Lynnwood council members on Oct. 15 heard roughly two hours of feedback from local small builders, developers and affordable‑housing firms who said permitting timelines, inconsistent local rules and certain mitigation costs are key barriers to producing ownership and missing‑middle housing in the city.

Council President Coelho convened a developers roundtable after a technical briefing on the city’s Critical Areas Ordinance. Participants included small builders and contractors and representatives of larger workforce and affordable housing developers. Speakers praised Lynnwood’s planning staff but described repeated setbacks in entitlement and permitting processes that raise carrying costs and discourage smaller entrants.

Drew Corwin, a local small‑scale developer, said his firm is building duplexes under the new code and that dealing with incremental requirements has been time‑consuming. Wilson (last name not specified), another small builder, said time equals money: “If we’re waiting for permits, we’ve got interest on loans and nothing coming in,” he said. Several speakers repeated a common refrain: faster, predictable permitting paths for small projects would allow more local builders to enter homeownership production.

Mike Appleby, vice president at Chicago Title with long experience in Snohomish County development, urged simplifying land‑use steps for small projects and creating predictable building‑permit tracks. Appleby said his industry seeks “predictability of the process and some streamlining” and urged jurisdictions to reduce duplicative or inconsistent rules that make small projects financially unviable.

Developers and nonprofit builders described specific pain points:

- Entitlement and permitting timelines: Builders said low‑complexity infill should be permitable on a faster clock — several proposed a goal of a building permit in 3 months and finished product on the market within a year for small projects. Speakers cited cases where permitting and plat approvals in the region exceed a year or more, which makes small projects risky.

- Public‑works and frontage requirements: Several developers said variable public‑works demands and unclear cost allocations for off‑site improvements can “silently kill projects.” They recommended clearer standards for when frontage or road widening is required for small infill versus larger plats.

- Fees and recurring utility costs: Affordable housing representatives said high impact and utility fees in Lynnwood raise project costs and, for projects that serve lower‑income renters, can make deals infeasible unless offset by tax exemptions or subsidies. One speaker asked the council to consider extending or modifying the multifamily tax exemption to preserve lower rents.

- Parking rules: Builders said parking mandates should be responsive to location and product type. Several developers noted examples where transit‑proximate projects operate successfully with lower on‑site parking and said cities should allow market‑driven solutions and shared off‑site arrangements rather than rigid minimums. Kathy Reynes of Coase Development noted her Alderwood Mall Boulevard project provides 100 spaces for 199 units and that residents are using off‑site leased stalls nearby as a workaround.

- Tree retention and canopy rules: Some council members raised neighborhood concerns about tree loss. Developers argued that certain blanket tree‑retention rules (for example, rigid percentages of canopy retained on every lot) can make previously buildable lots unusable and push development elsewhere. They advocated incentive‑based approaches — plant‑or‑pay, off‑site replanting and 2:1 or 3:1 replacement ratios — and cautioned that transplanting trees or protecting single‑trees by drip line is not always feasible in heavily redeveloped lots.

Several developers urged Lynnwood to adopt form‑based elements, pre‑approved “stock” plans for small projects, and simplified checklists or handouts that show the step‑by‑step approval sequence for a four‑unit or similar small build, so “mom‑and‑pop” developers can understand and plan for costs. Duane Landswork, a local builder with experience dating to the 1980s, said developers want trust and clear, implementable standards and suggested private roads and alley standards be revisited to make small clustered housing viable.

Nonprofit affordable‑housing developers stressed that impact‑fee and utility costs, as well as long approval timelines, limit the number of units they can deliver without additional state subsidies. Several asked the council to consider policy tools (multifamily tax exemption, state coordination) that preserve lower rents.

Why it matters: Council members said Lynnwood’s recent Unified Development Code and state actions open new types of housing, but local implementation details will determine whether small builders can actually produce ownership units and missing‑middle housing at scale. Several developers suggested pilot approaches — permit checklists, a fast track for 4‑to‑6 unit infill, and a regular developer roundtable — to speed iterative fixes.

Council members and the developers agreed to continue the dialogue. Multiple participants commended Lynnwood staff by name for responsiveness and asked the council to examine fees, frontage triggers and process steps that can be clarified through code edits or administrative checklists.