Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Product Types topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs ADUs, cottage courts and townhomes as local missing‑middle options
Summary
Members reviewed which product types from the toolkit could work in Summit County — ADUs, townhomes, cottage courts and low-rise multiplexes — and discussed tradeoffs including HOA structures, utility access and neighborhood compatibility.
Chair (S1) walked the group through product types the toolkit lists as suitable for rural and small communities and asked members which models might fit Summit County. "It talks about fee simple ownership, condo ownership, fee simple house hack, and then multigenerational joint equity," she said as a menu of options. Committee member (S3) noted townhomes are easiest for attached ownership because they can avoid some complex HOA structures, while ADUs ease HOA concerns but present density and utility-limit challenges.
Members emphasized that a product’s success depends on location and infrastructure: Silver Creek Village and Kimball Junction were raised as places near services where higher densities might work, while areas like Wanship or Colville would need a new service core to support denser development. The group asked staff to track where ADU size limits, HOA cost trends and sewer connections create practical barriers to each product type.
