The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03-17-2016 Minutes PB Regular MeetingPlanning Board Minutes Thursday, March 17, 2016 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES PLANNING BOARD Thursday, March 17, 2016 7:00 PM, Town Barn PRESENT: Erin Eckert, Dan Barker, Rick Brewer, Lisa Frazier, Janie Morris, Doug Peterson, Jen Sykes, Toby Vandemark, STAFF: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, ITEM #1: Call to order and confirmation of a quorum Chair Eckert called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Hauth confirmed the presence of a quorum. ITEM #2: Consideration of additions or changes to the agenda Ms. Hauth advised that the board can either choose to add elections to this agenda or wait until May. There was agreement to hold elections until May. There was brief discussion that Chair Eckert’s term will end in October. Ms. Hauth shared that she has a candidate interested in joining the Planning Board. ITEM #3: Approval of minutes from February meeting MOTION: Ms. Morris made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Ms. Sykes seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #4: Potential “clean-up” text amendments for the April public hearing: A) Delete Section 2.5.1.p – special exception permits B) Delete Section 3.6.15, the option for protest petitions has been removed from state law C) Amend Section 4.1.4.3 to rename the heading and add a standard for compliance with the Future Land Use Plan or delete the section entirely D) Delete Section 4.3.5 – South Churton Street Corridor District E) Rename Section 4.4.2 and 5.2.25 to senior living special use or age restricted neighborhood F) Delete Section 6.20.16 – impervious surface G) Delete Section 7.2.3 – expansion of non-conforming uses in the Limited Office district Ms. Hauth asked for questions. Chair Eckert had a question about group home designation has any impact on the Senior living text amendment. Ms. Hauth answered the overriding characteristic of this is for age restricted or senior living. It’s probably more of a function of how Fair Housing Law works. She doesn’t think it would cause a problem with either name. Ms. Hauth added this is predominantly a senior living proposal and it allows and encourages and almost requires services that apply to elderly and disabled. Upon further discussion with Chair Eckert, the members agreed to recommend the name “assistive living neighborhood” to replace “mixed residential.” MOTION: Ms. Vandemark moved to send the above items to public hearing. Mr. Brewer seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #5: Discussion of potential of text amendments for the April public hearing A) Definition of office & recreation facilities Ms. Hauth reviewed the suggested changes from the last time this was discussed. Ms. Hauth has continued to look at size or number of employees but sees enforcement issues Planning Board Minutes Thursday, March 17, 2016 Page 2 of 3 down the road. No one calls and asks permission to hire additional employees, she pointed out. Mr. Barker asked whether Ms. Hauth knows of others who are dividing office successfully. Ms. Hauth answered no, most jurisdictions don’t even have office defined or lump office and medical together. Chair Eckert suggested an edit to put right up front that this is generally not face-to-face client work. She added that she also wasn’t sure what client basis meant. There was agreement to take it out. Ms. Hauth pointed out in recreation facilities, there was no change from last time. MOTION: Mr. Brewer moved to send this item to public hearing. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous B) Amendments inserting the Historic District Commission into the review process for SUP and CUP applications in the historic district. Ms. Hauth reviewed that this arose because when the 515 North project got to the public hearing process, the HDC seemed to be limited on the types of things it could talk about. A previous attempt was made to send a project to HDC first, which also didn’t work. Town Attorney Bob Hornik has been working with staff on a way that would be legal for the HDC to comment at a time when the Planning Board and Town Board would find those comments helpful. It’s to allow them to review what they are allowed to review without damaging the integrity of the process. Ms. Hauth reviewed that the HDC requested it and reviewed it earlier this month. Chair Eckert said she is struggling with whether it presupposes that the rezoning or application will be accepted before the Planning Board has recommended it and the Town Board has accepted it. Ms. Hauth said the HDC will comment at the public hearing. The HDC will not notice neighbors and offer any commentary before the public hearing. The Planning Board will have their comments on size and massing, scale and materials. Mr. Brewer said it’s important that the Planning Board only talk about what falls under the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Brewer agrees that the discussion doesn’t predispose approval. Mr. Peterson thinks the HDC has to give that input. Ms. Hauth said another solution would be to have two public hearings, perhaps refer it to the HDC. That adds three months to the process and it may not be totally legal. Ms. Vandemark said she is okay with the HDC getting it first so that the Planning Board just focuses on what the Planning Board is supposed to review. Planning Board Minutes Thursday, March 17, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Chair Eckert said she feels that this is putting the HDC in a role of staff review. Ms. Hauth said the members are required to provide their comments to the board in the public hearing. The HDC members are the town’s experts on historic preservation. Chair Eckert said it’s a lot of work to put them through before this board looks at whether the use is appropriate. Mr. Peterson pointed out the HDC has asked for it. Chair Eckert wanted reassurance that the Guidelines of the Historic District don’t contradict the standards the Planning Board is trying to comply with. Chair Eckert pointed out sometimes the plans change between the first and second time it goes before the Planning Board. Ms. Hauth said sometimes the applicant is still in the process of designing and may not have decided on materials yet. Ms. Hauth said the HDC will have to be careful not to in any way construe the first meeting as approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. MOTION: Mr. Barker moved to advance this item to public hearing. Ms. Morris seconded. VOTE: Unanimous C) Amendments to merge the Economic Development District uses into the UDO and delete the EDD Design Manual a. Amend Section 5.1.6 to add a column for Economic Development District and define uses for that district b. Amend intent of EDD 4.2.9 to delete residential as an option c. Amend setback table 6.3.3 and buffer table 6.5.9 to include EDD d. Amend 6.5.20 to extend the effectiveness of the S Churton Buffer to I-40 and add language that specifies it applies to Old 86 as well Ms. Hauth reviewed the permitted use table and other proposed changes. MOTION: Ms. Sykes moved to send this item to public hearing. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous ITEM #6: Discussion of request from Orange County to consider removing residential as a permitted use from some non-residential zoning districts. Ms. Hauth reviewed this item and explained Orange County is concerned the town might approve residential south of I-40. Ms. Hauth would like to check how many residences there are where it’s zoned commercial. She thinks it’s fewer than a dozen. Orange County is talking manufacturing, commercial and office (not retail). Residential comes along with office. The Planning Board will consider it and come back in another time. ITEM #7: Adjourn MOTION: Mr. Peterson moved to adjourn at 7:54. Ms. Vandemark seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Hauth Secretary