Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Triplex And Inclusionary Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses triplex rules, unit‑lot subdivisions and inclusionary zoning legal limits
Summary
Commissioners reviewed triplex code placement, unit‑lot subdivision rules (House Bill 1096 referenced), utilities separation for multi‑unit lots, and constraints on local inclusionary fee programs; staff to follow up with legal review and counsel guidance.
At the Oct. 5 meeting the Touch Commission discussed several related housing‑code topics: the draft triplex (R‑3) provisions, unit‑lot subdivisions (citing House Bill 1096), separate utility hookup requirements for multiple units, and tools such as inclusionary zoning and conditional‑use permit (CUP) standards.
Staff said House Bill 1096 (referenced as a legislative change) allowed certain unit‑lot subdivision processes and that local code already contains similar provisions for small lot subdivisions. Commissioners and staff reviewed how existing parcel consolidations and historic lot lines interact with new subdivisions and noted that some lots had been formally consolidated in the past and cannot be split without meeting current standards.
On utilities, commissioners agreed that separate water and sewer services are preferable for multi‑unit developments but noted this requirement has raised administrative and regional jurisdiction questions in the past. Staff recommended removing duplicative utility language from the triplex section and relying on utility chapters (title 14) or related ADU rules, to avoid conflicts with county interpretations.
The commission also discussed inclusionary zoning and the legal constraints to charging developer fees; staff said the city’s legal review is ongoing, and that nexus studies and case law will determine whether mandatory fees or voluntary agreements are permissible. Commissioners agreed to pursue more work on CUP standards and R‑3 provisions during the slower winter months and asked staff to coordinate with legal counsel about feasible inclusionary tools and fee mechanisms.
No formal votes were recorded on these items during the meeting; staff will consult the city attorney and return with clarified language and options.
