Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coliving Rooming House topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks staff to refine approach to rooming-house and co‑living definitions to align with state law
Summary
Commissioners asked staff to examine whether the city’s 'rooming house' definition should be revised given state requirements to allow co‑living housing types and restrictions on regulating unrelated residents.
The Planning Commission on Sept. 17 discussed whether Anacortes should retain the existing code term "rooming house" or revise regulations to incorporate the state-required co‑living housing type and to ensure compatibility with state limits on regulating unrelated residents living together.
Why it matters: State guidance requires jurisdictions to allow co‑living housing in appropriate multifamily zones. Existing municipal definitions and building- or property-maintenance code references to "rooming house" may conflict with state law limits on regulating unrelated occupants.
Staff noted that co‑living housing must be allowed in residential zones that permit at least six multifamily units; the draft proposes permitting co‑living in the City’s R-4 and R-4A zones. Commissioners flagged a potential conflict with property and maintenance-code language that uses rooming-house terminology and cautioned staff to confirm whether removing or changing the rooming-house term could create regulatory or inspection gaps.
Commissioners asked staff to return with a clearer recommendation that reconciles the city’s building/property-maintenance definitions with the new co‑living requirement and to identify any existing code sections that reference rooming houses for operational or inspection purposes.
No ordinance or code change was adopted at the Sept. 17 meeting; staff will analyze definitions and return with a recommended structure and any necessary cross-code changes.
