Middle Housing discussion

Summaries for upcoming public meetings, and opportunities to comment or volunteer is sent out to the mailing list about once or twice a week. Here is the latest:

April 28th

(more…)

How could our public outreach have been better?

Explainer guide 

The City of Seattle is updating their residential code on the same timeline as us, and in October, they released a handout that provides a framework to understand common terms and shows potential designs. This gave people plenty of time to digest the options and know what things like FAR and lot coverage mean. 

     This guide defines common open space as something that is outside buildings and vehicular spaces and has a minimum dimension requirement to be counted. With no similar guide to go by for Bellevue, I went to Bellevue’s February 2024 in-person presentation with the specific question of whether vehicular spaces count toward open space (as seen in the photos of autocourts here), and was told that they would not. Things seemed to change after the March Planning Commission meeting (or perhaps my question was not stated to be inclusive enough of cottage developments), because now the first four cottages’ worth of open space in any Bellevue cottage complex may be met by driveway space. Establishing the definition of terms like this at the beginning of the process would help us communicate more efficiently during meetings and develop a shared understanding of the proposals.

     There were many other questions from community members and commission members that would have been addressed by images such as those shown below as well. Seattle’s guide has eight different scenarios that show both how the calculations are done and how structures might fit into the neighborhood. The FAR in the example below is only 1.2 with four units, and Bellevue’s allowance for a similar lot would be 6 middle housing units with 2 AADUs for a total of 8 units; also, the FAR in Bellevue for a would be 1.5 based on the lot size plus 0.48 FAR for ADU space plus 0.48 FAR for parking/storage (now that it’s been raised to 300 sqft per unit), for a total of 2.46, which is probably twice as much as the Seattle example, depending on how Seattle counts garage space.  

Topical meetings 

During the process of developing the model code, the state held stakeholder meetings about:

(more…)

Edit: See added paragraph with proposed solution at the end.

Four stories are still allowed in the Middle Housing version being sent to City Council for their approval, but it was very close – if Commissioner Cuellar-Calad had not recently resigned, or if they hadn’t had this discussion after 10pm, it is very likely that the commission would have voted to cap the middle housing at three stories. It will be interesting to see what City Council decides to do with this issue, since the current wording may disincentivize peaked roofs and allow more floors than is intended.

(more…)

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

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 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.

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…)