[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6091760,"mediaKeyId","2858547-895a55c6172f926dce42d635991e1b94","parentId",2858547,"title","Kenmore commission adopts inclusionary zoning framework for 4+ unit developments, removes unit‑size exemption","audioSeconds",8973,"startMs",5267000,"endMs",14240000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2858547-895a55c6172f926dce42d635991e1b94&start=5267&end=14240","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2858547-895a55c6172f926dce42d635991e1b94/thumbnail_5267000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6091760/Kenmore/King-County/Washington/Kenmore-commission-adopts-inclusionary-zoning-framework-for-4-unit-developments-removes-unitsize-exemption","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6091760-cd553d9615334df4799d5fedfae5f8f2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770945888&Signature=XBfTNJ84uh~03SShYnpy3QFnFw0eraSFfBQ8wqOyzwD-Ve-RoHwmoElTghi6gPkllltsDIL97ZVzmPv2OopBjhgknCR96T~1GOLUB9T2EivWB1kDHOWr1jqLKc3gkO0-~ulze02uHnRcgtzwrB-aD8UXoURJ4kpUpEUwCAWyoOdA1t8eNGgrDRttLHWAOyR8dZ3pScILuU9XO6wqN8P4EfTNE9Hq0K90EMY5vfsMrcFG8yFdbmMXmZ5Bl6rBUmVZtA925RDJ1l~bsjpeP0axYRHskNWP8eqhQQK0YvZjW0dEgAQ8Tu~75~1MN7-nYRwKbW5NlEbHa-BgQzBKtlwlyw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Kenmore, Washington","date","2025-04-03T06:29:48.927Z","article","The Kenmore Planning Commission voted April 1 to make inclusionary housing requirements apply to residential developments that create four or more new dwelling units and to remove a proposed exemption based on unit square footage. Commissioners also approved an annual CPI adjustment to the in‑lieu fee and a review of the fee methodology at least every two years.

The 4–3 vote sends the draft inclusionary language to public hearing with the commission’s direction that projects with fewer than four units remain exempt but that there be no square‑footage exemption (the staff draft had presented options to exempt smaller units). The commission separately approved, by unanimous vote, a motion to use the consulting analysis’ recommended CPI adjustment annually and to require a fuller market reanalysis no more frequently than every two years.

Consultants from Arch presented background, comparative examples from neighboring jurisdictions and a prototypical financial model. Arch’s modeling showed that, under Kenmore market assumptions, projects need to achieve about four units on a prototype site before there is consistent residual land value that can be captured for an affordable housing requirement. That analysis informed the commission’s choice to apply the requirement starting at four units, while exempting one‑ to three‑unit projects to avoid discouraging smaller builders or owner‑builders.

Under the draft the commission approved for public hearing, developers could provide required affordable units on‑site when projects reach thresholds (on‑site units would be required for projects of 10 or more units), or pay a fee in lieu on smaller projects; Arch’s initial fee estimate for Kenmore was about $6 per square foot using the selected method. The draft sets income targets for on‑site units at 80 percent of area median income (AMI) for owner‑occupied units and 60 percent of AMI for renter units; the draft also included a vesting cutoff so applications deemed complete by Dec. 31, 2025, would remain subject to the current adopted code.

Commissioners debated the equity and market tradeoffs of size‑based exemptions, fee timing and whether to base fees on sales price rather than square footage. Vice Chair Thompson and several commissioners said a square‑foot exemption would shrink the policy’s effectiveness and reduce revenue available for deeper‑affordability programs; other commissioners urged caution so the code would not discourage smaller infill projects or owner‑builders. After discussion, the commission removed the square‑foot exemption and kept the policy’s unit‑count threshold and vesting provisions.

The commission voted unanimously to send the revised code language, with its amendments, to staff for a public hearing. Staff said they will post the public‑hearing notice, update the draft to reflect the commission’s edits and return the ordinance to the commission with a staff report summarizing public comments and any additional technical clarifications requested by the commission.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission - Apr 01 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Planning Commission voted to apply inclusionary requirements to developments of four or more units, struck a proposed square‑foot exemption, and set an annual CPI update with a two‑year market re‑evaluation for in‑lieu fees.","taxTitle","Kenmore, King County, Washington","taxId",70669,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6091765,"Kenmore Planning Commission narrows middle‑housing rules, favors lower heights and unit‑density counting for ADUs",3017,310000,3327000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2858547-895a55c6172f926dce42d635991e1b94&start=310&end=3327","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2858547-895a55c6172f926dce42d635991e1b94/thumbnail_310000.jpg","/articles/6091765/Kenmore/King-County/Washington/Kenmore-Planning-Commission-narrows-middlehousing-rules-favors-lower-heights-and-unitdensity-counting-for-ADUs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6091765-81fff9d9911d86a6d17ab2aa6ac55989/orig.mp4?Expires=1770945888&Signature=a4OUhMSBF5v8mo5VtWOyoDZ7yr75A~FrUzdgPOx2pNO0k8EqY5ECR4bILfgjdxlYaKqDGqMch19bHWfNhuZ5JmphnR5fChDPBA9vGtwQXeEbzXOFIQ0X4-XX96dHsTKqJ3lyYj7yuuUNXomn-97qG48pYCJyAdHNToQ3YQrIoGwSkjz3ivsjgQM0MKQNaEGvK8wfiqNualay~50A4dk3b7CyYLfNWXITolCvdqJuAKBfsROb7xUD56qFJTi2UTWwKvDlVdHoyijVgdJQadBsi~1Knybf2LEboTqNShrhA~LftO0kKC0oNLZTar0mDhir6saWcLOTjEqtfgR1iZ~c7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Kenmore Planning Commission on April 1 signaled support for a set of middle‑housing code amendments that narrow how missing‑middle housing would be incentivized across the city's R4 and R6 zones, endorsing lower building heights and counting accessory dwelling units toward unit‑lot density.

The consensus decisions came after a presentation by city staff and consultants from Kimley Horn. Commissioners settled on an approach that would allow a reduced height option paired with smaller side and rear setbacks (referred to in the staff packet as “Option B”), and agreed that ADUs should be counted in the unit‑lot density calculation rather than exempted.

Commissioners and consultants described the package as an effort to balance the state’s middle‑housing requirements with local priorities — preserving tree canopy and neighborhood scale while allowing more housing types. Staff said the code texts in the packet reflect multiple incentive options so the commission could choose which to forward to public hearing. The commission also reiterated that projects of one to three units remain exempt from the proposed inclusionary housing requirement (a separate agenda item), and asked staff to preserve protections in the city’s tree regulations.

Commissioner comments and staff responses focused on three tradeoffs: building height, building footprint/impervious surface, and compatibility with nearby single‑family homes. Several commissioners said they favored the approach that reduces height (to a two‑story option in most cases) while allowing slightly reduced setbacks to make small‑lot development feasible without increasing impervious cover. Commissioners pressed consultants about whether a four‑story option would trigger additional building code requirements such as elevators; staff said they would follow up with building‑code specifics before the public hearing.

On lot density and ADUs, the commission adopted the staff recommendation that ADUs count toward the allowed unit total on a lot, meaning a property that already contains ADUs would have those units counted when determining eligibility for additional middle‑housing units. Commissioners said they supported that approach because it aligns unit counting with state guidance and with the city’s objectives for predictable unit totals on individual lots.

The commission also touched on incentives for cottage housing (smaller units clustered on a parent lot), parking requirements and unit‑lot subdivision standards; staff said existing frontage and maximum impervious standards would still apply to unit‑lot subdivisions and that any parking reductions previously approved would be reconciled in the draft table before public hearing.

Commissioners asked staff to prepare the revised middle‑housing code for a public hearing on the schedule staff proposed and to answer technical follow‑up questions (including building‑code triggers for higher buildings and any inconsistencies in the draft parking table). Staff and consultants said they would return with clarifications before the hearing.

The commission approved the consent agenda at the start of the meeting unanimously and, at the meeting’s close, voted unanimously to forward the package with the commission’s refinements to a public hearing date to be set by staff.","After hours of discussion, the Kenmore Planning Commission coalesced behind shorter, lower‑impact missing‑middle incentives and agreed ADUs should count toward unit‑lot density while leaving remaining details to staff for a public hearing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Kenmore commission adopts inclusionary zoning framework for 4+ unit developments, removes unit‑size exemption

Kenmore Planning Commission narrows middle‑housing rules, favors lower heights and unit‑density counting for ADUs