Kirkland Planning Commission Meeting - March 27, 2025

The Planning Commission held a study session on proposed code amendments for middle housing compliance with state law (HB 1110 and related bills). The discussion focused on density calculations, housing typologies, affordable housing requirements, and parking standards. After deliberation, the Commission voted 5-1 to recommend deferring inclusionary zoning to Phase 2 (Option 3) and supported staff’s hybrid parking recommendation.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Liz Hunt, Kirkland resident: Thanked staff for reducing required housing types from nine to six in low-density zones. Raised concerns about infrastructure keeping pace with increased density from shrinking lot sizes and new development (e.g., a 2,330 sq ft lot with a DADU). Noted Kirkland is already the third densest city in Washington. Questioned why the city does not use the 75% option in HB 1110 to limit density increases. Expressed uncertainty about inclusionary zoning Option 2.
• John Kappler, Kirkland resident and practicing architect: Criticized code implementation language as overly complex and inconsistent, giving examples of conflicting definitions of square footage and floor area ratio (FAR) across housing typologies. Stated that current calculations make it infeasible to build three cottages where three units are allowed, while a single-family home with two ADUs works. Noted a “rule of five” in affordability, implying high costs.
• Liz Hunt (second comment): Shared observation that new one-to-three unit developments (main house with attached ADU and DADU) often provide less off-street parking, leading to increased on-street parking. Called for more data.
• John Kappler (second comment): Highlighted conflicts between building site coverage (50% FAR and lot coverage) and parking requirements. Noted that only one curb cut is allowed per site except for cottages, which can have two, creating inconsistencies.

Discussion Items

• Briefing on Middle Housing Code State Compliance (File No. AM24-00561)
  • Planning Director Adam Weinstein introduced the session, noting City Council guidance from March 4 and March 18 on three topics: ADUs counting toward density, housing typologies, and inclusionary zoning.
  • Senior Planner Scott Guter presented:
    • Density: Council supports Option 2 – exempt ADUs from density count but limit to two ADUs per property. Staff illustrated that including ADUs in density could yield up to 12 units per lot but would shrink unit sizes given existing massing standards (the “butter cube”).
    • Housing Types: Six of nine types recommended – duplex, triplex, fourplex, cottage housing, townhomes, and stacked flats in low-density zones; fiveplex and sixplex added in multifamily zones. Courtyard apartments dropped.
    • Affordable Housing Options:
      • Option 1 (state): Inclusionary requirement only for 5th/6th unit at 60% AMI rental / 80% AMI owner, effectively limiting to four units per lot. Staff did not recommend.
      • Option 2 (staff): Inclusionary starting at first unit with exemptions for units ≤1,700–2,000 sq ft; no fee for middle housing; based on existing in-lieu fee methodology (~$400,000 per affordable unit, translating to ~$40,000 for 10% on one unit).
      • Option 3 (defer): Postpone inclusionary zoning to Phase 2, with a “whereas” statement of intent.
    • Parking: Staff conducted a parking analysis showing developers typically provide ~2 spaces per unit; on-street parking impacts appear minimal. Recommended a hybrid: meet state standards within ½ mile of major transit stop; otherwise revert to city frequent-transit standards; adopt state standards for ADUs (no parking required).
• Commissioner Deliberation:
  • Most commissioners favored Option 3 (deferral), citing concerns about adding costs to housing, unverified economic feasibility, and a desire for more time and transparent analysis. Commissioner Jacobson supported Option 2, arguing for a balanced approach with a delayed effective date and proportional fee structure.
  • Discussion included concerns about inconsistent code language for architects/builders, the need for streamlined codes, and the inability to “bank” development allowances from Phase 1 for future affordable housing requirements.
  • Commissioners supported staff’s recommended housing types (with minor questions on stacked flats) and the hybrid parking option (Option 1). No additional briefing requested before the public hearing.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to recommend Option 3 for inclusionary zoning: Moved by Angela Rozmyn, seconded by Bria Heiser. Passed 5-1 (Yes: Chair Rutherford, Vice Chair Heiser, Gina Madeya, Scott Reusser, Angela Rozmyn; No: Aaron Jacobson).
• Approval of February 13, 2025 minutes: Motion by Angela Rozmyn, seconded by Gina Madeya. Passed 6-0.
• Administrative Reports: Deputy Director Allison Zike announced the April 10 meeting will be canceled; next meeting April 24 will include a second briefing on specific code amendments, an update on the Critical Area Ordinance, and a public hearing on development agreement zoning text.
• Next Steps: Staff will prepare a public hearing notice for May 8 (with possible continuation to May 22) to take testimony and formalize a recommendation to City Council. Commissioners are encouraged to attend Council meetings to present their views.