Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 08/01/2019 - Joint City Council & Planning CommissionJOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 The South Burlington City Council held a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on Thursday, 1 August 2019, at 6:30 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. City Council Members Present: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden Planning Commission Members Present: J. Louisos, Chair; A. Klugo, T. Riehle, M. Mittag Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. LaRose, City Planner; V. Bolduc, J. Simson, S. Dooley, P. Thompson, F. & J. Kochman, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, A. Strong, S. Dopp, T. Bailey, B. Britt, other members of the public 1. Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments and Questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised by the public. 3. Introduction and Welcome: Ms. Riehle thanked the large number of residents who serve on committees and specifically those who have been active on Interim Zoning (IZ) committees. She also thanked Planning Commission members who have been addressing a long list of “deliverables” that the City Council is interested in. She then briefly reviewed prior IZ efforts and the current effort. Ms. Louisos thanked the Council for including the Planning Commission in the IZ process and noted that Commission members also volunteer to serve on IZ committees and committees related to City Center issues. 4. Status Report presentations by committees on interim zoning projects: a. Affordable Housing Committee on Inclusionary Zoning: Mr. Simson said the Committee has been working to provide affordable housing in the Transition Overlay District on Shelburne Road. He then enumerated the reasons for this effort: 1. The Comprehensive Plan calls for housing for all incomes in the city and specifically indicates the need for 1020 affordable units 2. The tax base depends on successful businesses, and they, in turn, depend on employees who need local housing instead of long commutes. Most of the JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 PAGE 2 city’s teachers, police, and firefighters live outside of the city because they can’t afford to live in S. Burlington. 3. The city has an aging population who need to live near shopping, health care, etc. 4. There is a need to attract more families to the city to take advantage of the excellent schools. Mr. Simson said the affordable housing supply is inadequate to meet those needs, and it is important to balance the desire for open space with the need for housing. The plan being proposed would expand inclusionary zoning to the transit overlay district on Shelburne Road. This measure would not meet the entire need for affordable housing, but it would help as an incremental step. Ms. Dooley explained that the requirement to include affordable units begins with a development of 12 units or more. 15% of those units must be affordable for people at 80% of the median income to rent or for those at 100% of the median income to purchase. A one- bedroom inclusionary unit would have to rent for $1375 (including utilities) maximum monthly rent ($1650 for 2 bedrooms and $1906 for 3 bedrooms). A 2-bedroom inclusionary home would have to sell for $281,500, and a 3-bedroom home for $325,500. For every required inclusion unit, a developer would receive an additional offset unit (not affordable). Ms. Dooley noted that of 15 homes for sale in the city in May, 2019, the lowest price 3- bedroom home was $339,000, and the median price of all available 3-bedroom homes was $416,000. If a person moves into a rental, and then has an increase in income, that person would not have to move out of the unit until he/she chose to move. The same is true with a purchase. Mr. Simson said the committee will be holding hearings with the Planning Commission and with the City Council as they have completed their work. He thanked Regina Mahoney of CCRPC for her help in their effort. Mr. Simson hoped the Planning Commission will take this up quickly. Mr. Barritt asked who would do the income vetting. Mr. Simson said it could be jobbed out to Champlain Housing. Ms. Dooley added that the property owner has to submit a report each year regarding the income and rental price of the units. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. Simson said the next step would be to extend inclusionary zoning to the rest of the city. He noted that inclusionary units can be smaller, but the outside must look the same as other units. Mr. Chittenden asked whether reducing parking spaces would hinder affordable housing efforts. Mr. Simson said they recommend one space per unit instead of 2. Providing parking is an added construction expense. Mr. Simson also said the Committee is willing to work with the Planning Commission on any PUD that is suggested (re: design, layout of parking, etc.). Mr. Conner said parking depends on the form of the housing; some development communities may want very few parking spaces. b. Open Space IZ Committee: Mr. Strong cited the work of committee members to achieve their charge of prioritizing conservation of open spaces and sustenance of ecosystems. Mr. Strong then reviewed the work of the committee. They looked at important areas of the city and the work that had been done in the past. They were not charged with changing zoning, condemning property, etc. The properties they reviewed were more than 4 acres in size with less than 10% impervious. They looked at water, wildlife, forests, aesthetics, and agriculture in relation to those properties. They also considered “big picture connectivity for the city.” They have used on-line mapping managed by CCRPC and the State Biofinder (a great resource on particular parcel). Mr. Strong then showed a plan of 5 parcels surrounding Technology Park from the point of view of riparian connectivity (affecting only 1 parcel), wildlife (affecting only 1 of the 5 parcels), forests (affecting only 1 property), and affecting wildlife crossing and prime agricultural soils (affecting only 1 property). They have done similar work with 180 parcels. The final report will include the high-priority parcels. There will also be an Appendix with a page for each parcel and what was found for each. Mr. Strong then noted the challenges of determining what resources to be protected, PUD guidelines, Natural Resource Protection areas (to avoid protecting what is already protected). The anticipation is that all their parcel assessments will be in within 5 days, and they anticipate a final report in mid-September. Mr. Chittenden asked what the expectation is for the Planning Commission to do with the list of properties. Mr. Strong said what they will probably have are potential strategies for JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 PAGE 4 conservation/protection. A change in zoning is beyond their charge. Ms. Louisos noted the Planning Commission has done a lot of work on standards for protection of resources. Mr. Conner said there can be 2 or 3 paths at the same time: the official map can be a tool as can acquisition/donation of land. Different parcels might be better for different tools. Ms. Riehle cited the importance of open property having ecological value. Mr. Kochman noted there is a map attached to the Comprehensive Plan with lands you can’t build on. He felt it was important for the City Council to say these are important areas that shouldn’t be built on. Ms. Greco agreed and said the LDRs must protect these properties; otherwise it’s meaningless. Ms. Dooley said that people underestimate the challenge of writing LDRs and the limited resources to do it. c. Transfer of Development Rights IZ Committee: Mr. Mittag introduced committee members and noted they represent a wide range of opinions. He said the Committee’s focus has been on the conservation value of TDRs, and they have reached consensus in their report. Mr. Mittag also reviewed the enabling legislation for TDRs and indicated there is a Vermont Natural Resources Council TDR Guidance Document. Mr. Mittag then reviewed the city’s history with TDRs. There were an estimated 2066 TDRs available for transfer. Of these, 584 have been used. 114 were severed and transferred, conserving 95 acres. 470 were used intra-parcel, equating to 370 acres of open space conserved. Of the 1357 remaining TDRs, the city owns 116, and the remainder are owned by landowners. Mr. Mittag noted there are limited receiving areas as well as difficulty connecting TDR holders with buyers as there is no reliable TDR data base. One of the unintended consequences of the TDR program is that it could lead to densely developed areas where the Comprehensive Plan encourages open space. Some residents argue that receiving areas are worthy of conservation. Public surveys are included in the committee’s report. The committee is suggesting 4 options: JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 PAGE 5 1. Eliminate the TDR program with conventional zoning 2. Keep the program as is and purchase and retire the TDRs 3. Keep the program as it is 4. Amend the ordinance The committee felt the first 2 options were not viable. Option 3 would leave sending and receiving areas in the SEQ and not further the desire for open space. It is option 4 that the committee recommends as follows: a. Support conservation goals b. Expand receiving areas outside the SEQ c. Add new sending areas that are high priorities for conservation d. Define a “dwelling unit” by area (square footage) e. Re-designate sensitive receiving areas in the SEQ f. Possibly have the city purchase and retire TDRs from select parcels that have the highest conservation value g. Work to develop a balance between the capacity for RDR usage and the supply h. Create a TDR bank i. Maintain a map of where TDRs have been severed and where used. This work could take several months, followed by public hearings. Mr. Klugo noted that as long as developments in the SEQ are being built out at less than the allowable density, there will be fewer TDRs used. Mr. Chittenden said he liked the idea of expanding sending and receiving areas. Ms. Emery suggested using a TDR for a store. Mr. Barritt said that is contrary to the enabling legislation which allows only dwelling units. d. Planning Commission on PUD/Subdivision/Master Plans: Ms. Louisos thanked all the contributors to the Commission’s work. She showed the Commission’s “work chart” of how work has been coordinated to date. They are meshing with other committees, consultants and with the State, and quite a few of the pieces are completed. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 PAGE 6 Subdivision work will be wrapped up by the end of the year. She also noted there are some things the Commission has not been able to “drop” (e.g., City Center, Form Based Code issues). Ms. Louisos then showed an overview of what a PUD might look like. The Commission has been working on different PUD types. One of these types would be required for a development on more than 4 acres, except in City Center. There would be different percentages for residential and commercial uses in different PUD types. One of the PUD types is a Conservation PUD in which 70% of the property would not be developed. More than half of that property would have to contain natural resources to be preserved. Other types of PUDs are Traditional Neighborhood and Neighborhood Commercial. Parallel to this effort are updates to subdivision and Master Plan regulations. New updates to Chapter 12 will provide changes regarding resource protection across the city, not only in PUDs. New things to be considered for protection include forests, river corridors, steep slopes, and views. Ms. Louisos then showed a draft version of a “guidance document” that would provide open space requirement (with pictures), different street types (with design diagrams), building types and what they could look like (e.g., urban store front), and would also establish better transitions between areas. Some areas of the city might see increased density. Ms. Emery questioned parking minimums for commercial developments and also whether marking something “protected” is strong enough to actually protect it. Ms. Kochman asked if it is still the plan to have developers bring plans to committees such as Recreation/Parks for their recommendations. Mr. Conner said that is at the discretion of the developer or at the order of the DRB. He added that a lot of work of the PUD process is to give much clearer guidance to developers. Ms. Kochman felt the Recreation/Parks Committee has provided valuable guidance to the DRB in the past and that the committees could do “clearing house stuff” before a plan goes to the DRB. Mr. Kochman said he was astonished with minimum parking standards for commercial developments. He felt the DRB should be given broader ability to modify parking on a case-by- case basis. He stressed that developers would not take into consideration those businesses around them. Mr. Kochman also felt it is silly not to allow parking in front of a commercial building and that could also be left to the discretion of the DRB. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 -PAGE 7 Ms. Emery said that proactive steps have to be taken to wean people from the car culture. Mr. Kochman said he could accept that reasoning if the Council could create “logical public transportation.” Mr. Britt asked how people use variances to build in wetlands. Ms. Louisos explained the wetland mitigation process for impact on wetlands. Mr. Klugo elaborated on the series of rules that allow the “moving” of a wetland. e. Economics of Land Conservation/Development: Mr. Dorn said there are 2 components to this. For the first, they have retained John Stuart to look into the financial component of providing services to properties. He noted that 72 cents of every tax dollar goes to fund schools. The second component, calculating values of open space, view sheds, etc., is harder to assess, and the city has not been able to find a rational way to quantify the values of these things. Mr. Chittenden expressed the concern with long-term effects on the Grand List. Ms. Riehle said studies say what the city is doing now is not sustainable. Ms. Greco cited a recent article regarding the health benefits of open space. 5. Facilitated discussion amongst Council, Commission, and Committee leadership of key themes, significant decision points, overall schedule of completion: Ms. Riehle noted a number of groups have asked for “a little more time.” Ms. Emery asked if the Planning Commission sees the provisions for affordable housing as feasible. Mr. Klugo said the Commission is good within the Transit Overlay District as that is just a math calculation. Developers won’t go much higher than what they can build now (7 stories) as steel construction is too expensive. Mr. Riehle said he hasn’t heard the development is being held back. He felt committees should complete their work, then go to the Planning Commission, then to public hearings. Mr. Conner noted the Planning Commission will have to see how all of this balances with the Comprehensive Pan. He asked if the Council is looking for anything different from the committees. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION 1 AUGUST 2019 PAGE 8 Mr. Conner also noted the end date for IZ is currently 13 August. Mr. Klugo felt that TDRs and the Affordable Housing pieces can move forward independently. As there was no further business to come before the joint bodies, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:45 p.m.