Council debates loosening accessory‑structure rules and nightly‑rental limits

Community development director Eldon Gable presented a series of proposed code changes intended to clarify and modernize Washington City’s accessory‑dwelling and accessory‑structure rules. The staff package would remove a requirement that internal accessory dwelling units (IADUs) be on lots of at least 6,000 square feet, allow the property owner to live in either the primary residence or the IADU, and formalize language that treats IADUs as part of the main residence and subject to existing setback requirements. Eldon also proposed mirroring allowed heights for detached accessory structures with recent detached ADU rules and removing a 10‑foot separation requirement in some zones.

Why it matters: the changes aim to give homeowners more flexibility for additional housing while preserving neighborhood character and safety. Eldon said the revisions are largely definition‑oriented but include three substantive changes: eliminating the 6,000‑square‑foot lot minimum for IADUs, allowing owner occupancy in either unit, and restricting nightly (vacation) rentals in IADUs to match rules for detached ADUs.

Council members focused on several potential side effects. Multiple councilors asked whether the proposed nightly‑rental prohibition would conflict with properties already in a vacation‑rental overlay. Eldon said staff will draft clarifying text and seek advice from the city attorney. Council discussion also turned to how to define “rear yard” for the ordinance’s 30% coverage limit for shade and accessory structures. Some members argued 30% is too restrictive for smaller lots (R‑1‑6, R‑1‑8), proposing higher percentages—one suggestion was 50%—while keeping larger lots at 30%.

Eldon told the council staff will return with clearer language tying the rear‑yard percentage to a defined buildable envelope (setback‑to‑building distance) and provide options for different lot sizes and zones. The council praised the objective of increasing housing flexibility but repeatedly emphasized that any change must avoid creating conflicts with existing overlay zones or allowing circumvention by short‑term rentals.

Next steps: staff will return with revised ordinance language that clarifies the nightly‑rental overlay interaction, gives a precise rear‑yard definition tied to setbacks/buildable envelopes, and shows percentage options for different R‑1 lot sizes. No final ordinance was adopted on these code changes during the meeting.