Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Units topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Orchard staff ready ADU code redline to comply with state middle‑housing laws
Summary
City planners presented a redline of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) chapter to bring local code into compliance with new state middle‑housing laws: the draft removes an extra ADU land‑use permit, allows up to two ADUs per lot, keeps a 1,000‑square‑foot maximum for ADUs, and relies on Department of Commerce recommendations.
The Port Orchard Land Use Committee on Feb. 19 reviewed a redline draft of the accessory dwelling unit chapter that staff will introduce to the planning commission as part of the city’s middle‑housing compliance work.
Nick Bond, community development director, said state middle‑housing laws prevent jurisdictions from imposing requirements on middle housing that are more restrictive than those on single‑family homes. As a result, the draft removes the separate ADU land‑use permit that the city had required in addition to a building permit.
"We now have to allow two units, per lot," Bond told the committee, explaining the city will permit up to two ADUs on a parcel and otherwise is limited in the additional conditions it can impose. He said staff retained a 1,000‑square‑foot maximum for ADUs and a height limit because units above the size limit would qualify as a different building type.
Bond said the draft incorporates several Department of Commerce recommendations and that many sections of the existing code have been deleted to align with state law. The document in the committee packet is an early draft intended to go first to the planning commission; staff asked the committee for any comments to pass along.
Committee members raised concerns about loss of green space and neighborhood character. Scott Deener, Board of Trust council member number 3, said he would let the planning commission "take first bite" given state mandates but expressed a general concern about top‑down prescriptive requirements. Jay Rose Pepe, the committee chair, asked whether the city’s ADU plan‑set program must be integrated into the code changes; staff said no, that the preapproved plans meet the existing code and the change would allow two ADUs on a lot where the plans already comply.
Bond said the changes aim to make it easier to build ADUs while complying with the state deadline. The committee did not make a formal recommendation at the meeting; staff will forward the draft to the planning commission for review and public hearings as required.
Ending: The redline ADU chapter is an early draft; staff will refine it through the planning commission process and proceed with the wider code updates required for middle‑housing compliance.
