Work to implement the first phase of a plan intended to address housing needs in Clark County made some progress last week, though concerns over some proposed changes to county zoning code have postponed full approval until at least September.
During their July 25 meeting, the Clark County Council voted 4-1 to approve text changes to the county’s comprehensive growth management plan. Those changes implement part of a “Housing Options Study and Action Plan” crafted and approved by the county last year.
The housing options study’s main purpose is to promote ways to encourage development of affordable housing while creating a variety of housing types and cost levels. In May 2022, the County Council approved the plan, and later that year a public participation process began, Elizabeth Decker, a consultant for the plan, said.
Changes proposed
The first phase focused on “middle housing” and smaller single-family residential code updates. Those changes addressed accessory dwelling units, duplexes and larger “plex”-type housing, cottage housing, compact lots and townhouses, according to the staff’s presentation.
The code changes covered a range of adjustments to land use in the area of Vancouver’s urban growth area. That area is a designation given to land where the city must expand first by annexation per state law. The area generally extends north from Vancouver city limits including Orchards, Hazel Dell and Salmon Creek.
Proposed adjustments included reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing more housing types, such as townhouses in duplexes in all residential zones, adjusting accessory dwelling units for more flexibility, and increasing the lot coverage for middle housing, among others.
Compared with past hearings during the process, those testifying, who largely represented building interests, did not have as many major concerns over the code at the July hearing as before.
Daniel Wisner of Osprey Homes said the work that has been done is “90% complete,” but issues in the code still needed to be addressed.
“They really need to be changed because otherwise we are going to regret having rushed it through,” Wisner said.
He gave the example of restricting townhouse garages to a single car, which would be counter to the two-car garages he builds with his company.
Houston Aho of Aho Construction said the proposed driveway, parking and architectural design standards for compact lots, triplexes and quadruplexes had the “potential for severe architectural limitations.”
The remaining issues with the proposed code changes could cause more headaches and delays as developers try to build according to what’s new, Building Industry Association of Clark County Government Affairs Director Noelle Lovern said.
“If our community’s confused, reviewers are going to be confused,” Lovern said. “We don’t want to have to come back with amendments.”
Not all comments were from the building industry. Mark Maggiora, who served on the housing options study advisory committee, urged the council to create metrics to determine how successful the changes implemented have addressed the housing crisis.
“Establish some measures, start implementing today, and those measures will tell you how well you’re doing,” Maggiora said.
Councilors agree to
wait on code changes
Councilor Sue Marshall agreed with Maggiora on the need for metrics.
“We need to understand what our policy goals are and have a way to evaluate and measure whether or not we’re succeeding,” Marshall said.
Keeping in mind that the goal was creating housing residents could pay for, Marshall didn’t believe making lots smaller necessarily led to lower-cost homes.
“Let’s keep our eye on the prize, which is affordability,” Marshall said.
Marshall said the questions raised in testimony deserved taking a slower approach to implementation.
“I think there are some fundamental disagreements,” Marshall said. “They may be misunderstandings that would be worth having some more conversations about.”
Council chair Karen Bowerman agreed.
“It depends on who you get the answer from, what the approach is that is going to be suggested,” Bowerman said. “That needs to be refined, as well.”
Councilor Glen Yung didn’t feel the council could make a final vote on the changes at this time.
“Where I’m at is, I feel we’re still in workshop mode,” Yung said.
His uncertainty on the proposal increased from the testimony.
“There are some things you just can’t possibly think about until it lands in front of you,” Yung said.
“I think we’re way past a workshop mode,” Bowerman said.
In lieu of going back to a workshop, she suggested the council send questions to staff and then review it as a group. The council directed staff to answer their questions so they could reconvene to approve the code changes, likely in September.
Clark County Community Planning Director Oliver Orjiako suggested approving the text changes in the county’s comprehensive growth management plan. Those differ from the code changes themselves.
“Any additional change made to the code, these proposed text changes will not affect them,” Orjiako said.
He said the text change approval now was timely because county staff is coming before council in August for approval of all comprehensive plan changes in an annual review.
Bowerman was the sole vote opposing the text changes.
The text changes primarily defined middle housing, county attorney Christine Cook said. It didn’t address points of contention presented in testimony that exist within the code changes.
The comprehensive plan text changes will allow for those code changes when they come, she said.
“You have to have the plan before you have the code,” Cook said.
