Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City holds public hearing on interim middle-housing zoning; developers warn rules may conflict with state law
Summary
The council held a public hearing on interim zoning adopted to comply with House Bill 1110; builders warned the draft restrictions could conflict with state requirements while a resident speaker urged denser infill.
The Puyallup City Council held a public hearing on July 22 regarding interim zoning regulations the city adopted in June to comply with Washington’s middle‑housing law (House Bill 1110).
Planning staff explained the interim code creates a temporary section allowing middle-housing types (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, stacked flats, townhouses and cottage housing) in single‑family residential zones. The interim rules permit two middle‑housing units per lot normally and up to four units where a lot lies within a quarter‑mile of a major transit stop or when one unit is affordable. The interim ordinance took effect June 22 and will remain in place for 180 days unless extended.
Paul Romich, a District 1 resident and long-time participant in the plan process, testified in favor of allowing middle housing and urged the city to prioritize infill to reduce sprawl and housing costs. The Master Builders Association of Pierce County raised concerns in testimony and a written letter: association representative Aaron Hollenberg said the city’s interim restrictions — which limit middle housing in parts of the city (for example, on lots in mapped critical areas and the volcanic hazard/Lahar zone) — may be inconsistent with state law and could be viewed as singling out middle housing in a way that conflicts with HB 1110.
Planning staff said the interim approach was adopted to meet a June 30 compliance deadline and to allow staff, the planning commission and the community additional time to develop permanent regulations. Staff emphasized the interim rules were crafted to limit development only where constrained by critical areas or hazard buffers and to reconcile the city’s hazard mapping with state requirements.
No council action was required at the hearing; comments will be used as staff and the planning commission prepare a permanent ordinance. Builders urged clearer, less restrictive options for locating middle housing near existing infrastructure; resident speakers urged the city to enable more infill and take advantage of existing services.
The city’s planning division said the next steps are: incorporate public input, work with the planning commission on a permanent code, and return to council with a proposed permanent ordinance before the interim code expires.
