Author: Nicole

Edit: Paragraph about SB 5184 added to end, and correction made about fee-in-lieu amount.

Edit 2: Mea culpa for complaining about the change-tracking; the lot size difference is actually already in our existing code. See more info at end. I’ve also added a note about this to Errata.

Minimum lot sizes are being reduced by 23% for affordable housing and slightly increasing for single family and middle housing otherwise. This means that if your lot is more than 1.52x the old lot size, you can split it into two lots. If it was a little larger than a double lot (2.28x), it can become a triple lot. 

Of course, this only benefits people who have a particularly large lot, or multiple lots together, but it could be a meaningful boost for affordable housing on a useful number of lots scattered throughout the city. Offering the fee-in-lieu (which has been dropped to only $75,000 for each of the 5th and 6th units as of the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting) (Sorry, after listening to the meeting recording, it appears we still have a $150,000 per unit fee-in-lieu) was identified as something that would make it more expensive for affordable housing providers wishing to build six units to compete for lots with market-rate builders. 

The change in minimum lot size happened [was featured in the strike-draft] after the public hearing but before the community was able to hear the perspective of any of the Planning Commission members. They had the public hearing to listen on April 9th, and then had their study session discussion on April 23rd. You can see the difference between the draft released on April 3rd* here (page 16) and the draft released on April 18th here (page 18). 

While the 9 middle homes per lot initial proposal was removed, it will now be 2*(6 middle + 2 ADUs) = 16 homes in these cases. 

Splitting a lot will also drop it into a higher tier of FAR in many cases. For instance, a 14,000 sqft lot in an R-3.5 area will be big enough to qualify as two lots under the new SR-2 zoning, which has just been adjusted to allow lot sizes as small as 6,700 sqft if affordable. Instead of 8 units at 0.9 FAR (avg size 2125 sqft), a builder can make 16 units at 1.5 FAR (avg size 1862 sqft) since the cutoff in the FAR table is lot size of 10k sqft, and it also means twice as much bonus space for ADUs and storage/parking. 

The lot-splitting legislation from the state doesn’t increase the number of houses per lot (this was my previous misunderstanding) but it will make the transition much simpler administratively. Previously, there was a planned unit development rule, and the processes Bellevue should require for lots being split are also being hashed out now. 

I did not have a chance to comment on this to the planning commission because the numbers were all changed but not highlighted in yellow in the newest strike-draft. I was also not expecting changes since the planning commission had not made any requests to the city staff during the April 9th meeting. 

I think this is primarily meaningful for R-4 and R-5 areas where lot sizes support more natural affordability, but the only scenario I looked at so far is R-3.5.

*There was a draft issued on March 20th (attached to the Staff Report and linked on the project page), which has a fee-in-lieu amount blank. Another was released on April 3rd with the meeting materials for the April 9th meeting and public hearing. This one has a header of March 20th too, but i try to reference it by release date to help people keep it straight. The one released on April 18th for the April 23rd meeting also has a header of April  23rd on each page. 

Update: It should also be noted that SB 5184 eliminates any parking requirement for affordable housing, making a large number of units like this more feasible, though we would have 18 months from the effective date to implement the rules corresponding to SB 5184 in Bellevue.

Update 2: It looks like the necessary update to the table header and removal of lot minimums for the R-10 through R-30 areas had not been included previously as an oversight (Kirsten Mandt explains the latter on page 146 of the April 23rd meeting’s Written Communications). I am sorry I didn’t notice the existence of this table previously by cross-referencing the existing code, because it could add more density than I think people are anticipating.

Although this allowance is not new, it didn’t have much of an impact when it would have allowed you to put two single family affordable homes on a $2M lot. In a scenario where it will allow 16 units instead of 8 market rate homes (that in some cases must also pay a fee of $300k), the relevance of this provision is much greater, and the exemption from parking will make the higher density more feasible as well. I am not sure how much economic analysis the legislature and Commerce did when determining that getting two extra units on a lot (HB 1110 scenario) would be a boost to help affordable housing providers compete for lots. 

There is also another density bonus associated with religious entities of 50% in 20.20.128 E.2, so I think in some cases you might have 24 units on a lot that currently has one house and is required by HB 1110 to allow six affordable units.

1) Walking distance: When using Google Maps, the default is to include routes with stairs, but there is also a “Wheelchair accessible” toggle option (in the same menu as “avoid ferries”) that chooses routes without stairs. In line with Bob Steed’s recommendation, let’s use routes that provide accessibility. We should also require the mapped route to have an endpoint at a pedestrian entrance (that is on level with or has ramps to walkways serving at least 25% of the units). I would also recommend use of a distance in meters, which has more precision in the Google Maps interface, as shown below (pictures 1 and 2), and disqualify routes that go through parking lots (picture 3). 

2) Fee-in-lieu for density expansion areas: Where Bellevue proposes to allow six middle housing units beyond the areas mandated by HB 1110 (areas close to frequent bus transit and neighborhood and regional centers, as well as parcels that are more than 1/4 mile walking distance but less than 1/2 mile walking distance from major transit), let’s have a fee of $10,000 per unit for fifth and sixth units which will not satisfy the performance option for affordable housing. This will allow us to side-step the question of co-housing in additional areas until we’ve gone through the process of defining our co-housing rules and know what the implications are.

3) Cottages: Let’s use elements of the state’s model code for an increased cottage landscaping requirement and better porch definition, and to the extent meeting community expectations matters to us, we should consider limiting their height to 22’. Cottage housing was the most popular middle housing type in Bellevue’s 2022 survey because, “ Many commenters… would prefer to see small-scale, low-density options like duplexes or cottage homes built instead of these much larger scale single-family homes.” I also think we should strongly consider sprinkler requirements when there are more than 6 cottage homes on a lot and the cottage is within 8 feet of an adjacent cottage, because it would be more physically strenuous for the fire department to respond to a situation where there are tons of stairs in separate towers than in a stacked flat with centralized stairwells. More cottage comments here.

I haven’t tried to figure out how many cottages might be allowed on a large lot in Bellevue, but here is reporting out of Encinitas, where a new policy for unlimited ADUs is getting pulled back. Residents are concerned about recent flooding, fire risk (ADUs are not required to have sprinklers), and large numbers of new residents where the lots are cheap but there’s very little street parking and no sidewalks. The people in the story have a project with 43 units coming in near them.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/racial-justice-social-equity/2025/01/29/encanto-neighbors-say-their-infrastructure-cant-support-the-granny-towers-coming-to-backyards

It links to an academic report, which says that there are “several” large scale developments which will each create over 100 units once completed. Nolan Gray, the Senior Director of Legislation and Research for California YIMBY, is quoted as saying “the projects do still have to follow existing regulations for square footage and height requirements, so it’s more “as much as you can fit.”

This sounds very similar to Bellevue’s policy for cottages, which you can see on page 22 of the strike-draft:

2. The density of cottage housing development on a lot is controlled by maximum floor area ratio by lot size and not by dwelling units per lot or dwelling units per acre. Therefore, there is no limit on the maximum dwelling units per lot, or dwelling units per acre, for cottage housing development. Cottage housing development is subject to the otherwise applicable development regulations contained in this section and in LUC 20.20.538 and the maximum floor area ratio for single-family and middle housing set forth in LUC 20.20.390.

In planning terms, setbacks tell you where on a lot you can build something and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) tells you how much you can build. The easy scenario is an FAR of 1.0, which translates to a two story building on half of the surface area of a lot or a three story building whose footprint is one third of the lot. Usually, there is also a maximum lot coverage percentage that prevents you from actually building on 50% of the lot; see my Cottages post for a discussion of this limit in our neighborhoods. 

When we look around our neighborhoods, the most meaningful FAR is the 0.5 that theoretically limits house size. That might mean a two-story house whose footprint is 25% of the lot area. It’s not uncommon, though, for the newer homes to be much more than that through the magic of daylight basements, uncounted garage space, and the daylighting provision that uncaps FAR as long as you give the neighbors a little additional space along both side setbacks. 

The intent with the middle housing change is to simultaneously tighten down on the FAR exemptions for single family homes (daylighting rules removed, etc, see letter from TJW on page 162 of written communications) while drastically increasing the FAR that is allowed for middle housing with more units on a site. 

There was a last minute change released on April 3rd, in the week before the April 9th Public Hearing on Middle Housing. For lots under 10k square feet, the allowable FAR at each unit count of middle housing increased sharply. For example, the FAR for four units went from 0.7 to 1.0, an increase of 42%. The FAR for six units went from 0.9 to 1.5, an increase of 66%. Although April 3rd strike-draft is dated March 20th, it is not the same as the version that went out in March, and this did not give the community time to think about potential impacts before the hearing occurred. 

You’ll also notice that when you cross the threshold from 9999 to 10,000 square feet, the amount of FAR you’re allotted decreases by about 44%.  I mention this on page 27 of the written communications, and the situation is explained in more detail by K. G., who says it will open the city up to litigation (page 213). It seems very possible that this unfairness will be resolved in the same way that decreased sizes for single-family homes on lots over 10k sqft were – by simply increasing the amount of FAR given to the larger properties. 

Lots on the smaller end of the scale also benefit proportionally more from a flat amount of non-FAR square footage that all lots are allowed to build; 2 x 1200 sqft ADUs* and up to 8 x 250 sqft parking/unheated storage. On the one hand, this means that the actual drop in buildable potential when going over the 10k threshold is only 31%, not 44%  On the other hand, it means that on the smaller lots, we will run into feasibility challenges from the setbacks before we run out of FAR to build with.

The setbacks are determined by which zoning classification the parcel is in. For a lot in R-3.5, which will now be called SR-2, there are two tables with different setbacks for single family (20.20.010) vs. middle housing (20.20.538). In the middle housing scenario, the front yard setback is 10 feet, the rear yard setback is 15 feet, and the side setbacks are 5 feet each. 

For a 10k sqft lot** that is 80 by 125 feet, the buildable area is 70 by 100 feet, or 7000 sqft. If you have three stories and it’s a solid chunk of building, that could be as much as 21,000 square feet. It is more than the 19,400 sqft of FAR plus bonus space, but then there is no room for walkways except around the edge in the side setbacks, no room for driveways, and the center of the building would be 35’ from the windows. An apartment building floorplate can certainly be that big, but middle housing may feel more dark when the adjacent structure is just ten feet across a sideyard, or there is a fence five feet away from the window.

15,000 sqft at 1.5 FAR + 2400 sqft ADU +2000 sqft parking/storage = 19,400 sqft 

If that solid chunk of building is divided by two 5′ walkways into three 30 x 70′ duplexes (again, no driveways), that reduces the building size by 2100 sqft and means that the 18,900 sqft might only have enough room for 6 parking spots instead of 8.

Please keep in mind that scenarios depend on the lot shape too; if a lot with the same area is instead 85 by 117.6 feet, buildable area is 75 by 92.6 feet, or 6945 sqft. 

If I have referenced your initials above and you would like me to use your full name instead, just let me know! Also, if there is a zoning classification/lot size combination you’re particularly interested in, please let me know and I can include it in the scenarios that I’ll be creating. 

*there is the potential that ADUs could be larger than this if they are on a single level and receive approval for the plans. 

** Technically, this is true for 9999 sqft lots, and exactly 10,000 sqft gets the lower FAR level.

The MBAKS email to Planning Commission made me say, wait… why are they asking for eaves again? They had specifically been requested before and were added in the March 20 strike-draft (see page 19, where it was highlighted).

Instead, there is a new allowance that up to 25% of lot coverage and impervious surface coverage may be permitted for site area that is used for a cottage’s covered porch (new strike-draft, page 22).

I think this may be substantially a response to my protest that the April 9th draft did not include any porch requirement, and that counting 75% of the porch against the FAR allowance would naturally result in builders omitting porches in favor of interior space that they can charge more for.

(more…)

Agendas for the Planning Commission meetings, along with meeting documents, are posted on the Legistar calendar. You can click on the Planning Commission tab at the top to filter out the other commission and council meetings.

https://bellevue.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

The upcoming meeting on April 23 will have two major items on the agenda: a study session for the Critical Areas Ordinance Land Use Code Amendment (LUCA), and a study session for the Middle Housing LUCA. The Middle Housing public hearing was held two weeks ago, and many other letters have been received by the planning commission in addition to that. You can find the letters in the Written Communications part of the Agenda, not inside the Middle Housing documents.

If you would like to provide public comment during the very first part of the meeting, sign up as close to noon as you can at www.Bellevuewa.gov/planning-oral-comms – this is not considered a hearing, but usually about ten people get to speak at each meeting.

For recent meetings, you can find the same documents plus the minutes and video of the meeting. Some that addressed Middle Housing were:

April 9th Middle Housing Public Hearing

March 12th

February 12th

October 9th, 2024

Additional information is available at https://bellevuewa.gov/code-amendments/middle-housing-code-amendments.

Hi, it looks like it was a fair amount of effort to bend this sign, and now the metal is a more awkward shape for recycling.

Some constructive alternatives:

(more…)

Updates: Please see the recent post on Building Heights – the outcome of the April 23rd Planning Commission vote was that the height limit for middle housing is 38′ and four stories will still be possible, though it was recognized that this might result in housing with low ceilings that’s like “a shoebox” and “not great accommodations.” There is still a chance that the City Council will be able to resolve the issue before the policy is finalized; please reach out to them if you have an opinion about this!

Page 12 of the April 18th draft (April 23rd header) still says one-half mile instead of one-half mile *walking* distance, as HB 1337 requires in Sec. 4, 2 (a)(i). Again, it still seems possible that this will be fixed.

During the April 23rd meeting, the commission voted to allow 300 sqft of “free” area for garage/unheated storage use, a small increase from the 250 sqft mentioned in this post. Also, cottage developments larger than 4 units will be now able to use the driveway to count toward the common open space required for four of their units.

I think the lot splitting allowed by HB 1096 is actually more important (for greasing the administrative skids) now that there is a new minimum lot size for affordable housing that was slipped into [showcased in] the April 18th draft – a 23% reduction that will allow some parcels to split and have twice as many units, even if they are not otherwise a double lot. The impact is greater when they will additionally cross below the 10,000 sqft lot threshold for FAR, allowing a 66% increase in building size based on FAR and a doubling of the uncounted ADU/garage/storage space.

There were also substantial changes to the cottage policy following critiques like mine about the porch issue, though I wouldn’t say it was really fixed – see the Ah, Cottages post.

After thinking about it a little more, I think the sixplex is a better “type” to get the stacked townhome apartments, since there is no need for “direct” courtyard access. This is primarily relevant where the 2024 Tree Code provisions give you 12′ of height in addition to the 38′ for middle housing, and middle housing would be allowed to have a 50’+ facade.

I had a meeting today that clarified some important things: 

Deadlines: Commerce is really flexible and easy to work with, so we don’t have to worry about the 60 day review period after all. This means we should have plenty of time to incorporate input from city council, and it makes me feel so much less stressed about raising community awareness in time to make a difference. Please still come to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting if you can, of course!

Walking distance: The intent is really to use the walking distance that would be found on Google Maps, not the radius, and there may be places that were still stated as a radius in the last draft where the intent is to refer to them as walking distances and these should get corrected (page 12, 28, 29?). There might be a possibility of tweaking the language on page 28 to make this more clear, and I’m also hoping for an FAQ blurb about it. I think this will create an incentive to create pedestrian connections between adjacent streets (Kirkland has some great examples of this), and also is more fair in allocating density to parcels that are equally convenient for pedestrians. 

(more…)

Bellevue’s Bold Middle Housing Plan Faces Uncertain Fate at Planning Commission

This article provides many good quotes, but it’s such a complicated issue that it’s easy to get tripped up on the details. Here are some clarifications that may help our community understand the actual proposal for Bellevue.

Number of Units:

(more…)

Approximately 60 people were in the room for the public hearing about Middle Housing Implementation on April 9th, far more than the usual attendance at a Planning Commission meeting. The staffers who have been working on this Land Use Code Amendment to implement the state legislation HB 1110 and HB 1337 gave a presentation about the current version of the draft code (the initial draft was released on February 24th and there were updates on March 20th and April 4th). The Planning Commission gave each member of the public a full three minutes to speak, which took until well after 9 pm. 

After the hearing closes for public comment, it’s typical for the commission to spend time discussing the topic and asking more questions of the staff (often in direct response to the issues raised during public comment), before voting on a motion. Since it was so late, however, Chair Goeppele suggested that they stop for the night and move on to the next item on the agenda (different staff were present to make a presentation on recent outreach to certain neighborhoods). 

This will give the Planning Commission more time to think about their responses to the public’s advocacy and the conflicting requests they heard. The next meeting slot, which had been prescheduled in case the commission needed more time, is on April 23rd. The Planning Commission may still take into account the emails they receive between now and then, and the public can also see these in the “Written Communications” pdf that’s attached to each meeting agenda posted on the City Calendar. 

(more…)