Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/27/2019 (2)SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 AUGUST 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 August 2019, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, A. Klugo, D. MacDonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; R. Mahony, CCRPC; J. Simson, S. Dooley, P. DiMichele 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Ms. Louisos: She and Mr. Conner were interviewed by WCAX regarding the proposed removal of parking minimums. Mr. Conner’s staff report was submitted in written form. He noted that in addition to that report, the Planning Department just got 1100 slides of aerial studies from the past which will be a good resource. 5. Presentation and discussion on proposed Inclusionary Zoning (Inc. Zon.) regulations submitted by the Affordable Housing Committee: Mr. Conner introduced Regina Mahony off the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, on contract with the City to provide assistance on this project.. Mr. Simson noted that 500 communities in the U.S. have Inclusionary Zoning. It is a tool for economic integration of affordable units into the market rate projects. Mr. Simson then reviewed the need for housing in the area. He noted that only 35% of city employees live in S. Burlington because even with a good job, they can’t afford a home. Other factors contributing to need are: the low rental vacancy rate, residents paying too much for housing, and the identification by the medical community of affordable housing as a top need in the community. 2 The So. Burlington Comprehensive Plan lists among its goals that by 2025 there would be 1080 new affordable housing units. The County is also falling short of its goals under “Building Homes Together” of building 140 affordable homes a year. So far, only 92 a year are being built. Mr. Klugo asked how South Burlington is doing as far as carrying the load in the County. Of those 140, how many were expected in South Burlington.? He felt that the city should promote the face that the city is doing more than its share and then continue to improve on its success. Ms. Dooley said the 1080 number is intended to keep the proportion of affordable housing in South Burlington level and prevent fewer affordable units being built. It is also the intent of the CCRPC to have most new housing in the County built in growth areas which encompasses South Burlington. Mr. Klugo noted that the goals are at the mercy of market conditions. Mr. Simson said that one thing Inclusionary Zoning can do is to insure that when housing is produced, there will be some affordable units. He noted that when Champlain Housing can build another development in South Burlington, there will be some catching up. Mr. Simson then identified the location the Committee has targeted for Inclusionary Zoning which follows the lines of the Transit Overlay District plus a little bit of the O’Brien development (he showed this on a map). Mr. Simson then outlined the rules for the proposed Inclusionary Zoning as follows: a. Inclusionary Zoning would be required for projects of 12 units or more b. 15% of the units would have to be affordable. If units are rented, they would have to go to people at or below 80% AMI; if units are sold, they would have to go to people at or below 100% of AMI c. For each inclusionary unit provided, the developer would get one additional market rate unit. The parking requirement for Inclusionary units would be no greater than 1 space per unit. d. The developer can either dedicate land to the city or construct Inclusionary Zoning units off-site. e. A person whose income increases after moving into an Inclusionary unit would not have to move out, but if/when they do move out, the unit would have to be affordable again to someone who meets the criteria. f. The program would be overseen by the city, with an annual report. Mr. Riehle asked if students would be included. Mr. Simson said there are regulations regarding the number of people in a household. Mr. Conner added that there are also laws that don’t allow picking and choosing by age, etc. Mr. Riehle asked if this would apply to UVM if they were to build housing. Ms. Ostby said this is only for the Traffic Overlay District. 3 Mr. Klugo asked how the one to one bonus was decided on. Mr. Simson said it is easy to calculate, and they also want to keep density at a reasonable level. Mr. Klugo said he felt they could create a mechanism, with more bonus units, to create more units and thus bring prices down. They may also be able to leverage TDR units and maybe build more affordable units. Mr. Simson urged the Commission to proceed with what is proposed, then increase offsets, if they choose via amendments. Mr. Klugo said there are 2 problems to solve: affordability and increasing the number of units in order to bring costs down. One-to-two would be his baseline, with more if TDRs are involved. Mr. Simson said he is not opposed to that long-term. Mr. Simson stressed that the affordable housing is aimed at the mid-range of earners who still cannot find housing in the city. Mr. Riehle said there is a misconception that South Burlington is a wealthy community; it actually ranks 20th out of 28 communities in the County for median income. Ms. Mahoney stressed that this s just one of many tools to solve housing needs, and it won’t solve all the problems. The attempt is to have an influence with 15% of the units being built. Mr. Simson added that there is a large appetite for this nation-wide. Mr. Conner said he would advocate to this Inclusionary Zoning city-wide, whether now or if the Commission is not comfortable with now, then at the conclusion of Interim Zoning. At 80% of median income, people almost always have a car. Mr. Simson said once the dust of Interim Zoning clears, he felt any PUD in the city should have Inclusionary Zoning, and there would be some land available in the Southeast Quadrant available for that. Mr. Conner recommended that when Interim Zoning ends, the Committee take up the city-wide expansion of Inclusionary Zoning, from an equity point of view. Ms. Simson noted that the City of Burlington is now forcing Inclusionary Housing into higher-end neighborhoods with no “in lieu of.” Mr. Klugo said he didn’t feel Inclusionary Zoning impacts the work that has to happen in Interim Zoning. He was worried about splitting the process into 2 parts. He felt Inclusionary Zoning is completely location-neutral. When Interim Zoning ends, people will know where to build. He felt it should be warned for the whole city. Right now you can only build in a certain area, but when Interim Zoning ends, this can apply everywhere. He added that this may actually reduce density because you are taking away density bonuses. Ms. Louisos was concerned that by only going for the Transit Overlay District, it could look like a “bait and switch” when they expand to the whole city. Ms. Ostby said at present, it is an expansion of the Form Based Code to the full Transit Overlay District, with the intent of going city-wide when Interim Zoning is over. Ms. Louisos was OK with that explanation. 4 Mr. Klugo suggested the Committee’s report sound more positive and not focus on how goals are not being met. Mr. Klugo also explained that his struggle in all of this is that he didn’t feel the residential developer should bear the full burden of affordable housing. It should be all development, including commercial. It is the only way to get to the goal, and commercial developers reap the benefits of affordable housing without contributing to it. Mr. Simson cited the issue of not having “home rule” in the state. Ms. Ostby suggested doing it as an “impact fee.” Mr. Klugo said the Commission and Committee need those answers. Members generally favored heading toward a public hearing. 6. Review Updated Work Plan: Members reviewed a chart of major projects being worked on. Mr. Conner suggested that the next meeting will be a good time for updates and a discussion of what to do when. Mr. Klugo said they need a list of what needs to happen to close Interim Zoning. 7. Introduction and discussion of possible FY 2020 Municipal Planning Grant: Mr. Conner suggested going for something that isn’t directly a Planning Commission responsibility. Members supported this. Some suggestions are: the Champlain Valley Conservation Partnership Collaborative to advance regional coordination; under the Public Art Committee, a cultural asset map/inventory; something from the Economic Development Committee (Mr. Conner hasn’t heard back from them as yet); the next “regionalization” project. The Commission need to make a decision on 10 September. 8. Discussion and Input to Capital Improvement Program: Mr. Conner asked member for anything they would wish to add. Staff is looking at future partnering regarding Hinesburg Road/Tilley Drive and/or Community Drive/Kimball Ave. 9. Preview of 26 September all-committee summit, possible assignment of volunteers: Mr. Conner suggested a couple of presenters. Ms. Ostby offered to help. 10. Interim Zoning Updates: No updates were presented. 11. Meeting Minutes of 13 August 2019: 5 Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 13 August 2019 as written. Mr. Klugo seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that the Council has warned a pubic hearing on LDR amendments for 16 September. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:28 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission September 10, 2019