Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews zoning and critical-area amendments; staff to return for Dec. 1 action
Summary
City staff reviewed proposed zoning and critical-area code amendments to align University Place regulations with the comprehensive plan and recent state law changes, including definitions for step housing introduced by House Bill 1220.
City planning staff presented a package of zoning and critical-area code amendments Monday that they said are intended to bring University Place’s development regulations into consistency with the city’s recently adopted comprehensive plan and with state law.
Community and Economic Development Director Kevin Brisky and Planning Manager Kenneth George said the amendments respond to the Growth Management Act periodic-update process and state legislation, most notably House Bill 1220, which adds definitions and requirements for so-called step housing (emergency shelter, emergency housing, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing).
Kenneth George summarized the staff recommendations, noting some changes driven by state agencies’ “best available science.” He described two key technical items: a change in how wetland buffer habitat scores are treated (one habitat-score column was consolidated, which changes some buffer widths) and Fish & Wildlife’s recommended method for stream buffers based on a site-potential-tree-height analysis. Staff said the city is proposing a hybrid approach: retain standard, charted buffer widths for predictability while allowing a site-potential-tree-height study as an alternative method.
On housing, staff said the state-mandated definitions require jurisdictions to allow certain step-housing types in specified zones. For example, staff said emergency housing must be allowed in any zone that permits hotels; transitional housing and permanent supportive housing must be allowed in zones that permit residential uses.
Council members asked for clarifications and raised concerns. Councilmember Fleming asked for an example of transitional housing and expressed concern about whether people with certain criminal backgrounds could be placed in such housing near schools; she asked staff and the city attorney to review options to address public safety while complying with state law. Councilmember McCluskey asked for more detail about amenities and the timeline for developer-led trail work tied to a separate acquisition item (staff answered those questions in the earlier agenda item).
Staff said the planning commission reviewed the amendments over six meetings and held a public hearing; the commission recommended adoption. Brisky told council the city intends to bring the ordinance back for council consideration on December 1 to meet the state periodic-update deadline. No formal council action was taken Monday; the item was a study-session review.
Next steps: staff will refine code language, produce an ordinance for formal council action and confirm any legal limits on additional local restrictions that council may ask staff to investigate (for example, public-safety-related conditions tied to transitional or permanent supportive housing).
