Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Economic Development Committee - 01/10/2023South Burlington Economic Development Committee Room #301 at 180 Market St South Burlington, VT 05403 AGENDA Participation Options In Person: Room #301 – 3rd Floor – 180 Market St Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request Electronically: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/90-min-edc-01-10-2023 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (224) 501-3412 Access Code: 356-553-645 Tuesday January 10, 2023 5:30 PM 1.Welcome, agenda review and approval 2.Public comments on items not on the agenda 3. ***Approve minutes from December 13, 2022 EDC Meeting 4.Tax Increment Financing District Town Meeting Day Bond presentation 5.Finalize Committee feedback to Planning Commission on the ComprehensivePlan key topics, public input, and information needed 6.Finalize Committee position on the Planning Commission’s request for feedback on housing in commercial and/or industrial areas 7.Topics for future meetings 8.Adjourn (approx. 7:00 pm) ***Attachments included SOUTH BURLINGTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DRAFT MINUTES of the Committee meeting on December 13, 2022 in Room 301 of City Hall, 180 Market Street, South Burlington, in person and remotely. Members present: Tom Bailey, Sriram “Srini” Srinivasan, Michael Biama, John Burton, Ken Linge and Charles Johnson attended all in person. Members absent: Linda Norris Others in attendance: Jessie Baker, City Manager, Kelsey Peterson, City Planner, and Tim Barrett, City Councilor, attended in person. Darrilyn Peters attended remotely. John Burton called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM and proceeded to address the items on the agenda. 1.Welcome, agenda review and approval: As per her emailed letter to the committee members on December 12th, Jessie requested the agenda be expanded to include an item that the committee send a member as a representative to the Transportation Implementation Plan Advisory Group. It was agreed that the agenda item be added (labeled 3.5 below). The agenda was approved as amended. 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda: There were no public comments. 3. Approval of minutes of November 8, 2022 meeting: Michael Biama moved to approve the minutes of the November 8, 2022 meeting. Sriram Srinivasan seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. 3.5 Transportation Implementation Plan Advisory Group: Jessie stated that she is seeking a representative from the Economic Development Committee to serve on the Transportation Implementation Advisory Group, one of the advisory groups being created based on recommendations from the Climate Action Task Force. Jessie noted that the Group will meet four times over the next couple of months and includes representatives from other committees, partner organizations, and staffed by Erica Quallen, the new Deputy Director of Public Works. Michael Biama agreed to be the committee’s representative. 4. Comprehensive Plan (Request from Planning Commission): Kelsey described the next steps in developing the Comprehensive Plan, including extensive public outreach. Over the next three months there will be ten public meetings. The first four will focus of the nature and needs of the different neighborhoods in the City while the last six will focus on substantive topics. The staff will attempt to synthesize the results of the public meetings together with other data in preparing a draft Plan to be submitted to the Planning Commission during April/May 2023. The Planning Commission will work on it over the summer and produce a detailed draft Plan by September, which will be the subject of public hearings leading to adoption in 2024. Kelsey indicated that she was looking for, at least, priorities and direction from the Committee as to the substantive economic development topics/perspectives that should be included in the Plan. Kelsey and Jessie responded to questions from the members. Srini expressed concern that public participation at the beginning of the process might be limited, using as an example the Climate Action Plan process, where initial public participation was low followed by the public feeling bypassed when then final plan was presented. Kelsey responded that the planned extensive outreach will hopefully be effective. Michael and John asked questions about the content of the Plan (will it follow the outline of the current plan?) and the process (What level of detail and specificity will the Plan have at each step?). It was suggested that the process should include an evaluation of the success or failure of the current Comprehensive Plan and that the Plan should be based on more specific facts and goals (like the Climate Action Plan) instead of generalized wish lists. Srini asked about the effect of the CCRPC regional plan as driving this plan. Kelsey acknowledged it is a statutory requirement that the CCRPC review and approve the Plan but she believes that review is limited to assuring that the Plan is statutorily compliant. Then the committee considered what the Plan should address when looking at economic development concerns. Srini indicated that affordable housing was very important since it currently limits employers finding quality employees. John suggested that education was important because of the need for a highly educated workforce. He also noted that the Plan should include data over time on workforce participation rates, average wages compared the cost of housing and business ownership rates. Kelsey inserted that the City staff planned an ARPA like poll going out in January but that the questions haven’t been drafted yet. Michael expressed concern about the specifics that should be addressed, but Kelsey stated that at this point she was looking for the “big topics” and could come back to the committee’s next meeting to follow up. When climate change was raised as a topic, Kelsey noted that the staff feels that, since the topic is pervasive, it should be addressed in each section of the Plan instead of having its own separate section. Ken expressed concern about how the committee’s process in producing recommendations. Michael opined that the City should pursue community development via public/private partnerships with City dollars as seed money for specific projects. Jessie responded that the TIF District is an example where public private partnerships have been effective in South Burlington. Ken suggested that the Plan should emphasize private enterprise and mechanisms for incentivizing local business ownership. Tom suggested that the committee consider having an additional “working” meeting before the January meeting and that Kelsey could return to our January meeting after the members had better developed some ideas (See below regarding scheduling). 5. Housing in Commercial and/or Industrial Areas (Request for Feedback from the Planning Commission): Kelsey was on behalf of the Planning Commission looking for committee feedback regarding a specific request from OnLogic for a zoning change to allow it to construct housing adjoining its new building in Tech Park for temporary stays for employees training at the site or for new employees looking for transitional housing while seeking a permanent residence in the area. In addition, the Planning Commission was looking for advice about making zoning changes in other commercial or industrial areas to allow similar housing arrangements. These arrangements are being considered because of the lack of appropriate available housing locally that has reached a crisis. Michael emphasized that the proposed housing would be an accessory use for the business only and would not be rented to the public. Ken stated that this proposal is “a no brainer” since not only accommodates the business growth and efficiency but reduces traffic, etc. Srini pointed out that employee housing such as the proposal is common internationally and is very effective. Tom, while approving of the OnLogic proposal and favoring housing generally, suggested that at least the future status of such an arrangement should be considered when, for example, the parent business leaves the area and the housing is orphaned. Other members noted that there are reasons not to locate housing in commercial industrial areas such as noise/nuisance, lack of residential amenities, etc. but that employees of the parent business living temporarily at the site would be less likely to complain about them. Tom suggested that a commercial district might allow housing with less restrictions and instead make certain business uses conditional, or, alternatively, impose conditional uses on types of housing to be not inconsistent with the businesses uses. Kelsey took notes on the issues discussed for the Planning Commission and left the meeting at 7:03 PM. 6. Topics for Future Meetings: Tabled. 7. Scheduling Next Meeting; Adjournment: After some discussion, the next working meeting of the committee is scheduled for January 4th, 2023 at the City offices. While noticed, the meeting will not be “zoomed” nor will any formal actions be taken. Then Michael moved to adjourn the meeting and Ken seconded. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM.