Approximately 21,000 of our Summit County workforce commute daily from outside the county. A good many of these are lower-paid hospitality and service workers. Others work for our local governments, for our sheriff’s, police and fire departments, or for our school districts. While some ma y prefer to live outside the county, say in the more vibrant social scene of Sugarhouse, many would prefer to avoid the time and expense of commuting if only local, affordable housing were available. Unfortunately, high costs for both property and construction have made it all but impossible for the free market to provide such housing. A scarcity of available property appropriate for such housing is also a big part of the problem. The willingness of our electorate to approve open space bond issues (largely paid for by second-home owners) has supported preservation of a large portion of the remaining undeveloped, but developable property. Adjacent to existing neighborhoods, served by existing public utilities, located near public transit, and accessible to shopping and local services — at least some of this land could have been built out as housing for our local workforce had it not been wholly covered by conservation easements. Still, those who can afford to live here like being buffered by public, preserved open space and conserved agricultural lands. The clear politics are that no portion of these currently preserved properties can be repurposed without risking civil unrest. The Summit County Housing Authority has been tasked with developing strategies to address both current and future housing needs. As one of these strategies, I propose exploring whether future public open space acquisitions might also provide opportunities for affordable and workforce housing. Conserve Land and Leave Space for Housing Most of our public open space acquisitions involve the bargain sale of a former ranch. The deal structure usually involves payment to the former landowner from a combination of private contributions and public monies and sometimes a partial donation from the landowner. A conservation easement is then imposed on the property to ensure it is never developed. The easement typically covers the whole property, including those portions with significant conservation values as well as those less-pristine areas that might be suitable for clustered housing. For example, most ranches have a ranch compound area. Often these compounds are on good access and are the portion of the ranch closest to public services, but with the least conservation value. Sometimes, these compounds will have the added advantage of being buffered from nearby development by agricultural open space that when preserved under a conservation easement, would provide cultural and recreational values to any housing built there. If such compound areas were excluded from the conservation easement paid for with public monies, they might instead be part of a landowner donation (e.g., to the county or the Housing Authority) or be allocated a nominal value (which could then be paid by the Housing Authority) in order to preserve their availability for needed workforce housing. There are a number of ways in which this kind of deal could be structured to accommodate the stewardship, philanthropic and tax strategies of the various parties to the transaction. Ultimately, such areas could be designated a “housing overlay” zone — which would allow for densities, development standards, and affordability requirements suitable for affordable and workforce housing — and be placed in the hands of entities committed to development of such housing. Rezoning and Infill for Quick Wins Another strategy already being undertaken by the Housing Authority is to locate remaining infill sites that are most suitable for affordable and attainable housing and identify ally organizations and financial resources to develop those sites. We are using county GIS resources to identify housing-appropriate infill parcels under public ownership (state, county, school districts, etc.). The idea is to work with the owning public entities to improve the value they get from those parcels through rezoning for appropriate mixed-use development that would include affordable and attainable housing. The Housing Authority might serve as the catalyst in helping these owners work with planning/zoning authorities, funding sources (both public and private), and construction partners (such as Habitat for Humanity) who can help achieve their goals most cost effectively. For example, under this strategy school districts might create housing for their employees and fire districts might build homes for firefighters. In connection with the above, we should also consider making it easier to build workforce, affordable or congregate housing on properties already owned by charitable or public entities. Some local charitable organizations (think churches and organizations like Summit County Clubhouse, Peace House, or the Children’s Justice Center) already own well-located properties that have the potential to provide housing (both short-term and long term) for their constituencies but aren’t zoned appropriately for these uses. To address this issue, Colorado recently enacted legislation (HB 26-1001) that creates an administrative process for expedited rezoning and land plan approvals for affordable housing projects on parcels owned by governmental entities, nonprofits, or local housing authorities. This approval process would allow affordable residential projects to be constructed on qualifying properties as long as certain basic requirements are satisfied with respect to design, access, and public services. Recruit the Public through ADU Incentives In addition to making it easier to build affordable housing on publicly owned land, we are considering incentives for private homeowners to provide additional housing on their own residential lots. Accessory dwelling units already provide a good mechanism for encouraging private creation of rental housing that is often more affordable for our workforce than typical multifamily or single-family homes. Increasing the size of permitted ADUs from 1,000 square feet to 2,000 square feet on properties of at least an acre would allow for more bedrooms, thereby increasing affordability of this housing for people with kids or who want to share costs with roommates. This strategy holds special promise for eastern Summit County where there is no small-lot or multifamily zoning that might otherwise permit affordable small homes and multifamily rentals. Ultimately, financial resources to subsidize affordable housing are limited. Some people suggest just letting things continue as they are with much of our workforce commuting from Salt Lake, Heber or even Evanston. However, this won’t work in the long run, as the continued expansion of our resorts will ultimately lead to complete local gridlock as residents, resort guests, and commuting workforce all hit the roads at once. We can avoid (or at least delay) this approaching carmageddon with strategies such as those outlined above. Rich Sonntag is a commissioner and vice chair of the Summit County Housing Authority. This article reflects his personal thoughts and does not reflect the position of the authority as a whole. A retired attorney, community developer and member of the Urban Land Institute, Sonntag also served nine years on the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission and is a longtime member of the Eastern Summit County Agriculture Preservation Open Lands Advisory Committee. The post Three proposals for affordable housing appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less