Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines code changes to meet state housing rules; commissioners raise traffic and service concerns
Summary
City staff told the Historic Preservation Committee that state law and recent planning updates require changes to local code to allow more housing types, and reviewed options ranging from accessory dwelling units to cottage courts and multifamily incentives; commissioners asked how growth would affect traffic, schools and services.
GIG HARBOR — City staff briefed the Historic Preservation Committee on proposed zoning and code changes intended to comply with state housing statutes and the city’s updated comprehensive plan, saying the changes will focus growth in targeted areas while largely preserving the downtown historic district.
“Going back to that, ’49, if you’re looking at someone making a 100% of median income… they can afford at max about $450,000,” Eric, a city presenter, told commissioners as he explained local affordability pressures and the need to remove regulatory barriers. He said the city’s average new‑construction price is around $900,000 and that state law expects jurisdictions to remove barriers for households earning below 80% of area median income.
Eric outlined proposed actions that could include reducing minimum lot sizes, permitting accessory dwelling units, modestly increasing building heights in selected non‑historic areas, and relying on incentives such as a multifamily tax exemption that would require 20% of units be affordable for 12 years in exchange for tax relief. He emphasized that the city intends to limit design‑review changes inside the historic preservation area.
Commissioners and attendees raised questions about traffic and public services: several members said adding housing could increase congestion in downtown and strain police, fire and school resources if infrastructure and amenities do not keep pace with growth. Eric said the city maintains a six‑year transportation plan, argued that some infrastructure costs fall to developers, and noted the state is providing funding for housing and support services but that jurisdictions must plan to connect housing with services.
Members also asked about tree canopy and environmental tradeoffs; Eric said the city is updating critical‑areas regulations and tree‑preservation rules and that the planning effort will include objective design standards to ensure consistency. Staff said code changes will be targeted to specific ‘blue‑blob’ areas identified on planning maps and that the downtown historic district would be largely protected from major changes.
Staff said a proposed code package should be available for the commission to review in the coming months before the council takes action.
