Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Amenity Bonus Incentive topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates bonus‑floor amenity rules, asks staff for clearer language and cost examples
Summary
Board members discussed the draft formula that ties bonus‑floor height to additional amenity space (10% of building footprint) and asked staff to draft clearer, more flexible language allowing public amenity and indoor civic space and to produce example cost/benefit scenarios comparing amenity requirements to affordable‑housing incentives.
The Edmonds Citizens Planning Board discussed how community‑benefit incentives and bonus floors should be measured and asked staff to return with clearer language and sample financial examples. Planning staff described a draft incentive that requires an additional 10% of public amenity space (on top of a base requirement) to qualify for a bonus floor; the board debated whether that should be measured only as outdoor plaza area or could also include indoor civic/community space.
Planning staff (Navusha) explained the draft: “The public amenity space is 10% of the building footprint. And if they want to qualify for the bonus floor height incentive, then they need to provide an additional 10% of the building footprint.” Staff noted private amenity space for residents would be calculated as 5% of residential floor area and that small footprints under 2,000 square feet would be exempt from the public amenity requirement.
Board members questioned whether doubling public amenity requirements for a bonus floor would be practical on larger footprints and whether a cap or alternate combinations of indoor/outdoor amenities would be preferable. Planning Board member Lauren said she “like[d] the flexibility” of allowing indoor civic spaces in combination with outdoor plazas. Board member Jeremy Mitchell and others emphasized cost tradeoffs: adding mandated amenity area increases project costs and may be less effective than direct affordable‑housing incentives. Jeremy urged staff to provide example scenarios showing how amenity requirements change development economics and how those costs compare with other incentives such as MFTE (multi‑family tax exemption) or affordable‑housing obligations.
There was no formal board vote to set new amenity percentages; instead members converged on a direction for staff to return with revised language that would allow flexibility (public outdoor amenity and/or indoor civic/community space), examples of scaled calculations for different footprints, and an analysis comparing the relative cost to achieve bonus floor incentives versus providing affordable units or other public benefits.
What happens next: staff will draft revised code language to allow a flexible combination of public outdoor amenity and indoor community space to satisfy bonus‑floor requirements, and will prepare example projects (with assumptions) to illustrate cost and area implications. The board also requested that staff look for local case studies and precedent language from other jurisdictions.
