Kennewick council reviews proposed middle‑housing code amendments to comply with state law

Planning Director Anthony Muay told the Kennewick City Council at a May 13 workshop that the city is proposing changes to its zoning and development code to implement House Bill 1110 (2023), the state law that requires jurisdictions in Kennewick’s category to allow middle housing. Muay said staff will present ordinances at the council’s next regular meeting (May 20) and intends the new rules to take effect July 1, 2025, after permitting systems are updated.

The bill requires cities in Kennewick’s classification to allow “middle housing” — a group of housing types Muay described as buildings compatible in form, scale and character with single‑family homes that contain two or more attached, stacked or clustered homes. Muay said the city’s draft code adds definitions for the nine middle‑housing types in the statute and a unit‑density metric referenced in the law.

Muay said the state-level requirement means many multiunit configurations can be built “by right.” "By right means... you just go through your building permit process," Muay said, explaining that applicants would not need a conditional‑use permit or a separate site‑plan review for most middle‑housing projects that meet dimensional and design standards.

Why it matters: The proposals change how developers and homeowners can add housing in single‑family neighborhoods. Muay and council members focused on how the new rules will affect density, parking, infrastructure hookups and neighborhood character.

Key provisions and council questions

- Unit density and affordability: Muay said the draft adds a unit‑density line to the development standards table with a maximum unit density of six units per lot, and a footnote that the two extra units (beyond four) may be allowed only if they meet statutory affordability requirements. For rental units the bill sets affordability at 60% of area median income (AMI); for for‑sale units the threshold is 80% of AMI. Muay said qualifying units must remain affordable for 50 years via a deed restriction or covenant.

- Four units by right (and practical limits): Under the statute and the proposed code, owners could build up to four units on qualifying residential lots without a discretionary land‑use review. Muay and council members noted practical constraints — lot size, setbacks, parking and utility capacity — will limit where and how often a full four‑unit or higher development is feasible.

- Minimum lot sizes and dimensions: The draft reduces several minimum lot sizes and widths (as presented): RS zone minimum from 10,500 to 8,000 sq ft; RL and RMH zones from 7,500 to 5,500 sq ft; RH zone from 4,000 to 3,500 sq ft. The draft establishes 1,800 sq ft minimum lots for rowhouses/townhouses and adjusts lot‑width standards across residential zones.

- Height and form: The proposal would cap height in RS, RL and RMH at 35 feet or two‑and‑a‑half stories, whichever is less, to encourage forms that remain visually compatible with single‑family neighborhoods.

- Design standards and review process: Muay said the statute limits how jurisdictions can regulate middle housing — cities may apply the same design and dimensional standards used for single‑family homes but may not require the multifamily site‑plan process for units that qualify as middle housing. Sensitive‑area rules (steep slopes, shorelines, critical areas) will still apply.

- Parking: The draft follows the statute’s parking limits: on lots under 6,000 sq ft jurisdictions may not require more than one on‑site parking space per unit; on lots over 6,000 sq ft they may require up to two spaces per unit. Muay noted the council can later apply for area‑specific waivers from the state Department of Commerce if on‑street parking problems arise, but those waivers must be pursued neighborhood by neighborhood.

- Utilities and services: Proposed public‑works changes would allow up to two units to share a single water or sewer service; adding a third unit would require a separate connection unless the service is upsized at initial installation. City staff said new or upsized taps into public mains would often be necessary for larger conversions and that cost and feasibility could deter some projects.

- Shared drives and unit‑lot subdivisions: The draft amends shared‑driveway standards to allow any number of lots or units on a shared private drive that is at least 20 feet wide (12‑foot drives remain permitted for two or fewer units or if sprinklers or approved alternatives are provided). Muay also described the separate “unit‑lot subdivision” provision under state law that would allow individual units created under middle‑housing rules to be sold on separate lots; he said independent utility connections would still be required for unit‑lot subdivisions.

Outreach and next steps

Muay said the planning department’s outreach included summer events, a survey that yielded "over a thousand responses," and an advisory group that included a realtor, a Home Builders Association representative, a housing authority representative, a planning‑commission member and a resident who had done a lot of commenting on the survey. That feedback informed the draft amendments, Muay said.

At the end of the workshop Muay told the council the proposed ordinances will be presented at the May 20 meeting and that staff recommends delaying enactment until July 1 to allow permit systems and administrative processes to be updated. No council action or vote occurred at the workshop; the items are scheduled for formal council consideration at the next regular meeting.

Council concerns and staff caveats

Council members voiced repeated concerns about parking, driveway/curb‑cut impacts, how shared drives and narrow lots will be serviced, and how the city will track and enforce long‑term affordability covenants. Muay and city staff acknowledged administrative burdens — tracking rents and resale restrictions over 50 years, ensuring adequate water/sewer taps, and adapting public‑works infrastructure — and said some issues (such as granting area‑specific parking relief) require additional studies or state review.

Muay and staff said existing private covenants (CC&Rs) recorded before the statute’s effective date remain enforceable; the city cannot accept new covenants that would bar middle housing after the statute’s effective date.

What’s next: Staff will return the draft ordinances for formal introduction at the May 20 council meeting; council members may ask staff to delay or carry specific items to a later meeting for further review.