TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISION

October 24, 2007

Approved November 14, 2007

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, George Bedard, Fred Haulenbeek, Carrie Fenn, Joe Iadanza, Nancy Norris, Johanna White.

Commission Members Absent: Kay Ballard.

NOTE: there is 1 vacancy on the Commission due to Joe Donegan’s resignation.

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

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

Nancy asked whether the area adjacent to Lyman Park (the Russell property behind the barn) could be considered for green space. Alex said there was no specific reason it was not considered. Joe I. thought the area was wet. Jean asked about the terrain; Nancy thought it was level. Alex thought 2-3 acres only could be used adjacent to the soccer fields. The group discussed whether the field should be considered; Alex noted the official map is still a work in progress. Alex passed out feedback from Howdy Russell and the group reviewed.

Nancy said the consequences of not doing a sewer upgrade or changing the density will mean more density in rural areas, and thought that idea could have been discussed more at the forum. With regards to 2-story mixed-use buildings, George thought the expense of laying a foundation for 2+story buildings may discourage builders from building them. He discussed foundation techniques, soil types and projects where soil type was an issue.

Bill Marks brought up an issue regarding the northwest district, whether a gas station could be developed for the corner. He thinks most people feel a gas station at the most important gateway to the town is not appropriate. Alex said the same current zoning uses are planned to be allowed there, confirming that yes, a gas station could be built there. Carrie thought it was the use of the corner specifically that was problematic, not placing another gas station somewhere else in the district. George felt the zoning plan should stay the same; he described a proposal by the owner of the gas station on Shelburne Falls Rd., to build a gas station directly south on a side road going into the Bissonette property. The station would not be a prominent structure and would have a more stylish design. The present gas station would be redeveloped for another use. Jean thought that owner was not interested in the residential development potential of the rest of the Bissonette property. Alex said he was interested in maybe 2-3 acres; the rest of 8-acre block north of water feature would be someone else’s development. Bill and the group discussed whether zoning needed to be re-written. Alex said uses for districts had been scrutinized for the growth plan, that right now they were planned to be largely the same. Fred proposed a turning lane that would sweep down and merge into 116. Alex said the intersection would be improved within two years. The group discussed other potential intersections (Riggs Rd.) and traffic flow.

Bill Marks said a separate issue is whether to limit gas stations. Joe thought it would be best to make a statement about the aesthetic of that gateway corner. Carrie thought maybe the area should be marked as a brown space, and landscaped as an open gateway park not meant to be used. Joe thought structures close to the corner would provide cues to slow down and added a west side road would provide a second lane corridor. Johanna recalled talking about a wide multi-use path close to 116 that would be placed on the western most side of a 100-foot buffer zone. Joe said the driest land is up against the road. He noted land off other thoroughfares that was developed as green buffers, but much smaller, with buildings placed behind that.

Joe suggested making a statement proposing a significant structure, with general terms that the DRB can follow. Johanna said she would rather see an open corner with a view down the street, unimpeded by a large building. Joe suggested a more tailored, graduated setback. George described where he thought was the best buildable land was in the district.

Joe said once you start it from the corner, the visual cues should keep going. Fred thought a line of traffic lights will eventually be visible (with a long view) driving south. Jean thought there should be a safety study done in the area. Bill asked whether DRB would be given control over design standards. Alex said design standards apply to the village growth area. Bill thought restricting uses in areas within a zone would be best. George thought the value of the property is at that corner, from a builder’s perspective. The potential setback or green buffer at that corner was discussed. George reviewed soil types on a map, stating the corner had the most potential for larger buildings.

Alex said some of the views that we currently have from that intersection will be lost or reduced, but that new views could be obtained (for instance, from the west side road.). Carrie asked whether a 50-foot setback was enough. Plans for improvements at that intersection were discussed; Alex said he would ask for details from Jeannie. Alex said if the gateway issue was important to the community, overlay gateway districts could be proposed that added additional aesthetic or architectural specifications. Jean thought the community would not want a highly commercial enterprise right on the corner. Carrie liked the idea of residential at that corner. The group discussed the design standards and how they would be applied in those areas.

Bill said he was concerned about a mini-mall going in at that corner and did not feel like this was a good fit, and would bring in too much traffic. He thought special provisions written into zoning could be eased later if a developer proposed a unique, desirable plan for the area. George suggested all building up to Ballards corner be similar to the village aesthetic, to encourage people to slow down. Alex said the idea in the NW district was not for people to slow down on that portion of 116, it was to get people through quickly on the east side (more building) and west side (residential). Jean asked if the state would allow curb cuts in that area. Alex summarized two options for what you would see at that intersection driving south: 1) a 50ft wide green buffer with landscaping, with development beyond that, accessed elsewhere OR 2) a streetscape similar to village center. George suggested pulling everything up near the road with a curb cut at the high point into the land north of Rigg’s house, and also south, opposite Riggs Drive. Joe thought the curbing that was recently added in the village has helped to provide a more structured environment, slowing traffic.

Carrie thought the idea of extending the streetscape to the corner was too extreme; she preferred the setback idea, paired with a commercial west side road. Joe thought that approach plan would also help to hide parking lots required by buildings on the west road. Jean asked how building facades would be fronted (to the west of the east). Johanna suggested those buildings have an attractive front on 116, with sidewalks that accessed the building’s other side. Carrie said she did not want big blocky commercial buildings, but architecture that was more residential in feel.

Fred said retail location was all-important, that viable sites were those that could be seen. He drew an example of a curved interior road that was bermed on both 116 to the east and Shelburne Falls Rd. to the north, with landscaping that obscured parking areas also situated on those sides. He thought the interior (courtyard) spaces of those buildings could be reserved for functional necessities like delivery areas, dumpsters, etc. The facades would face north and east; the building rear entrances would face inward (south and west). Jean liked that buildings would be removed enough from the corner. Alex reminded the group that the growth proposal emphasizes walkability, not increased auto use. He noted there would be more businesses in the interior of the L-shape proposed by Fred. Fred said an anchor store exposed on the outside would draw traffic to those buildings obscured by the L-shape. Fred said there could be a larger bulk parking somewhere else, to accommodate extra flow at peak shopping times. Fred thought this idea could be fleshed out; Alex said it would be best to be clear about what the community desired, and to allow for flexibility in proposals. Fred thought the PC should try to define what we visualize 116 as, its function and aesthetic, how we envision that gateway and what it is supposed to accomplish.

Fred reminded that development in this area is contingent on the sewer upgrade, with time to refine the details in the plan that’s on the table; Joe agreed. Jean thought developers were already looking at this particular parcel. George suggested defining the possibility of a gas station south of Shelburne Falls Road, with a statement that says no station can be built closer to 116 than the one currently on Falls Road. Alex said the group could formulate a use statement requiring the separation of gas stations by a certain distance. Carrie asked how the language would be written to restrict access on Shelburne Falls Rd. The group talked about where the closest access point off Falls Rd. could be, in terms of the distance from the stoplight.

Alex reviewed other comments from the forum such as a request for more info/studies, whether the proposal would be tied to the rural development, and quality of life issues. He asked if the PC want to do more side studies related to the proposal (as some community members suggested) or move forward with the original proposal. Alex asked the group what process they wanted to take.

The wastewater bond vote, its affect on the village growth plan, and its relationship with the rural areas was discussed. George thinks we need to stay with the current proposal; Jean, Nancy, Joe agreed.

Jean asked about Kathy Beyer’s comments regarding 2-story mixed-use buildings in the NW district. George suggested looking at units by district, not by development project or ownership. He said there needed to be the ability to allow those sites that have better stability to have the larger structures. A density-exchange program was discussed; Joe said density could not be taken away from land not in the same ownership. George asked if there would be a master plan for this space (the Bissonette property). Jean did not think it would be one developer. George said much denser development needed to be allowed in some locations in this district, with green space set aside in others. Jean asked about non-contiguous PRD’s; the group discussed whether density swaps should be allowed within one district only or across districts. George said master planning around wetlands in the area needed to be done. George suggested the Bissonette property could be an evolving PRD. Alex said that could be possible, with further (future) subdivisions handled as revisions of the original subdivision.

Carrie thought the proposed extension to the village zone had been intended to be the new village gateway. The 75-foot setback was more like a boulevard; the Patrick Brook open space would remain, then the beginning of the residential space. Alex liked the Main Street concept, beginning at Patrick Brook south to Buck Hill Rd.

Concerns about the SB’s schedule to review the proposal were raised. Alex said he would like the PC to have a direct conversation about the proposal with the SB, suggesting a delegation go to the SB meeting to speak about the plan and look for fatal flaws.

Jean asked what the trigger for DRB review was (based on Peter’s comments at the forum). George said it was subdivision; Alex said he was not sure what Peter had in mind as examples but would clarify that.

Nancy suggested reducing the size of the setback next to the stream on the Munson property, noting George Munson had trenched it out to something much bigger than a regular ditch-size. The group discussed how setbacks should be measured – from the top of bank or from the middle of the stream. Nancy asked how proposed setbacks were determined. The group discussed the nature of streams (man-made vs. natural) at certain locations. George thought including land within setbacks should be included in density calculations across all districts. The group agreed to make the setback on the Munson property smaller, to 25 feet.

The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for November 14^th, 2007.

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

Respectfully Submitted:

Karen Cornish

Recording Secretary