Planning Commission

1/28/2021 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Mike O’Brien, Chair; Amy Houghton, Vice-Chair; Terry Zigmund, Secretary; Abby Bleything; Joe Perron; Sarah van Ryckevorsel; Tommie Murray City Staff Present: Eric Vorwald Guests Present: Kristine Lott, Mayor Call to Order by: Mike O’Brien Meeting Start Time: 6:33 PM Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: 5 - 0 Motion by: Amy Second: Joe V. Review Statutory Report with Amendments to Articles I, II, IX; and Section 5.1 Eric provided an overview of the amendment process and discussed the purpose of the report that was included in the agenda. He stated that the report is required by statute and outlines the sections of the regulations that are being considered for amendments. He further indicated that this report would be forwarded to the statutory parties and adjacent municipalities. He noted that the hope for tonight’s meeting was to have the Planning Commission comfortable with the report in order to set a public hearing for February 25th on the proposed amendments. In addition, Eric notified the Planning Commission that they could still propose changes to the language before forwarding in the document on to City Council, or hold additional hearings if necessary. Following the introduction of the report, Eric went through the document section by section indicating and discussing the changes that were being proposed and providing any background on previous discussions. The first item for discussion that had not been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission included information outlined in Section 2.5, Dimensional Standards. Eric provided context on a proposed change to the minimum required frontage for the R-B and R-C Zoning Districts. He indicated that approximately 65% of the properties evaluated in these districts are non-conforming based on the frontage requirement and was suggesting this be reduced to 50 feet, from 75 feet. To support this discussion, Eric provided the Planning Commission with a GIS analysis of the properties in the City. The Planning Commission reviewed multiple scenarios and properties  R-C Zoning Districts. He indicated that approximately 65% of the properties evaluated in these districts are non-conforming based on the frontage requirement and was suggesting this be reduced to 50 feet, from 75 feet. To support this discussion, Eric provided the Planning Commission with a GIS analysis of the properties in the City. The Planning Commission reviewed multiple scenarios and properties that were analyzed. This included properties on Hickok Street, Franklin Street, and Pine Grove Terrace. After much discussion, the Planning Commission decided to leave the frontage requirement in the R-B district at 75 feet, but change the frontage requirement in the R-C district to 50 feet. They also requested additional information on the R-B district specifically to consider changing the frontage requirement thereby creating an incremental reduction in frontages from the R-A (at 75 feet) to the R-C (at a proposed 50 feet). Following the discussion of dimensional standards, the Planning Commission reviewed a new section to address properties in multiple zoning districts. Eric provided an overview of the draft Section 2.16 and indicated this had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting, but much time had passed since that discussion. He provided an overview of the proposal and noted that the process would require properties that had multiple zoning districts would require site plan review before the Development Review Board. He stated that site plan review provided more flexibility in design for these projects and outlined several of the criteria that would be included in site plan review. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of this process but recommended language be removed from the text that would grant authority to the Development Review Board to allow one zoning district to encroach on another zoning district. With this text removed, the Planning Commission was agreeable to the language. Eric reviewed the rest of the statutory report including new definitions, amendments to existing definitions, and changes to the regulations of accessory dwelling units to comply with changes to state statute. After limited discussion on these items, Tommie made a motion that was seconded by Amy to hold a public hearing on the proposed changes included in the report, as amended, on February 25, 2021 at 6:30pm. All were in favor. VI. Commission Review of Master Plan Goals presented by Mayor Lott The Mayor provided an overview of the discussions that occurred with the City’s standing commissions related to mater plan goals. She indicated that the commissions were generally in agreement that they are being successful in implementation of the master plan. The Mayor also provided information on the roles of the liaisons and discussed how they can better communicate information from Council to the commissions, and take information from the commissions back to Council. The Planning Commission discussed the value in having more interaction with the Housing Commission to better understand the issues they are addressing since housing and housing affordability are priorities for the City VII. Department and City Updates The Mayor provided updates on Council items including setting the ballot for town meeting day including questions about retail cannabis sales and F-35 advisory comments; and information on Council elections. Eric provided an update on the UPWP Parking Study Advisory Committee Meeting and indicated that the public outreach on the historic preservation work has begun. A presentation to the Planning Commission at their February 11th meeting is anticipated. VIII. Other Business Eric indicated the next meeting would be on February 11th and the Planning Commission would begin the initial review of a new Article III to incorporate the Downtown Core regulations into the primary document and eliminate Appendix C. IX. Adjourn Motion by: Joe Second: Sarah Meeting End Time: 8:38 PM Motion by: Joe Second: Sarah Meeting End Time: 8:38 PM