The Medical Lake Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend proposed changes to the city’s amendment criteria and code organization to the City Council after a staff presentation and public-hearing period.

City planner Lisa (city planner, Speaker 3) led the presentation, describing the proposal to replace portions of Title 17 (including Chapter 17.42) with reorganized development regulations in a new Title 19 and to clarify approval criteria for zoning-map and comprehensive-plan amendments. “We want a clear, well organized, enforceable municipal code that adheres to state law while reflecting our community values,” Lisa said. She also told commissioners the city issued a SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance for this legislative update and that the Planning Commission’s role is to review and recommend language before City Council considers ordinance readings.

The planner explained technical elements of the proposal: moving development regulations into Title 19, clarifying zoning-map administration and maintenance procedures, and restating approval criteria (items 1–11 in the staff report) used to evaluate future amendment requests. She said the change is largely organizational and procedural and does not approve any specific development. “These amendments are at the zoning map level. So zoning map level is just, like, the possibility of development,” she said.

Commissioners addressed written comments received before the hearing. Staff read and responded to concerns submitted by Tammy Roberson (an eight-point comment letter) about map typos, wetlands mapping, and whether the planning official should interpret the zoning map. Lisa said wetlands remain part of private tax parcels and are not separately zoned, and that interpretation of the zoning map is a planning-official function supported by historical records and GIS. The staff report also noted comments from Elizabeth Tullison, who represents Solo Cheney LLC, the applicant in a separate Ring Lake Estates matter; the planner said some respondents appeared to conflate map-level zoning amendments with on-the-ground development.

A letter submitted late requested a continuance of tonight’s hearing. Legal counsel (Speaker 6) told the commission the meeting had been properly noticed on the website and in print and that the continuance request was untimely (submitted more than two hours after the published deadline), saying, “any request for a continuance contained in an untimely document...is not adequate basis to continue [the] hearing.” Counsel also emphasized this proceeding is a non-project, legislative code update rather than a project-specific hearing.

After closing the hearing, commissioners deliberated on three options: recommend approval as written, recommend with modifications, or ask staff to return with revised language. Commissioner Kevin Tuohy (Speaker 4) moved to recommend approval of the proposal as written; a second was offered by Speaker 2. The commission approved the motion by voice vote with all members saying “Aye.” The chair announced the recommendation will be forwarded to City Council, which will hold its own public hearings and take ordinance readings.

Commissioners also used the meeting to thank outgoing member Judy for her years of service; the commission adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m. The next procedural step is a council language workshop and then ordinance first and second readings at City Council meetings.

What’s next: The Planning Commission’s recommendation and staff materials will go to City Council for further review; council will schedule a public hearing and conduct ordinance readings before any changes become law.