Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inclusionary Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodinville consultants outline inclusionary zoning tradeoffs as council eyes EMU rezoning
Summary
Consultants presented housing market data showing Woodinville median home prices near $1.14 million and described common inclusionary zoning options (percent of units, AMI targets, fee‑in‑lieu, incentives). Council and commissioners largely favored mandatory IZ in mixed‑use zones and optional/bonus approaches in lower‑density areas, while raising infrastructure and fiscal concerns.
Consultants from Forum Placemaking and Neighborhood Workshop framed inclusionary zoning as one of several tools Woodinville can use to preserve affordability as the city considers rezoning the Eastrail Mixed Use (EMU) area.
At a joint study session, Brian Vaneman summarized regional trends and local affordability: “Redfin right now is about $1,140,000 in Woodinville,” and he said the home‑price‑to‑income ratio for the region is historically high. Vaneman told the council that, in his view, inclusionary zoning should be considered alongside rezoning and the city’s middle‑housing work to increase supply.
The consultants outlined common program features: minimum project size exemptions (often 10 units), required percentages typically between 10% and 20%, and AMI targets most commonly around 80% (with programs ranging roughly 60–80% AMI). They also warned about design risks: a poorly calibrated requirement “can impose so much cost on developers that they cease to build or build less, or go to other jurisdictions,” Vaneman said.
Council members and planning commissioners broadly agreed the mixed‑use districts (CBD and EMU) were the most appropriate places to require affordability. Several members favored making IZ mandatory in higher‑density mixed‑use zones while allowing optional or incentive‑based programs in lower‑density residential areas (R1/R4), where infrastructure limits — septic, sewer, transit and road access — make development and deeper affordability difficult.
The group debated a fee‑in‑lieu (FIL) option. Staff noted Seattle’s experience showed many developers opted to pay fees rather than build units onsite. Council members said that outcome is not inherently bad if the city has a plan and capacity to turn those funds into affordable housing quickly (for example, buying land or partnering with nonprofits), but cautioned that inflation and limited staff capacity can erode fund value and effectiveness.
Policy tradeoffs and incentives were central to the discussion. Suggestions included streamlined permitting, density or height bonuses in exchange for on‑site units, property tax abatement extensions, and impact‑fee waivers. Several council members emphasized preserving first‑floor commercial space to protect the city’s sales‑tax base while allowing increased height or FAR as an incentive for developers to deliver affordable housing.
Discussion also covered the Creative District concept within the EMU. Council members urged prioritizing affordable housing while exploring affordable commercial and small incubator spaces; staff said few jurisdictions mandate affordable commercial space in code, and that implementation would require defining measurable standards.
Next steps from staff and the consultants include producing financial and logistical modeling, bringing back 3–5 regulatory options in the late summer/fall for council consideration, and working through the practical details — including minimum sizes, AMI tiers, and whether and how a fee‑in‑lieu program would be administered.
