Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 07/28/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 28 JULY 2015 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. 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. 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: Ø Around 70% of the City’s households consists of one or two people. Ø Only 25% of the City’s households are families with children under 18. Ø Around 40% of the City’s households are headed by someone 55 or older. Ø There will be a need for older households to increase over the decade. Ø 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Mr. Conner: Said that the Draft Shelburne Form-Based Zoning Ordinance differences from the draft South Burlington FBC are: Ø The developers have an option for Form-Based Code Ø 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. 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: July 28, 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 new members! A big welcome to the Commission’s newest members, Art Klugo and Duncan Macdonald, who were appointed this past week by the City Council. Also welcome back to Bernie Gagnon, who was re-appointed! 4. Presentation and discussion of draft Affordable Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (John Simson, Sandra Dooley) (7:20 pm) Last month, in reviewing remaining elements of the draft Comprehensive Plan, it was noted that the draft Housing Chapter did not fully incorporate the work of the Affordable Housing Committee. Residents and former committee members Sandy Dooley & John Simson offered to take a first pass at preparing the revisions and the Commission agreed. The draft revisions are enclosed. Mr. Simson and Ms. Dooley will be on hand to provide a summary of their work and to respond to questions. encl: draft Housing Chapter with markups and questions 5. Presentation and feedback on draft Tax Increment Finance Policy – goals and award criteria (Ilona Blanchard, Project Director) (7:40 pm) See enclosed memo and draft TIF Policy 6. Consider approval of new road name: Randall Street (8:25 pm) South Burlington Realty has requested use of the name “Randall Street” for a new roadway to connect off Meadowland Drive. Staff and the Fire Department have reviewed the name for compliance with our naming standards and any conflicts with existing road names in South Burlington and Burlington. Staff and the Fire Department recommend approval. 2 7. Initial discussion of roles, purposes, effects of a Comprehensive Plan in Vermont and relationship to State Statutes and other local documents (8:30 pm) Last month, Commissioners asked staff to look into the roles of a Comprehensive Plan in Vermont as well as to research the regulatory roles of these documents. Staff will host an initial discussion of findings for the Commission’s consideration. 8. Draft Land Development Regulations – time permitting (8:50 pm) a. Status update on remaining items (staff) b. Follow-up on panel on base vs stretch codes, rooftop requirements c. Other member / staff items from draft LDRs Following the panel discussion of energy codes in Vermont, Commissioners are encouraged to have a follow-up discussion and provide direction to staff on next steps. 9. Other Business (9:10 pm) a. Upcoming meetings b. Draft Essex Town Plan – Public Hearing Thursday Aug 13, 6:30 pm, Essex Police Dept, 145 Maple St Essex Jct c. Draft Shelburne Form-Based Zoning Ordinance - Public Hearing Thursday Aug 13, 7:00 pm, Shelburne Municipal Complex 5420 Shelburne Road, Shelburne See enclosed public hearing warnings and summary reports for the Essex Plan and Shelburne Zoning amendments. Full copies of these draft documents can be found here: Essex Draft Plan - http://tinyurl.com/q3lzr6s Shelburne Draft Zoning: https://goo.gl/XBu6Wv. 10. Minutes (9:20 pm) 11. Adjourn (9:23 pm) Draft Update to Comprehensive Plan Housing Chapter S. Dooley & J. Simson, per request of Planning Commission June 19, 2015 [Markups based on prior draft of Plan] 1 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 adequate safe safe and affordable housing that is well-matched to residents’ to 2 residents’ circumstances needs is an essential essential basic requirement for the city 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 will support the labor force needed of any plan to maintain or 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 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: SUGGEST THAT THIS BE DELETED> Balancing residential and economic growth. Note (not to be included in CP): It is our understanding that this goal/objective has been part of the Plan for decades. We also understand that, as a result of changes brought about by Acts 60 and 3 68, reaching a 50/50 balance no longer produces the conditions with respect to tax revenues and economic vitality that it did prior to Acts 60 and 68. Sandy recalls hearing all candidates at a 2015 City Council election forum back away from the 50/50 residential/economic balance goal and state there are no magic percentages for residential and economic growth. If the PC wants to retain this concept, it seems to us that it belongs at the beginning of the CP and not here. Preserving Maintaining and promoting the development of additional fostering housing that is attainable affordable to households of all income levels throughout the city. Meeting the housing demands 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. South Burlington has a diverse housing stock, approximately 70 percent of which is owner-occupied while 30 percent is composed of rental units. 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.” Within the city, there are single-family homes of all sizes, condominiums and townhouses, apartment buildings and accessory rental units. The 2010 Census counted 8,429 housing units in South Burlington; between 2000 and 2010, approximately 1,750 additional units were permitted. 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. 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 4 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. That figure declined to approximately 100 units annual in the late 2000s. The type of housing units being built in the city over the past 25 years has been weighted towards 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. Between 2000 and 2010, approximately 60 percent of new housing was multi-family, while only 30% was single-family. A clear gap in the city’s housing stock, however, has been entry-level single family homes and duplexes. The majority of the single-family homes built in the past 15 years have been at or above the median home value for the community.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- 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 costs of owner-occupied housing in South Burlington hasve 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. In 2008, the median sales price for a primary residence (single-family homes, condominiums and mobile homes with land) in the city was $240,000. After adjusting for inflation, home prices in South Burlington have increased by approximately $75,000 since the mid-1990s. In response to the current economic downturn, the number of home sales has declined, but prices have essentially remained level since 2006.units The 2011 median sale price of a single-family home in South Burlington was $310,000 and of a condominium was $186,000. After adjusting for inflation, home prices in South Burlington have increased by approximately $75,000 since the mid-1990s. In response to the current economic downturn, the number of home sales has declined, but prices have essentially remained level since 2006. Rental Market. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, In 2010 the median rent for a two-bedroom South Burlington apartment in 2007 iswas just over $1,000 a month. Over the past 10 years, monthly rents have increased about $200. to $400 above the rate of inflation. As of 2011 South Burlington’s rental housing stock included There were approximately 605500 affordable rental units in the city in 2007, about 60% half of which house elderly or disabled residents. Most of these affordable rental 5 units were have been constructed between 1995 and 2003. since Since then only the mid-1990s. 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) Nearly one-half of the city’s renting households and one-quarter of homeowners spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. according to the 2000 Census. 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. So a fairly significant number of households in the city are already living in housing that would be considered unaffordable. Households earning 80 percent of Chittenden County’s median income could afford to purchase a home ranging in price from $130,000 to $230,000 depending on factors such as amount of household debt and ability to make a down payment. 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. Approximately one-third of the city’s existing owner-occupied housing stock could be considered affordable, assuming sales prices are not significantly above assessed values. The city will need to examine data from the 2010 Census closely on this subject, however, as indicators have suggested that affordability has slipped in the community during the past decade. Regional City Housing Targets. In 2004, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC) released a report that established housing targets for the county and its municipalities. The study recommended that at least 1,444 new housing units be constructed in South Burlington between 2000 and 2010. Of those new units, 10 percent should be affordable for moderate-income households and another 10 percent should be affordable for low-income households. The number of total housing units built in the city appears to have exceeded the recommended minimum target for overall housing and has made significant strides in affordability, particularly for senior housing, though the amount may not reach the target presented by the CCRPC.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? In response to the Affordable Housing Committee’s analysis of existing conditions and public input, and its recommendations, This Plan includes affordable housing targets that seek to maintain a housing profile that is fairly similar to what presently exists in 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 6 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 Ensuring an adequate supply of affordable housing remains a challenge for South Burlington. The city has experienced While there has been a steady increase in the number of housing units and the city’s its housing growth rate has slightly outpaced that of the county.’s rate of housing growth, Meanwhile, the regional demand for additional housing units has been remained high and vacancy ratesrates remained low over the past decade as the as the household growth rate slightly outstripped housing construction. These factors, coupled with low mortgage rates and economic growth, resulted in a are major 7 contributors to the city and region’s very tight housing market. throughout northwestern Vermont by the late-1990s. 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. 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. In response to market pressures, South Burlington began to experience a construction boom around 1998, which lasted into the mid-2000s. The economic downturn and troubles in the housing market have slowed the pace of residential development in the city during the past several years. These factors also contributed to higher sales prices and an overall decrease in the affordability of housing within the city between the mid- 1990s and mid-2000s. Additionally, the high cost of new homes built during the recent construction boom drove the median value of homes in the city upward. As of 2010, the recent economic downturn had slowed home construction and sales of existing homes, but it had not had significant effects on housing costs, particularly for homes valued at less than $200,000 and for rental units. 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. The city is already experiencing an increase in single-person households and older residents - trends that are expected to continue over the next several decades. Many of these households will be seeking housing that is smaller and/or with limited maintenance requirements. Smart Growth. After close to seven At the close of the city’s sixth 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 8 areas like the City Center, as well as increased density and infill development within existing neighborhoods, inneighborhoods 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. SEE PRIOR INPUT. SUGGEST THIS BE DELETED Balanced Growth. As the need for housing grows in the region, South Burlington should plan for continued residential expansion while at the same time ensuring continued economic development to prevent the city from becoming merely a bedroom community to neighboring municipalities. 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 enforcement of 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. Currently, the city does not have municipal building codes. 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 South Burlington needs an adequate supply of affordable housing to support its economic vitality and maintain its current housing profile. iIt 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 or maintenance 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. This is included under Strategy 1 below >> Density bonuses or incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing. This is included under Strategy 2 below >> Higher densities and smaller lot sizes. Re-examination of ing “density” to consider building size in addition to units per acre. Financial and advocacy support for South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund. 9 Formation of an affordable housing “task force” to study the issue and make recommendations to the city. Consideration of a municipal “land bank” if appropriate sites can be found. Involvement of housing organizations such as Champlain Housing Trust and Cathedral Square the Lake Champlain Housing Development Corporation or Burlington Community Land Trust to construct or rehabilitate affordable housing in the city. This is included under Strategy 1 below >>Permit transfer of development rights as a method of achieving higher densities necessary for developing affordable housing. This is included under Strategy 2 below >>Promotion of mixed-use developments that create a variety of housing opportunities within commercial areas located centrally to public transportation and other services. 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. Suggested additional objective (from AH Committee report): 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: (this has already been done>> a housing trust fund, form-based codesing which that would allow a variety of residential and mixed use building types, expanded accessory dwelling unit provisions, transferable development rights, inclusionary zoning, bonuses and incentives, waivers and expedited review processes, and/or a housing retention ordinance. As needed, establish appropropriate oversight within an Affordable Housing Committee or taskforce charged with increasing the availability of safe and affordable housing in the city, that would work with a variety of related professionals, city staff and officials, and residents to facilitate affordable housing and offer recommendations on housing-related issues to the Planning Commission, and City Council. 10 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 conpreservation of the existing housing stock in existing 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 enforce 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. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: Jessica Louisos, Chair Planning Commission FROM: Ilona Blanchard, Project Director SUBJECT: Community Goals and Investment Eligibility Criteria for the City Center TIF Investment Policy DATE: July 24, 2015 BACKGROUND: In March of 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 policy is distinct from land use regulations in that a regulation includes standards that set the lowest common denominator, whereas the policy would establish criteria that reward excellence while protecting the public interest. A key component of this proposed policy is that the City investment be aligned with the community interest in City Center. To that end, a review has been conducted of various City adopted or draft policy documents related to City Center visioning including the TIF District Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Regulations. A draft of City Center Community Goals expressing the community interest has been developed and is attached to this memo. Investment eligibility criteria (like LDR standards) have also been drafted to ensure that City investment is in projects that achieve the goals of the Community. A second and equally important function of the investment eligibility criteria is to ensure that projects the City directly invests in meet the “but for” that is fundamental to Tax Increment Financing. Essentially, these criteria also ensure that Background, Continued, Page 2 projects are built to a quality above what the market supports. TIF District investment in the provision of public infrastructure normally provided by developers is offsetting the cost of a higher quality development then otherwise would occur. The Planning Commission is respectfully requested to review and provide any guidance regarding the attached goals and criteria in order to ensure that they are aligned with achieving the Community interest in City Center. An updated policy framework has been provided for the Commission’s reference. Condensed from the March 2015 Memo to City Council Over the next seven years, the City will have the opportunity to invest 23.2 million dollars in private sector projects that the City would not provide elsewhere in South Burlington. This is approximately 40% of the potential TIF project increment (tax revenue held aside in the TIF District) expenditures. The City has also identified 31.7 million dollars of potential increment expenditures as fulfilling downtown infrastructure needs to create the community envisioned downtown for which the City has secured the TIF District. Many of these projects also provide direct benefit to private projects; e.g., Market Street. Others create value for adjacent developments such as high quality parks and public facilities such as a public library. These combined community benefit projects represent the remaining approximately 60% of potential increment expenditures. All TIF project funds would be raised through public financing that is “double barreled”; i.e. bond that are backed by future TIF District tax increment revenues, but also back by the full faith and credit of the City; otherwise known as general obligation bonds against the property tax base. How will the City ensure that public monies spent on private projects are not subsidizing projects that do not meet the goals and extensive planning and visioning work of the public? How will the City ensure that the tax payers do not end up paying for improvements that result in no appreciable tax revenues (i.e. private sector does not build the project)? How will the City ensure that we are not moving tenants from one part of the City to another, raising tax revenues in one place while lowering them in another? How will the increment be set aside for community infrastructure that is critical to the downtown character but not Background, Continued, Page 3 directly within a private development? Will the process be transparent and developers be given an equal opportunity to qualify for funding? These are all important questions. Fortunately, the City is not alone in administering a TIF District. 49 States enable TIF Districts. Many cities have multiple TIF Districts throughout their communities and use it as a principle form of financing public infrastructure to obtain community goals. Many these communities also have established TIF district policies, applications for funding, and project review processes. Independent policy analysis has been conducted to study these policies and their effects on the community and broader tax base. While every state’s enabling statute, regulatory framework, development pattern and program is different, there are some commonalities across TIF Districts. These include the following: • Funded projects are those that align with and achieve the community vision or goals. • Projects meet a ‘but for’ statement. They are projects that would not be possible without public support because they are above and beyond what the market supports. The TIF provides “gap” funding. • Funded applicants are those that are able and capable of holding up their end of the deal and that provide a security that they will build their project as planned and on schedule. • Projects and performance are monitored. ATTACHMENTS: • Proposed Community Goals for the TIF Policy • TIF Policy Framework RECOMMENDATION: Discuss, ask questions and provide guidance on the community goals and related investment eligibility criteria. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION: A draft TIF Policy incorporating the community goals and criteria will be brought to the City Council on August 3. The State requires that if the City is to incur debt financed by the TIF District, South Burlington will need to do so prior to March of 2017, and will only have five subsequent years during which to use this financing tool. Framework for a TIF Policy 1 Draft | 7-24-2015 Policy Need Purpose Policy How to Establish “But For” threshold Avoid subsidizing development that would otherwise occur without City investment; creating uneven markets; robbing Peter to pay Paul. Uses community values to require development above the South Burlington/Burlington suburban real estate market baseline using existing regional development examples as thresholds (FAR, design investment, vertical mixed-use, affordable housing, etc.) Review Process Ensure Council has resources to make sound decisions Staff completes review of administrative items, flags items which require expert interpretation. Appropriate standing or ad hoc expert panels review financial, architectural, and artistic aspects of project as applicable. Use existing panel and internal/external analysis reports on each project. Criteria Purpose Options/Notes Review Timing Reward product that comes online sooner Base incentive reduces to zero over time Administrative Locational - Visibility to traffic - Catalyst project - Creates downtown Bonus Criteria Administrative Design - Pedestrian-oriented - Human scale - High quality Threshold Criteria Design Review Committee Density (FAR), Energy Star, etc. Efficient use of land, achieve downtown Threshold and Bonus Criteria on recent area development Administrative Public Art Sense of Place Bonus criteria (offset cost of art) Public Art Selection Committee LEED Platinum Rated Development - Encourage EcoDistrict type development Bonus criteria (offset cost of application/administration) Administrative Participate in Transportation Demand Management - Efficient use of land/ transportation, financial resources Threshold Criteria Administrative Applicant Financial Minimums Purpose Measures Site Control Not waste City resources - Provide proof Financial resources Project Viability Developer commitment (has skin in the game) - Provide financial backer information - Show % of investment in project cost in funds & or unpledged assets Development portfolio/experience Project Viability - Portfolio, similar projects DRAFT Framework for a TIF Policy 2 Draft | 7-24-2015 Willingness to sign agreement/pledge understanding that applicant will be responsible for paying off public investment if they do not carry through on project - Public is not stuck carrying the bag. - Demonstrates commitment to the development timeline - Policy will set up tools, application will require applicant to agree, once project is approved by Council, City will execute contract with conditions after developer. - City limits/eliminates financial exposure o Until project creates revenue o If project is not developed Resource Demand/ROI Avoid expending funds with no public yield - Ratio of assessed tax increment total value to City investment - Developer investment to city investment - Alternatively, could be jobs, affordable housing, etc. Direct TIF Investment in a Project via a Public Infrastructure Investment Applicability Developer Obligation offsets Roadways – includes streetscape, sewer, water, intersection upgrades Roadways City has approved TIF Funding for (Garden Street, Streets around urban park, Williston Road Streetscape) To build roadway/streetscape – current regs/FBC – meet traffic requirements, accommodate travel, access Stormwater Treatment Any project that has a shared/combined treatment To treat stormwater – City and ANR requirements Wetland Mitigation Any project with wetland To mitigate wetlands – ANR/ACOE requirements Central Urban Park A centrally located, programmable, usable park To provide open space/public space – current/future LDRs / FBC requirements Park improvements in City Center Park (such as boardwalk, treehouse, rec paths) Connect to other facilities, publically accessible parks, high quality design/experience To provide improved open space/public space – current/future LDRs / FBC requirements Public Parking Within private structures that serve multiple properties/buildings and support higher density; primarily commercial To provide parking – current/future LDRs requirements TIF Investment in Community Benefit – Only particularly placed projects could take advantage of these and only once Measures Library Central, accessible location, public review process Public Recreation Facilities Central, accessible location, public review process City Hall Central, accessible location, public review process Central Urban Programmable Park Central, accessible location, public review process Recreational Paths/park improvements above required in City Center Park Connect to other facilities, publically accessible, high quality design/experience Affordable Housing above required Close to transit services, may be required to have other attributes TBD such as provide services or family-sized units. DRAFT CP = Comprehensive Plan (June 9 Draft), G= Comprehensive Plan Goal) CITY CENTER COMMUNITY GOALS • CITY CENTER IS DIVERSE, DYNAMIC AND PEOPLE-ORIENTED. (CP – G1, G7) • THE ECONOMICALLY VIBRANT DOWNTOWN SUPPORTS A MIX OF SHOPPING, DINING, HOUSING AND WORKSPACES. (CP – G2, G7, G9) • A SAFE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENCOURAGES PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND TRANSIT OPTIONS WHILE ACCOMMODATING THE AUTOMOBILE. (CP – G4) • PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, ART AND CIVIC FACILITIES ESTABLISH PRIDE AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY. (CP – G2, G5, G11) • THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT REINFORCES A CULTURE OF CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY. (CP – G3, G6, G9) ELIGIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MINIMUM CRITERIA IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR TIF INVESTMENT A PROJECT MUST MEET ALL THE FOLLOWING THRESHOLD CRITERIA AS APPLICABLE. A development project is defined as all proposed development on a lot or subdivision. DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SUPPORTS SUSTAINABLE (MULTI-MODAL) AND SOCIABLE TRANSPORTATION MINIMUM CRITERIA (CP – G4, G11): Development project belongs to a Transportation Demand Management Organization. Paved paths connect across parcel to sidewalks or other paths or transit facilities on other parts of the development project, adjacent properties, and public rights-of-way. Covered and secure bicycle storage is provided. CP = Comprehensive Plan (June 9 Draft), G= Comprehensive Plan Goal) Onsite non-residential unstructured surface parking does not exceed maximums in Table 1 (parking above maximums may be structured parking and/or an agency managed parking shared or leased facility or on-street). *Note: Market Street has 75 spaces west of Garden Street and 40 spaces between Garden Street and Tributary 3. Table 1 Retail 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet Office/Mixed Use Commercial 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet Restaurant, stand alone 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet Hotel .7 spaces per room Places of Assembly .1 per maximum permitted occupancy Residential parking is sold or leased separately from multifamily units. All parking for commercial units is shared and unreserved. Where requested by public transit providers covered transit accommodations with seating are provided in right-of- way or onsite in accordance with service provider’s standards for enroute transit stops. PROJECT CREATES A HIGH QUALITY HUMAN-SCALE, WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT MINIMUM CRITERIA (CP – G2, G11): A hierarchy of materials and surface textures distinguish the ground floor from upper floors and the top with the most detail on the ground floor on public streets, pathways and open space and complementary detail on the top. Buildings are at least three stories in height in the T-4 Form Based Code District. Buildings are at least five stories in height in the T-5 Form Based Code District. Buildings edge Primary Streets, abutting each other with no openings between buildings unless providing for an alley or pathway, in which case the opening is no more than 30 feet in width. Consider zero lot lines on at least one side TBD. Window frames are highlighted by a change in materials, color, texture, depth and other ornamentation that establishes interest on public streets, pathways and open space. Entrances have legible and attractive addresses, attractive lighting and are articulated with high-quality frames, transoms and otherwise “read” as entrances through the use of an appropriate combination of side lights, awnings, indented bays and other embellishments. Lighting is consistent across all pathways. 45% of dwelling units have an outdoor porch, patio, balcony or terrace of at least 6 feet in depth. PROJECT IS RESOURCE EFFICIENT MINIMUM CRITERIA (CP – G3, G6) The ratio of developed Floor Area to development project Site Area is at least 1.5. Project is Energy Star Certified. Properties or portions of properties are exempt from this minimum if the use is not included in categories that are certified by Energy Star (i.e. Energy Star will only certify a retail space of 5,000 CP = Comprehensive Plan (June 9 Draft), G= Comprehensive Plan Goal) square feet or more; whereas retail spaces smaller than 5,000 square feet may also be efficient but do not fit into a category certifiable by Energy Star). BONUS OPPORTUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS MEETING THE 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. PROJECT SUPPORTS SUSTAINABLE (MULTI-MODAL) AND SOCIABLE TRANSPORTATION (CP – G4, G7) Project includes public structured parking signed for and accessible to the public (minimum of 20 spaces) with an entrance within 300 feet of 10 businesses. Showers and changing facilities for bicycle commuters are provided. PROJECT CREATES A HIGH QUALITY HUMAN-SCALE, WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT (CP – G2, G11) Publically reviewed and accepted art is included in the project above and beyond art required in Land Development Regulations. Walkway, plaza, and open space paving materials are of a higher quality than concrete, such as stone or brick, and are not “faux”. PROJECT IS RESOURCE EFFICIENT (CP – G3, G6) Building(s) is (are) verified by Efficiency Vermont as a Net Zero. Existing businesses onsite are accommodated in the new Development Project. Project is LEED Platinum Certified. CP = Comprehensive Plan (June 9 Draft), G= Comprehensive Plan Goal) 10-15% INCREASE OPPORTUNITY COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ELIGIBLE TO BE INVESTED IN THE PROJECT MAY BE INCREASED BY AN ADDITIONAL XX% OF TOTAL PROJECT INCREMENT IF AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS MET: The ratio of developed Floor Area to development project site area is at least 2. (CP – G3) At least 25,000 square feet, or one quarter of the development, whichever is larger, of the development is Class A office. (CP – G7) 10% of retail floor area is set aside permanently for occupation by businesses registered only in Vermont with no affiliation with an out of state headquarters or corporate office and does not include a local business owner of a franchise or national chain. (CP – G2, G7, G11) Affordable Housing is 300% above required, managed and includes wrap around social support services.* (CP – G1) Town of Shelburne, Vermont CHARTERED 1763 P.O. BOX 88 5420 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE, VT 05482 Clerk/Treasurer Town Manager Zoning & Planning Assessor Recreation FAX Number (802) 985-5116 (802) 985-5110 (802) 985-5118 (802) 985-5115 (802) 985-9551 (802) 985-9550 INVITATION TO COMMENT ON ZONING AMENDMENTS TO: DISTRIBUTION LIST FR: SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION VIA DEAN PIERCE, DIR OF PLANNING RE: ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENT DA: JULY 14, 2015 On Thursday, August 13, 2015, the Shelburne Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment of Shelburne’s Zoning Bylaw. The extent of the proposed changes is detailed in the attached memorandum. The hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m., or shortly thereafter, and take place in the Shelburne Municipal Complex Meeting Room. Those who plan to speak at the hearing are encouraged to also submit a written version of their comments. It is not necessary to appear at the hearing to offer comments. Written comments should be submitted to Dean Pierce, AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning, 5420 Shelburne Road, PO Box 88, Shelburne, VT 05482. Electronic submissions are encouraged. Please direct email to dpierce@shelburnevt.org. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dean Pierce, hereby certify that this memorandum and enclosure were sent to the following people, via email, on July 14, 2015: Department of Housing and Community Affairs via Annina Seyler National Life Building, 6th Floor Drawer 20 Montpelier, VT 05620 South Burlington Planning Commission via Paul Conner, City Planner South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Williston Planning Commission via Ken Beliveau, Town Planner Williston, Vermont 05495 St. George Planning Commission via Planning Commission Chair Scott Baker St. George, VT 05495 Hinesburg Planning Commission via Alex Weinhagen, Town Planner Hinesburg, VT 05461 Charlotte Planning Commission via Jeannine McCrumb, Town Planner Charlotte, Vermont 05445 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, via Charles Baker, Executive Director / Regina Mahoney, Senior Planner Winooski, Vermont 05404 \ x \ ______________________ Date: __July 14, 2015______________ Dean Pierce MEMORANDUM TO: RECIPENTS FR: DEAN PIERCE, ON BEHALF OF PLANNING COMMISSION RE: HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO CREATE ‘OPT-IN’ FORM BASED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT DA: JULY 14, 2015 At its July 9 meeting—and at prior meetings occurring over many, many months—the Shelburne Planning Commission discussed possible zoning bylaw modifications that would allow for the creation of a Form Based Zoning Overlay District. At the conclusion of its most recent discussion, the Planning Commission voted to warn a formal Public Hearing on the proposed changes and to conduct that hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2015. In addition, Staff was directed to distribute the draft and zoning change report as required by statute. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The proposal contains language that would allow applications to be considered under an alternative set of “Form Based” review standards and guidelines. If an applicant chooses to have a project reviewed under the Form Based standards and guidelines, the project—and future projects on the site—would be reviewed under the proposed Overlay District. Requirements contained in the underlying Zoning district would be superseded. An abbreviated list of the sections contained in the proposal is presented below. It is important to note that Form Based zoning differs from traditional zoning approaches by emphasizing standards governing building, site, and street design. Land use remains a consideration but is emphasized less than under traditional zoning. Major sections of proposed Article 1.1 Purpose and Applicability 1.2 Regulating Plan 1.3 Permitted Uses and Functional Standards 1.4 Building Form Standards 1.5 Public Realm Standards 1.6 Site Development Standards 1.7 Administrative Procedures 1.8 Definitions Please note that as the proposal would create an entirely new Article within the bylaw, the redline convention sometimes used to illustrate proposed amendments is not employed here. All text, maps, etc., included in the proposed Article attached to this memorandum are proposed to be added to the bylaw. ZONING CHANGE REPORT A report prepared in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) is also attached. This report describes how the proposal “Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan…” and “Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan.” SHELBURNE ROAD FORM‐BASED  OVERLAY  DISTRICT (SR‐FBOD)                                      PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT:   ARTICLE XVII.A – SHELBURNE ROAD FORM‐BASED  OVERLAY DISTRICT  Version 4.2b  July 2015   Town of Shelburne, Vermont  Planning Commission Reporting Form for Municipal Bylaw Amendments (Form Based Zoning) Prepared for Consideration by Planning Commission on June 11, 2015 And approved for distribution by Planning Commission on July 9, 2015 This report is in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4441(c) which states: “When considering an amendment to a bylaw, the planning commission shall prepare and approve a written report on the proposal. A single report may be prepared so as to satisfy the requirements of this subsection concerning bylaw amendments and subsection 4384(c) of this title concerning plan amendments.…. The report shall provide (:) (A) brief explanation of the proposed bylaw, amendment, or repeal and ….include a statement of purpose as required for notice under §4444 of this title, (A)nd shall include findings regarding how the proposal: 1. Conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan, including the effect of the proposal on the availability of safe and affordable housing: 2. Is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan: 3. Carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities.” Brief explanation of the proposed bylaw amendment. The Planning Commission proposal would modify the regulations by adding an overlay district that would allow applicants to seek review of proposals under a “form-based” zoning framework instead of under the existing, traditional “Euclidian” zoning framework. Purpose The Planning Commission has developed the proposal in response to concerns that began to emerge circa 2011 and found a focus in two related planning efforts (one project was known as the SDAT project, and the other was known as the Pilot project). The proposal addresses these concerns in a manner the Commission believes is effective and efficient and serves the needs of the community. The proposal also responds to Comprehensive Plan policies that promote the creation and adoption of form- based zoning provisions. The specific purpose of the proposal as stated in proposal itself is as follows: The purpose of the Form-Based Zoning (FBZ) District is to provide a set of zoning regulations that place greater emphasis on the building design and site layout, and less emphasis on the types of land uses within those buildings with the goal of facilitating sustainable development in selected areas of Shelburne. These qualities will be achieved through implementation of context-based building forms, active open spaces and streetscapes, and complete streets collectively designed to be integrated, connected and complementary. The intent is to meet the goals of the 2014 Town of Shelburne Comprehensive Plan and other strategic area plans endorsed by the Town. The Shelburne Road Form-Based Zoning District, which extends along the corridor from the boundary shared with South Burlington to the LaPlatte River, is illustrated on the Regulating Plan in Section 1.2. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 2 Form Based Zoning Proposal, July 2015 Findings regarding how the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan Under state law, the Zoning Regulations must be “in conformance with” the Plan. To be “in conformance with” the Plan, the bylaw must: make progress toward attaining, or at least not interfere with, the goals and policies contained in the Plan; provide for proposed future land uses, densities, and intensities of development contained in the Plan; and carry out any specific proposals for community facilities, or other proposed actions contained in the Plan. The Planning Commission finds that the proposal conforms with or furthers the goals and policies contained in the municipal plan. Such policies include but are not necessarily limited to the following: GOAL: TO CREATE AN AREA SURROUNDING THE VILLAGE THAT CONTAINS PLEASANT, MODEST DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE APPROPRIATE LEVELS OF SUB-REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES. … The Mixed Use Area: Along Shelburne Road north of Shelburne Village is a corridor which will contain a mixture of residential and commercial uses. This Mixed Use corridor may be broken up into clusters, separated by intervening areas of open land or public amenities. This area was the focus of Sustainable Development Assessment Team (SDAT) report prepared by a group sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, as well as of a Pilot Project completed by William Dennis of B. Dennis Town & Building Design. In the Mixed Use are, these qualities may be enhanced through the development of a Form Based Code. OBJECTIVES: 1. Encourage non-residential development that is not suitable for the Village Area (Growth Area 1) but is well suited for other portions of the Town to locate in appropriate sections of Growth Area 2. 2. In the Commercial/Industrial Area, promote policies that will encourage developers to build using form-based solutions that enhance the community. 4. Create a true mixture of residential and commercial development in the Mixed Use Area along Shelburne Road north of the Village Area. This should range from apartments above commercial uses to various types of residential structures linked with and integrated into the commercial developments. Commercial uses should be oriented towards local and sub-regional markets (e.g. drug stores, hardware stores, neighborhood stores). More specifically, the following objectives should be achieved in the Mixed Use Area: Encourage clustered development in the Mixed Use Area, with buildings sited in groups with varying setbacks and well landscaped areas between structures and the road. Manage the intensity and siting of development so that it does not overwhelm the capacity of Shelburne Road. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 3 Form Based Zoning Proposal, July 2015  Ensure that the Mixed Use Area does not become a suburban strip. Encourage developers to build using physical forms and architectural styles that enhance the community. Identify appropriate breaks in development for open spaces and/or mini- parks. Require appropriate front set-backs along Shelburne Road. Continue to promote shared driveways, and the location of parking away from areas immediately adjacent to the Shelburne Road right of way. A mixture of one and two story buildings can provide variation in roof lines. A secondary access road, parallel to Shelburne Road, may provide local access to both commercial and residential development.  If and until such time as comprehensive, physical form-based regulations are enacted in the district, continue to require that development on parcels of three acres or more be treated as Planned Developments, with design standards to achieve the desired mixed use neighborhoods.  Work to develop north-south pedestrian connections, off of Shelburne Road, to connect the various neighborhoods north of the Village and encourage vehicular connections between the boundaries of future residential developments.  Ensure that Shelburne Road and development in the mixed use corridor is well served by pedestrian and bicycle amenities and that the area is designed and landscaped with amenities appropriate to slow moving travelers.  Integrate transit stops into the pattern of mixed uses in order to serve both the residential and commercial developments. 6. In the residential parts of Growth Area 2, encourage development of pleasant, compact neighborhoods. Require that development of parcels of three acres or more be treated as Planned Developments with design standards to encourage the following characteristics.  A mixture of housing types (detached and attached).  Encourage compact patterns of development with a range of residential lot sizes.  Narrow streets with street trees on both sides and sidewalks on at least one side.  Convenient access to transit stops.  Bicycle/pedestrian paths that connect residential neighborhoods to each other, to transit stops, to the Village and to other attractions.  Streets connecting future neighborhoods to eliminate the need to go onto collectors.  Neighborhood design should reflect and protect natural landforms.  Overall residential density in Growth Area 2 should be lower than in the Village Residential areas but higher than in the Rural Areas. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Zoning: Revise the Zoning to periodically re-examine uses, dimensional requirements, and access requirements for the Residential, Commercial/Industrial and Mixed Use areas. 4. Building on the recommendations contained in the SDAT and Pilot Project reports, actively explore the development of a Form Based Code for the Shelburne Road corridor, starting with the completion of a multi-day design charrette involving property owners, residents, and a range of design professionals. Planning Commission Reporting Form for Page 4 Form Based Zoning Proposal, July 2015 Very simply stated, Planning Commissioners find that the proposal would positively address and advance all of the foregoing language as well as related Comprensive Plan language regarding housing, economic development, and growth. More particularly, they believe that the proposal would: • Spur economic activity and accommodate appropriate levels of commercial and industrial growth while at the same time promoting development of much needed-housing and foster neighborhoods; • Ensure that the Mixed Use Area does not become a suburban strip; and • Carry out the recommendations contained in the SDAT and Pilot Project reports and set the Town on a path toward a more sustainable future. Commissioners also recognize the potential for the proposal to promote other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. Findings regarding how the proposal is compatible with the proposed future land uses and densities of the municipal plan The proposal takes the form of an overlay district, and thus the default development densities authorized by the zoning bylaws are not affected by the proposal. However, it is generally accepted that the level of residential development authorized by the Overlay District is higher than what is allowed under the underlying zoning districts. Because the proposal is optional (that is, a developer or landowner must “opt in” to be reviewed under its provision) it is not clear what proportion of the total amount of growth occurring within the next five to ten years and beyond would stem from the proposal. No specific calculations have been performed, although the consultants working on the proposal were asked for a possible estimate, which was not provided. In the view of the Planning Commission, the overall pattern of development would change relatively little in the short term. However, over time, the density would increase, which is consistent with the policies and language contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the districting scheme embodied in the Zoning bylaw map would continue to reflect the boundaries of the Composite Future Land Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan (Map 5) as it does currently.1 Thus, in conclusion, the Planning Commission finds that the zoning amendment proposal that is the subject of this report would be entirely compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Findings regarding how the proposal carries out, as applicable, any specific proposals for any planned community facilities. The proposed amendment does not directly carry out specific proposals for any planned community facilities. In addition, the proposed amendment does not conflict with any specific proposals for planned community facilities. [end] 1 In the future, if the Form Based Zoning Overlay District is integrated into the underlying zoning, it is likely the Future Land Use Map in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan also would be amended. NOTICE SHELBURNE PLANNING COMMISSION Pursuant to 24 V.S.A., Section 4444, Shelburne’s Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on August 13, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in Town Center Meeting Room 1 to consider amendments to the Zoning Bylaw. Purpose: Amendments would create an opt-in Form Based Zoning overlay district. Geographic Area affected: Area affected is the Town of Shelburne and specifically area depicted on proposed Regulating Plan map included in the proposal. List of sections affected: Article Section Article XVII.A Shelburne Road Form-Based Overlay District (SR-FBOD) [New Article] Place where full text may be examined: The full text will be available for review in the Shelburne Planning and Zoning Office during regular business hours, on the Town’s web site, and via email (contact the Planning and Zoning office). Publication date: July 17, 2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 14 JULY 2015 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 14 July 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Benton, B. Gagnon, G. Calcagni, S. Quest ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; A. Weinhagen, Hinesburg Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Murphy, Vermont Public Service Department; C. Gordon, P. Duane, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation; T. Chittenden, R. Greco, T. Duff, K. Epstein, L. Michaels, C. Snyder, T. Duff 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: Ms. Greco asked the Commission to add a statement in the introduction to the Comprehensive Plan regarding climate change and to address this in various sections of the plan. 3. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Gagnon: Updated members on the Airport demolition projects. The first contract is completed except for curbs and final inspection. Thirteen of the 20 houses in the third contract are down. Demolition of the 37 houses in the third contract will begin tomorrow. Projects are ahead of schedule and completion is anticipated in early fall. Ms. Louisos: Noted that Mr. Gagnon was a presenter at a recent engineering meeting, highlighting the amount of recycling of materials from the demolished homes. Mr. Conner: The Chamberlin Neighborhood Committee has met twice. The have agreed on 4 basic themes: affordability, community, land use, and noise. The next community meeting will be in the fall. The DRB has approved an interesting new project, a Tesla Supercharger station at Healthy Living. Work is progressing on updated graphics for the Form Based Code. Eric Knudsen, former DRB member, has been named a “Notable Person,” in the legal/development field. Mr. Conner, Council Chair Pat Nowak, and City Program Director Ilona Blanchard were interviewed on VPR’s Vermont Edition regarding City Center and the Chamberlin Neighborhood today. 2 4. Draft Land Development Regulations: a. Discussion of Basic vs. Stretch Vermont Residential and Commercial Energy Codes, applicability, and possible incentives or requirements in South Burlington: Ms. Louisos read a letter from Keith Epstein and other members of the city’s Energy Committee recommending that stretch energy codes be required for all new buildings and that there be three options for roofs of new buildings: solar ready, green roofs, amenity space on the roof. The letter cited economic as well as energy-saving advantages. Mr. Conner then introduced guests: Chris Gordon and Paul Duane of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Barry Murphy of the State of Vermont Public Service Department and Alex Weinhagen, Director of Planning & Zoning from the Town of Hinesburg. Mr. Murphy said that Vermont has become the first state to adopt the 2015 energy code including the stretch code. He explained the “point system” used in audits to evaluate energy use, etc. The State has not gone so far as to require solar, but people “must do something.” In addition, any residential building or series of residential buildings going through Act 250 will have to meet the stretch code. The situation is slightly different for commercial development. A question was posed as to what types of projects are subject to Act 250. Mr. Conner noted that any development of more than 9 housing units triggers an Act 250 review. In addition, any combination of 9 units by the same developer in the same general area or any addition to an existing development that had an Act 250 permit triggers an Act 250 review. On the commercial side, the criteria include a development of more than 10 acres or a development where there was already an Act 250 permit. Mr. Gordon said there are several ways to show compliance (e.g., windows, doors, etc.). He added that the “stretch code” is more stringent than the basic code. There is also a home energy rating in which a developer can work with Energy Vermont and get a score. The lower the score, the better. Another option for the base code is a software package that measures a development against a standard. Mr. Weinhagen noted that The Town of Hinesburg has been experimenting with energy standards in the code for many years (before there was a “stretch code”). He cited various codes and indicated how they had tried to implement them. They have recently backed away from certain aspects as new state codes were established. Their new zoning regulations include a “green building section” which, Mr. Weinhagen said, uses both a “stick” and a “carrot” approach with regard to compliance. In the “stick” category in Hinesburg, all new residential buildings must be Energy Star rated (which was the “gold standard” of the time); new non-residential buildings have to fill out a LEED scorecard (they do not have to be LEED certified), and non-residential buildings under 6000 sq. ft. have to employ new 3 technology regarding energy renewables or be LEED certified. “Carrots” included density increases which encouraged developers to reach for the maximum. When it was noted that people were more interest in efficiencies, the regulations were changed from “renewables” to a “Core Performance Standard.” This is still on the books in Hinesburg, despite the new “stretch codes.” Mr. Weinhagen noted that as time goes on, codes are getting more and more stringent. Hinesburg had, however, done some “back-peddling” when developers said they could not provide affordable housing with the stricter codes. They tried to find a “middle ground,” but the Selectboard didn’t agree, so they have come back to just the base code. Mr. Conner explained that the “base code” applies to all new development and is a “self-certification” system. A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) cannot be given without the self-certification certificate for projects that are subject to COs. Mr. Duane noted that Public Service is updating the codes every three years. Mr. Conner asked what is the difference between the last “base code” and what is now the “base,” and between the “base code” and the “stretch code.” Mr. Murphy said in general between 7 and 12% increase (in efficiency standards) every three years. The difference between 2011 and 2015 is slightly less than that. Between 5% and 7% changes are around air sealing, insulation, etc. With the stretch code, it is up about another 5%. Mr. Murphy stressed that this is an efficiency percentage, not related to dollars. Mr. Murphy also stressed that once you put people into buildings, “all bets are off.” He added that there is a cost effective analysis available. The “stretch code” was found to be more cost effective than the base code. Mr. Conner then distributed an Economic Analysis Summary Result for New Single Family New Construction prepared by the State. Mr. Gagnon noted that the economics seem to be dependent on what kind of fuel is used. He suggested that depending on what kind of fuel is used, there might not be as stringent a code. Mr. Murphy added that there is also an efficiency when you deal with multi-family units because of shared walls, etc. Mr. Gagnon asked whether Act 250 standards apply to most anything in City Center. Mr. Conner noted there are different standards for City Center regarding Act 250. There is a higher threshold before you have to go to Act 250. Mr. Snyder noted that the cost per home under the “stretch code” is about $7500, which probably escalates to $10,000 when you add in managing the process. A developer has to wrap the outside of a home with insulation, and this also causes a problem with siding. Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Weinhagen whether the “carrot” worked in Hinesburg. Mr. Weinhagen said it did. All developers sought density bonuses or built smaller units to get the bonus. He said one should 4 try to be sure that what they are trying to incentivize is easy to achieve and isn’t achievable elsewhere in the regulations. He said that overall the Hinesburg system has worked quite well, but noted that a community also needs to be prepared for what takes place if someone does not seek the carrots. Ms. Calcagni noted that the current regulations for Form Based Code don’t include a density bonus for density. Mr. Michaels said he wasn’t sure that reducing the base density to gain something was a good approach. He felt that smaller units, bigger buildings, and fewer walls works well. Mr. Snyder said he thought the current code has to be met, whether you are an Act 250 project or not, and you will get a more efficient building. He felt there has to be a way to address the huge users of energy, which are the older stock of homes. He said it is coming to a point where people won’t be able to buy homes; he said they are already seeing more and more renters. He added that he would challenge South Burlington and Efficiency Vermont to find a program to incentivize the upgrading of older homes. Mr. Murphy acknowledged that this is true, but he felt you can’t make people upgrade. Mr. Conner asked how the stretch code is different for commercial buildings (including non-residential and residential above 3 stories). Mr. Duane said the regulations are more stringent in the stretch code than the base code. Mr. Murphy added that the intent is for the code to be a living document; if it doesn’t work, it can be changed. Mr. Michaels said there is a government agency in one of their buildings which has said that they would do anything that has a payback in 5 years or less. And this is what they are doing with all their tenants. Ms. Louisos asked how South Burlington should decide between the base and stretch codes. Mr. Duane said he felt that what the city is doing in the way of research is what it is about. Mr. Murphy said the choice is between two good codes, or between a good code and a very good code, energy wise. Mr. Weinhagen said that in Hinesburg they have been cognizant of goals, but they have also considered fairness. He said “everyone should play by the same rules.” Mr. Conner asked if there is a cost analysis for multi-family housing. Mr. Murphy said there is something on the website. Mr. Snyder said they have looked at that. There is an advantage with a shared wall, probably about half the cost on a per unit basis, except for the end units which cost more. He added that from a developer’s standpoint, it is nice to have one code everywhere as it makes it easier to insure that they meet the code. Mr. Murphy said that if the Planning Commission requires all development to meet a code, they should think about the person who is building a smaller home and how much cost you are adding to that. Mr. Murphy said he would like to know people’s thoughts on providing a “menu of alternatives” to meet the goal (e.g., stretch or LEED, etc.). Mr. Weinhagen said what you would get is the lowest cost option. 5 Ms. Greco asked about the incentive for doing both. Mr. Murphy cited the initial cost issue with solar. He said they are moving toward combining both, possibly in stages. He stressed that if you move too hard, too fast, you won’t get development. Builders won’t be able to afford to build, and people won’t be able to afford to buy. Mr. Weinhagen felt that applying the stretch code might be enough. Ms. LaRose asked about the administrative costs of dealing with base/stretch codes that don’t go to Act 250. She asked what kind of experienced human resources are needed to enforce the codes. Mr. Murphy said that is a very good question and he was not sure about local resources. Mr. Duane said that with any locally required code you may have to have a method to measure it by. Mr. Conner noted that today all they have to do is ask for a state form. But he was uncertain as to how a stretch code would work in that respect. He asked if they will all have to become solar experts or if there can be a “checkbox.” Mr. Duff said that if you’re dealing with a commercial building, there is a “commissioning report” at the end of the building process. Ms. LaRose noted that South Burlington does not issue a CO for a single family home, and it seems that certification is now being asked for before the home is built. Others acknowledged that this is an issue. Mr. Duff said that the preliminary stage of a development is a poor time to decide what you want to do with a building (regarding the benefits of solar, etc.). Ms. Louisos thanked the participants and suggested continuing the conversation at a later meeting. b. Discussion of draft alternate approval mechanism and standards for doorways in T4 district: Mr. Conner explained the goal is that a project would go to the DRB which would decide whether a plan is meeting the intent of the regulations. Mr. Riehle moved to approve the alternate approval mechanism and standards for doorways in the T4 district as presented. Ms. Quest seconded. Motion passed unanimously. c. Review updated Table of Uses in the Form Based Code Area: Mr. .Conner said they have tweaked the “drive-through” regulations to prohibit them in the T3 and T3+ districts which are largely residential. Ms. Quest moved to approve the updated Table of Uses in the Form Based Code area as presented. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6 Members agreed to postpone Item #5 on the agenda due to the late hour. They also felt it might be better to do that review when the new Planning Commission members are on board, hopefully at the next meeting. 5. Minutes of 23 July 2015: Ms. Quest moved to approve the Minutes of 23 July 2015 as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. _______________________________ Clerk