Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, so now that we're recording, I won't go through the roll call again, but we're all here and at 631, we will open and close the public comment for non agenda items. And we will move on to our public hearing portion for the unit lot subdivision regulations and lot splitting regulations. We'll turn it over to staff to present. Would you like to present these separate or together?

I guess I can, just like last time, I'll present, you know, subdivisions and the updates that we made since the time of the last meeting. And then also, Caitlin, the lots of regulations and some last meeting. So again, these are from state legislation that has been developed intending to try to make development quicker and easier for residential subdivision processing. And the unit lot subdivision process is really intended for a diversity of different types of housing to enable an alternative to the condominium process. So it allows you to create unit lots, which are just sitting underneath the primary lot, without establishing bulk and dimensional standards or conventional setbacks that would otherwise be required by the underlying zone. So it creates for a lot of different scenarios that you could use this for, including condominiums, townhomes, cottages, accessory dwelling units, and even single family homes that are on much smaller lots than what would otherwise be conventionally done, as long as you're not exceeding the overall density allowance for the underlying zone. So this also allows for things like strata subdivisions, which is more common in Canada, but it's coming here. where you have principally retirement communities where you've got single family homes that the person owns the home, but not the land around it. And that's commonly maintained and commonly owned. So this is really to provide flexibility. Our draft regulations are set up to allow it for both short plots for up to nine lots and subdivisions for more than nine lots and for all housing types that are not stacked on top of one another. So that includes single family homes. That's an option that's been presented to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City Council. Staff do recommend that we allow that because it does allow the most flexibility and it has advantages of allowing for preservation of open space and critical areas while also trying to achieve more of what you otherwise would be density-wise for the underlying zone. So I'll turn it back to you for any clarifying questions and then we can open it up to hearing.

Thank you. Yeah, I mean, we did go over this, but commissioners do have more questions.

What's the comment from the tribe at the end of the document? Was that new from the previous? Yeah, it was. So that comment was about the concern that and that's more in particular to lot splitting a concern that a lot split without creating a tract to separate out critical areas could create a future situation where somebody may then have critical areas occupying most of the site and then they apply for a variance process or reasonable use exception process and get to develop otherwise what would be within a critical area tract. So we've addressed the tribe's comments and required that lot splits as well as the other subdivision processes require that you place a critical area within a critical area tract that can't be developed.

Oh, we have a question from Steven.

Yes, I'll go on camera here. I want to follow up, I guess, Mike, on what you said about the preserving open space versus what I think I read in the information in the packet, that the way that the development is wanted on these new types would be not to have things clustered together, but to have them more spread out. So is that talking about the same thing, or is this a different topic?

No, that is the same thing. So that, I added a provision that's for your consideration tonight, that when you're doing that clustering to preserve open space, I think the concern might be that if you cluster everything all together, OK, you then lose the idea of what the single family zone is intended for. So that provision said that you cluster up to nine and then you've got to separate clusters from one another so that it's not just all stacked in one corner of the development. That's an option that was to address the concern on that. Whether or not that's truly a concern or or if you guys recommend not including that and allowing full clustering, that's up to you. There's advantages and disadvantages of it.

Thank you. You may, I mean, I think I missed the meeting when it was first introduced, so apologies for this, but how did you decide on a maximum of nine?

That was just based on the nine being the limit for a short, flat-based unit lot subdivision. So you've already got nine men together, but that's an arbitrary number. So you guys decide that. 20 is a more appropriate number. That's open to discussion.

I'll throw it out there while you have some comment. Nine seems like a high number to me, keeping in mind I'm sort of trying to maintain the small-town feel of the North End. So I'm throwing that out there for other people to consider. I don't know if people have different opinions, but nine would be a good number. I don't know. Four, the minimum? But I don't know why.

I mean, I guess I secretly was hoping you had some like cool data or something and mapped out what potential properties could be. It's two names. So depending on your bond size, like you could apply for this for four. And that can be the, you know.

Four would honestly be pretty small because that gets tough when you've got the associated infrastructure and so forth. So then... spread everything out into just little clusters of four.

And the density is the same for single family. So like you just, you need more acreage if you're doing nine, four, right?

Not overall. So let me draw a picture again. So here's the idea. You've got your lot, your parent lot that you've created and say the underlying zoning would allow you to have eight units. So you've got on your road coming through conventional single family zone, means this is what you're doing. You're creating eight units that are kind of maximizing the square footage. And if you've got a critical area in one corner, for example, say that's a critical area and it's buffer, and here's this buffer, you're probably going to just lose that lot because you still otherwise have to meet your lot size requirements. So then under the unit lot subdivision idea, you're taking the same parent lot which has got the same critical areas, but then you're allowed to cluster that.

So say you've got a road that's coming in, and maybe you don't even need to do the whole road, because you're going to do, well, you can make it more dramatic. Just a little, pull the sack like that, and you're going to do much smaller lots. gone off there. There's eight lots, much smaller.

The rest of that retains as open space. So you've got a big open space tract. You're achieving the same number of units, but the density overall is no different because it's eight units per acre.

But the parent lot, though, the parent lot doesn't change. So if it was four units, you know, it would be the same sort of, but just smaller scale, right?

Who owns that wider plot of land? The homeowners association or the collective of the individual lot owners. I've got one more idea in regards to like the strata thing.

My mom actually lives in a community like that in Illinois and works out great for retired people and fixed incomes and whatnot because cost they only they're like getting a mortgage only for the cost of the actual house so you know instead of the house being you know 250 000 it's 115 000 which is something that at least my mom was able to squeeze into and hoa fees are a little bit on the high side but she's also older and she doesn't have you know all grounds and the entire place to take care of her yard all that stuff so kind of you know with the possibility of that i mean it seems like it would Then, you know, if something like that gets developed, you know, with this passing, definitely make some more affordable housing for, you know, especially retired people on here on fixed income. So it's definitely enticing.

Well, and even though the tribe's comments are for the next item, I mean, it does fit here, too, where it does a lot more open space, that feel.

So I don't know that it's necessarily a bad thing.

it's great the way it is yeah i think you've addressed the concerns and i think it's very well it well positions people to actually go after something like this and i misspoke so it's actually it would be a short plot subdivision up to nine, and this is for over nine. So what you just did is for one acre, and if the homeowner has another acre over here, then they could add an additional cluster of nine.

Well, the process is just different if you're under nine or over nine.

Yeah.

The unit lot subdivision process, as presented in the draft, can be used for either And it's just whether or not if you're under nine, you're going to use the short path process. If you're over nine, you're using the subdivision process, which requires a hearing before it's, yeah.

And then, but just to clarify, so let's say the homeowner has 10 acres and they start with one and then in five years they do this again. Like that, that doesn't require a hearing exam because they're doing this at different times.

If they're beyond five years, it doesn't. If they want to do that within five years, then it kicks it into the subdivision process that requires it.

Let's open the public hearing. 642 will open the public hearing for the unit lot subdivision regulation item. Are you here?

Yeah, I mean, I've got a project that's 24 and a half acres, and it's going to be just, you know, the red house belt zone, low density residential. For the record, I didn't state your name. Just for the record. And, but unfortunately, only about 35% of that, the rest is going to be critical areas, open area, whatever. So, you know, I've issued with FEMA floodplain, Armour Creek, alien topography up on the slope, and there's only small areas of available area that I can actually put residential units. And so, I mean, clustering is how I can make this thing work. And then you look at the cost of infrastructure, putting roads, utilities, and all that stuff, that's too expensive. So if you're talking, you know, reducing it, and I actually like to see from my point of view, whether or not, if you get like four or five units maximized per cluster, I think it's really cost prohibitive or expensive if you remain Utilities up the hill, you have sewer, we have booster stations with water, and so on and so forth. But, you know, I mean, I like that idea of fluctuating just where, you know, how to make it work for the city, for the developer, from an economic standpoint, you know. It's got to be financially feasible. Again, as long as I'm going to conform with the concept here, because I'm going to have yeah, what more than 50% of my property is open space and preserving critical areas and whatnot. So I should conform within those guidelines.

Okay. Thank you so much.

Yes.

Thank you.

Is there anyone online? No, there is not. Okay. So we'll close the public hearing at 645. And we'll turn it back to the commission. No, there were two alternatives. to consider when we're making our motion for more than nine units, and I'm obviously not quoting this, and then allowing it in single family.

Let's see.

Yeah, that language is in the packet, but they don't have it for me.

Yeah, on page five of the staff report.

So we can continue talking through this or if anybody's ready to make a motion, you're welcome to do so.

Even just another clarification, we say we count at 9 for this mechanism that we're using and you've got an area of land gravity could support 18. Now we want to consider those we counted at 9. So in theory of potentially up to two clusters of 9. What is the difference in spacing between those two clusters?

Yeah, I intentionally didn't get into that. Because the more parameters that you get, the more difficult it becomes to review something and determine something compatible. So it could be a small separation,

Is there already in ordinance a standoff distance between, like even within a cluster? I assume the houses have to be a minimum distance from each other. It would be fire separation in that case.

Because these would need to be single-family homes, because that's the only typology allowed in the single-family zone, in the LDR zone, they would still need to be detached units other than an ADU, which could be attached. But that separation wouldn't have to be 15 feet, which is what the separation of side yard setbacks is in the LDR zone. It could be the minimum separation of, I believe it's three feet under fire code for separate structures in buildings.

Yeah. In regards to the. The number of lots that could be created. I mean, this would potentially be very difficult.

I don't know. Maybe not. Like, should it be a flexible number, depending on the size of the parent lot?

I mean, the number of clusters or the number of units per cluster?

Yeah, the number of units per cluster. Yeah. I mean, yeah, you have 100 acres and you're moving to nine clusters, it seems.

Yeah. I mean, yeah, it's really an open question because it's just uncharted territory. So I couldn't find other examples of that scenario from a quick search of other jurisdictions. But at the same time, the intent is to keep it from all being clustered and feeling like a big high density area that isn't really consistent with the intended single family low density residential.

Is there anything limiting that from happening? If you had what I mentioned earlier, something that was support 18, you split it to nine unit clusters, could someone then take those two clusters and put them within the FHIR 3P cluster to another? Essentially, you still have a big one. They're just administrative.

You have to have a reasonableness determination. You've got to have a certain distance between clusters that is probably more than a conventional step

in writing somewhere? Or is that just determined case by case?

It would, I guess my idea was it would be determined case by case, but we could provide some clarification in the standards that clusters be separated by a minimum of 20 feet or whatever that provision is.

Would that save you a headache?

You know, as people are probably ultimately that is something we should have because I could see that there would be somebody trying to rotation. Yeah. Yeah. I think maybe 25D would be a reasonable separation. That's a typical conventional rear yard setback in the LVR zone.

Yeah, I'm just thinking like this. I don't know if it's a loophole or not, but we say we're going to limit to nine, but in theory, without it being defined, you could just put two clusters adjacent to each other, and I've got an 18-unit cluster.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, I can offer that. I'll add some language that cluster shall be separated by meaning 25 feet from another cluster.

And so I can just be part of the recommendation if anyone wants to go that direction. Unless you want to see it again, but no, I don't use it again.

I just don't, you know. Not being an expert of 25 is an arbitrary amount. Sound like we use that anyway, but if there's other factors that should go into it. I have no idea. Like, I don't know, natural features in the land or something might dictate a little bit of that distance. And I suppose there's a waiver process through the administrative process as well.

There's an administrative adjustments to standards process. That probably would not apply in this case because you're creating lots as opposed to just building a structure on a lot.

All right, that answers my question. Thank you.

And I guess.

There is a question in the audience. Do you want to entertain that? OK, I mean. Access roads are 20, 22 feet wide, so if you're putting the roads to those closer, you're going to have at least 20 to 22 feet of separation already. You know, I mean, I can't see the developer stacking 30, 20 or 30 units closer together. How do you access the cluster?

Yeah. I think, and that's, I think that that's a logical way to go about it. I think I'm coming from a city that was redevelopment where there is, I mean, silly things that people would put in just for fun. And so that's the logical way, but sometimes if there is a will to do funny things and there's, you know, a way for people to try to do that. So I think the idea of, You know, just putting that language in is smart, you know. It just agrees with the logic.

It really constitutes a buffer between part of the area and part of the area between the clusters.

And it will naturally become bigger than 25p because you have to run with the sidewalks that vegetation settle.

Yeah, I mean 25p really isn't that big either, you know, it's It's enough, but it's not.

It's not huge though. Alright, does anybody want to attempt?

Actually, give me give me 30 seconds. Just read a note ahead.

Because we're voting, I think this is a lot of splitting strings.

Yeah, and if you prefer, you could do one motion for everything altogether.

Oh, are we doing all of them together?

Well, the final motion, to recommend approval. I think we'll need to do the hearing still for the lot splitting.

Yes, we'd actually like to do a recommendation all together or separate.

I'm only leaning that way because I did have a question that I think pertains to both overall.

So maybe also before we go on to the lot split. I'm curious. OK, so the agenda does not list the minutes. Do we need to vote on the minutes? OK, so let's let's pause and we'll just jump back for a second. I apologize. I didn't bring up the minutes right away. It just wasn't. Listed. All right, any opposed?

I think we're all unanimous.

I'm Pereira. No problem. You're good.

Yeah, I'm good.

Okay. All right. It passes units. Okay. Now we can get back to the lots. Thank you. So we'll turn that over to staff to present on that.

Just before we shift, I just want to make sure that we address both the comments in here. So I know that it sounds like we're all unanimously in favor of the clustering, but did we end up choosing, or like, do we even talk about going above nine minutes outside of the, all you said, Mike was that if it's above nine units in a current way of being written, that goes to a hearing examiner. So you're giving us the opportunity to increase the number without a hearing examiner.

So that's a solidified process already. The state says, if you're more than nine, you have to do it through the subdivision process. The question before you is if you want to allow more than nine in a cluster, Oh OK, I missed it. And also if you want to allow it for single family homes. OK, yeah. I think so. There was the question of do you want to allow it for more than nine altogether? Because some jurisdictions say no. It's just if you want to do more than nine, it has to go through the subdivision process.

OK, I understand that part now. And so for the single family or the LDR and CLDR zone, So this is applicable to. What zone rate right now? It's single family zone, so you're you're offering for low density and constrained density.

So that's basically half acre lots. So 18,000 square foot minimum lot size. The Ichijo subdivision that's just east of Ward River is an example of the CLDR. If you're using a. You know lots of division for that. You'd be preserving a heck of a lot of heck of a lot of open space.

OK, yeah, that's probably wrong, but maybe that's a nice thing. Yeah, so as it's written, we're allowed. OK, so I'm in favor for that. I just want to make sure that we address the comments that were written in here.

Thank you. OK, so I guess staff will let you present on slot splitting.

Good evening, Commissioners. I am here today to show you again a copy of the proposed amendment that would add the residential lot splitting process to Title 17. This was reviewed at the last Planning Commission meeting on June 3rd, 2026. Not a ton of major changes from the last time you reviewed it. A change was made to 17.22.090 regarding exemptions for frontage improvements when the frontage area is less than 20 lineal feet. That was discussed at our last meeting as a reasonable change. Additional changes were made to other sections of proposed amendments that will be discussed later under separate exhibits. And as Mike stated, we did make changes in general to accommodate the Snoqualmie Tribes comments regarding establishing critical area tracks for both unit lot subdivisions and residential lot splitting and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have remaining about this process.

Was it this, and it's blurring, was it

which of these or it doesn't really matter which one but are we talking about the street improvements are we just going to talk about this later yes that was part of the discussion from our last meeting the frontage improvements or street improvement requirement for residential lot splitting it's a process that divides one residential lot into two residential lots the discussion that we generally had was that because this is only creating one new lot We want to try and make it an accessible process for existing homeowners in the city. Part of that is being done by bumping the requirement to do public street improvements to whenever the development of Lot 2 or the newly established lot is submitted for. The other part of that was what we discussed last time, which was a minor exemption from doing any street improvements at all, as long as the frontage area is less than 20 lineal feet, which really accommodates more of an L-shaped or flag-shaped property.

Thank you. Other questions?

If I remember right, we discussed the stand, like the threshold being 30 feet, and there was going to be a comment about talking to the engineer and see if there was a recommendation Was that, he recommended 20 over 30?

Yes, he recommended 20 over 30 feet because that would accommodate a flat lot the best. It would really just serve as the driveway. The general consensus by staff was that 20 feet is not a substantial width to require any frontage improvements anyway, other than the driveway and driveway apron. It wouldn't be sufficient for sidewalk area. 30 feet...

is there a minimum for uh driveways uh yeah 20 feet is the minimum for driveways okay and that includes i suppose like there's the flat part then they kind of have little wings that come up like usually yeah okay that's usually that wasn't my question it seemed like that's usually more than 20. the driveway with itself the minimum is 20 feet the apron is more negligible i mean i think it adds like maybe one to two feet on either side

which I think we would still consider exempt because what we're really looking at is the width of the frontage of the property.

And so in the example, you've just said it would be about 22 feet.

But that would then, by the letter of this, require a frontage improvement because it's more than 20.

Presuming the property line

the apron doesn't go past the property line, which it could if the apron's in right away. But it's based on just the property line. It's not based on what you have to do outside the property line.

Yeah, that extra footage of the apron is usually in right away, which wouldn't change the property line distance of 20 feet. We'll start seeing a lot of L-shaped properties with 20-foot frontages.

Hopefully people aren't lining up, but you never know funny things.

Thanks for checking out that.

If there are any other questions, all from public hearings. OK, so at 7 o'clock will open the public hearing. Would you like to speak on this one? OK, thanks. Anybody online? Hey, we will close the public hearing at 7 o'clock and turn it back to commissioners.

I did have a comment. I'm trying to wrap my head around it. It stems from the comments made by the tribe around critical areas and requiring stuff about it. So we've added some comments. I think in the lot splitting section 1722. That addresses. Essentially, parent lots are not billable in our critical area setback. Previous standards are ineligible for split in the first place. There were some concerns that that is addressed only while looking at the parent lot, but not necessarily guaranteeing when newly lots are created, those lots themselves are under that envelope. And then I think during a lot subdivision 17.8, there's not at this point a mention of any restrictions based on critical periods.

So in general, the changes that we need to accommodate the tribes comments are under Exhibit D, which is. Chapter 14.05.222 Critical Areas Tracts. We'll review that section later, but it essentially just includes the requirement to provide a tract with a residential lot splitting or unit lot subdivision process. The parent lot, the overall property would be subject to that requirement. It would not just be the newly established lot. When you submit for a land division application, you're looking at the overall property and not just the proposed property. That is the result of the permit process itself.

So overall, if there is a property that has. The critical area traveling.

So go in this whiteboard. Yeah.

The critical area is right here. That would still need to be established as a track. And each of these lots would need to demonstrate that they can still meet minimum dimensional requirements.

So then the lot area would be from that.

And what the tribe, just so everybody understands what the tribe was identifying as a concern is maybe the wetlands But instead like this, and if somebody, because unless it specifically triggers the need to place that tract or the critical area in a trap, somebody could first do a lot split and say, oh, I'm going to do my lot split like this. Here's my newly created lot. And that is all in a wetland. So you can't develop in a wetland, but then there's a process when you have no other opportunity. called a variance or a reasonable use exception that allows you to do something so it doesn't become a pain. So then suddenly somebody builds their house in a well.

So trying to close that loophole by saying you've got to do it in a tract to begin with.

Yeah, I think it's really smart to just have it up front.

So I think Yeah, again, sorry, I'm just, I think you mentioned there's Section E where most of this is covered. A. B. Thank you. But there was, I believe, an additional clause added to 17.22 that was restricting stuff. Is that accurate?

I think that was existing from the last meeting, but yes, staff reviewed the tribes' comments. We felt that the Proposed amendments in 17.2 did somewhat address it, but added additional amendments to 14.05 in Exhibit D to solidify that and make sure that it corresponded equally between both chapters. So I think the section in 17.22 that you were talking about. It's 17.22.040B1. B1. Yes, that is correct. That was existing at our last meeting, and it is what was sent to the tribe. I think the tribe was just asking for additional changes to correspond with one another and make it expressly clear.

And it is covered in Section D. Are we referencing it then in these sections, like 17.18, that say reference Section D for it?

There is a reference to it in... 080 I environmentally critical areas as defined in 14.05 through 14.212 and BMC are protected. So that's the reference to it. You go to 14.05220 you know critical area tracks are required under these development proposals.

OK. Further questions? Anybody want to attempt a motion?

And we'll include the questions from the unit lot and answer those in the motion. And we're combining the motion for the unit lot and the lot split.

And the associated other. Yeah, thank you. Make a motion.

I would like to make a motion to approve the North Bend Municipal Code 17.18 unit lots subdivisions and North Bend Municipal Code 17.22 lots fitting draft regulations with accompanying definitions, critical area tracks and development permit approvals.

Are you including the 25 foot specification?

Oh yes, and with the amendment to the 25 feet between

Are we defining the nine as a threshold?

I agree to that, yeah.

OK, do we have a second?

Yeah, I'll take it.

OK, I guess I'll just ask all in favor.

Aye.

Aye. And was that Matlock or Pereira?

Matlock, aye.

OK, thank you. Aye. okay so all it's unanimous so everybody approves that motion okay let's see and i think that is it am i missing anything on this agenda okay so we will adjourn at seven o'clock thank you i appreciate the staff report you guys put together

The staff report and the whiteboard. You're starting to really break it down.

I got lots.

Yeah. Yeah, totally.

Just wanted to ask if you guys saw the email that I sent out with the motion and the edits to the parks element. I know there was a lot we discussed, so I sent that out, provided the clarification. In the level of service standards that it's basically. Just our share and we would be doing this together with other partners and that in the motion to recommend to the Council to reevaluate this level of service standard before the next part update.

Yeah, thank you for doing that.

I think it definitely meant the intent of the motion. It's not where I would love it to be as personally, but it did meet the requirements. I'm still glad they do something. Or do we define people? So we're basing this on, oh, one pool is not defined. And I'm certain that if it were defined, it would not be what we have. And then I think it's still a little bit ambiguous. I think it's still a little ambiguous the way that it's written. When we address it towards the city, there is, I think, an assumption made that that threshold is for the pool. when in reality, essentially the 11, I'll say 11 pools in there, 11,000 sort of like the threshold for a one pool thing. But in reality, we're probably already at 11 if we consider who that pool service is. And so I definitely understand the challenge of trying to scope that in and keep it a city because we care about the city stuff. But I think the way that it reads in a document, anyone reading it inevitably would make the assumption that 11,000 threshold for a pool. And I don't think that's accurate to the situation. And again, the pool's not defined, so it could be ended. So those are my two grabs. But what you meant, it meant what we kind of defined in that motion. I think that's fine.

Okay. But in my agenda bill, I'm presenting to the council. I would be clear to say that you are interested for council to reevaluate that overall.

Maybe just throw out, like, hey, do you know what a pool is? Well, any commission didn't know what a pool was.

Well, and I appreciate even in the minutes you like writing out what the motion included. I think that was great.