[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6208142,"mediaKeyId","3749678-53f2521ee80d40eb0796eac67b20e7fd","parentId",3749678,"title","Lake Forest Park council reviews middle-housing, ADU and unit-lot subdivision changes ahead of June 30 deadline","audioSeconds",264,"startMs",133000,"endMs",397000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749678-53f2521ee80d40eb0796eac67b20e7fd&start=133&end=397","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749678-53f2521ee80d40eb0796eac67b20e7fd/thumbnail_133000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6208142/Lake-Forest-Park/King-County/Washington/Lake-Forest-Park-council-reviews-middle-housing-ADU-and-unit-lot-subdivision-changes-ahead-of-June-30-deadline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208142-0ca8d39c638cf9c4b27f1e8e2374ce36/orig.mp4?Expires=1776507638&Signature=mrbhNFz-FeIh6SAxNLCaAry7td9Vin-uisbWZwn7~JPNIovlhU2XbYWOGisqw74p4GjaEE36B0LJl4YijZaJjSAwLFIVspJOu40IlOoHGxGOA1WRkHUjpAVERmwOEANnypuP3CI3XYv92IEucNiBFZdxGlxmVxSzemF3Mhw-ls3TmW9Uc-9SgVeyBicXZt5-zDWEJNnHRyyxj8QJ7nQ4Ku-BbvZo1jSN07koPLGbbEv04qr9czu6v5MHEkvcoJbP9Qp6jaQismUzydjDiRN9697gstVd0uJYBLfSITpeJ-vP-B2IK-ettx1V3ywd6-UNNIrp8f82gmmqf0Bap3G4eA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Lake Forest Park, WA","date","2025-06-11T00:35:02.61Z","article","Mark Hoffman, community development director for Lake Forest Park, and consultants from SCJ Alliance outlined proposed amendments to the municipal code on Monday that the city says are necessary to meet new state middle-housing requirements.

“The planning commission made a recommendation of amendments to the Lake Forest Park municipal code to address housing…accessory dwelling units, and a little bit of cleanup,” Hoffman said. Consultant Kirsten Peterson of SCJ Alliance summarized the state context: “The 3 that are applicable to you tonight are house bills 11 10, 13 37, and 23 21.”

The proposals would require the city to allow several middle-housing types in residential zones identified as single-family–type zones under the new rules, permit two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on qualifying lots, and add subdivision provisions to allow unit-lot subdivisions and 0 lot-line short subdivisions where state density rules apply. Peterson said the work was funded in part by a Department of Commerce grant: the city “received that in the amount of 50,000 from Commerce to do the work before you tonight.”

Why it matters: If Lake Forest Park does not adopt its ordinance by the state deadline, Peterson told the council, “there is a model ordinance that the state developed that would take effect. It would essentially supersede your existing ordinance.” To avoid that result, staff and consultants are asking the council to consider the draft and send it to the public hearing scheduled for June 12, with a goal of adoption at the June 26 meeting so the city meets the June 30 deadline.

Key points presented and discussed

- ADUs: The draft implements the statutory requirement that at least two ADUs be allowed on lots zoned for single-family–type housing, subject to minimum lot size and sewer connection rules and other limits in the draft. Peterson summarized the statutory parking limits: “no off street parking will be required within 1 half mile walking distance of a major transit stop,” and the code caps parking requirements at one space for lots under 6,000 square feet and two spaces for lots 6,000 square feet or larger.

- Unit-lot and 0 lot-line short subdivisions: Peterson described how the subdivision revisions would allow a parent lot to be divided into separately owned “unit lots” for detached or detached-plus-accessory units where the overall parent-lot development meets dimensional and coverage standards. She summarized the legal change: a city “must also allow 0 lot line short subdivisions where the number of lots created is equal to the unit density required in this normal section.” Staff noted that many standard development rules (setbacks, lot coverage, critical-area buffers, tree canopy requirements) continue to apply to parent lots and unit-lot subdivisions.

- Implementation limits and caveats: Staff repeatedly emphasized that allowing the subdivisions in the code does not mean every lot can be developed that way. Mark Hoffman said the code will still be administered on a case-by-case basis: “An applicant…will still need to visit with city staff and determine whether or not, hey, is there room to fit another unit on here? And the answer may be no.” Consultants and staff also flagged utility easement, parking-easement and common-area management requirements that must be recorded with plats.

Council questions and staff directions

Council members asked for clearer implementation exhibits (for example, maps that show what is within a half-mile of a major transit stop for parking exemptions) and for code clarifications on family/occupancy language and lot-area calculations. Councilmember Goldman asked whether the half-mile transit map would be available; staff said implementation exhibits and parcel-based verification would be developed during code implementation. Council members asked staff to clarify several cross-references and to sweep the draft for older family-definition language; staff recorded a council consensus to remove a sentence that read “no such dwelling unit shall be occupied by more than 1 family.” Zoe Tapert (SCJ Alliance) was asked to track edits noted on the record.

Next steps and schedule

- The planning commission has forwarded a formal recommendation to the council; the council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, June 12. Staff and consultants recommended returning to council for additional discussion and possible final action at the June 26 regular meeting so the city can adopt the amendments before the state’s June 30 deadline.

- Staff said they will prepare implementation exhibits (including transit stop buffers for parking exemptions) and will prepare any technical edits requested by council before the public hearing. The draft ordinance file and a longer technical report were available to the council in the meeting packet.

What the draft does not decide

Staff and the planning commission framed the current draft as meeting the statutory minimums; community members and council raised broader policy questions (for example, whether ADUs should be allowed on lots that already contain middle-housing units, and broader parking policy) that the planning commission or council could study later. Mark Hoffman noted the group’s intent to meet the minimum state mandates first: the commission “still wants to study out potential future options for looking at additional densities,” but elected to advance a baseline-compliant package for the June 30 deadline.

Ending note

Council members and staff agreed to continue review at upcoming meetings and to post technical exhibits in advance of the June 12 public hearing. The draft ordinance highlights added text and includes new definitions, unit-lot subdivision standards, and administrative design-review processes that will guide implementation if adopted.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","June 9, 2025 City Council Special Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Mark Hoffman, community development director for Lake Forest Park, and consultants from SCJ Alliance briefed the City Council Monday on proposed code amendments to comply with new state middle-housing laws that would require two ADUs on qualifying lots and allow unit-lot and 0 lot-line short subdivisions.","taxTitle","Lake Forest Park, King County, Washington","taxId",71686,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6208137,"Council weighs a limited-term public-safety levy to shore up rising contract costs and preserve services",149,4725000,4874000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3749678-53f2521ee80d40eb0796eac67b20e7fd&start=4725&end=4874","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3749678-53f2521ee80d40eb0796eac67b20e7fd/thumbnail_4725000.jpg","/articles/6208137/Lake-Forest-Park/King-County/Washington/Council-weighs-a-limited-term-public-safety-levy-to-shore-up-rising-contract-costs-and-preserve-services","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6208137-17ae8cba71b32de972409b97d38fe4b5/orig.mp4?Expires=1776507638&Signature=M05~sEPlNcHPWtJEE2Hcrco722h3dNvpgKtKXAxXalnOubht1Kf0nt1Cs-7UsOHqxAJ-SnQcKtdhdJ~TgDVtxo4OvVSih283iCbWYOsq4u35ERAXlouJcSk96suQjYTjOuh4yu1pzLge7zmy3LmMHSIlPMpgQqlfoI99QcLfzDt7uGlRANaoiTFteOL9rL~c-vkVw0wt6NBExKSx6fqBmq3Wqt-3gkWlk2Ux0-SMvcs3AtGKIO2b2omX9p4s4l4xllQG89QA4YMEZakVOlVE2YO29EZVy60r9Ogb2Ne~70ZMV1R9B6M3nt7pkTDvNxcRbYoYFBi5BssHEWRE2sF02g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Deputy Mayor Fertani led council discussion on a proposed property-tax levy to stabilize the city'9s finances in light of rising public-safety and contracted costs.

Deputy Mayor Fertani opened the agenda item by explaining edits to an earlier proposal: the updated text narrowed the request to public safety by replacing a public-works ask with a mental-health mobile crisis response contract (the RACER fee). Fertani told the council the RACER fee had an annual cost “roughly to the tune of a $122,269.”

Councilmembers and staff discussed whether the levy should be framed as a narrowly targeted public-safety levy (specific line items that voters can see will be funded) or as a more general revenue measure. Councilmember Goldman urged clarity in messaging: “making it clear to the community, if the levy passes, this is what the city gets from it. If the levy doesn't pass, here's where we'll be with the status quo.” Several councilmembers said a shorter, limited-term levy (one councilmember suggested six years) that names discrete uses would be a clearer proposition for voters than an unlimited or broad general-fund request.

What would the levy cover?

Deputy Mayor Fertani and others described categories of rising cost the levy would address: 9-1-1 dispatch contract costs, jail costs, insurance increases, mental-health contract payments (RACER), and a portion of police staffing and equipment costs. Staff noted some of those costs are set by external providers and pools: as explained in discussion, 9-1-1 services were historically provided by Bothell under a favorable arrangement, and current contract options are limited; insurance pools and regional jail costs have also increased across jurisdictions.

Timing, scale and fiscal framing

Deputy Mayor Fertani said the city had budgeted the 2025–26 biennium without the levy and that the proposed measure would begin to produce revenue in 2026. Council members discussed scale: multiple councilmembers estimated the levy needed in the roughly $1.4–$1.6 million annual range (the deputy mayor'9s draft used a similar target) to cover the listed categories and slow drawdown of one-time reserves. Several councilmembers and the mayor urged that the measure explicitly state how levy proceeds would be used so voters could weigh tradeoffs.

Legal and procedural notes

City Attorney on-call Pratt said the city can present either a narrowly drawn public-safety levy or a general-fund revenue measure but must respect single-subject requirements for ballot measures. Pratt and staff explained that a measure identified and limited to public safety would have to be spent for public-safety purposes; if the council preferred a general-fund levy, proceeds would be fungible in the general fund but that form had failed for Lake Forest Park in prior votes.

Council guidance to staff

Councilmembers asked staff to return with tightened options before the next meetings: a limited-term (six-year) public-safety levy with discrete line items and clear explanatory language showing what services the levy would secure and what reductions would follow if voters rejected it. Several councilmembers urged focusing the levy on costs the city cannot control (contracted 9-1-1, jail, insurance, mental-health contracts) and describing police-staffing impacts in plain terms. City staff and the mayor said they would also continue to pursue other revenue options and efficiency measures.

Next steps

Council indicated they want draft ballot language, an explanatory statement that itemizes major spending categories, and a fiscal analysis of rate impacts before further action. The council planned to continue discussion at upcoming meetings this month, including a special meeting on June 16 and regular sessions scheduled the week of June 23–26.

Ending note

Councilmembers emphasized transparency and voter clarity: several said a time-limited, narrowly described question that enumerates what the levy will fund is likelier to gain support than a large, open-ended request.","Deputy Mayor presented a draft levy proposal focused on public-safety costs, including 9-1-1 dispatch, jail and contract increases and a mobile crisis contract; councilmembers asked for clearer line-item framing and called for a modest, time-limited measure with specific outcomes to improve voter clarity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lake Forest Park council reviews middle-housing, ADU and unit-lot subdivision changes ahead of June 30 deadline

Council weighs a limited-term public-safety levy to shore up rising contract costs and preserve services