Lake Forest Park planning commission begins middle-housing code updates; commissioners ask for options on scope, parking and incentives

The Lake Forest Park Planning Commission on Tuesday opened a multi-meeting effort to update development regulations for so-called "middle housing," hearing presentations from SCJ Alliance and Leland Consulting Group and debating how far the city should go beyond the minimum requirements of state law.

Kirsten Peterson, a planning consultant with SCJ Alliance, told the commission, "we reserve most of the time, 2 hours tonight, to really kick off middle housing." She and consultants from Leland Consulting Group presented a technical memo, a feasibility analysis of neighborhood "opportunity areas," and a gap analysis of the city code that consultants said must be revised to comply with House Bill 1110.

The discussion matters because House Bill 1110 and related guidance require jurisdictions to adopt updated development regulations for middle housing by the end of June this year. "As required by House Bill 1110, we need to have adopted development regulations updates by end of June this year," Leland consultant David (last name not specified in transcript) told the commission.

Consultants showed two tiers of "opportunity areas" for middle housing: a high-opportunity band near the future bus rapid transit and the town center along Bothell Way, and a moderate-opportunity area along Ballinger where larger lots and lower critical-area constraints could allow additional units with less environmental impact. Their dimensional feasibility work examined lot sizes, nonconforming lot coverage, critical-area buffers and walkability to retail and transit.

Commissioners debated the appropriate policy approach. Commissioner Melissa (last name not specified) said proximity on a map does not always mean safe walking access: "As I look at the map, I'm looking at a bunch of houses where it's like, well, no. Actually, it doesn't make sense because, a, we don't have sidewalks, and b, there's no parking." Melissa said she is "not excited about allowing more than 2 units on a lot until those issues get fixed here at Lake Forest Park." Commissioner Meredith (last name not specified) similarly urged caution and said the commission should follow the legislative minimum unless there is clear community appetite for more.

Other commissioners argued for a more proactive approach. Commissioner Yana (last name not specified) framed the choice as a chicken-and-egg problem: allowing additional housing could strengthen the city's case for competitive grants and provide revenue tools to build sidewalks and other multimodal infrastructure. "If we incentivize this, that also gives us some tools and potentially some revenue," she said. Commissioner Jan (last name not specified) said the commission should seek options that do more than the statewide compromise and asked consultants to show how incentives or requirements could produce smaller, more affordable units rather than high-end redevelopments.

On technical questions, consultants and commissioners discussed several code levers that could affect feasibility and outcomes: - Allowed units per lot: the state minimum for a Tier 3 city is two units per lot; consultants presented options ranging from the minimum (option 1) up to broader allowances (options 2–4). Commissioners indicated they did not support option 4 (the broadest) and asked staff and consultants to narrow focus to the middle-range options (2 and 3) while keeping option 1 on the table for reference. - Typologies and form flexibility: consultants recommended allowing more flexible placement of accessory units (side/front as well as rear), exploring detached ADUs, cottage clusters and courtyard configurations, and testing modest FAR or lot-coverage adjustments to avoid incentivizing single large replacement homes ("McMansions"). - Affordability incentives: consultants described model approaches (density bonuses tied to deed-restricted affordable units in other jurisdictions and in the model code for larger city tiers). The commission asked the team to return with concrete examples and draft language showing how a bonus or incentive could require long-term affordability in exchange for additional units. - Parking: commissioners and consultants discussed state limits on local parking requirements and the range of approaches used regionally. Consultants noted state guidance that within a half-mile of a high-capacity transit stop parking requirements may be limited; they also said the state sets maximums for small lots (e.g., for lots under 6,000 sq ft local requirements are constrained). Commissioners asked the consultants to present parking scenarios (minimums, reduced requirements tied to transit proximity, and bedroom-based metrics) and to summarize what other Puget Sound jurisdictions are doing.

Consultants asked for additional direction and said they will return with a condensed packet of proposed code amendments, visual diagrams showing how different typologies fit on local lot sizes, and a short discussion guide. Kirsten Peterson said the firm would remove unchanged code sections from future packets and provide clearer visuals and choices for the commission to review.

The commission also flagged a separate but related code item: street-frontage requirements in the city's largest residential zones. One commissioner asked staff to track a proposal to remove the 75-foot street-frontage requirement in large-lot zones (RS 20/15/10), noting the provision can prevent reasonable subdivisions of very large lots; staff warned that removing that rule would trigger follow-up edits elsewhere in the code (flag-lot rules, easement standards, setbacks).

Votes at a glance: the commission approved the meeting agenda and the November 12 meeting minutes by voice vote and adjourned by motion at the end of the session; all three procedural motions passed by unanimous aye votes.

What’s next: Commissioners directed consultants to bring back: (1) a narrower set of options focused on the middle-range approaches (options 2–3) while keeping the statutory minimum documented; (2) parking scenarios and examples from other jurisdictions; (3) visual lot diagrams that illustrate duplexes, stacked flats, cottage clusters and courtyard options on local lot sizes; and (4) model incentive language that ties additional density to deed-restricted affordable units or other affordability protections. Staff said updated code text and a condensed packet will be provided before the next meeting; commissioners indicated they want the substantive consultant materials earlier than the packet provided for this meeting.

The commission scheduled its next meeting for February 11 and confirmed middle-housing work is the primary focus for the first part of the year.