Kenmore staff present draft single‑room‑occupancy (SRO) and residential parking code; council signals support for expansion and review

Kenmore planning staff presented draft code changes on June 24 to establish single‑room‑occupancy (SRO) housing rules and to update residential parking standards, including tandem parking, stall dimensions, and tree retention priorities. The council discussed zoning applicability and asked staff to return with a public hearing on an ordinance after further review.

Principal Planner Todd Hall and Senior Planner Britney Chiu explained that the draft SRO definition treats sleeping units as a distinct housing type: a sleeping unit is a lockable room with access to a shared kitchen and may be smaller than a full dwelling unit. Chiu said, “Single room occupancy is defined as a residential development with sleeping units that are independently rented and lockable and provide living and sleeping space, and residents share kitchen facilities with other sleeping units in the building.” Staff described minimum sizes (sleeping unit minimum 70 sq ft vs. dwelling unit 190 sq ft), optional in‑unit bathrooms for sleeping units, and distinctions between kitchen and kitchenette equipment and ventilation requirements.

Staff recommended permitting SROs in residential zones that allow six or more multifamily dwelling units (R‑6 through R‑48) and in mixed‑use zones; they also explained unit density conversions (one sleeping unit equals one‑quarter of a dwelling unit for density and one‑half of a dwelling unit for sewer fee calculations). On parking, staff proposed no minimum parking when the project is within a half‑mile of a major transit stop, a maximum of 0.25 off‑street parking spaces per sleeping unit beyond that distance, and explicit allowance for tandem parking with 20‑foot stall length per vehicle. The draft also prioritizes tree retention over minimum parking when both cannot be met.

Council members asked staff to check whether SROs can be accommodated in lower density zones and whether conversions in detached houses might be possible; several council members signaled openness to expanding allowable zones and asked planners to bring findings back before the formal ordinance. Council member Shrevnick emphasized monitoring outcomes and requested the item return to a public hearing for formal adoption after the requested zoning review.

Planning staff said they would prepare ordinance language and public‑hearing materials; council direction was to evaluate whether SRO allowances could be expanded and to present a public hearing on the proposed code when ready.