Planning Commission

10/10/2024 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Mike O’Brien, Chair; Sarah van Ryckevorsel; John Baker; Joe Perron; Brendan Sage City Staff Present: Ravi Venkataraman Guests Present: Kristine Lott, Mayor; Bryn Oakleaf Call to Order by: Mike O’Brien Meeting Start Time: 6:35 pm Minutes Recorded by: Ravi Venkataraman II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes September 12, 2024 meeting minutes tabled to the next meeting. V. Discussion: Unified Land Use and Development Regulations (ULUDR) Sections 4.1 and 5.16 (Related to Replacement Units) Ravi provided an overview of the changes made to the draft document since the last discussion. Ravi brought forward staff’s concerns about the payment in-lieu and about removing the exemption for buildings that have been ordered for demolition by the city. Joe, Sarah and Mike raised questions about the rationale for removing the exemption. Ravi explained that he and city staff are looking to make sure that any two-bedroom units that are removed are replaced in a timely fashion, instead of opening up the possibilities for properties to remain vacant or to redevelop with smaller units. The commission discussed further the mechanisms and scenarios in which this exemption would have a role in redevelopment. Mayor Lott clarified that by removing the exemption, the regulation would apply in any instance in which a two-bedroom unit is removed. The commission came to agreement to remove the exemption. Mike asked for clarification about Ravi’s suggestion to reduce the payment in-lieu for properties with 10 or more two-bedroom units. Ravi explained that for certain properties, the $100,000 fee in-lieu may prevent redevelopment from occurring, thereby restricting a greater number of units to be built on certain properties and/or improved housing stock. Sarah suggested a threshold in which only a certain amount of units would be eligible for the payment in-lieu. Brendan brought up the thresholds in the draft inclusionary zoning. Ravi said a similar limit could be placed to limit how many existing units would be eligible for the payment in-lieu. Mike explored examples in which the fee in-lieu would and wouldn’t apply. Mike suggested that if no units are built in replacement regardless of the number of bedrooms, the full fee should be charged, and that if the units are replaced with a reduced number of bedrooms, then a reduced fee should apply.  to be built on certain properties and/or improved housing stock. Sarah suggested a threshold in which only a certain amount of units would be eligible for the payment in-lieu. Brendan brought up the thresholds in the draft inclusionary zoning. Ravi said a similar limit could be placed to limit how many existing units would be eligible for the payment in-lieu. Mike explored examples in which the fee in-lieu would and wouldn’t apply. Mike suggested that if no units are built in replacement regardless of the number of bedrooms, the full fee should be charged, and that if the units are replaced with a reduced number of bedrooms, then a reduced fee should apply. Joe said that this system incentivizes reducing the number of bedrooms in replacement units. Ravi said that in this framework, the applicant would still be subject to a penalty for providing non-priority housing. Commissioners discussed the potential ramifications of allowing a reduced payment in-lieu fee. Ravi explained that for properties with more two-bedroom units, the high fee could restrict any kind of future development. Joe questioned whether the reduced fee equals the loss of the two-bedroom unit. Brendan said that with the fee, even at a reduced rate, the incentive would be to build more units to cover the payment in-lieu, which would benefit the city. Kristine added that the payment into the housing trust fund can be cycled back into future affordable housing projects or payment assistance. Mike asked if the payment in-lieu will be further discussed at the housing roundtable. Ravi said that the payment in-lieu won’t be under discussion, as it is based on Champlain Housing Trust’s guidance. Ravi said that the discussion would focus more on the mechanisms of the regulations. Mike said that the payment in-lieu seems too high. Commissioners questioned the basis of the payment in-lieu number. Ravi said that it simply was half of the suggested payment in-lieu, or 10-12 percent of downpayment assistance instead of 20-25 percent. Mike tied it to the cost of acquiring land per dwelling unit in a multiunit dwelling project, which can range between $10,000 and $50,000. Sarah asked about the cost of constructing a unit and whether it could be percentage based. John asked if a scaled payment in-lieu would make sense. Ravi said that a scaled payment could restrict redevelopment possibilities, especially for properties with larger existing units. Kristine suggested asking VHFA for confirmation on the payment in-lieu fees. Ravi said that VHFA has reviewed the payment in-lieu numbers and calculations. Mike asked if other municipalities charge payment in-lieu fees for replacement units. Ravi said he will have get back to Mike on this element. Ravi said that more information about this will be provided during the next meeting, including the draft text. VI. Discussion: Unified Land Use and Development Regulations (ULUDR) Sections 4.12, and 5.10, and Article VIII (Act 181 Overview and its Related Required Ordinance Changes) Ravi reviewed the next steps with Act 181, and the regional future land use map. Ravi overviewed the necessary changes in the ULUDR with Act 181. Mike asked for the mechanisms for meeting parking requirements offsite. Ravi said that this requirement would be met through a lease agreement, easement or other legal instrument that proves that the offsite parking would be available in perpetuity. VII. Discussion: Unified Land Use and Development Regulations (ULUDR) Section 4.17 (Transportation Demand Management) Ravi highlighted the changes to the draft TDM section, providing an update to the conversations he’s had with partner organizations, and on on-street parking. VIII. City Updates A. Updates from the Mayor Kristine reviewed the concept proposal for the Armory property discussed during the last City Council meeting. B. Updates from the Inclusion and Belonging Commission  Kristine reviewed the concept proposal for the Armory property discussed during the last City Council meeting. B. Updates from the Inclusion and Belonging Commission None C. Updates from City Staff Ravi reviewed the total amount of zoning permit applications he’s received since July 1, the total zoning permits he’s issued, and the types of inquiries he’s received. IX. Other Business N/A X. Adjourn Motion by: Brendan Second: Sarah Meeting End Time: 8:00 pm