Medical Lake planners begin middle-housing review, discuss design rules and zoning barriers

Planning staff updated the Medical Lake Planning Commission on the comprehensive-plan process and opened a multi-meeting review of “middle housing” options, saying the city’s current zoning and lot-size rules limit how smaller, attached housing forms could be built near downtown.

The presentation explained that “middle housing” includes duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage housing and townhouses and that Medical Lake already has a substantial share of multifamily housing but that zoning standards — especially minimum lot sizes and building coverage rules in the city’s R-3 zone — constrain future options. Planning staff said the city will run workshops with the commission and city council and expects each code change to take multiple meetings and public hearings.

Why it matters: The planning commission advises council on land‑use changes and will recommend any code updates. Commissioners and staff said revising standards for the R-3 (multifamily) zone, clarifying accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules and adding design standards could create more housing options near downtown and transit routes without requiring wholesale demolition of existing housing stock.

Planning staff framed the issue with specific examples and code comparisons. The presenter said the city’s minimum lot sizes create counterintuitive results: a single‑family lot minimum is 6,000 square feet, a duplex minimum in R‑2 is about 9,500 square feet, but the R‑3 multifamily zone requires about 11,000 square feet for a duplex — a mismatch the presenter said “is going against the goal of the zone of having more units on the same amount of land.” The presenter also said, “the model ordinance suggests limiting garage‑dominant facades and ensuring the front door is visible from the street” to make multifamily development more pedestrian friendly.

Staff described housing forms and tradeoffs: duplexes can look like many house types and are typically two units on one parcel; townhouses/row houses are separate ownership units with firewalls between them; cottage housing groups small houses around a courtyard with shared parking; and live‑work units combine a ground‑floor business with residential space above. The presenter noted cottage housing was suggested previously by an applicant for the Ring Lake Estates site (see separate article), but the city’s code did not permit that approach at the time. The presenter summarized: “When I say duplex, there’s duplexes here in town that we’re all familiar with. Some of those are good, some of those are less good, but … duplexes can be many things.” (Planning staff)

Commissioners and public raised immediate implementation questions. Commissioners asked whether ADUs count toward building‑coverage limits; staff said that is not currently specified in the code and will be analyzed. Staff offered three options for ADUs and coverage: increase allowed coverage, exempt ADUs from coverage calculations, or craft a third alternative. Staff also walked through design standards offered in state model ordinances — minimum window area, limits on garage frontage, and rules requiring clear pedestrian routes to the front door — and said those are options the commission will consider.

Public comments tied housing to on‑street parking and enforcement. Resident Diane Nichols, speaking during public comment, said narrow neighborhood streets in Fox Hollow and Fox Ridge already have vehicles parked on both sides and “most families have more than one vehicle now … What’s the parking situation gonna be like when we’re looking at some of these houses that are multiunit?” Nichols urged the city to strengthen enforcement tools and suggested one‑side parking designations on tight streets. Planning staff acknowledged enforcement and on‑street parking will be a major topic tied to the comprehensive plan and said enforcement tools and priorities are slated for early review in the process.

Next steps and timeline: Staff said the city is wrapping phase two (vision and values) and moving into a storyboard of trends and opportunities. The commission will see draft language and model ordinance options in upcoming meetings, hold local workshops and then forward recommendations to city council; council must hold hearings and conduct two ordinance readings for any code changes. Staff said each code segment is likely to need five to six meetings across the planning commission and council review cycle.

The commission asked staff to circulate the presentation slides and post the materials to the city website; staff confirmed the slides and a summary will be added to the minutes and emailed to commissioners.