Kirkland planners, commission recommend zoning changes for Juanita neighborhood centers, council asks for more data

Kirkland staff and the Planning Commission on July 15 presented recommended zoning code amendments for two Juanita study areas — the JBD‑4 business district (the “Michaels” site area) and the BC‑1 North Juanita center (the Goodwill site) — proposing greater residential capacity, design standards and new implementation rules ahead of a planned adoption later this year.

Senior planner Leandra Baker Lewis told the council that the planning commission’s draft would increase maximum mixed‑use building height in the JBD‑4 study area “from 26 to 75 feet” and add pedestrian‑oriented frontage, adjusted lot‑coverage and parking standards tied to state parking reform (Senate Bill 5184). She said the commission sought to balance added capacity called for in the Juanita neighborhood plan with design and public‑benefit requirements.

Why it matters: the recommended changes would allow markedly denser development at sites adjacent to Juanita Bay and Juanita Beach parks and shift how the city enforces design and affordable‑housing obligations, with implications for traffic, park access and housing affordability across the neighborhood.

Key elements of the Planning Commission recommendation included: raising height allowances to align with the city’s comprehensive‑plan capacity analysis; designating 90 Eighth Avenue NE and NE Juanita Drive as pedestrian‑oriented streets; adjusting ground‑floor commercial orientation and minimum heights; allowing administrative design review (rather than mandatory Design Review Board review) for the study areas in light of state House Bill 1293; and offering flexibility in the city’s inclusionary zoning rules to incentivize larger two‑bedroom rental units and use equivalency ratios for one‑bedroom units.

Planning Director Adam Weinstein and Commission Chair Rodney Rutherford joined staff in describing outreach, technical work and the themes that emerged at a June 12 public hearing — chiefly concern about vehicular traffic, support for new housing, and requests for reduced parking minimums and improved active‑transportation connections.

Council members pressed staff on several points. Deputy Mayor Arnold and Councilmember Pascoe asked how the recommended mitigation and concurrency projects would be funded and whether the projects cited in the Transportation Strategic Plan are in the CIP or require future council action. Baker Lewis said some prioritized projects have funding identified but staff would confirm with the Transportation Division and noted the city’s annual CIP update is the forum to reassess priorities.

Council members also sought more data on the traffic analyses the commission used. Councilmember Pascoe asked whether specific turn‑lane and roundabout options near the Michaels site are feasible; senior planner Baker Lewis said site‑level traffic impact analyses (TIAs) and SEPA review would identify appropriate mitigations during development review. Traffic consultant testimony submitted to staff after the meeting noted redevelopment could make certain pedestrian and bicycle improvements feasible by enabling right‑of‑way work tied to redevelopment.

On affordable housing, the commission recommended two forms of flexibility: raising the AMI threshold for two‑plus‑bedroom rental units (making those required affordable units available at 80% AMI rather than 50% AMI) to incentivize larger family units; and allowing exchange ratios that permit one‑bedroom units to be substituted under an equivalency formula (a program previously used in the station area). Councilmembers asked whether deeper affordability for larger units could be credited with fewer required units; staff said that reverse exchange was not contemplated in the current draft and would require further council discussion.

Design review changes drew sustained comment. Staff said House Bill 1293 limits review to clear and objective standards and reduces the public‑meeting process for design review, which prompted the Planning Commission to recommend administrative design review for the constrained JBD‑4 site. Chair Rutherford and staff said administrative review would reduce uncertainty for developers, but Councilmembers — including Pascoe and Deputy Mayor Arnold — urged preserving the Design Review Board’s community role and asked staff to return with clearer criteria for which sites would use administrative review versus DRB.

Other issues raised included whether ground‑floor commercial requirements would erode existing commercial uses (notably the Indian restaurant and Michaels), and whether the planning commission’s recommendation to reduce buffer requirements along Juanita Bay Park would affect shoreline access. Baker Lewis said the commission recommended not requiring standard landscape buffers there to better integrate development with the park and improve access, and tied the recommendation to the city’s critical‑area code and to state parking reform (SB 5184) implementation, which staff said the city must adopt by 2027.

Council direction and next steps: staff said the planning commission recommendation and draft code will return for additional council review before formal adoption; Baker Lewis noted an adoption hearing tentatively scheduled for Sept. 2. Councilmembers asked staff to return with comparative examples from nearby jurisdictions on inclusionary requirements and costs, more explicit traffic and feasibility analyses for the Michaels intersection improvements (including whether temporary police traffic control or other mitigations are needed during construction), a market analysis of local commercial demand, and a clearer explanation of funding sources for the prioritized transportation projects.

Ending: Councilmembers emphasized they broadly support neighborhood‑center housing goals but want additional data — on traffic, development economics and the legal limits of flexibility — before taking final action on the draft zoning amendments.