Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Middle And Inclusionary Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends middle‑housing and inclusionary zoning rules; council to review in May
Summary
The Planning Commission recommended a middle‑housing and inclusionary‑zoning package that would allow modest missing‑middle types and require limited affordability contributions in R4/R6 zones; the recommendation passed 4–3.
Kenmore’s Planning Commission presented its recommendations for middle housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and inclusionary zoning to the city council and explained the basis for its 4–3 recommendation. Staff described state requirements and the community engagement process; the commission outlined proposed development standards, incentives and an inclusionary program modeled by ARCH/BAE.
Key elements of the Planning Commission recommendation:
- Middle housing types permitted: duplexes, triplexes, stacked flats, cottages (cottage housing), townhouses and courtyard apartments (staff/commission additionally referenced townhomes in the materials). The commission also recommended incentives for smaller units and density bonuses for cottage housing. - Unit allowances: up to 2 units per lot by right outside major transit; up to 4 units per lot within a quarter‑mile of a major transit stop along SR‑522 (the transit corridor). ADUs: allow up to two ADUs per single‑family lot as required by state law (HB 13 37). - Inclusionary zoning (recommendation): apply to residential development in R4 and R6 zones. Projects of 3 units or fewer would be exempt. Projects of 4–9 units would either provide the fractional required affordable unit on‑site or pay a fee‑in‑lieu (ARCH estimated a fee in the draft modeling at approximately $6 per square foot). Projects of 10 or more units would be required to provide the affordable unit(s) on site. Affordability levels recommended: 80% AMI for ownership units and 50% AMI for rental units. - Alternative compliance/exemptions: the commission recommended exempting R1 parcels along Swamp Creek and R1/R4 parcels adjacent to the Sammamish River and two unnamed tributaries in South Kenmore (about 14% of single‑family lots) to preserve contiguous riparian corridors; this falls under the state’s 25% alternative compliance allowance.
Commissioners and staff emphasized protecting trees, critical areas and existing neighborhood character while enabling modest density and a range of housing choices. Chair Tracy Banashinsky said the commission conceived of middle housing as "modest size housing options that serve a broad range of people and families." Commissioners also discussed incentives (reduced parking minimums, reduced setbacks in exchange for lower height, density bonuses for cottage housing sized 1,200 sq ft or smaller) and potential anti‑circumvention language (defining "applicant" and "at the same place" to discourage developer workarounds).
The Planning Commission vote was split 4–3; the minority report from three commissioners raised concerns that the proposed inclusionary approach could unintentionally penalize small infill projects and push developers toward larger single‑family teardowns. Council reserved questions and directed staff to return May 5 with consultants (Kimley Horn, ARCH/BAE) for further discussion and financial modeling; staff warned the city must adopt regulations by June 30 to avoid the state model ordinance taking effect.
