Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board clarifies housing‑use categories and will keep short‑term rental parking waiver as administrative option
Summary
Planning staff clarified definitions and zoning allowances for co‑living, transitional/supportive housing and assisted living, and the board endorsed staff's administrative approach to short‑term rental parking waivers. Board asked staff to align definitions with state licensing where applicable and to post a consolidated latest draft online.
Planning staff spent substantial time clarifying how several housing types will be treated in the proposed zoning code update.
Key clarifications: co‑living housing is defined in the draft as a residential arrangement of up to 10 private sleeping quarters sharing common kitchen/living space; transitional and supportive housing were discussed as uses that generally involve more than a single‑family household and may be multi‑unit arrangements. Staff noted adult foster care (state‑licensed) typically is limited to a maximum of four non‑staff residents under state licensing and that the draft aligns that use with the current code's four‑person limit. Assisted living allowances were also adjusted so their zoning treatment aligns with supportive/transitional housing in the latest staff draft.
Board members and public commenters raised concerns about parking and neighborhood impacts if larger multi‑occupant facilities are allowed by‑right in lower‑density zones. Staff said co‑living (up to 10 private sleeping quarters) raises distinct parking considerations because such arrangements are not counted as individual dwelling units for parking calculations; that was a principal reason the draft treats some multi‑occupant uses as conditional in R1 while allowing them in R2 and LMU in certain cases.
Short‑term rentals: staff proposed that parking requirement waivers for short‑term rental licensing be handled by the zoning administrator at the time of licensing, with the expectation that an applicant demonstrate on‑site parking or an equivalent accommodation. The board indicated support for keeping the waiver process administrative while recognizing the topic may merit further public discussion at the commission level.
Public comment also asked for clearer posting of the single consolidated draft. Staff said she would update the online materials to reflect the board's recommended edits before transmittal to the commission.
