What is going on with the HPO?
Holmes Point Overlay Ordinance – Potential Amendments Concerning Tree Removal and Lot Coverage Restrictions
Following is an overview of amendments to the Holmes Point Overlay ordinance that the Council is considering, along with a description of the relevant provisions of the ordinance in its current form, and recommendations and observations from FHNA about preferred amendment language.
Background on the proposed amendments:
At its August 5, 2026 meeting, the Kirkland Council asked for staff memos analyzing two possible amendments to the Holmes Point Overlay ordinance (Chapter 70 of the Kirkland Zoning Code).
Tree removal restrictions: One amendment would relax the HPO’s current prohibition against a homeowner’s ability to remove any viable significant tree (more than 6’’ in trunk diameter) on his or her property. Councilmembers noted that the citywide tree regulation allows homeowners to remove between 2 to 4 trees each year (depending on lot size).
Lot coverage restrictions: The other amendment would increase permissible lot coverage of homes and impermeable surfaces in the HPO area to 50%, the standard percentage applicable in most areas of the City. Councilmembers suggested such an amendment to promote middle housing in the HPO area.
FHNA response: FHNA responded in September to the Council’s action by submitting a letter that proposed a tree removal standard that would allow removal of two to four significant trees (depending on lot size) every 5 years on the portion of each lot that was not a natural protected area. The letter questioned the suitability of a relaxed lot coverage standard in the HPO area, noting that Holmes Point has many steep, narrow roads that are not conducive to increased traffic that more density would generate.
Recent Council action: At its October 20 meeting, the Council considered two staff legislative memorandums, one concerning tree removals and the other lot coverage relaxation. The City’s Planning Director made a short presentation, noting that a significant portion of the HPO area consists of critical areas, in which other chapters of the zoning code limit tree removals.
Councilmembers directed staff to proceed with potential HPO amendments. The Council did not decide how each amendment should be drafted. However, in regard to tree removals, members focused on either adopting the citywide tree removal standard (2-4 trees per parcel per year) or allowing HPO residents to remove one tree per year on their properties. With respect to lot coverage, Councilmembers focused on applying the citywide standard to the HPO (50% coverage) or applying a 40% coverage ceiling.
Councilmembers stressed that they wanted the amendments to be “surgical and straightforward” so that modifications could be made quickly and without diverting staff resources committed to other planning projects. The Council decided that amendments should be handled through the normal code revision process, i.e. consideration and public hearings before the Planning Commission and subsequent review and action by the Council. There was no support for special community outreach or neighborhood meetings in addition to the normal zoning code amendment procedure.
You can watch the Council’s discussion of the HPO amendments on October 20 here. The item is taken up by the Council at the end of the meeting (4:00:15 on the video).
HPO history:
The Holmes Point Overlay ordinance was adopted in the 1990s by the King County Council, when the Holmes Point neighborhood was part of unincorporated King County. The ordinance was designed to limit tree removals in both development and non-development scenarios, in order to minimize environmental damage in a neighborhood characterized by steep slopes, landslide potential and soil erosion/water runoff issues. The ordinance applies, generally speaking, to the portion of Finn Hill that is west of Juanita Drive.
In general, the ordinance prohibits the removal of healthy significant trees and also requires that 25% of each lot be reserved as a natural protected area, free from improvements or ornamental landscaping.
Finn Hill was annexed by the City of Kirkland in 2011. Incorporation of the HPO into the Kirkland Zoning Code (Chapter 70) was one of the conditions of annexation.
A summary of its provisions and a map of the coverage area are available on the Kirkland website.
Tree removals in Holmes Point – the issues:
As noted, the HPO prohibits the removal of viable significant trees. The ordinance does not list any exceptions to prohibition. Notwithstanding this clear requirement, developers have been allowed to remove such trees to the extent necessary to build housing that is otherwise consistent with the zoning code. Homeowners who want simply to remove trees have not been permitted to do so, however. In 2018, FHNA worked with City staff to strengthen tree canopy protections in the development context while relaxing the tree removal prohibition for homeowners who were not developing their parcels. FHNA and the staff agreed that the HPO should be revised to allow a homeowner to remove two to four significant trees (depending on lot size) in non-protected areas during a five year period, with a requirement that the homeowner replant on a 1:1 basis.
Click here to see an excerpt of the Planning staff’s summary of the amendments proposed in 2018.
The City Council did not act on the proposed amendments to the HPO, however. It chose to defer action on the ordinance pending a review of Kirkland’s citywide tree ordinance. FHNA worked with the staff on modifications to those regulations, which were ultimately adopted in 2022.
The new rules are codified in Chapter 95 of the Zoning Code. They specify that homeowners can remove, every year, between 2 to 4 significant trees (depending on lot size) so long as at least 2 to 4 such trees (again depending on lot size) remain. A special rule applies to the removal of landmark trees, defined as trees with a trunk diameter of 26 inches. The basic rule for these trees is that only one such tree can be removed per year, although up to two landmark trees can be removed in a year so long as none are removed the following year.
FHNA Comments: FHNA continues to support the proposal that it and the staff put forward in 2018: homeowners should be permitted to remove between 2 to four trees depending on lot size in non-protected areas (the 25% portion of a lot reserved for natural plantings) over a 5 year period, subject to 1:1 replanting requirements. This gives residents flexibility to remove poorly located trees but is not as open-ended as a rule that allows one significant tree to be removed each year.
FHNA notes the City staff’s observation that Kirkland has regulations that attempt to control land use activity along shorelines, in geologically hazardous areas, and areas adjacent to wetlands and streams. City staff has commented that these regulations may provide tree retention protections that would limit removals in the Holmes Point area, even if the existing HPO requirements are replaced with the more lenient citywide standards. However, the regulations applicable to shorelines (Zoning Code Chapter 83) and to wetlands and streams (Zoning Code Chapter 90) do not apply broadly to the Holmes Point neighborhood, and the regulations applicable to geologically hazardous areas (Kirkland Zoning Code Chapter 85) do not specifically limit tree removals; rather, they require that development on steep, unstable ground be designed to mitigate the risk of slides (which can be accomplished with retention walls and other hardscape engineering).
Lot coverage requirements in the HPO – the issues:
The other HPO amendment that the Council has asked the staff to consider is a relaxation of the HPO’s limitations on lot coverage by impervious surface (buildings, patios, driveways – but not private streets or joint use driveways). The ordinance currently limits lot coverage as follows:
Impervious lot coverage for a 6500 square foot parcel (a little less than 1/7 acre) would be 40%. A quarter acre parcel (10,890 square feet) would be limited to approximately 32% of impervious surface coverage, and the percentages for half-acre and full acre parcels would be 21% and 15% respectively.
FHNA comments: While the HPO’s formula for limiting impervious surface coverage promotes tree retention on large lots, it clearly restricts the owners of such parcels from making extensive improvements on their properties. FHNA has taken no position thus far on whether the current restrictions are appropriate.
FHNA’s September letter to the Council did point out, however, that a relaxation of lot coverage requirements in the Holmes Point area would likely result in more tree canopy loss. FHNA observed that a relaxation of lot coverage requirements in the Holmes Point area would be unlikely to promote the creation of affordable housing, the rationale cited by the Council for considering the lot coverage modification. FHNA further noted that Holmes Point’s narrow streets and steep slopes are not well equipped to handle increases in density, as opposed to other areas of Finn Hill with less challenging terrain and higher density zoning.
It should also be recognized that owners of large lots who wish to develop more housing can subdivide their properties into smaller parcels and thereby take advantage of the higher lot coverage percentages applicable to smaller parcels. One constraint for large lot owners may be that they cannot both subdivide a parcel and retain an existing home if the home and associated impervious surface improvements already exceed the permissible lot coverage limits or would do so as a result of reducing the size of the parcel for that home following subdivision. For example, if a one acre lot is occupied by a home and improvements totaling 5000 square feet, a subdivision of the lot into four quarter acre parcels would result in excess impervious surface for the parcel on which the existing home is located.) This is a problem that may require a tailored solution rather than a wholesale relaxation of lot coverage limitations in the HPO.
Comments