Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning Commission - 12/10/2019SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 10 DECEMBER 2019 1 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Louisos, Chair; T. Riehle, M. Ostby, M. Mittag, D. Macdonald ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning; C. LaRose, Planner; J. Simson, S. Dooley, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, P. O’Brien, L. Vera, L. Kupferman, J. Wilking, L. Black-Plumeau, R. Mahony, R. Greco, M. Simoneau, S Dopp 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Louisos provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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: Ms. Vera noted the Burlington project near Queen City Park. 4. Planning Commissioner announcements and staff report: Mr. Mittag: Attended the Vermont legislators’ climate caucus yesterday. Found it very well done. Mr. Conner: Noted the passing of Lynn Fife, who had served on the Planning Commission for a number of years. 5. Public Hearing on Proposed Land Development Regulations (LDRs) amendments: a. LDR-19-13A: Modify existing inclusionary zoning requirements and extend applicability to include all lands that underline the Transit Overlay District, all lands within the City Center Form Based Code District, and all lands in the vicinity of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road that are north of I-89 and are outside the Transit Overlay District: b. LDR-19-138: Modify Affordable Housing Density Bonus standards as follows: (1) reduce applicable area to only those areas not subject to proposed Inclusionary Zoning standards (LDR-19-13A) and (2) adjust requirements for income eligibility and continued affordability for all remaining parts of the City: Mr. Riehle moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Macdonald seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 2 Mr. Conner distributed written comments and emails received in the past few days, from Nick Andrews, John Dinklage, Radetta Nemcosky, Nancy Tracy, and State Representatives Killacky, Lalonde, Pugh, and Townsend. He also noted that the Affordable Housing Committee held a meeting for developers and had met subsequently to work through their recommendations. Commission members were given a summary of proposed changes that have not yet completed a legal review. Ms. Black-Plumeau said this is a “win-win” approach for South Burlington that will create new homes for moderate income residents. It is aimed at developments of 12 dwelling units or more, a small percentage of which would be subject to price/rental limits on a continuing basis (10-15%). There is inclusionary zoning now in City Center. This would expand to areas not affected by interim zoning. Ms. Black-Plumeau noted they have learned from Burlington’s experiences, and have incorporated that learning into the proposal. Ms. Mahony then explained the recent edits as follows: a. The selling of lots: 10% of lots would have a deed restriction to meet the goals of inclusionary zoning b. Regarding congregate housing: These should just meet the rental requirements c. Unit requirements and how inclusionary units relate to market priced units: The intent is that the units are physically integrated. The DRB can waive this requirement if there is another intention met. Units cannot be smaller than 90% of the market value units or a minimum floor area (set by the number of bedrooms). The number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units should be proportional to the number of bedrooms in the market units. In ownership units, there can be one fewer bedroom if an additional bedroom could easily be added. d. Continued affordability: There are two options: Option 1: The future seller can sell the unit for what they paid plus 2% per year that they have occupied it or for what is affordable to a household at 80% of median income at the time of sale. Option 2: It is recommended that eligible households are those with incomes up to 100% of median income. e. Reporting requirements: Tenants are obliged to provide income documentation. Project owners are responsible to certify the rent maximums and household incomes. Ms. Mahony noted there are 2 proposed changes to the Affordable Section of the LDRs: a. Minimum Floor Area (Section 18.02(1)(3)(b): The recommendation is to add a proportional standard for the affordable dwelling unit in relation to the market rate units. b. Continued Affordability: There had been unintended consequences which have been corrected/removed. Mr. Langfeldt said there is a question as to how to make an undeveloped lot affordable. Mr. Mittag said the cost of the land/building would be lower than the others. Ms. Dooley noted that Habitat for Humanity is always looking for land on which to build homes, and they can certainly build an affordable house. Mr. Kupferman added that non-profits can buy those lots as their financing is different. 3 Ms. Ostby stressed that the inclusionary unit(s) have a legal requirement that there by an offset (e.g., you build one, you get one). Various types of offsets are the realm of the City Council. Mr. Riehle questioned whether there is a possibility that the 2% could create an “unaffordable” situation. Ms. Black-Plumeau said if incomes stay flat, that could possibly happen, but it would take a very long time to appreciate to that point. Ms. Dooley added that these are maximum prices, not required prices, and the market will determine the price. Mr. Wilking felt that 2% will be wrong all the time, either too high or too low. He suggested not fixing that percentage and using a percentage of the CPI. He also noted that every dollar put into a home by the owner does not get that homeowner a dollar back at sale. Mr. O’Brien was concerned with how this will affect South Village. He felt 2% was a decent average. He said they wouldn’t take advantage of a density bonus if it isn’t at least 2%. Mr. Langfeldt said you will always be governed by who can purchase the home. He said one of their challenges is that if you are doing a “build to suit” and most buyers want 3 bedrooms but the inclusionary buyer wants only one or two, it is very complicated. Ms. Black-Plumeau said that is why they added the smaller unit with the ability to be added onto. Ms. Dooley noted that income thresholds are based on family size. Larger families can have a higher income and pay more for a larger home. Mr. Langfeldt said bedroom size does not determine the cost of the house. It is the foundation, etc. Mr. Simson asked how they would meet the regulations with a “build to suit.” Mr. Langfeldt said they would build what the buyer is qualified for. Mr. Gill said needing to create a “predictive space” that someone might want in a smaller building is very difficult, especially with a permit process two years before you break ground. He added that they would always build a 3 bedroom home. Mr. Wilking said there would be more affordable housing if there were more housing. Development laws slow down development. The DRB slows development. That makes things more expensive. There is only a 2% vacancy in rentals. Houses turn over very quickly in such a tight housing market. Mr. Wilking said he had no issue with inclusionary zoning. “You take from one group and give to another.” But it is not a fix. There needs to be more choice. Ms. Greco noted that people build 9-unit developments to keep out of Act 250, and that precludes inclusionary zoning. She was also concerned with raising the percentage of people who can purchase affordable units to 100% of median income. Mr. Simson said that is still hitting the people who can’t afford to live in South Burlington now. He added that in Burlington the regulations were so strict for many years that nothing was built. Burlington has changed its regulations, but there hasn’t been enough time to see the results. Mr. O’Brien noted that Williston has 3 thresholds of income: up to 80%, up to 100%, and up to 130% of median income. 4 Ms. Head applauded the work of the committee. She noted this has been considered in the Legislature. Ms. Greco noted that there is a provision to have the inclusionary units “off site.” She had thought they were to be integrated. Mr. Conner noted that “offsite” is within the contiguous zoning district. Mr. Simson said integration is still the goal. They are not talking about building ghettos. Ms. Mahoney said the DRB can use discretion for an alternate layout. That language has always been in the regulations. Ms. Dooley read the qualifications for locating offsite (e.g., financial issues). Members agreed they were not ready to make a decision at this meeting. Mr. Riehle moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Mittag seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Review public input on draft amendments, including requested feedback from Affordable Housing Committee; consider possible policy changes and possible special meeting to review and ratify modified amendments post-public hearing: Mr. Conner said the legal review should be available in a few days. Another public hearing would not be needed. Ms. Ostby felt a special meeting was worth having to see the language and bring it forward. Mr. Langfeldt said he didn’t think they were that far apart, and he would be happy to work to bring things together. Mr. Simson said it sounds like a couple of “tweaks” would do it (e.g., the number of bedrooms in a “build to suit,” distribution of units, and 2% or something else). Ms. Greco was concerned that affordable units be in areas where there is public transit. Mr. Andrews said he was concerned with pushing affordable units into places where there is a “different expectation.” Ms. Louisos noted the committee has been working on this for over a year. It has been talked about at the City Council level as well. There will also be public hearings at the City Council. Ms. LaRose asked if it would be OK to have a 30-unit “affordable” building in a development of single family homes or duplexes. Ms. Louisos summarized the issues being discussed: annual prince increase allowance of 2% or another figure; integration of inclusionary units into development; and allowance for allowing an ownership unit to accommodate an additional bedroom. Ms. Louisos requested that Mr. Langfeldt, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Gill provide any recommendations in writing. Ms. Louisos then asked staff to review with Ms. Dooley 5 and Mr. Simson and provide a recommendation to the Commission alongside the draft wit the complete legal review. Members agreed to a special meeting on 17 December. 7. Presentation of Open Space Interim Zoning Committee Recommendations: Mr. Strong reviewed the Committee’s charge to prioritize conservation of open spaces, forest blocks, and working landscapes. He also reviewed the methods used by the committee. They were given a list of 190 parcels of at least 4 acres and less than 10% impervious surface and decided to use that as the list of possible properties. These properties were evaluated on both a regional scale (for connectivity and resources, through Bio Finder) and a parcel scale (based on water, wildlife, forests, aesthetics, and agriculture). The results of the study were as follows: a. Of the 190 parcels, 127 were in Biofinder b. Of the 127 parcels, 92 contained resources in 3 of the 5 categories c. Of those 92, 73 were not already conserved d. The 73 were narrowed to 25 based on current and planned land use and acreage. Those 25 parcels include: Farrell property, Edlund property, the property across Dorset Street from Dorset Farms, Dorset Meadows, property south of Dorset Meadows, Windjammer property, Muddy Brook, the Winooski River area adjacent to Muddy Brook, property on Allen Road, property south of Butler Farm, and others. Mr. Strong showed a map highlighting those properties with other types of conservation areas. (Mr. Mittag thanked Mr. Strong and exited the meeting at this point and said he would catch up with the minutes) Mr. Macdonald asked if all criteria were rated the same. Mr. Strong said they were; however, because there were 3 “water categories,” these came out as more important. Mr. Strong noted that in a case where 50% of a property was rated for conservation, they decided to conserve the whole property. They felt this was more equitable to the owner. Ms. Ostby asked if there would still be some small development allowed in a “conservation PUD.” Mr. Strong showed some properties that might fall into that category, some with NRP zoning already in that parcel. Mr. Strong noted the committee will be holding a public forum possibly in January. Ms. LaRose noted that Arrowwood is on target with their work. She asked if there is room to include that in the committee’s work. Mr. Conner explained issues as all the pieces come together, including 6 economic value. They question is how to structure that conversation. Mr. Macdonald asked if the Commission is going to be changing zoning. Mr. Conner said possibly. There will also be TDR planning to take the top priorities from this report and turn those areas into sending areas. Ms. Louisos suggested passing this report on to the Natural Resources Committee. 8. Meeting Minutes of 12 November 2019: Mr. Macdonald moved to approve the Minutes of 12 November as written. Mr. Riehle seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Other Business: a. Shelburne Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Subdivision Regulations, 9 January 2020, 7 p.m., 5420 Shelburne Rd. b. Burlington Planning Commission Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Comprehensive Development Ordinance, Tuesday, 10 December 2019, 6:45 p.m. No action was taken on these informational items. As there was no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. Minutes approved by the Planning Commission December 17, 2019