Commissioners debate large-lot preferences and whether conservation-cluster incentives can preserve open space

Commissioners and staff spent extensive time weighing residents' stated preference for large lots against policy tools that can preserve open space while allowing more housing choices. Ben Tarbutton, planning manager, reminded the commission the code already contains a conservation-design (cluster) subdivision provision but "the incentives are not there," and that absent incentives developers typically choose standard large-lot subdivisions.

Participants pointed to practical obstacles that make cluster development difficult: higher upfront infrastructure costs, the need for community water or sewer systems, regulatory timelines to approve public systems and the difficulty homeowners have in maintaining HOA responsibilities. One resident, Terry, recounted past use of conservation easements in the Lower Basin and noted high land prices: "I paid $42,000 for the lot that my house sits on in 1995... Those lots are selling for almost 400,000 now for 5 acres." Commissioners discussed possible incentives including bonus density (allowing more lots if open space is conserved) and recommended staff examine examples and revisit density bonus options in the draft code.

Staff identified Bella Ridge (a Greens Ferry-area subdivision approved around 2005) as a local conservation-tract example and offered to share plat documents and easement language. Commissioners asked staff to explore how an incentivized conservation subdivision ordinance might address taxation, maintenance responsibility for conserved tracts, and which incentives would be legally and economically feasible.