Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Heights subdivision brings about 219 units; commissioners debate whether new housing will be 'affordable'
Summary
Staff described the Oak Heights subdivision as roughly 219 residential units (many duplexes) with wetlands preserved; commissioners discussed how increased unit counts affect long‑term affordability but were told none of the projects are formally designated as affordable housing.
Staff told the commission that Oak Heights, on the south end of town off Southeast 24th and SR 20, is planned for about 219 residential units, with a significant portion configured as duplexes under R‑2 zoning and a planned PRD (planned residential development) that preserves wetlands and public open space.
"Oak Heights Subdivision ... 219 total residential units," Ray Lindenberg said while outlining the project. He added staff expect construction to begin on houses in the spring after utilities and streets are completed.
Commissioners asked whether the new housing would be designated as affordable. Lindenberg said the projects discussed at this meeting are not formally designated as affordable housing. "I would say, number 1, there aren't this is not and none of these are quote unquote affordable projects designated as such," he said. He added that increasing overall unit supply "generally will reduce price pressures" and could indirectly improve attainability for some households, but that the county is separately moving forward with explicitly affordable projects (sites mentioned: a Windmill Place project and Camas Flats).
The commission also discussed how the city changed minimum lot standards (from 7,200 sq. ft. to allow smaller 3,200 sq. ft. lots), which staff said has enabled denser single‑family development and duplexes. Commissioners disagreed on whether the vision statement language about guaranteeing that "residents can find and afford housing suitable to their needs" should remain as written or be reworded to be more clearly aspirational, with at least one commissioner urging stronger aspirational language to guide policy.
