Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council and staff refine draft incentives to steer more affordable units in new development
Summary
City staff and councilors discussed a draft zoning incentives package intended to encourage income‑restricted units, including tiered affordability targets, bonus height, and extra incentives for community land trust or other stewardship models; staff will take the draft to the planning commission for hearings.
Milwaukie planners and councilors continued a work session on a proposed zoning package designed to incentivize affordable housing by reducing selected development standards when projects reserve a specified share of units at targeted incomes.
Staff described the objective as using development and design standards to reward projects that provide income‑restricted homes. The draft ties incentives to the share of units that meet specific Area Median Income (AMI) targets and would allow additive bonuses, including an additional height allowance if at least half a project's units are income‑restricted.
Councilors debated tiering the incentives — offering benefits for different combinations of percent‑of‑project and AMI depth — and whether to allow smaller shares of very‑low‑income units to unlock incentives. Council President Will Anderson proposed tiers that would offer stronger incentives for deeper affordability. "If we're saying if you wanna build 30% AMI units ... you could have a smaller percent of the total units and still access incentives," Anderson said, urging a structure that gives developers options while aiming for lower AMI outcomes.
Staff and council also discussed ownership models and long‑term monitoring. Planning staff and the city’s housing staff cautioned that deed restrictions or city‑held covenants to preserve ownership affordability create an ongoing administrative obligation. One staff member explained that rental restrictions are often monitored by the developer's non‑profit partner or housing authority, whereas ownership models frequently require a steward such as a community land trust to manage resale controls and buyer qualification over decades.
Council signaled support for adding a limited bonus when units are held in a community land trust or demonstrably similar stewardship model, provided the language protects the city from perpetual compliance burden. "I like giving a little bump for land trust model," the mayor said; councilors asked staff to craft language that ties the bonus to an independent steward or verifiable stewardship arrangement rather than placing long‑term monitoring duties on city staff.
Staff said they will revise the draft to: (1) include tiered affordability thresholds, (2) clarify dispersal and design standards for income‑restricted units, and (3) add explicit language that defines acceptable stewardship models for ownership affordability. The revised draft will go to the planning commission for a public hearing and a work session before returning to council for formal action.
