be completely counterproductive. And if we're going to bulldoze the whole place sometime between 5 and 10 years from now, we would just be killing trees that didn't need to die. Um so um the

parking area will still be paved, illuminated, fenced. Conquered Coach does the maintenance in the state's parking areas today. This area would be treated the same by Conquered Coach. Um, Ben is here, of course, he can speak to how things operate generally, but I think we could all um um vouch for the great job that they do keeping that station uh open, active, and um available.

And so without much more delay, I want to ask Tom to uh go through a few of the details of the site plan. We'll take your questions. And you know to be clear there there is a waiver that uh we asked for in our application relating to storm water design. Um the initial indication from staff in its memo was uh we don't really like that. We want you to do everything. Um and again this is one of those projects where everything is just too expensive. Uh and so uh we've had some more recent conversations since the memo uh about asking you all to consider a waiver that lets us work with staff on a lesser design, not an ineffective design, not an inadequate design. Staff will not sign you up for something that doesn't work or creates a bigger problem. But we do need some flexibility on storm water and this is our one and only chance to come in and ask for that waiver or we're stuck with the black letter of the regulation. So we ask for your indulgence on that and I'm sure you may have questions for staff there as well. Um in short, it all comes back to cost for what amounts to a short-term fix and we're trying to solve a problem that really affects all of us. Um I know the owner. He saves me a spot when I go down there. But the rest of you have to hope.

Absolutely. Tom,

awesome. Thanks, Ari. Um, so Tom Diagar, our VHB, uh, civil engineer on the project, engineer of record as well. Um, so just a few details. I know, you know, we've seen the plans and everything, but we're proposing around 230 parking spaces in this new area. Um, with an additional seven ADA spaces being placed near the bus terminal for, you know, the passengers who may need that access. Um the lot itself is a little oddly shaped as everybody knows. It's a pseudo crescent pinned between a railway and a bunch of weirdly carved up properties. Um so really the the name of the game was to try to maximize parking here to alleviate the situation on Stikney. Um, we've been, you know, we've reviewed our, um, our comment letter from the engineering staff and I think overall there's a few suggestions that we'll definitely incorporate to help this flow better and um, maybe meet some city standards a little bit more um, productively I would say. Um, but generally, you know, our initial approach was 19 foot um, long parking spaces, 9 ft wide, you know, city standard, plenty big enough for most vehicles. um 24 foot wide drive by aisles, good circulation for passenger vehicles. Um I would say we have a little bit of uh just homework to do and making sure our emergency vehic ve vehicle access is up to snuff with what the uh city staff's expecting. Um given there are no structures on this site, it is a little awkward with, you know, firet truck turns and stuff and who they're serving and there's no fire hydrants down in this area. So, it's a little um it's a little interesting, you know, for us to run these turns, but you know, we're going to work with staff to make sure we can provide a solution that works for the fire department and the engineering staff. Um other notes I just want to touch on. Um there are a bunch of, you know, monitoring wells that are in this area from some old contamination offsite that was, you know, looked at 10 years ago or so. um in review of the phase 1 ESA and the phase 2 ESA um the results concluded that there were no active you know contaminants that we were worried about or anything like that but um there might be a scenario where you should look into a soil management plan which might just restrict soils

from being brought off site in the scenario they find any kind of you know presence of old oil or something like that. So that's something we're looking into and coordinating with engineering on um to make sure we're not digging up something that shouldn't be dug up. But um that's basically why you see a bunch of these you know stand pipes standing up throughout the site. So that's where they came from. Um other than that already mentioned uh landscaping. We are requesting a few waiverss for perimeter plantings just to save some trees and not uh kill them at you know a couple years into their maturity and their growth cycle. Um but otherwise we are meeting you know our land in your landscape island requirements that you typically see on most site plans. Um, we're trying to basically put as it's it's a tricky balance of putting as much parking as we can, but making sure we're putting pvious area to help storm water management um and not add more, you know, runoff to the system. And I just lastly, I just want to touch on the storm water management. Um, the specifics that we're looking for waiver for were the peak rates of runoff for for the 100red-year design storm. Um, obviously 100-year design storm says there's a 1% chance this event would happen in a given year, you know, over a 5 to 10 year lease. you know, it's a it's a mutually exclusive event, so it could, you know, theor theoretically could happen each year. Um, but, you know, in reality, we don't see it very often. That's why it's a 100 year design storm. Um, our system currently is designed to in like enclose and encapsulate the 100-year storm with no flooding to the parking lot. Um, the reason we're requesting is just the peak rate downstream um without upsizing our system with the magnitude of several hundreds of thousands of dollars would essentially grow to be the the system essentially grows to be half the size of the parking lot. So, it is a pretty enormous system for the 100red-year storm for a temporary parking lot. Um, that being said, I think there are some solutions that we can look at to help mitigate that downstream flow. Um, especially on some of the pipes that are flow generally goes from our parking lot towards Tiknav and then based on records

I was able to see in um GIS maps um and it goes under 93 and crosses there in a fairly not you know not a very large pipe. So, um, engineering's concerns are, you know, valid. We don't want to negatively impact the city system. So, um, as already mentioned, we're going to, ideally, we'd like to work on a partial way to continue coordination with city staff and find a hopefully a compromising, you know, a compromise in the middle um where we aren't just putting something in to dig it up in five years and then disposing of um, you know, at the tune of a couple hundred,000 in difference. So, um, great. I think that covers it. Yeah.

Yeah. The one thing I should have mentioned um is that the U-Haul uh property down there has a very odd configuration. It looks like an upside down panhandle. Um and the panhandle actually runs between the city's parcel and the state's parking parcel. Um and as a result of that um you will see a condition of approval recommended by staff that we arrange a license or easement or some land right to cross over a portion of that panhandle to be used as our access point to the city's parcel from the state's parcel. Um we have approached our neighbor at U-Haul. they are agreeable uh to um renting us those rights uh and they are standing by for your approval to finish our transaction.

So one question I had on that is there an opportunity to move that u primary entrance on the panhandle on the upside down panhandle a little farther to the north so it lines up with the with the direct shot down that aisle. So as you come through the state property you got that all the way down and then you've got to jog over and move to the left and then come through. Would they be amiable to moving that over a little bit and resetting uh the entrance? Maybe. Okay. They've been very challenging to get to the table. Um and so we were trying to mitigate how much we were asking of them.

So if there's an opportunity that would be great. I think I don't know that that print presents any engineering challenges to just slop swap in a couple of spots over to the right hand side of the plan, but that would be great if you could line that up. It's certainly a little more easy to see when you're coming in and trying to tell people, you know, from your from your terminal how to get there. The staff I'm sorry, go ahead. No, go ahead. The staff's uh recommended condition on that issue um does ask that we do our best to line that up condition of approval to do it. It's just try to line it up. It's it's it's an issue out of our control, but we understand that it makes all the sense in the world. Um I don't know why they wouldn't be agreeable other than I mean it just takes a little bit more of the property but the rent goes up a little bit.

The way I proposed the condition was that if they're unable to accommodate that through we get rid of written notifications.

Yeah. It's not going to get it's not going to kill the plan. And secondarily there's a probably a pretty good deal on a parking garage down the end of store street. If you if you're looking for a garage opportunity, you probably could pick it up on the cheap. Um back to reality. Uh fencing the property. You're going to fence the property as well. I I take it. And I know there was some bumpouts on the fencing to accommodate snow storage on each end. Is that right? So, snow storage going to go to one end and the other end. Um there's some I think on the plans I don't have in front of you, but on the plans uh there was what looked like some curbing or some maybe it was just striping that was there, right? That's not cur you're not curbing or putting any BMS or anything in there. Flat

flat space. Um and how are you going to get people to park there? I mean, are you going to sign it? Are you going to I mean, what's the We're going to say if you've had enough of circling and circling and looking for you might s take the suggestion we gave you when you pulled in here to take a left and go that way. Go all the way down. Okay. Okay. Questions, Jeff? So, I have a couple. So, there's two properties. So, you have to cross a state property to get your access. Is the state going to grant you an easement? We we currently use we operate the state property.

I understand. But they're still the land owner. You're not the land owner. So do if their lease their easement is for access to that lot. It's not access to the city's lot. That's correct. So you would need an easement from the state to utilize their property to gain access to the state. We are already utilizing property from the state that we need to take access from. Well, let me answer it this way. The state is aware of all that we're doing and they are thrilled that we're doing this. Okay. What about the butter? Because you also there's also an access easement for the stickav development project. They are also aware. So,

right. But again, if their access easement is issued to the state for the use of the current parking lot, that is not access for you to gain access to the city. We do not need to encumber or trespass over Brady Sullivan's property to looking right at your plan. And that farthest southern access aisle crosses into that easement area. If it does, it will be revised. We are not on their land.

No, your I know your your development is, but to gain access to your site, you have to go across the easement that was granted to the state for uses the parking ride. My question is that's like if my neighbor wants to use the lot behind him, that doesn't give him the right to go through my property even if we've had a discussion. You know what I'm saying? The state didn't give an easement to the city to access that property. I I think what you might be talking about is the U-Haul panhandle. No, because it extends all the way down. I see the panhandle and I see that. I don't know if you

What I'm saying is if if You're don't you to go through the city's the state's property to get to your property. You don't need an easement. We need rights from U-Haul, right? That's cross-all's property. What about to cross the state's property? Can you clarify? We don't have any property. It's all the state's property. So, when you say your property, oh, just so Yeah. So, let me go to the survey. So, go to the site plan. Yeah. Uh the site plan is probably the easiest one. Uh your show the one with the parking lot layout if you would. It's kind of

So right now the currently the city has no access to that property across the state's property or across the developer to the south. You're now proposing to access that property through another piece of property. Right. So, don't you need rights to go from Stiknav through the state's parking lot across U-Haul to get to the city lot? We already have the right to be. So, the bus terminal um Stiknav bifurcates the the operating contract with the state. So, that parking lot is operated by Conquer Coach Lines, maintained by Conquer Coach Lines. Forgive me if I'm not

But the property is owned by the state, not so the city is the land owner of this piece. That is also true. So what gets you gives you the right to cross the state property to now go to the city's property? The fact we are currently using the state's property for the parking lot of on their property. You're not using their property to access another property is what I'm trying to say. You mean that those you have no you have no rights to pass and repass through their property to the city property. I will pose the question to DOT if they feel we need something additional. I'm sure they will. Just want to make sure that it's not going to be and the same with there's that little corner that says,

you know, uh, well, there's a little bit of the access aisle that goes across the property. It says access, easement area, block, page, whatever, right above your stop sign. Note, that's the other butter. That's Brady Sullivan. Correct. And you're also using that access aisle as similar to the state. We are using that access aisle. That is right. Right. And if that access aisle, the easement was granted to the state of New Hampshire for use in their parking lot, it was not granted for access through to the city. Uh potentially I guess I will have to review the easement to see what it's

I just don't want you to get in trouble. You get all the way to the start and all Brady Sullivan says, "Hey, guess what guys, you never got our permission." Simply put, both DOT and Brady Sullivan are aware of the project and so it might be something you can very simply solve. I just don't want to become an issue for you at some point if Understood. Thank you. We understand how the state can be. All right, let's move on. Anything else? I guess not. If you want to move on, I I want to move on from the topic. You've beaten that to death. Do you have more co comments other than

The only other comment I add is is I've actually been down there. I've been ever since this parking lot's been a problem. This parking lot is used by residents as parking lot for Main Street. People actually park here and walk up to Main Street. Okay. Yeah, we don't like that either. And so that's I I know there's no way to maintain it necessarily, but if there's any way to keep an eye on that and we'd love to because it would mean more parking for our customers, but technically it's a state park and ride lot. We're limited in what we can do to States doesn't like it when we tow people. Yeah. So, it's a state parking ride there. Yes. No. It's good to know. I'll start. It's You got 21 days allegedly parking. Really? Yes.

Wow. Who knew, right? Good. Eaten. I just wanted to address Jeff. Apologize for beating it to death, but I think that's a real simple solution. Is where does their tenant in the back parking lot they're proposing to create? They don't own a city property. there by a lease, they wouldn't necessarily need an easement. An easement is an ownership, right?

If they just get permission from the state or modify the lease slightly, that would be sufficient to do what they're doing and how the ownership is structured. It's not as if the applicant owns that property and needs an easement. So, I just think they need to maybe do a quick addenum to their lease if to the extent it's even a concern.

Okay. Okay, other comments, questions from the board, comments from the public regarding this application. All right, we'll have you guys hop back for just a sec on up, sir. Welcome back. Hello. And I would like to assure you that in fact it's a designated state park and ride. It's on their map of state park and rides. When you drive in, there's an area on the right that was originally for carpool people because it was further away from the bus station.

I mean, now, you know, that's as close to the bus station as you can get, but that was carpool parking, right? Good to know.

I've used it for for that. Other people have used it for that because otherwise they go park at Hannerford or something else, which is not official carpool parking. As far as people walking downtown from there, I don't know why they wouldn't, but uh it happens. So I think that uh and I also want to point out that uh a similar situation in Portsmouth, the bus company there, C&J Trailways, is trying to buy the parking lot from the state so they can charge people to park there because they feel that's the only way to keep other people from parking at their bus station. So I think we've got a good situation there now

as far as it goes. And what I feel is I think the city is being far too mean to these people. They're trying to get them to, you know, expand the park and they've offered to do it, but they want to charge them a rent rent for the property. They want to charge him taxes on it. They want to charge them for trees they're not planting. When you compare that to the guy who's taking over the pocket park on Store Street, I would say I'd be more likely to say, "You should give us 5% of the sales on the plaza before I make these people, you know, pay for rent on a lot that you know ordinary people are parking in that are not making use of the bus service whereas presumably everybody's sitting in that parket park is paying money to the ple people. So I think that uh I would try and be as generous as possible. I know you people aren't in charge of the money and I know I hate to pay more taxes but I really think you're being kind of mean you hitting up with charges for no trees and you know charges for renting the space when it isn't even necessarily for them. A lot of the people parked there probably aren't even bus riders. And as far as the uh drainage, I'm surprised. I would tell them leave half of that stuff in gravel and let the water just sink down.

I mean, if that's only going to be for five years, why are we paying to put three inches of pavement on it? So, you know, once again,

they're paying far more than they should. And so I think that, you know, any anything you can do for them to make this happen is great because they're actually trying to solve city's problem at their own expense and then the city's trying to charge them for doing it. And the other thing I will comment on, not that you'll do anything, I hate to see that fence because I I like to walk I like to walk through where that fence is. If I want to go to the bus station in my house, you walk right through. when the highway garage was there, I used to walk across the street, walk in the back door of the highway garage, but no, I can't do that anymore probably. But, you know, if that fence wasn't there, at least I could walk through the parking lot of the bus station instead of going way around. So, if the fence is a condition, I'd say no. If they want to do it, well, I guess they can do it if they want to.

Great. Thank you very much for your testimony. Again, on point. Thank you. Other questions, comments, concerns from the audience? No. So, I think we're good, Ari. Um, and team. Um, any other questions from the board? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Um, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. um Mr. Schwiker regarding the tree fee. I don't know if there's any any flavor for that from the board to to wave that uh in totality, but I'm I'm inclined to think that that might be something we have the ability to do. Yes. Ari, is it okay for me to speak to that? Yes, we can open a public hearing again and

super welcome you back to the table. State your name for the record. I am still Ari. Um um the issue we confront is that the opportunity for a conditional use permit to replace trees with money is stated in the ordinance. Ah, and and rather than go to the zoning board and argue our various hardships, um, we thought we would come here, ask you to accept the alternative arrangement by conditional use permit, and then we would plead for mercy from city staff to say we don't need expensive trees because just use these. I was trying to be nice. No, it's gets me in my gets me in trouble.

I know it's well intended and believe me, I thought of it. With regard to the fence, that's not something the city required. That was a proposal from Conquer Coach. Yes, we would like a fence to keep the people from walking. I mean, it's a corridor now that people are walking to the friendly kitchen and back and forth. So, I understand that. Um, but as far as Mr. Schwiker's comments about charging us less, you're on board. I second that motion. Yeah. Just got to get there to do it and approve. That's a council decision, but thank you. Yes. Well, let's hear from Mr. Hicks. So, the the question about gravel versus pavement. I mean, right now people are parking on the grass. So, why pave it?

Uh the city's standard is paving. We've asked for a waiver to modify the design. Um we're going to try to save a little money there with a little less uh pavement thickness. Um it's plowable. It's maintainable. Um it's a surface that looks finished. Um we're not looking to create a mess. So, is I think is the is the I mean the the short The short version of that longer answer is we would rather save our money on the drainage design than pavement. Can't drag a suitcase over the gravel either if it's all yucky. We're about convenience. Great.

Now, we're going to close the public hearing. Thank you for your Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it. Okay, let's uh ju before we get to too far in with regard to the uh the waiver 9.3 uh we have reached a resolution we believe between the city and the applicant. So rather than recommending denial of the waiver in 9.3, we're going to recommend a partial waiver to section 22071 such that the applicant work collaboratively to determine the design and appropriate drainage system for the temporary parking lot improvements with the engineering division to the satisfaction of city staff.

Perfect collaboration. Second item that Alec has made me aware of is because this is a major site plan, it technically does require architectural design review, even though there's nothing here that's architectural in nature. So I would be comfortable given the nature of the project that if you grant architectural design review as part of your motion, that should take Okay. So let's put that in as a as a um somewhere in our recommendations here. We'll have to do that as an item, right? as a standalone item uh to grant architectural design review here at the board level as opposed to pushing it back. Yep. We comfortable with that.

Okay. All right. Anything else? Nothing else from staff? All right. So, let me hit down through these here. Um 9.0 again using our findings of fact, the information that was presented here tonight, the staff reports and the testimony we heard on our public hearing. findings of fact to make the recommendations below which are 9.1 is to grant the waiver requests below um which are outlined in uh A through C. Anything changing there? N uh would someone like to make a motion to grant the waiver requests as outlined? So move second. Motion's made and second. Any discussion in

favor? I opposed. That motion carries. 9.2 to uh partially grant the waiver request below from the listed sections of the site plan regulations and as outlined uh in your packet there 674 362N2 and section 3508 of the site plan regulations. Um would someone like to make a motion to grant that partial waiver as outlined? So moved. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. So 9.3 is going to change.

Now the recommending the partial waiver uh that the applicant work collaboratively in term of design and appropriate drainage system temporary parking lot improvements with engineering to the satisfaction of city staff. So as into the record there that Mr. Thompson gave us, would someone like to make that motion on 9.3 is to uh grant the waiver partial waiver? Yes. Grant the partial waiver uh as outlined. So moved. Second. Second. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? I

opposed. That motion carries. And the sticky number 9.4 is to grant the conditional use permit for 20 section 28710D which allows a fee to be paid to the city of conquered urban tree fund in lie of plantings. Sneaky little little do. What's that? I have a question. So it says allows for a fee. Yep. So why can't we just say allows a fee to be paid for dollar? The determination will be made through but but does the regulation actually say they have to pay or allows

if you don't if you choose not to plant the trees in the parking lot as the regulations require. You don't have to pay the fee. If you want to ask the board for the alternative that allows the board to allow the fee in lie of

allows the board. Yes. Does not require us So the language in the ordinance actually reads and I believe it's 27 or 28-7-10 of the zoning ordinance. It's under section D which is landscape materials at the very end. The planning board may grant a conditional use permit to pay a fee in lie to the city of conquered urban tree trust fund in an amount equal to the wholesale and installation cost of trees required but not installed under this provision for non-residential developments. Can we just deny the will we approve the waiver to not make them do landscaping for trees? It's a zoning ordinance.

So the conditional use permits gets them so they don't have to go through zoning. All right. Would someone like to grant that conditional use permit as outlined? So moved. Second. Motion made second. Any discussion? You didn't have any points. You're just bringing up. Okay. Uh all those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. 9.5 is 9.4AL design review. Yes. 9.4. 4A is to grant architectural design review for the plans we've seen here tonight uh and making the determination on our level as opposed to sending it back to architectural design review. Yes, I recommend some better language

condition well condition that that prior to final approval the accompanying major site plan application shall receive final approval and the ADR approval shall share the same final approval date for the purposes of establishing the date of decision by the planning board. I'm not going to repeat that, but what Alex said, would someone like to make a motion to grant that condition that conditional use permit as Oh, no. They grant the 9.4 is architectural design review approval as outlined. So, move second. Uh motion's been made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. 9.5 major site plan.

Right. Good. Okay. grant major site plan approval for the 237 space temporary parking facility for conquered coach lines and the city of conquered at the unadressed parcel on store street. Uh and uh in that we've got precedent conditions 1 A through E uh 2 through six and subsequent conditions 1 through 11. Would someone like to make a motion to grant major site plan approval as vote? Motion has been made. We have a second. Second. Made and seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. You're all set. Thank you. Thank you, Tim. All right. Yes.

We have deferred the whole idea of the tree planting like beyond the fiveyear window because it is temporary. Deferred it to 10 years down the road. I will commit because I'm the one working on the lease agreement to come up with something that's amenable. I'm just I mean this whole thing making them pay for something. Yeah, I agree. I'm curious. Has nothing to do with anything. How much do we pay in registration fees to the city of conquered a year? In the range of three to $400,000. Registration fees. The buses. All the buses are here. The buses go to sleep at night in conquer which is why we want to keep them here. Yes.

Boy, we love conquered coach lines. Thought you might. We love coach lines. Telling you, there's a hell of a deal on a parking garage. You could get it for nothing. You just got to figure out how to get it shut. Yeah, that's right. That's right. Okay, guys. Thank you. Some sleep. We love having you. Yeah. Two more to go. Two more to go. Okay. Item 10, amendments. We read that into the record.

This is planning board recommendations regarding uh zoning ordinance amendment code. Uh amending chapter 28, article 282, zoning districts allowable uses amending 2823, the zoning map. 2823B1, the zoning dis overlay district maps. Uh the quick update on this, this amendment is required by FEMA to reference the updated flood insurance study documents and maps updated by the federal government that take effect in January. Uh staff is asking that they're recommending the city council approve the amendments at their January 12th uh public hearing. Okay. Any questions uh from the board? What do you need from us? just a any just a recommendation to approve it as submitted.

It's a very straightforward. It's literally three words added. The it's removing the April 2010 date from one section and adding the January 206 date to another. So moved. Motion's been made to approve as submitted to Yeah. to uh push this up for approval. Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. And last on the agenda,

uh, in accordance with RSA 3656 and 3657, the town of Boswin has noticed the city of conquered in the city of conquered planning board of a development of regional impact for review and comment. Uh, this is a project located in Boswin, but it's accessed through uh, conquered property on Elm Street. Uh, Bosquin is asking for comment and feedback from the city per the regional impact statutes. Staff recommends that the board direct staff to communicate with the town of Boswin on city comments relative to the proposed sixunit multif family development. This is primarily uh street naming, addressing um other things.

Um staff's reviewed it. Um we will be sharing staff comments particularly towards our they will be using our sanitary sewer. So we've got comments on that street naming. Um, and just to make sure that the driveway portion within the city of conquered meets our standards and that our their storm water does not impact us. So, this is a serious question, not being sarcastic or a joke. What about curbing on our section if they're building? I'm curious like because the housing is not in our town, correct? But the street is so how do you deal with that?

That is a great question. six units and by memory of the private this is a private drive so it's private drive and I don't believe that curbing is required on the private drive if it's less than because it's only it's at the discretion of the city so we're ling out so if it's eight or 10 units we yeah eight's the magic number and also the grading issue of 6% and I don't think you have either issue issue is not an issue but we would hold them to build to our standards within the city within our piece of it okay so what do you need from us on It's a motion to direct staff to communicate with Boswin with our concerns. We have that motion and we got a roundly seconded. Any further discussion? All those in favor?

I opposed. That motion carries. And before we journ before we adjourn, did we approve the 2026 planning council? That was part of the consent agenda motion at the beginning meeting. Yes, that was in the in the list. Are there any meetings that are not going to fall in the normal days? Wednesday cycles? Yeah. So, no holiday interference. You guys weren't waiting for anything in particular, were you? On the agenda that were you? Okay, great. What are we going to name that road? Yeah. Oh, we didn't even ask you to comment, did we? There is none. There is none. Yeah. Sorry you had to wait the whole night. Okay. It wasn't. It wasn't. Well, that's good. That's what we go for.

Okay. If there's no other business that will come before the board tonight, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion's been made and roundly seconded. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. We are a