Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to the July 7th, 2026 meeting of the Everett Planning Commission. Ayanna, if you would please take the role.

Chair Shelby?

Here.

Commissioner Chatters? Here. Commissioner Ballard? Commissioner Finch?

Here.

Commissioner Sullivan? Here. Commissioner Rutledge? Here. Commissioner Welch?

Here.

Thank you.

Quick with the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Chehob's people and their successors, the Tulalip tribes. Since time immemorial, they have hunted, fished, gathered on and taken care of these lands and waters. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination and honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. We will strive to be honest about our past mistakes and bring about a future that includes their people, stories, voices to form a more just and equitable society. And we have minutes from the 16 June meeting. Anybody have any changes? Adopted as presented. And with that, I think reports and comments. Anybody have a report that they would like to register?

Just a comment. Just just a quick comment just want to send deepest condolences to the family of Paul Roberts, who was a part of this Commission, as well as the Chair of this Commission for some time and was a champion for this city for many years so deepest condolences to his family.

Thank you, Commissioner chatters any staff comments.

Mike SanClements, Thank you for that Commissioner chatters I learned a lot from. Mike SanClements, From Paul Roberts over the years and the city does owe him a debt of thanks. Mike SanClements, we're working one last bow to put on the mfp. Mike SanClements, project, which would be a recommendation on adopting the. consideration of recommending the code amendments contained in the memo for you today, and then we'll do a second session on land divisions. Last month, we worked through some of the history and background around land divisions and promised a set of actual code amendments for you this week, and that's what we'll start to go through. It's a first rough draft, so there's plenty of things that we're still working on. would love to get initial feedback and wanted to get out there to a broader set of folks to start looking at it because it's a complicated chapter that touches a lot of work. Our next meetings two weeks from now, July 21st, we'll continue with land divisions. um local project review procedures otherwise known as title 15 of everett municipal code is a kind of a companion project that we're working with land divisions this week we're going to focus on land divisions there are some interactions with that title 15 part of that work is updating our codes consistent with senate bill 5290 from a couple years ago we've already updated our administrative practices but we need to catch up our code And then we're doing what we do when we pick up many of these chapters, which is go through and update, modernize, look for consistencies and corrections, which turns into a fairly substantial project, but should leave us with a very streamlined and usable product at the end. So we're still working on that one and don't have a full set of procedures and code to share with you this week. We may next week and we'll kind of talk about the interactions between land divisions and local project review procedures. Could be that we're just on background with that and we're deeper in the weeds with land divisions. But those are the 2 topics that we have in play for 2 weeks from now. And then I was not able to clear August. So we're looking at if it works in August 18 meetings. That would probably be the last meeting on land divisions. Hopefully we'll be working towards a recommendation from this body. on August 18th and either deeper into local project review or maybe if we can get there, get a recommendation out of you on August 18th as well. And then we have three other projects in the works and those are just a simple annual report on the comprehensive plan that's called for in the engagement administration and implementation chapter. And we are targeting summertime for those every year. There's not going to be a ton to report because we're just four days away from one year old in the Everett 2044 periodic update. But we have done some work on the actions and other things. So annual report. We are working on an annual package of amendments to the municipal code, kind of like a housekeeping second round, and to the comprehensive plan, which can be only once per year. Not going to have a whole lot of changes for that, but there's a couple even policies that I noticed through this work that could use a little bit of rewording. And then parking. The second half of the Parking Modernization Act, I believe it was, that came out of the legislature last year. And we did the residential part with the periodic update. We've got a little work to do on the commercial side for consistency with the new state law there. And I think a little bit of cleanup, but not a big update to that chapter. So those are the up to five items that we may have for August 18th. Probably not all five of those, but maybe four of them. I think that's all I have. Oh, the stadium, we're working with the team to get a presentation to the Planning Commission, and I think we might be able to have that on next meeting's July 21st meeting agenda. Yeah.

Thank you for that. Anybody for public comment? Nope.

Nope. All righty.

And I think, excuse me, unfinished business, which is the multifamily tax exemption. Back to York.

All right. Thank you. Multifamily tax exemption. We've had a couple of briefings and discussions and deliberations on that. Apologies for at the last meeting, not having the recommendation, draft recommendation for you. All of the pieces of it were there. I was kind of focused on land divisions and so it was tough to get my head around just saying, well, the ordinance is there, call that a resolution and we can move forward with it. So with some time to sort all of that out, what you see in the memo today is a very brief recap. and then the proposed Planning Commission Resolution 26-03, which includes a few recitals and then as an exhibit has the complete proposed ordinance that would be forwarded to the City Council. City Council is picking this up next week on Wednesday on July 15th for a first briefing. Didn't have much in the way of presentation beyond that since we've already had some discussions, but I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.

To open discussion, I'd like to just move that we advance Planning Commission Resolution 2603 to the Council.

Second. Any discussion? No. Can we take the roll, please?

Um, Chair Shelby.

Aye.

Commissioner Chatters. Yes. Commissioner Finch. Yes. Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Rutledge. Yes. Commissioner Welch. Thank you.

I think that moves us again to inclusionary zoning. Yes. No. Or not inclusionary. MFTE. I'm reading a different piece of paper. I apologize. Land divisions.

So do I understand we've passed that resolution? Great. So on to land divisions. With me is Kelsey Hyde, land use planning manager and expert in administering the code, which means over many years of working with the chapter, Kelsey probably had a long list of improvements to make in the back of her mind. Then jumped into the work and found a lot more. We've been working closely. Kelsey's taking a great lead on this. We've been working closely with permit services and public works and some other departments that work a lot with land divisions. Our intent of this update was first to implement the state lot splitting bill. Um, I shared a, uh, commerce fact sheet on department of commerce fact sheet on the residential lot splitting bill. Um, we also had a couple of policies in the comprehensive plan around facilitating land divisions, supporting homeownership and, uh, A supporting small lot land division where appropriate. I think that's one of the policies that said we're condominium ownership is not possible, which I don't understand to be a thing, actually. So that's one of the policies we may look to trim that second half out of Um, modernize land divisions for middle housing world. A lot of the point of the history that I went through at last, at the last meeting was to illustrate how land divisions have moved from being one of the core ways that we regulate development density, uh, infrastructure and services to being more of a real estate transaction type of thing. It does fix boundaries for the longterm. So we want to be careful how we do that. We need to make sure we're Not creating unbuildable, unusable land that is not going to support the city's growth goals and everything. Although we had a good discussion about that with Commissioner Ballard, I think, raising some questions about what... The relative risk from process and potentially slowing down or frustrating land divisions with a need to be very comfortable on adequate provisions for various things versus are we really going to generate truly unusable, unbuildable parcels out of this? And then state law has some basic requirements that we need to meet either way. But But all that to say that modernizing land divisions and reflecting that it is now possible to build many units on a single lot with or without land division and supporting those homeownership goals and the middle housing world. And then, like I said, streamlining all of our procedures and development standards to be clear, objective, free from contradictions and inconsistencies and easily understandable by the public. decision makers and applicants and our own staff. So that's what we were going for with this work. We have taken four chapters of municipal code that were separated by Take a look at these titles here. Land division administration, land division general evaluation criteria, land division development standards, and unit lots. Yep, unit lot land divisions. And consolidated those into one chapter. If nothing else, being in a single chapter is a little bit easier to navigate on our online code system. Also, those break... between development standards and criteria weren't always clear. So I think our staff, and I'm sure applicants as well, were always hunting around for where a particular standard was. So like the critical areas work we did, we're moving towards those articles out of a single chapter. Seems to be a little bit more easy to navigate. And of course, having the opportunity to build it from the ground up, which hasn't been done since probably the, I don't know if this was a rethink thing, But I think we've been slowly making changes since the 50s on this. So it was a good opportunity to go from the ground up. And hopefully this new article, five of them, I think, breakdown makes sense to folks and makes it easier to find things. There are also little bits of regulations and procedures about land divisions in Chapter 1906, which is minimum lot standards mainly. 1904 definitions, and there was some overlap with our land division chapters that had their own definitions in them. 1935 landscaping has one section on landscaping for land divisions. And a couple others throughout code so trying to just organize it in the most logical way possible with as much as we can about land divisions in that one land divisions chapter moving definitions into the definitions chapter so that throughout title 19 all the definitions are there. um. And then all the other updates to try to make this as streamlined of a process as possible. And like I said, this is a first rough draft. So a couple of things that I'll walk through to get us started on the discussion for things that we're still looking at. But one of the first ones should probably be the purpose statement. And a guide to your packet. Exhibit A is the residential lot splitting bill codified into RCW chapter 5817. Exhibit B are existing land division chapters 1924 through 27. Exhibit C is the proposed complete new land divisions chapter, and there are strikethrough sections for the chapters that are not this new chapter. So 1904, you'll see strikethrough because those are definitions that are already in code that we're modifying. But everything that's in what we have for now, chapter 19.xx, that is all brand new, although a lot of times it is drawn from existing language in the existing land divisions chapters. And then exhibit D is a table of purpose statements from RCW. Land divisions are governed by RCW 5817, which has its own purpose statement, and there are a couple other sources out of RCW of guiding direction, and then our existing Municipal Code 1924 and 27 each have some purpose statements. And the comprehensive plan goals and policies are an excellent source of purpose language. I think we use these purpose statements when interpreting unclear provisions, should we miss any and they remain in here. don't think they are a major factor in criteria, but maybe a tie-breaking sense. And then as future changes to the chapter are made, it's a good place to look to what we were thinking when we adopted this chapter. So we took a first cut at kind of mashing all of these words in the table into a relatively understandable set of purpose statements that's in the page Nine of. The new of exhibit see, which is the new land of missions chapter. I will pause there I should have paused before to see if kelsey had anything to add for the kind of overview and intent and everything.

Just my normal preface that he always calls me the expert of our entire code every time I'm here. So, um, granted self with all that, but, um, here to help out with any questions. Uh, it did have a large part in preparing this latest draft for this chapter and kind of consolidating information just over experience over the last several years, both internally from a staff standpoint and also feedback from various applicants about the complications of our code and how drawn out it was. So hopefully this is a much easier product to navigate both for us and for our public.

So purpose statements, page nine, proposed 19XX.010. And then each of the other articles adds just a few words that are specific to binding site plans, unit law, land divisions, short plats, but all incorporate by reference this initial purpose statement.

Question.

All the 19XX is new.

In A2, neither the newly created land nor the parent may be divided by another land division process. I believe the RCW 5817.145 says not eligible for a lot split, but may be divided under other applicable land subdivision processes.

Good catch. You're right.

That was a weird one I just kind of found.

That is a very important one.

You are absolutely correct. And that's also updated guidance for the lot splitting that Commerce even issued. They changed it from when I was initially drafting this and they have also updated that. So definitely when we come back, that will be amended to clarify and be more consistent with that, but you're correct.

And I think I looked at it earlier today. Someone else brought that to my attention just a couple hours ago. And it could, instead of land division process, so the whole sentence is neither the newly created lot nor the parent original lot may be divided by another land division process. I think if you replaced land division process with lot split, that might solve it right there. And I think I've already noted that on our document.

Are there any other issues that have been brought to your attention that aren't contained in this document?

That's the big one in terms of a specific correction to be made. I can go through the other things that we're working on. I will, landscaping, 1935-100 covers landscaping for land divisions. And it has, I think most of it is both sides of private access drive require type three landscaping to a width of five feet. There's some footnotes there that I don't see what they mean, but that's something that's unique to land divisions. So that's one of the ones that we've mentioned potentially deciding whether we should have it apply to land divisions only or all development. That section needs to come into this, and so we still need to work through the landscaping bit. I suppose if anyone has an opinion on whether a private access drive should be required landscaping on either side or not within a development, whether it's a land division or not, I can't think of any other. If it were not a land division, you could have the private access drive and then right next to it would be half a yard fence, a home.

We've historically had a landscape buffer. It's been referred to different ways, both when we previously had land division requirements in Title 18 and then when it transferred with Rethink in a Title 19. But a lot of that is where that stems from, is that historically there has been at least a five-foot landscape buffer, for lack of a better term, on either side of that drive. With the ongoing changes to development and just the way lots are looking in general, I could see an argument for updating that. But yeah, it's an ongoing question.

So the thing to say is that we don't have that section in this code chapter yet. We will have it in the next update. And if you have any input on that, without a whole lot of context, I realize, but on that private access drive landscaping, otherwise we'll... make a recommendation between now and the next meeting.

Just a question on that. If the private drive is up against another parcel of land, which also has its own buffer, does it still require, does that side also require an additional five foot buffer?

Do you mean the side of the adjacent property or you mean on-site?

Yes. Because the adjacent property will have some form of buffers for their own buildings. I mean, I guess if you had private drive next to private drive, that might be something that could come up. But I guess my point is if you're requiring a buffer up against a buffer, that impacts... That impacts the usable.

Yeah.

And is that something that this particular code requires?

The landscape buffer has historically been different than something like perimeter landscaping for the site. And some of that comes down to the fact that a lot of land divisions were happening and kind of quote unquote single family zoning designations, which obviously are shifting away from so um a lot of single family designations did not have any kind of perimeter landscape requirement around it it was just regulated by a five foot setback or you know increased for particular reasons um so why specifically a drive necessitates a landscape buffer when we're not requiring it for the site as a whole is certainly a question It's one of those things that's been there. It predated my time at the city. So I'm not sure what the thought process was to have it in the first place. It's certainly a nice feature to have, especially for these larger developments where they might not otherwise trigger perimeter landscaping, just to create some sort of buffer between it and a property next door that might not have as intensive development. But there's also then that argument of, well, should it just require perimeter landscaping? I don't know. So.

I can see potential safety issues for an adjacent property. So I can see the need for a landscape buffer between a private drive and a different ownership parcel next door. Landscape buffer inside the site. I don't think that's necessary.

Hold on. Tell me more about that. What do you mean?

If there's a private drive that is going parallel to a property line and the property owner's not the same, if you're changing the use and now there's vehicular activity interior to a site, landscaping may provide a visual distraction that might slow someone down from running into the private drive. That's what I was thinking. on the interior of the site, it then becomes more of a market factor. And so to distinguish one's development, they may choose to provide a landscape buffer, but I don't know that that's something that the city needs to require.

So this discussion is real interesting to me because I actually happen to live next to a house where they kind of share their driveway next to driveway and it's kind of a de facto shared drive. No buffer. No buffer running down the center. It's they just both use it as a drive to the backs of their property and it's. Hmm.

I was asking about when perimeter landscaping and what other requirements would require landscaping between an access drive or driveway and the neighboring property. And I think the NR zone, which is the most widespread zone, doesn't have the perimeter landscaping requirement. So there may be some administrative setback of the, uh, of the driving surface from the property line for constructability type of things.

What I was saying too, is generally speaking from, um, just sort of standard design and construction requirements is that you're not typically putting a drive directly on the property line anyway, they require a certain amount of separation between the property line and that drive. So. If we don't require some sort of landscaping there, then it also sort of becomes no man's land for lack of a better word of what actually gets placed there or just gets full of weeds, things like that. So it might be nice to require something there. I think similar to what Commissioner Finch was saying, just to kind of create that separation and that buffer. If it needs to look exactly like our type three standards, which it currently requires or not, again, could be up for debate.

I happen to know there are properties exactly like what you just described it shouldn't be. I can think of several off the top of my head. So I'm not going to snitch on addresses.

I live on a private drive. Right.

So I guess my concern is adding a regulatory buffer that is not there and i happen to know properties that function just fine uh with these right up against each other so i i don't know it's it's just it's something that i haven't put a lot of thought into because this is the first time that i'm really thinking about it but i guess it sounds like there's some inconsistencies which is what is nagging at me here um So it would be nice to hear how those inconsistencies could be aligned into a consistent policy that applies to everyone and reflects the reality of what is actually out there currently.

Yep.

So what I heard you say was currently there is a buffer required on both sides. Is that correct?

There's a landscape buffer required on both sides currently. Yeah.

And I think that what I'm hearing from- Or land divisions only. Understood. Yeah. So I think cleaning up the inconsistency is great and that will help in many ways. I think in general, removing barriers to land division or the creation of new housing, there's a trade-off, there's a balancing act between the cost of delivering that new product and the quality of that new product long-term. I think that Everett has made a number of short-sighted decisions that we now regret in the form of not requiring sidewalks, a number of other pedestrian and livability type amenities. And so I would just say that let's not remove all barriers such that we end up with a product that we regret having provided for.

Yeah, we'll do what helps in all these situations is line up all of the different sources of regulation, the proposed land divisions chapter, landscaping code with or without land divisions, DCSS design construction, something standards, design construction, and something standards, our engineering standards for the real details of how driveways, access drives, public roads, stormwater facilities, and all that are built. All three of those interact and probably a few more. So we'll line them all up and get some clarity on this particular question and appreciate the guidance already.

Is there a... No, this is just a rough graph, so I hope that's just a number here. And 230 criteria. Are we missing a paragraph or is it just... 230.

B to D, yep. No, that's one resistance . I'll figure it out. I think, I think we deleted it. I've had more problems from the automatic lettering and numbering. And so I make sure that it's just the written one, but then that leads to these kinds of things. So thank you for that note. We have a strike through version with that is an absolute mess of comments and everything. And then I turned it into this clean version and that's where those types of things pop up. Yeah. Okay. Interaction and overlaps between 1906 and the land division chapter. There's so much of the same topic. 1906 is about minimum standards for lots. How do you create lots through land division alone? So the two work together very closely. We are going to move in favor of the land divisions having more of that. And I think already have to a big extent. Kelsey took a well-earned vacation last week. And so I did some of the work while she was out. And I think some of the 1906, 060 and 080 stuff is already elsewhere in the land divisions chapter. So for your next draft, you can expect less in 1906 and maybe a little bit added to the new land divisions chapter, but maybe most of it's already there. Is there anything else on that?

No, I think a lot of the information that was in 1906 was carried over where it made sense to do so and where it was still applicable. And then a lot of information that is just no longer necessary or relevant. We did try to cut that out where it just wasn't necessary anymore. Um, or if it was too hyper-focused on the land division, but we wouldn't require it for a quote unquote, normal development or non land division development. It just didn't make sense to include. So, um, yeah, I think the bulk of it is wrapped into now this land division chapter, but we'll double check that and make sure we clarify the next meeting. Okay.

Same general thing with Title 15 and land divisions. It's hard to separate procedures about land divisions from land division. We try to keep all procedures in Title 15. There are some that are specific to land divisions. We want to keep everything about land divisions in the land divisions chapter, and you can't do both of those. Cross-references can help. So we have a couple notes to decide Title 15 or land divisions, but not necessarily with making changes to it. I said part of this project is to review for clear and objective standards, and I think the state law that mandates clearly ascertainable development standards applies to land divisions as well. So we're using that lens. Can I design a project with the land divisions chapter in front of me without calling anybody? And if I did it right, have an approvable product when I walk in the door. That's the goal. That's probably a little bit too smooth to hope for in the near term, but that's what we're going for. There are a couple examples like the existing 19-24-010. The purpose of this chapter is to, among other things, provide for adequate provisions for several things and other public requirements. Wherever you see the word like other public requirements or other requirements of this title, putting myself in the shoe of an applicant, I wouldn't know what to do with that. And I would worry, what is it that I'm missing? So if possible, we try to delineate every one of the things that you need to check off. And so that has been fixed. There are two that are in the current exhibit C, so our proposed chapter that maybe we could look at. One of the 1906-060 that I think we'll delete because there's not many land divisions that would make good use of this requirement. Lot arrangement and design shall take into consideration to the maximum extent possible the natural features of the site, such as critical areas, parks, and topography. I think that probably made a lot of sense with very large subdivisions that were dozens of acres, maybe up by Boulevard Bluffs and stuff, follow the topography. But for the most part, we're looking at much smaller ones. There's not going to be a lot of interaction between lot shapes and sizes and topography. And even so, we don't have really clear criteria to say that size. preliminary plat does not adequately take into account topography. We'll double check that and look through it, but that's one that popped out to me as being less clear than it could be. And then in the proposed 530, 19XX530, provisions have been made for roads, utilities, street lighting, street trees, and other improvements that are consistent with this title. I wonder what other improvements should I be looking for. So maybe we can delineate those. We don't want to lose the opportunity to regulate something important, so we'll want to think through everything that we do actually look for in the land division and make sure it's delineated before dropping that. Those are a couple examples, but if in your review you spot any others that would be unclear or as an applicant would want to know.

Okay.

Existing 1926-150 encroachments and gaps. I have heard some complaints about this. There were fairly intense complaints. I think it's been a long-running issue. complaint of some with i think we're maybe fairly unique with this is what i understand you must clear any encroachments or gaps before we can approve a land division encroachment being physical offense from your neighbor that's on your property six inches over widespread uh mismatches of legal lot lines and physical improvements And so to do a land division, we have required on our side that those encroachments and gaps be cleared through the title process. Is that right? I think the request from some of the folks who do this work is that that remain a private matter and that not hold up a land division by one side or the other. So in this draft here, we have removed the requirement to clear encroachments and gaps before you can approve a land division.

We've also, based on that feedback and just some of the issues in it, causing problems with developing or recording of the final maps and things like that, have developed internally standard condition language that we already require we put on the face of the map that basically says it is a civil matter if there are encroachments, gaps, things like that for them to assess without

us actually folding up the final of that process.

So in researching and reviewing different jurisdictions and their code language, this was definitely a unique thing for us. If it was previously or historically something used, maybe we've carried it on, but others have dropped it over time. I don't know, but it's not a common thing that I saw throughout other jurisdictions code.

I definitely like seeing that change because I know in North Everett, things are on each other's lots. yep i can tell you that right now i can tell you there's fences on the city property because most of the most of the streets are like why when i step out my back my side door i'm on city property even though there's a fence out there that is mine so i know there's a lot of overlap all over the place i think my neighbors even think i don't even know if we're on the right line with each other

Yeah, it's definitely fairly common, especially for these older properties. And even not for the older properties, we have certain survey requirements for just general development that happens. But if you give us a site plan and it looks like it's been reasonably established and roughly consistent with the information that we have and you're more than a foot away, we wouldn't require you to have a survey. And so there's instances where things have been legally established and they don't find out until later on doing a survey like, oops, maybe something was not quite right. um so through all the land division process anyway there is absolutely survey requirements all the maps need prepared by a licensed surveyor so information like that should already be documented on the map it's something they'll already be aware of and then they can decide how to work with the neighbor to address it resolve it if they want to or just keep it in mind as they're doing further development

So, York, you brought up 1906-060, item C1, at striking parks, open space, and views, which makes sense, except like in the back of my brain, way back in another life when I was an appraiser, views can greatly impact the value of a property. So if that is not... part of the consideration when you are creating these lots, you could be potentially destroying value in a very serious way. And that's kind of a niche thing that doesn't apply to a lot of properties, but it could be significant. So I guess I want to think about more striking views from that list of considerations. Yeah.

I think elsewhere for general development, we intentionally stay out of. views and view requirements, because if someone were to come in and they're developing something that's, you know, allowed to have four floors and they want to come in and build four floors, we can't prevent them from doing that. Whether a land division is, you know, part of that or not. I think part of one of the major goals of this process and what we're trying to do is if someone wants to do a land division, great. They have the options to do it or not. that's up to them, but we wanna see consistent development, whether they're choosing to do a land division or not and consistent requirements, whether they're choosing to do that or not. And that's not something right now elsewhere that we would really be looking at when it comes for somebody to submit just a new residence or a new building or whatever it might be on a site.

Yeah, all of that makes perfect rational sense. And I can't even think of a property in the city. This would be, I guess, more of an issue that I would have run into in properties outside of the urban spaces in this county. But just knowing how much value can be created by a view or property. by the destruction of a view, how much value can be destroyed. I don't know. It just feels like something that should be really thought through. And you may be right that here in this space, it is just not something that we should be navigating. But just something to just really think through before striking it. That's all I'm saying.

And this is 1906. Where's, where's this? 06060. Yes. And that is other lot requirements for lots created or modified through land division. And at page number, page number five of exhibit C. And this is the one that take into account the natural features of the site, such as critical areas, natural drainage patterns, and topography. And we're wondering about topography. I think natural drainage patterns, there may be some connection to low-impact development or stormwater or something. But those also have their own processes. But parks, open space, and views are the ones that have already been struck that we're mentioning themselves.

i'm i'm commissioner ballard is not here tonight so i'm going to channel him and um i think public regulation of private views is probably not a business that you want to get into yeah i we don't much now at all okay uh

approval of final plat authorizes sale early on in the basic requirements for land divisions you may not sell part of your property until you've completed the uh and have an approved and recorded final plat through any one of the mechanisms a long subdivision a short subdivision a unit lot or a binding site plan. One of the core aspects of the residential lot splitting is opening up an avenue to sell a portion of a property before installing infrastructure and improvements that cost disruption and time. If there's an opening to make a real estate transaction in advance of development that is done by somebody else. That's the point of the state bill, and that's what we're looking to implement. It's not right in front of your face that that we have this here. So I wanted to point to one aspect of that has changed. So in the existing EMC 1920 6050, for example, This would be Exhibit B, page 11. Exhibit B, page 11. The second sentence, all required access improvements shall be installed prior to final approval. So buried in the first half of the second sentence, and this is just for vehicle access, but I believe there's an equivalent statement about landscaping somewhere, and I think utilities too. That is why lot splitting is a different path than the standard land division procedures. I just wanted to call that out. I want to look through everything and kind of better understand the clarity that we've to demonstrate and show that we've done that. But that statement, for example, would not appear in the new chapter. So let's look through with that or we will look through with that in mind. I want to look at the lot split criteria. And I guess let's just think if it is sufficient that there's not a clear prohibition on it, or if we need to be more clear with saying you may proceed with a sale. We do need the appropriate conditions, easements, adequate provisions, and all of that that we talked about being part of the overarching goals of this or requirements for a land division. but at least the kind of deferred installation of physical improvements. I want to make sure that we got that part right.

York, how do you ensure that those improvements are complete? I mean, that's part of why the subdivision process is powerful is because it requires completion of all of those requirements before you can sell the fractional pieces, right? if those things are not required to be completed prior to a sale, how do you ensure they ultimately get completed?

A number of jurisdictions, and we do to an extent too, already allow bonding. That's actually in state law too, where we bond and they have a year to actually get those improvements done, but they can still record the final before that happens. So we have that language throughout the different jurisdictions final steps for each of these different land division processes that's called out as an option as well. I think what we are intending to add in order to be consistent with the way the lot splitting process is called out is to also just allow standard condition language on most, if not all of these land division types that also says, well, if you follow the condition that the city sets and says, you know, upon first development or development of the first dwelling unit on the site triggers these improvements for the site as a whole, and you're taking that into agreement, then you can still record it. Then the first time we get in that new building permit, we know we need to look at, um, the infrastructure improvements for the site as a whole at that time. So for us, that feels like a reasonable guarantee as well, even though it's not an actual bond that we're getting, um, But because it's tied to the actual recording of that plot, it'll be clear language that is right there on that cover page. Any sale is going to have to have that information already included in it. It should be sufficient, or we feel like it will be sufficient to actually meet that. And then it's also consistent with what the lot splitting bill is already trying to implement.

So in a lot split scenario. Brett KenCairn, walk me through the practicality of how that would work if there's no bonding in place and i'm i'm splitting a lot that is 12,000 feet carving off 5000 feet of that. Brett KenCairn, When I go to sell that lot the new lot that's created would there be also requirements to improve the lot from which I divided that's that smaller lot. um i mean like frontage improvements things like that that can also be deferred that's called out specifically in the lots but um guidance documents police this stuff just out of curiosity limited staff we we don't you know give parking tickets um after certain hours in this city so who polices this stuff so for us i think

Why this makes sense is just because the development standards have changed so much over the last several years that we're already getting people coming through that are choosing to just condo after the fact. But are still developing and triggering all these front end improvements and infrastructure improvements as it is so. when they come in for that first dwelling unit, let's say we're already going to be triggering frontage improvements, um, and other infrastructure improvements from there. So it's already going to be triggered by the development itself. I think what we're trying to get out of is things specific to this land division process. That's only to a land division where we're already seeing a lot of people come through and basically doing what used to be done with a land division and kind of skirting those requirements and still doing the infrastructure improvements anyway. Um, So there's other requirements and development standards in place that catch that, that even if for some reason it got missed, you know, when they're purchasing the property or, you know, they weren't maybe being mindful of all the legalese and documentation that they get, all the information, our requirements already kind of back up and make sure that those infrastructure improvements are put in place either way.

And this is not proactive enforcement or anything like that. It's in our review of building permit applications.

I understand that makes sense. Thank you for that explanation.

I think sometimes too, what we see is, you know, it's not often because a lot of times it is developers that are coming in and are more seasoned rather than maybe just the average person developing, but, um, A lot of folks are already doing this. They already know that they're looking to purchase the backyard of a property and they are already planning to bring out those infrastructure improvements in either way. We're not anticipating a huge delay between a lot split or other form of land division actually doing that infrastructure work either way. But in the event that that does occur, which sometimes happens for financial reasons or whatever the situation might be, we still have both our code itself, our design and construction standards, and obviously the language that will then be recorded on that map. to back up and make sure that it's still taken care of.

Yeah, I think that this is an interesting approach. And it's nice to have an alternative to bonding, although I do think bonding is a very efficient way to ensure these improvements get completed and facilitate a transaction. I can see a buyer glossing over the requirement, even though it's printed on the face. um it seems as though maybe the state should have required some sort of significant disclosure associated with the lot split mechanism given that this requirement was kind of buried in a way not as clear I I think about if time does pass I do think we'll we'll see pretty quick progression from

subdivision to sale to development. In many cases, I could see a scenario where that gets suspended for a number of years. Maybe sales occur on both sides. And if someone doesn't read the short plat map of their property, let's say the parent property, and I mean, they have, this property comes with it, the right for your neighbor to build a walkway driveway utilities right through your property and right through your yard um I hopefully that is all the kind of thing your real estate agent is going to walk you through and you remember it and everything but I could see folks forgetting some of that yeah right all of it it's kind of like an easement right would we have an easement

Oh, the easement provisions, even with the lot splitting practice, still need to be looked at and accounted for during that initial process. So in the lot split guidance, they also talk about that we can require an easement of however many feet wide, maybe expecting the most intense development in the back of the lot if we think that's possible. But when they actually come in, if they're only truly doing maybe one unit and we had originally planned for five back there, we have the authority then to say, okay, we can shrink this down or you don't need to Just because we originally put that easement language out there doesn't mean you actually have to fill the entire thing if it doesn't make sense for the final development that occurs.

But so that short plat map would show probably through the front half that is considered to stay the same would have an easement that is sized appropriately for the access and utilities to the back half of the lot that's a little bit more obvious than just a condition like, by the way, someone has the right to go build through.

Yeah, it'll actually be mapped on there as opposed to just kind of fine print somewhere else. So there is still going to be some fine print because, you know, there's always conditions on these maps that get recorded and they are actually pretty clearly labeled on the map. But yeah, there's definitely going to be some easements and on all of our maps and things like that will also be updated to indicate easements as well in case somebody doesn't know to look for their short map, for instance, but they do know how to navigate our GIS system that's online. It'll clearly show those easements as well.

So in a residential lot split, how are critical area tracts divided in terms of ownership? Do they get, if you're already part of a sub, division that, you know, you have separate and equal interest to your critical areas, or if your lot split, you know, may have critical area and the lot is going to be split on both of those. Are you going to protect it on both sides, create a tract in both pieces of property, or just ignore that entirely and be like, you can't build there. We're not going to record that as a critical area, but no, we're not going to also not let you build there.

There's language calling for tracks for critical areas wherever possible.

Yeah. So, um, I know in 1937, that's our critical areas chapter. We do call for critical area tracks to be created as part of a land division process. So I wouldn't anticipate that to change even in this lot split procedure. Um, The, it would, I would assume you're not going to have a lot that is crossing a critical area tract. That would be abnormal. So it probably would fall on the newly created lot. I'm assuming, I guess it depends on the particular property. So there's a lot of what ifs there, but yeah, I think it would fall on whatever lot, I guess that tract is more associated with or wherever the new development is occurring and the other thing that's actually interesting with critical area tracks as we have found from time and time again is that because things like buffers and whatnot change over time or critical area features themselves change potentially over time those tracks are not necessarily the final indicator of you know where the development boundary actually starts stops and so Again, when development comes through that critical retract is great because it's a red flag for us. It's a signal for us. Um, if we didn't already check our maps, otherwise that something's there, we need to be mindful of it, but we still need to make sure that whatever regulations are in effect at that time are being met and things are being delineated at that time, especially for some of these older tracks that are created.

I think the last, was that hand up? No. No good peripheral here. I think the last kind of question note thing to think about is lot splitting state bill. We have to do this procedure of deferred, allow deferred improvements for the one lot split. that requirement to have installation of everything is so kind of buried. Would you say that we've implemented that for all of these in the currently drafted code?

Yes, that's the proposal.

So that's kind of a question. Do we want to do that? It gets harder and harder to imagine a scenario the more lots that you're creating and having deferred improvements that can kind of be solved by saying the first building permit out of Probably short plats is probably as far as you'd want to go on that, but I don't know. So let's say it's an eight lot short plat and a very large lot and you're keeping the one residence there and then selling the rest and later somebody develops it and you have all these conditions for building it out. CoB, Jay Sugnetter- seems like the very first building permit in that site would be the one that would trigger all of the improvements. CoB, Jay Sugnetter- But maybe a phasing plan, I mean if nothing else would be more cost effective than always extending utilities another couple of lots at a time, maybe that's on them to figure it out and us to just condition appropriately. CoB, Jay Sugnetter- But that's something to think about is this appropriate or should we set a ceiling.

CoB, Jay Sugnetter- pause there.

It's a lot to think about with all of the different lot patterns in the city. But it also doesn't say the first lot. So we need to think about our clear procedures and that we're not figuring this out and debating with applicants on all of these. What does adequate provisions mean? So that's something that we'll continue thinking about. But if anyone has the answer, I'll take it.

So let's play this out a little bit. If it is the first lot, then I think your example was what, 18?

Yeah, eight. Eight. But either anything above three, it's hard to imagine.

So why would anybody pull one? They're going to wait until they get five because it's not going to make any sense. Pencil, it's not going to pencil at one. Sure. Probably not at six. Seven and eight is where you make your money, right? Right. So we're just going to delay the production of those housing units by using that method, I would say. Whereas if we require it done, then the developer needs to evaluate the market, understand demand, and decide when to go. But then it's going. I can see when you pull the building permit down, scenario working well with a lot split, especially because there's a provision that you can't split further, which I'm not exactly sure I understand, but okay. But yeah, I don't know that that works for a short plat or a full plat.

Are you saying that the requiring all the improvements on the first building permit is too restrictive and that it should be allowed at the developer's discretion with the city's protection to be