Medical Lake planning commission continues public hearing on zoning, ADUs and housing code changes

The Medical Lake Planning Commission on Monday heard a detailed presentation on proposed comprehensive-plan and zoning-code changes and unanimously voted to continue the public hearing to the commission's March meeting.

City Planner Melissa (staff) told commissioners the council recently approved the first package of amendments at second reading as ordinance 11 40, with an effective date five days after publication. "The effective date is 5 days after publication, and that puts it at next week," the planner said, noting that because of timing the public hearing would proceed under the existing zoning criteria.

The planner outlined a broad reorganization that would move the municipality from 10 legacy zoning districts in Title 17 into five new Title 19 districts grouped as residential, commercial (including mixed use and a central business district) and public facilities. She said the proposed use tables fold many light-industrial uses into mixed-use and central-business districts and warned commissioners about allowing residential uses to front SR-902 where commercial frontage may be preferred.

On housing, the planner summarized several state requirements the city must incorporate. She said a state bill would allow conversion of commercial buildings to residential uses without meeting some residential standards, and another requires jurisdictions to allow co-living arrangements similar to dormitory-style housing for households earning under 50% of area median income. On accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the planner said the state "is requiring all jurisdictions to allow accessory dwelling units anywhere a house is allowed" and that local code must allow up to two ADUs per single-family lot and set minimum standards such as a minimum ADU size (the planner said a 1,000-square-foot minimum is among the state-specified thresholds).

The planner also described proposed changes to conditional-use and variance review criteria intended to make the variance process more practical while retaining safeguards. The revised variance standard would ask whether a requested deviation "equally or better meets the purpose of the regulation" and whether impacts have been reasonably mitigated. The commission also discussed an essential-public-facilities chapter required under the state's Growth Management Act and compared the in-house planning-commission/city-council review to outside hearings examiners, noting the latter carry additional cost.

Commissioners asked technical questions about mapping, density calculations for cottage housing, garage setbacks, and wastewater routing near the lake. The planner acknowledged capacity constraints on a sewer main running parallel to the lake and said the city is planning a new main to route flows north to the wastewater treatment plant.

The commission made a procedural motion to continue the MLMC zoning amendments public hearing to the March meeting so members could have more time to review the drafts and tables of use standards. The motion passed unanimously.

Next steps: the hearing will reconvene in March, at which time the planning commission is expected to take additional public input and consider a recommendation to city council.