Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 06/27/2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 27 JUNE 2017 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 27 June 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, M. Ostby, A. Klugo ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Conner asked to add a request from the Affordable Housing Committee to Other Business. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Ms. Louisos advised that the City Council passed the amendments to the LDRs at their last meeting. The Council has asked the Commission to require that DRB members also be residents of South Burlington. Mr. Riehle expressed disappointment that there is no requirement to replace the affordable housing being lost in the new Larkin development on Shelburne Road. Mr. Conner: The Recreation Department is doing “Bites and Bikes” again this year at the Park. The first one is on 6 July. More than a dozen food trucks will be participating. City Fest will be on 12 August, 5-9 p.m., and will include fireworks. At a Press Conference today, it was announced that the city has reduced electric costs by $450,000.00 (6%) thanks to the efforts of the Energy Committee. He noted that Councilor chair Helen Riehle also announced that the solar array at the Landfill will be on line soon. City savings from that will be re-invested for energy efficiency. The City Council has approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Burlington regarding an agreement that there will be no additional buyout of homes in the Airport area. Last week, Mr. Conner gave a presentation to the South Burlington Business Association regarding Williston Road efforts, Tilley Drive, transportation studies, etc. At a “Downtown” workshop a few weeks ago, there was a good presentation by Joe Minicozzi on how communities should look at development in terms of what kind of development returns positive value to a community and what kind does not. Mr. Conner suggested an evening when members can view that presentation. He noted that one thing emphasized by Mr. Minicozzi was the exponential value to the community of multiple story buildings. He also suggested looking at how the tax system encourages more “temporary” buildings since a lower quality building pays less in taxes. A new DRB Planner, Marla Keene, has been hired. She has an engineering background and has worked a lot with engineers and developers. Ms. Ostby asked what the local response should be regarding the U.S. decision to leave the Paris agreement. Mr. Conner said the Council has asked the Energy Committee to come in and discuss that. 5. Continued Review of Proposed Housing Replacement Requirement in Land Development Regulations: Mr. Riehle said he felt $60,000 seemed low to him, but it was not a “deal breaker.” He also felt the proposed regulations posed a lot of work to “police.” Mr. Conner said there are discussions ongoing with Champlain Housing Trust about their possible involvement in that effort. It would probably involve the same process used when grants are applied for. Regulations could say “…as approved by the City Council.” Mr. Gagnon suggested a possible RFP with a list by which a proposal would be evaluated. Ms. Ostby said the language regarding affordability for only the first owner needs to be clarified. Mr. Conner agreed and said John Simson will be part of that discussion. Ms. Ostby said she would like to find a way to make it a preference to replace a single family home with another single family home.. She was also concerned with the land purchased by the Airport and felt the Airport should be required to replace those homes retroactively. She also suggested the possibility of a credit if someone adds appropriate housing where it doesn’t currently exist. Mr. Klugo noted a lot of communities are investing in “land banks” whereby the community buys land for redevelopment. Mr. Klugo also noted that many people are moving back to cities to avoid the care of single family homes, and not as many people want single family homes anymore. He added that South Burlington has an “artificially low vacancy rate” due to Act 250. Homes are bought up quickly in the city. Mr. Conner said there are not many places in the city where someone would take down a home and build something commercial in its place. He cited mixed use areas where a developer can do commercial and/or residential. Mr. Conner also noted the requirement is to replace the same number of bedrooms, so a 3-bedroom house in not replaced by a studio unit. Mr. Gagnon reminded members that the Comprehensive Plan’s goals promote more compact development, not sprawl. He suggested the possibility of a smaller percentage of single family homes and more multi-family units. Mr. Klugo added that Act 250 and state regulations discourage developers from building single family homes. Ms. Ostby asked if there is information about the level of long term commitment to the South Burlington community by those who live in apartments and multi-family homes, or do they feel that residence is a more short term living arrangement so are less inclined to become an active community member. Has this been studied in South Burlington? Ms. Ostby asked where in the Comprehensive Plan it states that it is City's goal to reduce the proportion of single family homes. Ms. Ostby quoted Objective 4 "Support the retention of existing and construction of new affordable and moderate-income housing, emphasizing both smaller and single family homes and apartments. Mr. Conner said the price point for single family homes is so high that people won’t buy them. He suggested the possibility of making a recommendation to the Affordable Housing Trust as to how money should be used. He also recommended making a clear statement as to what the Commission wants to see in the Chamberlin neighborhood. Ms. LaRose reminded members that nowhere in the Comprehensive Plan does it say to promote single family housing above other types of housing. Nor does it say the opposite. The Plan does speak to more “compact” development with “mixed” housing types. Mr. Conner said the next step is for staff to clean up the technicalities. These amendments will be in the next round presented to the City Council, sooner rather than later. 6. Review draft basic form standards (setbacks, heights, doors, glazing, parking, landscaping, etc.) for properties in the Shelburne Road corridor and C-1-R-12, and C-1-AIR zoning districts: Ms. LaRose noted new language regarding landscaping under #5. There is an issue of people meeting the required budget but still not having enough landscaping. One problem is that most landscaping is being used for screening of adjacent properties which doesn’t leave money for other landscaping. Regulations will now say that landscaping should be for both and stresses “visibility” of landscaping. For buildings set back 50 feet or more (e.g., Good Will), 50% of the landscaping would have to be up front. There is also a new “urban overlay district.” This was indicated on the map and includes a small area near the Airport. Mr. Klugo suggested an additional area near the Rye property, Oak Creek Village, and wherever a commercial district extends. Mr. Conner felt that was a good idea and noted there are a couple of zoning districts there, one of which has design review standards. Ms. LaRose said they have met with some development professionals in the area. They like some of the perks (saves having to go to the DRB for setback waivers). There is some hesitation regarding glazing percentage and doors on the street. Mr. Klugo said the new energy standards will pose a challenge to meet the glazing requirements. Mr. Conner said they have to be careful not to put people between “a rock and a hard place.” Mr. Klugo also noted that a door is only part of an entry (e.g., an awning). He felt a building needs to say “here’s the entry,” not just check a box. Ms. LaRose said they are trying to walk a line between “quick fixes” and more detailed regulations. Ms. Ostby asked about scenic views. Mr. Conner said based on mapped areas there is only a scenic view in one area from above a third story. Everything below that, he believed, has no discernable view. He said he would be happy to further look into this. He also noted the consequences of losing creativity when people are concerned with height waivers. Ms. LaRose noted the views protected are “public scenic views,” not private. Mr. Conner noted there was discussion regarding minimum heights of buildings. If the city wants more density, he asked if this should be considered. He recommended a minimum of 2 stories. Mr. Klugo suggested there could be a single story building between “nodes.” He also cited an area where 2 stories would not be enough. He felt that variations would add to interest. He would prefer a well‐designed one story building to a “2‐story box.” He also felt that the wider the street, the taller the building could be. Members preferred a “quick fix” now and coming back later for more discussion. Mr. Riehle was OK with a 2-story building at corners. Mr. Gagnon felt there are corners where 3-5 stories would work. He was fine with 1-4 stories in between Mr. Klugo said “in between” should never be taller than what is at the corners. He recommended 1-3 stories in the middle and 3-5 at the corners. Mr. Gagnon said he can live with 2-4 at the corners with 2 elsewhere. Mr. Klugo added that with “elsewhere” 3 stories maximum but no higher than what is at the corner. Ms. Louisos was nervous about limiting to 2 stories. If a corner building is now one story, would that limit what goes next to it to one story? Ms. Ostby questioned the 10-foot setback. Ms. Louisos said the right-of-way may not be at the road. Ms. LaRose asked about a maximum setback for non-corners. Mr. Klugo said he would want a maximum setback for landscaping. Members were OK with no maximum setback. Mr. Conner suggested one more thing, not for discussion at this meeting: the possibility of eliminating all minimum parking requirements for development along Shelburne Road. 7. Review and consider approval of proposed street names in the O’Brien Family Partnership Neighborhood: Laurentide Lane, Ledge Way, Split Rock Court, Two Brothers Drive, O’Brien Farm Road, Generations Way: Members were concerned with a continuing street having two names. After discussion, Mr. Conner said staff will come back with a proposed naming plan. Members agreed to defer action until then. 8. Minutes of 13 June 2017 Mr. Gagnon moved to approve the Minutes of 13 June 2017 as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business a. Notice of Wetland Permit application, Spear Street: Mr. Conner said this is just an advisory item. b. Request from Affordable Housing Committee: The Committee has asked for a Commission member to be a liaison to the Committee. Ms. Ostby said she would be interested. Mr. Klugo moved to appoint Ms. Ostby as liaison to the Affordable Housing committee. 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 10:15 p.m. Minutes Approved by the Planning Commission July 11, 2017 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 TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: PC Meeting Packet for June 27, 2017 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room (7:00 pm) 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (7:01 pm) 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda (7:02 pm) 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report (7:10 pm) 5. Continue review of Proposed Housing Replacement requirements in Land Development Regulations (7:15 pm) At its last meeting, the Commission received a presentation about the draft Housing Replacement Standards. Commissioners decided to give the draft, as proposed by the Affordable Housing Committee, some thought and come back for a further discussion. Staff has some relatively small technical adjustments to make but will hold off on these until such time as the Commission provides guidance on bigger-picture elements of the draft. Enclosed in your packet is the same draft as you received at your last meeting. 6. Review draft basic form standards (setbacks, heights, doors, glazing, parking, landscaping, etc.) for properties in the Shelburne Road corridor and C1-R12 and C1-AIR zoning districts (8:00 pm) See the enclosed memo from Cathyann LaRose, draft Basic Form Standards for the Shelburne Road and portions of Williston Road area, and a couple of maps enumerating the affected areas per prior Commission feedback. • And a related question: should the City consider including a reduction or elimination of parking requirements in these areas, or even beyond, with these amendments? 7. Review and consider approval of proposed street names in the O’Brien Family Partnership neighborhood: Laurentide Lane, Ledge Way, Split Rock Court, Two Brothers Drive, O’Brien Farm Road, Generations Way (8:40 pm) See the enclosed proposed street layout. Staff has reviewed these names with the Fire Department and against our traditional standards. All of the streets are acceptable as names. • Staff recommends, however, that if the Commission approved Generations Way that it ALSO take the action to remove the name Generation Drive from a planned street on the other side of Old Farm Road. • Staff would also like the Commission to consider whether Generations Way and Two Brothers Drive are appropriate as two names or should be a single name. 8. Meeting Minutes (8:50 pm) 9. Other Business (8:55 pm) a. Notice of Wetlands Permit application, Spear Street 10. Adjourn (9:00 pm) ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-1 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective June 27, 2016 18. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOUSING PRESERVATION STANDARDS 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning 18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus 18.03 Housing Preservation 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning A. Purpose. Inclusionary zoning to provide affordable and moderate income housing in the City Center Form Based Codes District of the City of South Burlington has been adopted pursuant to 24 VSA § 4414(7) for the following purposes: (1) To implement policies that support achievement of housing goals, objectives, and targets included in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan as most recently amended; (2) To affirmatively address the current and anticipated need for affordable housing units among low- and moderate-income South Burlington households that pay more than 30% of their income on housing, as described in state law (24 VSA § 4303(1)); (3) To mitigate the impacts of market-rate housing development that is unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households on the cost and supply of land and infrastructure available for affordable housing development in the City Center Form Based Codes District; (4) To promote the integrated development of mixed-income housing in the City Center Form Based Codes District, including a range of housing options needed to strengthen, diversify, and contribute to the vitality of City Center and the South Burlington community; (5) To ensure that affordable housing opportunities are available in the City Center Form Based Codes District, which is or will be accessible to goods and services and served by existing or planned public transit services; (6) To ensure that affordable housing units developed under inclusionary zoning remain affordable. (7) To provide integrated development incentives that contribute to the economic feasibility of providing affordable housing units, including eliminating maximum residential densities, minimum lot sizes, and minimum parking requirements for residential units within the City Center Form Based Codes District. B. Applicability (1) Covered Development. Except as otherwise provided in this bylaw, the provisions of this section shall apply within the City Center Form Based Codes District to any development, including each phase of development, that will result in the creation of twelve (12) or more dwelling units through subdivision, new construction, or the conversion of an existing structure or structures from nonresidential to residential use. For purposes of this requirement, two or more developments shall be aggregated and considered as one development subject to this section if: (a) The developments are located on abutting properties; and (b) The developments are owned or controlled by the same person; and (c) Either: ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-2 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (i) The developments will undergo subdivision, construction, or conversion of an existing structure or structures from non-residential to residential use within the same five-year period, which period shall be measured from the date a proper and complete application is first submitted, or (ii) A master plan exists, as approved by the City, which includes two or more of the developments. (2) Exemptions. The following developments are exempt from these requirements: (a) Projects that are developed by an educational institution for the exclusive residential use and occupancy of its students. (b) Institutional, group homes or group quarters housing, including long-term care facilities. (c) The redevelopment of existing dwelling units in a project that produces no additional units. C. Inclusionary Units (1) For covered development, at least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units offered for rent or sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative ownership, shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income (AMI) adjusted for household size. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of the AMI adjusted for household size. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 120% of the AMI adjusted for household size. (a) Where the application of this formula results in a fractional dwelling unit, that fractional dwelling unit shall be rounded to the nearest whole number (fractions that are greater than n.00 but less than n.50 are rounded down; fractions that are greater than or equal to n.50 but less than n+1.00 are rounded up). (b) When the developer proposes to build at least 12 but fewer than 17 housing units, the requirement will be to include two (2) affordable dwelling units one of which shall be affordable to households whose incomes are no greater than 80% of AMI adjusted for household size and the other shall be affordable to households whose income is no greater than 100% of AMI adjusted for household size. (c) When the developer is required to build a number of affordable dwelling units that is not evenly divisible by three, the first “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at the 80% AMI level adjusted for household size and, where applicable, the second “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at 100% AMI level adjusted for household size. Example: The developer is required to build 13 affordable dwelling units. Four dwelling units must be affordable at the 80% of AMI adjusted for household size, four dwelling units must be affordable at the 100% of AMI adjusted for household size; four dwelling units must be affordable at the 120% of AMI adjusted for household size; and the “remaining” dwelling unit must be affordable at the 80% AMI adjusted for household size. (2) Inclusionary units required under this section shall be: (a) Constructed on site, unless off-site construction is approved under Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off- Site Construction) of this Article, and integrated among market rate units in the development. ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-3 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (b) Similar in architectural style and outward appearance to market rate units in the proposed development. (i) Inclusionary units shall be constructed with the same exterior materials and architectural design details used in market rate construction. Similar exterior amenities and landscaping shall also be provided. However, the exterior dimensions of the inclusionary units may differ from those of the market rate units. (ii) Inclusionary units shall be no less energy efficient than market rate units; inclusionary units may differ from market rate units with regard both to interior amenities and to gross floor area. The average (mean) gross floor area of all inclusionary units, however, shall not be less than 70% of the average (mean) gross floor area of market rate units. (iv) Inclusionary units developed as part of a single-family housing development may be accommodated in duplexes or multi-family dwellings that resemble market rate single-family dwellings, as allowed within the City Center Form Based Codes District. (c) Constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. Buildings containing the last 10% of market rate units shall not receive certificates of occupancy until certificates of occupancy are issued for all buildings containing inclusionary units, including when the inclusionary units are provided off-site as provided for in Subsection (E)(1)(b) (Off-Site Construction) of this Article. D. Affordability Requirements (1) Affordability Determinations. Inclusionary units required under this section shall be affordable and marketed to income-eligible eligible households as follows: (a) Housing costs for inclusionary units shall not exceed 30% of annual household income, adjusted for household size. Housing costs used to calculate the affordability of inclusionary units shall include: (i) For rental units – rent (inclusive of any condominium or homeowners’ association fees) and utilities (water, electricity and heating costs). (ii) For sale units – mortgage principal and interest, annual property taxes, homeowner’s insurance, and condominium or homeowners’ association fees. (b) Income eligibility shall be determined based on income guidelines, as adjusted for household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or on program-based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization. The AMI shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a unit is available for occupancy. (c) The maximum rent or sale price of an inclusionary unit shall be calculated based on unit size (i.e. number of bedrooms) and the HUD formula of 1.5 persons per bedroom, which are used to establish the “Household Size Equivalent”: Table 18-1 HUD Formula for Determining Maximum Rents and Purchase Prices ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-4 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 Unit Size Household Size Equivalent1 Efficiency/Studio 1 One-Bedroom Unit 1.5 Two-Bedroom Unit 3 Three-Bedroom Unit 4.5 Four-Bedroom Unit 6 (d) With respect to inclusionary units offered for sale, sale prices shall be calculated based on an available fixed rate, 30-year mortgage, consistent with a blended rate for banks or other lending institutions offering mortgages in South Burlington, or a lower Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA) rate if the developer can guarantee the availability of VHFA mortgages at this rate for all required inclusionary units. The calculated price shall assume a down payment of no more than 5% of the purchase price. (2) Continued Affordability. An inclusionary unit shall remain affordable in perpetuity commencing from the date of initial occupancy, through a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency, to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager prior to recording in the City of South Burlington Land Records. Any deed restriction, covenant or other instrument or agreement ensuring the continued affordability of inclusionary units shall include: (a) Resale Restrictions. Provisions to ensure the affordability of units offered for sale shall include a formula for limiting equity appreciation to an amount not to exceed 25% of the increase in the unit’s value, as determined by the difference between fair market appraisals of the unit at the time of purchase and the time of resale, with adjustments for improvements made by the seller and the necessary costs of sale, as may be approved by the City Manager; (b) Rent Increases. Provisions to ensure the affordability of rental units shall limit annual rent increases to the percentage increase in the median household income within the Burlington-South Burlington MSA, except to the extent that further increases are made necessary by documented hardship or other unusual conditions, and shall provide that no rent increase may take effect until it has received the written approval of the City Manager; 1 The maximum allowable rent or sales price is based on the designated AMI level (80%, 100%, or 120%) corresponding to the “Household Size Equivalent” in the table above that matches the number of bedrooms in the housing unit. The result is that the maximum rent or sales price for a particular affordable unit is the same for all eligible households seeking to rent or purchase that affordable housing unit. For example, the maximum rent or sales price for a one-bedroom unit is determined using the average of the applicable AMI level for one- and two-person households. Note that the applicant household’s income is not used to determine the maximum rent or sales price of a particular housing unit. ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-5 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (c) Sublet Restrictions. Provisions for inclusionary rental units shall prohibit the subletting of units at rental rates that exceed affordability limits established pursuant to this section. (3) Reporting Requirements. Annually, the owner of a project that includes inclusionary rental units shall prepare and submit a report to the City Manager that lists the gross rents charged for inclusionary units and the household incomes of unit tenants, and certifies that unit affordability has been maintained as required. E. Developer Options (1) Options (a) and (b) below are available to developers upon request, as necessary to address documented financial hardships or physical site constraints that limit or preclude the incorporation of inclusionary units within a covered development. Options (c) and (d) are available to the developer at his or her discretion. A payment or contribution in lieu of constructing required inclusionary units shall be prohibited. (a) Dedication. The South Burlington City Council, in consultation with the entity designated by the City Council (for example, a permanent South Burlington Housing Committee or South Burlington Affordable Housing Board), may accept as an alternative to the development of inclusionary units, a dedication by the developer of equal or greater value that furthers the purposes of this section. An example might be the donation of developable land in the City Center Form Based Codes District that provides accessibility to transit, employment opportunities, and services. (b) Off-Site Construction. The developer of a covered development may comply with the requirements of this section by constructing, within two years of receiving a permit for the covered development, the required number of inclusionary units on another site within the City Center Form Based Codes District, or contracting with another entity to construct the required number of units in the City Center Form Based Codes District. (c) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having three bedrooms shall receive credit for three inclusionary units for every two three-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. (d) A developer who constructs inclusionary units having four bedrooms shall receive credit for four inclusionary units for every two four-bedroom inclusionary units constructed. F. Administration and Compliance (1) Application Requirements. In addition to other submission requirements applicable to proposed projects specified within this bylaw, applications under this section shall include the following information: (a) A site or subdivision plan that identifies the number, locations, types, and sizes of inclusionary units in relation to market rate units; (b) Documentation supporting the allocation of inclusionary and market rate units, including inclusionary unit set aside calculations; (c) A description of each unit’s type, floor area, number of bedrooms, estimated housing costs, and other data necessary to determine unit affordability; (d) A list of proposed options, if any, to be incorporated in the plan, as provided for under Subsection (E) (Developer Options) of this Article; (e) Documentation regarding household income eligibility; ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-6 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (f) Information regarding the long-term management of inclusionary units, including the responsible party or parties, as required to ensure continued affordability; (g) Draft legal documents required under this section to ensure continued affordability; (h) Construction timeline for both inclusionary and market rate units; and (i) Other information as requested by the Administrative Officer to determine project compliance with inclusionary zoning requirements. (2) Compliance Officer. The Administrative Officer (AO) is responsible for certifying, in writing, whether a development application is in compliance with the inclusionary zoning requirements specified in Subsection (F)(1) (Application Requirements) of this Article. In cases in which the AO determines the application is not in compliance, he or she shall specify the areas of non-compliance. (3) Program Evaluation. In order to monitor and track the success of inclusionary zoning in meeting the purposes of this section and the City’s affordable housing goals and targets, the City Manager shall: (a) Collect and maintain income eligibility guidelines, mortgage interest rate information, and other information necessary to meet the requirements of this section; (b) Monitor and maintain records regarding the status of inclusionary units developed under this Section 18.01; and (c) Prepare an annual written report for distribution to the South Burlington City Council and Planning Commission and posting on the City’s website, to be considered in a public meeting, that summarizes the status of covered projects and inclusionary units approved to date, and sets forth program findings, conclusions, and recommendations for any changes that will increase the effectiveness of inclusionary zoning. 18.02 Affordable Housing Density Bonus A. Purpose. One of the adopted Comprehensive Plan goals is the availability of quality housing and quality affordable housing to attract and retain a qualified work force. The following provisions are established to enable the City of South Burlington to ensure a supply of standard housing available at below-market rate purchase prices or rents. In this way, a choice of housing opportunities for a variety of income groups within the City can be created in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and these Regulations. B. Applicability. This section shall apply in any Zoning District in which residential development is permitted, with the exception of the City Center Form Based Codes District. C. Density Increase. On a case by case basis and as part of the Planned Unit Development application, the Development Review Board may grant an increase in residential density over the base zoning density, in order to create below market rate housing. The density increases shall be approved on the following criteria and standards: (1) Affordable Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase of no more than fifty percent (50%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for an Affordable Housing Development. The total of below market rate units shall be at least half of the total proposed dwelling units. Where the total proposed dwelling units is an uneven number, the total of below market rate units shall be calculated as at least the total proposed dwelling units, less one (1), divided by two. Such ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-7 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 application shall be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review. (2) Mixed Rate Housing Development. The Development Review Board may grant a density increase of no more than twenty-five percent (25%) in the total number of allowed dwelling units for a Mixed Rate Housing Development. For each additional market-rate dwelling unit produced as a result of the density increase, one (1) comparable below market rate unit must be provided. Such application shall be subject to Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review. Table 13-9 Example of Affordable Housing Bonus Calculation Affordable Project: Mixed-Rate Project: 50% of Total Units Affordable 25% of Bonus Units Affordable Acres 8.35 8.35 Base Density 12 12 Base Units 100.2* 100.2* Bonus Units 50 25 Total Units 150 125 Net Density 17.98 14.99 Affordable Units 74 13 Market Rate Units 74 112 *Partial units always round DOWN to the lower whole number of units D. Criteria for Awarding Density Increase. In addition to the standards found in Article 14, Site Plan and Conditional Use Review, , and Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review, the following standards shall guide the Development Review Board: (1) The density upon which a bonus may be based shall be the total acreage of the property in question multiplied by the maximum residential density per acre for the applicable zoning district or districts. (2) Within the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts, the provisions of this Section 13.14 shall apply only to properties of five (5) acres or more, and the maximum allowable residential density with or without such a density increase shall be four (4) dwelling units per acre. (3) Development Standards. (a) Distribution. The affordable housing units shall be physically integrated into the design of the development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and shall be distributed among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington. (b) Minimum Floor Area. Minimum gross floor area per affordable dwelling unit shall not be less than comparable market-rate units in the housing development. (c) Plan for Continued Affordability. The standards for Section 18.01(D)(2) shall apply. ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-8 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (4) Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non-profit organization shall be responsible for the on-going administration of the affordable housing units as well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations as may be necessary. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization will determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures. E. Housing Types. The dwelling units may at the discretion of the Development Review Board be of varied types including one-family, two-family, or multi-family construction, and studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom and four-bedroom apartment construction. 18.03 Housing Preservation A. Purpose. The intent of this Section is to achieve one or more of these goals: (1) To promote the preservation of existing housing stock in residential neighborhoods, particularly the supply of affordable and moderately-priced homes through the use of a housing retention ordinance as referenced in South Burlington’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan, Housing Strategies 4 and 6; (2) To reduce and mitigate the demolition and conversion to nonresidential use or nonuse of residential structures, and to maintain housing that meets the needs of all economic groups within the City particularly for those of low and moderate income; (3) To meet the specific mandates of 24 V.S.A. Section 4302(11) related to housing opportunities for safe and affordable housing for all Vermonters and to meet the needs of a diversity of social and income groups in each Vermont community; (4) To support the retention of housing units in the City; (5) To preserve the residential character of neighborhoods; and, (6) To offset the loss of housing by requiring replacement of housing units with new construction, conversion of nonresidential to residential use or a contribution to the City of South Burlington Housing Trust Fund. B. Applicability. Except as otherwise provided in sub-section C (Exceptions), this Section 18.03 of these Regulations is applicable to the loss, demolition or conversion to a nonresidential use or nonuse (for example a vacant lot) of any dwelling unit in the City. This includes dwelling units that are demolished, removed, or declared unfit for habitation pursuant to any order, decision or other action of the City or State that is caused by unreasonable neglect or deferred maintenance of an existing or prior owner(s). This Section also applies to any dwelling unit that is demolished or removed pursuant to any municipal, state or federal program, including any air traffic or airport noise mitigation and compatibility program. C. Exemptions. This Section shall not be applicable to: ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-9 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (1) A loss or change of use lasting less than one (1) year, where residential use is restored within that same one (1) year period. (2) Any dwelling unit ordered demolished or declared unfit for habitation because of damage caused by civil commotion, malicious mischief, vandalism, natural disaster, fire, flood or other causes beyond the owner’s control. (3) Dwelling units existing in zoning districts that no longer permit residential uses. (4) Dwelling units existing in the City Center Form Based Code District, the Industrial - Open Space (I-O) District, the Mixed Industrial & Commercial (Mixed IC) District, and the Swift Street (SW) District. (5) The conversion of a duplex to a single-family home. (6) As of January 1, 2018, and no later, any dwelling units the Burlington International Airport has obtained Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant funding approval for the acquisition, demolition or removal thereof pursuant to the FAA’s Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. This includes the dwelling units identified in FAA AIP grant numbers AIP-92, AIP-94, AIP-105, AIP-108, and AIP-109 whether or not these dwelling units have been purchased or removed as of January 1, 2018. (The street addresses that have been purchased for removal under the above referenced AIP grant numbers are shown in Appendix of the Regulations.) (7) Accessory dwelling units. D. Approval. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Regulations and unless otherwise exempt under sub-section C of this Section, a person who proposes to remove, demolish, or to convert to a nonresidential use or nonuse, a dwelling unit in a zoning district where such a use is otherwise permitted by these regulations, must obtain a zoning permit in accordance with the provisions of this Section. In addition to any other zoning permit application requirement in these Regulations, the applicant must also submit as part of the zoning permit application: (1) A statement certifying the number of dwelling units to be demolished or converted to nonresidential use and the number of bedrooms existing within each of these units; (2) A demonstration of compliance with tenant or occupant notice and relocation provisions of applicable state and federal law; and (3) A demonstration of compliance with sub-section E, F and G (if applicable) of this Section. E. Housing replacement requirement. In addition to any other requirements for approval under these Regulations, approval of the zoning permit referred to in Sub-section D above requires the replacement of each dwelling unit that is to be demolished or converted to nonresidential use or nonuse with a replacement dwelling unit. Any dwelling unit approved under Section 18.01 or 18.02 shall not qualify as a replacement dwelling unit. This replacement requirement may be satisfied in one of the following ways: ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-10 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 (1) Construction of a new dwelling unit. The construction of a dwelling unit within a new structure or a new addition in accordance with sub-section F of this Section; (2) Residential Conversion. The conversion of a non-residential building to residential use in accordance with sub-section F of this Section; or, (3) Contribution to the Housing Trust Fund. Depositing $60,000 for each demolished or converted dwelling unit into the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund. Beginning on January 1, 2019, the amount of the contribution shall be adjusted by multiplying this amount originally deposited for each unit by a fraction, the denominator of which shall be the “Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers” U.S. City Average, “All Items Index,” as published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (“the Index”) for January, 2018, and the numerator of which shall be the Index for the subsequent month and year as of the date of submission of the application. In the event that the Index is not then in existence, the parties shall use such equivalent price index as is published by any successor governmental agency then in existence. F. Replacement Dwelling Unit Requirement. In addition to the foregoing, all replacement dwelling units built pursuant to this Section must meet the following requirements: (1) Each replacement dwelling unit shall have at least the same number of bedrooms as the dwelling unit being replaced; (2) Each replacement dwelling unit must be lo0cated within the City of South Burlington; (3) Each replacement dwelling unit must receive a Certificate of Occupancy within eighteen (18) months of the date on which the zoning permit referenced in Sub-section D above is approved; (4) Each rental replacement dwelling unit(s) must be maintained as a leased “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations to prospective occupants who are income eligible at the time they first lease the unit, for a period of not less than ten (10) years from the date of first occupancy. Income eligibility shall be determined based on income guidelines, as adjusted for household size, published annually by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Burlington-South Burlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or on program-based income eligibility requirements established by a partnering housing organization. The income eligibility shall be determined using the most recent income guidelines available at the time a unit is available for occupancy. (5) Each owner occupied replacement dwelling unit(s) must be sold as an “Affordable Housing” unit, as that term is defined in Article 2 of these Regulations to prospective purchaser/occupants who are income eligible at the time they purchase the unit. G. Performance Guaranty/Letter of Credit. When an applicant proposes to construct a new replacement dwelling unit or convert a non-residential building to a replacement residential unit, the applicant must post a performance guaranty in the form of a letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City Attorney, in the amount equivalent to the amount the applicant would have been required to ARTICLE 18 AFFORDABLE HOUSING STANDARDS 18-11 South Burlington Land Development Regulations Effective April 18, 2016 contribute to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if the applicant had chosen that option pursuant to Sub-section E(3). Such a performance guaranty shall be valid for no more than two (2) years, after which the full amount due shall be provided to the City of South Burlington’s Housing Trust Fund if such replacement unit satisfying the conditions of this Section has not been granted a Certificate of Occupancy as a dwelling unit. H. Administration. The City of South Burlington Housing Authority, if any, or a bona fide qualified non- profit organization shall be responsible for the on-going administration of this section as well as for the promulgation of such rules and regulations as may be necessary to implement this section. The Housing Authority or non-profit organization will determine and implement eligibility priorities, continuing eligibility standards and enforcement, and rental and sales procedures. Addition to Sub-section 17.03 B: “(3) Certificates of Occupancy are required for replacement dwelling units as required in Sub-section 18.03 F(3).” 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Planning Commission FROM: Cathyann LaRose, AICP, City Planner SUBJECT: Shelburne Road Basic Form Standards / Urban Design Overlay DATE: June 27, 2017 Planning Commission meeting The Planning Commission had several discussions through the fall (September 13, October 11, November 8, and November 22) related to some short-term adjustments of the City’s Land Development Regulations, predominantly as they relate to Shelburne Road. Staff provided concepts related to building heights, setbacks, windows and doorways. Staff met during the winter with several development professionals and property owners to discuss these concepts as well. The feedback was valuable and staff has since updated the working draft with potential regulatory language. This is attached. Staff comments on the draft can be found in black italicized text. Furthermore, we have continued to examine potential updates to landscaping requirements to address a related concern raised by the Commission. This is reflected in the text as being required for the newly proposed Overlay District. While we encourage feedback on the entirety of the draft, we do have some specific questions for the Planning Commission to consider: 1. Are the building heights, transparency requirements, and other specifics consistent with the goals for the district? 2. Should the landscaping requirement included in the draft apply to just this new Overlay District or be included City-wide? 3. Are there any specific uses which should be considered differently? For example, gas stations or automobile dealerships? 4. Should we include a reduction or elimination of parking requirements with these amendments? With respect to question 3, we have met with stakeholders who have expressed some related thoughts related to automobile dealerships in the district. We had a fruitful discussion and 2 have some initial thoughts to propose to the Commission; however these are in early stages of thought and have not yet been translated to formal language. Concepts include: • Increased lot coverage in exchange for improvements to open spaces, lot frontages and street presence; • Reduced parking requirements in exchange for more detailed expectations of vehicle display areas; We believe these are worthy of pursuing as part of this task, and will contribute to overall improvements along the Shelburne Road corridor. We continue to recognize that the Commission’s stated objective is to make some relatively basic relatively simple adjustments to basic form standards. We will continue to work through areas which require a more thorough analysis or detailed adjustments. South Burlington Planning Commission Shelburne Road Concept for discussion June 27, 2017 Concept for Shelburne Road Basic Site / Bldg design features Consider as: Article 10 Overlay Districts. 10.06 Urban Design Overlay District Staff note: Inclusion as an overlay district not identified as specific to Shelburne Road permits future use elsewhere, should the Planning Commission later decide to pursue other geographies of the City where similar standards would be appropriate. It also allows for the standards to be applied across districts, and restrict depth to those properties with frontage on certain corridors, where zoning districts may otherwise be deeper. A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District to recognize the impact of simple design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic pride in the City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. B. Comprehensive Plan. This section implements the community desires established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Plan desires that new development will occur in subject corridors. The corridors subject to the Urban Design Overlay District are encouraged within the Plan to use public transportation services, inspire pedestrian movement, and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas. More specifically yet, the Plan advocates for the creation of one or more nodes of concentrated development and public activity in these areas. C. Applicability. This section shall be implemented in accordance with the geography(ies) shown on the Overlay Districts Map contained in these Regulations. Staff note: for now this shall include the entirety of properties fronting on Shelburne Road within the City, as well as the section of Williston Road nearest Kennedy Drive that falls within the C1-R12 and C1-Airport Zoning Districts. Kennedy Drive is included in the Comprehensive Plan as another area for increased urban form development, but may be best served with a different tool, as are portions of Williston Road that are already addressed in the adopted Form Based Codes. (1) New construction. (2) Substantial Rehabilitation (a) Authority to Continue. Nonconforming structures may be continued provided conditions in this Section are met. (b) Repair and Alterations. Repair and alterations may be performed on any nonconforming structure, provided they comply with the Code and with the following: (a) When the total area of alterations to the primary building façade, or to the building façade that is parallel to and oriented to the street, exceeds 35% of the total areas of such building façade, the alterations shall comply with the Building Standards described in the BES applicable to the Transect Zone (excluding build-to-zone and story requirements). For the purposes of this subsection, window and window casing replacement, painting, adding or removal of siding, and other similar changes shall not be considered alterations. For multi-tenant buildings, the standard shall apply separately for each tenant area where that tenant gross floor area exceeds 10,000 square feet. South Burlington Planning Commission Shelburne Road Concept for discussion June 27, 2017 (b) Structural alterations involving the replacement, relocation, removal, or other similar changes to more than 50% of all load bearing wall / pillar elements of a building shall require compliance with all standards within these Regulations. D. Standards. Except where noted herein, the underlying dimensional standards, use, and other standards of the Zoning District shall still apply. (1) Entries. Subject properties must have at least one door facing the primary road in the corridor. This door shall: (a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations. (b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. This does not preclude additional principal entry doors; (c) Shall have a direct, separated walkway of at least 8 feet in width to the primary road. This may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a pedestrian-oriented access. (2) Glazing (a) First stories shall have a minimum of 40% glazing across the width of the building; a minimum of 75% of this shall be transparent. (b) In non-residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7.5 vertical feet. (c) For residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 5 vertical feet. (d) Glazing associated with operable doors may count towards this requirement if they are more than 75% transparent. (3) Setbacks (a) At corners, minimum setback of 10 feet; maximum setback of 50 feet. (b) Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. There is no maximum setback. Staff note: would like to hold this for discussion and commissioner feedback. These setback thresholds are meant to stimulate discussion, but are not intended to reflect staff recommendations at this time. (4) Height (a) At corners: Building Stories: 2 Min., 4 Max. Staff note: Should this be up to 5 stories? Should that be allowed with a bonus for affordability or use of TDRs? Floor-to-Floor Height: First story 20' Max.; upper Stories 14' Max (b) Elsewhere: Building Stories: 3 Max. Staff note: Should this be up to 4 stories? Should that be allowed with a bonus for affordability or use of TDRs? Floor-to-Floor Height: First story 20' Max.; Upper Stories 14' Max. (c) No building shall be more than 2 stories taller than an adjacent building on the same side of the street within 100 feet. (d) No building shall be more than 1 story taller than shortest R4 building on adjacent property. Increases by 1 story for each 75’ of separation, up to allowable maximum. South Burlington Planning Commission Shelburne Road Concept for discussion June 27, 2017 (e) Stories of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District are defined as per Section 8.06(F) of these Regulations. (f) Section 8.06(G) of these regulations shall apply to rooftop elements of buildings within the Urban Design Overlay District. (5) Landscaping Projects within the Urban Design Overlay District shall meet minimum landscaping requirements as per Section 13.06 of these Regulations. Projects are also subject to the following supplemental standards: (a) Landscaping which is required elsewhere in these Regulations to serve as a buffer between properties shall not count towards the minimum landscaping budget. (b) For buildings which are set back 50 feet or more from the front property line, at least 50% of the required landscaping shall be installed between the front building line and the front property line. Staff note: Below is an optional add on for future times. We share this here to inform the big-picture planning for the area. However, given the stated intention of having something ready to adopt in the short term in order to address current trends, the adoption of nodes would be a more time-consuming, thought and participation heavy component. E. Nodes. These regulations recognize that some areas of a corridor serve or will serve as important connections, gateways, or areas of activity. As such, a more urban form is required and permitted. £¤2 £¤7 §¨¦89 ¬«116 ¬«116 Floral Dr PinnacleDrLAURELHILLDR EXTTechnology Park Way H emlo ck Ln Mansfield View Ln Weeping Willow LnOldSchoolhouseOldSchoolhouseOldSchoolhouse DORSETHTSDisclaimer:The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. Parcels Abutting Shelburne Road in all Districts andWilliston Rd in C1-R12 / C1-AIR 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Legend Ü Map Prepared June 23, 2017 Parcels abutting Shelburne Road and Williston Road in C1-R12 and C1-AIR £¤2 £¤7 §¨¦89 ¬«116 ¬«116 Floral Dr PinnacleDrLAURELHILLDR EXTTechnology Park Way H emlo ck Ln Mansfield View Ln Weeping Willow LnOldSchoolhouseOldSchoolhouseOldSchoolhouse DORSETHTSDisclaimer:The accuracy of information presented is determined by its sources. Errors and omissions may exist. Questions of on-the-ground location can be resolved by site inspections and/or surveys by registered surveyor. This map is not sufficient for delineation of features on-the-ground. This map identifies the presence of features, and may indicate relationships between features, but is not a replacement for surveyed information or engineering studies. Corner Parcels Abutting Shelburne Road in all Districts andWilliston Rd in C1-R12 / C1-AIRNumber of Stories 0 2,000 4,000 6,0001,000 Feet Legend Ü Map Prepared June 23, 2017 No building One Story Two or More Stories SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 13 JUNE 2017 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 13 June 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, B. Gagnon, D. MacDonald, M. Ostby ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; L. Krohn, CCRPC; J. Simson, M. Simoneau, S. Dooley, J. Slason, J. Leas 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedure from conference room: The Chair provided directions on emergency evacuation in the event of an emergency. 2. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Open to the public for items not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff reports: Mr. Gagnon: He and Mr. MacDonald attended the meeting of committee chairs and vice chairs with staff and the City Council. Discussion focused on what each group is working on and the skills needed for the various committees. Mr. Conner: August 13 will be “volunteer night” at the Lake Monsters. All members are invited. Just attended the Airport Sound Committee meeting regarding noise compatibility. There will be different options other than buying/destroying homes. At 6 p.m. tomorrow, there will be a “kickoff” at the Airport. Community members can ask questions, provide feedback, etc. The FAA is being asked to speed up the new noise exposure maps. There is new data around models for the F-35. Whether that data can be used for the new noise exposure maps is being evaluated. 2 The City’s new website will be launched next month. Mr. Conner described some features of the Planning Commission’s “page(s)”. Staff is closing in on the hire of a new development review planner person to replace Lindsey Britt. 5. Presentation of Proposed Housing Replacement Requirements in Land Development Regulations (LDRs): Mr. Simson introduced Affordable Housing Committee members Mike Simoneau and Sandra Dooley. Mr. Simson noted that the City of Burlington has had a housing replacement policy in place for many years. The South Burlington City Council wanted to move forward with a similar policy in order to preserve existing housing after the significant loss of housing in the Chamberlin neighborhood. They also want to prevent loss of housing due to conversion of homes to non- residential use. Ms. Ostby cited the importance of maintaining both affordable and moderately priced homes as well as the character of residential neighborhoods. She said the proposed policy seems to be giving only “affordable” options for a replacement home. Mr. Simson explained the nature of “affordability” and noted that it also has in mind people who work and still cannot afford a home. Ms. Dooley added that a family of 3 with a $100,000 a year income still falls into the range of qualifying for an “affordable” home. Mr. Simson said the new regulations would require replacement of a house torn down or converted to commercial use or the payment of $60,000 into the Housing Trust Fund. This would include homes in the Airport noise mitigation and compatibility program. Certain exemptions would apply as follows: a. Loss/change of use lasting less than a year (tearing down a home to build a larger one) b. Loss due to civil commotion, vandalism, national disaster beyond the owner’s control c. Loss of homes in zoning districts that no longer permit residential use d. Units in City Center, Form Based Code, I-O, I-C, and SW Districts e. Conversion of a duplex to a single family home 3 f. Units in the Burlington International Airport demolition program pursuant to the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program l (all such contracts are enumerated) no later than 1/1/18 g. Accessory dwelling units There is a recommendation to make minor zoning boundary changes where this can preserve some residential use. Mr. Leas asked why the city doesn’t get more than $60,000 from developers who can afford it. Mr. Simson said the Committee felt that getting the money is not the purpose of the new regulations, and they did not want to create barriers in areas that the city has designated for commercial growth. Mr. Conner showed a map of an area where a house would be added to a residential district (Shunpike Road). He also showed a map of homes in the Airport area that are still eligible to be or have recently been purchased by the Airport or Ms. Ostlby suggested a provision where the land for Airport purchased/demolished homes become zoned for another use. Ms. Louisos felt that could create other issues. Mr. Simson said the committee feels that when noise mitigation is explored it may be possible to put some affordable housing into that area. Mr. Riehle said it is important to keep that land zoned “residential.” Mr. Leas felt Burlington should have to pay $60,000 each for the additional 39 homes if they are demolished as they could make a profit from the land if it becomes commercially zoned. Mr. Simson briefly reviewed the approval process. He noted the “piggy-backing” is not allowed on an inclusionary zoning project. The housing provided must be new housing, either a new housing unit or the conversion of commercial use to housing (or payment of the $60,000). It is recommended that the city contract with Champlain Housing regarding administration of the program. Mr. Conner added that although a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is not usually required for a single family house, it would be required in this instance. Mr. Simson said the hope is the city would use the $60,000 contributions to the Housing Trust Fund to buy a parcel of land and have a developer build affordable homes without having to pay the high cost of the land. 4 Ms. Louisos liked the fact that all replacement housing be affordable. Ms. Ostby noted that this would not be perpetual affordability. Mr. Simson said that was because there is not sufficient staff to administer “perpetual affordability.” Mr. Conner noted that extended stay hotels (e.g., Larkin Terrace) and congregate care facilities are not affected by this regulation. 6. Presentation of Initial Findings of Traffic Overlay District Update Study; Commission discussion: Mr. Conner introduced John Slason of Resource Systems Groups (RSG). Mr. Slason noted that their original focus was to be on the Traffic Overlay District itself, but they realized that broader thinking/discussion was needed. Mr. Slason explained that the current intent of the Overlay District (OD) is to preserve operational capacity and vehicle capacity on principal arteries. The OD looks at how large a parcel is and assigns a hard cap on the number of peak hour trip ends. The strength of this is its simplicity; its weakness is lack of flexibility. Mr. Conner gave an example on Williston Road which can limit land development because of trip numbers. Mr. Slason showed the OD map from the LDRs and noted that it affects Williston Rd, Hinesburg Rd., Kennedy Dr. and Shelburne Rd. Mr. Slason said the key goals of any policy should be: a. That redevelopment of land incorporates appropriate transportation infrastructure that meets the city’s multi-modal and congestion objectives as stated in the Comprehensive Plan b. To allow for flexibility in the land uses that can occur within the city and specifically along the highest volume roads and to support Form Based Codes, where applicable c. To maintain sufficient vehicular capacity d. To maintain safety e. To be flexible enough to expand over time Mr. Slason showed a chart of an evaluation of existing transportation. He noted that there are both city criteria and Act 250 review criteria as well. The study outlines three options: #1 – Amend the existing overlay district (OD) 5 #2 – Replace the OD and align with Vermont Transportation policy #3 – Develop more comprehensive standards. It was felt that option #1 is not the best option as it can inhibit development up to the level allowed by the zoning. Under options #2 and #3, the impact to the public is governed by the nature of the land use and the way the site can be configured to minimize its impact. The acceptable level of impact is agreed upon by the community for specific facilities, allowing for variation throughout the city. Trip credits could be allowed for incorporation of TDM measures in specific areas of the city. Option #3 would replace the OD with a “volume to capacity” ratio (a straightforward approach to allowing minor incremental land use changes). This would allow for geographic variations in congestion tolerance and credits for Traffic Demand Management (TDM). This approach does not now exist in the state. Mr. Slason said they strongly support Option #3, but it doesn’t align with state policy. Option #2 is a “close second” in that it allows more congestion in specific areas of the city. Option #1 would be dismissed as it does not meet specific goals of the Comprehensive Plan. The suggestion is to adopt a policy that allows the city to be ready when the State goes with Option #3. Mr. Slason then enumerated some things to consider: a. How quickly to make changes b. This is a phased approach which may meet some but not all goals c. What is the interest in “leading the State”? d. What policies can evolve as planning and thinking evolve? e. What land challenges are facing the city and do options enable the city to make appropriate decisions? f. What is the vision for the city and can these policies help unlock potential? Ms. Louisos cited the limitations because of “people driving by” and noted that the city can never build what it needs because of commuters. Mr. Conner noted that until it is “too expensive” to drive (e.g., lack of parking, too much traffic/delay, etc.), people will continue to drive. Ms. Ostby suggested a “dedicated corridor” for commuters and a “park and ride” strategy. Mr. Krohn applauded the creative conversation. Mr. Conner asked the Commission to continue to consider this conversation when they have the “Tilley Drive conversation.” 6 Mr. Slason suggested continuing to refine this approach, but not yet removing the Overlay district capability. Mr. MacDonald asked where CCTA (now Green Mountain Transit) come into this. He felt that a bus on Spear St. would relieve a lot of AM/PM traffic there. Mr. Conner said the conversation about new routes is happening. Something such as a bus pass could increase bus service as could park-and-rides which allow buses to get in and out quickly. 7. Review Commission Skills Matrix: Members suggested the following skills be considered for potential Commission membership: a. Time management b. Communication skills c. Younger members d. Another female e. Good community connection f. Architectural knowledge g. Business orientation Mr. Conner cited the diversity of the Commission in recent years. 8. Minutes of 23 May 2017: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 23 May as written. Mr. Gagnon seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business a. Public Hearing on Amendments to the Burlington Comprehensive Development Ordinance, 27 June 2017, 6:45 p.m. No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. ______________________________Clerk