University Place considers implementation of HB 1110 middle-housing rules; council schedules public hearing

City planning staff and the city's consultant presented a second study session April 21 to review proposed code changes to implement House Bill 1110 (the state's middle-housing law), and the council agreed to schedule a public hearing to consider the ordinance before the June 30 statutory compliance deadline.

Kevin Brisky of the Community and Economic Development Department introduced the project and said the city must adopt implementing regulations within six months after its periodic comprehensive plan update; for University Place that statutory window requires action by June 30. Kenneth George, the planning manager, and Marcus Johnson of Maker's Architecture walked council through planning-commission recommendations and proposed code language.

Why it matters: HB 1110 requires jurisdictions to permit a baseline level of "middle housing" on lots zoned for single-family housing. The state sets certain minimums (for example, allowing two units on all residential lots and up to four units where one is income-restricted); local governments may adopt design standards and other objective rules that apply equally to single-family and middle-housing development as allowed by the statute.

Planning-commission recommendation and proposed list of allowed types The planning commission recommended the city adopt six of the nine middle-housing types specified in state guidance: duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, stacked flats and courtyard housing. The commission recommended excluding higher-density 5- and 6-plex options and deferring cottage-style housing to a separate future review.

Density and affordability rules Staff reiterated the state minimums: two units per lot as the default, and up to four units on a lot only if one unit is recorded as an income-restricted affordable unit under a 50-year covenant. For rentals the affordability threshold follows the state definition (rent plus utilities cannot exceed 30% of household income for households at 60% of area median income); for owner-occupied units the analogous threshold is 80% of area median income. City staff gave an example that, under current HUD AMI values discussed in the meeting, a 60% AMI rental threshold would translate to roughly $1,800 per month (rent plus utilities) as a ballpark figure for a qualifying rental unit.

Design standards and development rules The planning commission proposed new design standards intended to make middle housing compatible with existing neighborhoods while meeting state requirements. Key recommended elements included:

- Front-yard setbacks: reduce the front setback applied to living space from 25 feet to 20 feet (garages and carports would still be required to meet a 25-foot setback).

- Side and rear setbacks: retain 8-foot side setbacks and 30-foot rear setbacks for residential zones, with existing accessory-dwelling-unit (ADU) exceptions retained.

- Transparency and facade articulation: minimum percentages of windows/doors on street-facing facades, entry design standards and facade articulation to avoid garage-dominated streetscapes.

- Driveway/parking controls: limit the visual dominance of driveways (city proposal caps frontage used for driveways at 50% in illustrations and individual driveway widths; the planning commission recommended applying the maximum parking requirements allowed under state law: one space per unit on lots 6,000 sq ft or smaller, two spaces per unit on larger lots).

- ADUs and substandard lots: for lots smaller than the zoning minimum ("substandard lots"), planning staff proposed two paths to meet the two-unit requirement: (1) a single-family home with an ADU; or (2) a duplex. If the duplex option is chosen the owner could not also add an ADU on the same lot. Planning staff said the city has averaged 3'5 ADU permits per year and estimated roughly 30 ADUs on substandard lots historically.

- Unit-lot subdivision (ULS): staff proposed a new ULS chapter to allow unit-lot subdivision (a statutory tool) so individual units on the parent parcel can be created for separate ownership while the parent parcel remains the unit for zoning purposes. Staff recommended ULS follow the existing short-subdivision review process and include provisions to preserve common areas and prevent further subdivision that would increase nonconformity.

Parking, tree canopy and other trade-offs Council members pressed staff on practical trade-offs: parking demand and how that interacts with tree canopy and open space, the effect of smaller setbacks on livability and emergency access, and how to avoid garage-dominated street frontages. Staff said existing tree-protection rules would still apply and that jurisdictions are balancing competing priorities; the planning commission recommended strict driveway-width and transparency standards to minimize negative streetscape effects.

Next steps and schedule Staff said the draft code is in a 60-day state review (Department of Commerce) that ends May 20; council cannot take final action until the review is complete. The council directed staff to schedule a public hearing (staff suggested an early June council date) and to return the code for council consideration before the June 30 deadline, otherwise state law could preempt local regulations.

No final ordinance was adopted at the study session; council members asked for additional public engagement around cottage housing and design details prior to action.