Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 03/03/2021March 3, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 1 Approved on March 16, 2021 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE March 3, 2021 10:30 a.m., meeting held online Members attending (online): Leslie Black-Plumeau (early part of meeting, returning at 11:55), Vince Bolduc, Sandy Dooley, John Simson, and Chris Trombly Others: Monica Ostby, PC liaison; and Kevin Dorn, City Manager (for agenda item #3); John Burton and Mike Simoneau (left at 11:58), SoBu residents AGENDA 1. Call to order, agenda review, public comment, approval of minutes (02/16/21), announcements, chair’s comments 2. Discussion about 2nd Session of the “Color of Law” book group 3. Discussion regarding upcoming CCRPC I-89 meeting 4. Discussion and possible action on recommended housing income maximums and/or rental or sales price maximums for Inclusionary dwelling units outside areas currently covered by Inclusionary Zoning 5. Discussion and possible action to support recommendation to Planning Commission that they delay work on all but the basic Conservation PUD (in which 70 or more of property is restricted from development under combination of current and new zoning) until after Interim Zoning has ended 6. Discussion of 2/23/21 Planning Commission presentation of building types as compared to density calculation 7. Adjourn 1, Call to order, agenda review, public comment, approval of Minutes (02/16/21), announcements, chair’s comments Call to order: Chris called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. Agenda review: Vince moved and John seconded motion to approve agenda. Motion approved: 5-0-0. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Minutes: Sandy moved and John seconded motion to approve the 02/16/21 meeting minutes as amended. The amendments included: under agenda item 3, subpart titled Inclusionary zoning, substituting the word “incentives” for “offset”; inserting in 3rd sentence following “and”, “PUD standards in general can be a part of that equation, and that other incentives could be an increased minimum density within a PUD that provides a floor to the development” and deleting “adoption of minimum density requirements are enough”; in fourth sentence substituting the word “incentives” for “quid pro quo”; and under agenda item 4, at end of third sentence, adding “in the current draft”; and in fifth sentence, inserting “a traditional subdivision (both of which would exclude hazards)” and deleting “current density regulations (minus hazards).” Motion approved: 5-0-0. Announcements: On February 23rd, the City Council entered into a contract with Jessie Baker, currently City Manager for the City of Winooski, to become South Burlington’s next City Manager. Chair’s Comments: Chris made no comments due to full agenda. 2. Discussion about 2nd Session of the “Color of Law” book group: While second meeting of book group included fewer participants, those attending were an enlightened and enthusiastic group. Monica proposed doing outreach to a broader audience—wants concrete actions that demonstrate SoBu is a welcoming community. Kevin suggested putting a book review in “City News.” Sandy mentioned abundance of materials on the web re this book. Vince volunteered to write an introductory paragraph and include links to web materials for the next issue of City News (draft due to Kevin by Friday). Monica suggested screening of the film, 13th, as follow-up to book group. Mention of April being Fair Housing Month. Committee will seek input and assistance of Jess Hyman in planning follow-up. Chris will reach out to Jess and invite her to future committee meeting for this purpose. 3. Discussion regarding upcoming CCRPC I-89 meeting: Kevin referred group to Charlie Baker’s memo; several city committees plus City Council invited. Important to attend (3/10/21, 5 p.m.). Meeting is part of I-89 2050 March 3, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 2 Study, which now focuses on modifications to Exits 13 & 14 (two proposed designs for each) and a new Exit 12B, all located in South Burlington. CCRPC, sponsor of study, is seeking input from SoBu folks as implementation of any of these proposals will have greatest impact on SoBu. Sandy read goals of Study taken from its website. Lots of questions/thoughts: increased development around Exit 12B if it is built, how does 12B relate to housing, two unbuilt streets on City Map relate to a possible Exit 12B—are these streets included in this study, what about effect on transit and bike/ped travel of the five designs, what about effect of new development on City Center, how does each proposal affect other parts of City and City as a whole, connecting Tilley Drive to Community Drive would create opportunity for SoBu shuttle loop, no need to develop committee comments at this meeting. CCRPC and consultants are looking especially for refinements of existing evaluation criteria or recommended new criteria, and whether each goal should be given equal weight in evaluation. 4. Discussion and possible action on recommended housing income maximums and/or rental or sales price maximums for Inclusionary dwelling units outside areas currently covered by Inclusionary Zoning: Sandy reviewed data on household AMI levels (80%, 100%, 120%), and maximum rents and purchase prices for these income levels if implemented under Inclusionary Zoning, and market rate rents for various unit sizes; data came from Michael Monte and Leslie Black-Plumeau. Information on cost of market rentals currently available in SoBu also shared. Mike Simoneau provided info on detached single-family SoBu houses for sale at affordable prices; very few in number and most are sold within 48 hours. Important: if you increase supply, you increase churn because increased supply results in more people moving out of existing homes into another home. Committee members reluctant to support raising maximum income levels and prices for homeownership without more information. Group noted that SoBu rules do not require that Inclusionary units be of the same type as the market units in a development; as a result, developer could have all the Inclusionary homeownership units in condominiums and none in detached SF houses. Sandy will follow up with Patrick (O’Brien) to obtain more information. Members present are in agreement that the maximum household income and rent levels should remain at 80% AMI under expanded Inclusionary Zoning. It was noted that, at a recent meeting, some Planning Commissioners expressed support for requiring minimum percentage of detached SF housing type in new TND PUD rules. 5. Discussion and possible action to support recommendation to Planning Commission that they delay work on all but the basic Conservation PUD (in which 70 or more of property is restricted from development under combination of current and new zoning) until after Interim Zoning has ended: Concern is that if PC does not limit drafting of Conservation PUD (C-PUD) rules to “basic” C-PUD, needed for owners of parcels for which 70% or more of the land qualifies as Hazards, Level 1 Resources, and or NRP, completion of the PUD work will be unduly prolonged, thus extending length of Interim Zoning. Dealing with other than the “basic” C-PUD raises many challenging questions that will likely take much time to resolve. Concern expressed about what the requirement to conserve 70% of the parcel means. Is it permanent conservation—i.e. forever? It is not unusual for land to change significantly over time. What may be correctly classified as “not buildable” now might become appropriate for development in the future. With limited amount of land available for development, land should not be removed from future possibility of development forever. It was noted that current LDRs require NRP land to be conserved when the TDRs are sold. How does this work? Who is responsible for continued conservation? Need to learn more about this. Leslie will draft a couple of paragraphs on this subject of “permanent” conservation and share with committee for consideration at 3/16 meeting. 6. Discussion of 2/23/21 Planning Commission presentation of building types as compared to density calculation: Members who attended this meeting found presentation helpful. Some Planning Commissioners appeared concerned about less specificity about maximum density as answer to this question depends on so many aspects of a proposed development, which are likely to vary from one application to the next. Group expressed support for focus on rules that promote functioning neighborhoods. 7. Adjourn: At 12:35 p.m. Sandy moved and Leslie seconded motion to adjourn. Motion approved: 5-0-0. New meeting dates: March 16 and 30, 10:30 a.m. – 12-30 p.m.