TOWN OF HINESBURG

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

February 6, 2007
Approved February 20, 2007

DRB Members Present: Tom McGlenn, Ted Bloomhardt, Clint Emmons, Robert Gauthier, Lisa Godfrey, Bob Linck, George Munson.

DRB Members Absent: Greg Waples.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Zoning and Planning), Peter Erb (Zoning Administrator), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), Bill Marks, Patti Drew, Joel Jackson, Pam Matthews, John McEntee, Rad Romeyn, George Bedard, LarryWinters, Andrew Rowe, Bart Frisbie, Russ Barone.

The meeting began at approximately 7:40 p.m.

Training Workshop on Planned Residential Developments (PRDs)
Guest speaker: Brian Shupe, Vermont Forum on Sprawl, http://www.vtsprawl.org

Alex introduced the workshop with some historical perspective on zoning regulations. He said PRD’s allow communities to break out of the boundaries of traditional zoning, and can better develop individual, unique parcels.

Brian Shupe introduced his organization Vermont Forum on Sprawl (VFOS), and gave a broad definition of sprawl as “low density, automobile-dependent development outside of compact centers”. He described a PRD as “one tool to maintain rural character and promote village development”. He reviewed the general purposes of PRD developments and discussed the history of the Vermont Title 24, Chapter 117 statute. He explained that while the distinctions between PRD’s and PUD’s (planned unit developments) no longer exist under this statute, it is still useful to define them separately. He reviewed the authorities given to towns under PUD provisions. He offered a definition of successful PRD’s as being “designed to accommodate housing by maintaining the pre-development character of the land as much as possible”.

Bill Marks asked how land features were prioritized for development (developing open fields versus forested land, for example). Brian answered that towns needed to prioritize those decisions within their town plans, and then design PRD’s to protect those priorities. Rad Romeyn asked about density calculations in PRD’s, which Brian addressed in his next segment.

Brian discussed review criteria and considerations, highlighting dimensional standards, density, allowed uses, context-specific design, open space and infrastructure. He noted that PRD’s should not be a substitute for good subdivision regulations and that density calculations should be coordinated with those regulations.

He showed a series of aerial photos and conceptual drawings depicting various developments. He discussed the process behind designing a development, distinguishing between primary conservation resources (steep slopes, wetlands) that are “hands off” and secondary resources that should only be compromised if absolutely necessary. He emphasized that open space should be the feature that defines the development, NOT the houses. He also said natural features such as stream corridors should not be broken up by development if possible.

Brian reviewed examples of required open space regulations in other Vermont towns. The more guidance a town can give with the planning process the better, providing predictability to developers. Rad Romeyn asked about calculating open space, whether it should be counted outside the building envelopes or outside the lot boundaries. Brian said that although this would vary by project, it was best to minimize the number of landowners responsible for (with ownership of) designated open space within a development.

Brian reviewed two approaches to designing a PRD. The most common had homes pushed away and hidden from the open space. Another gaining popularity was the creation of a farmstead cluster or “hamlet”. This approach mimics the historic layout of a small number of houses, barns and outbuildings. Bill Marks asked whether green building initiatives were incorporated into plans, such as siting for solar exposure. Brian said those were left to subdivision regulations, not PRD’s. He added that although aesthetic or natural resource issues tended to override green initiatives in a planning a PRD, he feels that trend is changing.

Alex asked if development clusters could themselves impose on the character of the land. Brian responded yes, offering the term “cluster sprawl”. He suggested asking questions for each proposal: What are the characteristics of the site before development? Is the cluster(s) changing those? He repeated that a PRD should be used as a tool, integrated with good subdivision and zoning regulations. Bill Marks asked about affordable housing and multi-family units. Brian said his organization recognizes the need for housing in the state, and recommends all kinds of housing to be in smart-growth locations.

Brian addressed obstacles in the PRD process, noting a cumbersome approval process, neighbor opposition and impractical density bonuses (due to being too small). Also, PRD’s are often difficult to apply to small subdivisions, they require administrative capacity, and may encourage “cluster sprawl”. DRB members discussed Hinesburg’s open space requirement, densities and the perspective of developers, whose plans begin with the lots rather than the open space because that is their focus. Lisa mentioned developer waiver requests; Brian said waivers should be reviewed for their purpose and benefit to the public. Alex suggested that “public benefit” could be more housing units. Lisa said taxes might not cover the infrastructure costs incurred with development.

Alan Norris discussed garage locations as an example when a waiver may be required in order to achieve greater densities; he also felt their location in terms of aesthetics was a matter of opinion. Alex thought it would depend on the streetscape for a particular parcel.

Peter thought the best PRD’s had an interconnectedness and/or trail system, to replace lost recreational uses on roads whose traffic had increased due to development. Brian noted there were legal questions as to whether you could require public access to trails through subdivisions. He suggested identifying where those important trail corridors were and proactively planning around them.

Bob Linck asked whether the transfer of development rights has been a successful approach. Brian said one problem is that towns define the areas they want to protect but those they want to develop, resulting in problems with capacities in developable areas. Bob asked how such arrangements were tracked. Brian said it was done through the review and plat recording process. Public access to preserved open space areas was discussed further.

Alex asked whether PRD lot sizes should be small or if they could have a spread of lot sizes. Brian said the most efficient use of the land is the goal, but repeated that open space land was best left to as few owners as possible.

Rad Romeyn expressed frustration with the PRD review process. Brian said he has heard some developers ask for strict guidelines and regulations while others want more flexibility. Alex said subdivision regulations are not different for PRD’s. Brian said the town’s priorities should be figured out, with zoning and subdivision regulations designed around them. Flexibility could then be defined for PRD’s. He said one of the reasons the Chapter 117 statute was overhauled was to bring zoning into conformance with Town Plans. Density bonuses and other incentives were discussed, with the conclusion that incentives should be attractive enough to promote innovative PRD’s.

7-lot, 57-unit Subdivision/PRD Final Plat – Mechanicsville Road – Applicant: Hinesburg Hillside LLC

**continued from the January 2nd meeting.

A letter from Russ Barone addressed six issues raised at the January 2^nd meeting. The draft decision (version 2) was amended to include the issues, and was being reviewed at this meeting.

Garage setback – Alex said a menu of architectural features designed to minimize the prominence of the garage (on the front façade) had been created for the builders’ use. Ted suggested limiting the menu to the first 3 items (through the word “cantilevers”), leaving items such as colors and shadow lines to be optional or additional. Russ agreed with this.

Landscaping – Alex felt the number of trees should be larger than 7, as stated in Russ’s letter. The draft decision (pg. 5, Conclusion #6) concluded that 17-26 additional trees were needed to address the 40-ft. spacing requirement of a streetscape. Order #3D stated no less than 20 trees should be added to landscaping plans. Lisa felt asking for a number of trees based on street tree spacing was appropriate, adding she did not feel there was enough general screening on the development. Alex clarified that the decision waived the requirement for the trees to be spaced, in favor of grouping them more logically and aesthetically. He questioned whether the visibility of the houses should be a concern, as it a village development. Lisa clarified she would like to see more greening, as a way to break up the houses, not screen them. She felt going beyond the standard street tree number calculation was in order.

Alex clarified how he arrived at the 17-26 range, saying the spread of 9 trees was the 3 coniferous plantings of 3 trees each on the lower lot corners. Alex introduced the Hinesburg Tree Warden, Paul Wieczoreck. Paul commented on the 40-foot spacing requirement, stating trees could be spaced more closely together but that it was probably not economical to do so. Peter asked about driveway plans; Russ said flexibility in those plans might affect tree placement. Alex agreed it would be cumbersome to have an exact landscaping plan noting tree locations; he thought it was better to accept a draft landscaping plan with an approved tree number. Tom mentioned the Hawk Lane residents’ request regarding buffers. Joel Jackson, an abutting landowner on Hawk Lane, asked about the number of trees that would be removed, and whether there was a requirement to replace them. Russ described what would be removed and said there was no requirement to replace them. The effectiveness of trees as a sound buffer was discussed. Pam Matthews, a Hawk Lane resident, suggested a change in road layout, but realizes it was a late request. She felt houses high on the hill would have a distorted perspective (and look very large.) John McEntee, a Hawk Lane resident, agreed with his neighbors’ comments.

Andrew Rowe, the project’s landscaper planner, reviewed the overall landscaping plan and map. He discussed the landscaping areas he understood to be priorities as discussed in previous meetings. He reviewed tree types and counts and noted additional plantings in the courtyard and around homes. Peter said he had compared Hillside’s landscaping plan with Creekside’s plan, noting the Creekside development had double the number of trees. He felt strongly that more trees should be added. Bart Frisbie felt Peter’s comments were inappropriate and late to the process. Ted noted the issue had been raised previously and remained unresolved. Russ asserted that his firm was not under funding the landscaping aspect of the project. Board members agreed they would discuss the matter later in the session.

Parking locations and stormwater pond - Alex explained driveway parking locations had been approved by the Select Board, and that the stormwater retention pond issue had been resolved satisfactorily with the Mulberry Lane Association. He explained his request for one more evergreen tree in the building envelopes #1-4 (as stated in order #3a).

Exterior lights – the board agreed that all exterior lights should be downcast, particularly due to the homes’ hillside locations. Andy and Bart explained that the stairs and/or walkways leading up to the front doors of some houses might be unsafe if lighting was restricted to downcast lights. Lighting types, and the suggestion of installing multiple lights in certain areas, was discussed. Andy clarified (public) street lamp locations.

John McEntee expressed his opinion of the development and referred to a letter he had written to the DRB. He felt the density of the development was extreme due to its hillside location. Ted responded that the board has been in the review process for a long time, and that this plan is consistent with the Town Plan to create density in the village.

Peter explained his proposal for architectural guidelines on units 1-4 (from his email dated 2-6-07). Alex said garage setbacks and steep slopes would likely require units to be built with tall elevations to the rear. Garage dimensions and placement was discussed. Bart wanted to ensure that garages would not be too small. The rear façade was discussed; it was agreed that architectural features would be incorporated into designs to break up the façade horizontally.

Paul Wieczoreck gave comments and suggestions regarding the landscape plan. He suggested planting trees in the front sloping area, instead of a mixture of shrubs. This would help to soften the buildings behind it, the long distance view of the development would be enhanced, it would provide shading, and he believes it would be more cost-effective. As alternatives to the spirea bushes near the parking areas, he suggested small trees, which work better with snow removal. He felt a conifer planting near unit 17 would help to buffer sound. He also suggested reducing the caliper (diameter) of the tree stock to offset the cost of increasing the number of trees.

Patty Drew, an adjacent homeowner on Thorn Bush Road, asked if the town could dictate terms within association bylaws, specifically the restriction of rental units to a certain percentage of the total units. Alex said the town did not have purview over the bylaws; Ted agreed that it was not a town matter, but said bylaws could still be written that way. Russ gave a recap of the project from his perspective, stating he felt doing a PRD was a good choice, and that he’s proud of his firm’s previous design and build projects.

Tom MOVED to close the public hearing and take the matter up in deliberative session. Clint SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 7-0.

Other Business:

Conditional Use Review – Camp Conversion – Shadow Lane – Applicants: Jeff and Jean Davis

George MOTIONED to accept the review draft decision as written (denial). Robert SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with Bob L. abstaining.

2-Lot Subdivision Sketch Plan – Lavigne Hill Road – Applicant: Viola Goodrich

George MOTIONED to accept the review draft decision as written (approval). Ted SECONDED the motion. The motion passed 6-0 with Lisa abstaining.

The board then went into deliberative session.

A site visit is planned for the Bedard proposed subdivision property on Texas Hill Road, on Saturday, February 17^th, at 9:00 a.m. The next DRB meeting is February 20, 2007.

The meeting adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary