[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6256886,"mediaKeyId","3155202-9ba978908c76080b569589cc8d4d2a63","parentId",3155202,"title","Commissioners discuss scaling residential impact fees under SB 5258; ADU and addition charges remain unresolved","audioSeconds",2087,"startMs",2190000,"endMs",4277000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155202-9ba978908c76080b569589cc8d4d2a63&start=2190&end=4277","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155202-9ba978908c76080b569589cc8d4d2a63/thumbnail_2190000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6256886/North-Bend/King-County/Washington/Commissioners-discuss-scaling-residential-impact-fees-under-SB-5258-ADU-and-addition-charges-remain-unresolved","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6256886-11f1244301ef4ef9a22e69b905662d09/orig.mp4?Expires=1776031115&Signature=OPQyOrELkEAzphRUnOMd9wTkfQPM7KIQ0R87PBA~3Un6SU4uqoKRQeS53p4TSw5K4BsSU5NY1fNfLS0E9T~LEOrOsI7h4pUtFs8thbPsq17H5QE3oUr7lqItJ6V0dBHqekywX39wAYSzMO83BBPBmUVKIoA9jVmIRf5LfkLRSieDM8s~DwdjSZ1NLYuYx1pRz8xSX8YV3hFrCz6UTfrNL-95SUHP4VwOWuFWsJv7PqzeCkpq6xZov~4BqBjy1jHZlFrdoFfJQg2Xzhja0ShEG9cvOQ9~msJC0B5BIbmE7WYLmE320qRj11DIM7C5MqHGNfxB3dTYm4TJU5m0fP5KHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Bend City, WA","date","2025-04-30T08:22:09.383Z","article","At its April 16, 2025 meeting the Planning Commission considered proposed changes to the city's development impact fees to comply with Senate Bill 5258, which requires jurisdictions to scale certain impact fees according to residential building size.

Staff recommended using a square-footage basis for residential scaling after a consultant study because it avoids ambiguity about bedroom counts or individualized traffic analyses. \"They recommended us to use the square footage basis because it's the simplest and, most uniform basis to apply impact fees,\" Giuliano, planning staff, said while describing the consultant FCS Group's analysis.

Commissioners discussed three key policy questions raised by staff: whether to continue exempting accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from impact fees; whether home additions should be charged (and, if so, at what threshold); and what definitions or credits the city should apply for lower-cost housing.

Major details and debate

- ADU exemptions: Staff noted the city has historically exempted ADUs in practice and that recent ADU rules allow up to two ADUs per single-family lot and up to 1,000 square feet per ADU (previously 800). Staff asked whether exemptions should continue. Commissioners were split: some favored continuing a broad exemption to promote housing affordability; others raised enforcement concerns if an ADU is created for sale. Several commissioners suggested treating a for-sale ADU (triggered by condominiumization) differently because the condominium step provides a point to collect fees. There was no formal decision; staff was directed to draft language that addresses the condominium/sale scenario and to seek legal and Department of Commerce guidance.

- Residential additions: Staff proposed charging additions that increase living area by more than 600 square feet, but recommended exempting smaller additions because of administrative complexity and limited revenue. Several commissioners expressed concern about penalizing homeowners improving an existing home and favored not charging for most additions. The commission directed staff to move toward exempting typical additions and to note that the policy differs from new construction.

- Income-based credits and exemptions: Staff proposed replacing a broad \"moderate-income\" exemption in the parking-related fee schedule with a narrower, low-income definition consistent with state guidance. Commissioners asked staff to return with an option for an intermediate definition/designation that is more rigorous than the prior \"moderate\" standard but not as narrow as the state low-income definition. Staff and the public-works director also recommended that larger exemptions for transportation impact fees be handled through negotiated development agreements rather than blanket code credits.

Other technical points

Staff said FCS Group calculated per-square-foot figures for transportation and park fees and used a benchmark median dwelling size of about 2,600 square feet; the proposal lowers fees for smaller units and raises them for larger units to aim for revenue neutrality over time. Staff also noted the state deadline for some compliance tasks and that the city received a state grant to pay the consultant.

Direction and next steps

Commissioners did not adopt final language. Staff was directed to draft proposed code text that continues to exempt ADUs in typical owner-occupied situations but that addresses condominium/sale situations and to return with alternative definitions for a \"moderate\" credit and with legal review from the city attorney and Department of Commerce guidance. Staff was also directed to keep additions generally exempt and to codify credit provisions for park improvements consistent with transportation fee practice. Staff said fee schedules will include an inflationary adjustment mechanism tied to CPI.

Ending

No formal vote was taken on the fee changes at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to return with drafted ordinance language and revenue projections before the public notice and hearing so council and the public can see fiscal impacts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","April 17, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission reviewed staff recommendations to scale transportation, park and other development impact fees by dwelling square footage to comply with Senate Bill 5258; commissioners split on whether accessory dwelling units should remain exempt and directed staff to draft options and consult legal and Department of Commerce guidance.","taxTitle","North Bend, King County, Washington","taxId",55603,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6256891,"Planning commissioners review limited edits to design standards to conform with ESHB 1293",4042,254000,4296000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3155202-9ba978908c76080b569589cc8d4d2a63&start=254&end=4296","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3155202-9ba978908c76080b569589cc8d4d2a63/thumbnail_254000.jpg","/articles/6256891/North-Bend/King-County/Washington/Planning-commissioners-review-limited-edits-to-design-standards-to-conform-with-ESHB-1293","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6256891-243685ebe2b484a7c59ebb90039e0033/orig.mp4?Expires=1776031115&Signature=lAkI2inALW3Oxy1I8Uk~6L6bEX0H92RkD9iykXLN5-wFhsjHupdDt0GY3HPWs0daUlJjIed1qGI3IK2aECmaumoKAGRegWP-TcWxdO-xANyroM3bqcQeLEMvipSJzZVeZreZQi~aIAk3OevbKWnVhBm0zKQPtBL8BuSaUlEOfsVoYRTnqIugpTBmN6xx8aYh8Bfykqt4EzpVYNLraJCxw-MjeIY0WPJAoF6pFOCfv5lV0Nm3o1PMssFcc-xGwmapiL~EAZZSkOD8Hnz2qwQxZ~g-eBjaajF376JdK4RKAsUgwPpAlahres1jMx4O~eH54fC7xvgOnS5eY6ScDMWeew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At its April 16, 2025 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to municipal code section 18.34 and the city's design standards and guidelines to conform with state law ESHB 1293 and to remove redundant or unclear provisions.

The changes are limited, staff said, and intended to clarify specific applicability and deviation criteria so local design standards do not conflict with the state-mandated requirements. \"The purpose of ESHB 1293 is essentially to remove barriers and, ambiguous architectural design standards,\" said Giuliano, planning staff, as he summarized the state law and the packet revisions. He said the code edits focus on applicability/exemptions, cottage-lot layout rules and multifamily dimensional redundancies.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about when the document uses \"should\" versus \"shall,\" the meaning and purpose of the illustrative photos, and how the deviation process will operate. \"Should does not give us bones. So it should gives information to the designer, but it's not something that we can enforce,\" Giuliano said in response to a commissioner's question about persuasive versus mandatory language.

Key points discussed included:

- Deviation criteria: Staff proposes adding one criterion to the deviation-from-standard subsection requiring that a deviation be necessary to avoid conflict with ESHB 1293. Commissioners were told that a deviation remains subject to the full set of existing criteria; the new item is an additional consideration rather than a standalone test.

- Redundant dimensional provisions: Staff proposed removing a redundant subsection regulating lot width and size in the single-family cottage standards and deleting a sentence about building height in the multifamily subsection because those matters are already covered elsewhere in the code (referred to in the packet as section \"1810\"). Giuliano said removing redundancy will reduce future conflicts if the city updates its dimensional standards.

- Illustrative photos and maps: Commissioners asked whether photos are illustrative or mandatory and requested clearer labeling. Staff said the photos are meant to convey design intent and are not prescriptive; staff will add captions and consider moving certain downtown standards into a form-based code or separate update.

- Formatting and editorial fixes: Commissioners asked staff to fix PDF/exhibit labeling (appendix versus exhibit A), to standardize bolding and emphasis for \"should/shall\" language, and to correct a few wording/grammar items flagged during the review.

Direction and next steps

Commissioners did not take a formal vote on the code amendments at the meeting. Staff said they will incorporate commissioner direction, consult the city's architectural consultant for clearer images and examples, correct formatting and emphasis issues, and return with an updated packet before public notice and the hearing. Giuliano told commissioners he expects to provide the updated materials at the next meeting and to include clearer exhibit labeling for the packet.

Ending

Commissioners and staff closed the item after additional minor clarifications on tree and lighting standards and after confirming that some public-works and stormwater topics overlapped with other codes; staff will coordinate to avoid duplication. The commission moved to the next agenda item after staff acknowledged the requested edits and next steps.","At its April 16, 2025 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments to municipal code section 18.34 and related design guidelines intended to conform to ESHB 1293 and to remove redundant or ambiguous provisions; staff will return with revised language and exhibit labeling for public notice.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners discuss scaling residential impact fees under SB 5258; ADU and addition charges remain unresolved

Planning commissioners review limited edits to design standards to conform with ESHB 1293