Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Middle Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bothell studies middle-housing expansion and inclusionary zoning; council seeks pro formas and targeted approach
Summary
City planners proposed expanding middle-housing allowances citywide and extending inclusionary-zoning requirements to larger residential zones; council members expressed strong interest in incentives and caution about mandating affordability in lower-demand areas, asking staff for feasibility pro formas and targeted pilot approaches.
City planners returned to the Bothell City Council on Oct. 7 with draft changes to the middle-housing code and proposed expansions to the city's inclusionary zoning requirements aimed at producing deed-restricted affordable units alongside market housing.
Senior long-range planner Ray Sosa summarized a two-part approach: the middle-housing code update would allow up to six units on lots where the code permits (and include an affordability requirement of two deed-restricted units per six-unit project); a separate inclusionary-zoning proposal would move mandatory affordability standards out of overlay zones and into selected base residential zones (staff proposed covering RM‑2 and above, and downtown and Canyon Park), increasing the geographic area subject to explicit affordability rules.
"If we create the voluntary approach, it's similar to what we've already done where we created a lot of density around the city, but then we just have to hope that we'll get those affordability units," Sosa said, describing both mandatory and voluntary policy paths. He said the city is working with consultants to run pro-forma feasibility studies to ensure any mandatory requirement is financially viable for developers as state law requires.
Council reaction: several councilors urged caution about making affordability mandatory in areas with uncertain development appetite. "Because what we've done with our residential medium is so novel and different and new, I want to see what it can do before I start adding requirements on it," Council Member Alder said, referring to recently adopted RM‑2 allowances. Other members favored targeting mandatory requirements to higher‑density, transit‑served locations such as downtown, Canyon Park and portions of North Creek, rather than applying mandates citywide.
Members repeatedly asked staff for concrete pro‑forma analyses, case studies from other jurisdictions and evidence that the listed incentives (height and density bonuses, fee waivers, expedited review and parking reductions) would actually make mandatory inclusionary requirements feasible at the target affordability levels. Staff said consultants are preparing those financial feasibility analyses and would return with modeled scenarios.
Staff emphasized state law and recent legislative guidance requiring cities to plan and make capacity available for a range of affordability bands. Councilors responded that planning obligations must be balanced against the local market; several suggested piloting mandatory approaches in clearly developable areas before extending requirements to all medium-density residential zones.
No action was taken. Staff will complete pro-formas, bring comparative case studies and return with refined recommendations on zoning geography, incentive packages and implementation timing.
