Loading...
2016-10-26 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES October 26, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5"' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Philip Lovell, Chair Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Daniel Robles Valerie Stewart Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder VICE CHAIR RUBENKONIG MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2016 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director advised that the City is undertaking a capital program to redevelop the waterfront in conjunction with the Senior Center's project to develop a new Community Center. He said he was formerly on the Senior Center Board when it came up with a great program to construct a new center that would accommodate senior citizens and the general public. He voiced concern that the City's plan for a beach project at the end of the parking lot would create a competing use and there would be insufficient parking to accommodate the demand. He suggested that the beach restoration project is a wonderful idea, but it is proposed in the wrong location. It will create a situation where senior citizens will have to compete for parking space close to the building. Even if the existing parking is maintained, there is no guarantee that the parking will be available for senior citizens. He commented that parking availability is critical to the success of the senior center programs, yet it does not appear that the issue has been included as part of the City's proposal. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the Architectural Design Board will have a special meeting on November 2nd at 7:30 p.m. for training with the City Attorney on board roles, quasi-judicial meetings, etc. Planning Board Members are invited to attend, as well. UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN PROJECT John Fregonese, Fregonese Associates, explained that the purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the project and present implementation strategies and policy recommendations. He advised that there are a number of different plans pertaining to the approximately 2-mile stretch along Highway 99 that is within the City of Edmonds, and the intent was to consolidate the portions of each plan that are still valid for the area. He said the subarea was divided into three distinct districts: • The Health District is on the north end and is developed as Swedish Hospital and various medical offices. • The International District is located in the middle and is developed with diverse restaurants, grocers and shops. There is also a major Korean business cluster. • The Gateway District is on the south end. The community has indicated a desire for a "gateway" that provides a distinct transition point in and out of Edmonds. Mr. Fregonese said that although at first blush, the highway looks to be fairly single -occupancy -auto oriented, there are several areas where there is both density and diversity of uses that generate more pedestrian and transit activity. In particular, there are three locations along the highway that have reasonably good form relative to crossings, transit service, employment activity and block size. Zoning changes can enhance these nodes further and new connections could improve the in-between areas. He specifically noted that in the central area there are long segments without crossings, particularly between 228th and 244t' Streets where it takes about 10 minutes to walk from one side of the street to the other. The ideal goal is a 5-minute walk to transit stops and a 10-minute walk to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. A 10-minute walk to cross the street will present an impediment to the area becoming a multi -modal transit center. Mr. Fregonese reviewed that a public workshop was held in march to identify opportunities for new housing and businesses, community centers and services, and infrastructure upgrades. The public indicated a widespread desire for housing, particularly in the south. There was also a widespread desire for mixed -use development, particularly in the south and central districts. In addition to the new 228th Street crossing, more mid -block pedestrian crossings are needed throughout the corridor. The community identified connectivity, destinations, beautification, safety, walkability, affordable housing, and healthy businesses as important values. Mr. Fregonese advised that the draft plan contains three alternative scenarios (long-term, short-term and business -oriented) with more employment growth in the medical district. It also includes draft implementation strategies, policy recommendations and actions. He reviewed the recommendations as follows: Draft Zoning and Development Recommendations Modify the Comprehensive Plan Map to identify the districts (Health, International and Gateway). The idea of dividing the highway into districts is not new. The proposal is to consolidate the districts identified in other plans into three distinct districts. • Consolidate the CG-1 and CG-2 zones into a single CG zone. Currently, height is the only difference between the two zones. CG-1 allows a height of 55 feet and CG-2 allows a height of 65 feet. The proposal is to consolidate the two zones and use the height limit of CG-2 at 65 feet. In addition, many of the current zones (Neighborhood Business and Community Business) are remnants from the county's antiquated zoning, and some of the zones don't match with the parcels so some lots have more than one zone. The proposal is to change these zones to the consolidated CG zone. • Modify the current Design Standards (ECDC 16.60) that are specific to the Highway 99 Corridor and CG zoning. To transition from an auto -oriented area to a pedestrian -oriented area, it is necessary to create an appealing sidewalk environment, and the current design standards could be improved to accomplish this goal. The intent is to have district - based design standards in place that do not require discretionary review or dictate a particular style. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 2 o Screening and buffering for parking lots. Currently, Type IV Landscaping (minimum width of 4 feet) is required along street frontages. A 4-foot-wide landscape strip along the street front is opposite of what is needed to create a pedestrian area. o Access and Parking. People who live in transit -oriented areas typically have fewer cars. The proposal is to use a parking standard that is specific to transit -oriented zones. People who live in these zones are more transit depending and there is more transit service available. On average, there will be less automobile ownership and less need for parking. As proposed, no parking would be available along the street, and parking would be predominantly located on the side and to the rear of the building. Parking areas can only comprise 40% or less of street frontage. In addition, parking lots could not be located on corner locations adjacent to public streets. o Buildings on the Street Frontage. Currently, the portion of right-of-way allowed for pedestrians is fairly narrow, and placing buildings close to the street edge does not really work to create a pedestrian -friendly environment. The proposal is that at least 50% of the primary street frontage should have buildings with 10 feet of the property line. This will create a "Pedestrian Activity Zone" that is located far enough back from the street for people to walk comfortably. o Ground Floor Transparency. As proposed, 50% of the primary building fagade must be made of transparent windows and doors. All other building frontages require 30% transparency. o Pedestrian Activity Zone. Currently, the code requires a 4-foot landscaped strip along the street front. The proposal is to replace this requirement with a required 10-foot Pedestrian Activity Zone that will accommodate a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes, public art, street furniture, street trees, bus shelters, etc. The Pedestrian Activity Zone will remain in private hands and would be owned and controlled by the property owner. Upper floors of the building could extend out over the activity zone to provide shade and shelter. This approach is less onerous than dedication of public right-of-way. o Front Step Back for Multi -Family and/or Mixed -Use Development. Although taller buildings would be allowed adjacent or across the street from single-family zones, the proposal is to implement "bulk plane setback regulations," which require a step back for the portions of building above 25 feet so that large buildings do not loom over adjacent properties. As proposed, a 10-foot step back would be required for the portion of building over 25 feet, and another 10-foot step back would be required for the portion of building over 50 feet. A 15- foot landscape buffer would still be required between adjacent single-family residential uses. Using this approach, pedestrians along the street will not perceive a tall building, and the step back can provide functional patio space for the upper story residential units. The intent is to ensure a transition in height and bulk between multi-family/mixed-use buildings in commercial zones and adjacent single-family zones. • Modify parking requirements by implementing transit supportive parking standards. Parking is costly to provide because it is often structured parking. The proposal is to require a minimum average of .75 spaces per unit for residential projects and 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. In addition, retail bays of 3,000 square feet within mixed -use buildings that have a shared parking plan would be exempt from parking requirements. Draft Affordable Housing Recommendations • Implement a Multi -Family Tax Abatement/Exemption Program. This program could allow a building -value tax exemption for the residential portion of a building if at least 20% of the units are affordable at 80% of the median family income. This provides a type of subsidy to make development of affordable units worthwhile for developers. • Facilitate a mixed -use, mixed -income demonstration project. Using this option, the City would identify a site with a willing owner or purchase a site and then actively recruit a developer to cultivate a champion project. Financers want to know that development will be successful and the first project will likely be the most difficult to get started. If the City can help incentivize a project, others will follow. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 3 • Consider other affordable housing opportunities. These opportunities include the Community Revitalization Finance (CRF) Act, Local Infrastructure Financing Tool (LIFT) Program, Hospital Benefit Zone (HBZ) Program, Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) Program, Local Infrastructure Project Area (LIPA) Financing, State Land Improvement Financing Area (SLIFA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Draft Signage and Wayfinding Recommendations • Add gateway signage at the Highway 99/SR-104 interchange and at the transit station at Highway 99 and 228th Street. • Improve wayfinding signage along the corridor to identify the downtown, Lake Ballinger, Interurban Trail, new regional trail, International District, Health District and other activity nodes. • Create a unique district design identity using branding, public/local art, street furniture, unique bus shelter design, pavement patterns, special lighting fixtures, colored crosswalks, banners, etc. • Prohibit new pole signs. Draft Transit Recommendations • Improve Transit Transfers by unifying and consolidating BRT and local transit stops to reduce walking distances for transfers. • Implement improvements at the key intersection of Highway 99 and 228`h Street, and 228th Street will connect Edmonds to regional rail service in Mountlake Terrace. The City should consider improving shuttle/transit service from Highway 99 to the regional rail station, consolidating transit stops at 228th Street, constructing a new BRT station, providing clear signage, and providing a high -quality bike connection on 228th Street. • Incentivize Alternative Transportation Options by implementing ride -share services (Uber, Lyft), adding electric car charging stations, implementing car share/bike share programs, etc. The City could also offer reductions in impact fees and parking requirements for providing dedicated on -site parking stalls. Draft Transportation Infrastructure Improvements • Short-term and long-term transportation improvements are aimed at improving pedestrian safety and access to/from the Highway 99 Corridor, improving pedestrian environment along the Highway 99 Corridor, providing safe pedestrian crossing of Highway 99 and access to transit, improving transit mobility and transit stop environment and improving traffic flow and general safety with access management. • Actual physical improvements include new bicycle route designations, new class of bicycle lanes, intersection safety and capacity improvements, street improvements for pedestrians, access management via raised medians, and a pedestrian hybrid signal (HAWK). Mr. Fregonese provided pictures to illustrate the existing conditions, what the highway could look like following initial public investment into transportation infrastructure improvements, and what it could look like following corresponding private investment. He summarized that, as proposed, it is anticipated the plan would result in up to 2,000 additional jobs and 3,000 to 5,000 new housing units. Mr. Fregonese invited the Board Members to provide feedback before the plan is finalized for the November loth public meeting. The open house will offer an opportunity for people to converse prior to a formal presentation. After the presentation, the attendees will have an opportunity mill around and ask additional questions. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 4 Chair Lovell asked if the draft plan is reflective of a high degree of public involvement. Mr. Fregonese answered that he and staff conducted a lot of interviews with property owners and interested parties. In addition, the two public meetings were well attended and a lot of feedback was received. The next open house will allow people to react to the draft plan before it is modified into a final form for City Council approval. Board Member Crank said she and Vice Chair Rubenkonig attended the initial workshop for the Highway 99 Subarea Plan where there was a lot of design work going on. As someone who lives on the Highway 99 Corridor, between the Gateway and International Districts, it is heartening to see what an expanded sidewalk might look like. Right now, the sidewalks are uninviting and unsafe. She is happy that the 228tb Street crossing has been completed, but having one at 234tb Street would be equally welcome. Board Member Crank said she moved from an area that implemented an in -lieu -of program to support affordable housing. Developers were given a choice of either including a certain percentage of affordable units or paying an in -lieu -of fee. Developers were most likely to pay the fee because they knew they would get it back based on market values. The City collected the fees overtime and purchased land within the downtown to do a demonstration project in partnership with non- profit developers to create affordable units. The proposed tax abatement program for multi -family development would be a similar concept, but it would not require developers to participate. Nothing would be gained if developers choose not to participate. Mr. Fregonese agreed that the participation in the program would be a choice and not a requirement, and the intent of the program is to provide an incentive for developers to construct affordable units. He said his understanding is that Washington State does not allow cities to adopt inclusionary zoning that would make affordable housing a requirement. He agreed to research the option further. If inclusionary zoning is legal in Washington State, he will make sure the policy makers know it is an option. He pointed out that constructing units that are affordable at 80% of the median family income would not require a deep subsidy, and abating property taxes for a period of time can be an effective incentive. Board Member Crank commented that while the tax abatement program may work for now, she questioned if it would be effective five to ten years from now if property values continue to increase. Board Member Monroe observed that most people he knows live in Edmonds, but work in Seattle. He voiced concern that the plan did talk a lot about improving traffic flow on Highway 99 for cars. He asked what measures would be taken to improve traffic. Mr. Fregonese reminded the Board that Highway 99 is a State Highway, and the State's 30-year improvement plan does not include widening the roadway to add an extra lane. The improvements recommended in the plan include capacity improvements at intersections such as signal coordination. The intent is to keep the flow of traffic moving more efficiently. Board Member Monroe asked how improved efficiency would be reconciled with the proposed Hawk crossing signal. Mr. Fregonese answered that it should work efficiently, as well. Board Member Monroe asked if limiting points of access was considered as an option for improving roadway efficiency. Mr. Fregonese answered that access control will be part of the recommendation. The goal is to get as many driveways as possible off of Highway 99 and onto side streets. Vice Chair Rubenkonig commented that when encouraging more pedestrian use along Highway 99, there must be a limit to the speed that makes walking enjoyable. She asked if lowering the speed along the highway was considered as a possible option. She referred to recent development in Lynnwood at the intersection of Highway 99 and 196t' Street, where a pedestrian activity zone, similar to the one proposed in the plan, was created. Mr. Fregonese said he would support a reduction in vehicular traffic speed along the corridor, but recognized that the State sets the speed limits. With the proposed pedestrian activity zone, pedestrians would be separated from the fast-moving vehicular traffic by a BRT lane and a 4-foot strip in the right-of-way. Pedestrians would walk closer to the building. He agreed that a slower speed would be better, but it cannot be included as a component of the plan because the City does not have the authority to change it. However, the Plan could advocate for reducing the speed over time. Vice Chair Rubenkonig referred to the diagram provided in the presentation that showed landscape barriers down the middle of the street to create a boulevard effect and slow traffic. Mr. Fregonese said the plan recommends pedestrian refuge and landscape barriers in some locations, but they are limited based on State requirements. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she is glad to see the potential for second floor plaza areas based on the step back requirement. She pointed out that Highway 99 is one area in Edmonds where there is a great view of Mt. Rainier. She thought that might have come up in some of the discussions about the highway's development potential. Mr. Fregonese said that, although Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 5 requiring a step back would cut down on the amount of square footage, it would provide a real amenity for residential development. Vice Chair Rubenkonig voiced concern that boxy development should be discouraged along the corridor. She recalled that when discussing potential development at Westgate, there was a desire for town homes and/or more modulated, pedestrian - oriented development. She asked what could make it cost effective to develop something smaller in scale that creates its own neighborhood along the highway. She felt there were opportunities to create neighborhoods that are parallel to Highway 99 but separate. Mr. Fregonese said the illustration provided in the presentation represents an ideal footprint for mixed -use development, particularly those with structured parking. While the illustration shows the step back concept, it is not a good example of a well -modulated building. The intent is to adopt designs standards that require more modulation to break up the fagade. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she understands the economic benefits of the design, but she wants to see it balanced with other types of development. She pointed out that there is townhome development near the park -and -ride in Lynnwood. Mr. Fregonese noted that townhome development typically results in fewer units per acre, and it is costlier to develop. He agreed, however, that the building styles could be mixed together. If the City is involved in the first project, they could develop for a mixture of incomes and needs. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she likes the idea of breaking the corridor into three districts, but she is concerned that the plan does not illustrate the potential for neighborhoods. There has been some discussion about limiting access from Highway 99 and having more side roads and more transit -oriented development. This would be conducive to neighborhood style development. Mr. Fregonese agreed to make sure the plan address that more directly. Board Member Robles said the concept of creating a unique identity along the corridors seems to call for more districts, yet the plan proposes reducing the number of districts from four to three. He asked if the names for the three districts are cast in stone, and Mr. Fregonese answered no. Board Member Robles suggested that the City should wait to name the districts until after they have been defined and then the branding can be complete. Board Member Robles asked if there would be additional crosswalks near bus stops. Mr. Fregonese said the state is very strict when it comes to adding crossings on the highway. While several signalizations and crossing improvements have been proposed, there would only be one new crossing. Board Member Robles asked if an overhead crossing was considered, and Mr. Fregonese said it was not based on cost. He agreed to provide a map to illustrate how the crossings would be located within three to five minutes from any point along the highway. Board Member Robles suggested that reuniting the neighborhoods that have been separated by the highway for many years may lead to the need to establish a more costly overhead crossing at some point in the future. He also pointed out that speed has a significant impact on pedestrian safety. He noted that buses create a pressure wave that can push things around. Board Member Robles commented that the Interurban Trail is a tremendous amenity that connects cities and people. However, it seems like it is an afterthought in the plan rather than the center of something extraordinary. Perhaps the plan should provide clear access to the trail for bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Fregonese said the plan will include an entire section on trails, walkways and bike paths. A lot of good planning has already occurred and will be integrated into the plan. Board Member Stewart said she is pleased with the forward -thinking nature of the proposed plan. She asked when the process started, and Mr. Fregonese answered that his contract started in January of 2016. The first workshop was in March, and the first open house in May. The project is getting the point of creating a detailed plan for people to react to at the November loth open house. However, there is still plenty of time to modify the plan based on Planning Board and public feedback before it is approved in its final form. Board Member Stewart said she would not be inclined to sit on a bench along Highway 99 while cars go by at high speeds. However, she likes that trees would be used in the amenity areas to improve the atmosphere, and she hopes that the curbs will be substantial. Safety is a significant concern from her perspective. Board Member Stewart asked where bicycle access is planned. Mr. Fregonese said the intent is not to accommodate bicycles on Highway 99. Instead, bicycles would use the parallel side streets with frequent access over to the highway. Board Member Stewart pointed out that many people ride bicycles to the bus stops. Mr. Fregonese said there are already bicycle Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 6 facilities along the highway, and they will be improved as part of the plan. However, the parallel routes will still provide the safest alternative. Chair Lovell asked if the proposed plan has been reviewed with City staff. Mr. Fregonese answered that he has been working with staff through the entire project, including Public Works, Economic Development, Community Development, Planning, Building, etc. Chair Lovell asked to what degree the staff and consultant have had interface with property owners and real developers. He asked if anything has been done to engender the interest of developers. Mr. Fregonese said he has talked with real developers and property owners along the corridor and will continue to do so. He also met with representatives from Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Shoreline, as well as Snohomish County, Community Transit, Puget Sound Regional Council, and Washington State Department of Transportation. The intent is to coordinate with other agencies and surrounding jurisdictions. Chair Lovell asked if Mr. Fregonese believes the proposed plan will make development along Highway 199 more attractive to potential developers, and Mr. Fregonese answered yes. He advised that a proforma analysis was done of the properties and estimated redevelopment costs. If problems associated with parking and height are addressed, the numbers work out, but developers will likely need some encouragement for the first one. Once a successful prototype is in place, development should take off. Again, he said the pioneer development is the most difficult to do. Getting the zoning in place to make development easier and more straightforward will help. Chair Lovell observed that some residents of Edmonds have taken a dim view of taller buildings, and he anticipates there will be intense interest relative to building height. Chair Lovell pointed out that a number of properties along the highway are triangular in shape. He asked if this ends up obstructing development potential. Mr. Fregonese said it often ends up as wasted space, but this can be reflected in the price of the property. Most of the area is zoned for 65 to 50-foot building heights and the plan proposes a 65-foot building height with step backs to mitigate for the additional height. He suggested that putting taller buildings on the highway would enclose the highway and minimize noise for properties behind. Chair Lovell asked about the total right-of-way width for Highway 99. Mr. Fregonese said it varies between four to eight feet of additional right-of-way beyond the curb. Chair Lovell referred to the recent development in Lynnwood at the intersection of Highway 99 and 196th Street and noted that he rarely sees anyone walking in the pedestrian activity zone that was created as part of the project. The concept of creating pedestrian activity zones along the highway sounds great, and the more the buildings are setback the better. He also likes limiting parking to no more than 40% of the frontage. Chair Lovell asked if it would be helpful for the City to insert some design standards for buildings into to the plan. Mr. Fregonese said the plan could include objective design standards that do not require design review but would require variation in the building fagade, etc. He agreed to work with the Community Development Director to identify potential design standards for larger buildings. Chair Lovell referred to the Compass Development on SR-104 that is not particularly popular. While the apartments and retail space is setback from the street, it is not a good situation overall because the speed along the highway is 45 miles per hour. From the schematic provided in the presentation, it appears that the proposed pedestrian activity zones could have the same problem. It is intimating to have fast-moving traffic next to the sidewalk. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she sees a lot of people walking along Highway 99. She asked if a survey was done to gauge how many pedestrians there are. Mr. Fregonese answered that he did not do a pedestrian count, but he knows that usage is low. In addition to the traffic improvements called out in the plan, Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the plan also includes projects that will improve the pedestrian experience. She said she understands there will be a tradeoff associated with lowering highway speeds, one being that people might jump on and off the highway more often to frequent the businesses. She said she has found that as long as the lights along the highway are synchronized, traffic seems to move along. Board Member Monroe agreed that synchronizing the lights does help, and Shoreline and Edmonds does a good job with that. However, the lights in Seattle create a mess. He voiced concern about adding more lights, as well as a Hawk crossing. He said he sees Highway 99 as an opportunity to create a commercial resource, but they must also recognize that Edmonds is a bedroom community and they need to focus on transporting people to and from their work. He said he does not see that as prominent in the plan. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 7 Board Member Robles recalled that when light rail was added in south Seattle, it was supposed to have the impact of serving the lower level community and offer opportunities for affordable housing, but it is now driving in a certain amount of gentrification. He asked if that is anticipated in Edmonds, as well. Will the proposed plan serve affordable housing needs or push up property values? Mr. Fregonese said part of the plan is to make sure there is more housing with a significant portion being affordable. However, the nicer the area gets, the market value will go up. It is important to have affordable housing programs in place because it won't happen with only market force. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Lovell reviewed that the November 9th meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the Civic Center Master Plan and a public hearing on the 2016 Comprehensive Plan amendments. The November 23rd meeting has been cancelled. The December 14`h meeting agenda will include a public hearing on the draft Highway 99 Subarea Plan, a presentation of the University of Washington/Forterra Plan for Five Corners, and election of 2017 Board Officers. The December 28th meeting has been cancelled. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell advised that he would be unable to attend the Highway 99 Subarea Plan Open House on November 10`h. However, he felt it was important that at least one Board Member attend the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Crank reported that the Senior Center Board held its retreat on October 22nd, where there was a sneak peak of the video that was put together with people talking about support for the reconstruction of the senior center. Things are moving full speed ahead. Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Board would have a discussion at some point about the concern raised by Mr. Hertrich about parking conflicts. Chair Lovell pointed out that the Community Center project is moving towards the permit stage, and will not come before the Board for review. The waterfront revitalization project is also moving forward and project permit applications have been filed. Board Member Crank advised that the Senior Center will host additional open houses to present the design and solicit public feedback. It would be appropriate for citizens, including Board Members, to attend the meeting to bring up issues and concerns. She advised that the Senior Center has discussed possible solutions to mitigate the parking conflicts between those visiting the community center and those visiting the waterfront park. �IL111J "0u_I.1101" The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Planning Board Minutes October 26, 2016 Page 8