Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Middle Housing Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission advances draft to count ADUs as middle housing, narrows design standards
Summary
After reviewing survey results and design examples, Edgewood planning staff and commissioners agreed to move forward with a draft ordinance that counts accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a middle housing type and adds basic design standards; a public hearing was scheduled for April 14.
The Edgewood Planning Commission directed staff to advance a draft ordinance that counts accessory dwelling units as a form of “middle housing” and to hold a public hearing on the proposal at the April 14 meeting.
Staff told commissioners the public engagement run in February produced 102 survey responses and an open house with two attendees. Planning staff said, “we received a hundred and 2 responses,” and summarized that 93 respondents identified as residents and that opinions were mixed: about 44% disapproved of middle‑housing development while about 46% supported it.
The recommendation to count ADUs as middle housing — labelled in staff materials as “option 1” — would treat ADUs as principal dwelling units for density calculations in certain zones. Planning staff showed two illustrative site configurations to explain how including ADUs in middle‑housing counts would affect lot development and overall units per acre. Staff warned that infrastructure limits, especially septic and sewer availability, remain key constraints.
Commissioners discussed the tradeoffs between options. Commissioner Carly Guillory said she was “torn” but leaned to option 1, citing repeated public comments about preserving neighborhood character while acknowledging that counting ADUs would help meet middle‑housing targets. Commissioner Tom Green and Commissioner Jan Jury also expressed support for option 1 as more consistent with what residents have described. Several commissioners asked staff to retain flexibility for exemptions where conversions are internal to existing homes.
The draft ordinance also contains proposed design standards intended to maintain compatibility with single‑family neighborhoods. Staff described potential requirements including small front porches (minimum 3 feet depth), a transparency requirement for street‑facing facades (15% minimum), garage setbacks, shared open‑space minimums for cottage clusters and a 20% common open space threshold. For cottage housing staff proposed a 1,600 square‑foot maximum and guidance for minimum private or shared open space. For solid‑waste collection, staff proposed criteria (for example, a 30‑square‑foot area for small multiunit groupings) and noted applicants could demonstrate safe waste collection at permit stage.
Staff emphasized they were trying to avoid highly prescriptive material or color rules. They also said state law limits where ADU design standards can be applied, noting that “state law … does not allow ADU design standards if they would be applied only to detached single‑family homes.”
Next steps: staff will prepare the draft ordinance updates incorporating commissioner feedback and present visuals and the public hearing at the April 14 meeting.
