June 27, 2007

Approved July 11, 2007

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham (Chair), Carrie Fenn, Joe Iadanza, George Bedard, Johanna White, Kay Ballard

Commission Members Absent: Nancy Norris, Fred Haulenbeek, Joe Donegan

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Town Planner)

The meeting began at approximately 7:40pm.

Village Growth Area Rezoning – Additional Public Feedback:

Morgante Comments – Andrea Morgante suggested establishing vegetated stream buffers rather than simply adjusting the current building setbacks from streams. She also recommended that calculations of impervious surface be made under the proposed build out to see what the impact might be on stormwater runoff and water quality.

1. Impervious Surface & Stormwater Runoff: Jean wondered if the work from the previous impervious surface project (with Charlotte and Lewis Creek Association) could be utilized. Alex said he asked Andrea this via e-mail, but had not heard back yet; however, he thought it might be difficult to use that project’s results and methodology because it was based on sub-watersheds that are not coincident with the proposed village growth area (i.e., growth area is a portion of 3 sub-watershed analysis units). He also felt this method of impervious surface modeling may not be ideal at this scale because its impervious surface calculations are based on poor resolution satellite imagery (Landsat TM) that is classified into broad land cover/use types. He thought perhaps our high resolution 2004 orthophotography might provide a better means to assess current impervious surface, although modeling future scenarios would still prove problematic.

2. Vegetated Stream Buffers: Carrie felt this was a good suggestion, and a simple and logical way to help preserve water quality. She also felt that vegetated riparian buffers would serve a number of goals including greenway protection for wildlife habitat and possible future trails. There was consensus that new language to address this issue should be crafted for review. Alex said the Agency of Natural Resources recently sent out template ordinance language on this front, and that the VLCT has a staff person available to help on this front. Alex will pull language from these resources so the Commission can review in a revised rezoning package.

NRG comments – Bill Maclay, an architect & planner working with NRG, expressed concern on their behalf regarding design standards in the proposed Village Northeast district:

1. Parking in front of buildings: It was noted that parking is in front of the existing NRG building and the planned expansion for Earth Turbines. Bill noted that due to topographic constraints with the hillside, this parking arrangement was necessary, and shouldn’t necessarily be excluded. The Commission discussed the topographic constraints of the proposed Village NE district, noting the hillside portions as well as the relatively flat or gentle terrain closer to Route 116 and CVU Road. The Commission asked Alex to make minor adjustments to the proposed design standards to recognize the need for flexibility due to topography throughout the village districts and especially in the proposed Village NE district.

2. Building design standards for industrial uses: Bill had expressed support for the design standards, but wondered if they might be interpreted to limit the future large, light industrial buildings like the current NRG facility, especially those designing the structure to meet energy efficiency goals. The Commission discussed various design standards, and felt the necessary flexibility was largely accounted for in the proposed language. They decided to delete the words “varied” and “uniform” from the requirements for large structures. Alex will forward this to Bill Maclay for further input.

Homebuilders Association comments – The Homebuilders Association of Northern Vermont provided comments on the proposed renewable energy goals and inclusionary zoning triggers.

1. Meeting energy goals off-site: The Association asked the Commission to consider allowing renewable energy goals to be met outside of the village districts – i.e., off-site renewables, green power options, etc. Renewable energy provisions are especially significant in the proposed Village NE district. The Commission discussed the pros and cons of off-site solutions. Joe Iadanza said that the preference is for these issues to be addressed within the zoning districts in question, but with lots of flexibility as to how and where within the district (i.e., off-site solutions within the Village NE district are envisioned and allowed for). He said there would have to be a very strong reason to go out of the zone to meet these requirements. The Commission felt the proposed language had the requisite flexibility so all options could be considered.

2. Inclusionary zoning trigger: The Commission clarified that the inclusionary zoning trigger was crafted to be additive for separate projects within the village growth area. In other words, a developer who does a 14-unit project that meets the required 1 affordable unit, who then does a 2-unit project (within 5 years), would trigger the need for a 2^nd affordable unit with the second, smaller project. However, if project “A” was 20 units with 2 affordable units and project “B” was 2 units, no additional affordable units would be required with project “B” since the number of affordable units is 10% of total rounded to nearest whole number.

Quinn family comments – Alex reported that he met with Polly Quinn and her daughter, Sarah Quinn, ahead of the May 23 public forum. They had 2 basic comments and would like to continue to be kept informed and to provide feedback. First, they asked that the stream map be field checked in the area near theirs and the Lane property on the east side of Mechanicsville Road. They felt the map showed a stream that isn’t actually there. Alex said he met with Kris Lane, and she confirmed that one of the mapped streams is really more of a grassy swale. Alex said he plans to walk the area with her in the near future. Second, the Quinn’s would like the Commission to consider including more of their property on the eastern side of Mechanicsville Road in the new Residential 1 Zoning District. They feel that the real development potential is in the forested area east of the upper field, and that the proposed zoning line cuts off more of this than it should. Alex said he will create some maps to show alternate options and bring these back to both the Quinns and the Commission. Joe Iadanza said that any increases here would need to be made up in some other place or way so as to not further increase the total village growth area build out. Alex reminded the Commission that the Residential 1 district represented a large percentage of the potential future build out, so we need to be careful how much more development is allowed here.

Village Steering Committee comments – The Village Steering Committee (VSC) submitted written comments on the pros and cons of the village growth area rezoning proposal. Much of the focus of their comments relate to feedback received at the May 23 public forum – particularly the need to identify necessary public spaces/infrastructure (both what and where) in advance of new development. The Commission focused on VSC comments that weren’t already discussed at the June 13 meeting:

1. Hi-light public transportation more – Alex noted that planning for public transportation is mentioned briefly in the purpose section for the overall village growth area. The Commission discussed how public transportation will play a role as the village area grows. Central park and ride hubs that are designed to allow easy bus access, and properly designed streets were mentioned. The overall plan for higher density development should lend itself to opening the door to public transportation in the future.

2. Proposed village core density too high – This comment was also made at the 5/23 forum, and the Commission is strongly considering reducing the maximum possible residential density somewhat to address this issue. Alex said that the existing residential density of the village zoning district is about 1.5 units per acre, and will be about 2 units per acre once recently approved projects are built out over the next few years. Commissioners noted that these overall density numbers can be misleading given that certain areas within the village have very different densities – e.g., relatively low residential density along the historic Main Street portion of Route 116 (from Charlotte Road to Silver Street); very high density in the Village Heights and Lyman Meadows developments. The Commission discussed presenting information to the public on these different density slices of the existing village to help put the proposed densities in context.

3. Adopt a “go slow” approach and tie new development to creation of adequate infrastructure – Alex said the VSC is very concerned about new development coming in ahead of necessary improvements that may take many years to implement (e.g., traffic lights, new sidewalk connections, etc.). The Commission felt that their ongoing efforts to identify those necessary public infrastructure elements would help address this. Johanna said that we must take this seriously and follow through on this effort with some sort of official map so that the community is assured that needed improvements will happen and new development will make provisions for necessary public spaces.

4. Strengthen design standards to ensure new structures are compatible with historic character of village – Alex said that Rolf Kielman is reviewing the proposed design standard language again, and may suggest specific ways to improve it.

Trefry comments – Jon Trefry submitted written comments expressing concerns about the maximum density of 12 units/acre as well as the concept of expanding the village into the agricultural fields north of the existing village core along the west side of Route 116. Carrie had some similar reservations about the proposed Village NW district and the planned conversion of these hay fields. Joe Iadanza said that if we’re going to plan for a real village growth area, then we have to be prepared to see new development and change of the existing land uses. Alex reminded everyone that there was strong public sentiment at the 2006 public discussion sessions for keeping the Mechanicsville Road corridor primarily residential. Given that, he said it’s hard to see where else we can plan for a vibrant mixed-use village expansion area other than the proposed Village NW district. He said that folks at the forum may have been somewhat confused by the actual proposed densities, since only the Village core district was proposed for the highest 12 units/acre (6 base + 6 possible bonus). The areas north along both sides of Route 116 were proposed for a maximum 6 units/acre (3 base + 3 possible bonus). The Commission hopes that by fleshing out future public spaces and infrastructure, and by reassessing the maximum possible densities, that a revised proposal still including growth along the west side of Route 116 will be more acceptable. Alex said Jon’s comments are especially important, because as a Selectboard member, if he feels this is a fatal flaw, it may complicate final Selectboard review, and could even jeopardize final approval of the rezoning package.

Leasing, Parking, Special Uses – Alex discussed 3 additional changes that are worth considering in the re-zoning package:

1. Allow leasing of property in the village growth area without the need for subdivision – Currently leasing is allowed without subdivision approval only in the Commercial and Industrial districts (section 2.5.5 #2, Zoning). Alex feels this should be allowed throughout the village growth area to enable efficient and more innovative development.

2. Parking Standards – Alex recommended and the Commission agreed that the off-street parking standard should be clarified to allow the required 2 off-street spaces (for a residential dwelling) to be stacked, rather than continue to require that both spaces have unimpeded access to the road. The Commission also agreed that on-street parking should be allowed to count for a business’s overall parking needs.

3. Special Use Section (2.3, Zoning) – Alex said this section will simply need to be updated to reflect the new zoning districts being created, and he asked Commissioners to look at the types of uses that the statute affords special status and which districts these should be allowed.

Erb comments – Peter Erb submitted written comments with a variety of ideas and feedback on the proposed rezoning. Many of these have already been discussed, but not all. The Commission will review and discuss Peter’s comments (with a focus on issues not already discussed) at a future meeting due to time constraints.

Minutes of the June 13, 2007 Meeting:

George MOVED to approve the June 13, 2007 meeting minutes. Carrie SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6-0.

Other Business & Announcements:

· Greenspace and Cultural Resource Plan June 25 kick off meeting report.

· Next PC meeting is July 11. Meeting agenda items:

o S. Burlington planner to speak about planning for public spaces & official maps

o Finalize list of public infrastructure for growth area; work on map of locations.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning