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

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.