Planning Commission outlines local approach to new state middle‑housing and ADU laws; supports unit‑density and flexible ADU treatment

The Edgewood Planning Commission devoted a large portion of its Feb. 10 agenda to implementing recent state laws on “middle housing” and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Staff presented draft code changes and a public survey and the commission provided policy direction on several key choices the city must make before the state compliance deadline.

What staff said: planning staff summarized three state bills that will affect local code: the middle‑housing statute (referred to in the packet as House Bill 1110), a separate design‑review statute (House Bill 1293) requiring clear, objective design standards for certain housing, and the ADU statute (House Bill 1337). Staff also noted the city is a Tier‑3 jurisdiction under the state rules (Edgewood’s population characteristics require a minimum local accommodation of two middle‑housing units per qualifying lot). Staff made the city’s schedule clear: code changes must be adopted by June 30, 2025, to meet the statutes’ deadlines.

Key policy directions from the commission

- Unit density: commissioners supported replacing the city’s current “density per acre” metric with an explicit “unit density” approach for the single‑family and mixed‑residential zones that the statute affects. Staff said this approach aligns with the state guidance and reduces confusion about how middle‑housing units are counted at subdivision and permitting.

- Types of middle housing to require locally: the commission supported limiting the city’s required middle‑housing types to two‑unit forms (duplexes, stacked flats, courtyard duplexes and similar two‑unit configurations). Commissioners noted state definitions treat townhouses and some other forms as three‑unit or larger; in Edgewood staff recommended, and commissioners agreed, to tailor the list to two‑unit forms that the city must allow as a Tier‑3 jurisdiction.

- ADU counting and configuration: staff presented two options for ADUs: (1) count ADUs toward unit‑density (meaning an ADU would count against the two‑unit requirement on a lot) and prohibit ADUs on lots that already meet middle‑housing unit minimums; or (2) do not count ADUs toward unit‑density, allowing ADUs to coexist with middle‑housing units on the same lot. Commissioners signaled a preference for Option 2 — the flexible configuration that allows ADUs in addition to middle‑housing units in many cases — so long as the city retains design and infrastructure controls where needed.

- ADU panel points and size limits: staff explained the ADU statute sets a 1,000‑square‑foot baseline and limits local restrictions that are more stringent than those for the primary unit. Commissioners asked staff to bring back options for how to handle local maximums and the staff‑recommended language (the packet proposed a local cap tied to 80% of the primary unit or a numeric ceiling). Several commissioners asked staff to present alternative numeric examples (for example 1,200 or 1,500 sq ft) and the effects those changes would have on typical conversions.

- Design review and standards: commissioners debated how much objective design regulation to impose. Several commissioners supported clear, objective design standards for middle‑housing types to ensure compatibility with single‑family neighborhoods, including elements such as facade articulation, window area on street‑facing elevations and porch articulation. Other commissioners said the city should not impose a new, universal design standard on detached single‑family homes and cautioned staff about over‑regulation. The prevailing direction was: require objective, modest design standards for middle‑housing building forms and ADUs to ensure compatibility, but do not expand a strict universal design regime for all detached single‑family houses.

- Parking, solid‑waste consolidation and infrastructure concerns: commissioners instructed staff to provide more detail on off‑street parking, tandem/tenant parking allowances, compact‑stall dimensions, and how tree‑retention and site constraints should interact with minimum parking requirements. Staff noted state law limits how many parking spaces a city may require for ADUs (one space on lots smaller than 6,000 sq ft; two on larger lots; exemption within ½ mile of major transit), and that state law also allows tandem/tenant parking and compact stalls in certain conditions. Commissioners asked staff to return with examples and trade‑offs; they also asked staff to consider waste‑collection consolidation requirements for larger multi‑lot developments.

- Implementation, septic and utilities: multiple commissioners and staff emphasized that the main limiting factor for middle‑housing additions across much of Edgewood will be septic capacity and other utility constraints. Staff said lots not served by sewer (on septic) may be excluded from some ADU allowances per state statute; commissioners asked that the staff analysis explicitly map sewer availability and septic limitations for areas likely to see middle‑housing proposals.

Public outreach and next steps: staff confirmed a public open house on middle housing scheduled for Feb. 20 and a public survey running Feb. 1–Feb. 28. Staff said it will return with redline code language that reflects the commission’s direction, numeric examples for ADU size and density, a clearer parking standard proposal, and mapping of sewer/septic constraints before drafting final ordinances for public hearing and council review.

Quotes from the meeting (verbatim): “I would support recommending approval,” Commissioner Carly Guillory said regarding docket and timing for the study and added later about staffing capacity for housing work. Planning staff summarized the state requirement: “The middle housing bill will require is that the specific minimum number of middle housing unit types and specifically detached single family is not a middle housing type.”

What the commission did not do: no formal code amendments were adopted that night. The meeting produced policy direction for staff to prepare draft code language, options and numeric examples for the commission to consider at future meetings ahead of the June 30 statutory deadline.