Lacey Planning Commission reviews state‑mandated co‑living, middle‑housing and ADU code updates; staff to revise draft for Dec. 10 hearing

City of Lacey planning staff presented a suite of state‑mandated housing code changes at the Planning Commission’s November meeting, focusing on a proposed co‑living chapter and related updates to middle housing, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and unit‑lot subdivisions.

Jennifer (city planner) told commissioners the state defines co‑living housing as “independently rented lockable sleeping units that provide space for living and sleeping” with shared kitchen facilities; the RCW is silent on bathrooms. She said the law requires jurisdictions to allow co‑living wherever multifamily housing of six or more units is permitted and that each co‑living sleeping unit counts as 0.25 of a dwelling unit for density purposes. Jennifer said staff’s draft proposes a sleeping‑unit cap of 250 square feet and, initially, shared facilities only (shared kitchens and bathrooms) with a proposed kitchen ratio of one standard kitchen per six sleeping units and a kitchen‑rounding rule for fractional kitchens.

The presentation flagged technical differences between statutory density, parking language and utility billing: staff explained sewer connection calculations use equivalent residential units (ERUs) and treat co‑living sleeping units as 0.5 ERU (studio+ multifamily currently pay ~0.7 ERU), while parking and density language in statute reference a 0.25‑unit equivalency and limit local requirements to no more than 0.25 parking space per sleeping unit. Ryan (city staff) said the two metrics stem from separate statutory provisions and utility practice and noted the city’s sewer fee model uses the ERU measure for utility billing.

Commissioners pressed staff on privacy, safety and neighborhood impacts. One commissioner warned that a quarter parking space per unit could move cars into adjacent streets and constrict neighborhood circulation; another urged protections such as locked stalls and secure storage for personal items in common areas. Remote participant Elliot said he opposed the concept, warning shared kitchens and bathrooms could create “a cauldron of anger, frustration” and raise safety concerns. Jennifer and Ryan acknowledged those concerns but said the city must implement the state law while using available local policy choices to reduce negative impacts.

On policy changes, multiple commissioners recommended compromise options to preserve affordability while improving livability: several favored requiring at least a sink in each sleeping unit and discussed half‑bath provisions (toilet and sink) as an acceptable minimum that staff could include in the public‑hearing draft. Staff said they would draft language that emphasizes secure, lockable common facilities and consider half‑bath options for bedrooms, and that these options would be presented to the commission at the December 10 public hearing.

Jennifer also raised bicycle parking complications tied to Lacey’s current code: bicycle requirements are keyed to vehicle parking counts, and because co‑living projects would be allowed minimal vehicle parking under state law, large co‑living projects might not trigger required bicycle parking under existing rules. Staff recommended pausing changes to bicycle standards and revisiting bicycle and multifamily parking requirements together in 2026 when the city addresses broader parking legislation.

Beyond co‑living, staff reviewed middle housing requirements (the state’s model ordinance and provisions enacted in recent years). Jennifer explained that Lacey must adopt six of nine middle‑housing types (duplex, triplex, fourplex, stacked flats, townhomes, cottage housing were the staff recommendation) and must allow two middle‑housing units by right on lots that support single‑family homes (three or four units if one is affordable at ≤80% AMI). She noted the state’s model ordinance will apply beginning Jan. 1, 2026 if Lacey has not adopted its own regulations. Staff said the city received a $75,000 Department of Commerce grant to support drafting and public outreach; prior public engagement produced 361 survey responses and more than 100 open‑ended comments.

On ADUs, staff said HB 1337 requires jurisdictions to allow at least two ADUs per qualifying lot, prohibits owner‑occupancy requirements, raises the default ADU size allowance to 1,000 sq ft (Lacey’s previous practice capped ADUs at 850 sq ft), and permits the independent sale of ADUs in certain circumstances. On unit‑lot subdivisions, staff explained that a parent parcel would meet overall zoning dimensional standards while individual unit lots could have flexible dimensional application and be sold as separate legal parcels; the city will implement unit‑lot subdivisions via an administrative short‑plat pathway.

Next steps: staff will revise the co‑living draft to reflect commissioner feedback (security measures for shared facilities and consideration of sinks/half baths), post materials for a public hearing on Dec. 10, and then bring the full housing package (middle housing, ADUs and unit‑lot subdivision code amendments) to the commission and City Council in early 2026 for adoption. The presentation acknowledged the statutory compliance date of Dec. 31, 2025 but stated the city may not meet that exact deadline; staff emphasized that the RCW would prevail if a co‑living application arrived before local code adoption.

What to watch: the Dec. 10 Planning Commission public hearing on co‑living, staff’s proposed language on minimum in‑unit sinks or half baths and secure common‑area measures, and the early‑2026 package to Council that will fold middle housing, ADU and unit‑lot subdivision changes into coordinated code amendments.

Quotes (from meeting): "independently rented lockable sleeping units that provide space for living and sleeping," (Jennifer, on the state definition of co‑living); "we're not seeing developers come to us and want to do this as an option" (Ryan, on current market demand in Lacey); "this is not a good idea...all we're doing is creating a cauldron of anger, frustration" (Elliot, public commenter); "I would prefer a private bathroom over a kitchenette" (Tanya, commissioner).

Outcome: No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting. The commission directed staff to revise draft code and proceed to a Dec. 10 public hearing on co‑living; staff will package middle housing, ADU and unit‑lot subdivision amendments for review in early 2026.