The Edmonds Planning Board took a deeper dive into the topic of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) at its April 11 meeting. The board will eventually make recommendations to the Edmonds City Council on how to address ADUs as part of the city’s 2024 Comprehensive Plan update, but agreed to make its April 10 meeting a study session with no action taken.
During her presentation to the planning board, City Planner Rose Haas provided the latest update on ADUs and detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs). The city’s proposed ADU regulations – aimed at accommodating the passage of state House Bill 1337 – include:
- Allowing two ADUs on all lots in any configuration.
- Allowing a maximum height of 24 feet.
- No rear setbacks are required if the rear lot line abuts a public alley.
- No additional parking required for ADUs.
- No design restrictions.
- Allowing ADUs up to 1,200 square feet, depending on the zoning area (RS-10, RS-12, RS-20).
- ADUs are allowed to be sold as condominiums.
- Owners are not required to reside in one of the units.
Based on the planning board’s discussions, Haas said that Edmonds city staff recommends:
- Reducing setbacks on small parcels to 10 feet on small lots (RS-6 and RS-8).
- If property owners limit ADUs’ height to 15 feet, they would receive “setback reduction incentives,” which is allowing a minimum of a 5-foot rear setback.
- Allowing ADUS up to 1,000 square feet on small lots (RS-6 and RS-8).
- Eliminating additional parking requirements, including electric vehicle (EV) parking requirements, if the ADUs are within a quarter mile of a major transit stop.
- Imposing impact fees on ADU construction in accordance with HB 1337, which states that impact fees cannot not exceed 50% of the principal unit.
- Reducing impact fees to incentivize ADU construction.
Planning Board Vice Chair Laura Golembiewski said the existing recommendations for rear setbacks are “appropriate,” adding she would like to see the 10-foot setbacks stay within single-family homes.
“It really pushes single stories on the small lots,” she said. “A 5-foot [setback] on a property line gets lost really quick.”
Golembiewski also agreed with the 24-foot height limit for ADUs not only for privacy and to avoid blocking views of nearby residences but also for aesthetics.
“If somebody has a cute little one-story house that is like craftsman style, and they’re going to put a super-modern modular story ADU behind it, then it’s just going to look out of place,” she said. “By promoting that one-story height, it also takes care of some of that look and the feel and have things being cohesive.”
Planning Board Member Nick Maxwell said that the ADUs represented in a presentation slide look too close to each other.
“Given that both [primary houses] were built together and people bought them when they were already that close, I don’t think there’s anything wrong,” he said. “But if one of them already existed, and then the next one is two stories tall built 20 feet away, I would think people who were there first would feel they were being imposed on.”
After a lengthy discussion about building heights, setbacks and privacy intrusion, Golembiewski suggested that planning board members should save their motions for a later time and consider the meeting as a work session.
Regarding parking, Maxwell said he agrees that no additional parking should be required for ADUs. “If you’re putting an ADU for your aging parents and they can’t drive, it’s a little annoying that you have to put in a parking space,” he said.
When asked what would happen if the ADU is rented to someone who has a car, Maxwell said that person would have to cope. “Someone who chooses to live there will be given an option to rent a parking space,” he said. “Are we denying them the right to choose to settle in our neighborhood? They might decide to commute on the train. If they don’t want that, they can live in an apartment with a parking space.”
Golembiewski said she believes that ADUs under a certain size, such as those around 600 square feet, should not require a parking space. However, those that are about 1,200 square feet should be required to have one, she said.
“I think that [600 square feet] would be a threshold that would eliminate the need for a parking spot and maybe even eliminate the impact fee,” she said. “The really small, micro cottages would not come at the same expense as somebody who is doing a 1,200-square foot [ADU] over a 1,200-foot garage. I think those are two different projects, and maybe two levels of impact fees and parking requirements would be appropriate.”
Haas said that she had examined the ADU codes in Kirkland and found that the city does not require additional parking for one ADU, but does require extra parking space for two ADUs on one parcel.
HB 1337, passed by the Washington State Legislature in 2023, directed cities to amend their development codes to include provisions for detached accessory dwelling units.
ADUs and DADUs will play a role in accommodating the expected growth of 13,000 people in Edmonds over the next 20 years, a requirement of the state’s Growth Management Act (GMA). This projected influx of new residents is expected to require 9,000 new housing units, and Edmonds currently has the capacity to add only 5,000 units, including 1,642 ADUs.
The next Edmonds Planning Board meeting will be April 24. You can read more about ADUs here.
— Story by Nick Ng
Please God help me if I’m ever forced to resort to living in one of my daughters backyards in a tiny building with no parking.
Why would you propose reducing the fees for ADU’s? Is this going to reduce the cost to the City for the services rendered?
We live in the City of Edmonds along a private emergency access. A neighbor who also lives in the city, parents, built one of these dwellings in their son’s backyard behind our home. The parents are now building a large additional garage/ storage space next to it. They said their ADU was too small to accommodate all their belongings. There was not a public notice for a permit to build the additional space. My question to the city is a permit required for the additional garage? If not, what plan is in place to make sure the homeowner stays within the guidelines for an ADU? Or does it matter? I worry if the City’s plan goes forward there will be more than just the ADUs going up on each of the lots.
Ms. Clarke, very good questions that deserve specific answers. Your concern is justified.
24′ height limits WILL result in views being obstructed – most obvious when primary residence is less than 25′ in height but also when primary residence is on a hill. Appreciate consideration to incentivize 15′ height limit – would appreciate any consideration for more “good neighbor” policies. Also, short term rentals with roof decks could also change your view. Planners are proposing NOT to require parking – further impact to neighborhoods especially when units are used as short-term rentals, sold as condos or to run an in home business. As mentioned above, a 1,200 sf ADU could be built over a 1,200 sf garage – a 2,400 sf ADU (or two of them), at 24′ height, with no parking could really impact the neighborhoods… Please email Council@EdmondsWA and Planning@EdmondsWA.gov
Jon, I can’t wait to erect our two story DADU with no setback on the alley that will probably be worth about twice what our old home is the day it is complete. You can buy those sort of things prefabricated and very nice for around $150,000 and probably get hook ups to electric and sewer for abound another 100K. Presto – you have a $500,000 home right next to your $230,000 home. Sure hope we get in on those reduced impact fees before they go away. Oh, and we already have on site parking which should make the whole shebang worth an extra 100K or so. Man, these local Democratic Party operatives are having too many of those Cannabis parties that they most recently got legalized. Washington State and Edmonds, “where common sense goes to die.”
Name calling, generalizing & sarcasm oesn’t help the discussion IMO. But of course, it’s a pattern.
Pamela, sadly what I’m saying is more truth than sarcasm. Some form of that is exactly what will happen when my wife and I get too old to take care of our place and have to sell it (probably not far off) . What I described sarcastically, as you say, is about what the next owners will do with our property on the pretext that someone just “deserves” to live in Edmonds and that type of housing will be affordable for them to get to do so. It’s all just another big lie. When I see things I can’t do much about I make a joke. It helps me deal with all the hypocrisy. You do not have to read anything I write you know. And just who did I specifically call a derogatory name in your view? I’m an Independent who most often votes Democratic Party so cut me some slack please. I’ve been described as radical, raving (just the other day), know it all, person with faulty opinions and others. No, problem – nobody is perfect.
I am in a similar situation. My backyard sits about 6′ higher than the first floor of my house. I can go 24′ high with a rooftop patio in one of those modern prefab jobs, and rent my single family home out for an exorbitant amount of money while enjoying the newly created view home (sure it’s going to block the view of everyone up the hill in Seaview, but hey, it’s definitely feasible and my peekaboo view turns into a million dollar view home).
I love the idea! Maybe we can start a buyers club and get volume discounts!
The Edmonds Planning Department and Planning Board do a pretty good job of stepping on the gas pedal. They seemed to have little understanding of regard why most vehicles come with brakes even if it approaches going off a financial or environmental cliff. The mayor ran on a platform of stopping the crazy but he’s still working with the prior administration’s leadership team even if they were the ones with the “lead foot”.
No additional parking spaces huh– as an ex planner I can only say the justifications listed above are ludicrous. These guys are going to destroy neighborhoods with car pollution …..just to make a buck on ADUs
This whole things should be rejected if additional OFF STREET parking is not built along with the ADU.
2 PER LOT. If 2 no more than 15 feet in height and no more than 800 sq feet in size. If one 1000 sq feet in size. 15 feet in height. No on top decks. All ADU and DADU and multifamily no more than 3 stories and spread all over Edmonds. All units whether ADU DADU or a Business are required to have parking for each individual unit. It would be best to do no zoning change right now in my opinion. Wait for the environmental studies and demand they are thorough. When first suggested DADU were supposed be small little places for an aging parent or a teen or young adult that can’t quite support their own housing yet in Edmonds. Sure did change a lot HUH? Please. Edmonds if all of this is allowed with high multifamily too will be unrecognizable and the ones you hope to capture with those $$$$ prices in multifamily will not want what the PB is suggesting. You will see. Edmonds as you’ve known it and as you visualize it will not exist. The End.
Get ready for my nightmare. I live in Seattle, on a cul de sac that terminates in a park in West Seattle. Two weeks ago I learned my neighbor had obtained a DADU permit and was going to place an 18 x 39 two story building (25′ tall) that will obscure 30 to 100% of our only view window, depending on where you are standing in our living room. Right now it is beautiful cedars. We live at the top of a hill with our living room window being 17′ above grade. Our living room window looks north into the park. Neighbor is building partially in front of that due to new regulations. His DADU will be less than 12′ from our window and allow his renters to look inside our living room. No warning, no notice, no discussion. City issued permit without any input from neighbors. I am now incurring legal fees attempting to get him to the table to discuss the impact to us. You can look forward to this soon also. We expect this will decrease the value of our home by at least $100k if built.
There is understandably a lot of concern around Edmonds about the new ADU code. The meat and potatoes of the code that our Planning Board is working on is mandated by the state law. Things like 2 per lot, height, setbacks, etc. are mandated by the state and Edmonds has no choice.
On the other hand, it’s my opinion that the new ADU code should do as much as possible within the limits of this new state law to incentivize single story “neighborhood friendly” DADU’s with off street parking. If we want to avoid the developer quick buck crowding of the neighborhoods the code should discourage or penalize tearing down an existing house in order to rebuild more units in its place, or view blockers, or short term rentals (AirBB, VRBO).