Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 08/11/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 11 AUGUST 2015 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 11 August 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, T. Riehle, S. Quest, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Chittenden, S. Dooley, J. Simson, S. Dopp, B. Goldberg 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos: Welcomed new Planning Commission member Duncan Macdonald. Mr. Macdonald: Reviewed his background and noted that his interest in planning arose when he served on the Master Planning and Visioning Task Force. He is intrigued with City Center, and is a businessman in that area. Mr. Conner: Staff continued to work on elements of the LDRs. Meetings have been held with the Administrative Officer and property/business owners regarding understanding the code, etc. Reviewed the results of a court case in which the Vermont Superior Court issued a decision on the Town Plan of Newark, VT, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support how decisions were arrived at. Mr. Conner cited the importance of documenting the process, especially when evaluating land use as the city may have to explain why things were done. CityFest will be held on 15 August to celebrate the city’s 150th anniversary. There will be a City Center booth featuring an interactive “Lego Project” done by a number of architecture firms. The City Council is beginning to work on things recently reviewed by the Planning Commission. There will be a public input session on the TIF at the next Council meeting, after which the Council will take action. The Council is also beginning to look at which projects will go into the first round of TIF projects. This may involve a special vote in November. Mr. Riehle: Noted the reconstruction of Gracey’s that he felt was very well done. He felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to commend them on the work. A letter will be written on behalf of the Commission to do that. Mr. Conner said staff could communicate that. 4. Reorganization Meeting: a. Election of Chair, Vice Chair and Clerk: Mr. Conner presided over the election of a Commission Chair. He opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Riehle nominated Ms. Louisos for Chair and Ms. Harrington for Vice Chair. Ms. Quest seconded. There were no further nominations, and Ms. Louisos and Ms. Harrington were elected 5-0. Mr. Conner noted that Mr. Gagnon had expressed the same choices. Ms. Louisos presided over the remainder of the meeting. She asked for nominations for Clerk. Ms. Quest nominated Mr. Gagnon. Mr. Riehle seconded. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Gagnon was elected 5-0. b. Confirm regular meeting day and time: Members agreed to delay making this decision until there is a full Commission present or until the other 2 members can be polled. 5. Review and Consider Update to Sustainable Agriculture Charge: Ms. Louisos presented a revised recommended Charge for the Substainable Agriculture Committee. She reviewed the Commission’s recent history, including joint meeting with the City Council in the spring. Ms. Quest suggested a process by which a consultant might be picked for the upcoming PUD work that the Commission would be undertaking, since it was noted in the revised charge. Mr. Conner noted that consultants are usually determined by the City Manager after an RFP process. Ms. Quest asked if there will be a Task Force. Mr. Conner said that question has yet to be answered. Ms. Quest asked for time to ask other members of the subcommittee what they think. She said she would like the October and November meetings to decide on reasoning for the future. She felt the Commission needs to hear what other people want. She noted there are people on the sub-committee who have been doing most of the work; others have been “advisory.” Ms. Harrington suggested that the subcommittee could perhaps have the 2 meetings before October 13th, the proposed completion date in the Draft Charge. Ms. Quest said the October and November dates have already been set. They have held their August meeting. She felt they can have everything done by the Commission’s first meeting in November. Ms. Dopp said she felt the City Council was trying to shut the subcommittee down. She felt the City Council was more focused on energy issues than sustainability. After discussion, members agreed to remove the second sentence of the second bullet point in the draft charge and to change the date from 13 October to 10 November. Ms. Harrington then moved to accept the change in the Sustainable Agriculture subcommittee charge, deleting the second sentence, and have a final recommendation to the Planning Commission on 10 November 2015. Mr. Riehle seconded. Ms. Quest noted that the subcommittee was hoping to remain until the Comprehensive Plan was done. Ms. Louisos reminded members that the Affordable Housing subcommittee was not continued after their work was done, but the Planning Commission still can contact those members when there are questions. In the vote that followed, the motion passed 5-0. 6. Continue Development of Draft Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Conner noted there were some outstanding questions. With regard to Affordable Housing, Mr. Simson said that at the last meeting, he had suggested the Comprehensive Plan have at least a paragraph on the recently approved Housing Trust Fund even though there is not yet a structure to implement it. Commissioners had agreed, and the draft paragraph is included in tonight’s packet. The City Manager has said such a structure will be forthcoming in September. Ms. Dooley noted the City Council had asked whether the chapter does enough to protect existing affordable neighborhoods. She drew attention to appropriate items and to possible ways to address this. Ms. Dooley suggested deleting the language “expanded accessory dwelling unit provisions.” Mr. Simson said that applying the accessory unit formula to very small houses in certain areas would result in very sub-standard housing. The recommendation is to change the formula to something that would be beneficial in those neighborhoods, possibly like something to replace the housing taken down in the Airport area. He noted there was a lot of opposition to this with people being concerned about creating a “student enclave.” He felt this would also not be well received in the Orchard area. Ms. Dooley said there would be no prohibition of accessory dwelling units; it just wouldn’t be endorsed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner explained that state law provides that any owner-occupied single family home can have an accessory unit that is at least 30% of the square footage of the home. A town can have a less restrictive policy but can’t be more restrictive. Ms. Dooley said there is no way of knowing whether the rent of such a unit is “affordable” or whether the renter needs “affordability.” You just can’t be sure accessory units will create affordable housing. Mr. Riehle noted that in Burlington “infill housing” created student enclaves and people in the front buildings moved out of the city, resulting in the loss of families and the closing of 2 schools. He said he didn’t know the solution, but said the fears are real. He felt there is a need to preserve neighborhoods that have families. Ms. Dooley indicated some possible tools to achieve neighborhood preservation including overlay districts, defining of “family,” strengthening enforcement of LDRs (a possible housing code or rental registry, etc.). Mr. Riehle said there are now a lot of regulations that are not enforceable because there is no one to enforce them. Mr. Simson said the proposed language will allow for some kinds of action and provides a “place holder.” Mr. Simson said one thing in the original report was the possibility of an ordinance that would create a fee for tearing down an affordable house. He noted this is being challenged in other places quite successfully. Mr. Macdonald asked whether Burlington has a “strict and precise household/family definition regulation.” Ms. Dooley said she didn’t know. She said South Burlington’s current regulation of no more than 4 “unrelated people” is not being enforced. Mr. Chittenden noted that Burlington has a lot of strict regulations and they have resulted in a lot of court cases. Ms. Dopp noted that the relationship of people in a building can change over time. Mr. Conner reminded people that state law specifically says people do not have to be relatives. Mr. Conner also noted that the City Council is actively discussing all of these subjects. He also added that a strategy in the Comprehensive Plan recommending that one specific definition might be too detailed for the level of the Plan. Ms. Dooley said she felt no other definition or lack of definition is having a greater impact than this. Members were generally OK with the proposed recommendations. c. Discuss Text to Accompany Future Land Use Map: Mr. Conner distributed language for land use categories. He stressed that this language is less specific than that for zoning districts. He felt the language was more like a bridge between the Land Use Map and all other language in the plan. Mr. Conner then clarified the difference between “intensity” and “density” noting that a very large single house on a very small lot can feel very “intense” but is not “dense.” Members felt the proposed language was on track. d. Review Commissioners’ identified items: Mr. Conner noted that the Commissioners’ recommendation for prioritization is being worked on. Ms. Louisos questioned the reference to maintaining the 50/50 split between residential and commercial development when there is an acknowledgment that school spending is paid for only from residential properties. Mr. Conner noted that school spending is now funded in a totally different way from when this section was written. He said there may be question as to whether the city wants to maintain the 50/50 split. It is a very complex issue. He suggested taking that language out of the school section. He also said he would try to get a “trend line” of what the residential/commercial split has been in more recent years. Ms. Louisos said there should be a reference to invasive species somewhere. Ms. Louisos also questioned whether under public amenities and open space there should be a reference to the desire for a City Hall, Recreation Center and Library. It was noted that in Strategy 90 regarding a central green, if the green is near a major road, a lot of the area wouldn’t be usable. Language could be added that if the central green is near a major road the size of the green should be more than ½ an acre. Mr. Conner noted that Ms. LaRose is working on issues raised by the Regional Planning Commission. Ms. Quest said she would like to see the word “strive” removed from the vision statements and go back to language saying “we are a city with a strong sense of community….” Etc. Mr. Conner suggested a work session to look at all the language versions that the Commission has seen. Members liked that idea. Ms. Quest asked why there is a statement that “these recommendations are not mandates.” Mr. Conner reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is a roadmap which sets a direction. It is not a mandate to make a plan come alive. That happens through other actions (e.g., zoning regulations). Ms. Quest asked about Exit 12B and whether it is a “given.” Ms. Louisos said she thought they were just going to leave the land open in case that decision is made. Mr. Conner said this is a very important topic. He felt the Commission should be intentional in its writing. Ms. Quest wanted to see stronger language in place regarding energy efficiency. Ms. Quest asked about language to require land for community gardens in housing developments. Mr. Conner said there can be specific types of open space (e.g. a dog park, community garden, etc.). Ms. Quest said the issue arose when it was not that some developments don’t allow gardens on common land. Mr. Conner will look into this. Mr. Riehle questioned language regarding east-west roads. He felt the key is to be sure there is traffic calming on roads from Dorset St. to Hinesburg Road, with winding roads rather than a “straight shot.” He was particularly concerned about the Hinesburg Rd. area and the danger of pulling out even when there is no oncoming traffic in sight. Mr. Conner noted the specific development Mr. Riehle is concerned with is preparing to go to Act 250 now, and that issue could be addressed there. With regard to neighborhood connections, Mr. Conner said that staff has been clear with applicants and property owners that the city wants connectivity not cut-throughs in various east-west developments, and agreed that the Plan should reflect this clearly. e. Discuss Public Input: Mr. Conner noted staff is beginning to get feedback. He felt it might be helpful to get all comments to the Commission at once. Ms. Harrington said she would like to see a spreadsheet with feedback on each subject area all together, to be presented following the public input stage. Members agreed. 7. Continue Development of Draft LDRs: a. T3, T4, T5: Mr. Conner showed 3-D images from the consultant with some varieties of what might exist. Ms. Louisos felt there needs to be more clarity as to what is a “street” and what is a “side yard.” b. Open Space Sample Review: Mr. Conner showed pictures which can serve as examples of what things could look like. c. Staff Items from Draft LDRs: Mr. Conner said one question that was raised was whether in T4 there could be a taller upper story if it were to count as two. Members felt there was no reason why not. 8. Other business: a. Receive Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee Resignation Request from Rosanne Greco: Members accepted the resignation and will send a letter of thanks for Ms. Greco’s service. 9. Minutes of 28 July 2015: It was noted that the comment about Ms. Quest appearing in “Seven Days” was made by Mr. Conner not Ms. Harrington. Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 28 July 2015 as amended. Ms. Louisos seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: August 11, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:00 pm) 2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) a. Welcome to new member Duncan Macdonald. This will be Duncan’s first meeting… welcome aboard! 4. Reorganizational meeting (7:20 pm) a. Election of Chair, Vice-Chair, Clerk Each year the Commission elects its officers following the appointments by Council. This past year, Jessica Louisos has served as chair, Tracey Harrington as Vice-Chair, and [former Commissioner] Gretchen Calcagni as Clerk. b. Confirm regular meeting date and time The Commission’s regular meeting time this past year was 7:00 pm on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month. 5. Review and Consider update to Sustainable Agriculture Charge (7:30 pm) The Commission discussed in a June meeting the updated charge of the Sustainable Agriculture Committee. This followed a joint meeting with the City Council. At the June meeting, the Commission discussed possible adjustments to the charge. Enclosed is a second draft for consideration prepared by Jessica Louisos at the Commission’s request. 6. Continue development of draft Comprehensive Plan (7:45 pm) a. Affordable housing edits as requested by Planning Commission At the last meeting, Commissioners received a presentation from John Simson and Sandy Dooley of draft updates to the Housing Chapter of the draft Plan. These edits were made at the Commission’s request. During the meeting, Commissioners 2 discussed a handful of additional items; drafts are enclosed as prepared by Mr. Simson & Ms. Dooley. b. Discuss Text to Accompany Future Land Use Map The draft Comprehensive Plan includes a “fuzzied” Future Land Use Map that distills the City’s prospective uses of land into a handful of broad categories. Commissioners and members of the community have expressed interest in providing a more thorough text description of these districts. Staff will prepare a bullet list of ideas to share with the Commission at the meeting. c. Review Commissioners’ identified items See the enclosed memo from Cathyann LaRose. d. Discuss receipt of public input Staff has begun to get addition input on the plan from various individuals and groups in the community. Staff would like to discuss with the Commission how you would best like to receive and respond to this input. 7. Continue development of Draft Land Development Regulations (8:15 pm) a. T3, T4, T5 graphics review Enclosed please find a series of draft graphics that would be inserted into the draft Form Based Code to help clarify the various Building Envelope Standards. b. Open Space sample review Following the development of the Open Space Standards (as well as T-Zone standards in the Form Based Code), staff began to undertake the development of a guide to help applicants and the public to know what these are and examples of what could be done. Feedback is welcome. If you have additional photos, or locations in mid to have one of us go out and take pictures from, that would be very welcome! c. Staff items from draft LDRs Additional items as they present themselves. 8. Other Business (8:45 pm) a. Receive Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee member resignation See enclosed letter. 9. Minutes (8:50 pm) 10. Adjourn (9:00 pm) Draft for Consideration Jessica Louisos at request of Planning Commission 8-5-2015 Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Subcommittee Background In September 2013 the Planning Commission formed a sustainable agriculture subcommittee to assist in the review and development of the recommendations contained in the Sustainable Agriculture/ Food Security Task Force in their April 11, 2013 final report titled “South Burlington Sustainable Agriculture / Food Security Action Plan Final Report.” The charge included items listed on the Staff Review Matrix as SA-13-01 and SA-13-08. Both of these initial items have been completed by the subcommittee. November 4, 2013 the City Council moved to ask that the Planning Commission add eighteen additional items listed on the Staff Review Matrix listed under SusAg/FoodSecurity to the subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission agreed with this approach and added the additional items to the subcommittee charge on November 12, 2013. The subcommittee has been meeting monthly at warned public meetings . They have updated the Planning Commission on their work on a quarterly basis, as requested in the charge. A summary of the progress on assigned items is attached to this document, as provided by the subcommittee to the Planning Commission at the May 12, 2015 meeting. Some of the tasks are ongoing in nature, so have not been completed yet, as is noted in the summary. The Planning Commission recognizes that not all charge tasks fall within the scope of the Planning Commission and will defer to the City Council to review assignment of the tasks that fall within their jurisdiction. After review of all tasks and the current work and priorities of the Planning Commission the subcommittee charge has been revised as follows: Updated Subcommittee Charge: The following list of tasks refers to codes found on the Staff Review Matrix. The working group should continue to meet at an agreed upon schedule such that they will report back to the Planning Commission by the first Planning Commission meeting in October. SA-13-11, 14, 21, 29, 31: “Regulation changes: Definitions and Uses” • New definitions and uses were added to the LDR at the recommendation of the report. Provide recommendations on where in the city those uses would be appropriate and if any would be removed. • Provide recommendations and overview of findings of all previous work related to an Agricultural Node, also sometimes referred to an Ag PUD, to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will provide these to a consultant who will be working on these items. SA-13-16: “Offer incentives for developments that include community gardens and /or allow residents to have home gardens on common land”. Draft for Consideration Jessica Louisos at request of Planning Commission 8-5-2015 • Make recommendations for specific incentives that could potentially be included in the LDRs. SA-13-19: “Edible Landscaping” • Research and draft potential LDR language related to edible landscaping and provide to the Planning Commission. SA-13-24: “Strengthen language in LDRs to protect topsoil during construction so that yards are more suitable for gardening” • This concept is not only positive for gardening, but also important for reduction of stormwater runoff. Review the recommendations for voiding soil compaction included in the recently completed LID report received from Stormwater Project Consultants. Provide comments to the Planning Commission on the applicability of those recommendations from an agriculture perspective and if changes should be made. For each of the items above, public outreach will be done after presentation to the Planning Commission. Recommendation for Other Items: The other items on the staff review matrix are not within the scope of the Planning Commission. It is recommended that the City Council review those tasks and address as appropriate. Timeline for Completion: The Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee is asked to complete its work on the tasked items and to present final recommendations to the Planning Commission on or before October 13, 2015; following this presentation, the Subcommittee will come to a conclusion. All written documents are requested to be provided to the Planning Commission on the Thursday prior to the applicable Planning Commission meeting for inclusion in the packet. 1 Paul Conner From:Sandy Dooley <dooleyvt1@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, August 06, 2015 10:29 AM To:Jessica Louisos; Jessica Louisos-W; Tracey Harrington; Ted Riehle; Art Klugo; Bernard Gagnon-PC; Sophie Quest Cc:Paul Conner; Cathyann LaRose; John Simson Subject:Comp Plan Housing chapter and protecting existing neighborhoods with affordable and moderate-cost housing Attachments:CompPlan-HousingSection-080515.docx Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged NOTE:  I do not have an email address for Duncan McDonald.  Thus, I would appreciate  someone sharing this email with him.    Hello Planning Commissioners,    When John Simson and I presented our draft Comp Plan Housing Chapter to the PC on July 21,  the following question was raised:    Does the chapter do enough to promote the preservation/protection of existing  neighborhoods with affordable and moderate‐cost housing?    I said I would review it with this question in mind and report back to you.  This is my report.      Attached is a WORD document that is similar to the PDF document you received.  I was unable  to edit the PDF version so I used this WORD version.  My review is indicated in this document  as follows:    1.  Language shaded in turquoise identifies existing language in the chapter that advocates  preservation of affordable housing and support of or preservation of the quality of life in  the city’s residential neighborhood (in “Overview”), loss of entry‐level homes and  conversion of single‐family homes to rentals (in “Residential Construction”),  preservation of existing affordable and moderately‐priced homes (in “Housing  Strategies”).    2. Language shaded in gray with a strikethrough identifies proposed deletion of language  in the draft chapter (in “Housing Strategies”).    Note:  the proposal to delete “expanded accessory dwelling unit provisions” is based on  input from John Simson who said he raised this proposal to the Chamberlin  2 Neighborhood Planning Group (of which he is a member) and there was no support  from representatives of the neighborhood for using this tool to preserve/increase stock  of affordable housing in the city.  I have not yet discussed this proposal with him.    3. Language shaded in green  with underlining identifies proposed additions to the draft  chapter (in “Housing Strategies”) that specify additional tools the city might use to  preserve the quality of life in city neighborhoods, in particular, those with affordable  and/or moderately‐priced homes.     I would be happy to discuss the proposed deletions and additions with the PC if that is desired.   Thank you all for the time, talent, and commitment you devote to your work on the Planning  Commission.    Best,    Sandy             Note: In November 2014 the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution that included establishment of a Housing Trust Fund and a standing Affordable Housing Committee. We anticipate that both will be active by the time the new CP becomes effective. The Affordable Housing Committee’s report, The Path to Affordability: South Burlington’s 2013 Affordable Housing Report (see p. 72 of AH report), recommends that the following objective be added to the Comprehensive Plan (CP) (NOTE: this objective would be at front of the CP, not in the Housing Chapter): “Objective 6. Offer a full spectrum of housing choices that includes options affordable to households of varying income levels and sizes by striving to meet the housing targets set forth in Section [# of Housing Section] of this plan." Background (quoted from the AF Committee report—Planning Commission should decide whether to include this background info in the CP): “The targets, even if adopted as part of a revised Comprehensive Plan, are not by themselves regulatory and do not mandate a specific amount or type of housing development. The targets are aspirational and their purpose is to establish a strong foundation for other city programs, actions and regulations aimed at increasing the supply of affordable and moderately-priced housing. By adopting housing targets based on affordability for low- and moderate-income households, South Burlington will be able to monitor and assess the effectiveness of city regulations, incentives and/or programs designed to foster housing production in support of its vision and goals. The targets should be regularly reviewed and the underlying assumptions re- evaluated to ensure they reflect current needs, conditions, and policies in the City.” Housing Introduction Shelter is a basic need and providing for housing is a fundamental element of this plan. Provision of safe and affordable housing that is well-matched to residents’ circumstances is an essential requirement for the city to maintain its quality of life, retain existing businesses, support further economic development, and attract future residents. A diversity of housing options at a range of price points is a necessary component of any plan to maintain and grow the local economy. The need for an increased supply of housing affordable to middle and lower income households is recognized in this plan and has been recognized in several previous plans. In recognition of this need, the city adopted Land Development Regulations providing bonuses and incentives for the development of affordable housing in _____ (Cathyann, what year?). These regulations played a role in the development of the city’s 605 affordable housing units. In 2012 the City Council established an ad hoc Affordable Housing Committee to research and make recommendations regarding what the City might do to address the growing gap between the need for and Draft with edits Sandra Dooley to Planning Commission 8-6-2015 supply of affordable housing in the city. In addition, in November 2014, the City Council unanimously adopted a resolution establishing a South Burlington Housing Trust Fund and creating a standing Affordable Housing Committee; in January 2015, the City Council voted to include $50,000 for this Trust Fund in the fiscal year 2016 budget, which the city’s voters approved in March 2015. QUESTION FOR PC: Do you want us to draft a brief explanation of what the Housing Trust Fund is intended to do for inclusion in this chapter of the CP? The ad hoc Affordable Housing Committee’s 2013 report states: “There is a critical need for more housing in South Burlington that local residents can afford – including young adults just starting out, young families looking for a first home, employees of local businesses, and a growing number of seniors on fixed incomes.” Several of the objectives, techniques, and strategies included in this chapter are based on the Affordable Housing Committee’s work and recommendations. OVERVIEW Key issues and needs related to the city’s housing stock and residential development trends identified in this plan include: Preserving and promoting the development of additional housing that is affordable to households of all income levels throughout the city. Meeting the housing needs of increasing numbers of single-person households and seniors. Supporting the appearance and quality of life of the city’s residential neighborhoods. Complementing new development areas with redevelopment of low-density, single-use commercial areas to higher-density mixed-use areas and appropriate infill within existing neighborhoods. INVENTORY Existing Housing Stock. The analysis prepared for the Affordable Housing Committee found a total of 7,940 dwelling units in South Burlington as of 2010. The City’s housing stock includes 1,348 (17%) apartments in multi-unit buildings; 2,873 (36%) condominium units; and 3,719 (47%) residences with land. The number of accessory dwelling units is not known. Approximately 65 percent of the housing stock is owner-occupied while 35 percent comprises rental units. For PC’s Information – not to be included in CP>>”Sources and Methodology. The analysis above is based on residential property data provided by the South Burlington Assessor’s Office derived from the 2010 Grand List, as well as the city’s 2010 tax parcel GIS data, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s 2010 housing units GIS data, and 2010 Census data at the block level.” South Burlington permitted an average of 160 residential units per year during the past decade. The new dwellings have been evenly split between single-family homes and units in multi-family buildings over the 10-year period. Virtually all of the multi-family units are in buildings with five or more units. Draft with edits Sandra Dooley to Planning Commission 8-6-2015 Residential Construction. The number of housing units in South Burlington has grown steadily each decade since the first Census housing count in 1940. Between 1940 and 2010, nearly 8,750 dwellings were constructed in the city. The city experienced rapid housing growth during the period from the late-1970s through the mid-1980s, largely due to multi-family (mostly condominium) development. During the late-1980s and early-1990s, the rate of housing growth slowed and new construction shifted to predominantly single-family detached dwellings. For a period of time in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the rate of housing construction in the city averaged around 200 units per year and South Burlington again experienced increased development of both condominium and multi-unit rental structures. The type of housing units being built in the city over the past 25 years has been weighted toward multi-family structures. According to the Census Bureau, the City added 835 owner-occupied and 820 rental units during the 2000s. This represented a 20% increase in owner-occupied housing and a 40% increase in rental housing. A clear gap in the city’s housing stock, however, has been entry-level single family homes and duplexes. During the past decade, 70% of the new homes on their own lot built in the city were valued at more than $400,000 and another 24% were valued between $350,000 and $400,000. Meanwhile, over 100 of the city’s stock of entry-level homes have been lost to demolition near the airport; elsewhere, conversion to other uses, for example, rentals to unrelated individuals, has resulted in a reduction in additional losses of entry-level homes available for owner-occupancy. Age and Condition. The quality of building workmanship, design, and materials used in the city’s existing housing stock appears to not pose a threat to the health and safety of residents. Only seven percent of the city’s housing stock dates from before World War II, with more than half having been constructed since 1980. Care should be taken, however, as housing from the city’s first significant wave of development in the 1950s, continues to age. Owner-Occupied Homes. The cost of owner-occupied housing in South Burlington has risen sharply in recent years in response to the tight housing market in northwestern Vermont and due to the addition of new higher-priced units. The 2011 median sale price of a single-family home in South Burlington was $310,000 and of a condominium was $186,000. Rental Market. In 2010 he median rent for a South Burlington apartment is just over $1,000 a month. Over the past 10 years, monthly rents have increased about $200. . As of 2011 South Burlington’s rental housing stock included 6050 affordable units, about 60% of which house elderly or disabled residents. Most of these affordable rental units were constructed between 1995 and 2003. Since then only 91 affordable units, all for seniors, have been built. Affordability. Affordable housing helps to retain and attract a qualified work force and provides an opportunity for first-time home buyers and older residents to remain in the city. Recent Census Bureau estimates indicate that nearly one-third of SB homeowners (1,600 households) and one-half of renters (1,350 households) spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. About 1,000 of these households—nearly 600 renters and 400 owner households—are “severely cost burdened”, spending more than 50% of their household income on housing. About 28% of the city’s existing owner-occupied housing stock is affordable. A median income South Burlington household ($61,000 per year) can afford a home priced at no more than $205,000. Approximately 2,000 city households have annual incomes of less than $40,000. A three-person household earning up to 50% of area median income (AMI) would have an annual income of no more than $33,000 and could afford to spend $800 per month on housing. At 80% of AMI, a three- person household would be earning $53,000 per year and could afford to spend $1,300 per month on housing. A three-person household earning 120% of AMI would have an annual income of $80,000 and could afford to spend up to $2,000 per month on housing. These HUD-established incomes limits are for a three-person household in the Burlington–South Burlington MSA. City Housing Targets. To meet the city's goals for diversity and affordability, a wider spectrum of housing will have to be built in South Burlington. How much affordable and moderate-income housing should be built in South Burlington? This Plan includes affordable housing targets that seek to maintain a housing profile that is fairly similar to what presently exists in Draft with edits Sandra Dooley to Planning Commission 8-6-2015 the city with a diversity of housing types across the price range. Figure 1 depicts the current South Burlington housing profile vis-à-vis housing type and affordability. Figure 1 | Affordability of South Burlington's Housing Stock3 % of all housing by type that was affordable in 2010 to households at specified income ranges RENTAL UNITS OWNERSHIP CONDOS OWNERSHIP ON OWN LOT ALL HOUSING Up to 50% AMI 23% 3% 0% 7% (<$33,000 per year) >50% to 80% AMI 49% 45% 5% 30% (>$33,000 - $53,000 per year) >80% to 120% AMI 17% 36% 47% 36% (>$53,000 - $80,000 per year) TOTAL 89% 85% 53% 73% NOTE: I tried to copy the actual “Figure 1” from the AH Committee’s report (see p. 69, but was not successful. This Figure 1 needs to be converted to a table. PC needs to decide if it wants to include footnotes. (Footnote>>) 3. Analysis based on assessed values of ownership units from the 2010 South Burlington Grand List and housing costs for rental households from the 2010 American Community Survey. Income limits were as set by HUD for a 3-person household in the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, which were derived from the FY2010 area median income (AMI) of $66,500. VHFA's home mortgage calculator was used to determine the affordable home price for ownership units. That calculator assumes a 5% down payment and uses average interest rates, property taxes, insurance premiums and closing costs in Vermont (www.housingdata.org/calculator). Ten-Year Affordable Housing Targets. Based on the Affordable Housing Committee report’s recommendation, this plan includes targets of construction, by 2025, of 1,080 new affordable housing units--840 housing units affordable to households earning up to 80% of the AMI and 240 housing units affordable to households earning between 80% and 120% of the AMI. ANALYSIS AND CHALLENGES Affordability. Maintaining the city’s current housing profile, based on housing type and price range, represents a major challenge for South Burlington. The city has experienced a steady increase in the number of housing units and its housing growth rate has slightly outpaced that of the county. Meanwhile, regional demand for additional housing units has been high and vacancy rates low over the past decade as the household growth rate slightly outstripped housing construction. These factors are major contributors to the city and region’s very tight housing market. With more than one in three households spending more than 30% of their income on housing, the need for more affordable housing is critical. In addition, the City strives to be a place in which its work force can afford to live. South Burlington is a regional job center – with nearly 1,100 employers and 18,000 jobs, as reported by the Vermont Department of Labor. However, only 13% of those working in South Burlington also live in the city (U.S. Census/ LEHD). This suggests that many local wage earners do not earn enough to afford local housing. Draft with edits Sandra Dooley to Planning Commission 8-6-2015 Employment data highlight the need for more affordable workforce housing, close to employment, in the city as well as in neighboring communities. The majority of city jobs (82%) are in the service sector, paying an average wage in 2011 of $41,500, enough to afford a home priced at $152,000. Many of the most common jobs in this sector, including typically part- time retail employment, pay even less. City government jobs pay an average wage of $46,000, enough to afford a home that costs no more $168,500, assuming one wage earner and no other sources of income. Changing Demographics. Much of South Burlington’s housing has been constructed to meet the needs of families with children. Future housing development needs to take into account the City’s changing population. As a result of recent trends, around 70% of the city’s households consist of one or two people; only 25% of the city’s households are families with children under age 18; and around 40% of the city’s households are headed by someone age 55 or older. The number of older households is expected to increase over the next decade. Around 44% of the city population is between age 20 and 35 – including those who are entering the housing market, or looking to buy their first home. Many of these households are seeking housing that is smaller than that developed in the past and/or housing with limited maintenance requirements. Furthermore, the trend for both younger and older smaller households often is to rent rather than own their own home. Smart Growth. After close to seven decades of continued residential construction, a relatively small amount of undeveloped land remains available in the city. South Burlington will need to look increasingly to opportunities for higher-density, mixed- use development in targeted growth areas like City Center, as well as increased density and infill development within existing neighborhoods in order to meet demand for additional housing units. In addition, the city should strive to attain the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s ECOS Plan goal of having 80% of new development take place in areas planned for growth, which amounts to 15% of the (Chittenden County’s) Land area. Building Codes. A central element in any housing policy is the assurance of good quality in both existing units and new construction. Currently, the city does not have municipal building codes. Due to the number of attached residential units, the high density of development in many parts of the city, and the aging or subdivision of dwellings, the need for building, plumbing, and electrical codes is increasing. The existence of such codes can decrease insurance premiums, as well as minimize the future requirements for firefighters and equipment in maintaining the same degree of fire protection. The construction of rental and multi-unit housing in the city is regulated to some extent by the Vermont Department of Labor and Industry. FUTURE NEEDS AND TRENDS Affordability. The proportion of new affordable residential units, both rental and owner-occupied, built in South Burlington in the coming decade must increase substantially in order to support its economic vitality and maintain its current housing profile. It is clear that the market alone will not produce that supply. The city has no direct control over such cost factors as increases in labor, materials, down payments, or mortgage rates and availability of credit. However, the city can influence housing cost factors in other areas such as amount and density of land zoned for different types of residential uses including positively promoting mixed-use development, length and consistency of governmental reviews, and extent of “front end” subdivision improvements and other expenses. Techniques that can be used to encourage and, in some circumstances, require the development and preservation of affordable housing include, but are not limited to, the following: Creative site development, such as clustering, to reduce lot size and site development costs. Re-examination of “density” to consider building size in addition to units per acre. Financial and advocacy support for South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund. Draft with edits Sandra Dooley to Planning Commission 8-6-2015 Involvement of housing organizations such as Champlain Housing Trust and Cathedral Square to construct or rehabilitate affordable housing in the city. Location of affordable, elderly and/or higher-density housing near schools, parks, shopping centers, employment centers, day care facilities, transportation corridors, emergency services, and public transportation. HOUSING OBJECTIVES Foster the creation and retention of a housing stock that is balanced in size and target income level, is representative of the needs of households of central Chittenden County, and maintains an efficient use of land for use by future generations. Support the retention of existing and construction of new affordable and moderate-income housing, emphasizing both smaller single family homes and apartments, to meet demand within the regional housing market. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate development of a high-density, City Center, mixed-used transit corridors, and compact residential neighborhoods. HOUSING STRATEGIES Implement a variety of tools and programs to foster innovative approaches to preserving and increasing the city’s supply of affordable and moderate income housing, including but not limited to: form-based codes that would allow a variety of residential and mixed use building types, expanded accessory dwelling unit provisions, transferable development rights, neighborhood preservation overlay districts, strict and precise household/family definition regulations, inclusionary zoning, bonuses and incentives, waivers and expedited review processes, and/or a housing retention ordinance. Increase the supply of safe and affordable rental housing by allowing higher-density, mixed-use and mixed-income development within City Center and transit corridors, allowing multi-unit housing within transitional zones between residential neighborhoods and commercial/industrial land uses. Promote the preservation of existing housing stock in residential neighborhoods, particularly the supply of affordable and moderately-priced homes. Accommodate compatible infill and additions to homes in existing neighborhoods. Explore innovative land development regulations that allow for a range of residential building and neighborhood types, including but not limited to cottage housing, clustered housing and infill residential development. Streamline administrative policy for affordable housing and consider reducing or eliminating permit and impact fees for affordable housing. Monitor the need for the City to adopt and enforce local building, plumbing, electrical, fire, and energy codes; monitor the need for a rental registry program, and continue to strengthen the enforcement, as needed, of the city’s land development regulations and state’s rental housing code to protect residents’ health and safety and preserve the quality of life in and character of the city’s residential neighborhoods. Promote the construction of new homes- particularly affordable and moderate-income units- that are highly energy-efficient, and upgrades to existing homes to make them more energy-efficient, which will reduce residents’ overall cost of living and contribute to housing affordability. Draft with edits Sandra Dooley to Planning Commission 8-6-2015 Draft Housing Addition John Simson to Planning Commission 7-30-2015 The South Burlington Housing Trust Fund was established by the City Council on November 17, 2014. Its purpose is to provide an ongoing stream of funds to support strategic participation in development that will increase the City’s stock of housing that is affordable to households with income below 80 percent of median. Among the potential strategies to accomplish this objective The Trust Fund may (1) participate in new housing development by providing needed funds to support the financing of a project undertaken by a non-profit or for profit developer that meets the City’s affordability standards, (2) participate financially in projects that preserve existing affordable housing stock in the City, (3) provide pre-development funding under strict guidelines to housing agencies or developers to assess the feasibility of a planned affordable housing project in the City and (4) support or participate in the purchase of land intended for affordable housing development. ³ COLCHESTER WINOOSKI SHEL B U R N E ESSEX WILLISTONBURLINGTON BURLINGTONESSEX JUNCTION Shelburne Bay Map 3 Future Land Use Comprehensive Plan City of South Burlington, VT DRAFT May 2015 0 0.5 10.25 Miles Future Use of Land Categories Planning Underway Very Low Intensity - Primarily Open Space Low Intensity - Primarily Residential Medium Intensity - Primarily Residential Medium-Higher Intensity - Primarily Non-Residential Higher Intensity - Primarily Mixed Use Interstate Streams Waterbody Document Path: X:\Planning&Zoning\Planning\ComprehensivePlanMaps\ComprehensivePlan_2015\Map3_FutureLandUse.mxd Maps and GPS data (“material”) made available by the City of South Burlington are for reference purposes only. The City does not guarantee accuracy. Users release the City from all liability related to the material and its use. The City shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Contact GIS@sburl.com with questions draft 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner SUBJECT: Draft Comprehensive Plan – Commissioner & CCRPC Policy Questions DATE: August 7, 2015 At the June 9th meeting of the Planning Commission, staff presented a revised draft of the 2015 Comprehensive Plan, noting the completed items and those that remain. Since that time, Staff has continued to update the plan with respect to these remaining issues, incorporate comments received from Commissioners, and to address issues identified at that meeting. Staff has also continued to work with the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) to ensure compliance with the Regional Plan and state legislation. Much of this guidance has been incorporated, though some questions remain for Planning Commission discussion. Commissioners were asked at this June meeting to identify remaining policy questions that stood out to them. This memo highlights those items: For Discussion: • Prioritization The review by the CCRPC highlights a significant concern that staff recommends – and the Commission has previously expressed an interest in: “Prioritization of Strategies. There are 129 strategies for implementation. It would probably be very helpful for readers—and for the city—if these were prioritized in some way. This prioritization could take the form of a top ten list, assigned timetables, or something else.” Use descriptive wording with the intent to prioritize municipal action not regulate land development. Except, Act 250: • From Jessica Louisos comments: Policy Items: 2-22 Flood resiliency: The state has new River Corridor Mapping that complements the floodplain mapping, but better incorporates erosion risks. I think this should likely be included in the list of things to consider in planning. 2-35 School finances - this indicates that school spending is payed only from residential properties. This seems to be against the notion that we need to maintain at 50/50 split of 2 commercial and residential. Is this something we need to address. 2-76 Geomorphic Assessments and Invasive Species objectives seem to have dissapeared. I didn't see them anywhere else. 3-8 Public Amenities and Open Space - should this include that we want a City Hall, Rec Center and Library - the results of the task force Bernie was on? 3-10 Stragegy 90. Make sure this matches the discussion on central green that we had last year (we said this at our last meeting). I also think that depending on the location, a half acre is not big enough and we may want to stipulate that. I am thinking that if the green is immediately adjacent to a busy road that a certain portion is lost to a "buffer" and the effective size is actually smaller. Maybe if along Williston Road or Hinesburg Road, the minimum desired size is 1 acre? Strategy 94: is there a reason that the post office would be retail only and not a full service? • From CCRPC: Guidance on solar facility siting is clearly given. Is there anywhere a wind facility should conceivably be installed in South Burlington? Telecommunications? If so specific guidance should be given related to those as well. • From Sophie Quest comments: p. 1-1 1. VISION: Preferred-South Burlington, a city with a strong sense of community, includes identifiable and diverse neighborhoods, quality natural environments, abundant local food production, strong employment opportunities, and a commitment to renewably sourced and efficient use of energy. Goals: 1. energy efficient housing 3. Prefer the entire original Open Space writing. Conserve the important cultural and open space resources, including air, surface and ground water quality; wetlands and riparian areas; natural communities and wildlife habitat; agricultural land and primary agricultural soils; grasslands and woodlands; scenic views, landscape features; recreational assets; and historic sites and structures. 7. energy efficient economy p. 1-5 The Plan “These recommendations are not mandates...These recommendations shall be implemented only after considerable thought, discussion and analysis.”????? In other places you speak of all the thinking, discussion and analysis creating this plan. Is it really completely up for grabs to change it? 3 2-44 & 2-57 &3-18 Are we here accepting Exit 12B as a given ? 2-66 “The City could require all new construction to be more energy efficient thought adoption of local building codes.” This is merely a remark. Can we ask here that this happen???? In “Future Needs and Trends” there is an excellent much stronger statement “The city needs policies to accommodate this growth while maintaining and improving the quality of life for its residents and improving the business climate while working hard to reduce energy related costs and impacts to the environment. 2-67 Here is where to put in the stretch code. “New buildings should be built to the standards of the State of Vermont's stretch code. 2-101 Strategy 101: Require new development, particularly residential or mixed-use projects that include homes without private yards, to create community garden space. 2-104 Green Infrastructure: Should we mention here the possibility of changing the Open Space Fund so that we can include the development of such properties as Underwood?? 3-34 Objective 50. Drop this. • Ted Riehle comments: “PC should discuss the [following] wording [related to] east-west roads. May be outdated 2003”: One key issue where there has been increasing agreement on all sides is the need to design east-west and neighborhood connector roads with narrower profiles and other environmental design features, such as box or open-bottom culverts instead of pipes for wetland and stream crossings, narrower road profiles (especially at crossing points), wildlife-friendly landscaping, and other traffic-calming features. These approaches, which can be incorporated with the city’s public service and roadway maintenance practices, should become “standard operating procedure” for new development in the SEQ. With these issues in mind, the Planning Commission evaluated the planned cross-town roads on the Official Map in 2003 and proposed a series of amendments that were adopted by City Council in December, 2003. Based on projected population and traffic growth, the Open Space Strategy, and public input, the new Official Map reaffirms the planned extensions of Swift Street through to Hinesburg Road; Midland Avenue through to Spear Street; Old Cross Road between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road; and a connection between the proposed Marceau Meadows and Chittenden Cider Mill subdivisions. The new Official Map does NOT include the north-south and east-west proposed roads throughout “The Bowl” that had been proposed for decades, including a connector road at Autumn Hill Road through the Scott Property. This Comprehensive 4 Plan reaffirms that the remaining proposed roadways through the SEQ that are shown on the Official Map should be constructed. Lot Width- Refer to Section 8.12.B.1.a and b Side Setback- Refer to Section 8.12.C.4.c, e Primary Build to Zone- Refer to Section 8.12.C.4.a Garages- Refer to Section8.12.C.9.a ,b Rear Setback: Accessory Structure- Refer to Section 8.12.C.4.f Rear Setback: Principal Structure- Refer to Section 8.12.C.4.D T3 AND T3+ NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Side Setback - Refer to Section 8.12.C.4.c, e Side Setback - Refer to Section 8.12.C.4.c, e Secondary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.12.C.4.b Lot Width- Refer to Section 8.12.B.1.a, b Building Standards: Stories- Refer to Section 8.12.C.2.a,b Building Standards: Heights- Refer to Section 8.12.C.3.a,b Street Types - Refer to Article 11 DRAFT T3 AND T3+ NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE LOT FRONTAGE STANDARDS Building L ot Building Lot Building Standards: Frontage- Refer to Section 8.12.C.5.a-c Primary Build to Zone Secondary Build to Zone DRAFT Street Types - Refer to Article 11 T4 URBAN MULTI USE BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Primary Building Facade: Primary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.13.C.4.a Secondary Building Facade: Primary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.13.C.4.a Secondary Building Facade: Secondary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.13.C.4.b Primary Building Facade: Secondary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.13.C.4.b Building Lot Building Lot Glazing, Building Break and Entrance Standards-see separate drawings DRAFT T4 URBAN MULTI USE LOT FRONTAGE STANDARDS Building LotBuilding LotBuilding LotBuilding LotBuilding Standards: Primary Facade Frontage- Refer to Section 8.13.C.5.a-c Building Standards: Secondary Facade Frontage- Refer to Section 8.13.C.5.a-c Primary Facade: Primary Build to Zone Secondary Facade: Primary Build to Zone Primary Facade: Secondary Build to Zone Secondary Facade: Secondary Build to Zone DRAFT Secondary Building Facade: Primary Build to Zone- Refer to Section 8.14.C.4.a T5 CITY CENTER BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Primary Building Facade: Primary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.14.C.4.a Secondary Building Facade: Secondary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.14.C.4.b Primary Building Facade: Secondary Build to Zone - Refer to Section 8.14.C.4.b Building Lot Building Lot Building Standards: 6th Story Setback - Refer to Section 8.14.F.1.b Building Standards: Upper Stories Setback - Refer to Section 8.14.F.1.a Street Types - Refer to Article 11 Glazing, Building Break and Entrance Standards-see separate drawings DRAFT T5 CITY CENTER LOT FRONTAGE STANDARDS Building L ot Building L ot Building L ot Building L ot Building LotBuilding Standards: Primary Facade Frontage- Refer to Section 8.14.C.5.a-c Building Standards: Secondary Facade Frontage- Refer to Section 8.14.C.5.a-c Primary Facade: Primary Build to Zone Secondary Facade: Primary Build to Zone Primary Facade: Secondary Build to Zone Secondary Facade: Secondary Build to Zone DRAFT ENTRANCE STANDARDS Residential Entrances T4: - Refer to Article 8.13.C.6.c,d Public Entrances T4 and T5: - Refer to Article 8.13.C.6.a, Article 8.14.C.6.a Public Entrances T4 and T5: - Refer to Article 8.13.C.6.b, Article 8.14.C.6.b Building Heights T4 and T5: - Refer to Article 8.13.C.3.b, Article 8.14.C.3.b Building Stories T4 and T5: - Refer to Article 8.13.C.3.a, Article 8.14.C.3.a DRAFT GLAZING STANDARDS BUILDING BREAKS Glazing T4 and T5: - Refer to Article 8.13. NOTES.2.a-e, Article 8.14.NOTES.2.a-e Building Horizontal FacadeT3, T4 and T5: - Refer to Article 8.12.C.8.a, Article 8.13.C.8.a, Article 8.14.C.8.a Material Change Vertical Plane Shift Horizontal Plane Shift Single Span Horizontal FacadeT3, T4 and T5: Refer to Article 8.12.C.8.b, Article 8.13.C.8.b, Article 8.14.C.8.b Rooftop Requirements: - Refer to Article 8.06.G.1-2 Glazing T4 and T5: - Refer to Article 8.13.C.7.a, Article 8.14.C.7.a DRAFT Plaza/Square Pocket/Mini ParkGreen Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Cathyann LaRose Photo credit: Jen Le Open Space & T-Zone Guide 1DRAFT Outdoor Cafe / Restaurant SeatingPlayground Sun Terrace Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Cathyann LaRose Photo credit: Paul Conner 2DRAFT Snippet Indoor Park / Atrium Courtyard Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham 3DRAFT Wooded Area Community Garden Rain Garden 4DRAFT Mew Streetfront Open Space Enhanced or Recreation Wetlands/Stormwater Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Sam Pham 5DRAFT T3 Buildings T4 Buildings T5 Buildings Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Paul Conner Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Cathyann LaRosePhoto credit: Sam PhamPhoto credit: Paul Conner Photo credit: Sam Pham Photo credit: Paul Conner 6DRAFT 1 Paul Conner Subject:SusAg resignation letter From: Rosanne05403 [rosanne05403@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 6:48 PM To: Jessica Louisos Cc: Sophie Quest Subject: SusAg resignation letter 5 August 2015 Dear Jessica, This is to notify you and the members of the South Burlington Planning Commission that I regretfully have to resign from the Sustainable Agriculture Subcommittee. I need to use my time and energies to be with a family member dealing with a serious health issue. I remain fully committed to Sustainable Agriculture/Food Security efforts, and to all work addressing, reversing, and preparing to cope with climate change and its effect on our food. I am grateful that the Planning Commissioners take seriously the need to ensure we have access to healthy, affordable, local food; and entrusted the SusAg subcommittee members to work to save South Burlington lands and soils for this purpose. I encourage the commissioners to expand and increase their efforts to preserve our lands, and also to draft bold measures to address climate change. Since research shows past development patterns have contributed significantly to climate change; we owe it to current and future residents to plan, design, build … and preserve land … differently. Although I will likely not be with you in person, know that I continue to support your efforts in this regard. Sincerely, Rosanne Greco SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  1      The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 28 July  2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  J. Louisos, Chair; T. Harrington, Vice‐Chair; B. Gagnon; S. Quest; A. Klugo    ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. Chittenden, K. Epstein, I.  Blanchard, Project Director, J. Simson, S. Dooley    1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the agenda. Ms. Harrington noted that Ms. Louisos would be arriving  later to the meeting due to a work conflict.    2. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda:    No issues were raised.                                                      3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports:    Mr. Conner:  Welcomed the two new members to the Planning Commission; Art Klugo and  Duncan MacDonald (not present due to a previously‐scheduled vacation).    Mr. Gagnon: Updated members on the demolition of houses in the Airport area.  They are  completely done and demobilized with the Northern contract.  Top soil is down and has been  seeded.  The 3rd contract began on the Southern 20 houses; 16 are down; should be done by  the end of August.  The 4th contract will eliminate 6 houses by early October.  The project is  ahead of schedule.    Ms. Harrington:  Shared that after an invite from Sandy Dooley, she attended a Champlain  Housing Trust meeting regarding affordable housing.  Ms. Harrington said that the meeting was  very informative and that South Burlington was well represented at the meeting.            SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  2    Mr. Conner:  Explained that he went to the State of Vermont Municipality board to ask for re‐ approval of the New Town Center.  The approval was unanimously approved for a 5‐year tax  increment of the town district.    Ms. Harrington:  Also shared that Sophie Quest was depicted in Seven Days this week regarding  the Gardens at Grand Isle State Park.    Mr. Conner:  Explained that the City Council held a work session around questions and concerns  in the East Terrace neighborhood.  They will be hosting a couple of city‐wide public forums on  the subjects of sound and noise regulation as well as parking.    Mr. Conner: Staff is beginning to work on the annual Capital Improvement Program  and Human Resource budgeting for next year, which will be eleven months from  now.  The Council this year has asked the staff to develop a 10‐year Human  Resources Investment plan that will mirror the 10‐year CIP.    4. Presentation and discussion of draft Affordable Housing Chapter of the  Comprehensive Plan:    Mr. Simson and Ms. Dooley, residents and former members of the Affordable Housing  Committee, lead a presentation to the Commission with their recommendations for the  Affordable Housing Chapter to be included in the Comprehensive Plan.  The draft Affordable  Housing Chapter was included with the agenda.    Mr. Simson:  Lead the discussion stating that one of the main departures from the prior plans is  the idea of having a ten year Affordable Housing target as a goal.  He said the ten targets  among their recommendations are aggressive.     Mr. Simson:  Asked a question under the “Introduction” section.  He wondered if the  explanation of the Champlain Housing Trust Fund should be included.  It currently is not.    Mr. Simson:  Referred to the “Key Issues” section.   As a result of changes brought about by  ACTs 60 and 68, reaching a 50/50 balance no longer produces the conditions with respect to tax  revenues and economic vitality that it did in prior decades. Recommended that if the  Commission wishes to keep this policy, perhaps it should be relocated in the Plan.        SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  3      Ms. Dooley:   Announced that the data that they derived their recommendations from came  from a report developed as part of the Affordable Housing Committee and that it can be found  on‐line.  The Vermont Housing Finance Agency produced it, specific to South Burlington.  Ms.  Dooley referred to pages 3 – 5 of their recommendation report, under the “Inventory” section,  they made a lot of changes/recommendation, but she and Mr. Simson both felt that the  changes were self‐explanatory.  However, Mr. Simson explained that they have not included or  recommended methodology.    Mr. Simson:  Referred to “Changing Demographics” on page 7 of their recommendations report  that future housing development needs to take into account the City’s changing population:     Around 70% of the City’s households consists of one or two people.   Only 25% of the City’s households are families with children under 18.   Around 40% of the City’s households are headed by someone 55 or older.   There will be a need for older households to increase over the decade.   Around 44% of the City’s population is between 20 and 35 and of those entering the  housing market, it is expected that they will be seeking smaller housing.    Ms. Dooley:  Explained that under “Smart Growth”, the City will need to look for increasing  opportunities for higher‐density, mixed‐use development in targeted growth areas like City  Center.  Keeping the housing within close proximity to all the amenities is important in terms of  business profits and transportation.    Ms. Dooley:  Explained that we cannot expect the private sector to build affordable housing on  the low end, due to increases of the cost of materials & labor; they could however, collaborate  with Champlain Housing Trust Fund and Cathedral Square to construct or rehabilitate  affordable housing in the City.    Ms. Dooley:  Shared some examples of smaller housing and smaller lots in a report entitled The  Path to Affordability – the final report of the Affordable Housing Committee.      Mr. Conner:  Noted a recent example of affordable housing currently being converted is the Ho  Hum Motel on Shelburne Road.  It will provide 20 housing units.  This is a project of Champlain  Housing Trust.  Mr. Conner also noted that the Planning Commission should keep in mind that  diversity of housing should be included in future discussions of affordable housing.    Ms. Harrington:  Thanked Mr. Simson and Ms. Dooley for a presentation well done.  SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  4        No objections were made to the recommendations received.    Mr. Conner asked whether staff should proceed to integrating the draft language into the Plan,  including the affordable housing target. Members were in agreement.    5.  Presentation and feedback on draft Tax Increment Finance Policy – goals and  award criteria.    Ilona Blanchard, Project Director, lead the presentation for the draft TIF Policy.  In March 2015  the City Council discussed a framework within which to create a Tax Increment Financing  District (TIF) Investment Policy.  This policy, once approved, will be used by the City council to  make decisions regarding public investments in TIF public‐private partnerships.  This project will  not be possible as envisioned without public investments.  Draft TIF Policy p. 1    The City Center Community Goals expressing the community interest has been developed and  was included with the agenda.      Ms. Blanchard:   Explained that the eligibility criteria is to ensure that the projects the City  directly invests in meet the “but for” that is fundamental to Tax Increment Financing.  This  includes projects that are built to a quality above what the market supports.    As Ms. Blanchard proceeded to explain the framework, goals and criteria, questions from the  committee arose:      Ms. Harrington:  Questioned the criteria for “paved” paths.  It was suggested that the use of the  word “paved” paths may need to be adjusted.  Most people thought of pavement (blacktop)  when they heard the word “paved”.  Ms. Blanchard explained that “paved” could be brick,  plastic or stone; pervious or impervious; permanent or semi‐permanent.  Essentially, the paths  should be ADA accessible, easy to up‐keep, conducive for walking or bicycling, and provide easy  access to all amenities.    Ms. Blanchard continued stating that the ratio of developed Floor Area to development project  Site Area is at least 1.5, which is pretty aggressive.  Ms. Blanchard’s report suggests that  projects be Energy Star Certified.  Energy Star will only certify a retail space of 5,000 sq. ft. or  more; whereas retail spaces smaller than 5,000 sq. ft. may also be efficient but do not fit into a  category certifiable by Energy Star.  SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  5      Mr. Gagnon:  Questioned the use of Energy Star and Efficiency Vermont as opposed to the  Stretch Code.  He stated that the Stretch Code is a requirement of ACT 250 anyway, so why not  go with Stretch Code. The Commission hosted a panel discussion on this topic 2 weeks ago. One  of the takeaways was to use consistent standards.     Ms. Harrington:  Questioned the use of the word “attractive” under the criteria.  She and others  agreed that not everyone’s idea of attractiveness is the same.  Ms. Blanchard said that the use  of T‐4 and T‐5 in terms of building heights was what would make walking along the streets and  viewing the buildings as attractive.  Perhaps the word “attractive” could be altered.  Ms.  Blanchard further said that if the City is going to contribute to a project, then they expect to set  certain specifications because TIF wants a higher quality in the end products.    Mr. Gagnon:  Asked what differentiates?  Why would the City contribute to these projects?  As an example the public sees the City building Garden Street; while the City sees the developer  building Garden Street.   Mr. Conner noted that this question, of how the City evaluates when  to contribute to elements of a project that are the responsibility of the private sector (such as a  roadway), is at the heart of this policy.    Mr. Klugo:  Expressed that TIF should focus less on attractiveness and should not worry so much  about architecture, but more about infrastructure; to ensure that these buildings and  structures will last throughout time.    Mr. Conner:  Explained that the goal of the City Center is to create a sufficient, high quality  environment downtown with buildings that will stand the test of time.    Mr. Klugo:  Expressed that we should use the materials we have today, we should have  consistency, use Form Based Code with a list of acceptable materials.  Most agreed that having  a street scape would be nice, but should instead design buildings that have uniqueness for the  visual interest.  Ms. Blanchard suggested perhaps a disclaimer could be put into the policy,  indicating that there is no specific style/architecture being sought?    Ms. Blanchard explained that there is also a Bonus Opportunity for the developers.   The  development projects that meet bonus criteria in addition to the threshold (minimum) criteria  are eligible to increase the community investment by the cost to the developers for the  provision of the particular item up to 15% of the total project generated increment for the first  item, 10% for the second and 5% for the third.  Draft TIF Policy p 5.    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  6    Ms. Blanchard further said that the bonus is a direct cost off‐set that the City would give money  for.  A direct credit dollar for dollar.  It would be controlled by the amount of the incentive and  one can choose up to three bonuses.   It is limited by the amount of tax revenue that the  project generates.  For a more in‐depth explanation, please reference the policy definition.    Ms. Blanchard:  Asked the committee for their input on what types of housing we would be  willing to pay for/incentives in City Center?  In regards to affordable housing, who is the target  and who is the developer? Is it worth incentivizing?   Who does South Burlington want to serve?   Ms. Blanchard asked the committee members to send their suggestions via email to her in  regards to these questions.    Mr. Conner:  Asked, in accordance with the “big picture”, how do we support Vermont local  business?  Are we missing any big holes? Members did not identify any additional topics.    No final comments or concerns.    6. Consider approval of new road name:  Randall Street:    Ms. Guest moved to accept Randall Street as a new street name, Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion  approved.    7. Initial discussion of roles, purposes, effects of a Comprehensive Plan in Vermont  and relationship to State Statures and other local documents.    Mr. Conner:  Explained that he was given input from the City’s attorney in regards to the up‐ dates for the Comprehensive Plan, per the request of the Commission.  They discussed the use  of certain terms, such as:  “Shall” being a strong term and “should” as being a soft term.    The Comprehensive Plan sets a framework.  Land Development Regulations must then be  within that framework. In terms of local regulation, a Comprehensive Plan does not in and of  itself have a regulatory effect. The courts have looked to the Comprehensive Plan for intent  where a regulation is unclear. However, if a Plan is included by reference in the Land  Development Regulations, such as “development in this district shall be consistent with Chapter  XX of the Comprehensive Plan”, then the City has given the Plan regulatory effect. The Plan  then, at that point, meet the JAM Golf test of specificity. If that is to be the case, then, he said,  then that level of specificity could go into the Land Development Regulations to begin with.    SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  7    The Comprehensive Plan by itself can be aspirational. A target can be established and by  itself, it does not create a legal responsibility. It sets the goal that the City is to work  towards by a variety of means.    In general, it is the recommendation of staff and the City Attorney to separate the Plan and the  Land Development Regulations. This allows the regulations to be clear, and the Plan to be as  aspirational as appropriate. The question of language, such as “should” or “shall” then becomes  a question of how strongly the City wishes to express the statement.     Ms. Harrington asked which wording would be best in this case. Mr. Conner suggested that if  the Commission wishes to make a clear statement, perhaps it should be a different wording.  “Should” is a soft statement. “Shall” implies a level of requirement that may not be accurate in  a Plan. He suggested language such as “this Plan sets a target of XXX”.    The Plan has a role in outside reviews as well, he said. He noted Act 250, where the standards  look to the Plan for guidance and, where it is unclear, to the Land Development Regulations. He  noted Section 248 (public service board) where the role is continuing to evolve. He also noted  that the Plan must reference New Town Centers, which this one does, and can be used to  provide affordability exemptions to Impact Fees.    8. Draft Land Development Regulations:     a. Status update on remaining items  b. Follow‐up on panel on base vs stretch codes, rooftop requirements  c. Other member/staff items from draft LDRs    Commission Members agreed to push 8 a. to the next meeting. Ms. Louisos suggested that the  Commission address 8 b and 8 c.  Commission members agreed. Mr. Klugo noted that he did  not have enough information to cast his vote, though.    The Commission members discussed the Stretch Code in relation to Act 250. Ms. Louisos noted  that upwards of 75% of housing in the City is subject to Act 250, and therefore the majority of  housing will already need to meet the stretch code. She said that from the presentation, it  sounded as though City Center would be a mix of Act 250 and non‐Act 250 projects.        SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  8    She added that she had the impression from the developers in the room that this would be  acceptable, that it would level the playing field. Mr. Gagnon she said he agreed, but noted that  Mr. Snyder had expressed general concern about how the Stretch Code would be met  technically.    Mr. Conner noted that while staff is comfortable with the 75% Act 250 assumption on the  residential side, there is much more variability on the non‐residential side. The threshold is 10  acres, and/or if the property has been subject to Act 250 in the past. The Trader Joe’s, for  example, was not subject to Act 250.    Ms. Quest said she was comfortable with applying the Stretch Code city wide.    Mr. Gagnon said he recalled a discussion about Certificates of Occupancy and how this would  be administered. Mr. Conner said that there is an energy form that must meet the Base Code  before Ray Belair can sign off on the Certificates of Occupancy. Mr. Conner said that it was his  understanding that this would also be a self‐certification. There is a challenge in that in South  Burlington, COs are not required for single and two‐family homes. That does not alleviate the  requirement to meet the standard, but staff will need to think about how to confirm.    Mr. Gagnon said he would be ok with the stretch code being required in the FBC district.  Commissioners discussed whether to apply it in City Center or City Wide. Ms. Quest said that if  75% of housing city‐wide is required to meet it anyway, why not?    Ms. Harrington recommended a straw poll. Ms. Quest, Mr. Gagnon, Ms. Louisos, and Ms.  Harrington were all comfortable with a stretch code requirement city‐wide. Mr. Klugo said he  would like to read up on the matter and communicate with some colleagues in the energy field  in MA before taking a position.    9. Other Business:  a. Upcoming Meetings  b. Draft Essex Town Plan – Public Hearing Thursday August 13, 6:30 pm, Essex  Police Department, 145 Maple St., Essex Jct., VT  c. Draft Shelburne Form‐Based Zoning Ordinance – Public Hearing Thursday  August 13, 7:00 pm, Shelburne Municipal Complex 5420 Shelburne Road,  Shelburne, VT    Mr. Conner:  Explained that the Draft for the Essex Town Plan was reorganized, but that the  policy remains the same.  SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION   MEETING MINUTES  28 JULY 2015  9      Mr. Conner:  Said that the Draft Shelburne Form‐Based Zoning Ordinance differences from the  draft South Burlington FBC are:     The developers have an option for Form‐Based Code   Shelburne places more emphasis on building types, styles and building conformity    The Commission took no action on these items.    10. Minutes of 14 July 2015:    Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 14 July 2015 as written.  Ms. Louisos seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned  by common consent at 9:50 p.m.           ______________________________       Clerk