Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adu Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances ADU and neighborhood-residential zoning changes; several ADU relaxations pass
Summary
During item 2 on Sept. 18 the committee adopted a package of amendments to Council Bill 120993 that expand paths to ownership for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), exempt ADUs from FAR and density counts in many cases, and raise size limits for certain ADUs. One proposal to broaden after-hours eating/drinking in residential zones failed.
Seattle ' The Select Committee advanced multiple amendments to Council Bill 120993, which implements neighborhood-residential zoning changes and ADU policy, adopting a set of measures intended to expand housing options and ownership pathways.
Key votes and policy changes: The committee adopted Amendment 54 to permit accessory dwelling units to be part of a unit-lot subdivision, creating clearer pathways for ADU ownership. It also passed measures to keep ADUs exempt from FAR calculations (Amendment 56) and from unit-density caps (Amendment 58 v2), effectively allowing ADUs in addition to principal dwelling units in many contexts.
Size and family housing: The committee approved modifications that increase ADU size in certain targeted cases. Amendment 55 raises the maximum ADU size from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet for lots in Low Rise zones that are within frequent-transit areas and that meet a "legacy homeowner" criterion (property not purchased for value in the past 20 years). Amendment 57 allows a larger cap (1,200 square feet) for ADUs with three or more bedrooms, aiming to encourage family-sized ADUs.
Supporters framed the package as promoting affordable ownership and family housing. Sponsor Councilmember Rink said the changes provide "additional paths to not just homeownership, but land ownership too" and called ADUs an important, affordable pathway. Councilmember Kettle and others supported exemptions and size increases as anti-displacement tools; several members asked staff about potential loopholes and whether the "purchased for value" test would be administrable.
A failed expansion of commercial uses in residential zones: The committee rejected an amendment (66) that would have broadened allowed commercial uses in neighborhood-residential zones to include eating-and-drinking establishments, remove a 2,500-square-foot cap and eliminate time-of-operation limits. Supporters said the change would enable small groceries and corner stores; opponents cited public-safety and compatibility concerns and the amendment failed.
What happens next: The ADU and zoning amendments adopted in committee will be folded into the council's bills and are subject to the same SEPA and procedural steps flagged earlier for the comprehensive plan. Staff indicated more technical work to align code language and to implement some of the legacy-owner and size rules.
Quotes from the meeting: Councilmember Rink said of ADU ownership: "This amendment provides additional paths to not just homeownership, but land ownership too." Councilmember Saka asked staff whether the "purchased for value" test could invite predatory buying and whether further director rules or guidance would be needed; staff acknowledged follow-on guidance may be required.
Bottom line: The committee advanced a pro-ADU set of changes designed to increase ownership opportunities and family-sized units in some areas while rejecting a broader retail/night-hours expansion in neighborhood residential zones.
