During the middle housing debate, something that appeared to be true to me was that the housing urbanists** didn’t understand the implications of the proposal, since they were advocating so strongly for rules that would allow 10,000+ sqft duplexes, among other things.
An article that came out in November suggests that I was wrong about this, since the question in Clyde Hill’s case was specifically about the possibility of 5000 sqft “cottages” and their article still expressed a preference for that in the strongest terms, rather than a rule allowing a more typical cottage size that would be much more affordable. (It also seems possible there’s just a general antipathy toward Clyde Hill and the people who live there. Remember, there was a different Urbanist article last summer where they and Bainbridge Island were callously referred to as a “crash-test dummies“.)
There’s a similar situation that arose in Bellevue, with multiple 9-unit buildings that were built as part of a single project (to avoid triggering the 10 unit requirements for affordable housing). This was discussed in a December 10th Planning Commission meeting (Slide 11 of the presentation, timestamp 17:00-17:30) and the fix to address this will just be put in during the next code update that’s somewhat related.
Bellevue also has an emergency option called an Interim Official Control, which is authorized by state law under RCW
36.70A.390 (Clyde Hill mentions both that and RCW 35A.63.220 as supporting their interim zoning control).
In a recent example, we’ve used an IOC to add density (Ordinances 6736/6760/6785), but the IOC in Ordinance 6903 that will be considered by the City Council next week will put a hold on changes to the character of the Old Bellevue section of Main St between 100th and Bellevue Way. This IOC focuses on facade retention rather than reducing the overall scale of any new buildings, and this is also in the context of HOMA densification* that also appears likely in the near term.
This looks like a good use of the IOC option, and it will be interesting to hear the Council’s discussion on Tuesday!
*If you would like to see things I’ve written about HOMA, there are some summaries in the newsletter archives, which can be using the link on the upper right. I did also comment on HOMA at the January 25th Planning Commission meeting to draw commissioners’ attention to SB 6026, which might upend Bellevue’s plans to balance commercial and residential growth as we enable housing in areas that have held retail centers and offices.
** In contrast, I consider myself a “generalist urbanist” because I care about creating wide sidewalks, retaining tree canopy, EV ready middle housing, better apartment noise-proofing, adequate off-street parking in neighborhoods, and promoting commercial space for small businesses to thrive. All of these things in Bellevue have recently been attacked by the housing urbanists because they *do* make it more expensive to build housing, but I believe they still have value for making Bellevue a place that people will feel fortunate to live in.
One more note: if you have commented on this site, please try also to reach out to me by email so I can let it through the spam filter, which has been somewhat deluged.
Leave a Reply