Kirkland City Council members on Tuesday signaled support for a Planning Commission recommendation that would permit townhomes in part of the BC1 (North Juanita commercial/neighborhood center) study area while keeping the eastern portion reserved for denser, mixed‑use development. The Planning Commission’s preferred option would allow townhomes as an independent use but geographically limit them to the western half of the site and establish a geographic buffer along 100th Avenue NE.

Why it matters: The discussion stems from a multi‑year neighborhood‑center planning effort and the city’s housing goals in its comprehensive plan. Councilors said they want to avoid losing commercial frontage along 100th Avenue NE while also enabling infill housing in a market that commissioners and property owners say is financially uncertain for large stacked multifamily projects.

Planning staff outlined three options for townhomes: keep the existing prohibition; permit townhomes only within mixed‑use projects; or permit townhomes as a standalone use limited to the western half of the site — the latter being the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Planning Commission added a 200‑foot buffer that would prohibit townhomes within the first 200 feet of 100th Avenue NE to preserve space for higher‑density mixed‑use development with ground‑floor commercial frontage.

Council members who spoke generally endorsed the Planning Commission’s compromise while urging clearer “safety‑net” mechanisms so that adding townhomes does not preclude the future construction of the envisioned mixed‑use buildings. Options discussed included development agreements or phasing requirements to secure a minimum density on the eastern portion of the site; temporary commercial uses and façade standards to make interim retail viable; and requiring commercial linear frontage along 100th Avenue NE (the Planning Commission proposed a 70% linear frontage threshold for required ground‑floor commercial along that street).

On related policy, staff and the Planning Commission presented recommended inclusionary zoning adjustments for the Juanita sites that would concentrate mandatory affordability in the 50–80% area‑median income (AMI) band and allow flexibility for smaller units to be provided at 60–80% AMI while holding larger (2+ bedroom) units at an 80% AMI target. Planning staff noted the AMI context for King County (2024 benchmarks cited in the briefing: $103,000 for an individual AMI reference and $147,000 for a four‑person family) and emphasized that deeper affordability below 50% AMI will typically require subsidy.

Council response was mixed on the inclusionary proposals: several council members called the Planning Commission recommendations thoughtful and supported piloting the changes, while others urged caution about changing citywide standards on a site‑by‑site basis and recommended preserving existing, city‑wide set‑asides (one councilor explicitly favored maintaining a 10% set‑aside at 50% AMI). No formal ordinance or vote was taken Tuesday; staff are expected to return with refined code language and follow‑up analyses.

Other development standards discussed included raising the BC1 height maximum for the Goodwill parcels to 75 feet (with transitions required adjacent to residential zones) and a proposed 50‑foot maximum for the site that houses Fire Station 24 to accommodate future training facilities. Councilors asked that proposed design standards require façade modulation and offer a menu of options (stepbacks, articulation) so that massing along the street frontage can be softened. Planning staff said proposed design standards would offer modulation options, including stepbacks.

Directions and next steps: Councilors agreed to “carry forward” the Planning Commission’s recommendation on allowing townhomes in the western portion of the BC1 study area, subject to staff drafting clear implementation measures to preserve the envisioned mixed‑use, commercial frontage along 100th Avenue NE. Staff will return with specific code language, potential development agreement or density‑plan mechanisms, and refined inclusionary zoning proposals for further review.

Councilors emphasized that any site‑specific changes could set precedents citywide and asked staff to spell out how decisions here would affect other commercial centers. The Planning Commission and staff will continue refining the BC1 amendment package for subsequent hearings and ordinance readings.

Ending note: Council discussion lasted more than an hour and combined policy, feasibility and market considerations. Staff recommended additional technical work (code text, development‑agreement templates, commercial‑frontage formulas) and follow‑up outreach before formal adoption was scheduled.