Kenmore planning commission presses for clarity on 'missing middle' housing, ADUs; draft code due Feb. 18

The Kenmore Planning Commission continued a citywide discussion Feb. 4 on draft rules for “missing middle” housing — housing types such as stacked flats, multiplexes and ADUs intended to add gentle density within single-family areas — focusing on definitions, tax and utility treatment, and trade-offs between lot footprint, height and neighborhood compatibility.

Commissioners said they want clearer definitions and policy direction before finalizing code language. Commissioner Van der Linde said the key question is when an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) stops being an ADU and becomes, effectively, a separate primary dwelling: “I think you’ve put your finger on the issue here, which is at some point, does an ADU no longer [be] an ADU?”

Why this matters: the commission is revising zoning and development standards that will affect what homeowners and developers can build in single-family neighborhoods across Kenmore, including setbacks, maximum impervious surface, parking and whether incentives (for example, relaxed setbacks or increased height) should be allowed in exchange for smaller footprints or other public benefits.

Most of the discussion centered on practical implications rather than a single policy outcome. Commissioners pressed staff on: how ADUs are assessed and taxed; whether ADUs can be condoized or subdivided and what that means for utility meters, parking and tree-protection rules; whether code should favor building up (height) instead of out (larger footprints) to preserve tree canopy and reduce impervious surface; and how impact fees and other cost signals should apply to conversions versus net-new construction.

On taxation and exemptions, staff referenced state guidance and a citation to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that allows counties to offer a three-year property-tax exemption for improvements to single-family dwellings, including ADU construction, under certain conditions. In the meeting, commissioners and staff also noted the Washington State Department of Commerce ADU guidance and said county assessors handle assessments and tax calculations, not the city. "There's an RCW that authorizes counties to provide a 3‑year property tax exemption for improvements to a single family dwelling, including the construction of an ADU," a staff member said.

Several commissioners urged the commission to distinguish policy and code for conversions of existing homes from demolition-and-rebuild projects. Commissioner Olsen said conversions should be treated differently because demolition-and-rebuilds carry acquisition and demolition costs that change developer incentives. Commissioner Wilson suggested tying some fees and utility charges to the actual on‑the‑ground infrastructure change (for example, upsizing a water line), rather than to unit counts alone.

Design and neighborhood compatibility were recurring concerns. Multiple commissioners favored keeping single‑family setbacks and impervious‑surface limits to preserve yards and tree canopy. Commissioner Macias and Commissioner Van der Linde both argued against broad incentives that would increase impervious surface or erode neighborhood character, saying market demand alone will create developer profit without additional subsidies.

Commissioners also discussed specific housing forms the code must accommodate or constrain: stacked flats (vertical triplexes), ADUs (attached and detached), tiny houses, and “slot” or townhouse‑style infill. Staff and commissioners agreed that precise definitions are necessary to avoid unintended outcomes — for example, permit allowances that would enable high‑profit demolitions that replace modest houses with very large footprints.

Staff timeline and next steps: city planners (identified in the meeting as Todd and Debbie) said the project consultants are finalizing draft code language and that a draft will be included in the Feb. 18 meeting packet for review. Staff indicated the commission should aim to send recommendations to city council in March/April so the council can complete its review in time to meet state scheduling needs; staff noted the city must be able to work through any council review in time for the state’s June 30 timeline for compliance. "The consultants are busily working on the draft codes as we speak, and they'll be presenting at the next meeting on February 18," a city staff member said.

Other technical and policy notes raised in the discussion: - Impact fees: staff said Kenmore’s transportation impact fees were adopted in 2022 and were reviewed for compliance with recent state law. Park‑impact fees are scheduled for update and are typically a council decision. Staff said impact‑fee policy is largely outside the planning commission’s direct purview. (Staff comment.) - Permitted ADU inventory: staff noted the city’s housing element records roughly 20 permitted ADUs (the transcript and staff described the number as “about 20,” not a precise count). - Preapproved plans and amnesty: commissioners suggested exploring preapproved ADU plan programs and ADU amnesty programs (to register existing unpermitted units), with caveats about safety inspections and the potential for loopholes.

Commissioners signaled broad agreement on goals — preserving tree canopy and private open space, keeping new forms compatible with neighborhoods, and encouraging housing choice — while acknowledging tradeoffs and that some details will be shaped only when code language is drafted and reviewed. Staff said the code will be iterative and that follow‑up meetings will refine definitions and tradeoffs.

Votes at a glance: the meeting approved the consent agenda (approval of previous meeting minutes) by a voice vote that passed unanimously.

What’s next: the commission will review a draft code at its Feb. 18 meeting. Staff asked commissioners to submit written, line‑item questions in advance where possible to expedite meeting discussion and to identify any “burning questions” before the packet is released.