Planning commission approves housekeeping package; debates inclusionary zoning land-transfer alternative

The Everett Planning Commission on Sept. 16 recommended a set of housekeeping amendments to the Everett development code tied to the Everett 2044 comprehensive plan update, and debated possible changes to the city's inclusionary-zoning approach for ownership housing.

Staff described the package as a sequence of clarifications, error corrections and targeted policy adjustments to Title 19 and related chapters after a large periodic update earlier in the year. The proposed changes would: clarify that building design and site-design standards in Chapter 19.08 apply only when a dwelling has a facade within 30 feet of a public street right-of-way; move and consolidate some landscaping and screening rules to more appropriate sections of the code; allow limited flexibility for utility connections where two units share common ownership; and clarify accessory building and garage rules.

On yards and landscaping, staff explained that private yards would remain required (minimum 80 square feet, at least 8 feet in any direction and direct access from the dwelling) and the draft language preserved a separation between required perimeter landscaping and private-yard area. Commissioners asked whether that separation was necessary for small yards and whether required perimeter landscaping should be allowed to overlap private yards; staff left the provision in the draft but flagged it as subject to amendment.

Regarding waste storage, the commission removed a broader new requirement that would have required screening of household bins and recycling receptacles; instead the final amendment requires screening for dumpsters only, leaving typical household bins (toters/cans) exempt from a new screening standard.

The commission also discussed implementation clarity for stream and wetland buffers (tied to the separate Critical Areas briefing) and asked staff to coordinate definitions of "public street" and "right-of-way" where the 30-foot applicability threshold is used.

In a substantive policy debate within the housekeeping package, staff presented two modest changes proposed for inclusionary zoning as applied to ownership housing in the inclusionary zone: (1) an adjustment to the affordability target for owner-occupied units (staff described a proposal to move the ownership affordability requirement from 80% to 100% of area median income for a portion of required units, as a way to reduce the relative developer burden described during market review); and (2) an optional alternative compliance method in which a developer could transfer land to the city to satisfy required affordable ownership units so the city (or a designated housing partner) could later develop or convey the land for affordable units. Staff said the proposal was adapted from other jurisdictions (including language borrowed from Bellevue) and would require appraisal and conditions to make the transfer likely to produce the required affordable units.

Commissioners and staff discussed practical obstacles: the city currently lacks a fully funded land‑banking program, the housing authority and nonprofit partners have limited capacity, and a land-transfer route would require clear guarantees (construction schedule, use restrictions) to ensure affordable units are built rather than the city holding unconstrained parcels. One commissioner urged that any land-transfer option be limited to property within the inclusionary zone or on the same development site so the benefit remains geographically targeted. Another commissioner said the proposal "could be an additional option" but cautioned that it may not be effective in practice; the commission asked staff to solicit stakeholder input and return with more detailed mechanics before embedding such a pathway in code.

The planning commission moved and approved Planning Commission Resolution 25-02 with three amendments: (1) revise yard/landscape language as discussed; (2) limit screening obligation to dumpsters rather than household receptacles; and (3) remove the land-transfer inclusionary option from the current housekeeping package (commissioners said the land-transfer idea requires a separate, fuller policy discussion). The roll-call votes were recorded and the resolution, as amended, was approved and will be forwarded to the City Council for review.

Public comment at the hearing was limited to Daniel Dodson, who identified himself as an Everett resident and suggested state financing tools (for example, Washington State Housing Finance Commission programs that assist with down payment/interest rate support) as a way to improve homeownership affordability.

Staff said additional targeted briefings and a council report on inclusionary zoning are expected later in the year and into next year, and that staff will continue to refine code language and outreach plans before City Council hearings.