Everett staff weigh detailed objective design standards as middle-housing code draft

Kelsey Hyde, land use planning manager for the City of Everett, updated the Planning Commission on Dec. 17 about staff work to implement middle-housing regulations required by state law.

Hyde said staff are using the Department of Commerce's detailed objective design standards toolkit (the Puget Sound region detailed standards) as a primary reference and have developed a full draft of code language that they are now paring back where appropriate. She said, "We're going with the detailed standards because I think they provide the most, thought out and the most carefully designed set of standards for middle housing to achieve all of the goals of what middle housing should be, fitting into the character of the... single-family areas," and noted the toolkit is intentionally detailed and prescriptive.

Staff explained key topics under consideration: building types (nine templates including duplex, triplex and courtyard types), site-planning "lanes" that vary by lot size and configuration, height measurement methods, lot coverage limits, setbacks (including possible maximum front setbacks), and parking minimums and maximums tied to transit proximity. Hyde said the objective standards favor a 35-foot maximum in many cases (two-and-a-half stories with pitched roofs often equates to that limit) and that the toolkit allows nuanced differences across small, medium and large sites.

Commissioners asked detailed questions about trade-offs. Commissioner Finch and others raised concerns about the interplay of lot coverage, setbacks and allowable density, and whether lot-coverage caps could unintentionally restrict viable middle-housing designs. Commissioner Shelby said he favored minimizing mandated parking, arguing the market should drive parking decisions, while staff noted the toolkit proposes fewer parking spaces than Everett's current code and includes transit-based reductions.

Hyde said staff are testing the full detailed toolkit (about 68 pages of draft code) and plan to pare back items that add cost or significantly reduce capacity while retaining standards that preserve neighborhood character. Staff flagged that some toolkit elements may be less appropriate in denser urban centers.

Ending: Commissioners requested more comparative examples and data (e.g., case studies from similar jurisdictions and transit-proximate parking behavior) before the commission narrows recommendations; staff said drafts will be shared as they are refined and the code will move through additional outreach and review.