Planning Commission studies Juanita zoning code amendments; staff to return with code options for two site proposals

The Planning Commission held an extended study session March 13 on zoning code amendments tied to the Juanita neighborhood plan and two community‑initiated requests: the Goodwill site (three aggregated parcels in North Juanita / BC‑1 study area) and the Michaels/Michael site in the JBD‑4 zone.

Senior planner Leandra Baker Lewis summarized staff's recommended approach and background, noting both requests were included in the city's comprehensive plan modeling. For the Goodwill site staff described a 4.2‑acre combined parcel where the applicant has proposed higher density (staff cited a developer estimate of 500–600 residential units across conceptual scenarios and 10,000–15,000 square feet of ground‑floor retail) and a requested height up to roughly 70–75 feet. For the Michaels site (a constrained parcel affected by a critical area/wetland and buffers) staff said applicants and modeling have varied over time but noted a figure of about 170 units on the Michaels parcel and that earlier modeling had assumed up to 300 units across the JBD‑4 study area to be conservative for transportation and capacity analyses.

Leandra told commissioners that park‑and‑street‑level transitions, upper‑story stepbacks, façade widths and design review would be important tools to address community concerns about massing. She also noted the Park zone standards are set case‑by‑case by the parks director and that the Goodwill/BC‑1 study could require additional SEPA analysis if the study area is expanded beyond the three‑parcel site.

Applicants and representatives gave brief remarks during public comment on the rezoning and the zoning code amendment process. Alison Warner, representing Balboa Retail Partners (owner of the Goodwill property), said the owner supports the Juanita zoning code amendment and asked that staff consider allowing their site to proceed separately or in parallel with a broader BC‑1 study. Jessica Rowe of McCullough Hill, representing the Michaels site owner, repeated the team's request for increased height (initially 70 feet, she said the present development plans may now seek 75 feet) and asked the commission to consider reductions to parking requirements (Rowe mentioned an example of 5.5 spaces per unit as a study suggestion).

Commissioners raised several recurring concerns and areas for staff follow‑up: traffic and access at the Michaels site given its constrained location at a busy intersection; the impacts of parking minimums and the risk of induced demand; how critical area/wetland buffers reduce buildable area on the Michaels parcel; how new units would affect school capacity (staff reported preliminary discussions with Lake Washington School District staff showed the district had reviewed the numbers used in the comprehensive plan and that apartment development typically generates far fewer school‑age children per unit than single‑family homes); and visual massing and view impacts at the Goodwill site where adjacent residential lots sit on higher grade.

Commissioners debated scope and timing. Several commissioners supported focusing now on the two community‑initiated amendment requests and moving toward a tighter timeline (staff said they could bring back a first draft of code options and a "high/low" menu of choices at the April 24 study session). Other commissioners urged caution and more public engagement on detailed development standards (setbacks, massing transitions, parking rules) and said they did not want to "short‑circuit" neighborhood input. Staff described ongoing outreach (meetings with Juanita Neighborhood Association, Kirkland Alliance of Neighborhoods and Fin Hill Neighborhood Alliance, postcards and social media) and said they would present a clearer set of draft code options at the next study session.

On next steps staff said they will prepare zoning code amendment options (high/low ranges for the principal policy choices), pursue targeted outreach, and bring draft code and illustrations back to the commission at the April 24 study session. The commission discussed but did not take a formal vote; staff will also brief the City Council in May and could be asked to include a broader BC‑1 neighborhood center study on the work program if the commission and council choose to pursue that later.