Lacey City Council adopts state-mandated housing, parking code changes

The Lacey City Council adopted state-required amendments to the Lacey Municipal Code that expand middle housing, revise parking rules and update standards for accessory dwelling units, child care centers and building conversions. 

Ordinance 1704 implements requirements from nine state bills, including House Bill 1110 and House Bill 1337. The measure passed 5-0, with one abstention, at a meeting at City Hall on July 21.

Lacey Housing Coordinator Jennifer Adams said the updates add a new chapter on residential infill development to the code. The chapter folds middle housing and accessory dwelling unit rules together, and leaves existing zoning and development standards in place where possible. 

House Bill 1110 requires cities the size of Lacey to allow six middle housing types, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, cottage housing and stacked flats, in areas zoned primarily for residential use.  

House Bill 1337 revises local standards for accessory dwelling units, including the number allowed on residential lots, maximum size and related development requirements. 

The ordinance updates parking regulations to reflect state law limiting the number of off-street parking spaces cities may require for residential and commercial development. Developers may still provide additional parking if they choose. 

Lacey Senior Planner Hans Shepherd said child care centers become a permitted use in most zoning districts under the ordinance. Light industrial zones may still require conditional use approval, while open space institutional areas already allow the use. 

The ordinance also updates standards for converting existing buildings into housing, including density and regulations affecting housing in commercial areas. 

Council member Lenny Greenstein cast the lone abstention, saying the council had little real discretion because state law had already forced the outcome.

He said he has abstained from similar votes in the past for the same reason, calling the practice "ludicrous." 

"I think it's somewhat insulting to local councils that we have to take action on something that we actually have no say in," Greenstein said.

"Whether we vote yes or no is irrelevant. We were elected by the people to make decisions. This is not decision-making. This is just nothing more than rubber stamping something the state's already done that they've required us to do." 

Greenstein added that he appreciated the work city staff put into the ordinance, but said it did not change his reason for abstaining. 

Earlier in the discussion, Greenstein asked Shepherd to confirm the state had already passed the underlying parking law regardless of the council's vote.

Shepherd said, as of June, the city had been preempted on nearly all the topics in the ordinance, with a single exception: a local clarification to mini-storage regulations requested by planning staff. 

Council member Maren Turner asked whether lower parking minimums could reduce housing costs. Shepherd said lawmakers cited affordability as one reason for the reduction.