Soldotna staff urge clearer ADU rules to close loopholes around oversized accessory buildings

City of Soldotna staff led a work session reviewing the city DU (accessory dwelling unit) ordinance adopted in 2022 and recommended tightening language to close loopholes that have allowed large accessory structures with living space to escape ADU limits. "This was adopted or enacted back in 2022. And since then, we've only had one ADU issued in the city," the staff member said, noting one additional permit is pending because of a building-code issue.

Why it matters: Workshop participants said the ordinance was intended to expand small, long-term housing options for seniors, young people and seasonal workers, not to enable more short-term vacation rentals or let oversized garages function as housing. Committee members emphasized Soldotna lready has limited small rental units and said ADUs were meant to help increase long-term housing stock.

What was proposed and debated: Staff outlined several recurring problems and potential fixes: - Zones and eligibility: The ordinance currently lists by zone where ADUs are permitted (single-family, single-family/2-family, rural residential and multifamily). Staff suggested simplifying the rule so ADUs are allowed when a single-family or duplex principal building exists on the lot rather than by zone listing, to avoid unintended loopholes in multifamily districts. - Size limits: The code caps ADUs at 750 square feet. Staff and members discussed replacing a flat cap with a relative cap (for example, a percentage of the principal dwelling—5% was discussed) or otherwise clarifying whether the ADU footprint should be the limiting measure to preserve residential scale. - Accessory-structure loophole: Members described a trend of large detached shops or garages built with living quarters ("mother-in-law" units). Because existing accessory-structure rules lack a clear habitable-space cap, those structures can effectively create additional housing without being regulated as ADUs. Staff called this a loophole that needs concurrent review with the ADU rules to avoid inconsistent interpretations of setbacks, heights and lot-coverage. - Setbacks and waivers: The ordinance includes a front-yard requirement that can read as 60 feet from the lot line or at least 10 feet behind the principal building face; staff said the 60-foot rule is unclear and the 10-foot behind-plane standard is more reasonable. The code also allows waivers (for example, a 10% size waiver); staff recommended removing or tightening waiver authority to avoid routine exceptions becoming the norm. - Parking, utilities and redundancy: Staff said parking and some utility provisions repeat existing city standards and recommended removing redundant language. Staff also suggested deferring some overlay-specific standards (for example, those in the Kenai River Overlay District) to the overlay rules rather than repeating them in the ADU ordinance. - Owner-occupancy and rental intent: The group confirmed that duplexes and multifamily units are not required to be owner-occupied under current rules. Participants said the ADU policy intention was to encourage long-term housing (not add vacation-rental capacity) and discussed limiting short-term rental eligibility for ADUs to preserve that intent.

Voices from the meeting: Committee members stressed the local housing shortage. "It—an't be easy to find a place to live in town," one committee member said, citing a lack of small, long-term rental homes for recent graduates and seniors. Another participant said the ADU provision was meant to encourage owners to add long-term units rather than enable more Airbnbs.

Next steps: Staff said they will summarize discussion points, draft proposed revisions informed by the workshop and bring them back as new business for the commission to review. Members were invited to send additional comments by email before the next meeting.

What was not decided: The commission did not vote on any ordinance changes at the session. Specific numerical thresholds (for example, a percentage cap tied to the principal building or a replacement for the 750-square-foot flat limit) were discussed but not adopted. Any statutory or code edits will return to the commission for formal consideration.