Milwaukie planning commission backs package of affordable-housing zoning incentives, 3-1

The Milwaukie Planning Commission voted 3-1 to recommend that the city council adopt a package of zoning amendments that centralize affordable-housing incentives, change dimensional and design rules for qualifying projects, and require long-term affordability for income-restricted units.

The amendments, filed as Type 5 legislative application ZADot2025Dot003 and tied to Milwaukie Municipal Code sections 19.902 and 19.1008, would consolidate the city—s incentives in one code section and offer adjustments such as additional allowable variances, height and coverage bonuses, allowance of ground-floor residential in specified downtown locations for qualifying projects, and an expedited 100-day review process required by state statute.

Why it matters: City staff and commissioners said the package is intended to implement the city—s housing production strategy and make it easier for developers to deliver income-restricted units in Milwaukie. Supporters said the combination of regulatory relief and prioritized review could reduce costs or timelines and thereby encourage more affordable housing development; some commissioners said the package is an experiment the city can adjust later.

What the package would do - Consolidate affordable-housing incentives into a single code section and make them available to qualifying developments (middle housing, mixed-use residential, and multiunit developments). - Establish qualifying affordability thresholds tied to unit counts/percentages: examples discussed included options such as 50% of units at 60–80% AMI, 40% at 40–60% AMI, 30% at 30–40% AMI, or 20% below 30% AMI (staff described a sliding set of alternatives so that fewer units could meet deeper affordability). Staff also noted a bonus of +10 percentage points for projects where 100% of units are affordable at 80% AMI or below. - Require proposals to describe procedures to maintain ongoing affordability: the draft originally required a minimum of 99 years of affordability for rental projects and 60 years for ownership projects; the planning commission—s recommendation aligns those periods to 60 years for both tenancy types. - Allow a larger package of adjustments for qualifying projects: up to 10 individual variance/adjustment requests could be bundled (for example, multiple setback reductions would count as a single bundled request in some cases). Adjustments discussed include reductions in façade articulation standards, reductions to landscaping/open-space requirements, increases to maximum lot coverage (example: +10 percentage points), additional building height (an extra story or 20 feet was discussed), and removing downtown limits on ground-floor residential on select streets for qualifying projects. - Change design-review pathways: multiunit developments in the downtown mixed-use zone that qualify for incentives could be reviewed under the multiunit design standards (chapter 500) rather than the more intensive downtown design standards. - Maintain an expedited review timeline: staff said the amendment codifies priority processing, inspections and a 100-day total review timeframe required by state statute for affordable housing.

Questions and concerns raised Commissioners pressed staff about how the ownership incentive would work in practice and whether limiting resale value or locking affordability for multiple decades is equitable for an owner. Commissioner Garvey asked staff to "walk me through" how an owner would be treated at resale and whether restricting long-term resale value would unduly limit wealth-building for early buyers. Staff and other commissioners said ownership models often use resale formulas or community land-trust arrangements that allow some equity growth while preserving long-term affordability, but they also said implementation and long-term monitoring of resale restrictions is outside planning staff—s capacity and would require a community-development program or outside administrator.

Commissioners also debated design changes. Staff said the proposal would reduce the required number of street-facing facade design features for some housing types from five to three to lower construction costs; some commissioners supported the flexibility and broader stylistic options that could result, while others urged maintaining higher facade standards so affordable housing is held to the same exterior-quality expectations as market-rate projects.

Townhouse run length: the draft raised the allowable consecutive townhouses in a qualifying development from four to six units. Commissioners proposed an alternative standard based on linear distance rather than unit count; the commission recommended changing the proposal to permit consecutive townhouses up to 200 linear feet (about one city block) in qualifying developments.

Correspondence and review Staff reported one letter of support distributed to the commission that same day from Housing Land Advocates and the Fair Housing Council of Oregon. Staff said the draft had been through three city-council work sessions, a planning-commission work session and that the city council hearing on the amendments was tentatively scheduled for Aug. 16.

Formal action and vote The commission moved to recommend that the city council approve the code amendments as amended by the commission: (1) replace the proposed change from 4 to 6 consecutive townhouses with a maximum of 200 linear feet of consecutive townhouses for qualifying developments; and (2) align the continued-affordability period so ownership and rental units are both held to 60 years in the commission—s recommendation to council. The motion passed 3–1.

Recorded roll call called by staff: Commissioner Garvey — Nay; Commissioner Gratieck — Aye; Commissioner Lothar — Aye; Chair Edge — Aye. (Three yes, one no; other commissioners were absent or did not vote on the record.)

Next steps The Planning Commission—s recommendation will be forwarded to the Milwaukie City Council, which will hold a public hearing and is the final decisionmaker. Staff advised commissioners that program details related to administration and long-term monitoring (for example, resale formulas or oversight of ownership affordability) are a separate policy and implementation issue that likely involves the community development director and city council rather than the planning-commission land-use review.

Ending note Staff told the commission the package is one of several strategies in the city—s housing production strategy and said more code packages will follow. The council will receive the planning commission—s recommendation and the record before making a final decision.