Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff recommends easing some building modulation rules, discusses heights and inclusionary options
Summary
At the May 20 workshop staff proposed rolling back certain stepback and modulation requirements for larger mixed-use and multifamily buildings, discussed height limits and incentives, and described a draft inclusionary approach and a freight-compatibility overlay addressing Port of Everett concerns.
Planning staff presented a set of proposed changes to urban residential and mixed-use development standards on May 20, saying the revisions aim to make larger buildings more practical while preserving active street fronts and neighborhood transitions.
Staff recommended removing some upper-floor stepback requirements that architects and builders find difficult to construct and instead proposed alternatives such as requiring balconies or outdoor areas on upper floors to provide “eyes on the street.” The planning director described the stepback removal as part of a broader effort to simplify rules that have produced little public-policy benefit but add construction complexity.
Staff also proposed consolidating overlapping chapters into a single urban-residential chapter (19.09) and streamlining façade and transparency requirements that apply to ground floors. Commissioners raised concerns that transparency and blank-wall standards should be balanced against energy-code costs; staff said transparency requirements are frequently modified in development review but may be reduced in the final draft to reflect common practice.
On heights, staff said the draft replaces a detailed height map with numeric height limits expressed in feet and an “intended number of floors” as a planning guide. The presentation noted modular construction can require taller floor plates, creating tension between a per-floor rule and fixed-foot height limits. Staff recommended keeping fixed height limits but preserving administrative routes for specific requests.
Inclusionary and displacement topics were also discussed. Staff described that inclusionary housing requirements remain in the draft for two high-displacement-risk areas of South Everett and that they have penciled in a one-floor bonus for developments on religiously owned or controlled land to provide a modest incentive. Staff said they met repeatedly with communities at risk of displacement and are still considering additional incentives and exemptions.
The Port of Everett and the Rucker Hill neighborhood were highlighted: staff said the two parties “have come to agreement on terms” and that the port-specific freight compatibility overlay requested earlier is included in the draft as a notification tool for developers and the port. The overlay is intended to provide clarity and notice rather than to impose many new substantive restrictions.
Staff repeatedly emphasized that many standards will remain modifiable through the existing deviation process if a developer demonstrates an equal or superior design and no adverse impacts on neighbors. No formal decisions were reached at the workshop; staff will publish a final draft and highlight changes ahead of the June 3 planning commission hearing.
Commissioners asked staff to flag any duplicative tables (for example, transparency requirements that appear in multiple chapters) and to consider simplifying street-designation rules that control when and where facade transparency and weather protection apply.
