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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

CONSULTANT:                    Mike Munson.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Brian Precourt, Charlie Bissonnette, John Giebink, Alec Webb.

Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

There were no changes to the agenda.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

The Selectboard indicated clarification is needed in the Purpose section to define what is wanted in the district. Kate Lalley spoke in support of having development in the town identify Shelburne and not just be an extension of South Burlington. It is good to have access to public transportation so buses should go through neighborhoods. The uses in the Mixed Use District need to be designed carefully to avoid repeating the unimaginative development that exists on Shelburne Road, said Ms. Lalley. There was further discussion of having public transportation serving the town. Dick Elkins suggested the public transit component be added to the Development Review Board checklist when reviewing an application (i.e. add to the site plan review criteria). The consensus of the Planning Commission is to remove the word “maximum” from the last sentence in the Purpose and add a statement to the site plan criteria regarding public transit services.

 

There was discussion of permitted uses in the Mixed Use District (farming, dairying, orchards, wood lots). The Planning Commission confirmed the language as written should remain.

 

There was discussion of lot size and land area requirement per unit for a continuing care retirement community. The language says housing for the elderly is 7,500 s.f. per dwelling. Assisted living units have a lower number (greater density).  Dick Elkins spoke in support of 3,500 s.f. per unit since that is what was granted for the existing elderly housing project in town. Dean Pierce noted 7,500 s.f. per unit is the number for elderly housing with no services. The Selectboard is suggesting ESSH in the village center should be 2,500 s.f. Dick Elkins felt 2,500 s.f. is good for a nursing home type of facility. Mr. Elkins supported 3,500 s.f. for a Wake Robin type of facility in the village. The intent is to get a mix of housing in the district. Housing should be most dense in the village. There was agreement to 3,500 s.f. for a Wake Robin type of facility.

 

There was discussion of yard requirements and whether there should be a difference in land requirement for family and elderly housing. Three members wanted a difference especially with family housing since there will likely be children. Gary von Stange urged encouragement of multi-family and elder housing and providing developers with opportunity to develop and meet the needs of the town.

 

There was lengthy discussion of setbacks on Shelburne Road in the Mixed Use District and agreement the language is confusing with regard to side and rear setbacks as well as the setback if access is off a side road or Route 7. Brian Precourt, Shelburne property owner, pointed out there are approximately nine residential properties along Route 7 and of that number four or five are owner occupied. Most of the structures are not set back 90’ so the proposed language will make the lots nonconforming. Kay Kraushaar pointed out there are provisions in the regulations to handle nonconformity. Mr. Precourt suggested the setback be less than 90’ to allow lot owners to develop their property. Mr. Precourt questioned why there should be a difference in buffers between commercial uses if a lot does not have a boundary on Route 7.  Nearly all the commercial lots on Shelburne Road are close to Route 7 with residences bordering at the back of the lots.  It would be best to allow flexibility on commercial lots so parking can be located on the side of the lot if desired. Having commercial uses in close proximity to each other is not an issue for the commercial lot owners. Kate Lalley agreed with the concept of creating a “wall” of commercial uses to protect the residences behind. Commercial growth should be encouraged from Bay Road north, stated Ms. Lalley, and the area between Bay Road and Webster Road should be carefully and imaginatively planned with mixed uses to develop a character unique to Shelburne and different from South Burlington. The character from the village could be pulled into the space. Dick Elkins spoke in agreement to a lesser front yard setback, but felt the side setback is important for a buffer from a commercial use. Brian Precourt suggested the language for the Commerce/Industry South zone relative to Route 7 setbacks would solve many of the problems that exist to the north. Dick Elkins stated there should be a 60’ setback from Route 7 if there is access from the side yard. It there is access from Route 7, but no parking in front then the minimum setback should be 90’ to a maximum of 175’ based on lot coverage.  Kay Kraushaar recalled while working with Mike Munson on setbacks the Planning Commission looked at all the parcels on Route 7 and applied the recommended formula resulting in a variety of setbacks and opportunity for all lots to be developed. There was lengthy discussion of the setback formula for parcels in the zone along Route 7. Brian Precourt suggested building design be used as an incentive for creative development rather than setbacks. Gary von Stange spoke in support of removing the formula and using real numbers for the setbacks. It was suggested Mike Munson’s input be gathered on the matter and examples of build out on a lot be provided. Kate Lalley urged giving the DRB the ability to promote creative reuse of buildings. Mr. Precourt urged taking a realistic look at the parcels that can be developed on Route 7.  There was continued discussion of allowing flexibility to help businesses and provide variability to avoid a straight line of buildings. There was brief discussion of expansion of structures within the setback. Dean Pierce will provide suggested language for review relative to expansion of structures within the setback

 

Tabled until further information relative to Article 10 is reviewed.

 

Dick Elkins opined an accessory apartment should be attached to the primary structure not as an accessory building. Dean Pierce explained state legislation regarding accessory apartments. The majority of the Planning Commission agreed accessory apartments should be permitted uses.

 

Dean Pierce will draft a definition of “truck gardening”.

 

Shelburne Farms requested a change to the Conservation Overlay Map. Alec Webb reviewed areas on Shelburne Farms with major improvements or where future new structures can be built, such as a residential learning center. These areas have been carved out of land under conservation and the map needs to be changed to reflect this.  Dean Pierce noted in the conservation zone on Shelburne Farms residences are allowed in the area specified under the easement.  Dick Elkins requested getting an opinion from the Vermont Land Trust on the easement. The Planning Commission agreed to change the map as requested by Shelburne Farms.

 

The Planning Commission agreed with inserting the word “scale” and making reference to the DRB rather than the Planning Commission.  Regarding the application and review procedure (Section 1520) the Selectboard wants to consider a deadline that is less stringent. Dick Elkins and Gary von Stange agreed to change to a 30 day time frame and add “whenever possible and when a public hearing is not required”. John Giebink, Green Mountain Development Group, submitted a memo regarding the article being in contradiction relative to existing structures versus new structures. Gary von Stange urged the Planning Commission to focus on the request of the Selectboard at this time rather than discuss the issue raised by Mr. Giebink in his memo. Mr. von Stange suggested Mr. Giebink submit his memo to the Selectboard for review. Dean Pierce cautioned that if any of the suggested changes are significant then the public hearing process is invoked.  If the decision is made to add the Thomas property to the Village Design Review Overlay District then the Planning Commission must warn a public hearing.  Mr. Pierce will request the item (extending the Village Design Review Overlay District) be added to the Selectboard’s 12/9/08 meeting agenda.

 

The Selectboard expressed concern about respect for property owners’ rights and suggested the Purpose be redrafted to reflect a more balanced construct.  The Planning Commission agreed with adding “preserve views from and of the lake”, but not “and views from other public vantage points”. The Planning Commission agreed with adding the definition for NVGB and requiring only one parking space for each rack storage rather than 1.5 spaces. Regarding the statement on causing water pollution and erosion being absolute, the Planning Commission agreed to add “undue” and “adverse” to the text.

 

There was discussion of the definition of a boat launching ramp (Section 1731.b). The Planning Commission discussed considering the ramp a structure and having conditional use review if the ramp is permanent or constructed versus temporary. Dean Pierce will research if a definition already exists. If not then permanent ramps or ramps requiring excavation will require conditional use review.

 

It was noted the definition of erosion control structure (Section 1730.4) is drafted. The Planning Commission agreed the structure should be reviewed and approved by a licensed professional engineer. There was discussion of structures within the 100’ setback (Section 1750) in consideration of seawalls. Kay Kraushaar observed a seawall can mitigate wave action, but cannot necessarily mitigate erosion from freezing/thawing or run off. There was discussion of the color and texture used on seawalls and a seawall as the best solution and the cost factor. Further discussion was tabled until Peter Gibbs is present.

 

There was discussion of the requirement a stairway on the lakeshore extend no more than one foot above grade and agreement the language should read “generally extend no more than one foot above existing grade”. There was discussion of docks extending no more than 50’ from the shoreline and agreement the language should be modified to read “…generally extend….” Section 1751 (structures within the area) makes reference to sections that do not exist. Numbering was clarified.

 

There was discussion of restrictions on cutting vegetation within the setback (Section 1760). The Selectboard would like trees of a minimum size preserved (six inch diameter). Gary von Stange stated a balance between conservation and property rights needs to be found. Kay Kraushaar expressed concern about clear cutting of smaller trees. Much time was spent on cutting restrictions and there was plenty of opportunity for public input on the matter, recalled Ms. Kraushaar. The Planning Commission will give the language more thought and further discussion at the next meeting.

 

The Planning Commission agreed reference should be to the DRB in the section.

 

Postponed.

 

Upcoming agenda items include work with Mike Munson, tying up loose ends on the comments from the Selectboard, and the map change in the Historic Preservation and Design Review District.

 

No further information at this time on filling the vacancy on the Planning Commission.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m.

 

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

STAFF PRESENT:                Dean Pierce, Town Planner.

CONSULTANT:                    Mike Munson.

OTHERS PRESENT:            Fritz Horton, John Giebink, Charlie Bissonnette, Brian Precourt, Dorothea Penar, Ann Milovsorott, Charlie Bissonnette, Chris Kapsalis, Jim Carroll.

Tucker Holland called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.

 

The agenda was modified to include discussion with Mike Munson of setbacks on Shelburne Road and changes to Article XV proposed by Green Mountain Development Group.

 

There were no comments from the public at this time.

 

Dick Elkins suggested Section 1960.1 be changed to better address shared parking arrangements and obligating both the lessor and lessee. Mr. Elkins questioned the proposed 50% waiver as being too large a number. The Planning Commission agreed to reduce the waiver to 30%. Dean Pierce stated the Selectboard needs to be informed of the change since the current draft contains the 50% figure. Parking requirements in South Burlington were discussed. There was further consideration of the uses listed in Subsection (k) as being too high. Following discussion there was consensus to reduce the requirement to 1:250 s.f. The parking requirement for office uses was changed to 1:300 s.f. as well. Tucker Holland suggested banks and similar uses be shifted to Subsection (g). Peter Gibbs asked about parking on-site with multiple work shifts. Mike Munson suggested parking be based on the work shift with the largest number of employees on-site. There was discussion of loading areas. No specific changes were made in the text. There was discussion of handicapped parking spaces and the comments from John Adams, Shelburne Zoning Administrator. Mr. Munson suggested at least one handicap space be van accessible. Research of the parking ordinance in Williston will be done for further information.  There was brief discussion about the size of parking spaces.

 

There was discussion of the timeframe to consider a use as discontinued (six months versus 12 months). Gary von Stange urged emphasizing that the use is not being pursued as opposed to individuals. There was discussion of whether the 50% increase in Commerce/Industry South is still warranted if nonconforming uses have been made conforming by the proposed amendments.  There was discussion of language in Section 1920.2.d relative to ‘exterior architecture’ and ‘except for a setback line equal to’. Mike Munson will give the matter further thought for discussion at a future meeting.  There was discussion of demolishing abandoned buildings that are nonconforming. It is not certain municipalities have the authority to require demolition. Gary von Stange suggested the word “either” be changed to “both” or “all” if a third item is added in item (c) in the section. Dick Elkins referred to item (e). There was discussion of whether the text could more explicitly address situations where the degree of nonconformity is reduced. Dick Elkins advocated full conformance where feasible. Other members were in support of allowing improvements to the degree of nonconformity (i.e. language from Mike Munson).  Mike Munson will prepare more information and alternatives for the Planning Commission’s consideration. There was discussion of limiting changes to lot size that may slightly increase the degree of nonconformity. The Planning Commission felt the suggestion is problematic. There was mention of nonconforming mobile home parks and the comment relative to six month versus 12 months.

 

There was discussion about the challenge of enforcing zoning violations and addressing some issues via a “ticket system” that is now authorized by state statute. Shelburne has such a system for enforcing temporary sign requirements.  There was discussion of having the Fire Chief review applications and provide input. The Planning Commission supported this action. Other matters of concern include vibration, smoke, noise, odor, ash, radiation. Dean Pierce suggested there is need for meaningful quantification of the standard for heat. Reference to the town’s septic rules was removed with regard to waste water disposal.  Mike Munson offered comment on administration language.

 

Mike Munson suggested a 70’ setback in the Mixed Use zone to allow for more of a pedestrian scale to the roadway and encourage clustering of buildings versus large single buildings. A 30’ setback is suggested in a PUD and a 10,000 s.f. floor footprint. To support not having parking in the front yard the setback could be reduced and a maximum building width set to make the street façade look like a collection of smaller buildings.  There was discussion of simplifying the formula. It was noted the formula allows for staggered building setbacks. Parking in front for retail establishments and restaurants is desired by many establishment owners. Variability in the setback could be based on how much parking is in the front yard. Gary von Stange suggested getting rid of the formula and using real numbers instead. A setback of 70’ may not be the appropriate number. The town needs to help businesses succeed, not set up roadblocks. Setbacks that are too large may be detrimental to businesses, stated Mr. von Stange.  Mike Munson suggested having a fixed number and a bonus for design.  Brian Precourt, property owner, felt the word “accommodate” in the statement about accommodating commercial uses in the area sounds like the town is tolerating businesses. If the area is deemed commercial then commercial development should be there. Having a mixed use with housing is not realistic because no one wants to live on Route 7. There will be a variety of front yard setbacks with the existing buildings and then in-fill development.  There are mechanisms, continued Mr. Precourt, such as in Commerce/Industry South that allow existing buildings to increase at a percentage rate. Mr. Precourt urged looking at increasing building envelopes on Route 7. Decrease the side yard setback so parking can be on the side or the front. Parking at the back of the building does not work for commercial buildings. The key question is the objective of the district, continued Mr. Precourt. Accommodating is not enough. With the Redevelopment PUD (R-PUD) there is control on the front yard and how the building will look, and businesses can evolve with the times.

 

Dorothea Penar, Shelburne Road resident, noted people do live on Route 7 so what is done will have an impact. Ms. Penar spoke in support of a mix of commercial and residential uses.

 

Tucker Holland suggested applying some provisions in Commerce/Industry South to the Mixed Use District. Kate Lalley stated increasing density will improve the road which is presently an example of sprawl. The area is not ‘walk-able’. There should be parking in the front and on the sides of buildings in creative ways of arrangement, and leeway with the building setback. There should be greater connection between sites and to public transportation. Brian Precourt noted South Burlington requires adjoining properties to interconnect.

 

There was discussion of having a maximum setback and applying credits to allow flexibility in the setback. Dick Elkins suggested for small lots (150’ deep) along Route 7 25% of the existing depth be the setback (37% setback) with a 20% minimum side setback. This will enable a variety of building setbacks along the road. Peter Gibbs agreed using a percentage of lot depth for the setback will yield varying setbacks with buildings and each lot would have the ability to have a building envelope. Mike Munson agreed the approach will work with lots of 200’ or less in width or 200’ or less in depth, but a different approach is needed for larger lots. Brian Precourt suggested using what is in the regulations currently, such as lots next to commercial uses have a 15’ setback and commercial lots next to residential having a 50’ setback. Using a percentage of depth for the front yard setback works well with small lots. There was further discussion of setbacks based on lot depth. It was suggested lots less than three-quarters of an acre have frontage based on 25% of the depth and 20% of the width for the side setback. The rear yard setback will be a set number for commercial lots abutting commercial lots and a different number for commercial abutting residential lots.  Mike Munson will draft some language for the Mixed Use District for review at the next meeting.

 

A memo from John Giebink with Green Mountain Development Group, dated 12/13/08, regarding suggested language in Article XV was received. The action taken by the Selectboard with regard to Article XV was read.  Fritz Horton. Shelburne Historic Preservation & Design Review Committee (HP&DRC), submitted a written response to John Giebink’s suggestions, noting scale is a perception (juxtaposing large against small) while size is quantifiable (dimensions). Mr. Giebink interjected the Selectboard inserted the word “scale” in the Purpose of Article XV to clarify new construction on vacant lots versus demolition/rehabilitation of existing buildings. There is a section for existing structures and another section for new construction which would fall under HP&DRC review.  Dorothea Penar, HP&DRC, stated there are some conflicts to Mr. Giebink’s suggestions and the HP&DRC Handbook. There is need to be consistent with the Town Plan and the plan for the village. Mr. Giebink clarified he is not suggesting design review guidelines for new construction would not apply. Mr. Horton pointed out HP&DRC does not review dimensional requirements, size related items, or zoning related requirements. HP&DRC should not be determining conformance to zoning requirements before review by the Development Review Board (DRB).  Mr. Giebink noted per Section 1520 for development in the overlay district the DRB needs written recommendation from the HP&DRC. Section 1550 contains the design review criteria that the committee uses to base recommendations.  Ms. Penar stated the Purpose section could be interpreted to say if a project developer feels the project conforms to the uses and dimensional requirements in the zoning it may make it difficult for the HP&DRC to rule that the project does not fit because it does not comply with what is in the design review handbook.  The committee must be able to defend its recommendations.  There was discussion of the addition of “reasonably compatible” to the text and concern about restricting the ability of the DRB to make a determination on an application. Adding “…and consistent with the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning…” usurps what is in Section 1510. Tucker Holland pointed out what is specified does not deal with uses or dimensional requirements. Dick Elkins stated Section 8 does and the DRB deals with this.  Fritz Horton asked for some time to be able to canvas the balance of the design review committee for their opinion on the language. The Planning Commission tabled discussion until 1/8/09 so the HP&DRC can meet and discuss the matter at their December meeting.

 

 

Postponed.

 

The Planning Commission will continue work on the Phase 2 zoning revisions and response to the Selectboard on the Phase 1 revisions on 1/8/09 beginning at 6:30 p.m.

 

None.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m.