Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Step Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenmore council directs staff to clarify review for 100‑unit step-housing projects and removes recommended good-neighbor language
Summary
The Kenmore City Council voted to ask staff to revise draft step-housing regulations so projects of 100 or more units follow a Type 2 administrative review and, in a separate 4–3 vote, struck footnotes and a definition recommending voluntary "good neighbor" agreements; a public hearing is scheduled for early June.
The Kenmore City Council on Monday directed staff to amend draft "step housing" regulations to clarify that projects of 100 or more units would undergo a Type 2 administrative land‑use process, and removed recommended language and footnotes related to voluntary "good neighbor" agreements ahead of a scheduled public hearing.
Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director Debbie Bent told the council she was "looking for direction on the step housing regulations to move forward to a public hearing." Bent recommended clarifying when an expedited Type 1 administrative process applies and when a Type 2 process—with additional public notice and an administrative appeal to the hearing examiner—would apply.
Council member O'Kane moved to amend the draft so that projects of 100 or more units would be subject to a Type 2 administrative review; the motion passed on a roll-call vote, 5–2. Recorded votes were O'Kane Yes, Marshall No, Culver Yes, (Council member) Admin Yes, Lutzis Yes, Deputy Mayor Sassen Yes and Mayor Nigel Herbig No. The council asked the city attorney to draft final language consistent with state law before the public hearing.
The discussion focused on process and community outreach as much as on thresholds. One council member urged the council to avoid imposing extra hurdles that would discourage developers, while others said the committee process and community input showed strong concerns about safety and trust that should shape how projects are introduced to neighbors.
Council member Culver argued against treating supportive housing differently through added requirements and recommended removing suggested good-neighbor language. "Good neighbor agreements, I don't think that's it," Culver said during debate, and moved to strike the footnotes and the draft definition related to good‑neighbor agreements. That motion carried 4–3: yes votes from Council member Admin, Council member Culver, Deputy Mayor Sassen and Mayor Herbig; no votes from Council member O'Kane, Council member Lutzis and Council member Marshall.
City Attorney (on the record during the discussion) reminded the council that state law limits what conditions the city can impose on step housing, including that the city cannot add unique requirements not applied to similar lodging or residential uses; she also noted limited carve‑outs in state law that allow certain conditions for city‑owned or publicly funded properties.
Next steps: staff said it will work with the city attorney to translate the council’s direction into revised draft code language and advertise a public hearing tentatively scheduled for the first council meeting in June. After the hearing, the council will consider formal ordinance action at a future meeting.
The council also considered, but did not adopt, other proposed edits during the session; one motion to remove the draft certification section (18.77.070) failed for lack of a second.
