Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Medical Lake reviews housing‑needs assessment and proposed zoning simplification
Summary
City planners told the council the draft Housing Needs Assessment shows the city can accommodate the modest unit targets assigned by the county and proposed zoning changes—including allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) where single‑family homes are permitted—to increase options. Staff flagged options such as converting an underused industrial site and revising minimum lot sizes.
City planners presented a draft Housing Needs Assessment and an introductory zoning review to the Medical Lake City Council on Feb. 17, urging a streamlined code and several modest changes to make more housing feasible in the coming 20 years.
The presenter (identified in the meeting as planner, speaker 9) said the state Department of Commerce tool reports household income categories rather than physical housing units, which can create apparent mismatches between the number of low‑income households and subsidized housing units. "These numbers are households, not necessarily housing units," the planner said, explaining the report lists about 184 households at 0–30% area median income (AMI) and that some of those households may be retirees living in owned homes rather than people living in subsidized units. The planner said Medical Lake’s current land‑capacity analysis indicates the city could add roughly 293 housing units under existing zoning.
Why it matters: State growth‑management rules and Commerce planning tools assign the city a population and housing allocation to meet over 20 years; the assessment and any code changes will feed into the city’s comprehensive plan update and determine what housing types are permitted in which zones.
Key proposals and context: Planner 9 offered five options to create more housing flexibility: rezone a likely nonindustrial site on the north side for residential use, allow cottage housing on constrained or environmentally sensitive parcels, convert some commercial zones to permit residential types more easily (for example, adjusting minimum unit requirements in downtown commercial zones), revisit minimum lot sizes (the R‑1P zone currently lists an 11,000‑square‑foot minimum, while R‑1 is 6,000), and generally allow more housing types such as townhouses, plexes and cottage housing. The planner also noted the state requires jurisdictions to allow accessory dwelling units wherever single‑family homes are allowed.
Council reaction and next steps: Council members asked detailed questions about the county’s population input, how state institution residents are counted (the planner noted that some state institution residents are excluded from the Commerce counts), the feasibility of sales of large parcels into smaller lots, and the implications of removing or consolidating zones. Several members urged a stepwise approach—simplify the code first, then reassign zones—and asked staff to return with draft code language. The planner said they will work with the planning commission and return with specific recommended code language at a future council meeting.
Provenance: The council discussion and the planner’s presentation are contained in the meeting packet and the council transcript; staff indicated the housing assessment materials were provided in the packet and the planner narrated the slides and tables.
