Planning commission studies 2025 housing code amendments to implement middle housing and ease street-improvement burdens

Ian Lefkort, a senior planner with Long Range Planning, presented the Redmond Planning Commission with a 2025 housing amendment package at the commission’s March 12 study session that staff said is aimed at implementing "middle housing," aligning the zoning code with the Redmond 2050 comprehensive plan, and complying with recent state law changes.

The amendments, Lefkort said, mostly consist of code cleanup and modest changes to make middle housing legally explicit and easier to build. "Some of the amendments are literally just adding the phrase ‘middle housing,’" Lefkort said, and other changes focus on reducing ambiguity in calculations such as gross floor area and on expanding options for private streets and reduced right-of-way requirements so adding a duplex or triplex does not automatically trigger costly street upgrades.

Why it matters: staff and commissioners said the package is intended to increase housing choice and diversity without changing the city’s overall comprehensive-plan vision. Lefkort told the commission the edits are intended to reduce regulatory barriers that can make smaller infill projects financially infeasible and to align the code with state legislative requirements, which staff said the city must meet on a tight timeline.

Key details - Scope: The package edits multiple zoning-code chapters (staff cited chapter references around 21.58) to add middle housing definitions and implementation language, to clarify gross floor area calculations for certain neighborhood-residential zones, and to fix cross-reference errors created by the zoning consolidation done for Redmond 2050. - Transportation/street improvements: Staff proposed allowing more private ways and reducing the required right-of-way width and improvements in some infill situations so that the addition of a duplex or two does not automatically require a full public-street rebuild. - State-mandated items: Lefkort said two state law changes must be implemented: a list of items local jurisdictions cannot require when converting nonresidential buildings to residential use (presented in the draft verbatim) and a change permitting certain co-living residential uses in the NR zone. Staff described those as mandatory and not discretionary. - Timeline: Lefkort said the study session was March 12, a public hearing is scheduled at the commission’s next meeting, staff hope to complete a recommendation in early April (study session April 9), and a final report to the council is targeted for April 23. He emphasized state requirements to adopt middle-housing standards by June of 2025.

Commissioner questions and staff responses Commission Chair Weston asked whether the code changes would allow the conversion of existing commercial or mixed‑use buildings to housing in ways that could displace small businesses. "Is there any way to balance, like, making sure that we actually maintain the commercially mandated space, or is it really out of our hands once this is passed?" Weston asked.

Lefkort responded that the zoning-code changes are driven by state law and that conversion remains difficult in practice because many nonresidential buildings lack the window plates and layouts needed for livable units. He said the city is separately pursuing a programmatic approach to preservation, anti‑displacement, and economic-vitality strategies led by Philip Marsh, the city’s economic development manager. "That programmatic approach that Philip will lead will help mitigate that concern," Lefkort said.

Commissioner Copley asked whether there is a short list of candidate buildings likely to convert. Lefkort said community interest is effectively zero to date and that no specific projects are pending, suggesting the zoning change alone may not trigger immediate conversions.

Next steps and requests from commissioners Commissioners asked staff to add clarifying language to the draft and to capture concerns—including preservation of active business uses—in the issues matrix for the record and for the council. Lefkort agreed to provide an analysis of how existing business licenses, long‑standing tenants, and other programmatic measures might be considered alongside the zoning amendments and to pass commissioners’ concerns on to Philip Marsh and the economic-vitality effort.

The commission will hold a public hearing on the amendments at its next meeting; staff requested written comments in advance so they can be incorporated into the issues matrix.

Speakers quoted in this article come from the Planning Commission meeting transcript and are identified in the speakers list below.