Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bike Parking Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff propose streamlined bike‑parking requirements emphasizing quality and flexibility
Summary
Planners proposed broadening bike‑parking applicability and shifting requirements to prioritize secure, accessible long‑term storage and context‑sensitive quantities; commissioners raised concerns about exempting parks, e‑bikes, and management of underused spaces.
Planning staff presented draft amendments on July 15 intended to simplify and target Bothell's bike‑parking code while improving the usability of facilities.
Long‑range planner Eric Jaszewski told the commission staff recommended broadening the types of land uses that must provide bike parking (dormitories, government services, industrial, health and social services, among others), adding context sensitivity (reductions where demand is low or for on‑street netting) and eliminating the existing small‑building exemption under 2,500 sq ft. He summarized staff findings from a neighborhood survey and observational work and said the draft emphasizes quality: "these bike parking spaces are easily to easy to access by people with different abilities" and that lockers and secure long‑term rooms are now permitted.
The proposal also ties long‑term parking for nonresidential uses to staff counts (one long‑term space per 20 employees) instead of square footage, and treats affordable housing differently by proposing 1.5 times the residential quantity to reflect greater bike reliance. Staff proposed step‑housing reductions (supportive/transitional/emergency housing) and a process for deviations where applicants provide evidence of lower demand.
Commissioners delved into several themes: exemptions (a commissioner questioned whether parks should be exempt, noting many people bike to parks), e‑bike and scooter growth, and how to prevent long‑term storage areas from filling with abandoned or underused bikes. Commissioner Gustafson noted that in some buildings “a space that's permanently occupied, isn't really a space,” and urged attention to management and enforcement. Staff responded that long‑term secure options (cages, bike rooms) remain preferable and that director discretion and netting‑out to municipal on‑street racks could address downtown constraints.
Staff presented example calculations translating the draft rules into likely required counts for typical projects (multifamily, mixed use, dorms, grocery stores and office parks), showing the proposed standards would generally lower previous requirements for many uses while tightening quality standards. Eric Jaszewski said staff will return with refined mapping and further analysis of the 0.25‑mile applicability test.
