Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
The Edmonds Planning Board held a public hearing last week so that residents could voice their opinions and concerns regarding proposed amendments to Edmonds’ accessory dwelling unit (ADU) code. The amendments, which would allow for detached units known as DADUs, are designed to accommodate the Washington State Legislature’s 2023 passage of HB 1337. The bill directed cities to amend their development codes to include provisions for detached accessory dwelling units.
The Edmonds City Council has scheduled a work session at 6 p.m. Tuesday, March 5 on the proposed ADU code amendments. The council also had a presentation on the topic during its Feb. 27 business meeting.
During the Feb. 28 planning board meeting, City Planner Rose Haas highlighted proposed changes to the current ADU code including parking, decreased setbacks, square footage and height, critical areas and impact fees. Also, up to two DADUs may be added per lot.
Parking
Haas suggested that there should be no additional parking required for DADUs since two parking spaces are currently required for all single-family homes. The high cost of adding more parking may limit some homeowners’ ability to create extra housing. Furthermore, many lots do not have the capacity for a third parking space. DADUs within a quarter mile of a major transit stop are not required to have extra parking spaces.
Square footage and height
The update would limit DADUs up to 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in small lots (RS-6 and RS-8) and up to 1,200 square feet in large lots (RS-10, RS-12, RS-20). Gross floor area is defined as “interior habitable area of an accessory dwelling unit, not including unconditioned space.” Examples of unconditioned spaces include boiler rooms and attics.
All DADUs could be built to a maximum height of 24 feet, and housing should not cover more than 35% of the lot.
“Most single-family homes that are being built now are not 1,500 square feet,” Haas said. “So if you have 35% of your RS-6 already has a single-family home, you cannot put a DADU on that [lot].”
When Planning Board Vice Chair Lauren Golembiewski asked if the developers have analyzed many homes in Washington state can actually accommodate ADUs and DADUs, Haas replied that they have not.
Director of Planning and Development Susan McLaughlin said the city assumed that the growth target in Edmonds is “very low” based on the high cost of living in the area. “We want to make sure that these codes work for people to reduce the barriers and to make ADUs feasible,” she said.
Decreased setbacks
A building setback is the minimum distance which a building or other structure must be set back from a street. The update requires no rear setbacks for DADUs if that lot line borders an alley, regardless of their size. However, a rear setback may be reduced to a minimum of 5 feet if the DADU is 15 feet high or lower.
Critical areas
The Edmonds Planning Board has recommended that DADUs be allowed on lots that are within a critical area or its buffer zones as long as they meet protection standards in Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 23, such as having a setback of a minimum of 15 feet away from buffers. Critical areas include wetlands, geological hazardous areas (steep cliffs, landslide and flood hazards) and wildlife habitats.Â
Impact fees
Under current Edmonds City Code (ECC) Chapter 3.36, DADUs are not considered to increase the population density of a single-family residential neighborhood. The planning board recommends that DADUs should be counted toward density requirements, which is consistent with the city’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan update. As a result, the city may charge impact fees to DADUs.
During both the Feb. 28 public hearing and in written comments, people shared a range of concerns about allowing DADUs in Edmonds. These include increasing population density, water and light pollution; less street parking, loss of Edmonds “character” and lack of accessibility for people with limited mobility.
People who support the inclusion of DADUs said that they would benefit aging people, single parents, people who work remotely and new families who could not afford typical single-family homes.
The Alliance of Citizens in Edmonds (ACE) wrote to the planning board that the city should stick with one-story DADUs because a 24-foot-tall building would reduce the view quality of certain neighborhoods. “Since homeowners with water views are assessed extra property taxes for views, allowing a new building that diminishes that view has an adverse impact on view homeowners,” ACE wrote.Â
Regarding off-street parking, Woodway resident John Brock proposed that ADUs and DADUs be treated as if they were “extensions of the primary residence, not as a separate dwelling.”Â
“Simply add the number of bedrooms in the ADU and DADU to the number of bedrooms in the primary residence,” Brock said. “Use the total to determine the number of off-street parking under existing zoning. The number of bedrooms are used for a variety of zoning requirements, why not our off-street parking as well?”Â
Woodway resident Bruce Wallace — who owns rental properties in Edmonds — suggested during public testimony that the planning board should check the percentages of ADUs and DADUs in Kirkland and Seattle that are developer-built vs. homeowner-built. “My own feeling from being in those areas, it’s probably between 85% to 90% developer [built],” he said. “So a lot the questions and objections being raised are more unlikely scenarios and that if Edmonds really wants to hit their growth targets, I’d encourage you to stay on track and don’t get sidetracked.”
Wallace also warned that having more than one ADU or DADU is not “feasible” on a single lot because of the extra cost of pollution they may generate, which can increase the cost of stormwater and sewage service.
Edmonds resident Jim Ogonowski suggested that the city first look at the minimum state legislative requirements for DADUs and leave options open for additional regulation, especially when it comes to placing them in the critical areas.
“Our GIS (geological information system) map identifies critical areas within the city,” he said. “So why not just use that, and let’s not make it more difficult than it needs to be.
Another commenter warned the planning board about DADUs being used as unlimited short-term vacation rentals, which limits long-term rentals and impacts the quality of life for residents and affects neighboring streets. She suggested that the planning board review the short-term rental restrictions that Chelan County implemented.
You can learn more on the city’s ADU web page here.
— By Nick Ng
The sticking point for me is allowing a max height of 24ft.
Should be limited to single story to minimize impact of blocking views and privacy concerns.
Many good questions and concerns here such as the 24-foot height as opposed to one story, protecting environmentally critical areas, short term vacation rentals, and parking requirements. It’ll be instructive to observe if Mayor Rosen’s Planning Department priorities are the impacts the quality of life for current Edmonds residents and its established neighborhood streets, or instead for quick and dirty development focusing on the needs of developers and speculators.
If the ADUs and DADUs are allowed to be built 24 feet in height, views will be blocked and privacy impacted. On the other hand, if ADUs and DADUs are restricted to one level, trees and vegetation will be sacrificed as a result of the larger footprint required to construct those units. All courtesy of the state legislature.
The 24 foot height limit is required by 1337. “The city or county may not establish roof height limits on accessory dwelling units of less than 24 feet, unless the height limitation of the principal unit is less than 24 feet”. ECDC chapter 16 height limits for RS zones is 25 feet. The city is bound to plan to the 24 foot height limit. The setback reductions to incentivize single story ADU’s is where this portion of the proposed code amendment comes into play.
Confirming that if a home was purchased 10 years ago with a view of the Sound/ Cascades that the owner would have no recourse if the neighbor built a DADU or two and completely blocked their view? Is the City unable to protect or accommodate views?
Views are protected by restrictive covenants on a parcel. In addition, a City might state a priority for views in their comprehensive plan, and then set height limits in certain zones where they know that height limit will protect the view of other parcel owners. For DADU height, Jeremy Mitchell (planning board chair) answered your question in his comment posted above.
I disagree with many of the Planning Boards proposals for these ADU’s and DADU’s. I’ll save that for another time. My complaint is, the public that attends these discussions, cannot hear what the Board members are saying. Two of them, always have their backs to the audience, the remaining are seated sideways to us. They do not have microphones, and they are basically looking at a small TV screen with information posted, that we find difficult to read, especially, the smaller print from the distance we sit at. At the meeting last week, Feb. 28th, the board was asked by an audience member to please speak up as it was difficult to hear what they were saying. There was no attempt made to speak up or face us so that we could hear better. I have attended several of these meetings, and I have the impression that they would prefer the public was not there. Also, it would be helpful to be able to see their name plates. Please consider making some changes to these meetings to make them more public friendly.