Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 02/04/2020February 4, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 1 Approved on March 3, 2020 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE February 4, 2020, 10:00 a.m., City Hall, Champlain Room Members attending: Tom Bailey, Paula DeMichele, Sandy Dooley, Michael Simoneau, and John Simson Members absent: Leslie Black-Plumeau; Others present: Monica Ostby, PC liaison Guests: Patrick O’Brien (SoBu resident and applicant for appointment to Affordable Housing Committee), Ed VonTurkovich (SoBu resident) AGENDA 1. Call to order, emergency procedure, agenda review, comments from guests 2. Review and approval of minutes of 01/21/20 committee meeting 3. Chair’s Comments 4. Discussion of open space report, Arrowwood report, planning commission meeting 01.28.20 – Sandy, Tom and John 5. Housing site analysis – Tom and Mike 6. Update on housing site analysis and potential rezoning districts – conversation with Paul Conner – John 7. Reports and updates by committee members 8. Adjourn 1. Call to order, emergency procedure, agenda review, comments from guess: John called meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. John reviewed the exit procedures. John welcomed Patrick O’Brien and Ed VonTurkovich to the meeting. John asked Ed if he had comments on a topic not included on the agenda. Ed indicated he was uncertain whether the agenda covers this, but he wanted to know whether the committee has taken a position on the proposal the Planning Commission is considering to exclude the part of a parcel that is designated as a “Hazard”, or Level 1 or Level 2 Wetland from the calculation of density allowed, should the rest of the parcel be proposed for residential housing development or should the owner choose to preserve it by selling TDRs. Sandy responded that the committee had not taken a position on this proposal. Monica stated that the Planning Commission was looking at several new ways in which TDRs can be used, in addition to increasing the density permitted on another parcel, including designating receiving areas outside the SEQ. She added that the Planning Commission has not reached a final decision on the proposal to exclude the part of a parcel that is designated as a “Hazard”, or Level 1 or Level 2 Wetland from the calculation of density allowed or the number of TDRs attached to the parcel. Ed understands the view that these areas should not receive full credit in this calculation but believes that giving these areas zero credit does not take into consideration that a parcel’s value is often increased when it includes, in part, an area designated as “Hazard”, or Level 1 or Level 2 Wetland. He suggested that the value attached to this part of the parcel might be half the value it would have if counted the same as the part of the parcel not designated as “Hazard”, or Level 1 or Level 2 Wetland. 2. Review and approval of minutes of 01/07/20 committee meeting: Tom moved and Mike seconded motion to approve the minutes of the 01/21/20 meeting, as drafted. Motion passed (5-0-0). As part of the consideration of the 01/21/20 meeting’s minutes, Monica turned the focus to item 2. of the (approved) 01/07/20 meeting minutes; specifically, the topics listed that committee members had suggested that Kevin Dorn include in his appearance before the January 9th Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee meeting in South Burlington. In particular, Monica asked whether the fourth and fifth bulleted items, relating to stormwater and wetlands regulations, respectively, represent positions that the committee has adopted. February 4, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 2 Members explained that the input given to Kevin had been shared in a brainstorming context and that some of the bulleted items were based on actual experience of the person making the suggestion. In order to avoid any confusion relative to this list, committee members agreed to include a statement in these minutes that the bulleted list of topics suggested to Kevin do not necessarily represent positions supported by the Affordable Housing Committee. 3. Chair’s Comments: John shared that, on 01/28/20, the Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion approving the latest version of the expansion of and amendments to SoBu’s inclusionary zoning regulations to include the Transit Overlay District and other identified areas and forwarding them to City Council for public hearing; these regulations will be on the February 3rd City Council meeting agenda; and the City Council is expected to warn a public hearing on the proposed regulations to take placed on March 16th. John informed those present that both he and Sandy (vice chair) will be out-of-state on March 16th, the anticipated date of the Public Hearing. His proposal is that Leslie (Black-Plumeau) fulfill the role at the public hearing that he or Sandy, if present, would otherwise carry out. He indicated that he would reach out to Leslie after the meeting to confirm her availability and willingness to accept this assignment. He indicated that he had discussed this plan with Sandy and that they are fully confident that Leslie, with the support of other committee members will do a fine job of representing the committee and presenting the proposed regulations to the City Council and public. Monica and Paul (Conner) are likely to share this responsibility with Leslie. Sandy mentioned that she had received an email from Vince Bolduc, who has applied for appointment to the committee, that he had hoped to attend the meeting but had a prior obligation preventing him from being there. Patrick indicated that he had not yet obtained the form to use to apply for appointment to the committee. Sandy indicated she would send him one electronically. The committee set the following dates for their March meetings: March 3rd and March 31st, both at 10 a.m. 4. Discussion of open space report, Arrowwood report, planning commission meeting 01/28/20 – Sandy Tom, and John: Tom had sent committee members a working paper, “Metrics for Prioritizing Housing Development”, the evening before the meeting. As most present had not reviewed it, John summarized its content: Metrics for assessing priority: (1) proximity to City/other services (water, sewer, roads, natural gas lines) and amenities (bike/pedestrian path); (2) Site traits (as defined by Open Space report, Arrowwood report, and other resources); and (3) Conformance with SoBu Comprehensive Plan. The paper describes the specific criteria developed to determine the scores assigned to a parcel relative to each metric. For example, a parcel having adjoining access to existing water and sewer lines would receive a higher score than one not having adjoining access but access within 250 yards. Group used a Map provided by Public Works to make these determinations. Tom brought this (very large) map to committee meeting. Very helpful/informative map! Group looked only at the parcels examined by the Open Space committee. Group used three “working draft” maps developed by SoBu Planning & Zoning department dated 01/28/20 to estimate the buildable acres on each lot. Developed three subgroups: >40 acres; >20 but not >40 acres; < 20 acres and assigned scores to each. Vis-à-vis the Comprehensive Plan, group used Map 11 of the Comprehensive Plan, which contains the following categories relative to development: (1) Very Low Intensity – Principally Open Space, (2) Lower Intensity – Principally Residential, (3) Medium Intensity – Residential to Mixed Use, (4) Medium to Higher Intensity – Principally non-Residential, and (5) Medium to Higher to Higher Intensity – Mixed use. Category (1) receives a zero (0) score; all others receive a score of one (1). February 4, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 3 Of the 25 parcels reviewed, eight (8) were assessed as having little or no buildable acres and 17 as having acres suitable for building (development). Tom added that the working group did not examine soil and prime agriculture characteristics of the 25 parcels. Plan is to complete first draft of the working paper by 02/11/20. Those present that had reviewed the Arrowwood Report considered it a helpful contribution to the data being used to determine parcels or portions of parcels having high priority for preservation. Suggestion was made to allow some of the required landscaping budget for developments to be used for natural resource protection investment. This would require change in current regulations relating to landscape requirements. Patrick cautioned against requirements (burdens) that increase the cost of building housing, which will result in increasing the gap between the typical ($500K) residence and an affordable one. Those present agree we need to follow development of Natural Resource chapter of new Comprehensive Plan so that it is clear on what is to be preserved and what is available for development and the density allowed. Monica mentioned that new PUD regulations are expected to specify minimum and maximum allowable density. Before leaving at 11:18 a.m., Ed (VonTurkovich) commended members on their work and said community is fortunate to have such a hard-working and skilled group of volunteers working on this issue. 6. Update on housing site analysis and potential rezoning districts - John: John reported on his meeting with Paul (Conner). Paul’s preference for type of residential development to be encouraged is the triplexes that comprise the Shenk development on Market Street. Mention was also made of converting commercial uses to residential development on Williston Road when the commercial uses end, but concern is that this will have a negative impact on property tax revenues. Also concern about impact of higher density development on current residential neighborhoods on Williston Road. Another suggestion was expanding the City Center District. Members also focused on the UVM-owned former “dog park” land on Patchen Road. Possible follow- up to exploring residential development of this land is to invite Linda Kingsbury or John Evans (of UVM) to a committee meeting. Discussion did not go beyond “identification of opportunities” stage. Focusing on how to move forward and choose a particular site on which to promote housing development will be taken up at a future meeting. 7. Reports and updates by committee members: deferred to future committee meeting. 8. Adjourn: At 11:59 a.m., Mike moved and Tom seconded motion to adjourn. Motion passed 5-0-0.