Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to. Oh, my goodness.

Let's go. Oh, my goodness.

YouTube. Doing the YouTube. Thanks. All right. Good evening and welcome everybody to the 18th of August, 2026 Everett Planning Commission meeting. Would you please take the role?

Commissioner Shelby. Here. Commissioner Ballard.

Here.

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

Here.

Thank you.

All right. Does anybody have any comments on the minutes from our last meeting as they were sent out? No. Hearing none, they are adopted as submitted. Any reports from commissioners? Staff comments. As staff is wondering about the cabin.

Good evening, Chair. I'm Jarek Stevens, Watch the Planning Director. Staff needs the right code to get into the meeting to show slides. All right, the next item.

Not a problem. Okay, so I will give you just a few minutes there. Is there anybody here for public comment this evening?

No, sir.

All righty. And I think it's on to unfinished business when Yorick has his access. Sweet.

OK. Yeah.

I York students watch the planning director joining me this evening. Kelsey Hyde, land use planning manager. And we, along with you, have been working on land divisions for some time. I think this was the first thing we picked up after the periodic update, which turned one-year-olds one month ago. And not that it was the only thing that we've been doing, but we've been working on it pretty regularly this time. Have... brought two briefings to you, proposed code amendments, and then what's inside this packet included some new elements that were different from the very last one. So I'll cover those.

Video.

briefed the City Council Parks and Built Environment Committee on land divisions last week on Wednesday. It was a brief briefing, 15 minutes, but gave them the overall goals and effect of the update. They thanked the Planning Commission for their work and look forward to seeing the details when we bring it to them, anticipating September, if we get to a level of comfort with the recommendation out of the Planning Commission today. Let me pull up some slides. Land divisions, procedures, and development standards. There's a little bit of both in there.

Uh, real quick. Are we, is this, are we starting a public hearing now or is this going to be a public hearing? This is a public hearing today. We need to start. We need to. Yeah. Sure.

All right. Uh, we should open the public hearing for the land divisions, uh, action item or today, which is I think in support of resolution 2604. Can I get a second?

Second.

Would you take the role please?

Chair Shelby?

Yes.

Commissioner Ballard? Yes. Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Commissioner Rutledge? Yes. Commissioner Welch? Yes. Thank you.

Usually it's most effective if we give the public a chance to speak after the briefing, but if there's anybody on a time crunch, maybe they could have the opportunity now. It works for staff. Up to you if we're good to proceed. Didn't see anybody running.

I think we're okay.

A reminder on the background and most of the background we covered in the July meeting of the Planning Commission. The video is available online and the July memo to the Planning Commission has a lot of the background of how we got here. The goals for the project were to implement recent legislation on residential lot splitting out of the state. implement policies in the Everett 2044 Comprehensive Plan that call for, in general, supporting homeownership and paths to homeownership, especially along with middle housing, modernize land divisions for middle housing and the new development regulations that were adopted last year that allow for multiple dwellings on a single lot and how to support that type of development pattern with ownership route. And then... as we try to do with everything that we touch, streamline, organize, and make more efficient and clear, both for Kelsey's team administering the code and for applicants who are developing a project that should meet code. These were some of the most relevant policies, boosting homeownership opportunities, providing for land division into small fee simple lots, and allowing lot splits to encourage homeownership, simplifying and streamlining the approval process. State law residential lot split. requires cities, including Everett, to allow residential lot splits, an administrative process to divide a buildable lot into two, each meeting the minimum lot size with no further lot splits allowed. You'll see from, we talked about it in the July meeting and implemented it with the draft that's before you today, we propose implementing residential lot splits as a form of a short plat. And in this way, taking the benefits of lot splits and allowing them all the way up to nine lots, which is the maximum for a short plat, So not seeking to complicate residential lot splits with more of a short plat process, but seeking to extend the benefits of residential lot split up through the nine lot short plat standard. So as we go through the amendments that are in here and read the code with that in mind. That is our intent, is to exceed the minimum requirements of the law in terms of lot yield. And I think we're there. This is the House bill that implemented residential lot splits in the state. There are six key requirements in this bill a residential lot split may be combined with a building permit it must be administrative it must be a planning director decision it must be based on the decision must be based on clear and objective standards there should not shall not be a public hearing associated with it and there there is immunity from an administrative appeal for the lot split So those six on the left wanted to show how I think we've talked through the basic structure of land divisions in previous meetings. Short subdivision is up to nine lots, an administrative process that may be combined with the building permit planning director decision based on clear and objective standards. And that goes for both a short subdivision and a unit lot short subdivision. The main difference between those two, and we have a couple graphics of examples, is that with a unit lot, you need not meet the minimum lot standards for the unit lots, but you need to for the parent lot. Most obvious would be setbacks. For a unit lot or on the outside of the parent parcel and not for each individual unit lot, whereas if you do a short plat or a long plat full subdivision, you need to meet those setbacks on each individual lot. Maximum lot coverage by building, which varies from 50 to 60%, applies to each individual lot in a short subdivision, but would apply to the parent lot. And we need to have some mechanism for all of the children of that parent lot to decide who gets to increase and maintain the parent lot at that 60% or 50% maximum lot coverage by building. And then the individual lots currently in the NR and the UR4 zones where we expect most of this activity to happen are limited to a minimum of 5,000 square feet, 50 feet wide, and a couple other dimensions that must be maintained for each individual lot with a short plat, but could be smaller with the unit lot short subdivision. So for these first four, both unit lot short and a short subdivision meet all of the standards required by the residential lot split law. Public notice cannot be part of a lot split. We do not have that for a short subdivision. I deleted one wrong one here. Unit lot short subdivision now does have public notice and the opportunity of our public hearing if requested. And we have in this draft actually is to drop that to a no. So why don't I fix that right now?

specifically for unit lot short subdivisions. So if it does exceed nine lots proposed, it would fall in that subdivision category, which would trigger public notice to neighboring property owners.

Okay. So as we've proposed for amendment, both the short plats and unit lot short subdivisions both would not have public notice or a public hearing. Administrative appeal is available for short plats and unit lot short plats. We propose to add a section exempting two-lot short plat or two-lot unit lot short plat from administrative appeal to meet that section of the law. And then on the bottom there, minimum lot size is not addressed for residential lot splits with the state law. So the split lots must both meet minimum lot sizes under that framework. With the unit lot short subdivision, there's no minimum for the child lots. And you'll see for short subdivisions that must meet the minimum lot size. And this is looking specifically at the NR and the UR4 zones, again, where most of this activity is expected to occur. Matt Pinyan, We propose, reducing the standard minimum lot size from 5000 square feet to 2000 square feet with corresponding reductions to some of the other dimensions. Matt Pinyan, And those are in Chapter 19.06 the minimum lot area with depth and frontage that's on page 17 of exhibit a. So that's a summary of all the requirements of what it is to be a lot split. We are early in implementing this bill. It is not due for Everett until I think it's the end of 2027. The Department of Commerce has been tasked by the legislature with developing guidance and rules around residential lot splits. They have not yet done so. We may be the first ones in the state to implement residential lot splits. So we are sort of breaking new ground and we'll have to watch that guidance when it comes out and see how other cities approach this and we may need to make some tweaks. But for now, it seems that we can implement the residential lot split requirements as a short plat. We do have one section proposed that states that, so folks don't have to guess or wonder, and that's in the proposed new 19-23-060, I think it is, 060 on page four. Residential lot splits under RCW 58-17-145 may be processed as a short subdivision or as a unit lot short subdivision. I'll show a couple of graphics of illustrative examples of what some of this actions could look like. So on the left, you see an alley lot with a principal dwelling and a lot of room in the backyard. So this would be a candidate for a lot split or a short subdivision in our case, or unit lot short subdivision. In this case, the gray box is a driveway to some sort of a parking to the street. And on the right side, you see after a unit lot short subdivision, you have three new units coming off of the alley with vehicle access from the alley and vehicle access for the front lot continuing to the street. Yes.

So on this one, can you give me an example of what the minimum square footage would be to do that?

Assuming this is a standard lot or more, the minimum for the total, the parent lot on the left would be at least 5,000 square feet because a unit lot short subdivision can reduce that for the children lots. Each one of those lots could be as little as 15 feet wide to accommodate. There are dwellings smaller than that, but that's kind of a typical small townhouse width. Um, by 80 feet, maybe so 15 times 80, we're looking in the 1200, 2000 square foot range, but it could be, uh, literally anything that meets, uh, provides the necessary access utilities, emergency access, um, and a buildable lot and all of that.

Which is significantly smaller than what our regular minimum size lot is. Right.

Correct.

And this is only the reason we can do this is because you're doing a lot split.

No, this is doable right now. In fact, I'm not sure other than the protection from appeals. I'm not sure that we actually have to do anything for the residential lot split. This has been a journey of understanding state law and the new bill and our own requirements and everything. But you saw that. So if you ignore the proposed side. We currently for short plots and unit lot short plots meet all these conditions. There are some things like the deferred improvements that are not part of the bill that we've been talking about implementing that I think this is a major step forward to facilitating land division in the city. But it's, I guess, mostly of the city's initiative rather than meeting those requirements, which is a testament to the work that has been recently done with rethink zoning and some other processes that implemented the administrative process and the planning director decision and all of these things. So I think 20 years ago, that would not be the case. But we've laid good groundwork for this already. Also worth mentioning that if you delete the orange lines, you could also build this development right now without land division and either do a condominium declaration on it to sell it or rent it or have some other arrangement. We've talked some about curb cuts after land division. So here's an example on the left of a principal dwelling that does not have a curb cut. And if they wanted to either as part of the land division or at some point in the future preserve the ability to park a vehicle on their lot or drive a vehicle onto their lot. Tom Preston- Something like this is what they would have to do either maintain that as kind of an L shaped reverse panhandle lot to the alley or have an easement or some sort of a joint use arrangement. Tom Preston- If Tom Preston- Mike SanClements, If they took the back of what we saw in the last slide in the front of this, then they would foreclose future opportunities to get vehicle access on to there unless they did some sort of a deal with the back neighbor.

But we're not.

So we're going to disallow any new curb cuts? Yes, curb cuts are currently disallowed for alley lots. And if you were to build without land division, that remains an alley lot. Would we call that an alley lot if it was unit lotted?

Is it still the parent lot?

CoB, Jay Sugnetthil:" yeah so if it was a unit lot land division that would still be considered an alley lot, but by making it a fee simple short subdivision the front part is no longer an alley lot and then would get the opportunity to create a new curb cut. CoB, Jay Sugnetthil:" That has been a. CoB, Jay Sugnetthil:" I guess, as a city priority to limit new curb cuts on alley lots or formerly alley lots and so that there's a provision in. 193434 thank you on page 21 that has the an alley lot now includes a lot that has been subdivided and separated from its alley after the effective date of this ordinance. So if you have a curb cut now, in general, you can keep it. Total redevelopment may be a different story, but you can keep it. If you subdivide out the back of your lot, that's the time to make the decision whether you want to preserve that access or not. Maybe?

Right.

with public works is permission.

Yeah. That's a little bit outside of our purview, but, um, it would be subject to the city engineer and that made sense, but I don't, I don't think there's an obligation currently for them to even quote unquote grandfather curb cuts as it is. If it's not a requirement, it's just often how it goes. Unless as York said, they're entirely redeveloping and there's other alternatives. But I think they would at least consider if there was a legally established curb cut there in the first place.

Cool.

Is the curb cut, is that just an aesthetic as a city priority?

I think that the two main, and there is some aesthetic to it, continuity of the sidewalk and street parking. If you have put a curb cut for one parking spot, you have added net zero parking spot while taking room for housing and keeping it empty lots of the time reserved for yourself. So I can see why the value is there. But for the broader city, there's more benefit to having that be open street parking and have a continuous sidewalk. Street trees, landscaping is another piece.

This is also specifically for alley lots. So curb cuts will still be permissible on non alley lots as well. And subject to typical standards of how wide you can have a driveway and how much access things like that. But specifically for alley lots, this has been a provision that's been in place for quite a while. We're just trying to clear it up with these particular land division changes.

Here's an example of a similar development, but as a short subdivision. It shows that two of the units have driveways or parking spots off the alley. One of them doesn't. If these are below 1,200 square feet or meet any of the other exceptions, parking would not be required, but some will, some won't. But you can see with the dotted line really hugging those new units that each one of those new lots has the same setbacks, 10 feet in the front, 10 in the back, 5 on the sides for the NR zone. I would think in many cases, folks would choose a unit lot just to give more flexibility. But there is some ties that continue to bind you to your neighbors. So it's not quite as free and clear as a fee simple short plat, although a unit lot does deliver a fee simple lot as well. John Potter, here's a non alley lot and here's a unit lot short subdivision the blue hatching represents potentially an easement parking area with walkways to the units or a more. John Potter, Common I think around the city easement access drive leading to the units. And you can see, again, the difference between you can fit three units on here, whereas with the unit lot short subdivision, you've got the setbacks that remain that limit you to potentially two units. Many, many, many different ways that land can be divided and arranged. These are just a couple examples there. Any questions on all that so far? What's next is just going through the list of amendments that is in the memo. This is the exact same list in the same order, and I think we've talked about a lot of these, but I'll linger on some if they're more significant. We have one new chapter replacing four. We've got the updated purpose statements. We've removed the requirement for gaps and encroachments to be cleared for a land division to be finaled. Reverts to a civil matter between the affected parties. Reorganize the necessary provisions that are required for a land division to be approved. The biggie that we just talked about, residential lot splits are a short subdivision or a unit lot short subdivision. This is another big one. We removed requirements for infrastructure to be installed before a land division or a sale of any of the units. There is an option currently to bond for that improvement, but I think that's expensive. and so our uh here's two examples in current emc 1926 050 requires that all required access improvements shall be installed prior to final improvements same thing for recreation facilities and we have the same requirement for utility stubs and landscaping so you have to build all of that out before you can final and make any sales The proposed method for that would be to apply conditions on the face of the plat that require all of those infrastructure pieces be included before any building permit could be issued. We did not. I think we talked in this room last month about whether that should apply to the first building permit or anything like that. We pulled back from any specific requirement like that, and it's just a condition. We'll have to figure out some of this as we go. And it may depend on the development and how different lots relate to each other if one is past the first one or something, or it may be up to the developer and what they're willing to pay for and potentially have to adjust. We would have agreements that the front lot, if it's a front back kind of a split, would provide an easement and the authorization to do work in that easement to build the driveway and utilities or whatever it takes to get to the back. Same with frontage improvements and other necessary pieces that we currently require before finaling it. But this should allow for someone to just sell part of their property without any physical changes and get through it in a much quicker than current I mentioned the minimum lot dimensions. These were sized to fit a small but typical and feasible dwelling unit with the setbacks. The 25-foot lot width was the common lots in North Everett from the original flats. Because you can get down to these small lots and small dimensions through a unit lot land division and also without a land division, I don't read this as significantly changing what you can build and where. It is just allowing if the lot dimensions work or your property works for it to allow a short subdivision and not driving almost everything to a unit lot short subdivision. It may make some currently unbuildable lots buildable because they don't meet the minimum lot size. There's a whole certification program to if a lot was legally divided prior to, I think it's 1956 when the land lot standards changed and you can show all of that, you might be able to certify a substandard lot as buildable. But there do exist some lots in the city that are somewhat stranded and need to merge with another lot before they can be built. And for some of those, this would enable them to be buildable lots. I did have a question from the Council on this about neighborhood residential constrained. Does not apply to that, and there is a minimum density and a minimum maximum number of units on a lot that is all the same as it was before the periodic update for those neighborhood residential constrained zones. We have a table in the existing Chapter 1926 that lays out different types of easement access drives and widths and fire lanes and connects them to general number of potential dwelling units. We're doing we pulled that table proposed pulling that table out of municipal code and keeping all of it together in the DCSS design construction standards and specifications, the engineering rules that public works maintains. So they have drafted and are continuing to refine a new table that would replace that it's equivalent to what we have in code. But we can clean up things like terminology and there were some missing pieces in there. And we'd be happy to bring that back to you when it's kind of in final form, but the intent is not to make major changes through that. And then parity between land division or not. We had those couple of things, landscape next to the access drive, frontage improvements, right-of-way dedication that differed if you did a land division or not. And so it was driving some developments to be a condominium when they would have preferred to be a land division. So throughout, we have made it the same. If you're doing a land division or doing the exact same thing as a condo or some other style, you would have the same physical requirements. That included some new language on right-of-way dedication. The two that are in 1378 1368, excuse me, on page 11 and 12 are borrowed from Snohomish County. Google, maybe 10 years now ago, did a major rewrite of their access and road network elements and everything. It was a multi-year process and So they've pretty recently dialed this in, and it seemed to fit our needs. Well, we had language that it was applicable only to land division. So this, by being in Chapter 1368, can apply if we have the odd, very large site that develops without a land division that would warrant, based on the impacts of the development itself, right away, dedication. Don't anticipate that to happen very much, but we wanted the ability to have that. Tom Preston- A block link standards which were in a land division related chapter 1906 are also moved into a more broadly applicable chapter into 1368 Tom Preston- The curb cuts thing we talked about then landscaping we deleted the section 1935 100 which has requirements that currently only apply to land divisions for five foot of type 3 landscaping along the public street along both sides of private access drives and around common facilities like recreation and storm water facilities In without that we would rely on the landscaping chapter. Which has generally type for which is grass or other living ground cover wherever is not developed. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We proposed adding back based on the discussion we had with the Planning Commission last month, adding back the type. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Three five foot landscaping between the access drive and a neighboring property. If we can build these access drives in the setback and so so as not to have a A driveway, which could be heavily used depending how many lots and parking spots are behind it, right up against a fence or another property. Now you would have five feet of type three landscaping unless necessary to get around a house that doesn't leave you enough room. It's also modifiable if there's other special circumstances or there's a need to shift that landscaping somewhere else. um overall though it's a a modest reduction in the landscaping requirements um for land divisions and yes for land divisions Okay, there's a couple things we noticed since we sent these to you. They're not big changes, but they're more little cleanups. For example, a definition of what a lot split is. This works well with that 19206060, but it seems important to have a definition in there. we've uh we had all this was a cleanup in 1906 080 exceptions that would allow a lot to be less than 70 feet shall not be granted we've allowed the standard minimum below that so this doesn't make sense anymore in the new 1923 we identify unit lot land short unit lot subdivisions shall be processed as a short plot. In Title 15, our procedures was a conflict with that, where it identified a unit lot land division as a review two, which has the public notice and the opportunity for a hearing. So this is making it consistent with what was already in your packet. Unit lots and short subdivisions would both be a review one administrative decision without public notice. unit lot short subdivision so there are nine lots thank you yes because of the part that's not stricken division of land into 10 lots which makes it a unit lot land long so okay um and then this is the administrative appeal I think when we first drafted it we thought maybe just by being in state law that would cover it but uh seemed worth putting it into here that that's a summary of the changes uh we issued a determination of non-significance under the state environmental policy act last week and the environmental checklist is available online but it doesn't say much because we don't anticipate this to make major changes to the physical environment which is what SEPA is all about. In general, we expect this to lead to a little bit more land division activity, a little bit more fee-simple ownership structure as compared to condos, maybe a little bit more full short plats rather than a unit lot short plat, and a small number of lots could become buildable. That would be the only change physically on the ground. So we have a proposed resolution in your packet. And that's it for kind of the summary. Be happy to take any questions. Kelsey, did I miss or mess anything?

I don't think so, no. But happy to help with questions.

Can you touch, sorry, York. Can you touch base on the two letters from the MBA folks and what they sent and their tentative changes or their preferred changes and how that would impact what the city's view is on the matter?

Yes. Someone have one for me. I'll stop my share and open it on.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, read support for the for the proposal and the project goals. And a request to confirm that future. If a lot split. has occurred. There is a restriction in the law from further lot splits, but it could be subdivided under a different process. And this is something that they commented last meeting on too. If you do a lot split, which would be a two lot short plat or unit lot short plat, you can under this proposal revise that short plat um as long as you stay under the nine lot limit um yeah it's nine lots total so if you come in and you revise something after the fact and this is the case across the board so

let's say you get through a two lot land division, whatever type it is. And you record that you can come in at any time. You just essentially start the process over. So for something that would have or fall under that lot split provision where it says you can't do it specifically as a lot split anymore, that's what the bill says. There's likely going to be some sort of condition on the face of that recorded plat that mentions that, that you can't do a lot split specifically again, just because again, how the bill is written and how state law is written, but that doesn't prevent you. And even in the guidance that has been provided thus far to do something later with a unit lot If you go through the appropriate procedures and process. So you would essentially just go through that standard unit lot process for whichever lot or all of them, whatever it involves.

In my brain, if there's nothing in state law that says, hey, this has to be recorded on the face, but they're going to prevent you from doing it in the future to save everybody a bunch of time, it makes sense to just say, hey, let's record it on the face, like when we're doing it now. To prevent it, uh, to just note that like, this is how this lot was split, right? Like this, this subplot was created through this particular process here. So we don't have to go back and look at it like, well, which process did you look, do we have records of it or what have you, right? Like that makes sense to me. I don't know if it makes sense to y'all, but I think so.

Can I, let me ask one question. Okay, my question was if, let's take the scenario in which you have a lot and someone sells their backyard, and maybe they haven't thought through or worked with somebody to decide what is going to happen back there, so they just sell the backyard. Now the owner of the backyard wants to, which is I think the scenario that master builders are thinking of, has put more thought into it, says, okay, I'm going to do three units in the back. If it was a unit lot short plat that created it they would need the consent of the original owner to amend that unit lot short plot if it was a short plat short plat they would not did i say that right that's correct so the reason behind that is that anytime you're doing a unit lot there's essentially

There's a connection of some sort across all of those owners. Think of a townhouse development. Think of anything where there's a shared drive or shared parking, whatever it might be. There's kind of common ownership of some sort across that unit lot land division, whichever form it takes. versus a standard short subdivision or even a subdivision in which each individual lot can stand alone, it meets the minimum standards for each lot. So if somebody came through and did a short subdivision and each lot is a standalone piece, they don't necessarily need approval from that other owner because they on their own can do essentially what the code would allow them to do anyway. Does that help or hurt? Yeah.

Could there be language on the unit lot subdivision map indicating that the permission is granted? Could they pre-decide? I mean, if you're owning the whole thing, you come in, you, you do the division, you're separating that off. There's some common limit, common elements or, you know, shared ownership. You could just state that that could be further divided. You could give that permission in that. I think that's common. We see that easements where you have a easement where it allows language to expand.

I would say yes. I think it would depend on the language and if it's in perpetuity. So future owners are also subject to that, I suppose. But I don't see from our perspective, why not?

I could see that being an agreement, a no protest agreement type of a thing, or it could be totally outside of the city, just a contract between them. So I think the reason for that question was if we split off into two, can we further subdivide that back lot without waiting for five years or being altogether prohibited? And I think the answer is yes. If you did a standard short subdivision, more complicated or might need some agreement if it was a unit lot land division. Thank you. Any other comments?

Commissioner Welch, did you have anything you wanted to bring up? I don't think so technically yet. If you would like me to proceed there, and then we can chat if you'd like.

You want to have the discussion then?

OK. Perfectly fine, sir. All right. Any public comment?

No, sir.

Oh, sir.

Yes, sir. My name is Doug Portello. I'm a student at American Military University, and I'm here doing a summary on land planning. So I saw the presentation and I see everything up there and I get the principle dwelling in a lay person's term is the main home. The new units are additional that they could subdivide some way. Why? Why? There's many different ways or many different ways that it would fit a purpose. Why are you wanting to give people the opportunity to subdivide their own land, to make room for more residents, to give that principal dwelling person more opportunity for wealth? Why is this happening?

uh i think you hit on a couple of those uh the city is working with a substantial growth target for housing so we have been working for several years to build a development regulation framework that allows for the city to welcome new households and residents and build additional housing using our scarce urban land the most efficient way possible to tackle some of the housing shortage and affordability problems that have come from it. It also provides additional opportunities for folks to use their property as they want, so there's a property rights angle to it. Development and infill is generally positive for the city's budget and our ability to deliver important services. And we have a range of goals around housing, affordable housing, variety and choice in housing, and supporting homeownership. We've made some changes to our development regulations in recent years that make it very easy to build housing in the city. And our land division and ownership regulations have not kept up. So we're seeing a lot of housing being built, but not being delivered or owned in the way that the property owners would like or that is in the best interests of the city. So we're trying to match our regulations for land divisions for these development regulations that we have in place.

Okay, thank you. Second question. You had mentioned something about two different kinds. I don't remember the exact terms, but a subdivision means the person who buys that land does not need to go back to the principal dweller to permission to what's going on with the one that they now have, that they own. The other one they would have to if they wanted to do something different outside what the principal dweller had intended for that property would have to go back to that.

Okay.

Do you feel that in the future there's going to be a higher rate of civil disputes between peoples and neighbors because of the proximity, because of the closeness, because of what's going on? Do you see that happening in the future?

I think there's always civil disputes. We're no stranger to them now. I think you could see that by getting closer together, there's more opportunity for that. But in the same way, I think we've aligned our regulations to limit impacts of development from one to the other. There are separation setbacks and everything, and new development can have lesser impacts on neighbors and everything. I don't know that we could generalize on the rate of civil disputes, but I don't think it's a direct correlation, no.

Okay, I don't either. I just, sometimes you get a lot of people together in a small space.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other public comment?

No other comments.

All right. Move to close the public hearing. Motion. Second.

Commissioner Shelby? Yes. Commissioner Ballard?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan?

Yes.

Commissioner Rutledge? Yes. Commissioner Welch?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right. I think our next action item is to potentially pass the Resolution 2604 as a motion that we approve Resolution 2604. All righty, second.

Second. Chair Shelby?

Yes.

Commissioner Ballard?

We're not voting yet.

Okay. Sorry, we got to wait.

No, we just second the motion. Now there's a discussion. Then we can either move or not move later on to approve or not approve.

You are correct. I'm sorry, sir.

Been doing this for a while.

Yes, sir. Yep, yep. It's what happens. I'm new.

You were good.

All right. Discussion, sir. You have some items you'd like to discuss.

Yeah. I'll think about it.

I was thinking about a couple of amendments, and I'll go with First Amendment. On the proposed 1368024B, since we're looking at ADUs, one of the ideas was to do four or fewer also be added to the whether or not frontage improvements would have to be required. If we stay under the four or less and we stay out of the commercial way, so some people still might want to use the infill for up to four years to do the best, what is it called, best use or whatever that's called, the highest and best use of a property. So right now, it would... Maybe keep the frontage requirements that as long as everything's safe, everything meets certain, it's fine the way it is. Not have to bring up the current new standards, which would add a cost that would be prohibitive to build even more development between the extra two or three, the extra two developments maybe. That would be the idea. because smaller developers don't want to go up above four, because then you get into the commercial world, totally different loans, totally different world. But if you can build up to four on these lots, that would still add more density, but it would be cost prohibitive if we had to do lots of frontage improvements to bring up the current code, if everything is safe up front right now. Same way if you have the 280Us. That would be the additional reason. Yes, anything that would meet up to a certain code. Because right now, if you're just doing two ADUs, you don't have to do anything. So just that if you go up to four, you're being treated the same way when it comes to the frontage improvements.

If you'd like, because you sent these to me earlier today, I can put them up on the screen to see the language. Yeah, you have them in front of you. So I guess that's more for other folks watching.

So are you saying staff had these and had time to evaluate them? A little time. I had time to put them. Probably not. I did it today.

I was about to say, when it was forwarded to me, it was pretty late in the afternoon.

I was during my lunchtime today.

Which one is this? 1368-024... I will say that frontage improvements and what level to require them at is a familiar topic for us. difficult uh they're they're quite impact fees frontage improvements utility charges are all things that are necessary infrastructure for development they are difficult for development to cover they're difficult and unpopular for the city's taxpayer to cover also unpopular to not do them at all in cases where that's even possible. We have a lot of blocks in the city, especially in South Everett, that are missing sidewalks. Our current think we could say that we do not have a sidewalk building program and that the only way we can get sidewalks in the city on places that don't have them is through development. Certainly the larger development, the less of the share of the cost of that development would be how much the frontage improvements go for. I've had a heck of a time. I know they're very unpopular with developers. I've had a heck of a time really getting certainty on really what the cost is. It depends on the lot. If it includes curb and gutter and significant stormwater conveyance, a corner lot, a large corner lot with all of the above, that could be very expensive. A small non-corner lot with a little bit of frontage and the land is sloping the right direction, and not much storm water um probably going to be a negligible cost on it we have uh we're going to have a patchwork of uh of sidewalks as the city and blocks build out i think we've done a lot of thinking and have not arrived at any great answers for how to do PB, Harmon Zuckerman, fee and Lou. So that instead of spending what might not be the most efficient use of dollars to build a small stretch of sidewalk piece after piece after piece that PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The money goes into a fund and then the city maybe participates that and builds blocks at a time. We've had that in the past. It was difficult to administer and I don't think delivered very many feet of sidewalk. Other cities are experimenting with lower cost kind of interim type facilities. We don't have that here. It is regular sidewalk curb gutter and trees.

Could you flag one sec? What do you mean by interim type? Like a gravel path kind of a thing or just like vegetation separation or...

In Seattle they've got these discontinuous sea curbs that separate the street. So it's kind of like a curb, but it lets water go through, and there's no raising to the sidewalk, so it continues to be at grade, and it's much less expensive. I don't think they're doing that for frontage improvements, but I've seen it for priority blocks. similar very similar development pattern to everett with an older part of the city that all has sidewalks and a newer part of the city that looks like south everett and lots of missing sidewalks um we've we've talked about that but not achieved the level of comfort of uh of accepting that but those are all the kinds of things you can do to to try to square this And we will continue to work on it. But in the meantime, it is it is attention.

Is there to Commissioner welches point moving between two and four units. Is Do we see a significant number of folks potentially wanting to take advantage of that four-unit block of development that's available on what were formerly single SFR zone homes? Or do we think it's more likely to be the two-unit ADU implementation and potentially unit lot splits just to cover those two units?

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I think, I think it is we're likely to see PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Multiple lots of small developments. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We see with certain builders that are active in Everett a real focus on accessory dwelling units. I mean, you see our ADU numbers keep going up and up and up. And I think there's more of those than some other development types, probably because of the exemption from frontage improvements, but also the 50% off impact fees, which the sum total for a dwelling unit is around $30,000 to $50,000. And so cutting that in half is... 15, 20,000. Most of these dwelling units are going to be a minimum of 400,000 or so, I think, for an accessory. I don't even know if you can get them down that low, but say a minimum of 400,000 for your typical dwelling unit, even accessory dwelling unit. tough to tell what the future. We're still getting used to our new regulations and the development community is too. And so I think there's a lot of inertia and we're looking forward in the next year to we've been doing nothing but work on the code and haven't done a lot of advertising and and helping folks understand new possibilities. So I don't know how many people, developers, even know what is possible now. And we'll have to do a similar education campaign with land divisions. So we do hope to see a wide variety of different types of housing, sizes and shapes and numbers. But the reduced costs have been very attractive to developers so far, wherever they can find them. at least public costs.

I have a question on this language. So shall be limited to improvements reasonably necessary to address direct impacts attributable to the development. So who is deciding that, and what does that look like if it's not full frontage improvements?

Did you have a thought on that, Commissioner Welch? I believe the legal theory for frontage improvements. Oh, sorry. I believe the legal theory for frontage improvements does hold that you are mitigating an impact of development. I think just about anything that government requires in return for granting ability to do something has to have some root in mitigating it. Maybe the direct impacts would limit that. It's hard to tell. Where the indirect impacts or something, the need to build a functioning city overall, maybe that's an indirect impact. And a direct impact is like the number of vehicles that are going to be exiting a development is going to take what would otherwise be a safe walk down the shoulder into an unsafe walk down the shoulder. It's tough to tell exactly how we might apply that.

When I was thinking about it, I figured the idea was for it to mimic as much as just the AU, but that a separate one, because even when you add the extra two units possibly, you could also create something in the city to say, well, this is actually going to be an issue. So you do need to take care of it. But there is no, if you're not causing, if the development isn't causing a new problem, Then why give them X bring up all sudden well because you're on the edge. Now you got to bring the sidewalk crossing up to the current standard when the current sidewalk is fine and dandy, especially like the ADA. Because we want to change this pretty regularly. I mean, those are the ADA sidewalk areas change pretty or so often or it could be even just also now we want this much Um,

with them. Thank you.

But your development isn't causing a change, but what you've already had has already been flat and dandy. Just an extra two units would not cause that. So the idea is, this thing will let you know if you're not causing a problem, an externality, then why have to make extra improvements just because of it. The only idea is to keep it cost prohibitive, or not to make it cost prohibitive, to add a couple extra

I will say that we, gosh, we had a sidewalk priority area outside of which up to three units could be built without triggering frontage improvements. Many developments look for the threshold and then build to that. I don't know if that was part of your question, Chair Shelby, but if a lot could support five units, This would probably keep that development to four in those cases where someone is near the threshold, they'll never go over it. If I'm trying to stick to an ADU, I'm never going to build 1200 square feet.

Already seeing that. Yeah. And we've received direct feedback from developers that that's the case, that they'll do the two ADUs or they will modify the existing principle as opposed to demoing the existing principle and rebuilding because that would trigger frontage improvements versus just adding two ADUs. Yeah. So you can keep moving the threshold, but they will just go up to that threshold without getting the frontage improvements installed. And the ADU provisions is specifically based out of state law as well as to why we have that exception listed. So not opposed necessarily to changes. It's just we keep making changes and they keep going up to the threshold and that's it.

So in some cases this may make a project pencil where it otherwise wouldn't have, and in some cases it may lead to a reduction in units compared to what might have been.

Well, I like the idea that it would make a project potentially pencil it. When? Where do the sidewalks come from? Then who's paying for that? And where do they come from?

It would have to be city city budget. or it wouldn't happen.

So are we doing without something else, or are we raising taxes to cover that? I just don't know how that's going to happen. So to me, we're doing development and not requiring frontages from a developer. And probably we'll get killed for saying this, but I mean, you're doing development after the two. I mean, the state law allowed the two ADUs, but after that, you're just not completing the project.

I think for me where the difference is, is if there's an existing facility that's just not up to code versus if there's no facility at all. That's where I feel a bit uncomfortable. Like you're saying, you know, if you're doing the development without the frontage improvements, if there's something there, I like that. If there's nothing there and you're not putting anything there, I do not like that.

But don't you already have that authority? I mean, if somebody's coming in and they've got frontage, you don't make them necessarily rip it out.

That was going to be my comment is my experience thus far is if there is broken up sidewalks, things like that, that's kind of standard language or conditions on all permits to kind of clean that up. you know but it might be a segment not the entire frontage we have a lot of older sidewalks for instance that are only five feet in width that was kind of a common number for a long time even though typical standards now is six if that sidewalk is in good condition in my experience for the most part public works is not required that they replace it it would just be that standard language of broken up pieces or things like that that might need some improvements for a particular segment

So as part of every permit that's done for these developments, each individual scenario is looked at. Is that true? Like when a public works reviewer is looking, they're looking at the frontage in front of that proposed development and evaluating that specific scenario each time? Correct. Yeah.

City Council Chambers, Any additional discussion on that particular item.

City Council Chambers, I did just I wanted to pull up because I wanted to double check our current language, there is specific exceptions that basically outline that there are existing frontage improvements out there, and if the city engineer finds them to be adequate then it's they'll allow them to retain that so that's already called out in emc title 13.

City Council Chambers, what's the bill process of.

I don't work from title 13 as often so I don't know.

I think it's a loop appeal and use Paul lupa. I, if it's if it's an administrative decision that someone feels was made an error unsupported I think that is the venue.

I'll say there's probably not as much appetite for this amendment some I'm not going to propose any amendments so we can move forward.

And any of the 4 total or just that. All right any additional discussion that. With entertain a motion to pass resolution 2064 as it was presented. And we already have. We'll take the roll. Oh, there we go. We're going to get there from here at some point today. Chair. Chair.

Is it okay, as a friendly, could we add the staff recommended pieces? They're non to lightly substantive. Otherwise, we would bring them to the council as a separate amendment, but this would be simpler.

I would move to accept the staff modifications to 2604 as presented this evening. One less housekeeping.

Yes. Since I moved the motion, I will accept your friendly amendment.

Thank you, sir. So now we, since we have a friendly amendment, do we have to take roll twice? Okay.

Chair Shelby.

Yes.

Commissioner Ballard.

Yes.

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

Outstanding. Awesome. That's on to new business, which I think is our annual report for the comprehensive plan.

Okay. Annual report on the comprehensive plan. Happy birthday ever at 2,044 July seventh, I think, of last year. So it's been thirteen months since it was adopted and became effective. Not a lot of time to really draw broad conclusions on trends or anything. But we have been hard at work, and our we we have a policy calling for an annual report on the comprehensive plan to the city council so wanted to chat with you about the content of that so far we've got a accounting of the actions that we've completed and the ones that are underway out of the comprehensive plan. I wanted to see if there were any other suggestions for topics to include in the annual report before we finalize it and bring it to the City Council. But at least we'll start with those. So the engagement, administration, and implementation element has a couple of policies on how we implement the comprehensive plan. that we do maintain it with regular updates and amendments. And part of the sequence that we anticipate here is that each year we'll bring a report on the comprehensive plan and refine and improve it as the years go by. I think this one is going to be just a quick entry since we're pretty new into this, but that that feeds into then the annual amendment package that we bring. And that's what's coming next to the planning commission and then the city council. So maybe there's something to add understand out of the annual report that suggests some amendments and changes to the comprehensive plan. Not sure exactly how that will work going forward. This is an opportunity to go and read through the entire comprehensive plan again. And notice this one, we need to develop and document a strategy for implementation. I would say that the five year actions are that strategy currently but we'll need to work on a way to keep those actions current because we'll get through five years well before the comprehensive plan is through its planning period. We do implement the comprehensive plan through development regulations programs budgets and functional plans. there's the policy we're implementing now prepare and present to the council an annual report and then we're also directed to maintain the plan and to consider proposed amendments concurrently that's the annual amendment cycle that we'll be moving into next So I thought this was a pretty impressive list here. We have completed, I think there's two slides worth of actions we've completed. We updated the critical area regulations a couple months ago. We expanded the multifamily tax exemption last month. We developed and released a permit-ready housing program last month that is available and up on the web. We implemented a mobile home park zoning overlay two months ago. Everett Transit has updated their transit long range plan and created a low and no emissions transit fleet plan. So six out of the, and I passed out, these are all the actions in the comprehensive plan. So six of those down in the first year, and then quite a few that are underway now. We're working on the Casino Road and Evergreen sub-area plan named Casino Road Connections, developing kind of a unified branding for a series of planning work going on in and around Casino Road. Alice Ann has submitted an application for a certified local government grant through the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation for updated design guidelines for our historic overlays. And she's currently working with the Historical Commission. We'll continue that work on Tuesday for a new set of historic preservation regulations and overlays and everything, including a look at the uh large buildings next to historic area compatibility kind of uh review um our housing team is working on a comprehensive housing finance strategy mfte update was part of that but there is much more underway We've just started work on the Southwest Everett Manufacturing and Industrial Center sub area plan and designation PSRC, Puget Sound Regional Council requirement and we're meeting with the county regularly and standing up that process to develop a first sub area plan for that Southwest Everett area that extends into unincorporated Snohomish County and Payne Field as well. So it'll be a joint planning effort. Public Works regularly updates the design and construction standards, but I think there have been a couple significant rounds, including this latest one about the land division access drives, and we'll try to keep you posted on those changes as they emerge. And the parks department is working on a 2027 update to the park recreation and open space plan that should be done by the end of the year and will authorize the next five years of park impact fees. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay, I spent most of my energy we spent most of our energy on land divisions and PB, Harmon Zuckerman, That's what we got so far for the annual report. I think that's a bare minimum, but would love to hear any other suggestions of the types of things that we could include PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I think housing and employment data and growth metrics will be important, but probably need to give it a couple of years for anything to be reasonably related to the comprehensive plan there. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, But we do have a housing indicators work that our housing folks are are going to be working on. So we may be able to get that into the next episode.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, How with all the In North Everett, there's quite a few rises going up. And there's obviously some small developments going on now with infill and stuff. Do we have any updates on how we're moving towards our housing goals that are laid out for us to meet? How are we progressing for that? And I guess the second one would be on all the things that are working on. I know annexation is. So where are we staying on annexation preparations? Sure.

Housing growth, we're not up to the rates that would meet our housing targets, which I think is somewhere around 3000 units a year. We're busy in permitting. It's a tough macroeconomic environment with interest rates and construction costs are all through the roof. We have a lot of permitted projects that are kind of waiting for financing or different economic conditions and everything. So it's a pretty tough period right now for housing development. And we're not meeting our goals this year. We always expected this to be a big ship to turn and a long runway and other metaphors about changing slowly. David Price- But we've been busy, I think a lot of smaller projects accessory dwelling units there's a dashboard if you can probably just Google at you dash use a search engine for at you dashboard or find it through our GIs our GIs gallery. David Price- I want to say we're in it was about exponential growth from a small number. Um a lot of that I think is still a result of the Adu ordinance that came out of this chamber two years ago or so and it's actually tracking almost precisely with what we estimated the increase in adus would be have not seen as much of the other middle housing that's been authorized through the development regulations but a lot of inquiries and and I think we're We're doing everything we can and preparing for the next economic cycle, which could be a big one forever. annexation. We are working towards a June of 2027 annexation effective date of portions, perhaps a large portion of our annexation area to the south, which is Mariner and some areas around Silver Lake and to the east there. We're working with the county on a interlocal agreement method annexation that requires that 60% of the annexed area be contiguous to the city. So by law, through that method, we can't take the entire annexation area. And we're looking at a couple of options of what within that area we might take with a focus on the light rail station area around Mariner and then working east from there. We've got some consultants on board that started work two weeks ago now. I think they're probably about through orientation and starting to work with individual departments and interfacing with the county. We're having have had high level discussions with County executives office and are starting to have department to department discussions. I say we're we're thoroughly in the fact finding and understanding phase of this. looking at fall potentially bringing a resolution to proceed with the annexation through the city council. We do need to identify pre-annexation zoning for the area. So we're working on that in the background as well. Then if we do bring that resolution through the city council, we would have more negotiations and then public hearings and then council action by ordinance as well as county council action by ordinance and public hearings over there. So a lot of process left to go. So far, so good. And I think we'll need to bring some of the zoning and planning pieces through here. And so we'll hear more about that in the next couple of months. And then, of course, the fiscal analysis is a huge piece of that. And we don't have a lot of that yet. That's the main work of the consultants and the first thing that they're going to deliver, some revenue expectations and all of that.

two things uh related to annexation is our annexation of that area potentially going to impact the construction of the new uh snow isle library there on the corner of uh gosh whatever 132nd and try to remember the cross there i'm dating myself it used to be a mitzl's Very, very long ago, but they were in the same area with Safeway and then they bought that parcel and they're planning or were planning, I don't know, with the annexation announcement to build another library down there.

Yeah, really excited for that project and our intent is not to frustrate that project at all. The annexation could include transfer of library services from Sno-Isle to Everett. It could be contracted back to Sno-Isle. I don't think the decision has been made, but let's say we do not want to cause any problems for that development. Either way, I would expect that development to proceed as long as it's able to on its own terms.

I don't remember. I think it's fourth. It might be fourth there in 1.32. Like, it's, yes. Yeah, there's the Brella Berto's. There's a taco shop that used to be. I was going to say, the Mitzel's used to be there. Where all of that, well, I don't know how long you've lived in the area, but. Yes, yes. That was the patio. It was, yes. yeah um and then secondly with the focus on the casino road connections sub area is that going to potentially impact the redevelopment of the walmart site and whether or not the timeline of that may or may not line up with with that sub area plan or not should not be affected that is in permitting right now um

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, A unit lot land division, but a long, long, long one. So public hearings and PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 triggers a public hearing.

So there's going to be a hearing examiner decision on that one.

Yeah. that should that is all underway under existing regulations and uh yeah the annexation won't have any effect on it hopefully it'll be under construction by that time anything else then i think that's it folks we're out of here motion to adjourn sweet