Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 09/15/2020September 15, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 1 Approved on September 29, 2020 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE September 15, 2020, 10:00 a.m., meeting held online Members attending (online): Leslie Black-Plumeau (arrived 10:08), Vince Bolduc, Sandy Dooley, Mike Simoneau, John Simson, and Chris Trombly Absent: Patrick O’Brien Others: Monica Ostby, PC liaison; Kevin Dorn, City Manager; Paul Conner, SoBu Director of Planning & Zoning AGENDA 1. Call to order, agenda review, comments from guests 2. Review and approval of minutes of September 1, 2020 3. Chair’s Comments 4. Discussion of the plan of action based on the Case for Housing report and adoption of a statement to be submitted to the Planning Commission 5. Discussion of draft Article 12 under consideration by the Planning Commission focusing on implications for housing development (committee members are urged to read the draft before the meeting) 6. Discuss requesting Planning Commission include inclusionary housing provision in PUD regs 7. Review and update Committee work plan 8. Reports and updates by committee members 9. Adjourn 1. Call to order, agenda review, comments from guests: John called meeting to order at 10:04 a.m. There were no changes to the agenda. As no guests attended, there were no comments from guests. 2. Review and approval of minutes of September 1, 2020: Vince moved and Mike seconded motion to approve 09/01/20 meeting minutes as drafted (noting that Frank VonTurkovich did not attend the 09/01/20 meeting). Motion approved: 5-0-0 (Leslie had not yet arrived). 3. Chair’s Comments: John proposed addressing agenda items 4, 5, and 6 together. Members present concurred. John raised subject of Tom’s recent resignation and added his appreciation for Tom’s many years of service as a committee member and his several contributions to the work of the committee, noting his initiation with Mike of the work of the Housing Space Working Group. Other committee members shared their appreciation for Tom’s service and contributions. In recognition of these views and the desire to convey them to Tom, Leslie moved and Vince seconded the adoption of a resolution of appreciation for Tom Bailey’s many years of service on and numerous contributions to the committee, including a charge to committee chair John Simson to communicate this resolution to Tom. Adoption of resolution passed: 6-0-0. Then, as Monica had not yet arrived, John suggested discussing agenda item 6, Review and update Committee work plan, and proposed adding to work plan reviewing the City’s zoning regulations outside the Form-based Code district, with a view to identifying traditionally defined zoning districts that would benefit from modification consistent with new approaches now being considered in several communities nationwide. Leslie asked if this includes altering zoning definitions that currently exclude housing development so that the new definitions would allow housing development. Answer: where appropriate, “yes.” Mike asked raised question of committee advocating for changes in the abstract or advocacy directed toward specific changes. Sandy raised question of whether new committee members are familiar with most recent Work Plan (plus fact that she has not reviewed it recently). Answer: John sent Work Plan to new committee members. Question: why can’t City Council do more re Housing? Committee conclusion: timing not good for this expectation especially as City Council is currently focused on how to bring Interim Zoning to conclusion successfully and expeditiously. September 15, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 2 Agreement that committee wants to continue to add to and improve its page on the City’s website. Members decided to move on due to time limitations and work to be done before adjournment. 4. Discussion of the plan of action based on the Case for Housing report and adoption of a statement to be submitted to the Planning Commission (PC): Leslie asked that items 4, 5, and 6 be re-ordered. John explained that before she arrived, he had proposed that items 4, 5, and 6 be considered together. Members present asked for summaries of the topics raised in the statement proposed for adoption and submission to the Planning Commission. Sandy, Monica, and Paul (Conner, who had joined the meeting at 10:40 during Sandy and Monica’s summaries) provided this information. The most significant change would be to substitute regulations relating to housing types (requiring more than one housing type in all PUDs) for current regulations that regulate the amount of development using a density calculation (e.g. X# units per acres multiplied by allowable # of acres in the PUD). Focus would be on scaling blocks so that they are pedestrian-oriented and more likely to function as a neighborhood. This approach is more likely to result in development of housing types typically referred to as the Missing Middle. Committee discussed need to add inclusionary zoning to these PUD regulations, determine what kind of offsets (if any) would be required to comply with state law, and include regulations that would provide incentives for using TDRs in these PUDs. Members, along with Paul and Monica, then discussed the draft re-write of Article 12. Paul shared that staff briefed the PC on this draft on August 11th and would be focusing on regulations related to forest blocks; steep slopes; and Traditional Neighborhood, Neighborhood Commercial, and Conservation PUDs at their next couple of meetings (September 22 and October 13). Example of current development that is similar to a Conservation PUD: South Point on Spear Street north of South Village. Members viewed overlays of several maps relating to Open Space Committee and Arrowwood reports and other features of SoBu land. Paul explained definition of the “Transition Zones” delineated in Arrowwood Report. Important to understand> the transition zone is part of the forest (not outside of the forest). What is being considered for compensation to property owners for possible removal of part of their land from eligibility for development? a. In Conservation PUD – will continue to use density calculation and all land in PUD will be used in the calculation (PC to determine how to address Hazards) b. Substituting Building Type regulations for density calculation in the other PUD classifications allows more flexibility. In terms of Inclusionary Zoning, Paul indicated this might in an of itself serve as compensation as in the City Center FBC district. c. Incorporate some/all of the recommendation in the TDR Interim Zoning committee’s report Leslie raised questions as follows: (1) Which map layer is associated with which policy change being considered? Paul C: maps being updated and gave suggestions for how to do this. (2) Will PC be in position to show areas receiving additional protection under proposed new regulations? Paul: certainly possible. (3) Which areas would be Conservation PUDs? Staff recommendation is that this is optional on part of property owner. Planning Commission to review a draft map of applicability. (4) How much land can be conserved in a Conservation PUD? Minimum is 70% of land under current draft; draft also allows more to be conserved at owner’s option. Property owner can have more than one PUD in a development. (5) How much additional land would be removed from eligibility for development if current draft of regulations were adopted? Paul C: 485 acres at maximum; this number does not take into consideration that a portion of this land is already effectively unavailable for development. Example: UVM-owned Centennial Woods natural area off Swift Street is included in this number. (6) Can map of priority parcels for housing be added to the list of maps? Paul C: this can happen when The Case for Housing report becomes a “City document.” John explained that committee had officially “endorsed” The Case for Housing report at its September 1st meeting. September 15, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 3 MOTION: Mike moved and Sandy seconded that Committee request that Paul C take actions necessary to have this map added to the others on the City’s website. Motion passed: 6-0-0. More discussion/questions: Have the draft PUD regulations been vetted by a developer/development community? Staff has been in regular communication with developers throughout the project. At the last few PC meetings, other than Frank VonTurkovich’s attendance at PC meetings, no. We have a definition of “habitat” for non-human animals. Do we have a comparable definition for housing? Discomfort with boundaries for areas now protected and those be considered for future protection due to lack of field verification. Kevin asked Paul whether PC had, essentially, placed higher priority on protection of forest blocks and wildlife habitat than ensuring that land was preserved for the development of housing. Paul said that in evaluating natural resources to be protected in their work during Interim Zoning, the PC had determined that Forested Habitat Blocks were the most significant resource that were not otherwise protected, and had therefore recommended engaging Arrowwood to perform their study. The Commission had begun prior to the pandemic to evaluate places in the city where other objectives outweighed the mapped forest blocks. This will continue this fall. Mention made that Arrowwood prioritizes different kinds of habitat blocks, which some perceive as “fuzziness.” Draft Article 12 includes mapped Habitat Blocks and a limited option for a developer to request a modification or mitigation. Goal is to create environment in which there is less litigation. John raised need to decide whether to approve the Plan of Action memo for submission to the Planning Commission as time was in short supply at that point. His question: “Are there problems with the memo?” Response was: “generally, no.” Paul C noted that third to last paragraph is a “big subject area” and, though important, is not likely to receive PC action in the short term. Members decided to keep this paragraph in the memo. MOTION: Sandy moved and Vince seconded that committee approve the Plan of Action Memo and task John with forwarding it to Planning Commission. Following discussion motion passed on vote of 4-2-0 (affirmative: Bolduc, Dooley, Simson & Trombly; negative: Black-Plumeau & Simoneau). Memo text follows minutes. 5. Discussion of draft Article 12 under consideration by the Planning Commission focusing on implications for housing development (committee members are urged to read the draft before the meeting): included in item 4 above. 6. Discuss requesting Planning Commission include inclusionary housing provision in PUD regs: included in item 4 above. 7. Review and update Committee work plan: discussed under item 3 above. 8. Reports and updates by committee members: deferred to future committee meeting. 9. Adjourn: Prior to adjournment, Committee decided to meet again on Tuesday, September 29, 10:00 a.m. Assumption is that meeting with be online. At approximately 12:00 p.m. Leslie moved and Vince seconded motion to adjourn. Motion passed 6-0-0. Affordable Housing Committee’s Plan of Action Memo to Planning Commission Approved by committee on September 15, 2020. The City’s Interim Zoning period has been productive, as demonstrated by completion of the Open Space and Transfer of Development Rights Committee’s reports, the recently adopted Inclusionary Housing zoning regulations for the Transit Overlay District and the draft enhancements of the Natural Resource Protection LDRs (Article 12). In addition, revisions to the Planned Unit Development regulations are well underway, with September 15, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 4 a new focus on “building types”. Significantly, we now have a clearer understanding of natural resources not currently protected, such as forest blocks located outside water-based resources. The report, “The Case for Housing”, builds on the Open Space report by examining the undeveloped land that is not demonstrably in need of natural resource protection. Its principle finding, that of the scarcity of significant parcels of City land suitable for housing, comes at an opportune time as it provides important data relevant to the regulations coming out of Interim Zoning, in particular the revisions to the PUD regulations. The need for more housing, as underlined by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission-initiated Building Homes Together coalition, continues throughout the region, including South Burlington. While there are additional housing units in the “pipeline” for South Burlington, it is important for the City to put in place regulations that promote the development of housing that is the best match for the City’s needs. This is especially true because there is limited land available and suitable for housing. The Affordable Housing Committee has become acutely aware that housing development in the City over the past few decades has been primarily of two types—multi-story apartment buildings or condominiums or high end detached single-family homes. Left out is a broad range of housing types, often referred to as the “Missing Middle”, which can be can be built so that their prices are affordable to typical middle class households (households whose incomes are at or near the median for this area). Other than existing smaller City homes that become available for purchase (and the numbers of these is few) few housing units are available that are priced in the middle of the price range. To its credit, the City has taken some important steps; for example, its Housing Preservation and Inclusionary Zoning regulations. Still, we can and should do more and we will have suggestions later in this document. At the same time, there is a growing recognition that the national problem of income inequality, which is associated with a wide variety of social costs, exists in our own City. The most compelling evidence of this inequality is that the median SEQ household income is more than twice that of households in the three other voting districts in the community (SEQ here is defined geographically as the Chittenden 7-2 voting district). This unwelcome situation needs to be identified and addressed locally as well as at regional, state, and federal levels. Recent events have brought about a new resolve for change. We know that our innovative TDR program is lacking appeal in the marketplace to accomplish what the City intended and in some cases may compete with current affordable housing density bonuses (in areas of the City not covered by Inclusionary Zoning). We would like to work with the Planning Commission so that if the PUD regulations move to a “building-type” system (as opposed to the density-based system) to prevent the unintended consequence that this change cancels both affordable housing bonuses and TDR sales, both of which rely on a density calculation. Our Affordable Housing Committee supports moving to a building based PUD structure, while simultaneously addressing the impact on affordable housing and the TDR program. Members of the Affordable Housing Committee were pleased to find that when many of the newly suggested habitat blocks (included in the Article 12 rewrite) were overlaid on the maps contained in “The Case for Housing” report, fewer conflicts were evident than anticipated. While many of the natural resource areas were also identified in the report of the Open Space Committee, we emphasize that the proposed boundaries for these habitat blocks remain tentative pending field verification. We are also concerned that many readers of Article 12 will be so discouraged by what appear to be unreasonably burdensome restrictions that they may be unwilling to start the development process at all. We believe that by adopting the “building-type” PUD a non-competing and complementary direction presents itself. September 15, 2020, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 5 With the new Article 12 enhancements, it is likely that we will be removing more land from buildable acreage, so we think it would be wise and appropriate to look more creatively at zoning. For example, the new mapping now available may show that some NRP areas do not contain hazards or habitat blocks and may be near infrastructure, so those NRP designations might be reconsidered. Another example is that there might be some areas currently zoned industrial/open that would be excellent locations for mixed use residential to complement the businesses locating there. These changes would allow more space for housing without harming special natural resources. We support adding Inclusionary Zoning as a requirement to PUDs using the proposed “building-type” modification. We also suggest that TDRs be expanded to incorporate optional flexibility that developers may need to comply with new regulations. For example, allow TDRs to provide greater flexibility in building type requirements. Sandy Dooley has already conveyed several other relevant and attractive examples to Paul Conner. By bringing these elements together in a complementary way, we anticipate that both natural resources and housing objectives will be accomplished, the TDR marketplace will become robust, and the rule-making process for both will be completed efficiently.