TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

March 14, 2007
Approved March 28, 2007

Commission Members Present: Kay Ballard, Joe Donegan, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Iadanza, Nancy Norris.

Commission Members Absent: Jean Isham, George Bedard, Johanna White.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording Secretary), David Lyman.

The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.

I. Village Growth Project – New Zoning Districts & District Language

Review of buildout scenario results

The group reviewed a village district map and document “Village Growth Buildout – Scenario Parameters” that Alex created using the Community Viz tool (as discussed at the February 21^st meeting.). Alex confirmed that modifications of acreage and other changes had been completed before running the statistics. Carrie pointed out areas of the water resources overlay district, particularly the canal, that she felt should be wider. Alex told the group that Lisa Godfrey said wide buffers aren’t normally needed around canals but was unsure as to what was happening with water control structures in the area. Joe said the canal doesn’t follow any natural contours and is at a higher level than Commerce Park. Alex described the buffer along the canal as being equal to the one in the flood hazard area.

Carrie suggested that Lot 15 in Commerce Park be part of the Village district as opposed to the Commercial district. There was a discussion about whether this lot was usable as a commercial property due to wetland and/or soil conditions. Alex said conditions there do not make the lot un-buildable; a retail or smaller office building could be built there with wetland mitigation. Joe D. described the Middlebury Bank project on the adjacent lot. Alex said since commercial zoning allows for residential units on the 2^nd floor, and Lot 15 represents one of the larger commercial lots left in that area, it may be best to leave it in the Commercial district.

For the buildout study, Alex said he came up with five different scenarios, all using a 60% residential vs. 40% commercial calculation for mixed-use areas, but with different variables for density and efficiency factors (the likely percentage of buildout an area would experience). Results showed a potential number of units for each district within the Village Growth Area. A bar chart indicated how these potential units compared to the limited number of units expected to be available with the sewer upgrade, with residential usage (vs. commercial usage) set at either 45% or 60%. Employment numbers were also calculated based on the potential for commercial square footage. Alex detailed results for each scenario:

Scenario 1 – potential units were quite a bit in excess of sewer capacity, even set at 60% residential. The Residential I district alone would account for ½ the overall units, due to its large available land area. Joe D. asked if existing units were taken into account; Alex said yes and also that the cemetery lots had been taken out of the calculation. Joe D. thought the upper northeast section of the Quinn property should be in the Village Northeast district. Alex said the only difference between the two districts was that the NE district allowed for industrial use. Carrie thought town forum feedback had indicated residents did not want a commercial neighborhood on Mechanicsville Road. Alex added the area was in the viewshed and felt it needed to be handled carefully. Joe D. said he wanted to expand the NE district.

Scenario 2 – for this example, Alex explained he had divided the village residential area into 4 sub areas and set efficiency factors for each, to recognize that development would occur in each at varying degrees. These factors brought the village Residential district down by about half from the previous scenario. The group talked about areas in town likely to see more development. Joe I. felt the employment numbers were high; Alex agreed, adding it may be best to change the sewer usage percentage toward residential units. Types of commercial properties and their water usage were discussed.

Scenario 3 – cuts Residential I density in half, to 3 units/acre. Alex wondered if the size of the district is too big. He thought perhaps the area along CVU Road did not belong in this district due to some issues with building residences there. Joe D. suggested using the streams (such as Patrick Brook) as the boundaries, and also having the cemetery line be the northern terminus of the Residential I district. He also suggested taking out the sliver off Mechanicsville Road between Patrick Brook to bring the numbers down. Fred suggested keeping the densities lower on land that is sloped to better control erosion.

Scenario 4 – Several districts were calculated with lower densities; the results were discussed, with Alex suggesting specific densities be reviewed within the bonus program discussion.

Scenario 5 – with even lower densities, this scenario reduces Residential I and II dramatically.

Density Bonus Incentive Options, Draft 2

Alex said he researched whether other towns gave large density bonuses (75% to 100%). He said although they typically did not, those percentages were included in this draft document, as suggested by board members. Joe I. thought the ideal balance of the base density vs. the bonus density depended on how many people would take advantage of the bonus. Fred and Alex discussed the complexity of the current zoning; Alex said the proposed program, based on common densities for all units, had less complicated formulas and would allow more flexibility to builders.

He explained the program’s sliding scale with an incentive point system based on public benefits. He confirmed that the proposed inclusionary zoning program overlapped with this one somewhat. The group discussed how the two programs would work together, and also the how to set the balance of density bonuses vs. the percentage of units providing benefits. Alex said public benefits were discreet and that points could be added to each other. He wondered whether some bonuses could trigger significant buildout, resulting in more units being built than needed.

Joe D. thought the Planning Commission should know how many affordable housing (AH) units the town wants before finalizing program(s). Alex suggested taking out the AH bonus structure from this program. Joe D. thought a focus on smaller units could produce housing that was more affordable to the population as a whole, whether purchasing within the AH program or not. Joe I. agreed that AH should be removed as a public benefit incentive and treated separately within the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.

Fred raised the idea that public spaces may become somewhat incoherent if all were done only development by development. He suggested utilizing overall town plan for public spaces, to ensure interconnectivity between developed areas and spaces. Alex explained although some of that type of planning was underway in town, no one group was developing a comprehensive plan for public spaces. He said developments have the potential for smaller green spaces that could be incentivized. Nancy asked how the goal of creating public spaces was being requested of and/or communicated to large landowners in the town. The group discussed how to approach this type of planning long term. The difference between the Leed Home Certification incentive and the Renewable Energy Technology section were discussed.

Density Decisions

Joe D. said if densities were set at “X”, and there was 100% buildout, the town may be getting densities it doesn’t necessarily want. He wondered if base densities should be a lot lower than what the draft document proposed. Joe I. sees the Village Northwest as a clean slate, and would like to push that density number back up to (6) as in Scenario 3; he suggested setting the Northeast at (4). Fred wished to balance incentives greater towards the village center and less outwards. Joe I. felt the bonus in Residential II (at 3) could be larger than in Residential I (at 2).

New Zoning Districts and District Language

Alex said an overall purpose had been written for the entire growth area, as well as a description for each district. The group discussed setbacks and lot coverage. Carrie felt frontage should be on interior roads, that lots along Route 116 should have 40 foot setbacks with street trees. Joe D. felt that the narrower Route 116 was built, the more it would feel like a village. Joe I. gave Cambridge VT as an example where a frontage road is utilized. Nancy described how a parking area in Winooski had been configured, noting the need for deliveries to commercial operations.

II. Other Business

Minutes of the February 21, 2007 PC Meeting

Carrie MOVED to approve the minutes as corrected. Nancy SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

Minutes of the February 28, 2007 PC Meeting

Nancy MOVED to approve the minutes as corrected. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 – 0.

The next Planning Commission meeting is Wednesday, March 28, 2007.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:50 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary