I had written a previous post on co-living, boardinghouses, and SROs, but now I’m hoping for your input on what is worth doing for Bellevue in the next few months before co-living is implemented here (as required by HB 1998).
There’s a nice webinar video explainer produced by Commerce here. Note: The image below from their presentation shows a 1/4 mile radius, though the 6 unit allowance is actually based on walking distance.
For the parcels that allow 6 units by right or are in mixed use areas, owners may create any of these co-housing types starting in January 2026.
1) House retrofits
This is the most straightforward way to add households to existing homes. You just need to put a lock on the bedroom doors, and bedrooms already have to be at least 70 sqft, with at least 50 sqft per person living in it (video, 28:51). There would be a shared kitchen, shared bathrooms in some cases, and possibly other shared living spaces, but it seems likely that living rooms and dens would also be converted to be rentable.
2) Intentional co-living
This should be a premium lifestyle option for people who are looking to build communities with like-minded people they enjoy socializing and eating with. The units inside these could include a variety of studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom homes, but they would always share a kitchen, and there’s sometimes a private chef. Despite the huge amount of effort people put in to try to find their community, raise funding, and create their ideal homes, and how much people talk about this, successful communities are strikingly hard to find.
3) Purpose-built, dorm-style nanohousing
Seattle has a good example (The Karsti), which has 52 units on a 5000 square foot lot. A typical unit might be 180 or 220 sqft, and there is a shared kitchen. In neighborhoods where up to six middle housing units are allowed, I think we could have up to 24 units that are as small as 70 sqft, up to whatever maximum size is possible within the FAR and lot coverage limits. On a 9999 sqft lot, that would be about 24/15000 = 625 sqft per unit, when counting the common areas, and maybe ~450 sqft average unit size if all are above ground.
This is similar to Bellevue’s microhousing typology, but those are up to 320 sqft each and would have their own kitchens. If I were a young person who didn’t cook, I could see co-living being a fun lifestyle; it would depend very much on the personality of the property managers and the vibe of the other residents. This is naturally affordable to households in the 40-60% income level range for single occupants without any subsidy (and lower income levels if two people are living together), and the building would also qualify for affordable housing incentive programs like MFTE tax relief. It’s important to remember that the Karsti looks nice because it was designed by Neiman Taber, but there’s no guarantee these wouldn’t be done to a low standard instead.
This is a huge opportunity to create naturally affordable housing, and with the added incentives, I think we might actually see construction while other projects are stalling. In light of this potential, I think it makes sense to add this to the Planning Commission schedule and at least attempt to develop a thoughtful policy around it, so I sent the following letter to the Planning Commission:
Hello,
I have been hoping to see co-living on the agenda for the Planning Commission, since I believe this has the potential to create a transformative amount of affordable housing, and we need to do everything we can to ensure a high standard of livability for the future residents.
While it is true that HB 1998 is fairly prescriptive, I’ve heard some assertions that we might limit the number of units to 24, and I’d like to get clarification about that. We are also diverging from the legislative intent by adding these to neighborhoods that are not served by Major Transit, and since car ownership adds significant cost to a combined housing/transportation personal budget, I think it’s important to do what we can to address the transportation needs of the new residents.
For example, you could allow incentives if the building includes a designated spot/spots for a shared EV, individual bicycle parking lockers, and proximity to frequent transit. We might also require that at least a portion of the units meet an ADA or visitability standard.
I would also be interested in finding out if this work has been assigned to a staff member, so the community knows who to cc on emails like this.
Thanks,
Nicole
The above letter will appear in the Written Communications pdf that is attached to each PC meeting’s materials, but the next PC meeting isn’t until September. That pdf will also include this response from city staff:
Hi Nicole,
Thanks for your email. We’re planning to begin community engagement on this LUCA either in late summer or early fall. As you’ve pointed out, the state mandate leaves little room for local discretion, aside from potentially considering incentives, as you mentioned. Given the limited flexibility and narrower applicability in Bellevue, as well as the December 2025 deadline for action, our approach will be to focus on strict compliance with this mandate.
Regarding your suggestions around incentives such as shared EV parking, bicycle storage, transit proximity, and ADA or visitability standards, these would require additional analysis and would only be effective if they offered meaningful benefit to a co-living housing development. Incorporating such incentives would mean going beyond the baseline requirements of the bill (e.g., more height, density, etc.) in order to truly incent these options. Given the limited scale and scope of this LUCA in Bellevue, our approach is to remain within strict compliance. As such, our outreach will center around informing the community about the mandate and how Bellevue will implement it.
We do appreciate the ideas. Other housing efforts underway, such as the Housing Opportunities in Mixed Use Areas (HOMA) LUCA or BelRed LUCA, provide more flexibility and potential for broader impact, and may be better suited for shaping policy in the ways you’ve described.
As the co-living housing LUCA progresses, we will be sure to identify the staff lead and include that information in future communications so the community can stay engaged.
Thanks again,
Nick Whipple
What do you think? Would you like to chime in with any requirements for co-living that you’d like to see? I believe our legislature had a different transportation picture in mind, since they only mandated this for neighborhoods that are a 5 minute walk from Major Transit (Link and RapidRide). Since the areas that Bellevue added in June include some that are a mile from Major Transit, I think we are likely to see more car-dependence, but these buildings are still only required (at most) to offer one parking spot for every four sleeping units because the HB 1998 rules apply unless a parking study is done (co-living near major transit has no parking requirement at all).
I most want to hear from potential residents of these buildings: Would you be more likely to go without a car if your building had the bicycle parking and shared-use zev amenities? I’ve done Flexcar, Zipcar, and Car2go myself, and ZEV Co-op also looks great. Many of the streets in these areas are very bikeable – would secure parking make it more likely that you’d ride often?
Coming up with incentives would probably mean a reduction in the total parking provided on the site, but I’m hoping it would create a real alternative that helps achieve our affordability goals by reducing people’s transportation costs and also ensures the streets remain nice for pedestrians and cyclists rather than being overwhelmed by car storage.
For accessibility, I did talk to one of our legislators, who believes that we aren’t restricted by current laws from creating visitability standards like Portland’s for middle housing (and then perhaps co-living too), and would support us in clearing away any obstacles at the state level. I’d also like to hear from any residents to whom visitability, universal design, and/or ADA standards are important. The legislation specifically mentions seniors as a group that HB 1998 is expected to help.
At 36:05 in the video, there’s a mention that there could be different standards for the sub-category of dormitories, and as mentioned in Nick’s response, there’s quite a bit of potential in putting our energy into the HOMA and BelRed efforts that are in progress right now. Do you think we should focus on opportunities for housing affordability in areas where we’ll have towers?
Finally, if you have lived in a co-living building, what should we require in terms of on-site property management services, especially shared kitchen maintenance? Should we require a disclosure to residents that retrofitted homes may not meet fire code, like the disclosures people are required to sign for lead paint in older buildings? (I believe state laws authorizing co-living within existing buildings would take precedence over fire code that is implemented locally.)
Leave a Reply