From: 	Danielle West-Chuhta (Danielle West-Chuhta)
To:	Jean Fraser
Date: 	7/3/2012 1:26 PM
Subject: 	Fwd: RE: Jordan's Phase II

I think that I am ok with what he proposes as I feel it meets the requirements of the subdivision ordinance.  Two points, however, 1) would all of the plans he mentions be recorded?; and 2) we need to make sure the number of approved residential units, office units, etc. is listed in the notes on the plans (along with any other approval conditions we want to include).

Thanks,
 
Danielle

>>> Jean Fraser 7/2/2012 4:45 PM >>>
Danielle,
 
What do you think?  
 
thanks
Jean

>>> Greg Kirsch <gregk@opechee.com> 7/2/2012 4:04 PM >>>
Jean - Thanks, that is helpful.   As I see it, there are three issues, as I explain below, with my suggested resolution to each.
 
1.  The first issue is the fact that the residential "subdivision" exists on three stories, and doesn't fit the usual mold of an "on the ground" subdivision - thus the "difficulty of showing the units graphically."  I propose we deal with that as follows:  we create a multi-sheet subdivision plan.  Sheet one shows the building as it sits on the ground, with the usual "on the ground" subdivision data (metes and bounds, easements, deed info, etc.), and a note that states something like: "The planning board has approved a subdivision on the subject property which creates 18 residential units on the third, fourth, and fifth floors above Fore Street, as indicated on the plans and diagrams on sheets __ through ___."  The remaining sheets would contain (i) an elevation diagram that shows how the floors are stacked above Fore Street and Street and (ii) five plan view diagrams of each of the five floors, indicating the boundaries between the "subdivided" residential units and also the non-residential units.  This is basically the same approach that is used in creating condominium plans.
 
2. The second issue is how to deal with the non-residential units.  I submit that we don't have to deal with them at all for subdivision plan purposes.  The office and retail units are not "lots or units" for purposes of the subdivision provisions of the Land Use Ordinance, and we need to be able to move the walls around between those units to create different size spaces to accommodate different size users.  In that regard, we are the same as any other multi-tenant building, where the planning board does not hold the developer to any particular internal space plan for the walls that divide the multiple tenants (in fact the layouts change over the years).  We will have to define all of the unit boundaries in the condominium plans, but that is not a subdivision issue.  Most importantly, we are not required to come back to the planning board for an amended subdivision approval simply to move the wall that divides one unit from another.  Thus, I propose that for purposes of the subdivision plan,  we show separately on the floor plan diagrams the boundaries of (i) the boundaries of the 18 proposed residential units, (ii) the retail space on Fore Street ground level, (iii) the retail space on Middle Street ground level, (iv) the office space on floors 3, 4 and 5 above Fore Street and (v) the garage spaces, but that we do not show the internal divisions that divide one retail unit from another or one office unit from another because those divisions are outside the scope of the subdivision ordinance.
 
I am confident that the above approach complies with the subdivision provisions of the Land Use Ordinance.  I would like to point out that after review by the Corporation Counsel's office, the Phase I subdivision plan (that created two "land lots" and 12 residential units), was not required to show the boundaries of the 12 residential units, and it authorized us to move those boundaries freely so long as we did not exceed 12 units.  See Notes 8 and 9 on the attached plan.  I propose that even though we show the proposed residential unit boundaries on the Phase II subdivision plan , that we have a similar note allowing us to adjust the internal boundaries of the residential and non-residential without further planning board approval.  (Those boundaries will of course be shown on the final recorded condominium plans.)
 
I'd be happy to discuss this further by telephone.
 
Greg Kirsch | VP & General Counsel | Opechee Const. Corp. | 11 Corporate Dr. | Belmont, NH 03220
office 603.527.9090 | fax 603.527.9191 | cell 603.387.1982 | gregk@opechee.com

From: Jean Fraser [mailto:JF@portlandmaine.gov] 
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 3:19 PM
To: Greg Kirsch
Cc: Andrew Pike; Mark Woglom
Subject: RE: Jordan's Phase II

Greg
 
Our Associate Corporation Counsel has requested:

...the plat needs to show all of the units but indicate that the only units subject to the subdivision criteria is the residential units (and possibly bold them on the plat so it can be shown what we are talking about).  I would note that ... I do not think that the offices trigger subdivision under the City Code (the residential uses/creation of the dwelling units does), but I do think that we should suggest that they include the divisions on their subdivision plat since they will be separately leasing those portions of the site to different tenants.
Based on that advice and the difficulty of showing the units graphically, a table was suggested by Alex as a way to clarify-  indicating the unit, the size and the location (ie "lowest level, adjacent Middle Street") and noting that the residential units trigger the application of the subdivision criteria.  I am not sure we can advise in any further detail but if you would like further clarification of the principles then  I will arrange for Alex to call you tomorrow.
 
Jean
 
 >>> Greg Kirsch <gregk@opechee.com> 7/2/2012 2:56 PM >>>
Thanks for the details Jean.  We will not be able to complete the design changes that came out of the meeting last Wednesday (and other minor items) by the end of this week, and it seems that the logical thing to do is to target August 14.  I hope we will be able to get on that agenda.
 
Regarding the "legal" item (#1) below, could someone give me a call on that?  I missed the discussion regarding that, and I need some guidance.
 
Thanks again.
 
Greg Kirsch | VP & General Counsel | Opechee Const. Corp. | 11 Corporate Dr. | Belmont, NH 03220
office 603.527.9090 | fax 603.527.9191 | cell 603.387.1982 | gregk@opechee.com

From: Jean Fraser [mailto:JF@portlandmaine.gov] 
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 2:04 PM
To: Greg Kirsch
Cc: Andrew Pike; Mark Woglom
Subject: Re: Jordan's Phase II

Greg
 
In this case there is some flexibility re the 3 weeks as your plans are so complete and I had said to Mark that sometime this week would be OK to stay on the July 24th agenda. If you would still  like to slip to August 14th I will need to check as I know both agendas are pretty full.
 
There were 2 other items (in addition to issues and comments included in the PB memo or raised at the PB meeting*) which I mentioned to Mark and repeat here:
 
1.  Our Legal advisors would like the Plat to include a table listing all of the units, their location and size and whether they constitute "subdivision" (to be consistent with what we are saying to the PB and Council and to cross reference re the Condo Docs, TDM etc); and
 
2.  I attach the sketch plan showing what the Traffic Engineers are envisaging at India/Middle (this supports the e-mail I sent last week).
In the next day I will send a list of all the issues that have been raised at the Workshop so these can be addressed in some way in the Hearing submission, just to be sure we are all on the same page.
 
thanks
Jean

>>> Greg Kirsch <gregk@opechee.com> 7/2/2012 11:47 AM >>>
Hi Jean - It sounds like you had a productive meeting with Mark Woglom and Alex Jaegerman last Wednesday (6/27), and as I understand it, Mark and Opechee's architects will be working on the design of the plaza at the Fore-India corner and the design of the western portion of the Middle St. facade.
 
I heard from Mark that the staff would need revised plans submitted 3 weeks before the hearing date, and that effectively eliminates the July 24 date.  We are fine with that - we want to get the plans right, and we have our own issues with staffing, vacations, etc.  I think it would make sense to schedule and advertise us for the second Tuesday in August, which is the 14th.  Will that work for you?
 
Are there any other open items that we should be addressing other than those mentioned above?
 
Thanks,
Greg
 
Greg Kirsch | VP & General Counsel | Opechee Const. Corp. | 11 Corporate Dr. | Belmont, NH 03220
office 603.527.9090 | fax 603.527.9191 | cell 603.387.1982 | gregk@opechee.com