PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY – SEPTEMBER 19, 2006
356 Main Street – Farmington, NH
Members Present: Charlie King, Don MacVane, David Kestner, Edward Weagle – Alternate
Absent: Jim Horgan – with notification, Hiram Watson – with notification
Selectmen’s Rep: Paul Parker
Staff Present: Paul Esswein, Doreen T. Hayden
Public Present: No public attendance
Chairman King called the meeting to order at 6:05 pm; seats Edward Weagle for absent Jim Horgan.
· Continuation of discussion from 08-15-2006; Re: Traffic Impact handout
Chairman King turns the floor over to Paul Esswein to open discussion on the handout’s entitled “Traffic Impact Studies” and “Traffic Impact Analysis”. Paul Esswein states that he has “doctored up” the Traffic Impact Studies handout that he suggests might be applicable to be included in the Subdivision and Site Review Regulations; he further suggests that the Planning Board could consider whether or not to establish some type of traffic analysis requirement / study and that a general trigger for such a study happens at a certain level of development and offers a few options of what those triggers might be.
Edward Weagle questions if this would be a standard operating procedure(s) and not different standards / requirements.
Don MacVane is in agreement for such a requirement especially where the quality of roads have been a topic of discussion.
David Kestner reflects on his read through some of the Traffic Impact Studies requirements and that at a minimum Part A is pretty specific, under Part 2 B feels that it necessitates a wish list of quite a lot and asks what would a person do to determine; Paul Esswein interjects that this is just a range of options.
Paul Parker agrees with comments by David Kestner there is a lot listed; similar to a guideline of items to pick and choose from; Paul Esswein uses examples of the impact of 200 homes would definitely impact a study; an area of the Town of Farmington could be another; i.e.; 30-lot development on Ten Rod Road versus 30-lot development on Charles Street; there would be considerations and guidelines of where developments happen.
Don MacVane asks Paul Esswein how many residences in the Town of Farmington; Paul Esswein states 2900.
Edward Weagle and Paul Parker entertain discussion on various impact scenarios.
Paul Esswein offers examples of some low development areas and the significant impacts to roads and intersections that could be affected.
Chairman King asks if we were to consider these Traffic Study Requirements in some form, we must post for a public hearing and prepare and in depth document; suggests to Paul Esswein that he would ant discussion on considerations prior to a public hearing.
Paul Parker interjects that he feels that you would need a better definition of the requirements that the board would want to implement.
Paul Esswein states that at a minimum you would want 2 A; 2 B you would want to leave some flexibility, but at least that would put people on notice.
Don MacVane asks the members of the board if they (the board) should think about it for a couple more weeks before deciding.
There are various degrees of discussion regarding various numbers to use.
Paul Parker comments that we would still be able to waive the requirements of the traffic study if so required.
Don MacVane interjects that we all pretty much agree regarding the standard stuff and that is not the issue, what is the issue is what a traffic study is, and just what would the triggers to enforce the study be.
Paul Parker states that he has concerns over the minimum threshold in B, there are certain areas of town even at 15 homes would / could have a significant impact and I question if they are sufficient.
David Kestner offers some discussion under 2 – VIII definition; Paul Esswein replies that language could be added “cumulative” which could have a significant impact.
Chairman King makes a recommendation that this be continued to the next Planning Board Workshop Meeting as to allow other members that are not here tonight the opportunity for discussion; Paul Parker interjects that at the public hearing the other members could entertain their thoughts and a discussion could be generated on the proposed regulation.
Don MacVane motions to leave A-1; 30 single and A-2; 15 multi and change the language in “B” regarding impact and to review these changes at the next regular Planning Board Meeting of 10-03-2006; 2nd Edward Weagle, no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
6:25 pm
· Discussion; Re: suggested changes to the language of the Site Review Regulations; pertaining to the Village Center District Zoning Requirements relating to the development of commercial property.
Chairman King turns the floor over to Paul Esswein to open discussion on the suggested changes to the language in the Farmington Site Plan Review Regulations; these regulations were adopted on May 3, 2005. Paul Esswein indicates that 2 changes had been suggested; (1) Change of Use in the Downtown area; (2) two possible changes in the Table of Permitted Uses under the Village Center allowed use(s) “from one principal use to another principal use”. Paul Esswein further details what his suggested changes would encompass.
Discussion between Chairman King and Don MacVane regarding SIC codes.
Paul Esswein would like “for discussion purposes” to use an industry use such as a night club versus a restaurant; David Kestner adds that a commercial use is a commercial use; Paul Parker opts that a restaurant could be different; Paul Esswein uses examples as a drive through style or a type of restaurant where food is brought out to your vehicle (similar to the A&W Root Beer establishments of years past).
Don MacVane makes reference to tables located out side on the sidewalks in front of the establishments, like Downtown Rochester; Paul Esswein advises that sidewalks must maintain pedestrian traffic; Paul Parker adds that parking is an issue, if you take spaces from in front of the establishments to use as seating area you are out those parking spaces.
Chairman King interjects that he’s in agreement with the idea as proposed to increase the required square footage area for the Village District and agrees that the 1st floor and 2nd floor 1000 sq. ft. limit is too small; Chairman King offers some of his ideas for the downtown area and suggested average square foot areas that could work in the Village Center District.
Paul Parker asks if we could waiver the requirements if so needed; Paul Esswein advises that the Planning Board can issue waivers if they so desire.
Edward Weagle asks if it could be a conflicted statement when issuing waivers; example used good for some and not for others; Paul Esswein states, yes it could be interpreted that way, Paul Parker interjects, it is the Planning Boards responsibility to treat all applicants equally.
David Kestner and Chairman King discuss the square footage of the average retail space in the Downtown area; examples of a 30 x 50 equaling 1500 square feet, 40 x 60 equaling 2400 square feet; further discussion ensues relating to square footage and upping the requirement.
Chairman King adds that this proposed change would also effect the Site Review Regulations; David Kestner states here is our chance to make it smoother and easier to increase the availability for downtown growth.
Chairman King states that he would like to continue this to the next meeting for further discussion.
Paul Esswein discusses the possibilities and outcomes of applications if these changes are incorporated.
Paul Parker compliments the TRC and the good that is accomplished in preparing the applicants to come before the Planning Board.
Paul Esswein interjects that he will go around and reviews some of the downtown businesses for dimensional measurements and adds that he would recommend a higher threshold in the downtown area(s).
Chairman King adds to include all buildings with larger square footage to all be on the same level, but some with multiple floors should be reviewed at Planning Board; Paul Esswein examples the TD Bank North 1st floor as a scenario; if they moved out and relocated, that 1st floor is larger than most other downtown store fronts in the Village Center.
Chairman King motions to add / continue this discussion to the next regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting of 10-03-2206; 2nd David Kestner; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
Chairman King asks if there is anything further to come before the board;
Chairman King asks Paul Esswein about the tentative joint meeting between the Selectmen and the Planning Board; Paul Esswein advises that he is still trying to get confirmation for next Monday night, September 25.
Chairman King reminds the Planning Board members that at the next workshop session 10-17-2006; that they should be addressing Chapter 6 of the Master Plan and to think about any proposed changes that the board would like to make to the Zoning Ordinance to prepare it for Town Meeting in March; these will need to be addressed real soon; there are 2-months left to entertain discussion; also at this workshop session we will need to discuss the density in the UR Zoning District and develop some incentives for the Village Center proposed change(s); Paul Parker adds that he still has some ideas for change to the Zoning Ordinance and some resolutions need to be noted.
Don MacVane asks Paul Esswein if he would supply the specific dates of when the Planning Board would be required to have all their proposed changes ready for the March Town Meeting.
Paul Esswein advises the board that there are 3 components of the Master Plan left; Paul Parker interjects that this is a long overdue project that needs to be completed; Paul Esswein advises the members that he will have a draft of Chapter 4 ready for handout by the October work session (10-17-2006) and he will notify the ZAMPS Committee of the meeting date.
Paul Parker advises the Planning Board that the Selectmen are 98% there for the tentative meeting on Monday, September 25.
Edward Weagle asks Paul Parker if the Selectmen at their Monday night meeting discussed the appointment of him to a permanent member of the Planning Board; Paul Parker said they (Selectmen) were in session until midnight and did not get to resolve, however they are meeting Thursday night and will be discussing your permanent appointment then.
Discussion about the openings on the Planning Board.
Edward Weagle asks Paul Parker if the Selectmen have given any thought to offer some type of bennies to the public to entice them to join the various board openings; maybe something like a free dump sticker for joining?
Paul Parker reviews the openings on the Zoning Board of Adjustment; 1 regular and 2 alternate positions available.
Paul Esswein advises the board members that there are also 2 positions open on the SRPC – Paul Parker stated there should be only 1, as he is a member; both Paul Esswein and Doreen T. Hayden advised Paul Parker that the Planning Department had received notification that Paul Parker and John Law terms expired.
7;01 pm
Don MacVane motions to adjourn; 2nd Edward Weagle; no further discussion; all those in favor; motion passes.
APPROVED AS WRITTEN 10-03-2006
____________________________________ ______________________________
Charlie King, Chairman Date
Farmington Planning Board
| 
