Liberty Lake planners map housing goals, flag state-mandated code changes

Liberty Lake city staff briefed the Liberty Lake Planning Commission on March 26 on draft housing and community service goals and policies and the code changes the state requires as part of the city’s comprehensive-plan update.

The presentation outlined three draft housing goals: preserve neighborhood character while supporting high-quality new development; increase housing availability and affordability across income groups; and accommodate supportive, emergency and special-needs housing. City staff said several changes to the municipal code are mandatory under recent state legislation and must be completed alongside the comprehensive-plan adoption or by the state deadlines.

Sharifa, a city staff member, told the commission the city “has to allow duplexes in R‑1 zones” and “has to allow up to two ADUs per lot.” She also summarized other statutory requirements: ADU design standards may not be more restrictive than standards for the primary housing unit; parking requirements tied to ADUs and middle housing must be limited; occupancy and spacing limits for transitional and permanent supportive housing must be removed; and the city must include reduced standards to encourage adaptive reuse of nonresidential buildings for residential use.

Lisa, a city staff member, said many of the changes are driven by state Commerce and the Revised Code of Washington and noted deadlines and compliance mechanics: the adaptive‑reuse and other required amendments must be completed either within six months of adopting the city’s comprehensive plan or by December 31, 2026, if the city obtains an extension.

Commissioners discussed where required changes should be balanced against local preferences. Commissioner Charlie Jinx and others supported increasing the R‑2 density from 12 to 16 units per acre to accommodate smaller “middle housing” types such as fourplexes and sixplexes; others urged retaining design controls and lot‑coverage limits to protect neighborhood character. Several commissioners stressed the difference between what the city must allow by state law and what the market will actually build.

The commission also reviewed recommended, non‑required revisions: expanding allowable mixed‑use development (including the River District and possibly light industrial areas), relaxing restrictive manufactured‑home standards, updating architectural design standards to preserve “human‑scale” design, and periodically reviewing multifamily parking standards. Commissioners asked staff to separate policies that are required by state law from locally recommended strategies and to include implementation steps and measurable targets in a later draft.

Staff flagged several near‑term planning items: continued work on the housing and community services element, an implementation section to set timelines for code work, and outreach plans (farmers market and a possible housing town hall). In the secretary’s report staff also noted three development applications in process—Legacy Ridge West (reasonable‑use exception for slopes), Bella Lago phase 2, and a preliminary binding site plan for Toledo Station—but those projects were presented as project updates rather than topics for commission action.

The commission did not take formal regulatory action on the policies during the meeting; staff said required code amendments and recommended revisions will be brought back with redlines and implementation language for further review and public hearings.

Ending: The commission scheduled continued review of the housing and community‑service element and implementation strategies at future meetings; staff indicated a forthcoming schedule for specific code amendments and public engagement events.