Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colfax council continues public hearing on zoning change for community care facilities after legal questions
Summary
City planner presented a proposed amendment to Colfax Municipal Code (Title 17) to eliminate size-based distinctions for community care facilities at HCD’s request; council asked the city attorney to verify consistency with the housing element and continued the item to the next meeting.
Colfax city planner Kathy Peas asked the council to introduce and schedule an ordinance to amend two sections of Title 17 (17.64.080 and 17.72.020) to remove separate rules for small and large community care facilities and allow certain facilities by right in residential zones as requested by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Peas said HCD flagged the change during a housing‑element audit and that making the amendment could satisfy the state’s request.
Peas defined community care facilities as licensed non‑medical residential homes providing 24‑hour supervision and services to children and adults with special needs, and said the proposed change would eliminate a numeric size distinction (greater‑than‑12 vs smaller facilities) used in the current zoning code. She recommended advancing the ordinance so the council could waive first reading and schedule adoption at the next regular meeting.
City attorney Connor Harkkins and planning staff told the council they had concerns about a potential inconsistency between the city’s zoning code and the housing element. Harkkins noted that state law generally prevents local governments from requiring a use permit for facilities of six or fewer residents, but that cities retain authority to regulate larger community care facilities; he said he had not yet fully reviewed the housing‑element language Peas referenced.
Council members and members of the public asked whether drug‑and‑alcohol treatment programs would fall under the proposed amendment; staff replied that those programs are regulated under separate, higher state standards and would not be covered by a general community care‑facility allowance.
Because several council members expressed concern about allowing by‑right larger facilities in single‑family (R‑1) zones without clearer limits, the council voted to continue the item to the next meeting so the city attorney could review the specific housing‑element provision and clarify any general‑plan or zoning conflicts. No vote on the ordinance was taken.
The council’s continuation leaves the proposal active but unresolved; staff said they will return with the attorney’s findings and a revised recommendation at the next regular meeting.
