Bothell planning commission discusses Phase 2 code updates: neighborhood commercial, floor‑area ratio and lot coverage

City of Bothell planning staff presented an initial scope and discussion questions on Phase 2 of municipal code updates at the Planning Commission’s Feb. 19 study session. The three topics — neighborhood‑scale commercial, floor‑area ratio (FAR), and lot coverage — were discussed at length. Commissioners provided guidance and requested further analysis and visual examples; no regulatory changes were proposed or adopted at the meeting.

Neighborhood‑scale commercial Staff said the 2024 Imagine Bothell comprehensive plan supports permitting small, pedestrian‑oriented retail and services that meet daily neighborhood needs. The City referenced Washington State Department of Commerce guidance identifying likely compatible uses (cafés, corner groceries, salons, childcare, small retail) and uses to avoid (drive‑throughs, gas stations, heavy goods retailers).

“Neighborhood scale commercial helps people meet their daily needs for goods and services without relying on driving,” Jacqueline Sampson, Long Range Planner, said. Staff cited Department of Commerce estimates that a neighborhood grocery typically needs roughly 1,000 households within a quarter‑mile to be viable — approximately 10–12 dwelling units per acre or about 10,000 people per square mile — but noted successful neighborhood stores also exist in lower‑density areas that draw customers from outside the immediate area.

Commissioner guidance included: add design standards that limit sensory impacts (hours, lighting, signage), avoid drive‑throughs, consider blade signage and subdued lighting in residential contexts, limit off‑street parking requirements for neighborhood uses, and preserve parity so that new neighborhood enterprises are not unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged compared with existing downtown businesses. Commissioners also flagged the possibility of accessory commercial uses (small business spaces in converted homes or garages) and asked staff to research other jurisdictions’ limits to prevent rapid corporate conversion (for example, large national chains occupying small neighborhood sites).

Floor‑area ratio (FAR) Staff explained FAR is the ratio of a building’s total floor area to lot area; Bothell currently uses minimum and maximum FARs in some zones to encourage particular density and form. Sampson described pros (a common metric familiar to developers, helps shape bulk and massing, and encourages efficient land use) and cons (can push development toward large footprints, may duplicate controls from height, setbacks and lot coverage, and complicate mixed‑use design).

Commissioners urged caution about duplicative or overly complex envelope controls. Multiple commissioners suggested staff present concrete visual scenarios or three alternative code approaches (e.g., retain FAR in targeted commercial/transit areas only; replace FAR with height + open space standards; or simplify FAR ranges) so the commission can evaluate trade‑offs between design flexibility and predictability.

Lot coverage and stormwater Staff reviewed lot coverage (the percent of a parcel covered by buildings and impervious surfaces) and explained that Bothell’s stormwater rules do not impose a fixed impervious‑surface maximum — instead, developments can reach high imperviousness if mitigation is provided. Staff noted trade‑offs: eliminating lot coverage limits can increase building capacity but raises stormwater engineering costs, could push up the cost of required civil infrastructure (vaults, ponds, or LID features), and may reduce opportunities for tree retention and on‑site LID measures. Staff also noted current stormwater billing practices: commercial customers are billed based on impervious area, while single‑family customers pay a flat rate; a shift in lot coverage policy could create pressure to move to a usage‑based rate for residences.

Commissioners emphasized balancing competing goals: increasing housing density, preserving tree canopy and open space, maintaining feasible development costs, and avoiding overly complex, duplicative regulations. Several commissioners recommended staff coordinate analysis with Public Works, Urban Forestry/Climate Action Plan work, and provide visual design examples and code drafts to show likely outcomes under alternate approaches.

Next steps Staff said they will take the comments into account, provide additional visual scenarios and draft code options at a future meeting (staff targeted March 19 and subsequent sessions into summer 2025 for an ordinance), and continue interdepartmental coordination. The Commission did not vote on any of the Phase 2 items on Feb. 19.