Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission directs staff to recommend 15% inclusionary zoning in Marymore, declines broad step-down
Summary
On Jan. 22 the Redmond Planning Commission voted to ask staff to prepare a recommendation endorsing a 15% inclusionary housing requirement at 50% AMI for the Marymore area and declined a broad step-down transition, directing staff to carry the recommendation to the next meeting.
REDMOND, Wash. — The Redmond Planning Commission on Jan. 22 voted to ask staff to prepare a recommendation that would set a 15% inclusionary housing requirement at 50% area median income (AMI) for the Marymore planning area as part of the 2025 zoning-code package implementing Redmond 2050.
Staff presentation and framing Planning staff member Ian Leftcourt told the commission the inclusionary zoning standard is part of the city’s zoning code and that the current staff recommendation for Marymore is 15% of units at 50% AMI. He summarized the principal question before the commission: whether to include a temporary step-down (lower percentage for the first projects) or go directly to the full 15% requirement.
Why it matters: Marymore is a planned transit-influenced growth area. Commissioners and staff said the inclusionary requirement will determine how much deeply affordable housing is produced in new transit-oriented development and how those public investments (for example, light rail and related infrastructure) distribute value between private owners and the community.
Debate and rationale Commissioner Van Nyman urged the commission to view the requirement as a recapture of public value, noting that infrastructure investments drive land appreciation. He described the inclusionary requirement as a way for the community to recover some of that publicly created value to fund deeper affordability. Several commissioners echoed that reasoning and argued that the policy aligns with Redmond 2050 adopted values.
Not all commissioners favored an immediate full requirement. Commissioner Copley proposed a modest step-up alternative — a graduated approach such as 12% for the first project, 13% for the second and 14% for the third, ramping to 15% thereafter — as a compromise to help ensure development proceeds. That approach was discussed but not adopted.
Final action After discussion the commission voted to ask staff to prepare a recommendation for approval of the staff proposal (15% at 50% AMI) and to return a draft planning-commission report at the next meeting. A formal motion to prepare the recommendation was moved and seconded; the chair called the question and announced the motion carried by the body.
Clarifying details and modeling Staff noted that the financial-feasibility model used conservative assumptions and does not reflect all market or partnership variables. Staff also showed modeling results indicating a limited practical impact from a small step-down; the staff memo estimated the total difference under a full step-down scenario would amount to about 171 affordable units (a figure staff used to illustrate scale during the discussion). Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that if members disagree with the majority outcome they may append a minority letter to the planning commission report for council to review.
Next steps Staff will republish the code-package attachments (including the clarifying edits referenced in draft Section 2104) and prepare the planning commission’s draft report for the next meeting. The commission expects to take final vote on a recommendation at the next scheduled meeting so the planning commission report can be transmitted to city council for consideration.
