Monroe planners review state-mandated ADU code changes; public urges allowing ADUs in mixed‑use areas

Planning staff presented draft amendments to Monroe’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules Monday as they work to meet state requirements under House Bill 13 37, and one resident urged the commission to also allow ADUs in mixed‑use neighborhoods.

The proposed amendments, presented by Amy (planning staff), would bring Monroe’s code into alignment with the state law, staff said. "House Bill 13 37 passed, and it requires jurisdictions to adopt new ADU regulations by 6 months after the adoption of their comp plan," Amy told commissioners, noting the city’s June 30 deadline.

The staff proposal would allow up to two ADUs per lot in single‑family zones (attached, detached, or both), remove the city’s owner‑occupancy covenant and affidavit requirements, and move ADU decisions from a Type 2 land‑use review to an administrative Type 1 decision to speed permitting. Staff recommended keeping one additional off‑street parking stall per ADU in Monroe because the city has no transit stops that meet the state definition of a "major transit stop."

Nut graf: The changes are largely driven by state law intended to expand housing supply; Monroe staff are proposing the minimum code changes required by the statute while commissioners pressed for more local analysis on unit sizes, design standards and neighborhood impacts before formal adoption.

Details: Staff explained several specific ways the draft will change local practice. The state requires jurisdictions to allow ADUs in all zones where single‑family dwellings are permitted and allows two ADUs per lot; it also limits how restrictive local setback, entry‑door location, tree retention and yard‑coverage standards can be compared with the principal dwelling. Amy said the city currently allows only one ADU per lot and that the draft would permit two and remove the separate owner‑occupancy requirement.

On unit size the staff presentation discussed a threshold tied to state guidance: "the local governments may not require ADUs to be smaller than a thousand [square] feet," Amy said, adding Monroe could choose a larger maximum but must not adopt standards that make ADUs effectively impossible. Commissioners debated how to translate the state language into local code. Commissioner Dawkins and others pointed to a draft line that would limit ADU floor area to "the larger of a thousand square feet or 40% of the total floor area," and some commissioners said they preferred the 40% measure be based on the principal dwelling only.

On permitting and review, staff proposed moving ADU approvals to a Type 1 administrative decision, which would eliminate the mailed notice and public comment step that accompanies a Type 2 review. That prompted discussion: Commissioner Brandy Blair said she opposed further expedition beyond the Type 1 change, arguing public input helps spot neighborhood impacts; others noted faster turnaround could reduce time and cost for applicants. Amy said staff would return with more detail on expedited review options and capacity implications.

Public comment and neighborhood issues: Stacy McGrader, who identified herself as a Monroe resident at 514 West Main Street, told the commission she supported the state mandate but asked the city to "please consider expanding it to the mixed use neighborhoods also." McGrader described a block near her home that includes both small commercial uses and single‑family homes and said allowing ADUs in mixed‑use areas could better realize local mixed‑use character.

Staff noted other practical questions remain, including utility connections, metering and whether separate sewer/water/electric connections should be allowed for ADUs. Amy said the city currently allows one sewer connection per lot and that public works would be part of follow‑up conversations. The packet also included guidance from Commerce and examples of preapproved plan programs used by larger cities. Amy said staff will research preapproved plan models and liability/fee arrangements and bring examples back to the commission.

Ending: Commissioners did not take a final vote on the ADU code amendments Monday. Staff said it will refine the draft language—particularly the square‑footage/percentage calculation, the preapproved plan options and parking/utilities questions—and return for further discussion and a future public hearing. The ADU changes must be adopted by June 30 to meet the state timeline.