Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews PRD zoning amendments to align with SB 181, debates garage-waiver flexibility for affordable units
Summary
Planning staff proposed PRD ordinance edits to comply with SB 181 and permit waivers of two-car garage minimums for qualifying affordable units; the council discussed parking stalls, minimum accessory storage and whether to keep the state-prescribed 80% middle-earnings threshold or relax it to encourage feasibility.
The council reviewed proposed text amendments to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) ordinance designed to align local code with SB 181 and to make it easier for developers to include lower-priced units in multi-unit projects.
Planning staff explained that SB 181 allows cities to offer limited flexibility—such as waivers of a two-car enclosed-garage requirement—if a unit is reserved at or below 80% of county median home price. Staff recommended clarifying how setbacks are described so that nontraditional unit orientations and rear/side access configurations are not inadvertently prohibited. The planning commission recommended the initial version, and staff circulated a council-member redline with additional clarifying language.
Council members focused on three practical issues: 1) whether the city should stick strictly to the state’s 80% threshold or relax it (for example to 85–90%) to make projects more feasible; 2) whether garage waivers should be transferrable within a development (allowing a developer to locate single-car or no‑garage units anywhere in the project as long as the promised total number of affordable units is met); and 3) minimum accessory enclosed storage when garages are waived. Staff proposed a minimum enclosed storage area (the draft referenced 100–150 square feet ranges and noted examples from peer cities) to prevent ad-hoc temporary plastic sheds that become long-term nuisances.
Planning staff will refine the draft language, seek developer feedback on practical design and administration issues, and bring a cleaned-up ordinance back to the council for a public hearing and potential action (staff referenced a public hearing date in the packet discussion on the 27th).
