Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edmonds planning staff present middle‑housing code update to meet state mandate; council set for June adoption votes
Summary
Planning staff and the Planning Board presented a draft middle‑housing ordinance to comply with state requirements that cities allow multiple middle‑housing types. The recommendation would allow six middle‑housing types in single‑family zones, set affordability thresholds and include local design choices and incentives.
City planning staff and the Planning Board presented a draft middle‑housing code update at the Edmonds City Council meeting on May 27 designed to comply with state law and to provide a locally tailored framework for duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and other “middle housing” types.
Brad Shipley, senior planner, said the state law requires cities to allow at least six of nine middle‑housing types in predominantly residential zones and to permit at least two units per eligible lot. “HB 1110 requires certain cities to allow at least six of nine middle housing types,” Shipley said during the council briefing; staff framed the draft as a compliance‑first approach with additional local incentives and phased refinements to follow.
The Planning Board recommended allowing duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, stacked flats, cottage housing and courtyard apartments in single‑family zones; the Planning Board did not recommend authorizing five‑plexes, six‑plexes or townhouses as part of the minimum package. Under the draft, the code would continue to allow two units per lot by right, and would allow up to four units per lot where either (1) the site is within a quarter‑mile walk of a defined major transit stop (the packet identifies the SR‑104/Highway‑99 area as the only such zone in Edmonds) or (2) a project meets an affordability threshold: for‑sale units at 80% area median income (AMI) or rental units at 60% AMI, with a 50‑year affordability term.
Planning staff described several local choices intended to preserve neighborhood character and to manage feasibility. The draft includes an optional incentive framework that would allow up to 45% lot coverage for projects that meet the affordability or other incentive requirements; staff said the 45% figure is a local choice to make three‑ and four‑unit projects economically feasible while allowing council to retain landscape and setback standards in other cases. Staff also proposed general design guidance and frontage‑type standards that could be refined in a later phase of work if council prefers a phased approach.
Shipley cautioned that applying the affordability incentive would create new administrative responsibilities for the city. “If we continue with the affordability requirement…we will have to look at staffing for that kind of position because it’s much more cumbersome than our current affordable housing compliance,” he told council. Council members repeatedly raised that concern during Q&A and asked staff to identify the level of staffing and monitoring required if the council adopts the affordability‑linked incentive.
Council members asked additional technical and policy questions on the record: Council President Tippett and others questioned whether a 45% lot coverage allowance was necessary or whether it exceeded the state minimums; Council member Nand urged frontage and streetscape rules that better integrate multiunit buildings into single‑family neighborhoods; and Council member Chen requested a side‑by‑side comparison table showing the city’s draft standards against the state minimums and the financial implications of those choices.
Staff emphasized schedule constraints. The draft ordinance must be adopted and submitted to the Washington State Department of Commerce by late June to preserve a grant and to avoid automatic application of the state’s default middle‑housing rules on July 1. The city intends further review touches on June 3 and a public hearing on June 10, with additional revisions and adoption votes planned through June 24 to meet the state timeline.
Planning Board chair Lee Hankins told council the board aimed to be responsive to community feedback during months of meetings and recommended the version before council as a balanced approach that meets state minima while building a framework for later refinement.
No final council action was taken at the May 27 meeting; council members directed staff to return with more comparative analysis, specifics about staffing and enforcement, and refined design language for followup hearings in June.
