Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Affordable Housing Committee - 05/29/2018APPROVED on June 12, 2018 NOTE: Date/time/place of next meeting: June 12, 2018, 9:00 a.m. (NOTE TIME CHANGE), place TBD AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE May 29, 2018, 10:00 AM, City Hall 2nd Floor Champlain Room Members attending: Tom Bailey, Leslie Black-Plumeau, Sandy Dooley, Todd Rawlings, Michael Simoneau, and John Simson (Chair); Members absent: Larry Michaels, Others present: Monica Ostby, PC liaison; Kevin Dorn, City Manager (10:05 – 10:15) Minutes by Sandy Dooley AGENDA 1. Call to order, safety orientation, agenda review, comments from the public 2. Review May 1, 2018, minutes for adoption 3. Chair’s comments and discussion re “a penny for affordable housing” 4. Detailed review of city-wide inclusionary zoning draft prepared and distributed by Sandy Dooley May 24th 5. Schedule June meetings 6. Adjourn 1. Call to order, safety orientation, agenda review, comments from the public: John called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and summarized emergency evacuation instructions. There were no comments from the public. 2. Review May 1, 2018, minutes for adoption: Tom moved and Mike seconded motion that May 1st minutes be approved as distributed. Motion passed, vote: 4-0-2 (Tom and Todd abstained--did not attend meeting) 3. Chair’s comments and discussion re “a penny for affordable housing”: John shared his view that we need to do a lot of public education in preparation for a March 2019 vote re “a penny for affordable housing.” He proposed that the committee consider how we might survey City and School District employees to determine how many do not live in SoBu and their reasons for living elsewhere. Suitable timing for such a survey would be in the fall. Committee members raised concerns that many City and School employees have household incomes above the City’s median and that such a survey might not yield information that would be supportive of our goal. Included in this discussion was a suggestion to obtain a list of City and School employees and the corresponding ZIP code for their town of residence. Kevin, who was present during this discussion, obtained the list of City employees including resident-town ZIP codes and provided copies of this list for each Committee member. Leslie mentioned that VHFA’s website, Housing.org, contains a wealth of information on housing costs and levels of housing-cost-burden that many area households experience. Monica expressed her perception that “affordable housing”, as a subject, has many meanings for non-experts and proposed that committee complete tasks focused on helping residents understand “affordable housing” and the need for more of it in SoBu from positive perspective. John reminded committee members of the need to “tell a story” in our public education activities; stories engage an audience much better than statistics. Tom asked how much a penny added to the property tax rate would raise. Answer: between $250K and $300K. 4. Detailed review of city-wide inclusionary zoning draft prepared and distributed by Sandy Dooley May 24th: Discussion began at 18.01 G. Affordable Housing Density Bonuses related to Inclusionary Requirements of draft and included: (a) Committee needs to understand why simply saying “for every Inclusionary Unit included in a development, an additional dwelling unit shall be approved for the development” can result in unintended and undesired consequences. (b) Under (1) Applicability – wording “shall be guided” needs to be modified as meaning of this wording is unclear. (c) We need to work on this section so that it is easier to understand. (d) We need to separate the bonus regulations relating to the Inclusionary Requirements from the bonus regulations relating to voluntary provision of more inclusionary units than are required. (e) We need to use examples that do not include so many units (60 units is a fairly large development). (f) We need to provide examples that include the zoning district in which the development will be built (e.g. Residential 1, Residential 2, Residential 4, Residential 7, Residential 12). (g) We need to figure out which bonuses will apply to specific Zoning Districts. (h) We need to figure out which bonuses we want to apply only to the “Special Urban Districts.” Monica asked committee members to explain the rationale for providing the density bonuses along with the Inclusionary Zoning requirement (outside City Center District). Committee members shared that Vermont law requires that municipalities that add an Inclusionary Zoning requirement to their land development regulations must also include “offsetting” regulations that reduce the financial cost attributable to the Inclusionary requirement. Members added that density bonuses are the offsetting benefit that developers view as most effective. Monica encouraged committee members to explore offsets other than density bonuses. The following paragraph from the proposed LDRs prompted a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of higher density versus lower density residential development. “Within the Residential 1 and Residential 2 zoning districts, the provisions of this Section (18.01) shall apply only to properties of two (2) (currently 5 acres) or more acres, and the maximum allowable residential density with or without a density bonus shall be eight (8) (currently 4) dwelling units per acre.” Monica’s principle concern with increasing density in residential districts is its potential for having a negative impact on the “quality of life” in the neighborhood. The SoBu neighborhood in which Monica lived for many years was one in which doors could be left unlocked and children could safely play outside unsupervised. She wonders whether increasing density results in the loss of this quality of life. Sandy raised the question of whether the LDR section being discussed has any relevance under current or proposed LDRs. She explained: under proposed LDRs, in an R1 district it would take 12 acres to be allowed to build 12 dwelling units, the threshold for the Inclusionary Requirement, which would be two (2) Inclusionary Units. With the proposed bonus of two (2) dwelling units, the total would be 14 units on 12 acres or a density of 1.17 units per acre. Under proposed LDRs, in an R2 district it would take six (6) acres to be allowed to build 12 dwelling units, the threshold for the Inclusionary Requirement, which would be two (2) Inclusionary Units. With the proposed bonus of two (2) dwelling units, the total would be 14 units on six (6) acres or a density of 2.33 units per acre. The proposed rules never get to a density higher than three (3) dwelling units per acre. Under current LDRs, if a developer proposed to build 10 dwelling units in an R2 district, s/he would need five (5) acres to do so. The maximum affordable housing bonus for this development would be five (5) dwelling units or a total of 15. To receive this bonus seven (7) of the 15 dwelling units must be affordable at 80% of AMI. This results in a new density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre. The current rules never get to a density higher than three (3) dwelling units per acre. Follow-up/homework (to be done prior to June 12th meeting): (1) All committee members will spend more time reviewing the draft and send proposed changes or questions relating to same to Sandy. (2) Sandy will, to the best of her ability, make revisions in keeping with discussion points (a) through (g) above. (3) Tom will prepare a “Summary” of the proposed changes. (4) Tom will prepare a version of the proposed regulations that includes his comments and recommended modifications and meet with Sandy to discuss his comments/proposed changes. 5. Schedule June meetings: Committee members present agreed to meet as follows in June. June 12, 2018, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. Please note change in time. June 26, 2018, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. 6. Adjourn: Leslie moved and Todd seconded the motion at that meeting be adjourned. Motion passed (6-0-0) and meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. “Bike rack” ● work on Committee’s page on the City’s website ● (Quoted from January 23, 2018, meeting minutes) “John asked Mike to prepare a work plan for the committee to collaborate with Coralee to enhance its effectiveness in communicating with residents via the City’s website and via other means. The plan should include specific assignments to be carried out by identified committee members. Mike accepted this assignment.” Homework (not yet reported on): ● Mike will consult with an accountant regarding what incentives the City might put in place to encourage owners of undeveloped property to sell land at a “bargain price” to private developers. ● Mike will seek Yves Bradley’s input regarding development of more housing along Shelburne Road corridor.