Everett planners weigh changing ADU rules, seek proportional impact fees

Planning staff and commissioners at the Everett Planning Commission meeting March 4 discussed reclassifying accessory dwelling units as general dwellings under the city's comprehensive plan update and the implications that change would have for impact fees, building-code triggers and affordable housing goals.

The conversation centered on how the proposed simplification'collapsing multiple housing structure types into a single “dwelling” category'would affect fee exemptions and utility or building-code requirements. York Stevens Wojta, planning director for the city, said staff's intent is to "not regulate differently based on that structure type to make it all dwellings." He added that the city is reviewing how fees should be tied to measurable performance factors such as square footage, bedroom count or trip generation rather than categorical labels.

Why it matters: accessory dwelling units (ADUs) grew rapidly after Everett adopted an ADU ordinance; commissioners and staff said the change could unintentionally alter the fees charged to small units and to homeowners who use ADUs for family or rental income. Commissioner Shelby asked explicitly, "What is the vision, the goal?" saying a clear statement of purpose would help align fee and regulatory decisions with broader planning outcomes.

Staff explained that some current fee exemptions for ADUs exist because ADUs tend to be smaller and carry fewer impacts on schools, parks and traffic. Wojta referenced recent state policy when discussing fee reform: "Last year, Senate Bill 5258 added a requirement that the impact fee schedule shall reflect the proportionate impact of new housing units, including multifamily and condominium units based on the square footage, number of bedrooms or trips generated in the housing unit." He said the city must reconcile that statutory direction with the state's separate rule that limits how much the city can assess on ADUs compared with principal units.

Commissioners raised potential conflicts with building-code and utility hookup requirements. Commissioner Michelle Welch asked whether collapsing ADUs into a single dwelling category could create new electrical or plumbing upgrade costs for small units that previously relied on shared services with the principal dwelling. Planning director Wojta acknowledged those concerns, noting building-code and utility interactions remain under review and that staff may consult the Washington Department of Commerce to ensure compliance with state law.

Commissioner Finch urged the commission to consider long-term public costs, saying small homes still add vehicles, schoolchildren and utility demand and that fees should account for those impacts where appropriate.

Staff further described program details and constraints: the neighborhood residential zoning will retain a "constrained" zone where smaller increases in density remain limited; ADU-like units will still be allowed in those areas but the city is looking for a proportional fee structure that follows state direction rather than categorical exemptions.

Ending: Staff said the ADU and impact-fee discussions will continue as part of the comprehensive plan update and that the commission will be updated as staff refines fees, building-code interactions and zoning definitions. Wojta invited further commissioner input and said additional outreach would be reflected in future drafts.