Edmonds needs a revised ADU (accessory dwelling unit) code that supports and guides the many residents here that are interested in building an ADU on their property.
The Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds is pleased that Edmonds has not, with a few exceptions, gone beyond what was in HB 1337. The Edmonds Department of Planning and Development has successfully married residents’ input with the requirements and language in the bill to design a thoughtful, revised ADU code. For instance, setback and permeable coverage requirements were kept in the proposed code. It meets the letter of the law and takes into account residents’ concerns and environmental and climate change needs.
On Feb. 28, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed ADU code update. The alliance supports a vote by the planning board to recommend adoption of the revised code if several revisions and clarifications are made (see below). Further, we propose a two-step process using the new code to set a baseline for what works and what doesn’t work in ADU construction for the Edmonds community. This should allow us to create a baseline or starting point for deciding what works and what doesn’t in future development and where code revisions may be needed. It will allow the city to thoughtfully direct future growth by keeping track of why people are or are not building ADUs.
Step one in this process would involve collecting data on how many Edmonds residents inquire about building an ADU, how many of those actually apply for a permit, and how many complete the build. We would be looking for what kinds of things stop people from moving forward. What works and what doesn’t? The data compiled then would drive what code revisions would be needed in future.
Step two is to revise the ADU code to reflect what we learned from our data collection.
Specific areas that need to be adjusted in the proposed code
One instance where the proposed code goes beyond what is required by HB1337 is maximum square footage allowed in sub districts RS10 – RS20 (larger lots), up from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet. While 1,000 square feet is ample to allow two bedrooms, there is reason to support the greater square footage if the structure is kept to one story. A one-story ADU would make it more accessible for people with mobility issues and would be more aesthetically appealing to the neighborhood, as it would enhance light and views. ACE recommends using the additional floor space only as an incentive to avoid a second story.
One area with which we do take issue is parking. The proposed code would allow for the construction of two ADU units with no required off-street parking spaces at all. HB1337 does not mandate the elimination of all off-street parking in Washington cities. ACE believes that one off-street parking spot per ADU or DADU should be required unless the unit is within half-mile walking distance of a major transit stop.
Additionally with respect to parking, Edmonds Community Development Code requires all new construction to have at least one electric vehicle charging station (17.115.40). The planning and development department states that one EV ready parking space is mandated for each new DADU. (Planning and development’s assumption here is that the EV parking space will be created from one of the two existing parking spaces already assigned to the principal dwelling, not a new space.) ACE believes that EV charging capacity should be made available not only to DADUs, but to both ADUs and DADUs. Many ADUs will be rented to young single professionals who realistically will have a car, likely an electric one. They will need a place to park and charge it. Accommodating electric vehicle usage is important for the environment as well.
ACE recommends that (1) HB1337 be followed for parking, namely that off-street parking be required for ADU/DADUs throughout Edmonds, except for lots within one-half mile of a major transit stop and (2) that EV charging capability be required for both DADUs and ADUs.
Integrating ADU and DADU’s into our community is an encouraging development for many Edmonds residents. It is important that we work collaboratively to make sure that it is done in a way that protects the beauty of our town and the environment.
ACE encourages Edmonds residents to go to the planning department website at: DRAFT ADU Code Amendment to review the proposed code update. You may email your comments on the revisions to planning@edmondswa.gov or attend the public hearing at the planning board meeting Feb. 28, 2024 at 7 p.m. in the Brackett Room, third floor of Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N., Edmonds.
— By Karen Haase Herrick, MN, RN, LTC, USA, RET
President, Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds
Thank you Karen for an excellent overview of this important code revision. Your thoughtful and considered proposals are well presented and helpful.
The changes to the Comprehensive plan and related zoning code are required by the State of Washington. Ignoring and defying the State would be disastrous as State written “model code” would be imposed upon us. It is far, far better to incorporate the required changes ourselves to meet the requirements of the recently passed Bills, but in a way that fits with our neighborhoods, accommodates public concerns, and incorporates special considerations. The idea of linking the larger 1,200 square foot DADU footprint with avoiding a 2nd story is brilliant. Keeping the existing setbacks and impervious area limits within existing zoning, is critical for fire protection, maintaining views, and erosion/groundwater issues. Many people have no idea how important these limits truly are.
Well done and thanks again. I hope many interested residents will participate in the upcoming public hearings to champion these important suggested improvements.
Thank you, Karen for this commentary. I agree with much of it. However, there are a few other points I’d like to highlight.
I’m particularly troubled with allowing ADUs in environmentally or geologically “critical areas” as defined on our GIS map. HB1337 allows for this exception, yet we’re not addressing it.
Allowing ADUs in Planned Residential Development zones seems like government overreach. These developments typically come with restrictive property use requirements in their deeds. The city should research all plots which may have restrictions in their covenants and deeds to assure what is being proposed is legal.
Reducing setback requirements on small lots to 5-feet is problematic. Two lots with a common rear property line could have ADUs ten feet from one another. Is this what we really want? Along these same lines, to sell their proposal, all the graphics in the presentation show only one ADU per lot. What does it look like with two?
I would start with the most restrictive code the new law allows to see what that looks like. Then we can add the “Edmonds touch” to it over time as we learn more. Right now, I feel like we’re being led down a predetermined path guided by urban densification “best practices”.