TOWN OF
PLANNING COMMISION
April 25,
2007
Approved May 9, 2007
Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, Kay
Ballard, George Bedard, Carrie Fenn, Fred Haulenbeek, Nancy Norris, Johanna
White.
Commission Members Absent: Joe Donegan, Joe
Iadanza.
Also Present: Alex
Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Karen Cornish (Recording
Secretary), George Munson, Carla Munson, Lexie Reiss, David Lyman.
The meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m.
I. Other Business
Alex said the next meeting is the last regular meeting before the planned public forum. He reminded the group that the number of forums held can be unlimited, and also the proposed document can be changed after the forums. He said an additional visualization piece is being created by Bob White and will be ready for the forum.
Buildout Visualization
Melanie Needle from the CCRPC presented the latest work done using the Community Viz tool. She showed an example of the Lyman parcel (located next to Creekside, across from the Mobil Station) as it might be developed under a future zoning scenario. The example was based on an assumption of 6 units per acre zoning. The 3D model, created in Google Earth, showed various types of residential and commercial units. Alex said these types of models are useful as a way to show the look and feel of a development, and warned against looking for too much detail in building style, etc. Melanie answered questions about the software’s capabilities.
Jean asked if existing Creekside homes could be shown on the model. Melanie explained that the date the imagery was taken was before the homes were built. For the final model, she will try to display where the existing homes are located. She showed a version of the same model in Google Sketch-Up, which the group agreed portrayed the density better.
Melanie then presented a different version, where density had been changed from 6 to 12 units per acre. Alex said Creekside is currently at about 6 units per acre. The group talked about the configuration of commercial units shown along Route 116. Carrie asked about second-floor residential (above commercial); Melanie showed where that housing type was indicated.
Fred asked about sidewalks; as they weren’t depicted on the model, the group talked about how to include space for sidewalks as well as off-street parking, particularly for the multi-unit housing. Jean felt 12 units per acre may be too large when those items are taken into consideration. Alex and Melanie agreed to work on this. The group discussed the footprint size of single-family homes and how to incorporate a garage. Alex asked the group to compare the models (6 vs. 12 units per acre). Fred felt the 6 unit looked underutilized but that the 12 unit needed work. Carrie felt the 12 unit looked closer to our village center.
Alex asked the group about the Water Resources Overlay District and alternate plan to use an improved, more flexible buffer area instead. Using this parcel as an example, he pointed out what the buffer area vs. the district area would be. He also explained that if non-buildable land were used for density, and that density transferred to buildable land, both the 6 and 12 acre scenarios would potentially have more units than shown. Jean thought the concept was good, but was unsure how to create more density in the 12 unit without building up. Kay through every parcel should be looked at individually for density potential. Fred felt it would be more reasonable to base density on a parcel’s buildable area, rather than rely on densities from acreage that can’t be used to build on. Alex felt it would be a good exercise to look at the overall Village Growth area map, determine which parcels are most affected, then look at density goals.
Fred talked about density bonus formulas. He thought some developments, using densities transferred from non-buildable land, might achieve density maximums without using any incentive programs. Alex said that scenario would vary parcel by parcel. Jean felt those density transfers should not be allowed. Fred proposed an approach to development plans that first took into account a development’s infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, build-to lines, setbacks, vehicle storage capabilities, etc.), then looked at the remaining area for a number and configuration of units. He wants to make sure incentives are reasonable and don’t actually overshoot the available buildable land on a parcel.
Melanie and Alex talked about how to come up with buildable area figures. Alex was concerned that lowering densities overall would compromise development on the parcels in the village. The sewer upgrade was discussed. Carrie thinks using buffer setbacks and not transferring density was the best method. Alex mentioned shared road right-of-ways and suggested these be handled differently in the Village Growth District. The group continued to discuss whether density transfers should be allowed; Johanna, Nancy and Kay agreed they should not; Carrie was undecided; George B. talked about the PRD potential for the whole parcel, not just what was in the district.
Alex then confirmed that the overlay district concept would be eliminated. David Lyman asked why the model of his property did not extend buildable land further west. Alex said the flood plain area restricted it and talked about development potential on adjacent acreage in the ag district (particularly with a PRD cluster design). George said that land outside the sewer district may not have as much potential for that reason. Alex described the challenges with flood hazard areas and differences with parcels’ grades. George felt there was a potential for building in those areas, using fill, for example. Flood area details were discussed, as well as exactly where and how to draw boundary lines of buildable land.
Alex asked for a final decision on base density for the village. George suggested that open space be considered a high-value incentive. He suggested giving landowners the option of preserving open space as a density incentive (adding that option to other incentives such as affordable housing.). Jean asked about the expansion of the sewer service area. Alex explained how sewer service lines could be set, and suggested they be more flexible than just following district boundaries. Alex explained how values are set for land, with an appraiser assessing a property for its fair market value. He also explained how land donations work.
George said open land is a public good, and could be added to the list of incentives. Jean said the town has to accept that land; George said the incentive could encompass different arrangements such as open-space for use by the development OR the town, or as donated to a land trust. Jean thought the land would not have a tax incentive then; George said that was correct, but the landowner would gain the density bonus incentive instead.
Alex said one of the reasons not to increase densities is because the sewer capacity would be compromised. George feels it will be a fist-come first-served scenario anyway, and also many people won’t take advantage of bonuses, particularly those small, already-developed village lots.
Revisions to proposed zoning districts
Alex presented a map with revisions to proposed zoning
districts, with reductions made to some districts to reduce the build-out
potential (to bring more in line with anticipated sewer capacity). The Quinn land was discussed. Carrie described wetland areas on the parcel. The group discussed development and potential
challenges on the western side of
The group talked about the southern gateway district, proposed to include a base density of 2 residential units per acre and a maximum of 4 with incentives. Barn uses in rural areas was discussed. George Munson said there are 8+ acres on his property with about 5 usable acres beyond his house site. He would like to change the sewer service area to include this area.
George M. suggested drawing the district boundary line directly across the Route 116. George B. reminded the group of the barn structure and the pre-determined nature of the Reiss development. Alex said lines will be redrawn. George M. clarified the barn was kept as a 4-acre lot, with no restrictions. Lexie Reiss confirmed the barn was on its own parcel and it was her understanding the barn had no development restrictions on it (it could become a 4-unit condominium, for instance). George M. said the house is part of the PRD development, on its own 7/10th-acre lot. The group talked about the potential commercial uses for the barn space.
Phasing
Alex talked about phasing of proposed changes, how to deal with the wastewater capacity, and controlling growth in general. He felt there should be a plan for what to do 1) before up grade and 2) after upgrade and more capacity is attained. Jean asked what the Planning Commission’s ability to phase is and how the Select Board was involved. Alex explained different approaches to phasing. George Munson described changes in wastewater allocation permits, that they cannot be “hoarded”. Fred feels the west side road should be the priority, as well as Affordable Housing incentives. He suggests phasing from Town Hall to Ballards, getting the road put in and building compact housing. Alex agreed, but said that current capacity would prevent some of that development anyway. George B. said current residential capacity is very low, with some commercial available. Jean asked if the proposed west side road could be depicted on the maps for the forum presentation. Fred thinks a system with the Select Board should be created as to how the road gets built out. George B. said developers would commit to building the road to the development.
Alex said the Village Growth Project proposal was ahead of the sewer upgrade project. He said the Select Board has determined this upgrade needs to be paid for in some way (not by future users) and he described how this question would be put before voters.
Minutes of the April 11, 2007 PC Meeting
George MOVED to approve the minutes as written. Johanna SECONDED the motion. The motion
PASSED 6 – 0, with
The next Planning Commission meeting is May 9, 2007.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Karen Cornish
Recording Secretary