Commissioners review cottage‑cluster rules, add affordability incentives and unit‑lot subdivision option

The Sedro‑Woolley Planning Commission spent an extended portion of its meeting reviewing proposed amendments to Chapter 2.90 and related sections of Title 17 to create an optional cottage‑cluster housing type and associated procedures.

Staff described major edits: units between 205 and 799 square feet would count as half a dwelling unit for density calculations, while units 800 square feet or larger would count as one; accessory dwelling unit (ADU) footprints tied to a shared community building would not count toward the community building’s 1,200‑square‑foot ground‑floor maximum; total site landscaping was increased from 15% to 20%; roof‑form flexibility was added while maintaining neighborhood compatibility; and parking and visitor‑parking details were adjusted to allow carports to count toward minimums. Staff also proposed a new unit‑lot subdivision procedure tailored to cottage clusters.

The draft includes affordability incentives tied to reduced fees: developers would pay scaled impact and connection fees (for example, units under 400 square feet assessed at 30% of a typical single‑family impact fee; 400–799 square feet at 50%; units 800 square feet and larger at 70%). If a developer designates all units in a cottage‑cluster project as affordable, the draft would waive school impact fees; a 50% affordability designation would reduce or waive certain plan‑review fees. Staff said other fee waivers or adjustments (for example, special utility connection fees in particular areas) would be reviewed case by case.

Commissioners asked detailed questions. One commissioner asked whether a $70 plan‑review fee was sufficient; staff replied that building permit fees and a separate plan‑review percentage for building department work are charged in addition to the land‑use processing fee, and that the city periodically conducts fee studies. Several commissioners expressed concern about a draft sentence that would have allowed accessory improvements to “encroach” upon adjoining unit lots; multiple attendees warned that recorded encroachments can create title issues and complicate resale. Staff agreed to remove or reword that language.

Commissioners also explored the unit‑lot subdivision approach. Staff explained the rule is intended to let a developer create small individual lots for cottages while ensuring a parent parcel meets underlying zone and infrastructure requirements; easements and recorded agreements would govern shared access, utilities and common open space. Commissioners suggested staff provide examples or a cost comparison that shows how impact fees and permitting would differ between a 15‑unit apartment building and a similarly sized cottage cluster, and to test the regulations against sites where organizations (for example, Family Promise) have expressed interest.

Staff and commissioners flagged next steps: staff will rework encroachment language, recheck fee impacts and prepare a mock cost/impact comparison for a known prospective site, and review any legal issues around waiving school impact fees with the school district and the city attorney. The item will return to the commission for further review and a future public hearing.