Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedro-Woolley planning commission recommends updated parking standards, asks staff to drop mandatory non-clustering clause
Summary
The Sedro-Woolley Planning Commission voted Feb. 18 to recommend that the City Council approve proposed updates to Title 17 of the Sedro-Woolley Municipal Code that revise residential and multifamily parking standards.
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sedro-Woolley Planning Commission voted Feb. 18 to recommend that the City Council approve proposed updates to Title 17 of the Sedro-Woolley Municipal Code that revise residential and multifamily parking standards.
The commission’s recommendation directs staff to remove one mandatory provision that would have prohibited clustering of loading zones in multifamily developments, to add a formal definition of “loading facility” in Section 17.04.030, and to correct several definition errors in the Central Business District language. Commissioner Freiburger moved the motion; Commissioner Jasper seconded. The commission took the motion and, after a voice vote with no recorded opposition, passed it.
Why it matters: the draft changes are an attempt to balance two aims that city council raised in 2024: avoid excessive off-street parking that reduces housing yield and open space, while increasing required parking where residents and the public have raised concerns about on-street parking and visitor parking shortages. The amendments also implement a transit-based reduction where residential development is within a quarter-mile of qualifying transit stops, and respond to newly effective state legislation referenced by staff.
What staff and developers said Madison Bowman, project planner for BYK Construction, told commissioners BYK reviewed the draft and urged the commission not to increase minimum parking in areas where developers are already required to provide parking. “We are not against parking regulations, and we are not advocating to reduce the existing parking regulations. We believe the parking regulations are sufficient as they are now,” Bowman said, arguing higher minimums could make some recent projects infeasible. Bowman said enforcement of existing parking rules and holding property managers accountable for overflow parking would address many complaints cited by the public.
City planning staff (Ashton) summarized the draft changes and the history of the work: council requested the update in early 2024; the effort broadened from “work-live” units to multifamily and citywide residential parking. Ashton confirmed staff attached Senate Bill 6015 (in effect) and a draft House Bill 1299 (still in the Legislature) to the staff report, and noted the code must align with the city’s comprehensive plan schedule.
Key edits commissioners directed - Strike subsection E of proposed 17.36.050 (the “shall not be clustered” clause) after commissioners said mandatory prohibitions might not be practical for larger projects and could limit useful design solutions. - Add a definition of “loading facility” to 17.04.030 so the code distinguishes larger loading docks from temporary load/unload parking spots. - Correct errors in the Central Business District (CBD) boundary language in 17.04.030 (the staff report and commissioners noted a repeated “east” that should read “west” in one boundary description). - Clarify cross-references in 17.36.030 subsection C(4)(b) to read “table above.”
On dual-use loading stalls and counting toward parking minimums, commissioners discussed tradeoffs: wider, designated loading spaces sized for delivery trucks would likely not count toward residential parking minimums under state law (as noted by staff); narrower dual-use stalls might count for both day and night use but could leave inadequate room for delivery vehicles.
Next steps and formal outcome The commission’s motion recommended the package, with the edits noted above, be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Staff will incorporate the language changes in the draft code and the definitions, and then the matter will go to council. The motion was made by Commissioner Freiburger and seconded by Commissioner Jasper and the commission approved the recommendation by voice vote with no recorded nays.
Ending note Commissioners asked staff to ensure the new loading-facility definition is clear and to add the parking-related table cross-reference so that the new language ties into the comprehensive parking matrix in the staff packet.

