Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council advances Comprehensive Plan code changes on MFI/PUD: affordability rules, lot coverage and form-based language
Summary
Council voted on multiple Comprehensive Plan and code amendments: requiring some affordable housing to access the MFI code, setting a 15% affordable-unit requirement under MFI, adopting a 6-unit threshold for mandatory affordable units with fee-in-lieu guidance unresolved, removing a subjective "village character" phrase from MFI, and retaining open-space standards.
The council took a series of motions to shape forthcoming Comprehensive Plan and draft code amendments. Director Meredith Penny summarized staff recommendations and background as council weighed limits on the MFI (multifamily infill) and Planned Unit Development codes.
Council rejected a motion to limit use of the MFI code to nonprofit-developed projects only. Council then approved a motion that some amount of affordable housing be required to access the MFI code. A subsequent motion to require 15% of total units in a development be affordable under the MFI code passed 4–0. Councilmember Craig Cyr moved that affordable housing units be required for developments of a particular size; after an amendment from Councilmember Rhonda Salerno changing the threshold to 6 units, the amended motion passed 3–1. A proposed motion to set a 20% fee-in-lieu based on market-rate unit selling price did not receive a second and was not advanced.
On code language, staff recommended removing the phrase "honoring the village character of Langley" from the MFI purpose statement because it is subjective and duplicative of the form-based code. Councilmember Chris Carlson moved to remove the phrase and the motion passed 4–0. The council also discussed a requirement for pitched roofs intended to reduce building scale; that motion failed.
Council requested staff follow up on several points, including producing a report on development applications that include affordable housing (a motion on reporting was rescinded by the mover to present later) and returning with clarifications on lot-coverage definitions. The council voted to remove the MFI-specific lot-coverage definition (leaving the single citywide definition), but a separate motion to reduce lot coverage allowance in the MFI code by 10% failed.
