Planning Board

CITY OF LACONIA PLANNING BOARD 6:30 PM City Hall - Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber Draft Minutes 12/3/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Charlie St. Clair called the meeting to order at 6:30pm 2. ROLL CALL The following members were in attendance: Gail Ober, Brian Wolf, Dave Ouellette, Rich MacNeill, Bruce Cheney, Michael DellaVecchia, Charlie St. Clair, Amy Lovisek, and Kristin Bastille. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Savanna Brunelle, Administrative Assistant 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Rob Mora, Planning Director and Tyler Carmichael, Assistant Planner 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes were accepted as presented. B. Cheney motioned to accept. R. MacNeill seconded. 7 in favor and 1 abstained. 5.I. Draft Min_11042024 6. PRESENTATIONS 6.I. PB2025-027; 238 White Oaks Rd (255-241-2) CONCEPTUAL John Cronin spoke on behalf of the application and summarized the project. The applicant is proposing a cluster development with 12 two-family structures. John Dey spoke regarding the landscape and architectural designs of the proposed lot. There was discussion about the steep slope of the far end of the property and parking. The Board seemed to be interested, and the concept is off to a good start. 6.II. PB2025-028; Laconia Village CONCEPTUAL Mike Kettenbach summarized how the presentation was going to be run and then introduced his team members. In attendance with him was Justin Kearnan, Kevin Smith, Jimmy D’Angelo, and Ari Pollack. K. Smith is the project manager for this project and summarized half of the presentation. He spoke about the track record of other developments this group has done and the process to date regarding the Laconia Village conceptual. Justin Kearnan presented the opportunity of the former State School property. He described the vision the team has for the property as the intersection of civic life, lush natural surroundings and active recreation. J. Kearnan described the strategies of getting to that vision which are; identify and preserve the rich natural features of the sight, link the site together with a main street, create three walkable neighborhoods punctuate by three unique anchors, create an East/West street network that brings people to the park and trails, infill with a highly-connected street network, and front the anchors with a mix of uses, with density stepping down to missing middle housing. He also summarized the organizing principles which were phases, anchor uses, street framework, green space, building & residential typologies, and height. Kevin Smith rejoined and described the next steps for the process of this project. C. St. Clair asked how many total units were to be anticipated and the team is anticipating about 2,000 units living space. There was discussion about traffic lights or a roundabout as well as the duration of the buildout of this project. A. Lovisek asked if the applicant would allow parking to still be used near the sports center. The owner is willing to work and talk about that.  street network that brings people to the park and trails, infill with a highly-connected street network, and front the anchors with a mix of uses, with density stepping down to missing middle housing. He also summarized the organizing principles which were phases, anchor uses, street framework, green space, building & residential typologies, and height. Kevin Smith rejoined and described the next steps for the process of this project. C. St. Clair asked how many total units were to be anticipated and the team is anticipating about 2,000 units living space. There was discussion about traffic lights or a roundabout as well as the duration of the buildout of this project. A. Lovisek asked if the applicant would allow parking to still be used near the sports center. The owner is willing to work and talk about that. 7. CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR MATTERS ON THE AGENDA David Wadsworth had concerns about the character of surrounding neighborhoods if they jam pack this property with 2,000 units of housing. Karen Feedler-Wolf asked for an estimate of what they think the residential property market rate will be. Alan Beetle asked that there should be a buffer from the lights of the proposed grocery store. Jonathan Muller had concerns about the narrow roadways of Old North Main St. Jackie Fountain asked how the school system will be handled with that many new people being added, if the developers know about the proposed Housing Champion award, and the 10-acre lot that was proposed as tiny homes. Patrick Wood expressed his concern that there is an affordable housing issue in Laconia and hopes this project will take that into consideration. Public comment was closed at 7:34pm. 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE 8.I. PB2025-022; 758 Endicott St N. (114-252-3) Jonathan Boutin spoke on behalf of the applicant. The applicant requested a waiver to remove the sidewalk requirement previously approved. J. Boutin summarized the hazards to having a sidewalk put in for this project. There was discussion about the significant amount of foot traffic and how the sidewalk would be beneficial. D. Ouellette asked about the buffer of vegetation could be moved to have the sidewalk closer to the property away from the road. M. DellaVecchia expressed he’s in favor of having the sidewalks put in. Staff discussed the use of escrow for sidewalks and if it could be a bond payment. There was a discussion about the length of time we would keep the money. B. Wolf expressed concerns with holding off on the sidewalks when they could just be done now. The public hearing was opened at 8:08pm. Mike Little recommended that the applicant should be responsible for having the developer put the sidewalks in. The public hearing was closed at 8:09pm. M. DellaVecchia motioned to deny application PB2025-022; 758 Endicott St N. The findings of fact are that the city will get some sidewalks, people will have a safe place to walk, and it will bring foot traffic to local businesses. B. Wolf seconded the motion. There was further discussion about why there should be a sidewalk there. There were 6 in favor of the denial and 2 opposed. The motion passed. 9. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS, POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION, AND VOTE 9.I. PB2025-001; 1048 Watson Rd & Hayes Rd (126-280-5.1 & 126-181-5.2) John Cronin spoke on behalf of the applicant. In attendance were Peter Grenier and Nick Loring as well to speak on the project. The applicant is proposing to merge two lots and construct 52 townhouses. Nick Loring gave a more in-depth description of the units and their layouts. A. Lovisek asked the use of these homes if they were going to be mixed use such as short-term lodging, second homes, affordable housing, or workforce. The applicant is suspecting it will be a mixed use of all things. The public hearing was opened at 8:24pm. Samantha Allard rents and owns a business on Hayes Rd. She expressed concerns about traffic and the condition of the road. There was discussion about Hayes Rd being a private road and who maintains it. Jim Bourdon spoke and expressed concerns with this project that there is too much going on to that parcel of land. Suzanne Serene expressed there is drainage concerns and the condition of the road. She also had questions about the number of bedroom units being put in. B. Cheney asked about the deeded access easement behind the High Octane. Staff are going to look further into this for construction usage. Kevin Hayhurst expressed his favorability of this project. The public hearing was closed at 8:43pm. A. Lovisek motioned to accept the application and G. Ober seconded. All in favor, passed unanimously. Staff brought attention to this being a multi-family site plan not a condominium subdivision. This would need to go back to Planning Board for it to be a condo subdivision. R. Mora read into the record the staff report as follows: In accordance with RSA 674:43, § 63-15 of the City Code authorizes the Planning Board to review and approve or disapprove site plans for multifamily developments. The application is complete and consistent with State and City land use regulations. In accordance with RSA 674:43, § 63-15 of the City Code authorizes the Planning Board to review and approve or disapprove site plans for multifamily developments. The application is complete and consistent with State and City land use regulations. 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance at its April 15, 2024 meeting to allow for 52 units of density where only 22 units are permitted. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance at its April 15, 2024 meeting to allow for a minimum of 32% greenspace where 60% is prescribed. 3. The application and site plans were reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) at its July 16, 2024 meeting. Their comments have been incorporated in the recommended conditions of approval. 4. The application and revised site plans were reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) at its November 19, 2024 meeting. Their comments have been incorporated in the recommended conditions of approval. STAFF-RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. PRECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS All conditions in this section must be completed at least two weeks prior to commencing any work on- site. 1.1. Plan Revisions. Plans must be revised and submitted to the Planning Department in accordance with the following: 1.1.1. Trench Detail must reflect a six-foot minimum cover and sand placed one foot below and one foot above the pipe. 1.1.2. Storm Drain Detail must reflect a six-foot minimum cover to the top of the pipe. 1.1.3. The grip ring must be removed from Various Details. 1.1.4. End of Main Detail must reflect a short service with copper extending to the surface in a gate box assembly instead of a release valve. This must be set up in a way that the Water Department can connect a hose for water turnover purposes. 1.1.5. Two 45-degree elbows must be used instead of 90-degree elbow when connecting to the Water Main. 1.1.6. Utility crossings must be reflected in greater detail. 1.1.7. The Water Main and Hydrant branches must be reflected in the profile drawings. 1.1.8. The water extension to the abutting lot must extend at least halfway across that lot, and the services to that lot must be shown in greater detail to include all connections and existing pipe. 1.1.9. Relocate the dumpster pad out of the setback. 1.1.10. Ensure Unit 53 is identified as motorcycle parking and event space. 1.1.11. A road details plan of Hayes Road along the entire frontage of the property must be submitted with the final plans for the City to review and approve. 1.2. Permits and Approvals. The Applicant must possess all required permits and approvals granted by other municipal, state, and federal boards or agencies. All permits and approvals must be in place prior to the signing and recording of the final plans and mylar. Should any permit or approval be revoked at any time during the project, all work must cease until a new permit or approval is obtained. Copies with the final plans for the City to review and approve. 1.2. Permits and Approvals. The Applicant must possess all required permits and approvals granted by other municipal, state, and federal boards or agencies. All permits and approvals must be in place prior to the signing and recording of the final plans and mylar. Should any permit or approval be revoked at any time during the project, all work must cease until a new permit or approval is obtained. Copies of all permits and approvals must be provided by the Applicant to the Planning Department upon request. 1.3. Site Security. The Applicant must submit a performance guarantee for site improvement and restoration security in an amount equal to 11% of the total estimated cost for all sitework. This guarantee must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. This performance guarantee will be returned to the Applicant once the project is complete. Bonds will not be accepted to satisfy this requirement. 1.4. Landscape Security. The Applicant must submit a performance guarantee for site landscaping and restoration security in an amount equal to 11% of the total estimated cost for all landscaping or a minimum of $500, whichever is greater. This guarantee must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. This performance guarantee will be returned to the Applicant after two growing seasons following the completion of the project. Bonds will not be accepted to satisfy this requirement. 1.5. Erosion Controls. Erosion controls must be in place and inspected and approved by the Planning Department. The Planning Department will perform regular inspections to ensure erosion controls are installed and maintained correctly. 1.6. Preconstruction Meeting. A preconstruction meeting must be held between the developer and representatives from the Departments of Public Works, Planning, Fire, Police, and Water. Unless otherwise specified, all escrow checks must be received by the respective departments no later than one week following the preconstruction meeting. All other requirements in this section must be completed prior to conducting the preconstruction meeting. 1.7. Lot Merger. A voluntary lot merger form must be submitted to the Planning Department and recorded at the Belknap County Register of Deeds at the Applicant’s expense prior to issuance of any building permit. 1.8. Final Plans. Four final plan sets must be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Planning Department. The final plan set must include a floor plan for each unit. 2. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS All conditions in this section must be met during the construction of the project. 2.1. Water Specifications. All specifications for municipal water service required by the Water Department apply to all construction. 2.2. Fire Specifications. The Applicant must adhere to all specifications as required by the Laconia Fire Department. 2.3. Solid Waste Screening. All solid waste containers must be screened from view on all sides. 2.4. NHDOT Requirements. The Applicant must comply with all requirements prescribed by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation for access off Endicott Street North. 2.5. Construction Access. The Applicant must use the deeded access easement to Watson Road to minimize construction access via Hayes Road. 3. POST-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS All conditions in this section must be met prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 3.1. Impact Fees. Impact Fees in the amount of $1,814.48 per new multifamily dwelling unit must be paid to the Planning Department. In accordance with RSA 674:39, the Applicant is exempt from any  3. POST-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS All conditions in this section must be met prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 3.1. Impact Fees. Impact Fees in the amount of $1,814.48 per new multifamily dwelling unit must be paid to the Planning Department. In accordance with RSA 674:39, the Applicant is exempt from any changes to impact fee rates for 5 years from the approval date. Should the project not be completed during the exemption period, the Applicant must pay any and all increases to impact fees regardless of vestment status. 3.2. As-Built Design. An as-built design, application, and fee for each dwelling unit must be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 4. COMPLETION DATE The project and all associated conditions must be completed by no later than December 3, 2029. If all conditions are not met, nor any extension application filed with the Laconia Planning Department, by the completion date, this approval is null and void. G. Ober motioned to approve application PB2025-001 for 1048 Watson Rd & Hayes Rd with the conditions of approval presented in the Staff Report and added conditions. K. Bastille seconded the motion. 6 in favor and 2 opposed. The motion passed. 10. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 10.I. Monthly Report R. Mora summarized the Planning Department monthly report. 10.II. TRC Draft Minutes Staff have provided TRC minutes from the previous meeting so board members can see what is going to be coming forth. The board seemed receptive of seeing the transparency of what goes on. 11. LIAISON REPORTS 11.I. CITY COUNCIL No report from City Council. 11.II. LAKES REGION PLANNING COMMISSION No updates from Lakes Region Planning Commission. 11.III. CONSERVATION COMMISSION No update from Conservation Commission. 11.IV. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION No report from the Historic District Commission. 12. OTHER BUSINESS G. Ober asked if staff could supply a tracker of what and the number of units has been approved this year. Staff will get this to board members. 12.I. CIP Review R. Mora summarized the CIP Revie rankings. A. Lovisek motioned to accept the CIP review. M. DellaVecchia seconded the motion. All in favor, 7 in favor and 1 abstained.  Staff will get this to board members. 12.I. CIP Review R. Mora summarized the CIP Revie rankings. A. Lovisek motioned to accept the CIP review. M. DellaVecchia seconded the motion. All in favor, 7 in favor and 1 abstained. 13. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:06pm.