A proposed ordinance to permit temporary housing uses in R‑3 and B‑3 zones drew extensive public comment and a split among council members during the planning and development committee meeting on Nov. 10.

The ordinance would allow conditionally approved temporary housing sites under certain safeguards, including review by the service/safety director and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Supporters, including Rob Delich and Ken Langus, urged the committee to move the measure to the full council so the city can use an additional tool to provide shelter and avoid legal challenges in the future. Delich said the city has “wasted time” and urged that the ordinance be placed on the agenda for a vote this year.

Several residents and stakeholders expressed detailed concerns about the proposed language. Christy Thomas, speaking for herself and some neighborhood board members, said the ordinance as written lacks clear limits: it does not define the maximum duration for temporary uses with sufficient precision, does not cap the number of shelters permitted per property or citywide, and leaves unclear whether a licensed local health or welfare agency must provide daily on‑site supervision or merely administrative oversight. “Without these details, temporary uses could unintentionally become indefinite,” she said.

Council members were divided. Member Thomas (council) expressed support for moving forward with added safeguards, arguing the ordinance provides multiple checks, annual review and conditional approval pathways. Member Swank said he had heard enough public concern and legal caution to conclude he did not hear committee consensus to advance the measure; he recommended consulting the law director on procedural rules for moving the item to first reading. The chair observed there was no committee consensus to place the ordinance on next Monday’s full‑council agenda pending legal guidance.

Committee members also discussed a specific pilot referenced in the ordinance (three Conestoga‑hut units proposed by the Gathering Place) and the sunset motel project as complementary shelter options. Members asked for clarifications — including a one‑year definition of ‘temporary’ with a maximum three‑year renewal in the draft — and discussed whether clarifications such as restricting applicants to licensed service providers or explicitly barring fees could be added if the ordinance advanced.

No formal vote to send the ordinance to first reading was recorded in committee; the chair said the item will be held while the law director’s procedural guidance is sought.