Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 03/20/2018APPROVED on April 3, 2018 NOTE: Date/time/place of next meeting: April 3, 2018, 9:00 a.m., South Burlington Police Department, 2nd Floor Conference Room AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE March 20, 2018, 10:00 AM, City Hall Members attending: Sandy Dooley, Todd Rawlings (left at 11:50 a.m.), Michael Simoneau, and John Simson (Chair), Leslie Black-Plumeau (11:33 a.m.–12:00 p.m.); Members absent: Tom Bailey, Larry Michaels Others attending: Monica Ostby; Nick Andrews, resident of South Village, Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Kevin Dorn, City Manager (10:10-10:4 0a.m.); Cathyann LaRose, SoBu City Planner (11:25 - 11:55 a.m.) Minutes by Sandy Dooley AGENDA 1. Emergency exit, agenda review, public comments 2. Review March 6, 2018, minutes for adoption 3. Welcome Paul Connor for discussion of the following: - Status of development fee discounts for affordable housing - Andrew Gill’s suggested development regulations changes - PUD regulation input from the committee - Density bonus regulation modification 4. Discuss City-Wide Inclusionary Zoning draft 5. Adjourn 1. Emergency exit, agenda review, public comments: John called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m., summarized emergency evacuation instructions, and welcomed Nick Andrews to the meeting. Committee members introduced themselves to Nick. John informed committee that he had met with Nick and received an email from Miranda Jonswold, a correspondent for The Other Paper, regarding discussions at the Development Review Board suggesting that the South Village developers might seek approval to omit the inclusion of any affordable housing in South Village. Thirty-five units (35) units of affordable housing are included in the South Village Master Plan (approved in 2005; modified and reapproved in 2006). John proposed that this subject be added to the subjects the committee will discuss with Paul Conner. Committee agreed to this addition by consensus. There were no comments from the public 2. Review March 6, 2018, minutes for adoption: Due to delay in distribution of minutes, by consensus committee decided to postpone review of March 6, 2018, minutes to the April 3, 2018, committee meeting. 3. Welcome Paul Connor for discussion of the following: - (added) situation regarding South Village and the 35 affordable housing units included in its Master Plan - Status of development fee discounts for affordable housing - Andrew Gill’s suggested development regulations changes - PUD regulation input from the committee - Density bonus regulation modification - (added) situation regarding South Village (SV) and the 35 affordable housing units included in its Master Plan The SV Master Plan includes 334 housing units, 299 market rate and 35 affordable. Phases 1 and 2 have been approved, many units built, but not all. Developer is seeking approval of Phase 3. The DRB is concerned that no affordable units have been built. The maximum density for the acreage, without a density bonus, is 269 units. The developer raised the subject of seeking DRB approval to revise the Master Plan and build 269 units, all at market rate prices. Developer has asserted position that s/he does not have to build affordable units until s/he proposes to build more than 269 units. DRB disagrees and has issued decision that Phase 3 must include six (6) affordable units and developer is to provide DRB with an overall affordability plan for completion of Phases 1 and 2. This DRB decision is still within the 30-day appeal period so it is unknown as to whether developer will comply or appeal. Information: all of the 12-plexes are apartment rentals (none affordable). Lesson: LDRs need to address timing of when affordable units are to be built. Affordable housing committee’s role at this time is to observe/follow the SV process in the DRB and address the timing of construction of affordable units in the inclusionary zoning regulations that it is drafting. - Status of development fee discounts for affordable housing Kevin (Dorn) joined committee and shared that following the committee’s proposal to put in place discounted fees for nonprofit organizations developing affordable rental housing, he had brought together a work group charged with task of looking at permit process and fee structure from a comprehensive perspective. Committee stated desire for discounted fees to be in place so that they assist next affordable housing development (anticipated in City Center). Sandy noted that discounts are an add-on policy to the established fees and implementing them would not interfere with the comprehensive review of how the city determines fees and how SoBu’s fees compare with those of neighboring communities. Kevin indicated willingness to fast track the discussion of discounted fees for affordable housing developments and focus on this at the next work group meeting. Hiatus: while Paul left room to obtain equipment to show Andrew Gill’s PowerPoint pdf, John gave the committee a brief report on City Council’s public hearing on the proposed Housing Preservation and other LDR changes that took place the previous evening (3/19). The City Council postponed action on the entire LDR package until the next meeting. The proposed nuisance ordinance change (re noise) (also on the City Council’s agenda that evening) had taken more time than anticipated. Re the Housing Preservation (HP) LDRs, questions were raised about why the proposed HP LDRs exempts the houses in airport neighborhood that the FAA has offered to purchase but not yet bought from the requirement to pay into the Housing Trust Fund when a residential unit is demolished and not replaced. - Andrew Gill’s suggested development regulation changes Paul outlined many ideas for improving the LDRs re housing development to encourage affordable housing that were prompted by his review of Andrew’s suggested changes and provided input on Planning Commission’s perspective on some of the suggestions. (1) Currently, in R1 and R2 districts, a density bonus is not available when the lot is smaller than five (5) acres. This predates Paul’s time with City. He supports eliminating this lot- size requirement in these districts for access to a density bonus. (2) Currently, PUD is not available for development on a lot smaller than two (2) acres. This means that if someone wanted to propose a development akin to the Kirby Cottages today, it could not be done. The Kirby Cottages, whose lot is smaller than two acres, predate the two (2) or more acres for a PUD requirement. Density bonus was part of Kirby Cottage development. Density bonus available only via a PUD. Paul would support eliminating the two-acre minimum requirement for PUDs. (3) Re Andrew’s suggestions re bonding—both amount and timing, Planning Commission (PC) does not want to reduce landscaping requirements. However, PC likely to be receptive, in developments where landscaping budget is greater than needed, to an LDR option in which the unused landscaping dollars could be put to creative use (perhaps, for pedestrian/bike path connection). (4) Comments re bonding, if otherwise required bond is $500 or less, not requiring a bond; in developments costing above a specified amount, only require bonding for 50% of cost. (5) Increase in property taxes when development is permitted but not yet built—what Andrew is referring to is the increase in the assessed value of the property, which results in higher property taxes. Permitted property is more valuable than property for which no permits for development have been granted. Todd (LeBlanc, City Assessor) is concerned that not changing assessed value of a property once permits have been granted would put the City in violation of state law. (6) Lot frontage requirement is 50 ft. per unit. Re Andrew’s suggestions regarding Infrastructure Bonding, City staff does not share Andrew’s perspective on this subject. Paul shared example of where City taxpayers would have had to foot major costs if Infrastructure Bonding requirement had not been in place. (7) Garage location requirements – Andrew’s point is that having garage in back takes away backyard space. PC would like to see more park-like space so that large backyard would be less desired/valued and neighborhood would recreate in jointly owned space. - PUD regulation input from the committee Cathyann joined the meeting for this discussion. Cathyann is especially interested in the committee’s work on “special urban districts” (current ad hoc label), which would have enhanced incentives for affordable housing; i.e. incentives that exceed those that the committee will propose for outside the City Center Form-Based Code District. She is interested in the percentages of the development that would need to be affordable and the household income level/s to which the housing would be targeted to qualify for the enhanced density bonuses and other incentives. Cathyann is interested in committee’s thoughts on possibly establishing minimum densities. What are the potential effects of having minimum densities; she perceives difficulty in identifying the (unanticipated) consequences. In the past, the conventional thinking has been that “fewer is better”— i.e. lower density is better than higher density. One view is that affordability is effectively addressed via the supply/demand model; i.e. if we increase housing stock, regardless of size, that this alone will reduce costs and free up “entry level” housing. Cathyann sought committee members’ input re whether the supply/demand model or density alone or with other policies/incentives are likely to be effective in increasing the availability of affordable housing. The committee has concluded that inclusionary requirements for affordable housing, along with incentives, such as density bonuses, are necessary to increase the supply of affordable housing. Density strategies alone will not be enough. This conclusion underpins the committee’s drafting of Inclusionary Zoning LDRs for all districts in City that allow residential housing plus revised Density Bonuses and other incentives for districts outside the City Center Form-Based Codes district. (Point of information: Developers, both private and nonprofit, at the recent panel on economics of affordable housing uniformly stated that allowing more density makes it possible to reduce the unit costs, thus, reducing the price, thus, advancing affordability.) The Planning Commission has discussed whether number of units is a fully accurate representation of density. Regarding staff and consultant work on revising the PUD regulations, they expect a working draft ready to share with public at end of June. She believes our plan for Special Urban Districts and the proposed new Neighborhood-based regulations for PUDs would benefit from collaboration. Staff/consultants expect to have articulated PUD general outcomes (including thresholds and scale) after their next meeting. She suggested that committee invite consultant, Sharon Murray to a meeting in near future. John said he would invite her to our April 17th meeting. Cathyann also spoke with the committee about whether it anticipates aligning the bands of affordability within the City Center Inclusionary Zoning LDRs with the bands of affordability listed for density bonuses that are currently offered city-wide. The current LDRs use the 60/80% income thresholds for density bonuses, while the IZ thresholds allow for some affordability to be measured at 100 or 120% income. The Committee stated that they have thought about this and would further explore it going forward. This could be done outside of or in advance of the PUD work. Cathyann envisions the new PUD regulations as having requirements that reinforce City’s Comprehensive Plan in a constructive way and give development community a clearer understanding of what is desired/required. In current Master Plans the level of specification varies a lot, leading to inconsistency. - Density bonus regulation modification This discussion is interrelated with the next agenda item. Due to lack of time, committee did not explore this topic with Paul or Cathyann. 4. Discuss City-Wide Inclusionary zoning draft: Due to lack of time, committee did not discuss Sandy’s recently shared draft. John asked committee members to come to April 2nd meeting having reviewed Sandy’s proposed regulations relative to density bonuses in City zoning districts that permit residential development and are outside the City Center Form-Based Code district. 5. Adjourn – Mike moved and Sandy seconded motion that the meeting be adjourned. Committee approved motion unanimously (3-0-0) at 12:10 p.m. Note: following adjournment Sandy shared reasoning behind the density bonus regulations she drafted. (a) She tried but could not devise a way to integrate the existing Density Bonus regulations with the Inclusionary Zoning regulations that she understands the Committee wants to make effective in zoning districts outside City Center Form-Based Code District that permit residential housing developments. (b) She is not saying there is no way to do this. However, she has not been able to identify a way. She is open to alternative proposals. (c) She understands that her draft represents a dramatic change from the current Density Bonus regulations. (d) What she put forth is an EARLY, DRAFTY draft. (e) Related questions: - do we want to require a PUD for developer to receive density bonus, - do we want to strengthen what this draft proposes (e.g. by giving density bonuses only for units that are for 80 percent or below AMI households or 60 percent or below AMI households, - do we want the “awarding” of density bonuses to be discretionary on the part of the DRB, - do we want to offer density bonuses to developments having fewer than 12 residential units under specified conditions, - do we want to limit overall density (with bonus) to R-4 in developments in R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, - do we want regulations to address market vs. affordable units and how they are distributed within the development, and - do we want regulations to address the types of residential units to be built (single-family, duplex, triplex, four-plex, and multi-family)? Please come ready to share your thoughts vis-à-vis these questions. “Bike rack” ● (Quoted from January 23, 2018, meeting minutes) “John asked Mike to prepare a work plan for the committee to collaborate with Coralee to enhance its effectiveness in communicating with residents via the City’s website and via other means. The plan should include specific assignments to be carried out by identified committee members. Mike accepted this assignment.” Homework (not yet reported on): ● Mike will consult with an accountant regarding what incentives the City might put in place to encourage owners of undeveloped property to sell land at a “bargain price” to private developers. ● Mike will seek Yves Bradley’s input regarding development of more housing along Shelburne Road corridor.