Kirkland Planning Commission recommends middle‑housing code changes with graduated inclusionary fee and direction to align parking with new state law

KIRKLAND — The Kirkland Planning Commission on Tuesday recommended that the City Council adopt a package of code amendments intended to bring the city into compliance with recent Washington state housing laws and to expand “middle housing” options in residential zones.

The commission voted to send to council a draft that makes middle‑housing types an explicit option in residential zones, updates accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules, preserves existing parking standards outside major transit areas for now, and includes an inclusionary zoning option for low‑density single‑family lots that uses a graduated fee‑in‑lieu for larger new homes.

The amendments are intended to meet minimum state requirements, including changes to ADU rules and parking standards required under recently enacted state law. Scott Guder, senior planner, told the commission the packet breaks the proposal into three attachments: the middle‑housing code with a staff recommended affordable housing option (which retains the city’s existing affordable housing standards and defers new inclusionary requirements to a later phase); an alternative that would add an affordable housing requirement for low‑density zones; and a set of parking and housekeeping amendments. Guder said the city must adopt implementing code before June 30 to avoid the state model code taking effect locally.

Why it matters: The package changes how Kirkland counts and enables dwelling units in long‑established single‑family neighborhoods, and it establishes a new local mechanism to fund or require affordable units from some types of development. That can affect where and how new housing is built and the amount of fee revenue available for housing programs.

Most of the public commenters supported expanding middle housing and the inclusion of affordability measures. Kyle Sullivan urged the commission to “extend the affordable housing requirement to low density residential zones” while exempting smaller dwelling units so middle housing production is encouraged. Luke Travis and other speakers described middle housing as a path to added, lower‑cost options for younger residents and families. Liz Hunt supported retaining floor‑area‑ratio, height and lot‑coverage limits in low‑density areas and asked for more work on parking and infrastructure to support increased density.

Deliberations and amendments: Commissioners discussed several technical details before voting. Attachment 2 in the staff packet proposed a June 30, 2026 effective date for any new inclusionary requirement; that draft would apply to new residential developments but exempt dwelling units of 2,000 square feet or less and additions that do not more than double existing square footage. The staff example used a 1,300‑square‑foot prototype affordable unit and calculated a sample fee‑in‑lieu of about $45,000 for an average single‑family new home under the original method of calculation.

Commissioner Erin Jacobson offered an amendment to the inclusionary fee that moved to a graduated approach: exempt the first 2,500 square feet of a new single‑family dwelling, then scale a per‑square‑foot fee so that a very large home (about 4,500 square feet in the staff example) would reach roughly the $45,000 figure used by staff. Jacobson said that amendment would reduce the fee burden on moderately sized new homes while still collecting more from very large houses; staff ran the numbers and reported the staff example house would pay roughly $17,000 under the graduated formula. The commission approved that amendment without opposition.

Parking direction: Commissioners debated whether to immediately adopt the parking ratios required by the recently enacted Senate Bill 5184 (SB 5184), which the planner said will constrain local maximum parking requirements in many locations once its implementation timeline begins. After discussion and a staff statement that either approach is administratively feasible, the commission directed staff to draft parking code language that aligns with SB 5184 for middle‑housing chapters; that amendment passed with one commissioner abstaining.

Final recommendation: With the Jacobson amendment and staff corrections included, the commission voted to recommend the option in the packet that applies an inclusionary requirement to low‑density single‑family lot redevelopment (the so‑called Option 2) and to forward the full package — including the staff technical corrections and the direction to align parking with SB 5184 — to the City Council. The commission recorded the recommendation as moving forward for council consideration; staff told the commission council will review the recommendation at its June 3 meeting.

What was not decided: Commissioners deferred any larger, phase‑two work to optimize middle housing for supply and diversity until 2026. They did not adopt any new, final inclusionary policy beyond the recommendation to council and the graduated fee approach; further refinement and public outreach were discussed as part of the next steps. Staff and commissioners repeatedly noted the June 30, 2026 effective date in the draft is intended to preserve the existing permitting pipeline and give developers time to adapt.

Next steps: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will go to the City Council for action. Staff said they will prepare the SB 5184‑compliant parking language and provide additional outreach and data as the council review approaches. City staff also plan a separate phase‑two middle‑housing effort in 2026 to pursue optimization that goes beyond the minimum state compliance standards.

Ending: The Planning Commission closed the public hearing after adopting its recommendation and moved on to routine business, including election of officers and calendar items.