Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Tools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners consider boosting housing tools: bigger conservation bonuses, ADU size tweaks and land‑trust ideas
Summary
Staff updated the commission on several housing tools — raising conservation‑subdivision density bonuses (example: up to 85% with CUP), nudging ADU size limits upward, cluster‑housing frameworks, and aspirational land‑trust set‑asides for upzoned sites. Commissioners emphasized utility availability, legal buy‑right constraints and the need for careful design standards; no policy was adopted.
The Planning Director reviewed a set of housing tools intended to increase housing variety and affordability: raising the conservation‑subdivision bonus, modestly increasing accessory‑dwelling‑unit (ADU) size limits, encouraging cluster housing in growth areas, and exploring voluntary land‑trust set‑asides when parcels are upzoned.
On conservation subdivisions, staff said the citizens work group recommended increasing the density bonus (an illustrative 85% bonus was discussed) and excluding floodplain and wetlands from the density calculation. The director proposed making higher bonuses available by conditional use permit (CUP) so projects receive discretionary design review. “If you want to go over 20%, then by CUP… I just say up to 85%,” the planning director said.
Commissioner 6 urged conservation‑subdivision designs go to CUP to ensure agricultural land and resources are prioritized, and Commissioner 5 warned about legal and deed implications if the code's buy‑right options were removed. Commissioners also discussed the county’s permissive ADU rules and a simple tweak: nudging ADU allowable size from the current zone‑dependent percentages (35%/50%) slightly upward to make ADUs more usable without invoking a planned district.
Staff raised a land‑trust concept as an aspirational, non‑code approach: when a parcel is upzoned, a portion of the land could be placed in a land trust to preserve long‑term affordability. The idea was described as voluntary and not a direct acquisition by the county.
The commission agreed the housing tools merit further study, with particular attention to water/sewer availability, legal constraints around buy‑right requirements, and careful design standards. Staff will include these options in the materials and maps circulated ahead of the next workshop.
