Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff present flexible point system and code tweaks to encourage affordable housing in Buena Vista
Summary
Planning staff outlined voluntary and mandatory inclusionary housing tools — density‑bonus tradeoffs, fee‑waivers, and a proposed flexible point system tied to water allocation and mixed‑use development — and trustees asked staff to refine proposals and seek developer feedback.
Town planning staff presented trustees with a menu of inclusionary housing tools Tuesday and proposed a flexible, points‑based option that ties development approvals and water allocation to community benefits such as workforce housing, long‑term rentals and job creation.
Planning presenter Joel (identified in the record as town planning staff) told the board the town’s Unified Development Code already contains several density‑bonus and fast‑track incentives but that the market has not produced the expected affordable product. Joel recommended either rolling back some built‑in density bonuses and re‑issuing them only in exchange for deed‑restricted affordable units, or adopting explicit quid‑pro‑quo incentives — for example, reduced parking or open‑space requirements in exchange for affordable units.
Joel also described a more structured mandatory option for major subdivisions: a flexible point system tied to water allocation categories, modeled on examples from other municipalities. Under the example Joel gave, a large subdivision would need to accrue a set number of points (his illustrative math used five points per percentage point of lots committed to workforce housing, long‑term rentals or new year‑round jobs) to qualify for water allocation and to move forward. Projects that cannot earn the required points could pay a cash‑in‑lieu fee; Joel used $10,000 per missing point as a worked example for discussion.
Trustees and staff discussed practical consequences: transaction costs versus transformation (fee‑waivers and subsidies) and the need for transparency in developer proformas. Several trustees asked staff to engage with local developers to understand why existing bonuses have not produced affordable housing and to return with specific code language and numerical examples so the board can evaluate tradeoffs. No formal code change was adopted at the meeting; staff were asked to refine the point system and return with more detailed proposals.
