{"id":431,"date":"2025-06-17T23:21:33","date_gmt":"2025-06-17T23:21:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/?p=431"},"modified":"2025-06-24T07:18:50","modified_gmt":"2025-06-24T07:18:50","slug":"is-the-model-ordinance-our-best-bet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/?p=431","title":{"rendered":"Is the Model Ordinance our best bet?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

How does the Model Ordinance<\/a> exceed the state requirements?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) It does not count attached ADUs toward unit count. This adds about 60,000 potential housing units beyond what the state requires, but with CC&Rs and critical areas, a realistic estimate of the added capacity might be only 50,000.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bellevue\u2019s current proposal goes beyond this and creates the possibility of eight housing units on every single family lot with the fee-in-lieu option. Bellevue\u2019s rules also allow an unlimited number of cottages that could particularly affect larger parcels. It seems that about 14,000 lots in Bellevue are either R-1, or R-1.8, and the smallest R-1.8 lot could have ten 1500 + 300 sqft cottages, so that would add another 28,000 units if all those parcels were the R-1.8 minimum size<\/s>. I redid the calculation with more accurate numbers of parcels and parcel size, and with about 2200 R-1 through R-8 parcels in Bellevue, the number of additional 1500 sqft cottages (if we don’t count the first 8 on every lot) is over 49,600 (keep in mind that the state minimum is to have 4 on each lot). Of course, many parcels are larger, and the number of units scales up in proportion to lot size, but the allowed number of cottages would also decrease in proportion to the area of the lot that has environmentally critical areas like steep slopes. There\u2019s also the potential for dozens more units per acre if the cottages are small instead of 1500 sqft. We didn\u2019t evaluate our ability to handle so many housing units per lot under the Comprehensive Plan FEIS analysis, so it\u2019s unclear what range of impacts Bellevue might have from that amount of growth, but even if we were growing more slowly, we would expect traffic congestion impacts.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

2) Setbacks are reduced and building heights increased. In some cases, the front yard setback would be reduced by between 5 and 25 feet, depending on the zone and whether there are three or more units on the lot. Bellevue\u2019s proposed setback reductions are less generous for R-1 and R-1.8 areas, but actually more generous for duplexes in the R-2.5 through R-7.5 areas. There is a Model Ordinance setback that is specific to the garage and would be twice as much as the setback Bellevue is proposing for the R-2.5 through R-7.5 areas, and also a Model Ordinance projection allowance for balconies, covered porches\/entries, and bay windows.  Rear yard setbacks in the model ordinance are 15 feet for duplexes and 10 feet for three or more units; in Bellevue, the proposal is 15 feet for R-1 and R-1.8 and 10 feet for R-2.5 through R-7.5. The state minimum requirement for these would just be to keep the setbacks the same as for single family homes, which would make it more likely that backyard trees are retained. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the Model Ordinance, the building height would be allowed to go up to 35\u2019 whether flat or pitched, which is more likely to allow four stories facing downhill on sloped lots and doesn\u2019t provide an incentive to have a peaked roof. Bellevue\u2019s council has voted that our middle housing height should be 32\u2019 flat and 35\u2019 pitched, and the state minimum requirement is to allow these to be the same height as our single family homes (30\u2019 flat and 35\u2019 pitched). Bellevue\u2019s Tree Code from last year offers a potential 12 feet of bonus height that would be added on top of the 35 feet, creating the potential for buildings that are 47 feet tall only five feet from the front or rear property line. (Bellevue\u2019s LUC 20.20.900 Tree retention and replacement, Section 5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lot coverage under the Model Ordinance would scale based on the number of units: 45-55%.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For comparison, Bellevue\u2019s proposal is: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Single family lot coverage    35-40% <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Middle Housing lot coverage 40-45%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cottage with porches lot coverage 70-75%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) For some lot sizes the floor area allowed under the Model Ordinance is greater, and other cases the floor area provided under Bellevue\u2019s proposal is greater. A key difference is that Bellevue wasn\u2019t going to count the floor area added by attached ADUs, which could add at least 1500 sqft for each AADU (and there are plausible scenarios<\/a> where an ADU could add over 2000 sqft). Both the Model Ordinance and Bellevue\u2019s proposal offer much more FAR than the state requires under HB 1110 (if there are six units, the FAR is about 3x as much, even before you count the ADU and bonus space). It is much more likely that the building footprint and impervious surface limits control the building size than the FAR available. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since you would only be allowed the four units plus two ADUs on most lots under the Model Ordinance, and it has a flat 1.2 FAR for four units anywhere, those four units could be comically big – on the smallest R-1 lot, you could have four giant houses that are 9000 sqft each. We know that there are some newer luxury homes in Medina that do get that big, but it would really be unusual for Bellevue. There\u2019d be no particular incentive to have ADUs or not have ADUs, since it wouldn\u2019t increase the overall structure size, though two of the four would be allowed to have an AADU built into them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cottages under the Model Ordinance don\u2019t really have a FAR number attached – they\u2019d be slightly bigger than Bellevue is proposing to allow (1600 vs. 1500 sqft). There are more requirements for common open space and porches that would make it feel more traditional, but the height of these cottages could be 35\u2019 instead of the 24\u2019 that Bellevue is proposing and the 22\u2019 that Seattle is going with. It seems possible that they\u2019d feel less imposing and more green since the Model Ordinance doesn\u2019t create special provisions for lot coverage and impervious surface that apply to the cottages only. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Model ordinance middle housing impervious surface 45-55%, matching single family requirement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bellevue proposal: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Single family impervious surface 45-55%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Middle Housing impervious surface 50-60%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cottage with porches impervious surface 75-85% <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also… the Model Ordinance doesn\u2019t add tree code loopholes about \u201ctree health\u201d and it doesn\u2019t slash the amount of trees\/tree credits expected for a cottage development. Cottage parking\/driveways don\u2019t count toward the common open space. It doesn\u2019t change the rules for our transition areas. It doesn\u2019t add six units by right in large areas around Downtown, Crossroads, Wilburton, Factoria, Eastgate, etc (which will add co-living in those areas when HB 1998 is implemented later this year). It has nice rules about pedestrian access, garage frontage limits, and it matches the state requirement for parking minimums. It includes a statement that lots that were created through the splitting of a single residential lot do not qualify for middle housing density afterward. It offers additional rules about lot access and road standards. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 It also has the advantage of having been written – the Council will vote on this on June 24th, with a deadline of June 30th, and there’s not enough time to consider all the options<\/a> that are relevant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How does the Model Ordinance exceed the state requirements? 1) It does not count attached ADUs toward unit count. This adds about 60,000 potential housing units beyond what the state requires, but with CC&Rs and critical areas, a realistic estimate of the added capacity might be only 50,000.   Bellevue\u2019s current proposal goes beyond this and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=431"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":458,"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions\/458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newbellevue.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}