Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Duvall staff outline zoning overhaul and required affordable‑housing program to meet state targets
Summary
City staff told the council the comprehensive‑plan appeal and state/county housing targets require Duvall to identify additional land capacity and adopt an affordable‑housing incentive program; staff proposed district consolidations, targeted upzones and options ranging from mandatory inclusionary requirements to incentive packages and in‑lieu fees.
City staff presented a package of zoning‑code amendments the council must adopt this year to meet housing capacity assigned by state and county agencies and to respond to an appeal of the city’s comprehensive plan. The city’s director of community and economic development said the effort is a legal obligation, not a voluntary exercise, and that the council will decide how aggressive any incentive or requirement should be.
The proposal simplifies and consolidates multiple residential and mixed‑use districts, replacing several district labels such as R12 and R20 with larger consolidated districts in order to increase buildable capacity. Staff showed two mapping options: a “straight upzone” across a range of parcels to reach minimum compliance and an alternate option that adds deeper upzones in four circled infill areas to capture more capacity without broadly changing neighborhood character.
“We are legally required to address capacity for housing that was not addressed in the comp‑plan update,” Ariel Batty, the city’s director of economic and community development, told council members. “We are working with a deadline by the end of the year to provide housing capacity that’s been assigned to the city.”
Staff explained that some elements of the package are required by state law. In particular, the new state rules for step housing (shelter, transitional, emergency and permanent supportive housing) must be allowed in the zoning code; by contrast, an inclusionary affordable‑housing program — whether mandatory or incentive‑based — is a policy choice for the council.
On the policy table are two broad approaches: an optional, incentive‑based program that uses bonuses (density, height, parking relief), tax exemptions or development flexibility to encourage affordable units; or a mandatory approach that requires a percentage of on‑site affordable units, or an in‑lieu fee when a developer opts not to build units. Staff noted the mandatory approach can reduce developer interest and carries a risk that some projects would not be built, while in‑lieu fees can be pooled through a regional delivery partner but require membership and administrative capacity.
Staff estimated the city would face a regional membership cost for a pooled approach (for example, ARCH‑type regional coalitions) of roughly $27,000 per year at current population levels, and emphasized administrative and tracking burdens if the city chooses the pooled model. Officials also described practical tools that could be combined — for example, mandatory thresholds for large projects plus incentives intended to generate additional affordable units.
Next steps: staff will continue mapping options, refine numeric thresholds (trigger sizes, set‑asides, in‑lieu fee methodologies) and community outreach this summer. Final code amendments are expected back in the fall with adoption targeted before year‑end so the city can demonstrate it has planned and accommodated the assigned capacity.
