[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6054685,"mediaKeyId","3335008-f2f2c2a84bc4f32645d2522f24cde26b","parentId",3335008,"title","Bellevue council studies land-use code changes to allow middle housing under new state law","audioSeconds",2711,"startMs",3244000,"endMs",5955000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3335008-f2f2c2a84bc4f32645d2522f24cde26b&start=3244&end=5955","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3335008-f2f2c2a84bc4f32645d2522f24cde26b/thumbnail_3244000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6054685/Bellevue/King-County/Washington/Bellevue-council-studies-land-use-code-changes-to-allow-middle-housing-under-new-state-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6054685-3a6b6cc0fa21de716638bfdaf0f3ef26/orig.mp4?Expires=1776242782&Signature=SohYCupA~Bg~jOtLTEcDETrmdWBWRQXPXIOEIcmkHPfZ3RazetMaPo4caD3O45OFDUy1~unJ1uZmjGfStbOOjBQ7LAEiNkpc2UBlJM1blF8GSzddLA7kKIE2vJ7ELhrS02kiYA790qnyTPaWOEzQ1bCJq5DcI2Wp6Kqb8g32~FURk0xLtFTW93gglwNJyMzQwwIfBVou5fNVIdJzsAVspgGs~xWdjhpPCkB56qfbXMCsAbI8g3v7-8IKa3M~kOlGCt~ee-6cV5lDPeVjfYuwfKrFRxCpxPHfsQKP~AabmIwXwH65NHec1yD5RrqQgrW~AYe7a8gYM4ihECFE4Ylf7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Bellevue City, WA","date","2025-05-14T18:25:27Z","article","Bellevue city officials and planning commissioners presented a draft land-use code amendment on May 13 aimed at complying with state laws that require cities to expand ‘middle housing’ options. City staff, planning commissioners and dozens of residents discussed where to allow additional units, how to count accessory dwelling units and dimensional rules such as floor‑area ratio and height.

The planning commission recommendation would permit up to four dwelling units per residential lot citywide, exempt attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from the unit cap while counting detached ADUs, allow up to six units by right where two units are provided as affordable units or within expanded walking-distance buffers around transit stations and designated growth centers, and use floor area ratio (FAR) limits to shape cottage‑style developments.

The proposal matters because it interprets the requirements of House Bill 1110 and House Bill 1337—state law passed in 2023—and translates them into Bellevue’s zoning rules. City staff said the recommended changes aim to both meet the state deadline for local adoption and reflect Bellevue’s larger goals from its recently updated comprehensive plan, including concentrating growth near transit and employment centers.

City staff from Development Services outlined the draft’s main points: four units per lot as the baseline, an option to reach six units when two are affordable or where lots lie within the recommended transit and center buffers, a decision to count detached ADUs toward unit caps and FAR but not attached ADUs, FAR tables scaled to local lot sizes, a parking minimum of one space per unit with exemptions near major transit stops, and proposed height increases from 30–35 feet to a 38‑foot maximum to improve feasibility for certain building types.

Planning Commission members said they reviewed public testimony over several meetings and recommended modest expansions beyond the state minimum in a few locations: increasing the transit buffer to a half‑mile and allowing six units within a quarter‑mile of regional and countywide growth centers. Commissioners also recommended offering a fee‑in‑lieu for projects that do not deliver the two affordable units tied to the six‑unit allowance.

More than a dozen residents addressed the council during oral communications. Speakers who opposed elements of the draft warned of traffic, infrastructure strain and loss of neighborhood character if density is expanded beyond state requirements; those supporting the draft said middle housing could bring family‑sized, lower‑cost options and help stabilize school enrollment. Speakers gave examples: concerns about expanding buffers from a quarter mile to a half mile, neighborhood impacts from increased vehicle trips, and arguments that middle housing could produce townhouses marketable to families at prices lower than current single‑family averages.

Council members responded with a mix of support for the planning commission and requests for additional work. Several members praised staff and the commission for a thorough public engagement process but asked for follow‑up detail on several topics before adoption: how detached ADUs are counted (and why attached ADUs were treated differently), the FAR tables and the way FAR incentives translate to family‑sized units, protections for tree canopy and open space, clearer definitions for “cottage” housing so that cottage typologies remain lower‑scale, and mechanisms to monitor infrastructure and traffic impacts if broader buffers are adopted. Multiple council members suggested a staged approach: adopt the state‑required baseline now and return later to consider expansions after monitoring performance or after additional study.

Staff said the draft is intended to meet the June 30, 2025 state deadline for local adoption but that a further study session is scheduled and staff will return with options that respond to the council’s questions. No formal action or adoption vote occurred at the May 13 study session; staff left with direction to prepare supplemental analyses and to present alternatives on the key issues raised by council members and the public.

Council members and staff said they will continue outreach before any final vote, and will aim to ensure the land‑use code amendment reflects both the state statute and Bellevue’s local policy objectives.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Bellevue City Council Meeting - May 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Bellevue city officials and planning commissioners presented a draft land‑use code amendment on May 13 aimed at complying with state laws that require cities to expand ‘middle housing’ options.","taxTitle","Bellevue, King County, Washington","taxId",2544,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6054675,"Bellevue reviews 2025 state session outcomes and adopts 2025–26 federal agenda",1726,13135000,14861000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3335008-f2f2c2a84bc4f32645d2522f24cde26b&start=13135&end=14861","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3335008-f2f2c2a84bc4f32645d2522f24cde26b/thumbnail_13135000.jpg","/articles/6054675/Bellevue/King-County/Washington/Bellevue-reviews-2025-state-session-outcomes-and-adopts-202526-federal-agenda","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6054675-b1b32ea6d853f883cbb28ae0d5472ffb/orig.mp4?Expires=1776242782&Signature=HBUMGY-pOvGPJ8bwZJo99vY0xqrhJEnSgUcuz5b6PrIBbuMhaZNUvFIDpDzlrhj9MGRcq9nSkoKNdfArsAfRHQJYL80DZFgKni69FAL0e8RLp-SgYA0JxJ9Stpz7Q0zpNTYYY7QVyKgXZshIgIRY0SUVdhDVOcJCS8ce2lLHhdPGFS1-jdYk-7HoHAdvbAjVBGlT~HpavYHewDpR~VgkrxZDhfz6PRx1H7Ylw87xtc4xHGMIQcFOstZgXCoYZJ4lfP6CX4f36-u2-uov7C2QhWGTADjNTKnMVwzlsupOl6cnerJ~5mgi4dgpxPV6tN7TdKOSTBa1IQJADteEGNTgew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bellevue city staff gave the City Council a session‑end review of the 2025 Washington state legislative session on May 13 and asked the council to adopt the city’s 2025–26 federal legislative agenda ahead of a planned June delegation trip to Washington, D.C. Council voted to adopt the federal agenda later in the meeting.

Intergovernmental staff summarized key state outcomes: despite a tight state budget environment the legislature provided targeted support for several Bellevue priorities. The session produced a package of housing‑and‑land‑use bills of statewide significance and included authority that Bellevue expects to use for financing the Grand Connection; staff reported a successful change to permit additional tax‑increment financing authority of $500 million of property value for Bellevue (an increase from a smaller amount in prior drafts) and noted the city received roughly $250,000 in the capital budget toward the Grand Connection. Staff also said the legislature funded work on the I‑405/Interstate‑167 corridor and other regional transportation priorities but that several Bellevue funding requests—digital permitting and some local projects—did not make the final budget and will return to the city’s interim advocacy.

Katie Halsey, the city’s intergovernmental relations director, reviewed session context: a 105‑day session with substantial fiscal pressure and many new legislators, producing roughly 423 bills enacted from more than 2,300 introduced. Bellevue monitored more than 360 bills, took positions on dozens and provided testimony and coordinated council member participation. Staff highlighted passage of multiple housing bills (including the statutory elements discussed in the city’s middle‑housing study session), producer responsibility and recycling changes, and a number of other policy shifts that will affect local governments.

On the federal side, staff presented an updated 2025–26 federal agenda that keeps prior priorities—transportation and mobility, essential and sustainable infrastructure, housing and safety‑net passthrough programs, and climate and resilience—but adds emphasis on utility investments and a narrower, actionable list of projects to pursue with the city’s congressional delegation and federal agencies. Staff said they had submitted two earmark requests and believed both had a strong chance of moving forward; staff also announced a new hire in the city’s federal relations team and said the standard Washington, D.C., trip and constituent‑office visits are scheduled in June.

Council members praised staff work and the thorough wrap‑up, asked staff to press for additional funds during the interim and encouraged coordination with regional partners on shared capital needs such as wastewater infrastructure. Several council members welcomed the new federal relations staff member and endorsed the adopted federal agenda as a tool for the city’s upcoming delegation trip. The council approved the federal agenda by voice vote; staff said they will proceed with advocacy, pursue grant and earmark opportunities and return for updates as federal and state processes evolve.","City staff summarized legislative results in Olympia—including tax increment financing authority for the Grand Connection and limited capital grant support—and the council adopted an updated federal agenda and instructed staff to pursue earmarks and engagement with the delegation.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6054679,"Bellevue staff seek council guidance on Maidenbower Bay Park phase 2 design and phasing",1581,9607000,11188000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3335008-f2f2c2a84bc4f32645d2522f24cde26b&start=9607&end=11188","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3335008-f2f2c2a84bc4f32645d2522f24cde26b/thumbnail_9607000.jpg","/articles/6054679/Bellevue/King-County/Washington/Bellevue-staff-seek-council-guidance-on-Maidenbower-Bay-Park-phase-2-design-and-phasing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6054679-188cb5f77627ac629e45b716de11b8e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1776242782&Signature=QOhvvJa1EHkUSYdBwAte5NakY3WEQhVHY7uLzLI6GBBVKWZKgmnU7jhZrOqmgyAOSNlL6Lsg042VnTg5C57Y4S4KVbX94V~IzUujKREXxIU0I7niaTWpQSqA8WXU12I3CqWl0DVrPHEcjLB9NFnawD2L9j7p7Fl2CDi3RND6aOyqBgc3YdujwspgEdzsibCh4997CUIVu7gniWahuGkX5LuCVrIF8tRekmeT2qAC1miCGhuPdSGP8NimCTi1SFLNR2V1KuWjZ2L0tmErwt3xsEQK~2cmpCpFzL4Oo8NRBRy9-aeaRXhZniei~0QQ-nrKgdDxwr8N2H0P9wvzwBRTXg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Bellevue parks staff asked the City Council on May 13 for guidance to move the Maidenbower Bay Park project into design and engineering for phase 2, outlining a conceptual plan that would create a new gateway plaza at Main Street, relocate and consolidate parking off the shoreline, extend a shoreline promenade and defer more costly marina and bay‑connector elements to later phases.

The work follows the council‑adopted Maidenbower Bay Park and Land Use Plan (2010) and phase‑1 construction completed in 2019; staff said phase‑2 design would implement the master plan while responding to contemporary priorities such as the Grand Connection and multimodal access. The city identified roughly $35 million in current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding for phase‑2 concept elements; staff estimated three years for design and permitting with construction targeted for about 2028–29.

Parks staff described the proposed scope: a larger, accessible plaza and pedestrian connection at Main Street and Southeast 100th, a stepped but ADA‑accessible route from the plaza down to the promenade that avoids elevator reliance, relocation of shoreline parking into the gateway parcel to reduce parking directly on the lake edge, and a new elevated ‘bay connector’ and canopy walk that would provide an iconic promenade into the water. Staff proposed deferring expensive elements—specifically the marina reconfiguration and the bay connector—into a later phase to manage cost and sequencing.

Public speakers from the Maidenbower Bay neighborhood and the Maidenbower Bay Neighbors Association told the council they supported waterfront access but urged the city to pause and address detailed concerns before progressing to contract. Speakers said the phase‑2 concept removes a significant number of marina parking stalls used by marina tenants, could create additional traffic and parking strain, and might alter neighborhood character. Several speakers asked that the Park Board formally review Berger’s report and that staff respond to written comments the neighborhood provided. Some condo‑building residents said they had not seen story poles or visualizations showing structure heights and requested more detailed answers about staging, construction impacts, lighting and safety.

Council members praised the parks team’s extensive outreach—staff said they had about 13,600 engagement touchpoints over two years—but several asked that the parks department return with more detail before authorizing contract work. Key requests included: clearer parking and transition plans so marina tenants and park patrons have sufficient stalls during construction and after reconfiguration; visual simulations (story poles or massing studies) showing proposed heights and sight‑line impacts to adjacent residences; a financing picture showing gaps and contingency plans beyond the identified $35 million; and continued, targeted engagement with the Maidenbower Bay neighborhood and the Park Board before phase‑2 contracting.

Staff said the proposed phase‑2 scope focuses effort on the gateway parcel and a segment of the shoreline promenade as a near‑term implementable package, while leaving Lake Washington Boulevard improvements, Sunset Terrace work and marina/bay‑connector elements for later phases. Staff also noted the 2010 master plan had envisioned a smaller marina footprint in later phases; resolving marina slip counts and tenant impacts would be part of any future marina redesign.

No contract award or final authorization took place at the May 13 meeting; council members asked staff to incorporate the council’s questions into a follow‑up report and to seek feedback from the two absent council members before the item returns. Staff also said they would pursue grant opportunities and refine their cost estimates for a future phase‑2 authorization.","Parks staff presented a conceptual phase‑2 plan for Maidenbower Bay Park, proposing a Gateway Plaza, relocated parking, a shoreline promenade and later marina/bay‑connector work; neighbors raised concerns about parking, marina slips, views and construction impacts and asked for more outreach before contracting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bellevue council studies land-use code changes to allow middle housing under new state law

Bellevue reviews 2025 state session outcomes and adopts 2025–26 federal agenda

Bellevue staff seek council guidance on Maidenbower Bay Park phase 2 design and phasing