Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 02/16/2021February 16, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 1 Approved as amended on March 3, 2021 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE February 16, 2021, 2020, 10:30 a.m., meeting held online Members attending (online): Leslie Black-Plumeau, Vince Bolduc, Sandy Dooley, Patrick O’Brien John Simson, and Chris Trombly Others: Monica Ostby, PC liaison; and Kevin Dorn, City Manager (for agenda item #2); Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning (12:00 p.m. until adjournment); Mike Simoneau and Tom Bailey, SoBu residents AGENDA 1. Call to order, agenda review, public comment, approval of minutes (02/02/21), announcements, chair’s comments 2. Discussion and possible action relating to vacant land proposal from Kevin Dorn 3. Updates from subgroups: expansion of inclusionary zoning city wide, book group, building types, communications strategy 4. Discussion regarding Conservation PUDs (with Paul Conner) 5. Adjourn 1, Call to order, agenda review, public comment, approval of Minutes (02/02/21), announcements, chair’s comments Call to order: Chris called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. Agenda review: Leslie moved and Vince seconded motion to approve agenda. Motion approved: 6-0-0. Public Comments: Mike and Tom indicated they were attending to learn about Conservation PUDs. Otherwise no public comments. Minutes: John moved and Vince seconded motion to approve the 02/02/21 meeting minutes as drafted. Motion approved: 6-0-0. Chris shared that he had received input on the minutes from Michael Mittag. Sandy explained that it appeared that Mike’s input related to the draft memo to the Planning Commission and she had emailed Michael to clarify. Announcements: Chris shared that he had attended the 02/09/21 Planning Commission meeting; topics discussed were density vs. building types and Conservation PUDs. Sandy, Vince, and John attended this meeting, also. Sandy indicated that while figuring out how using building types affects density is challenging, at this point, she believes using building types produces a better result than the traditional density calculation. Chair’s Comments: none so that meeting could proceed to Kevin’s agenda item. 2. Discussion and possible action relating to vacant land proposal from Kevin Dorn: Kevin revisited with the committee the possibility of subdividing the City Hall-Fire Department property so that unused land to the rear of the Fire Department may be used for affordable housing. Wide-ranging discussion followed. Topics included: use PUD with Fire Department and City for this proposal, subdivide and give CHT option to purchase, make available to for-profit builder to build perpetually affordable housing, question of access other than via CHT property (alternative access is possible), lease land instead of selling, is this location suitable for housing—question of noise from Interstate & Fire Trucks. St. Mike’s College rehabbed buildings to eliminate virtually all external noise so it can be done; a while back Habitat for Humanity proposed development on City land at end of Duval Street; do we have an inventory of City-owned land; Kevin is not aware of one; good idea. Outcome: Kevin thanked committee for their input and said he would look into developing an inventory of City-owned land. 3. Updates from subgroups: expansion of inclusionary zoning city wide, book group, building types, communications strategy: Inclusionary zoning – State law requires “incentives” for developer when inclusionary zoning is adopted. What is offset should City adopt inclusionary zoning along with new PUDs using building types instead of density? Paul (Conner) states that flexibility provided by housing types 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 February 16, 2021, SoBu Affordable Housing Committee Minutes- APPROVED Page 2 the development. Good resource on this subject is Chris Cochran at Department of Housing and Community Development. Density bonus is not only “incentive” municipality may use; waiver of impact fees could be used; they could be waived or partially waived for all inclusionary units. John summarized committee’s past efforts to have fees waived for inclusionary units. Outcome: this question needs further exploration. Segued into discussion of Conservation PUDs (before Paul’s arrival) - Lots of complications and potential conflicts identified. What is the right balance between government’s right to regulate use of property and property owner’s right to determine how property is used. Not developing land that is suitable for development means less property tax revenue for the municipality. When land is fully developed it often means that in terms of who pays for public services, lower income households subsidize the services provided to higher income households that own large parcels of undeveloped land. Developing fair and equitable rules in this area is a challenge. Will follow Planning Commission work carefully. Book group – has been successful, lively discussions, will meet second time that evening. How do we follow up? Panel presentation open to large group attendance/participation. Vince noted that students working with him on School Board candidate debates consider issue of diversity very important. Apparent prejudice against renters has been part of online discussion of school board candidates. Renters pay property taxes but pay them indirectly; this may be reason they get less involved in property tax discussions. CHT pays $90,000 per year in property taxes for Garden Street apartment complex. Do we need to pay more attention to affordability of rentals? Rentals covered by inclusionary zoning. Quality of rental property is also important. State legislature is exploring this. May pass legislation establishing a Statewide rental property directory. Chris mentioned the just cause eviction ballot item in Burlington. If passed, will require a charter change, which must be approved by the legislature. Should it pass, will be interesting to see what legislature does. Building types and communications strategy updates deferred to future meeting due to lack of time. 4. Discussion regarding Conservation PUDs (with Paul Conner): Next Planning Commission meeting (2/23) will include visuals and background info with goal of helping people understand how building types approach affects density of development in the PUD framework. Several different PUD types being considered in addition to TND (Traditional Neighborhood Development), NCD (Neighborhood Commercial Development), and Conservation. Use of a Conservation PUD is never required in the current draft. The intent of having this option is to retain the density maximum that would be permitted under a traditional subdivision (both of which would exclude hazards) while conserving natural resources on the property; current draft requires that 70% of parcel be conserved permanently. Eligibility for Conservation PUD option is automatic in R1 & R2 districts and all SEQ districts except Village-Commercial and NRP. Elsewhere, 50% or more of property must qualify as a natural resource. Concern expressed about possibility of adding grassland and scrubland to what can be protected. Can owner choose Conservation PUD even if none of the parcel qualifies as a natural resource? Under current draft, this would be allowed in SEQ districts other than Village Commercial and NRP. Alternative is carve-out approach. May a developer’s consultant do field verification of areas the regulations define as protected from any development? Planning Commission decided to use map approach to defining these areas. Where is this map? Map is currently being developed. Need clear and precise definition of “habitat block.” Question: in light of additional land being protected from development via rules currently being developed, why is Conservation PUD needed? Needed in situations in which 70% or more of property is defined as protected from development (natural resource, etc.) so that development potential of the property can remain the same as it is under today’s rules. Question: is Conservation PUD a good idea? Is having the 70% of property conserved permanently a good idea? Input from Mike (guest): he is doing a “trial run” of draft TND PUD rules using analytics. Reiteration of encouragement to attend the 2/23/21 Planning Commission meeting to gain understanding of how use of Building Types under new PUD rules compares to current density calculation. 5. Adjourn: At 12:35 p.m. Leslie moved and Vince seconded motion to adjourn. Motion approved: 6-0-0.