Kirkland Planning Commission Study Session on Middle Housing Code Compliance – February 27, 2025
Kirkland Planning Commission Study Session on Middle Housing Code Compliance – February 27, 2025
The Kirkland Planning Commission held a study session on February 27, 2025, to review draft code amendments for compliance with House Bill 1110 (middle housing) and other state housing legislation. The meeting included public testimony from residents, developers, and industry representatives, followed by commissioner deliberations on density, housing types, parking, and affordable housing requirements. No formal votes were taken; the commission provided directional guidance to staff.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Nicole MacKenzie (Kirkland resident) expressed concerns about allowing all nine middle housing types citywide, ADUs not counting toward density, and upcoming phase 2 changes to height and FAR.
- Richard Carlson (Kirkland resident) argued the rules would incentivize demolishing single-family homes for small condos, reducing family housing and increasing traffic and parking conflicts.
- Jeff Fogarty (Kirkland resident) highlighted infrastructure capacity issues (water, sewer, utilities) that may not support proposed density.
- Josh Lysen (Merritt Homes, Kirkland) opposed the affordable housing fee in lieu, citing unfairness to developers with unvested projects; advocated for vesting at land surface modification permit and further study of ARCH’s profitability math.
- Ryan Gillis (real estate developer, Kirkland) stressed feasibility constraints, need for clarity on fee-in-lieu calculations, and difficulty achieving desirable product at maximum densities.
- Scott Morris (Kirkland, Finn Hill) urged sticking to state minimum requirements and focusing affordable housing incentives in established urban villages.
- Jake Drake (DGR Development, Kirkland) supported careful implementation to avoid disadvantaging middle housing builders; noted challenges of 1200 sq ft ADU limits and thresholds for affordable housing.
- Jill Stoddart (Kirkland resident) opposed exceeding state law and charging affordability fees on single-family homes, advocating for an exemption for property owners building on their own land.
- Veronica Shakotko (Master Builders Association) warned that additional requirements increase costs and time, potentially making projects infeasible; urged adoption of Option 1 (state minimum).
- Ken MacKenzie (Kirkland) called for a “clean bill” focused only on HB 1110, deferring HB 1337 and affordability to phase 2, and raised parking concerns in dense neighborhoods.
- Timothy Johnson (Kirkland homeowner, since 1987) questioned incentives for existing homeowners, citing loss of parking, trees, and neighborhood character.
- Liz Hunt (Kirkland) thanked staff for responsiveness, noted confusion between state requirements and model code in the presentation.
Discussion Items
- Briefing on Middle Housing Code State Compliance (CAM24-00561): Senior Planner Scott Guter presented a phased approach: Phase 1 aims for minimum compliance with HB 1110 by June 30, 2025; Phase 2 will handle optimization and potential incentives. Key elements included density (4-6 units per lot), adoption of all nine middle housing types, ADU policy (no change to counting), parking reductions near transit, standardized setbacks, and retained 50% FAR in low-density zones.
- Inclusionary Zoning Options: Staff presented four options (1-4) for affordable housing requirements, ranging from state minimum (Option 1) to applying at the 1st unit (Option 3/4). Commissioners discussed concerns about feasibility, profit margins, and transparency of fee calculations.
- Commissioner Input: Several commissioners (Rutherford, Reusser, Jacobson, Rozmyn, Robbins, Madeya) weighed in. Common themes: prioritize state minimum, avoid disincentivizing middle housing, explore incentives (e.g., permitting fee reductions, density bonuses), consider exemptions for small units or owner-occupied ADUs, and defer affordability to phase 2 or apply with flexible AMI thresholds. Commissioner Jacobson supported Options 3/4 with square-footage exemptions; Commissioner Rozmyn urged caution not to overburden small projects.
- Parking and ADU Density: Discussion included whether ADUs count toward density and potential to allow more units in medium/high-density zones. Staff noted current constraints (FAR, lot coverage) limit actual buildout. Commissioners suggested addressing ADU counting in phase 2.
Key Outcomes
- No formal vote or decision; the commission provided directional guidance to staff to:
- Focus Phase 1 on minimum compliance with HB 1110 (Option 1 for inclusionary zoning), deferring additional affordability requirements to Phase 2.
- Explore alternative inclusionary options (e.g., exemptions based on unit size or owner occupancy) and bring back more detail on fee-in-lieu transparency and vesting rules (e.g., vesting at land surface modification permit).
- Consider not counting ADUs toward density for now, retaining current policy, and refine in Phase 2.
- Staff will present the same options to City Council on March 4, 2025, and return to Planning Commission in late March for a second round of code amendments.
- Next Planning Commission meeting (March 13) includes a public hearing on park rezones and a briefing on Juanita neighborhood code changes.
Meeting Transcript
This is the Kirkland Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, February 27th, 2025. Let's start with a roll call. Brea Heiser. Aaron Jacobson. Here. Gina Medea. Here. Scott Ricer. Here. Justin Robbins. Here. Angela Rosman. Here. Rodney Rutherford. Here. The next item on our agenda is comments from the audience. And I will explain how this works. This is the pro the portion of the meeting when we will hear from the public about items that are not scheduled for public hearing, of which there are none tonight. In order to hear from as many people as possible tonight, we are allowing any individual wishing to provide comments to speak for a maximum of three minutes. The timer on the dais uh will flash a yellow light when you're nearing the end of your time and a red light when your time has elapsed. To be fair to all speakers, we will adhere strictly to the three-minute limit. The commission wants to hear from as many different views and opinions as possible. If you have already heard another speaker state your comment, please consider not repeating the same comment and instead provide a comment or perspective that is unique to you. In making your comments, we ask that you please direct them to the commission. But this is not a time for give and take with the commission. Furthermore, obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, or abusive language towards the commission, city staff, or those in the audience is not allowed. As audience members, please refrain from any demonstrative agreement or disagreement with a speaker, such as clapping, cheering, or booing. These actions are not only disruptive, they may also intimidate or have the effect or of excluding others in the community whose views may differ. We'll begin items from the audience with the list of people here in person who have signed up to speak. When I call your name, please approach the DIES to address us. Online audience members may indicate they wish to speak by raising your hand in the Zoom meeting now. When it is your turn to speak, we will admit you into the virtual room as a panelist. Please remain muted until I call your name, and then you may unmute to address the commission. And our first speaker tonight is Nicole McKenzie. Good evening, Commission. Thank you for uh taking the time to listen. I um sorry, I'll try again. Um I uh fortunately was able to review the packet early enough this time to get comments in um well in advance of the meeting. Unfortunately, um, you know, it it appeared that a significant part of one of the charts in chapter one thirteen, I think it's dot two five, um was not included in the packet, and as a result that left me thinking that certain things were being proposed that were not. Umetheless, I I stand by I I did send follow-up comments earlier this morning. I don't know that all of you had an opportunity to review those, so I just wanted to uh speak tonight to address that. Um, you know, I I do recognize that staff is uh sticking with the state's requirements of if you're beyond the quarter mile walking distance from a major transit stop, then it's only up to four units, not six, unless uh you do two that are affordable, in which case you can go to six. So I recognize that. Umetheless I I still stand by my statements that it's not necessary for us to allow all nine of the different um middle housing types in all areas across the the city. And I think that you know we need to be mindful too of the fact that uh the proposal allows for one attached ADU per unit of middle housing on any lot. Um and so you know that that is definitely above and beyond because it doesn't count towards the density allowance. So in areas where you're allowed up to six units per lot, you're actually allowed up to 12 units if you can find a way to fit it on there under the current height and FAR uh regulations. However, and and I understand that those regulations will provide some limitation as to how much, you know, what density we have and what kind of uh middle housing we have. However, we also have been told by staff that they will be coming to you guys in a phase two to propose changes to the height uh limits and FAR limits. So to say to us right now, oh don't worry, because the FAR and height limits are going to prevent that, is a little bit disingenuous, knowing that proposed changes are coming.
openpublica.com