Lake Forest Park planning commissioners opt for state 'bare minimum' on middle housing, defer affordability decisions

The Lake Forest Park Planning Commission voted to move forward with the minimum code changes required by the new state middle-housing laws while reserving further policy decisions — including affordability tie‑ins and how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) interact with duplexes — for later work.

Commissioners said the decision was driven by a statutory deadline and a desire to avoid drafting wide-ranging, irreversible rules without fuller analysis and public review. Planner Zoe, who presented the proposed amendments, told the commission that “the Code Amendments themselves are to start with option 1, which is just the baseline requirements of what the state is requiring in the middle housing legislation.”

Why it matters: Washington’s recent housing bills require cities to allow “middle housing” types (for example duplexes and ADUs) in areas zoned for single-family homes. Lake Forest Park’s discussion focused on how to implement the floor the state allows and whether to include additional local incentives or restrictions tied to affordability, environmental protections and neighborhood impacts.

What the commission decided and why The commission concluded it must meet the state-driven timeline for code changes and therefore will initially adopt language that satisfies Commerce’s minimum interpretation. Zoe summarized Commerce’s guidance as saying, in effect, “the bare minimum requirement … the unit density of 2 units per lot would be single family and 2 ADUs as the max or a duplex of sorts.” Commissioners stressed that interpretation carries policy choices that the city could expand on later.

Several members said they favored pursuing stronger affordability measures but not on the expedited timetable. Commissioner Sam said he had asked for a compromise “option 1.5” at an earlier meeting: “I was interested in hearing an option 1.5 that allowed … bonus development or additional density if there was some tie to affordability because nothing that Leland has proposed so far addresses that.” Commissioner Yani argued for more caution: “I just don't wanna make a rash, rushed decision.”

ADUs and duplexes A central technical and political question was whether the new code should treat ADUs as part of the per‑lot unit count or allow duplexes plus ADUs. The consultant and staff told commissioners Commerce’s written guidance leaves room for two interpretations and that cities can choose to allow duplexes plus ADUs if they explicitly adopt that policy. The planner’s presentation reiterated that the draft ordinance currently reflects the bare minimum standard, and that the commission could direct staff and consultants to draft additional options for later consideration.

Commissioners also discussed size limits and parking for ADUs. Commissioners noted Lake Forest Park’s current ADU size cap (around 1,000 square feet was cited in the meeting) and asked staff to keep that consistent unless the commission agrees otherwise. Commissioners requested clearer language that if a garage is converted to an ADU, the property must still meet on-site parking requirements but would not be required to replace the converted garage space with additional off-site parking beyond the code minimum.

Subdivision, frontage and environmental protections The commission also reviewed related subdivision and zoning rules that affect how lots can be divided to create additional housing. Commissioner Yani and others questioned an existing frontage requirement (75 feet was discussed) that can prevent subdivision of large lots on curving streets. Yani urged the commission to examine the rule because, she said, it effectively “keeps big lots big” and is inconsistent with other zone standards. Staff and commissioners agreed this item is related but on a different timeline and should be researched further before any code change is finalized.

Several commissioners pressed that any code changes must preserve tree canopy, shoreline and other critical-area protections. A commissioner suggested adding a conforming statement in each zoning section making clear that permitted or conditional uses must meet tree‑canopy and critical‑area requirements in the Lake Forest Park municipal code.

Consultant materials and next steps Commissioners criticized some consultant draft language they said inserted policy proposals without prior direction — for example, a suggested restriction on short-term rentals for ADUs that staff agreed to strike unless the commission explicitly requests it. The commission asked staff to request additional examples from consultants (Leland and subconsultants named in the packet) documenting how other municipalities tie middle housing to affordability (deed-restrictions, density bonuses, covenants) so commissioners can evaluate feasible tools.

Timeline and Council notification Planner Zoe and commissioners said they must meet the Commerce/June timetable for adoption of required code updates. The commission directed staff to prepare code language that satisfies the bare minimum by the March draft and to prepare follow‑up materials on affordability options for April–May as a “fast follow” package. Staff will also clarify the interaction between House Bill 1110, House Bill 1337 and Commerce guidance for the record.

Votes at the meeting The commission passed routine housekeeping motions (agenda and prior meeting minutes) and approved a 2025 work plan prioritizing the middle-housing code update and a follow‑up review of affordability tools. The vote to adopt the work plan was taken by voice. Staff and commissioners agreed to return with refined code language showing the minimum compliance approach and, separately, options that would tie additional capacity to affordability commitments.

What’s next Staff will circulate revised ordinance language and a summary of Commerce guidance ahead of the commission’s March meeting. Commissioners asked consultants to provide examples of local affordability mechanisms and asked staff to research the frontage/subdivision requirement and shoreline/critical‑area interplay with ADUs. The commission left open the option of returning later with a broader “option 1.5” or higher if the council directs further work or public outreach supports it.