Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 10/02/2017Approved on October 17, 2017 AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE October 2, 2017, 4:00 PM, City Hall Members attending: Tom Bailey, Leslie Black-Plumeau, Sandy Dooley, Michael Simoneau, John Simson (Chair) Others: Monica Ostby, Planning Commission liaison; Eric Farrell (invited guest), Larry Kupferman, SoBu Housing Trust Fund chair (also, invited guest); Larry Michaels Minutes by Sandy Dooley AGENDA 1. Welcome 2. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda 4. Review and approve minutes of September 19, 2017, Committee meeting. 5. Quick review of John’s revised outline of inclusionary zoning issues 6. Welcome Eric Farrell and discuss expanded inclusionary zoning in the City and other housing issues 7. Meet with Larry Kupferman, SoBu Housing Trust Fund chair 8. Discuss Committee’s position re UVM property sale 9. New business 10. Adjourn 1. Welcome: John called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and welcomed Larry Michaels, attending as a member of the public, who has applied to be appointed to the Affordable Housing committee. 2. Agenda review: No changes proposed or made. 3. Comments, etc.: There were no comments from the public. 4. Review and approval of minutes of September 19, 2017, committee meeting: Mike moved and Tom seconded motion to approve second draft of the September 19, 2017, meeting minutes as circulated. Motion approved unanimously. 5. Quick review of John’s revised outline of inclusionary zoning issues John called to committee’s attention his second outline of inclusionary zoning issues and raised the subject of whether multi-family structures should be permitted in all neighborhoods (i.e. zoning districts). Multi-family structures are those that include three or more dwellings units in a single structure. Question: in which City zoning districts are multi-family structures currently prohibited (i.e. where would this be a change)? Should the City propose permitting multi-family structures where not currently permitted there may be push-back. Monica mentioned possibility of special building height regulations on Shelburne Road corridor. Further discussion was deferred due to Eric Farrell’s arrival and moving on to next agenda item. 6. Welcome Eric Farrell and discuss expanded inclusionary zoning in the City and other housing issues Eric shared monthly market rate and affordable rents on one- and two-bedroom apartments that he is charging in Burlington. One-bedroom: Market - $1,450, Affordable - $1,190, difference - $260, long term loss - $48,000 Two-bedroom: Market - $1,825, Affordable - $1,425, difference - $400, long term loss - $73,850 Eric mentioned “loophole” in Burlington’s IZ rules; it is that if the developer sells lots and not housing, the IZ regulation does not apply. Question: what makes an IZ rule more doable for the developer? Equity considerations: While externally the market units should not be distinguishable from the affordable units, it is important for developers to have flexibility on finishings inside the units (e.g. Formica vs. granite countertops, room size, etc.). Burlington has minimum unit sizes (requirement differs depending on number of bedrooms) for IZ units, which Eric considers problematic. (Sandy will review SoBu’s IZ regulations re how unit size is addressed.) Burlington allows differences in parking for market vs. affordable units. Cambrian Rise plan has two parking spaces per unit for market units and one parking space per unit for affordable units. Eric: waiving fees is “small potatoes.” More density is a plus. Question: does NIMBY opposition to allowing higher density result in developer not receiving approval for maximum density bonus? Eric’s experience is that it does not cause this. For Cambrian Rise, maximum density for plan is 770 units; he plans to build 739 units. The reasons for fewer than maximum units being approved relate to lot coverage, parking, other technical requirements, and what works for the particular development. When asked about the idea of minimum density requirements, Eric indicated unfamiliarity with this concept and wondered how it would work. Question: have Burlington’s IZ rules resulted in more affordable housing being built than would have been built under voluntary approach (i.e. primarily density bonuses)? Eric’s perception is that Burlington’s IZ requirements have not resulted in more affordable housing being developed and, in addition, it is his view that the IZ requirement slowed housing development during the many years it has been in effect. Committee members brought to Eric’s attention the research article that Leslie had shared and its conclusion that, in strong housing markets, IZ does increase the number of affordable units built (Burlington’s experience with IZ was included in this study). Eric’s response was that there is really no way to know, one way or another, what would have happened in Burlington without IZ. Title and link for research article referenced above: Center for Housing Policy, Separang Fact from Ficon to Design Effecve Inclusionary Housing Programs hp://docs.wixstac.com/ugd/19ce_9a68f933ed6c45b5f8b7d2ef49dda0.pdf Question: what about mixed use in multi-unit apartment buildings? Eric: more and more, people want to live, work, and play in same neighborhood. Cambrian Rise will have ample space for the kind of services/uses that make a neighborhood attractive in this way; e.g., day care, food service, fitness centers, personal services (e.g., massage therapist), and small offices for professionals. He expects that these spaces will be rented promptly. Question: what about using greater height than has been used to date to achieve greater density? Eric: five stories is structural height limit for wood-frame construction. He would love to be able to use steel and concrete construction but the market will not support the rents that the cost of steel and concrete would generate. Eric re wood-frame construction: sound transmission from unit to unit is virtually impossible to eliminate and, as a result, can be problematic. Question: what is happening with Burlington’s IZ regulations? A large committee has been appointed whose purpose to review the current regulations and make recommendations for improvements. It has met once to date. Eric (Farrell) and Erik Hoekstra are the developers on the committee. Gillian Nanton of City of Burlington is coordinating the committee’s work. Mike suggested that the SoBu committee might want to identify ways to keep apprised of the Burlington committee’s work. Committee members thanked Eric for his time and input. 7. Meet with Larry Kupferman, SoBu Housing Trust Fund chair Committee members welcomed Larry. Larry said that only “rule” he was aware of was that Housing Trust Fund dollars were to be used to support housing that is affordable to households having incomes no greater that 80 percent of AMI (Area Median Income for the household size). Kevin Dorn, City Manager, had communicated this “rule” to him. Larry and committee members present agreed that the “80 percent rule” is not a legal restriction under any SoBu regulation or ordinance. Committee members suggested procedural and policy related by-laws would be beneficial for the Housing Trust Fund. Under procedural were mentioned: number of trustees, how and how often the chair is determined, definition of a quorum. Under policy: conflict of interest, the household income requirements and percentage of affordable units in a development necessary for an applicant to be eligible to apply for Trust Fund dollars, and the requirement that all affordable units be perpetually affordable. Larry (Kupferman) agreed that these topics would be good to include in by-laws and encouraged the committee to provide additional advice and guidance re the development of by-laws. Mike mentioned that Larry might review the Recreation and Parks Committee’s by-laws for structure and content (though Mike was not implying that the Trust Fund needed by-laws as extensive as these). John suggested that Larry arrange, through Kevin, to meet with City Attorney Andrew Bolduc to have Andrew draft the by-laws. Committee next discussed with Larry identification of folks to apply for vacancy on Housing Trust Fund board. Larry welcomed committee’s assistance. Monica mentioned someone that works at Gallagher, Flynn whom Monica believes would be a good match. John mentioned Ian Squirrel. Larry (Kupferman) said he would seek to identify folks to encourage to apply. 8. Discuss Committee’s position re UVM property sale Brief summary: the VonTurkovich’s have purchased UVM land off NW corner of Spear and Swift streets with intent to develop housing there. Access will be from Spear and Swift streets. Housing will be targeted to “work force” population (rentals < 80% AMI; ownership < 120% AMI). Total of 176 units: 96 rental units in four buildings (24 units in each, one building for senior housing) and 80 ownership housing, perhaps, duplexes and quaplexes. They are purchasing adjacent house and lot on Swift Street so that development can be connected to East Woods natural area (owned by UVM) Committee sees potential connection (possibly positive or negative) with multiple City goals; e.g. Recreation and Parks, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Natural Resources, and Affordable Housing. Not enough is known about the development for the committee to take a position at this stage. Developers have not submitted request for zoning (LDR) change to Planning Commission. Committee would like development, when more clearly specified, to be assessed by relevant City committees from a holistic perspective. John will write VonTurkovich’s indicating committee’s interest in the project but defer requesting a meeting until more is known. Committee’s suggestion is for developers to meet first with those entities likely to have greatest concerns (South Burlington Land Trust [NGO] and SoBu Natural Resources Committee). 9. New (and Old) Business Outstanding topics for committee discussion/exploration (not an all-inclusive list): ● Results of Leslie’s research re “Priority Housing” in VT statutes and its relationship to Act 250. ● Paul Conner’s email to Sandy on subject of interaction of committee’s proposed new definition of affordable housing and density bonus provision of LDRs (will forward again) ● Results of Sandy’s research re SoBu LDRs vis-à-vis height restrictions (will forward again) ● Results of Sandy’s review of SoBu LDRs regarding unit size requirements for affordable units under City Center IZ rules. Dates for upcoming meetings: October 17, November 13, and November 27 (all at 4:00 p.m., City Hall, Second Floor Conference Room) 10. Adjourn – Leslie moved and Tom seconded that the meeting be adjourned. Committee approved motion unanimously at 5:55 p.m.