Coupeville planning commission recommends council adopt middle-housing and ADU code changes

The Coupeville Planning Commission on April 1 voted to recommend that the Town Council adopt proposed amendments to the town code that implement recent state middle‑housing laws and revise local rules for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), unit‑lot subdivisions and related zoning tables.

The commission’s recommendation follows a staff presentation and public hearing on draft ordinance materials that the planning director said were prepared under a Department of Commerce grant and a follow‑on local budget supplement. “Middle housing is not the fix for affordability here,” Joshua Inglerette, Coupeville planning director, told the commission, adding that the code updates are one tool among others to advance housing goals.

Why it matters: The changes aim to align Coupeville’s development regulations with state laws cited in the staff report (House Bill 1337, House Bill 1110 and Senate Bill 5258), set clear rules for ADU size and placement, and create a unit‑lot subdivision procedure that the town attorney advised must occur after final plat recording. The commission’s recommendation will go to the Town Council, which may hold a second public hearing before making a final decision; staff indicated the goal is formal council action in late May 2025.

Most important facts: Staff said the project began with a Department of Commerce grant focused on middle housing and that the town added roughly $5,000 from its own budget to hire technical consultants for code drafting. The proposed changes include: allowing duplexes across several residential zones and triplexes in medium‑ and high‑density zones; removing single‑family residential as the principal use in the high‑density zone; codifying accessory dwelling unit standards (including the 1,000‑square‑foot ADU cap retained from state guidance); drafting a new chapter (16.19) to govern unit‑lot (unit‑loss) subdivisions; and updating various definitions (including replacing “family” with “household”).

Staff described several specific edits that the commission included in its recommendation: striking a provision in CTC 16.10.040 (V.8) that tied ADU size to the principal building footprint; rewording CTC 16.19.05(F) so that unit‑lot subdivisions occur after final plat recordation; striking item number 5 in CTC 16.10.09 that limited combined detached accessory structure footprint; making several global zone name updates (for example, RM 9,600 to MDR in the draft); adding a column to table 16.12.0.04 to show the total number of dwellings allowed on a parcel; and adding ADUs to the local definition of middle housing under 16.04.0.06. The planning director also noted the town attorney recommended removing a draft restriction that would have limited unit‑lot subdivision to parcels where an ADU or unit comprised no more than 50% of the primary building footprint.

Public comment and commission questions: Two members of the public spoke in the hearing. One contractor urged the town to reduce perceived barriers for builders and suggested outreach and mediation tools to encourage more construction. A Zoom participant praised the changes and offered to discuss additional concerns in person. Commissioners asked staff detailed questions about setback reductions for ADUs, lot coverage, how the town would administer a reduced rear setback for a first ADU, the relationship of ADUs to historic‑district design guidelines (East Landing National Historical Reserve), and the town’s calculation of an 80% AMI affordability target referenced in the draft (staff said that implementation details on affordability verification would be developed as a separate policy step rather than encoded directly in the land‑use text).

Deliberation and vote: After public comment the commission deliberated and asked staff to include several clarifying edits in the motion to council. One commissioner asked that the code vocabulary be changed consistently from “single family” to “single household”; staff indicated that global terminology edits would be included. A commissioner moved a recommendation that listed the specific code edits; the motion was seconded. The commission approved the recommendation by voice vote; the meeting record shows the motion passed with all members present voting in favor and no recorded roll‑call tally.

Next steps: Staff will transmit the planning commission’s recommendation and the meeting minutes to the Town Council for its review. The planning director said the Department of Commerce grant closes in June 2025 and the town is targeting May 27, 2025 for council action on the ordinance. The council may schedule additional public comment or make further edits before adopting the code changes.

Context and caveats: Inglerette emphasized that state law establishes some minimums and preemptions — for example, the available number and sizes of ADUs and the requirement to allow certain middle‑housing types — and that local code must be drafted to avoid conflicts with those statutes. Staff repeatedly cautioned the commission that certain implementation details, such as the mechanics of affordability covenants or how 80% AMI will be measured, require separate administrative procedures or agreements and are not fully specified in the draft code. The town’s historic design guidance and critical‑area/shoreline regulations will continue to apply where relevant.