Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Middle Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bothell staff present draft middle‑housing code to allow up to six units per lot; council debates raising base to four
Summary
Community Development senior planner Ray Sosa presented a draft zoning amendment to allow up to six dwelling units per lot in more residential zones, consistent with state law and Bothell’s 2024 comprehensive plan; staff said more analysis is required before adoption.
Senior long‑range planner Ray Sosa told the Bothell City Council on June 10 that staff are proposing zoning code amendments to increase allowed middle housing densities, moving from the current base framework to allow up to six dwelling units per lot in more areas, in alignment with state requirements and the 2024 comprehensive plan.
Sosa said the adjustment from four to six units per lot would expand density opportunities across more than 40% of the city, but could require related comprehensive plan amendments and environmental review. He explained that the proposed draft aligns with state house‑bill thresholds (referenced during the briefing) and that staff plan to take feedback from council, meet with the planning commission and, if directed, incorporate changes into the comp‑plan and SEPA review before adoption.
The nut graf: the proposal would increase by‑right density in many residential zones but also trigger state affordability requirements when densities rise above certain tiers; council members urged staff to return with options and a deeper briefing on the tradeoffs — notably whether to set a baseline of four units per lot citywide (a change some council members said had been promised during prior outreach) and how that baseline interacts with state rules that can require deed‑restricted affordable units for higher tiers.
Council discussion focused on balancing additional unit capacity with affordability requirements. Several members said they expected a base floor of four units per lot as part of prior community outreach; others raised concerns that state‑mandated affordability levels for six‑unit proposals (as written in state law) might make six‑unit projects infeasible in areas outside high‑transit corridors. Staff suggested returning with two scenarios and a study session to examine impacts on the city’s housing targets, 12‑month timelines and the comp‑plan’s capacity assumptions.
Ending: Staff said no action was required at the meeting; the next steps are additional analysis, a planning commission review and a study session to drill into base density, affordability triggers and how adjustments would affect comprehensive‑plan housing targets and environmental review timelines.
