The meeting saw a discussion on the missing middle housing initiative, emphasizing the need for diverse housing options such as triplexes, fourplexes, multiplexes, and cottage courts. This initiative seeks to provide flexible and affordable housing solutions for residents at various stages of life. During the meeting, it was highlighted that these housing types could enhance housing availability and affordability, offering more choices to residents and supporting infill housing opportunities. The proposal aims to allow these housing types within medium-density zoning districts, namely R-3, R-4, and M-12. However, the board acknowledged that most development sites in these zones are already occupied, which could necessitate rezoning—a process noted for being costly and discretionary, potentially deterring developers.

The idea of permitting certain housing types in R-1 zoning districts was also discussed, which could bypass the complex rezoning process and allow developers to seek approval based solely on site plans. This adjustment could lower barriers to developing missing middle housing, fostering a more diverse housing market. The design implications were also a point of focus, particularly the orientation of housing with front-loaded designs, which could impact local drainage and increase impervious surfaces due to additional driveways.

Zoning compatibility was a concern, especially regarding cottage courts, which some board members felt might disrupt the visual harmony of neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes. There was a suggestion to permit detached townhouses or villas in R-1 districts while reserving cottage courts for higher-density areas like R-3 and R-4. This proposal aimed to balance the integration of new housing types with maintaining neighborhood aesthetics.

Additionally, the board examined potential reductions in minimum lot sizes and setbacks in medium-density districts to facilitate development. The Planning Commission had recommended reducing the minimum lot size in R-3 and R-4 districts from 20,000 to 17,500 square feet, aligning with a density threshold of eight units per acre. The possibility of revising the setback requirement from 20 feet was also considered, which could open up more opportunities for construction on various lots.

The discussion extended to the concept of cottage courts, with some commissioners advocating for the inclusion of tiny homes within urban settings, particularly near public transportation lines. This idea was presented as a promising direction for future housing projects, catering to diverse demographic needs, including seniors and students. The proposal for cottage courts suggested a maximum floor area of 1,500 square feet, promoting smaller, more manageable living spaces.

In addition to the housing discussions, the meeting also covered the approval of the 2026 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Annual and Administrative Plans. A detailed staff report was presented, explaining that the HCV Program, funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), aims to provide rental assistance to eligible households. The program currently operates with nearly 700 vouchers, including those administered on behalf of other housing authorities and project-based vouchers. The board voted unanimously to approve the plans for submission to HUD after a public hearing that received no comments from the public.

The meeting concluded with a review of the Home Energy Squad’s outreach efforts, which connected 185 residents with energy assessments over the summer. Notably, 72% of these visits served households with incomes below 80% of the area median income.