Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bothell staff seek council direction on neighborhood‑scale commercial, parking minimums and lot‑coverage rules
Summary
City of Bothell staff presented a Phase 2 code update study session on April 8, 2025, seeking council direction on neighborhood‑scale commercial standards, parking minimums, FAR and lot‑coverage rules and administrative clarifications; no formal action was taken.
City of Bothell staff presented a Phase 2 code update study session on April 8, 2025, seeking council direction on a package of land‑use changes including neighborhood‑scale commercial standards, possible reductions or elimination of parking minimums, and potential changes to floor‑area ratio (FAR) and lot‑coverage rules. No council action was requested; staff asked for guidance and said draft code amendments would return following further work with the Planning Commission.
Deputy Director Christian Getz and planner Jacqueline Sampson framed the issues as follow‑ups to the 2024 comprehensive plan. For neighborhood‑scale commercial, staff recommended a tiered approach based on Commerce guidance: set a size limit tied to a percentage of lot area (staff proposed a 30 percent gross‑floor‑area cap as an initial model), an allowed‑uses list consistent with neighborhood retail, operating‑hour limits, and a clear intent definition so staff can interpret borderline cases. The 30 percent figure is a starting point that staff said could be modified for very small lots or denser zones.
On parking, staff said they were using Senate Bill 5184 (SB 5184), then moving through the 2025 state legislative process, as a starting point and recommended aligning the city’s approach with that bill’s provisions. Staff noted the potential benefits of reducing or removing parking minimums — lower housing costs, more efficient land use and encouragement of walking, biking and transit — but cautioned that the change would require complementary parking management and enforcement tools. Staff reported a recent downtown inventory showing just over 400 on‑street spaces and said technology such as license‑plate recognition is being explored for enforcement; a parking‑management package was expected to return around June.
On FAR and lot coverage, staff said they had not seen widespread development pushing to existing FAR maxima but that removing a maximum FAR would require a more extensive analysis tied to the comprehensive‑plan buildout assumptions, transportation and capital planning and potentially an environmental review. Staff recommended deferring any removal of the FAR maximum for a more comprehensive study, possibly during a future subarea update (for example Canyon Park in 2026). Regarding lot coverage, staff proposed simplifying overlapping rules by eliminating building coverage limits and relying on a hard‑surface (impervious surface) cap while coordinating with stormwater regulations and an upcoming urban forestry management plan; staff recommended deferring major lot‑coverage changes until the urban forestry plan is complete (target: Q4 2025–Q1 2026).
Staff also proposed administrative clarifications: simplifying variance criteria, streamlining the private code‑amendment request process, and reorganizing new overlay zones for clarity (with overlay consolidation deferred to a later work item). Planning Commission generally supported the parking approach, variance and amendment process clarifications, and recommended additional study on FAR removal.
Councilmembers asked a range of technical and policy questions. Several said they support removing parking minimums in principle but tied that change to stronger parking enforcement and management to avoid street‑parking spillover; one councilmember summarized the trade‑off by calling parking mandates “a government‑mandated tax on new housing and small businesses” and asked staff to accelerate enforcement work. Staff said enforcement options and a downtown parking‑management report were in progress and expected back in June. Councilmembers also requested that staff incorporate critical‑area and stormwater‑recharge considerations (aquifer recharge, streamflow impacts) into any lot‑coverage or impervious‑surface analysis.
Staff will return to Planning Commission in May with draft code language and visual examples; if supported, a public hearing and final ordinance could come to council in June. The city intends to coordinate parking, stormwater and the urban forestry plan work so changes to lot coverage and canopy goals align.
