Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board weighs interim STEP housing ordinance language, plans recommendation timeline
Summary
Planning staff briefed the Edmonds Planning Board on proposed interim ordinance language to allow emergency, transitional and supportive housing in residential and hotel zones; board members asked about consistency with other code chapters, design and parking concerns, and set a schedule for a recommendation to City Council.
Planning staff told the Edmonds Planning Board that draft interim ordinance language to comply with what staff described as Commerce guidance would allow indoor emergency shelters and emergency housing where hotels are allowed and would permit permanent supportive and transitional housing in any zone that allows residential dwelling units or hotels.
Planning staff Mike explained the intent: "This eliminates the main barrier, which is use," by making those housing types allowed where hotels or dwelling units are permitted. He said the draft tracks closely with language that came from "the recommended language that came from commerce."
Board members pressed for details the draft does not yet resolve. Members asked staff to verify the new language against two existing code chapters that address limited-scope projects — cited in the meeting as "emergency indoor, temporary indoor shelters and community facilities" — so there is no internal code conflict. Staff said they would return with revised language after reviewing chapters 17 and 18 (as cited in the packet) to ensure consistency and to report back at subsequent meetings.
Several board members raised implementation and neighborhood concerns including parking, expectations about nuisance and criminal behavior, and potential conditional-use requirements elsewhere in the region. A board member noted examples from other cities (SeaTac, Burien, and Lynnwood) that require conditional-use processes or neighborhood outreach; planning staff said he would collect links and consult with the Department of Commerce on model language.
Staff reported that the City Council held a public hearing on the interim ordinance the previous night and that no public comments were received. The board discussed schedule options: staff said a recommendation from the planning board was expected in March so the council could consider ordinance adoption in April; draft and review dates referenced in the meeting included a planning-board draft discussion on March 12, a potential board recommendation on March 26, and a City Council public hearing in April (cited in the meeting as April 22).
Board members requested that staff circulate draft ordinance language and links to model codes as soon as they were available, allow time for the board to digest drafts before meetings, and consider whether the planning board should hold a public hearing on the draft before sending a recommendation to council. Staff said he would return with revised draft language and a timeline at the next meetings.
