Burien planners weigh middle‑housing design standards, parking rules and smaller minimum lot sizes

Burien planning staff on March 26 briefed the City of Burien Planning Commission on proposed design standards and zoning‑map changes meant to implement state middle‑housing laws, laying out options for driveway and garage placement, pedestrian access, and minimum lot sizes for the city’s three residential zones.

The presentation said the planning effort responds to state middle‑housing bills and to new requirements for objective design standards. Planning staff said the changes would apply design standards across single‑family neighborhoods that will allow middle‑housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, courtyard apartments and cottage housing, and that some existing ADU design limits must be removed under state law.

Planning staff described design standards as measures “to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods and existing uses, to minimize the visual or functional impacts,” and said they aim to preserve and protect “the public health, safety, and welfare of Burien citizens.” The staff presentation included examples of driveway treatments, limits on garage‑forward designs, pedestrian access standards, minimum lighting, and tree or landscaping requirements to reduce impervious surface and maintain emergency access.

Why it matters: The proposed changes affect thousands of parcels across Burien and are intended both to comply with state law and to shape how higher‑density development looks and functions at the neighborhood level. Staff told commissioners that the rezones could substantially raise capacity on some sites and that the code changes will interact with impact fees and right‑of‑way requirements paid at permit stage.

Key details from the briefing

- State bills and objective design standards: Staff repeatedly referenced state middle‑housing legislation (transcript: “house bill 11 10” and other bills) that restricts some local discretion on parking and requires clear, objective design rules. Staff also noted House Bill 1337 will remove some ADU design requirements, meaning the city cannot impose façade and roof‑pitch matching criteria on ADUs where the state preempts those requirements.

- Rezoning and scale: Staff said the proposed rezoning would reclassify roughly 1,200 lots to a new R1 designation, roughly 5,500 to R2 and about 3,200 to R3 (figures provided in the staff presentation). Median and mode lot sizes were shown; median lot sizes were cited as roughly 13,000 sq ft for R1, 9,000 sq ft for R2 and 8,400 sq ft for R3. Staff used a recent subdivision as an example to show how different minimum lot sizes would change development capacity.

- Parking near transit and driveway standards: Staff showed a map with a half‑mile buffer around major transit stops and said that, under the state law they cited, the city cannot require parking within that buffer. Staff said that will dramatically increase the number of parcels where the city cannot mandate on‑site parking and that the commission should prepare objective pedestrian‑access and driveway rules to prevent garages and wide driveways from dominating front yards. Commissioner discussion raised concerns about street parking availability, parking restrictions near schools and parks, enforcement capacity and street safety on narrow local streets.

- Examples of middle‑housing typologies: Staff presented visual examples and explained how typologies — cottage housing, courtyard apartments, stacked flats/triplexes, townhomes — would interact with setbacks, required yards and impervious‑surface limits. Staff noted some small historic lots (about 3,000 sq ft) exist in Burien and that certain typologies do not fit on those smallest lots.

- Lot‑size tradeoffs and tax base: Staff and at least one commissioner observed that smaller minimum lot sizes increase the number of buildable lots and can raise the tax base (the presentation cited a comparison in which a subdivision could have been 36 lots under old rules versus 51 lots under the proposed zoning). Staff also warned that infrastructure costs per lot and stormwater/tree retention requirements must be considered.

- Impact fees and right‑of‑way improvements: Staff noted impact fees (traffic, park, fire) are tools to fund needed street, park and public‑safety infrastructure; the presentation said current city impact fees date to 2007 and are low compared with neighboring jurisdictions, and that staff is working with Public Works to update fee calculations. Staff confirmed right‑of‑way and sidewalk improvements and on‑site pedestrian access and lighting will be required at permit review, and that the fire district will weigh in on emergency access standards.

- Building code and other limits: Commissioners asked whether second stairways and building‑code issues fall under this code change; staff said stair requirements are part of the state/building code (building official) rather than the zoning updates. Commissioners also asked about material limitations (for example, using shipping containers); staff said cargo containers are not currently permitted as dwelling units and that building‑code compliance is the principal constraint.

Voices and concerns

Planning staff used the presentation to urge clear, objective standards and to show how different lot sizes and typologies would perform relative to setbacks, parking and impervious surfaces. Commissioners raised concerns about: - Street parking and enforcement capacity on narrow local streets; several commissioners noted local parking restrictions around parks and schools could conflict with reduced on‑site parking requirements. - The visual and pedestrian impacts of garage‑forward designs and of “service parking” or concrete pads serving multiple units. - How much impact fees and developer required right‑of‑way work will cover new infrastructure needs.

Direct quotes from the meeting include planning staff: “Design standards also should provide clear objectives, for the planning and design of development projects,” and that objective standards are a lens they “will be applying with the design standards we develop for this middle housing typology.” Commissioner discussion included questions such as, “Have we considered areas that have parking restrictions on the streets?” (Commissioner Heidi Turner) and staff responses like, “We are actively working on updating the traffic impact fee. And we are actively considering a park impact fee.”

Next steps and public engagement

Staff told the commission the work will continue through April: draft Title 19 housing code amendments and unit‑lot subdivision provisions will be discussed on April 9; a special meeting and public hearings on Title 19 housing draft code amendments and unit‑lot subdivision are scheduled for April 30, 2025, with an open house for the public earlier that day (staff noted posters and staff available; start time to be confirmed). Staff also encouraged commenters to provide written comments and said comments received one week before a meeting will be published with the agenda packet.

What the commission did not decide

The commission held no final vote on the zoning map or the draft design standards at the March 26 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to produce additional visuals (townhome examples, access/driveway variations) and asked for more analysis on parking impacts, enforcement capacity and updated impact‑fee calculations.

Ending

Staff asked commissioners to provide site examples if they wanted particular developments examined in the visuals; staff also said they would provide bill citations and updates to ensure the code changes align with the latest state legislation. The commission will continue the housing code amendments work in April and hold the public hearing at the end of that month.