Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing held on state‑required co‑living housing code changes; council asks for conditional‑use protections and staff will revise ordinance
Summary
Staff presented state model language requiring cities in Growth Management Act areas to permit co‑living housing; council members raised neighbor‑notice and conditional‑use concerns and staff said the ordinance will return after attorney review.
The council opened a public hearing on proposed co‑living housing code amendments required under recent state law changes.
Carl, the staff presenter, said the Department of Commerce provided a model ordinance and explained that a change in state law (House Bill enacted 06/06/2024) added a section to the Growth Management Act requiring cities planning under the GMA to allow co‑living housing as a permitted use on lots where at least six multifamily units are allowed. "The Department of Commerce provided a model ordinance, and it's been slightly amended for Quincy and is gonna be presented today here," Carl said.
Staff summarized key statutory constraints: the city cannot impose room‑dimension standards larger than state building code requirements; it cannot require off‑street parking beyond the state thresholds where transit exists within a half‑mile; and cities may not treat co‑living housing differently than other multifamily uses for density or affordable housing incentives. The presenter said the state deadline for adopting a local ordinance had been missed earlier due to planning commission quorum and noticing delays; staff brought the updated language back for compliance.
Council members pressed for limits and neighborhood notice. One council member urged making co‑living housing subject to conditional‑use review so neighbors within roughly 300 feet would get notice and a chance to review plans. "I would recommend that all these be a conditional use permit so that at least the neighbors... have an opportunity to see what's going in," the council member said. Another expressed concerns about potential unwanted uses and stressed the need to define permitted internal uses.
Staff responded that the code/land‑use chart in the draft already shows conditional use in some districts but suggested reviewing the ordinance with the city attorney to confirm allowable procedures and ensure the city complies with state limits while addressing neighborhood concerns. "I need to take it back to our attorney and just have it make sure we got this all right," Municipal Service Director Worley said, and the council agreed to delay formal adoption to allow revisions.
The public hearing closed with no public speakers signed up; the item will return to council after staff and legal review.
