Planning Commission advances optional density-bonus scheme for Jolina Court, weighing affordable, senior and parking incentives

The Planning Commission on Sept. 4 reviewed a proposed density-bonus package for the Jolina Court district that would allow Buttermilk Development and other applicants to increase residential density in exchange for affordable housing, senior/adaptable units or public parking.

The discussion centered on two principal bonus tiers: a 4-to-1 market-to-true-affordable ratio modeled on the state’s 20% affordability threshold, and a 2-to-1 ratio aimed at senior or adaptable units. Under the working example, a developer proposing to increase building 2 from 31 to 45 units would supply roughly three affordable units under the 4:1 option and receive the market-rate unit increase in return, the commission’s chair explained.

Commissioners also debated a parking-oriented bonus that would award density for providing public parking spaces. Members raised multiple administration questions: whether leased off-site parking should qualify, whether additional parking must be within a defined village radius or on the developer’s property, who would own or maintain the spaces, and how to prevent a developer from meeting the bonus by acquiring remote parking that does not serve the village.

Members urged staff to refine the draft bonus numbers so the different routes are roughly equivalent in cost and burden — preventing developers from selecting the lowest-cost option exclusively — and to obtain more precise cost estimates. Commissioners suggested consulting Cathedral Square for senior/adaptable unit cost guidance and talking with public works and the select board to inventory existing village parking and feasibility (staff was asked to speak with Pete and to confirm public parking counts with Josh Arnison).

The draft remains under development; commissioners did not adopt final bonus ratios at the meeting but agreed to continue work and gather the cost and site information needed to adjust the draft. Staff will circulate revised language and the commission will revisit the package before any public hearing is scheduled.

The exchange included direct, repeated stating of options, numerical examples and concern over administration and enforceability; the Commission flagged that Buttermilk previously indicated limited interest in deep affordability but may revisit if financing conditions change. The Commission did not take a final regulatory vote on the Jolina Court package at the Sept. 4 meeting and will set next steps once cost and parking details are provided.