City staff and councilors spent the evening refining a proposed affordable-housing code package meant to consolidate incentives such as density, setback and height variances and an expedited review pathway.

Planning staff presented a simplified approach: make incentives available only for income-restricted housing at 80% of area median income (AMI) or below and require that at least 50% of units on a site meet the AMI threshold to qualify. Staff recommended a single AMI target to simplify administration and avoid using the zoning code to regulate tenure (rental vs. ownership).

Why it matters: Councilors framed the package as a tool to steer new development toward deeper affordability while preserving design and neighborhood controls. Council discussion focused on whether the incentives should be stronger for homeownership options, how long units should remain income-restricted, and whether the downtown mixed-use (DMU) zone should get additional stacked bonuses for very-low AMI projects.

Key elements and council direction

Staff proposed: a consolidated section of the zoning code offering up to 10 streamlined variances in a single expedited Type 2 review; a 50%-of-units-at-80%-AMI threshold to qualify; a 10-percentage-point bonus if 100% of units are income-restricted; and preserving existing downtown bonuses.

Council feedback included these themes:

- Homeownership vs. rental: Several councilors urged stronger incentives for homeownership (community land trusts and deed restrictions were discussed), but staff cautioned that enforcing long-term ownership restrictions through zoning is administratively complex and better handled through financial or programmatic tools. Council asked staff to return with a menu of non-code tools and lower-administration options to incentivize ownership.

- AMI and tiers: Councilors debated whether 80% AMI should be the baseline or whether lower tiers (60% AMI) should receive larger, location-specific bonuses. The council gave direction to pursue a default 80% AMI target for the code while exploring an additive DMU bonus for projects that deliver 50% of units at 60% AMI.

- Length of affordability: Staff noted that federal practice often ties long-term affordability to funding sources (60 to 99 years). Council consensus favored 60 years as a minimum for homeownership incentives and 99 years for rental projects when required by funding sources.

- Review timelines and approvals: Staff described expedited review windows (100 days is standard in code; a 63-day option exists for some state-defined middle-housing land divisions). Council asked staff to retain an expedited but realistic review target and return with operational timeframes.

Examples and trade-offs

Staff showed three local example sites (a fourplex on King Road, a 15-unit cottage-cluster, and a 13-unit multifamily building on Lava Drive) to illustrate how incentives change building massing, setbacks and common open space. Councilors raised concerns about loss of green space on cottage-cluster sites if incentives reduce yard requirements and asked planners to protect minimum canopy and common-area standards.

What happens next

Staff will return with a revised draft that shows: (1) how code incentives and programmatic tools can better support homeownership (including CLT models), (2) a clarified DMU stacking option for deeper affordability at 60% AMI, (3) recommended affordability-term floors (60 years for ownership; 99 years tied to funding for rentals), and (4) finalized expedited-review timelines.

Voices from the meeting

Laura Weigel, Planning Manager: "The zoning code is a difficult way to regulate tenure...a better way to do that would be through the programming itself."

Council President Anderson: "If it doesn't work, we can amend as needed; a two-year follow-up to see if it's being used would be valuable."