Lake Forest Park holds public hearing on middle-housing and ADU code changes ahead of state deadline

Lake Forest Park City Council opened a public hearing Thursday on two related ordinance amendments that would change the city’s subdivision and land-use code to allow "middle housing" types and required accessory dwelling units.

The hearing introduced Ordinance 25-13-09, amending Chapter 17 (subdivisions) to allow unit-lot and 0-lot-line subdivisions, and Ordinance 25-13-10, amending Chapter 18 (planning and land-use) to implement middle housing and the state requirement to allow two units per lot or comparable unit density. City staff said the code changes are aimed at meeting state-mandated timelines; action is anticipated at the council’s June 26 meeting.

Zoe Tapert, a planner with SCJ Alliance who assisted the city’s planning commission, told the council that the 2023 Washington Legislature passed middle-housing laws and follow-up legislation that require some cities to allow additional housing types. Tapert said, "what is meant by middle housing is essentially a bridge between single family houses and then mid rise apartments," and outlined the specific housing types the city must permit (duplexes, courtyard apartments, cottage housing and stacked flats) and the ADU requirements the state has directed jurisdictions to accommodate.

Mark Hoffman, community development director, said the city adopted a comprehensive plan in December and has been working to align development regulations with the plan and the state deadlines. "This leads towards an anticipated action on June 26," Hoffman told the council, noting the Department of Commerce model ordinance could take effect if Lake Forest Park did not adopt compliant regulations within the six-month window after the comp‑plan adoption.

Public commenters gave a mix of support and caution. Longtime resident Jim Lyming said he was neither wholly for nor against the ordinances and raised concerns about existing private covenants and deed restrictions in plats such as Sheridan Beach that may limit use despite new city rules; he asked the council to note that those private restrictions may remain enforceable. In his remarks Lyming said, "I put a question mark because I really am neither in favor nor opposed to the ordinance," and urged the record to reflect the point about covenants.

Zach Garbowitz, a resident and self-described real‑estate investor, spoke in favor of the ADU provisions and said ADUs "are a really good way to increase housing density and also, I think in a lot of cases, maintain the character of the neighborhood."

The council also read several written comments into the record. A written comment by Josh Rosenow urged the council to take bolder steps to increase housing options and questioned a draft provision (18.50.0050) that would prohibit a duplex plus ADUs on the same lot; Rosenow suggested allowing more flexible combinations (for example, duplex plus one ADU) to increase options for younger residents and public‑service workers.

Council members and staff discussed implementation details raised during the hearing, including how unit‑lot subdivisions would respect parent‑lot setbacks and development standards. Hoffman clarified that the parent lot must meet existing setbacks, height and impervious‑surface rules even when unit lots are created, and planners emphasized that a stacked‑flat configuration cannot be split into separate fee simple unit lots.

The council and staff also discussed private covenants (CC&Rs). Hoffman and senior staff explained that CC&Rs are private instruments enforced through civil remedies; the city does not enforce CC&Rs. Staff said state debate considered the interaction with CC&Rs and that existing CC&Rs generally remain private matters while future CC&Rs cannot be used to re‑establish single‑family‑only restrictions under the new state direction. Council members asked staff to provide clearer guidance about how CC&Rs will surface during application review; staff said title reports and application notices would reveal recorded covenants and that enforcement remains a private civil avenue.

Councilors asked staff to compile the so‑called "parking lot" items—policy questions and further drafting tasks generated during hearings and Planning Commission work—into a single list for follow‑up so the council can address incentives, unit‑density clarifications and related development standards in subsequent meetings. Several council members expressed a desire to act before the Department of Commerce model ordinance could automatically apply to the city.

The hearing record will remain open for the formal process; staff and the planning commission recommended adoption that meets state minimums while preserving opportunities for continued community discussion on incentives and other refinements. The council closed the public hearing and scheduled further deliberation leading to anticipated action on June 26.