Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission backs package of ADU and accessory‑structure edits and will forward recommended language to council

Washington City Planning Commission · April 15, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning commissioners recommended a package of code changes including removing the 6,000‑sq‑ft lot minimum for internal accessory dwelling units (IADUs), clarifying door-location rules to avoid duplex appearances, increasing backyard coverage limits for some residential tiers, and repealing conflicting accessory‑building code sections.

The planning commission on April 15 recommended that city council consider a set of amendments to accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and accessory‑structure regulations. Staff proposed removing the current 6,000‑square‑foot minimum for internal accessory dwelling units; refining definitions and plan‑review language to prohibit nightly rentals in certain overlays; and clarifying that exterior entrances to internal ADUs should be placed so as to avoid creating the street appearance of multiple front‑entry units. Commissioners asked staff to tighten ambiguous language (for example, clarifying whether casitas connected by breezeways are treated as detached ADUs) and to add edits to prevent inconsistent plan-review outcomes.

Separately, staff proposed aligning accessory‑structure rules across agricultural, RA and R1 zones — removing a 10‑foot separation requirement and permitting taller detached structures up to a 25‑foot cap in some cases — and increasing permissible backyard coverage percentages for certain R1 tiers pursuant to prior council direction. The commission reviewed the proposed changes, requested clarifications and approved forwarding the revised language (with additional edits discussed in the meeting) to city council.

Commissioners emphasized that final ordinance language should avoid vague phrasing that creates inconsistent enforcement by plan reviewers; staff acknowledged and agreed to incorporate the clarifications discussed before council consideration.