Lynnwood public hearing on Unified Development Code spotlights fire-sprinkler debate and housing trade-offs

The Lynnwood City Council held a public hearing on June 9 to consider a proposed Unified Development Code intended to implement the city’s housing-action objectives and ensure compliance with state laws. The draft code would consolidate land‑use chapters, adjust parking requirements and allow additional housing types including duplexes, triplexes and other “middle‑housing” options on single lots.

City planning manager Carl Omgren told the council the UDC aims to streamline review and support increased housing supply. “The unified development code is written to help support that,” Omgren said, and staff said the ordinance would also align Lynnwood with recent state bills (HB 1110 and HB 1337) and the Department of Commerce model ordinance.

A central, contested topic at the hearing was a proposed expansion of residential fire‑sprinkler requirements. Deputy Fire Marshal Dale Rodman of the Snohomish County Regional Fire Authority described the safety rationale: “They’re actually not meant to put fires out completely. They’re meant to save lives and keep people give people time to get out of the building,” he said, urging broader adoption as new housing types increase density.

Staff presented several threshold options for where sprinklers would be required, including: all new residences; thresholds as low as 800–1,200 square feet to capture ADUs and smaller units; or larger thresholds such as 3,000–4,000 square feet applied either per structure or aggregated per lot (Edmonds uses a 3,000-square-foot structure threshold; Mountlake Terrace uses 4,000). Omgren said the planning commission recommended revisiting sprinkler thresholds to balance life safety and housing affordability.

Speakers during public testimony included builders, trade groups and housing advocates. Natalie Reber of the Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties said the association strongly opposed a blanket sprinkler mandate and provided a cost estimate: “We show the impact and cost of installing sprinklers closer to 8 or 10000 and up for single family residences,” she told the council, and warned that higher construction costs could reduce housing affordability and deter ADU permitting. Brian Hader of the Snohomish County Association of Realtors similarly urged caution and recommended objective, less‑costly design standards.

Several council members asked clarifying questions about thresholds, the relationship to parking exemptions, and which lot configurations the rule would affect. Councilmember Parshall noted much of the “missing middle” housing already requires sprinklers under current rules for attached units, while Councilmember Escamilla asked staff to confirm how neighboring jurisdictions apply lot‑based versus per‑structure thresholds.

Staff highlighted that the state deadline for parts of the code is July 1 and that the full UDC is scheduled for council final consideration on June 23. Omgren said staff will provide additional materials and options for sprinkler thresholds to help the council weigh safety and affordability trade‑offs. He also noted the city must adopt changes needed to remain compliant with state law or accept the state model ordinance.

Ending

The public hearing closed at the conclusion of testimony and clarifying questions. No final action was taken June 9; the council will consider adopting the consolidated UDC, including the fire‑sprinkler chapter, at a future council meeting (scheduled for June 23). Staff said they would provide additional data and threshold comparisons (Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace and others) to inform council deliberations.