MEMBERS PRESENT:       Dick Elkins, Peter Gibbs, Dennis Webster, Gary von Stange, Kate Lalley, Kay Kraushaar. (Tucker Holland was absent.)

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

OTHERS PRESENT:            James Kaisur, Alec Webb, Martha Stephenson, Craig Smith, Gail Albert, Maria Horn, Rebecca Moore, Pat Seal, Charlie Brush, John Giebink, Richard Williams, Cheryl Roberts, Sharon Barton, Vicki Carleton, Rosalyn Graham.

In the absence of Tucker Holland, Dick Elkins called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

 

Alec Webb, Shelburne Farms, said he would like to submit some comments for consideration relative to the Rural Mixed Use PUD. Dean Pierce noted there are basically only two areas in the Rural Mixed Use PUD zone, including Shelburne Farms and Meach Cove Trust property.

 

The Planning Commission received a summary memo from the Selectboard with comments on Articles I through VIII. An emailed summary memo of comments on Articles XVI, XIX, and XXI from the Selectboard was also sent to the Planning Commission. The Selectboard comments are on the town’s website. The Planning Commission and public in attendance responded to the Selectboard comments on Article VIII as noted below:

 

The Selectboard pointed out there is no mention of the historical nature of the village. The Planning Commission was comfortable with adding language citing the historic nature of the village. Gary von Stange noted the language is restrictive, but the Planning Commission is obligated to follow the objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Craig Smith, Trinity Church, suggested adding “...preserve and protect as much as possible...”. John Giebink, Green Mountain Development Group (GMDG), pointed out there are contradictions within the Comprehensive Plan relative to existing structures and buildings being renovated or removed or something added versus new development. The language will have an impact at Act 250 review. Gary von Stange suggested adding language reading: “...as reasonable practicable and in accordance with all objectives set forth in the Shelburne Comprehensive Plan”. Peter Gibbs suggested just stating “objectives” rather than “all objectives”. Charlie Brush, GMDG, noted there was only one member of the Selectboard who brought up the historic nature issue and the wording is intended to undo what is in the town plan.

 

Dick Elkins announced if the public wants to submit written commentary, the Planning Commission will forward this to the Selectboard.

 

It was noted the language was drafted to prevent circumventing the conditional use process (i.e. with administrative approval someone could build a garage then get administration approval for an accessory apartment in the garage). The Selectboard felt accessory apartments are a form of affordable housing and should be permitted without restriction. Dick Elkins suggested defining accessory apartments per state requirements (attached structure, 30% of the square footage of the principal structure, permitted use). Dean Pierce pointed out the town’s position is that “pertinent to” applies to accessory structures which do not have to be attached to the principal structure. The consensus of the Planning Commission is the language suggested by the Selectboard is acceptable.

 

The Selectboard was not unanimously in favor of language allowing up to 100 units in a single building. Dennis Webster suggested the units could be contained in multiple structures forming a contiguous building with firewalls. There are beautiful buildings at Shelburne Farms that are enormous, cited Mr. Webster, and rather than using 80 to 100 units as the base, the building as a whole should be considered. A building does not have to look like a box. Dean Pierce noted the Design Review Overlay presently does not apply to the entire Village Center District. John Giebink, GMDG, asked if adoption of the zoning bylaws would be delayed if the Planning Commission suggested to the Selectboard that the Design Review Overlay cover the entire village district. Dean Pierce replied not materially (the Selectboard may be amenable to piecemeal adoption of the revisions). Mr. Giebink spoke in support of eliminating the 80-100 unit designation in favor of the Design Review Overlay for the Village Center District and the building overall be reviewed. Gary von Stange noted “resident space” is not defined. Peter Gibbs offered the definition of ‘resident space’ is ‘bedroom’. John Giebink urged the Planning Commission not to lock into number of units or bedrooms, but rather to what the buildings will be, and to give the Design Review Committee the tools to look at a project’s scale, size, shape, and location relative to other buildings. Craig Smith, Trinity Church, pointed out the principle behind the mission is development of affordable housing which is determined in one respect by density. If density is lost, then the opportunity for affordable housing will be lost. Kate Lalley observed if the Design Review Overlay were extended to the entire village district along with Development Review Board review the end result would be a product pleasing and desirable to the community. It is truly a democratic approach for the community rather than being hemmed in by numbers, stated Ms. Lalley.  The Planning Commission agreed the Design Review Overlay should apply to the entire Village Center District. John Giebink pointed out the Planning Commission has latitude to go beyond responding to the Selectboard comments and can say the Design Review Overlay should apply to the entire district and there should not be unit number limits. Charlie Brush explained there are never more than two individuals in one or two-bedroom units of elder care housing. Often there is one person in a two bedroom unit (one of the bedrooms is used as a den). The typical size of a one bedroom elder care unit is 650 s.f. and a two bedroom unit is 850 s.f. to 900 s.f. The majority of the living space is the community area within the building.  Mr. Giebink urged letting the Design Review Committee get involved in review of the size, scale, mass, and height of a building. There was further discussion of using number of units, the size of a building, number of buildings, connection of buildings, and what the threshold might be for the village in Shelburne.  Rebecca Moore, Shelburne resident, agreed thinking about the reality for the population being discussed and what their needs are (congregate living) is good. It strengthens the community to allow the elders to remain. The Planning Commission was in support of extending the Design Review Overlay to the entire village district, but was not unanimous in support of removing number of units relative to resident spaces (the term ‘resident spaces’ which needs to be defined). John Giebink pointed out if resident spaces is used instead of dwelling units with ESSH then the number of units in the building will decrease and the ability to keep the housing affordable will be diminished. Kate Lalley stressed it is a stated goal of the town plan to create affordable housing. Craig Smith suggested distilling the principles from the vision of the town plan as a preamble. Ms. Lalley spoke against any action that will decrease the density that is allowed due to the potential adverse impact on the ability to provide affordable housing in Shelburne. Ms. Lalley felt the language should remain as “dwelling unit”. John Giebink suggested specifying in elder care assisted living housing the number of residents (eliminate the word “spaces” from ‘resident spaces’) and with ESSH use dwelling units. Mr. Giebink requested a higher number of units be used. Dick Elkins suggested the Selectboard be asked to define “resident spaces”. John Giebink suggested in Sections 820.5 and 820.6 the words “...that may be connected to another structure” be added following “...in a single structure”. Kate Lalley suggested the language read: “This structure may be connected to a secondary structure or another structure subject to review by the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board.”  Gail Albert, Shelburne Natural Resources Committee, suggested using ‘footprint’ or ‘foundation’ instead of unit (both terms need to be defined in the regulations). Craig Smith suggested using a picture rather than words. There was further discussion of structures connected together and being considered as one building or several separate, but connected buildings. The Planning Commission stressed it is not the intention to not allow connected buildings. Clarification in Article XIX (General Regulations) is needed.

 

A discrepancy in section numbers was noted. Section 1930.2.C: PUD and Section 2110.30: definition of ‘daycare’ need to be updated.

 

The Planning Commission except one member was in support 1850 s.f. per unit for ESSH. There was discussion of the formula for single family and multi-family housing to increase density and realize affordable housing. Per the formula a single family dwelling would require 10,000 s.f. or five times total usable above ground space within the structure. There was discussion of space for starter homes and affordable housing. John Giebink asked about a project with density and some housing based on less than 1,500 s.f. and the possibility of expansion at a later date. It was explained if the Development Review Board did not allow the entire density at the time then additional density could be granted, but if the density is maxed out no more would be allowed.  Peter Gibbs noted with a PUD common area and other items are reviewed, not just the house lot.  Dennis Webster said he does not see much opportunity for PUDs in the village. Kate Lalley mentioned in-fill development and the need to allow flexibility for additional density by allowing add-ons in innovative ways. Dick Elkins rebutted people like the way Shelburne village looks now and that is why they move here. The village needs to be preserve to some degree. Dennis Webster interjected the village is where density is wanted according to the town plan. Peter Gibbs pointed out the Planning Commission already reduced lot size from 12,000 s.f. to 10,000 s.f. and reviews the PUD gross area so lot size can be smaller in an attempt to address affordability.  There was further discussion of the village and village proper. Dick Elkins asked if the Falls Road area is included. John Giebink pointed out there are no longer residences in the village center proper. Most of the residential structures have been converted to commercial office space. Mr. Elkins expressed concern about the lack of space for parking now in the village center and the impact of further in-fill type development. Mr. Elkins questioned if additional development means replacing houses with high rise buildings. Maria Horn, Shelburne resident, stated in-fill development can be done in a creative way. There are people with vision and insight and creative strengths for this type of task. More density will enhance the village, not destroy it, and development can be done in a responsible and good way. Craig Smith pointed out the vision of the residents of Shelburne is emulated in the town plan and the Planning Commission is responsible to follow the plan. The question of accountability is whether affordable housing is being supported by the Planning Commission. Peter Gibbs rebutted the Planning Commission made changes to the regulations in support of affordability by decreasing lot size and looking at PUD gross area so lots could end up in the 7,000 s.f. range. Dick Elkins felt the density in the village has reached a peak. The village still needs to maintain its identity. Mr. Elkins acknowledged everyone wants a decent home and GMDG heard this and responded by providing a plan. Dennis Webster noted the lots in his neighborhood (Hillside) are larger and not built out. Dick Elkins pointed out people buy houses in developments for the character of the neighborhood and if that is changed by allowing in-fill development or commercial uses in residential areas people will not buy or stay. Two members of the Planning Commission felt there is need for greater flexibility to encourage small starter homes in Shelburne. The majority of the Planning Commission felt steps have already been taken to encourage density and affordable housing (lot size was decreased and flexibility was added with PUDs). The regulations should be given the chance to work. Dean Pierce noted the Selectboard asked for a build-out analysis or visual analysis of the village. Mr. Pierce noted this has not been done for the Village Center District specifically. There has been some work done around particular properties under discussion. Regional Planning could help with the task, but the timeframe and cost are not known. The consensus of the Planning Commission is it is late in the process to ask for a build-out analysis especially since the timeframe and cost are not known.

 

Dean Pierce stated the suggested measurement of building height is the average of the finished grade to the mid-point so there could a 45’ high building, however, the structure must be the specified distance from the road. Charlie Brush stated his proposal is seeking three story buildings with a gable roof and parking underneath. The houses in the Boulder Hill development at their walk-out level are three stories high.  Mr. Brush urged regulating against four story flat roof buildings. It was noted the town center building is 47’ high. John Giebink observed extending the Design Review Overlay will take care of the concern about the look of a building. Regarding the definition of “height” the entire Selectboard except one member supported the new definition, stated Mr. Giebink. Dennis Webster pointed out the new definition is consistent with state building codes. Kate Lalley supported the new language provided the Design Review Overlay is extended. Kay Kraushaar spoke in support of a maximum building height of 35’. John Giebink pointed out 35’ will allow a two story building with a gable roof (and this impacts affordability) or a three story building with a flat roof.  Following further discussion the Planning Commission was unanimous in support of the 45’ building height regulation.

 

The issue is whether to change the definition of affordable housing used to gain density bonuses. The planning statute (Ch. 117) definition is gross annual household income of no more than 80% of the county median or the cost of the housing not exceeding 30% of gross annual household income. Plus the housing must be kept affordable through a legal mechanism. An alternative definition is “work force housing” though this approach does not provide housing on par with affordable housing relative to affordability. Charlie Brush stated for housing between 60% and 80% of income a density bonus and subsidy is needed. At over 80% median income there is the possibility of affordable housing with just a density bonus. Kate Lalley stated the town should do what is necessary to get more affordable housing (greater number of units) for a wider range of people. On the surface it appears work force housing might better suit Shelburne. John Giebink pointed out the median income for Chittenden County is less than Shelburne’s median income. Shelburne is an affluent community. Charlie Brush stressed Shelburne needs to do as much as possible to provide affordable/work force housing. Diversification of housing is needed in the town or Shelburne will simply be a collection of mega-homes owned by people who live out of state. Gail Albert asked what precludes a developer from building the more expensive of the affordable housing level of homes. Kate Lalley said it should be routine that one or two units out of each development are more affordable than the other units (i.e. inclusionary housing) so people who need affordable housing are not isolated in one area. Charlie Brush mentioned accessory apartments added to existing homes are a great opportunity for integrated affordable housing. If the property owner occupies the principal structure then having an accessory apartment in a detached barn or garage should be a permitted use.  A poll of the Planning Commission showed a majority in support of using 80% of median income for affordability versus using the alternative definition (work force housing).

 

Kate Lalley suggested creating the situation where there is dialogue to discuss what the town needs and what the developers want to do so the end product is satisfactory to both. John Giebink stated affordable housing is needed across the board, including the elderly. Affordable elderly housing with supportive services is a dire need in the state and especially in Shelburne.  Gary von Stange observed ‘housing unit’ applies to two-thirds of the units regardless of type. Peter Gibbs suggested changing “housing unit” to read “dwelling unit” (this would not include nursing home or elder car units).  John Giebink stated elder care needs to be included. Following further discussion the Planning Commission agreed to leave the definition of ‘housing unit’ as proposed.

 

There was discussion of allowing developable land only to be considered in the density calculation rather than the entire parcel of land including restricted land. Dennis Webster stated if the village is a growth area per the town plan then so much effort should not be directed at keeping the land open. Gail Albert pointed out the Open Space Plan speaks to conservation of land, especially conserving land along rivers with sensitive natural areas. Buffers are necessary to protect the river. John Giebink stated there are two issues to consider: conservation in terms of preservation of open space and density and affordable housing. Only one Selectboard member supported basing density on developable land in an attempt to reduce density on a particular piece of property.  Kate Lalley said there are LEED practices applied to site planning that can be incorporated to find a compromise that works as opposed to less land being developed. Getting affordable housing is paramount. Charlie Brush noted the Smart Growth people realize downtowns will be dense and if the land is preserved as open space then there will not be affordable housing. Peter Gibbs supported the maximum density bonus per the criteria in Section 841.2.  The Planning Commission agreed with the initial language rather than the proposed new language.

 

The Planning Commission will meet on September 18, 2008 at 7 p.m. to review Articles I through VII, and Articles XVI, XVIII, and XIX as well as the “Other” category.

 

Dean Pierce will send a letter of congratulations on behalf of the Planning Commission to Fred Schmidt and the Center for Rural Studies.

 

The Planning Commission received a memo and background information on the loop road in the village.

 

The Planning Commission received information on the bylaws to assist in the next work session with Mike Munson.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.