Planning Board approves 325-unit mixed‑use project at 165 Washington Avenue with conditions and two technical waivers

The Portland Planning Board voted unanimously Feb. 25 to approve a major site plan for a seven‑story, mixed‑use development at 165 Washington Avenue, subject to 11 technical conditions and two variances from the city’s technical manual.

Taylor (city planner) told the board the applicant, Redfern Properties, proposes a 7‑story building with 325 dwelling units, an 800‑square‑foot retail space on the ground floor, two residential courtyards and a site footprint of about 65,000 square feet. The proposal includes 82 on‑site workforce housing units and several street‑level changes the applicant offered after a January workshop, Taylor said.

The board’s action followed presentations from applicant representatives and a consultant team. Jonathan Culley, representing Redfern Properties, said the building is an apartment development (not student housing) but expects some graduate students “to live there” given proximity to nearby institutions. Pete Hile (consultant engineer) described stormwater reconfiguration after recent technical manual updates and said subsurface sand‑filter maintenance would require occasional access through the building lobby or over a three‑story portion of the structure.

Why it matters: the site is within a transit‑proximate East End neighborhood and the project will add 325 dwelling units, including a sizable on‑site workforce housing commitment. The board and public focused on parking, stormwater connections, construction impacts and the project’s scale relative to nearby residences.

Key details and board concerns - Parking and loading: The applicant is proposing three 15‑minute curbside spaces on Washington Avenue for short‑term deliveries and ten new on‑street parking spaces along the frontage. The project also includes a relocated, controlled access gate for parking at the rear of the site. The applicant said trash pickup would be handled from an interior trash room rolled to a driveway for collection; staff and the applicant agreed additional coordination with Public Works would determine whether on‑street loading or backing into the site is required.

- Stormwater and sewers: City staff reported there is no separated storm drain system close enough for the developer to connect to; the project will connect to existing combined sewer infrastructure and the Department of Public Works provided guidance on storm sewer sizing and conditions. Board members asked whether the project should lay groundwork for future sewer separation; staff said extending to a separated system would require substantial additional work and upgrades on Anderson Street.

- Construction impacts and site stability: Nearby residents raised concerns about vibrations and settlement for adjacent properties. Jonathan Culley and the applicant team said they would conduct pre‑construction surveys of nearby properties and work with geotechnical and structural engineers on the retaining wall designs, noting retaining wall elements could be gravity cast in place or use temporary construction that becomes permanent as determined by final design.

Public comment Several neighborhood residents spoke at the public hearing. Patty Jewell Walton (resident, 107 Walnut Street) said: “In the last 7 years, I’ve lost 4 parking places. … It’s just absurd to me.” George Roe (Orchard Street) urged clearer plans for long‑term ownership and maintenance of the adjacent paper street known as Jack Path and questioned student housing and bicycle storage utilization. Jeff Curran (neighbor) asked about protecting his property from excavation impacts; the applicant replied a pre‑construction survey and monitoring would be done.

Board actions and vote record - Waiver: technical manual driveway spacing (section 1.5.1.c) — waived to allow a driveway spacing of 11.43 feet from the nearest dividing driveway. Motion seconded and passed by roll call: Maggie Stanley (yes), Austin Smith (yes), Sean Murphy (yes), Hartein Shan (yes), Dustin Barker (yes), Brandon Mason (yes).

- Waiver: two‑way drive aisle width (technical manual section 1.10.7) — waived to allow a 22.22‑foot two‑way drive aisle. Motion seconded and passed by the same roll call.

- Site plan review (conformance with Land Use Code section 13.6) — approved with 11 conditions of approval (technical and plan revisions) divided by timing: items 1–4 prior to applying for building permit, 5–8 prior to issuance of building permit, and 9–11 prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Motion seconded and passed by roll call (unanimous).

- Traffic movement permit (TMP) — the board found the TMP complete and recommended two TMP conditions (sidewalk reconstruction on Washington Avenue and rapid rectangular flashing beacon at the proposed crosswalk) and voted to approve the TMP findings; the project will remain under delegated TMP procedures and third‑party review per 23 M.R.S. §704‑A. Motion seconded and approved by roll call.

- Planning board approval letter / final adoption — the planning board adopted the draft approval letter and authorized the chair to sign. The motion passed by roll call; the board concluded the decision was unanimous.

Next steps and conditions The applicant must satisfy the stated conditions before building permit issuance and coordinate required elements with Public Works and Metro (transit shelter location). The board’s approvals included several technical revisions and additional coordination on stormwater, trash collection logistics, and construction management plans. The record shows the board expects continued applicant coordination with city staff and third‑party reviewers before permit issuance.

Ending: The board’s approvals were unanimous. Staff and the applicant said they will continue working through remaining technical items and scheduling follow‑ups as conditions are completed.