DRAFT Key Issues Matrix The following table includes the key issues, opportunities associated with each key issue, and some pros and cons of the opportunities identified by the planning commission in 2014. The Planning Commission requested staff to analyze these key issues during the subdivision ordinance update process. Staff's review and analysis of these key issues are presented in the table as recommendations. Staff presented these recommendations to two separate technical committees and has included their responses in the final column of the matrix. ISSUES OPPORTUNITIES PROS AND CONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION TECHNCIAL REVIEW RESPONSES Lot Standards: The current lot width and depth standards reflect the dimensional standards of existing neighborhoods. Explore if these standards are still necessary or should one consistent standard be applied to all land uses. Review all bulk and dimensional standards for applicability. Explore a uniform method to define a buildable area for each newly created lot. Pro: Unified implementation city-wide; enhance infill opportunities; increase utilization of land; simplicity of implementation. Con: One size may not fit all for neighborhood character. Maintain the current lot standard regulations for single family uses and eliminate minimum lot standards for multifamily, commercial, and industrial uses. Deviations of these regulations could be achieved through administrative modifications or variances. Criteria for administrative modifications needs to be broad enough to apply to various scenarios while also achieving the overall intent of the code. PC Subcommittee: General consensus. Explore establishing a varied lot depth to increase infill opportunities. Public v. Private Infrastructure: The requirement that newly created residential lots abut on public infrastructure can result in an excessive amount of land devoted to vehicular needs, reduces flexibility needed for good design, and imposes maintenance obligations to the public. Pipestems Lots: Providing lot frontage on public infrastructure through the creation of a pipestem lot often results in an inefficient use of land. Providing the opportunity to establish private infrastructure in residential subdivisions could increase the built density, reduce the amount of land devoted to transportation, yield development that responds to the site's natural topography and increases the overall functionality of the development. Easements that include the City as a party can ensure the necessary means to access public infrastructure and increase the overall efficiency of the lots in lieu of pipestems. Pro: Reduced impervious areas; maintain obligation to provide emergency access and pedestrian facilities. Con: Perception the City is responsible for maintenance; ongoing financial burden to the lot owners. Pro: Increased utilization of land; increased flexibility in lot design. Con: Additional process for legal review; require separate easement documents. Staff's recommendation to allow the use of the infill toolkit within subdivisions in certain circumstances in part addresses this standard. The infill toolkit allows the creation of private infrastructure with reduced requirements for certain housing types. Staff would like to keep this discussion open for concurrent consideration with the proposed updates of Title 13-Streets in the beginning of 2017. Recommend eliminating street frontage requirements for lots and identify mechanisms to ensure the legal right to access public infrastructure is provided in perpetuity and address impacts to existing residences: Easement should include the city as a party for enforcement/revocation purposes. Infrastructure improvements-should the driveway have a minimum width? When should it be constructed? Proximity-should a driveway be separated a certain distance from adjacent residences? Access-should joint access be required? On arterials? Parking-should the easement prohibit parking and storage of materials? Steering Committee: General consensus. Discussed the need for design standards and legal obligations to ensure rights will be maintained in perpetuity. Design standards should include provisions for minimum driveway widths, easement widths and setbacks from existing residences. PC Subcommittee: General consensus.
Lot design criteria: Establish design criteria for lots that address logical boundaries, reasonable use, functional area, alley access, and avoidance of street improvements. Legal lot: Establish a new time frame when a lot can be considered legally established. BMC states that all lots must be created prior to August 1964, which was the adoption of the city's first subdivision ordinance. Lot line adjustment regulations were not established until February 1973. To establish lot design criteria that will result in efficient use of land without compromising lot design and use. Situations exist where lots were legally created under the '64 subdivision rules, but then subsequently amended through transfer of deeds. Acknowledging that lot line adjustments were exempt until 1973 resolve confusion for these situations. Pro: Consistent standard; maintains efficient use of land. Con: Preclude some land divisions that contain existing residences. Pro: Brings the provisions consistent to the adopting ordinances. Staff offers the following criteria for discussion purposes: 1. Logical boundaries. Resulting lot shape should be designed to and generally avoid awkward configuration that contain awkward appendages or jog around existing structures, except where the express purpose of the adjustment is to correct a legitimate boundary line encroachment; and 2. Reasonable use. The proposed lot layout should not allow lot lines to be adjusted/created/established where such adjustment will likely create an unusable lot; and 3. Avoidance of street improvements. The proposed lot layout should not allow lot lines to be created when the proposal avoids the orderly extension of public utilities, avoids the payment of Latecomer's fees, or will result in the city being unable to provide adequate utilities; and 4. Functional lot area. Lot area and building envelop/width and depth requirements are for 100 percent usable area. Larger lot area may be required if portions of the lot are determined unusable; and 5. All lots should be designed to take advantage of topographic and natural features, view orientation and privacy; and 6. In cluster subdivision, alley access is encouraged to avoid a garage-dominant front yard streetscapes. Establish the legal creation of lots through a lot line adjustment consistent with the 1973 subdivision provisions. Additional analysis is needed to determine if criteria #1 is necessary. The provision is too strict and not lots should be forced to have right angles. Site Analysis: Developments are being designed absent a complete analysis that identifies the neighborhood context, physical attributes of the site, and comprehensive plan elements that should be included in a design. Establish a process for a pre-design review with the city and the applicant to identify key components of a site and planning documents that should be incorporated into a proposal. Pro: Allows the land to 'speak' first; obtain understanding of off-site infrastructure/open space needs; provided opportunity to limit site disturbance; address site context. Con: Additional step in the application process. The preparation of a site analysis as a component of a preapplication step will help identify attributes that must be included or analyzed in the overall design scope of a proposal before extensive resources have been expended. This could include grading limitations, tree retention plan, etc. Steering Committee: Not discussed due to time constraints.
Lot Averaging: Develop a lot averaging provision that deals with single parcels that do not have sufficient site area for subdivision. Allow division of a single parcel that does not contain sufficient area for subdivision similar to the 1 ½ and 1 ¾ rule provisions. Pro: Allow additional infill opportunities with varying lot areas. Con: Provides the opportunity to subdivide a parcel that does not contain required density. Create of a provision, the 90% Rule, that would allow the subdivision of a parcel/lot of record that does not have enough site area under the current density requirements, but has at least 90% of the site area necessary. The concept of this provision is similar to the 1 ¾ rule provision with the exception that it would not require the parent site to consist of multiple lots of record. Title 18 includes the following lot averaging provisions that allow the creation of lots that do not meet the minimum zoning lot size. Steering Committee: Recommended that lot averaging allow a broader range of housing types, such as infill toolkit and multifamily. The committee believed that allowing a broad range of housing types would provide the opportunity to develop a physically challenged site at the zoned density. 1 ½ and 1 ¾ rule provision: Allow parcels consisting of multiple lot of record to be subdivides if the total area of the site is at least 1 ½ or 1 ¾ of the required minimum zoning lot size. Lot averaging: This provision requires the parent site to have sufficient area to subdivide the parcels under current zoning. The resulting area of any lot within the subdivision must be at least 90% of the required minimum lot size requirement. This provision is commonly used when the proposed subdivision includes pipe stems and existing structures: 1. Pipestem. Since the area of pipestem is not used in the overall lot area calculations, a 20,000 sf lot in within a zoning area requiring a minimum 10,000 sf lot size would not otherwise be dividable. 2. Existing structures. The lot averaging provision is used when a site contains an existing structure and the location of the residence would not allow the creation of new lots unless the lot lines were designed purely to achieve the minimum lot size requirements. The lot averaging provision creates the opportunity avoid these lot appendages while maintaining the overall density of the site. Performance-based standards: Establish performance based standards that could be implemented in exchange for prescriptive standards resulting in a better utilization of land; allowing a wider range of uses, flexible lot standards, reduced street standards, etc. in exchange for increased subdivision design, achieving minimum density, enhancing pedestrian circulation, minimizing land manipulation, etc. ***This is covered in the cluster provisions below that propose to increase the range of allowed housing types and allow limited commercial uses.***
Nonconforming: The code currently does not address the division of land that has a nonconforming status. Define when a subdivision of land results in the relocation, expansion, or increased intensity of a nonconforming building and use. Defining these parameters will help define when, or if, a conditional use permit is required concurrently with a proposed subdivision. Pro: Establish clear criteria when a subdivision requires a conditional use; explores the opportunity to allow uses that are nonconforming to density to be located on fee simple lots. Con: Subdivision will establish a permanent nonconforming status. Staff offers the following for discussion purposes: 1. Nonconforming. Divisions of land that contain uses nonconforming to density shall only be permitted if the proposal complies with the following: a. The site has been issued a nonconforming use certificate pursuant to Chapter 20.16 BMC. b. The division of land is found to not violate any terms or conditions of any land use decision issued for the nonconforming use. c. The division of land does not make any structure or use more nonconforming. d. Easements, as may be determined necessary for items such as, but not limited to, parking, landscaping, and open space shall be established concurrently with the recording of final mylars. Steering Committee: Not discussed due to time constraints. Exemptions: The state provides a minimum number of activities that are exempt from meeting the state subdivision regulations. The city proposes to include the state's list and include additional exemptions that result in minor boundary determinations. The state recently changed its regulations regarding how to correct errors on filed mylars by no longer allowing the recording of a paper document identifying the scrivener's error and the correction. Increase the range of exemptions to expedite the creation of lots that based on their intended use(s) should be not subject to the prescriptive lot standards. Establish an exemption that allows errors on filed mylars to be corrected without requiring a full subdivision process. Additional analysis is needed to ensure this provision is drafted consistent with state law. Pro: Streamline procedures that do not necessitate a full subdivision review. The following is a list of proposed exemptions in addition to the state's identified list of exemptions: 1. Legal lots. 2. Innocent purchaser. 3. Public land acquisition. 4. Utility facilities - public or private. 5. Condemnation. 6. Deed releases. 7. Contiguous lots. 8. Lot consolidation. 9. Scrivener's correction. Steering Committee: Supported inclusion of Innocent Purchaser, Condemnation, Divisions by Court Order, and Lot Consolidation. The committee agreed with staff that additional research is needed to understand the reasoning Personal Wire Services and Deed Releases are included as exempt activities in other municipalities. PC Subcommittee: General consensus. Consent to access: The subdivision ordinance does not specifically address the city's right to access a site while under review by the city. Unlike construction permits, land use permits typically do not have required inspections that assume the city will access the site for compliance review of a specific condition. Incorporate provisions that grant the city rights to fully inspect the parcel of land and its structures that are included in a subdivision application. Pro: Opportunity to conduct a site evaluation of a proposal. The city believes that a site visit is essential when reviewing subdivision applications. While the city has had only a few objections in the past for full access, a provision should be added to address these situations. For discussion purposes, staff presented the critical area ordinance Rights of Entry (BMC 16.55.040 A.) section to the technical groups for discussion purposes. Steering Committee: The committee agreed that access should be allowed, but the critical area provision as written is too strict and denial of an application should not be an outcome of denying access. PC Subcommittee: General consensus to add the provision. The provision should state its purpose and if access is denied, the applicant should be issued a request for information in lieu of a denial.
Model home/units: The city does not allow the construction of model units prior to receiving final plan approval. Establish provisions that allow a limited number of model homes concurrently with the completion of final plat. Pro: Allow concurrent construction of the plat and residential units. Con: Requires additional legal documents. Allow construction of up to four (4) model homes without an approved final plat provided: 1. The preliminary plat is valid and engineering drawings for all public infrastructure necessary to serve the home/units has been approved; and 2. A covenant is filed by the owner to prevent the sale of the model homes and that the units are not occupied for habitable purposes until a final plat has been approved and recorded; and 3. Building and related permits are issued only to the property owner or a licensed contractor acting on the owner s behalf. Steering Committee: The committee had general consensus for including provisions that allow model homes. The committee also agreed that provisions are needed to ensure these model homes/units were not occupied or sold prior to final plat approval. PC Subcommittee: General consensus with direction to explore stronger language that deals with a situation where the developer can't partially completed project. Lot Line Adjustment - Definition: This definition sufficiently addresses the bulk and dimensional requirements for a lot, but lacks the unintended circumstances when an adjustment of the lot boundaries actually create new lots, or stated differently, buildable lots. Amend the definition to establish the intent of a lot line adjustment as a minor modification of existing lots. Pro: Simplifies the objectives of a lot line adjustment. Con: May require a short plat process for what is currently a lot line adjustment. Lot line adjustment defined: A revision made for the purpose of adjusting boundary lines which does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or division nor create any lot, tract, parcel, site or division which contains insufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width and area for a building site. Proposed definition: A lot line adjustment is a minor or insignificant change(s) of property lines associated between two or more lots with each lot containing a buildable area. Steering Committee: Initially, the committee stated this revised definition was too restrictive and should follow the RCW exemption by stating a lot line adjustment cannot create new lots. After further discussion, the committee supported the more restrictive definition in exchange for a more efficient review and approval process, as discussed in the next two headings. PC subcommittee: General consensus. Buildable area means that portion of the land that remains after the required yards, rights-of-way, critical areas and their buffers, and similar required land uses have been excluded from each lot. Lot Line Adjustment - Approval process: Revisions establishing lot line adjustments as a minor amendment of existing lots warrants the need to simply the approval process that is more typical of a subdivision of land. Reduce timelines for review and eliminate the need to record a mylar. Pro: Simplified review process; same legal outcome; less resources needed to accomplish a final lot line adjustment. Con: New format for expressing an approved lot line adjustment; requires submittal of conveyance documents. After preliminary approval, the application should include: 1. A plat certificate updated not more than 30 days prior to recording of the adjustment, which includes all parcels within the adjustment; and 2. A final recording document signed by all persons having an ownership interest within the lot line adjustment boundaries; and 3. A final lot line adjustment map based upon a survey, prepared and signed by a licensed surveyor prepared in accordance with this title; and 4. Legal descriptions, prepared and signed by a licensed land surveyor, of all of the lots as they appear after the lot line adjustment, and 5. Conveyance document(s)/deed(s) and language clearly binding the property which is conveyed to the remainder portion of the property prepared by a title company.
Lot Line Adjustment - Approval criteria: Criteria 4 requires demonstration that a lot line adjustment proposal 'improve' the overall function and utility of the lots included in the proposal. This terminology is vague and at time does not offer clear direction when evaluating proposals. The remaining criteria are clear and prescriptive, providing the applicant and staff with sufficient guidance to evaluate a proposal. Remove ambiguity that the existing criteria has and replace it with clear and concise criteria. Pro: Creates predictability and enables the city to illustrate these provisions in the ordinance. The current approval criteria for lot line adjustment are: 1. No new lots are created; 2. Each parcel as proposed meets minimum lot standards as specified in Chapter 18.36 BMC, or that each parcel if already less than the required minimum is not further reduced as a result of the proposed lot line adjustment; 3. The lot line adjustment does not further infringe on any applicable section of the city land use development ordinance; and 4. The lot line adjustment improves the overall function and utility of the existing lots. Maintain the general intent of criteria 1, 2, and 3 above. Delete criteria 4 and add the following: 4. All resulting lots have legal access to an improved right of way and abutment on public infrastructure or, if already nonconforming to either of these provisions, the adjustment may not further the nonconforming standard; 5. The lot line adjustment would not evade public improvements that would be associated with a division or redivision of the subject site or issuance of a building permit; and 6. The proposed lot line adjustment shall not allow the adjustment of boundary lines which will result in directional changes in the orientation of the lot(s), tract(s), parcel(s), or building sites, such as the changing of front yards into side or rear yards or vice versa. Lot Line Adjustment - Approval process: Revisions establishing lot line adjustments as minor amendments of existing lots warrants the need to simplify the approval process that is more typical of a subdivision of land. Reduce timelines for review and eliminate the need to record a mylar. Pro: Simplified review process; same legal outcome; less resources needed to accomplish a final lot line adjustment. Con: New format for expressing an approved lot line adjustment; requires submittal of conveyance documents. After preliminary approval, the application would submit: 1. A plat certificate updated not more than 30 days prior to recording of the adjustment, which includes all parcels within the adjustment, and 2. A final recording document signed by all persons having an ownership interest within the lot line adjustment boundaries, and 3. A final lot line adjustment map based upon a survey, prepared and signed by a licensed surveyor prepared in accordance with this title, and 4. Legal descriptions, prepared and signed by a licensed land surveyor, of all of the lots as they appear after the lot line adjustment, and 5. Conveyance document(s)/deed(s) and language clearly binding the property which is conveyed to the remainder portion of the property prepared by a title company.
Short Plats- Approval criteria for preliminary approval: The existing regulations do not include approval criteria and lack state mandated provisions. Provide clear and predicable criteria for review of short plats. Pro: Compliance with state statutes; predictability. The following criteria are proposed: 1. It is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Title 20, Shoreline Master Program, and other City policies and regulations; and 2. It is consistent with the applicable provisions of Chapters 18.32 and 18.36 BMC (Design Standards/Improvement Standards); and 3. The application provides for coordinated development with adjoining properties or future development of adjoining properties including, but not limited to, construction of appropriate infrastructure to serve the proposal and shared access where appropriate; and 4. Each lot in the proposal can reasonably be developed in conformance with the applicable provisions of the BMC without requiring a variance; and 5. There are adequate provisions for, but not limited to, open spaces, drainage ways, rights-of-way, sidewalks, and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for pedestrians, including students who walk to and from school, easements, water supplies, sanitary waste, fire protection, power service, parks, playgrounds, and schools, and (Fulfills state requirement); and 6. It will serve the public use and interest and is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. The Planning and Community Development Director shall be guided by the policy and standards and may exercise the powers and authority set forth in chapter 58.17 RCW, as presently constituted or as may be subsequently amended. (Fulfills state requirement) Short Plats - Approval criteria for modifications: The subdivision regulations do not contain provisions for considering modifications of approved short subdivisions. The inclusion of such provisions will allow the city to define a transparent and predicable process for considering modifications to an approved short subdivision. Pro: Predictability. The following criteria are proposed: 1. The modification complies with all of the requirements of this chapter; and 2. The modification does not involve the alteration or vacation of city easements, roads, or city-owned lands; and 3. The director determines that there will not be substantial changes in the impacts on the neighborhood or the city as a result of the change; and 4. The modification will not increase the number of lots that would otherwise require a different process type pursuant to Title 21 BMC or be found inconsistent with a SEPA threshold determination associated with the preliminary plat; and 5. The modification will not significantly alter any condition of approval. Recommended that authority be given to both the Planning and Community Development and Public Works directors. PC subcommittee: General consensus. Recommended 'adjacent properties' be included in criteria #3.
Short Plats- Approval criteria for final approval: The subdivision regulations do not contain provisions for considering the final approval of approved short subdivisions. The inclusion of such provisions will allow the city to define a transparent and predicable process for final approval. Pro: Helps define the review process; establishes minimum performance criteria. The following criteria are offered for discussion: 1. The checkprints conform to this title and state law, and 2. All conditions of the preliminary approval have been completed and accepted by the city; and 3. If applicable, the record drawings associated with the construction of any infrastructure are compliant with public works standards and have been submitted to and accepted by the city; and 4. All financial sureties for maintenance or any uncompleted work have been submitted and accepted by the city; and 5. Required easements, deeds, covenants, and any other formal document required by the preliminary approval have been submitted and accepted by the city; and 6. The final short or cluster plat conforms to state law, Chapter 58.17 RCW. Short Plats - Alteration/Vacation: State law requires ordinance to contain regulations for these provisions. An alteration is an amendment of a filed short plat and a vacation is an action that would eliminate lots line established by a filed short plat. Satisfy state law. Pro: Compliance with state law. The state provides some guidance for processing alterations and vacations. Staff is recommending that alterations of short plats follow the same review process used to create a short plat. The exception is when the alteration involves a public dedication the alteration must following RCW 58.17.215. The vacation of a short plat is proposed to follow those procedures in RCW 58.17.212. Recommended allowing the option for a public hearing. Short Plats - Infrastructure requirements: ***Staff is reframing from identifying recommended changes to infrastructure improvements at this time include specific recommendations with proposed revisions to Title 13-Strets from the Public Works department in early 2017.*** Short plat time limitations: Establish vesting time limitations for lots created through the short plat process. Establish a baseline for vesting. Pro: Establishes a basis of development for vesting purposes consistent with case law. State law prohibits the city from establishing vested time limitations more restrictive than state law. Currently state law does not provide vested time limitations for short plats. Include provisions on the short plat application that define the intended use of the lots within the short plat. Steering Committee: Comment acknowledged.
Preliminary Plats - Phasing: The subdivision ordinance does not adequately address phasing of preliminary plats. State law acknowledges that phasing may be allowed. Without provisions for phasing, the city has been unable to adequately plan for public infrastructure, such as trails/open space/parks, water, sewer, street, etc. Pro: Provides predictable infrastructure planning for the applicant and public; limits vesting. Con: May not respond efficiently to market demands; possible financing implications; less predictability for the developer. Establish provisions that requires a minimum number of lots that should be included within each phase and/or limiting the number of phases. Steering Committee: The committee raised concerns over placing limitations on phasing. Implications of imposing limitations could have a direct effect on vesting, may result in future financing implications, and doesn't offer a sufficient response to the market (i.e. Phasing may be more aggressive than the market can respond to). PC subcommittee: General consensus that the existing phasing provisions are too broad and more analysis is needed to identify additional strategies for phasing developments. Cluster subdivisions: Revise the cluster open space requirement requiring open space when necessary to fulfill an identified need in the comprehensive plan or at the discretion of the land owner for private purposes. When a site is not encumbered by critical areas, the cluster provisions should be available. Title 18 does not include design standards when the proposed 15% open space requirement is intended for recreational areas. Pro: Provides minimum standards for recreational usable space; increases use opportunities. Con: Private recreational open space will be privately owned and maintained by a home-owner association. The city does not have many successes of home-owner associations fulfilling ongoing private maintenance obligations. The cluster provisions state its purpose "to allow variation in the required minimum lot size, provided the same overall density is maintained, so as to preserve open space, tree cover, recreation areas or scenic vistas; or to reduce the amount of streets and utilities where appropriate". Incorporating recreational usable space in subdivisions should include minimum design provisions that include: Accessibility to the neighborhood. Minimum grades. Maximum slopes. Orientation of neighborhood to the recreational areas. CPTED principles. Steering Committee: General consensus. Recommended usable open space be defined to add clarity to its intent. The provisions should also include the ability to allow dedication of land for public purposes to count toward satisfying the 15% requirement. Cluster subdivisions: Expand the range of permitted uses to include neighborhood commercial uses. Lands containing a cluster provision are primarily located on the undeveloped parcels on the perimeter of the city limits. These lands do have close proximity to commercial services as do the existing developed neighborhood. Small commercial centers can create a focal point for neighborhoods to gather, recreate, and shop. Pro: Opportunity to create a sense of place for a neighborhood; reduce vehicular trips. Con: Add destination commercial uses to residential areas. In cluster subdivisions, consider expanding the range of allowed uses to include neighborhood commercial uses such as limited retail, personal service, offices, day cares, and eating establishments. Staff offers the following for discussion: - Use limitations: The range of uses should be limited given the residential nature of the surrounding developments. - Floor area: There should be floor area/building size limitations for commercial uses be established. - Location: The commercial uses should be limited to one location in the development. - Access: Regulations should be established that address the interface between the residential and commercial uses and shared access via a street and/or alley. Common greens were seen as a positive. Steering committee: General consensus.
Minimum cluster provisions: The remaining lands suitable for green field development are encumbered by critical areas, contain mature vegetation, and lack infrastructure. Residential single uses allowed in cluster zones require an abundant amount of land and infrastructure and provide little transition from existing neighborhoods. Preliminary Plats - Approval criteria for preliminary approval: Allowing the use of infill housing types will ensure a greater opportunity to achieve a site's density, minimize the need for infrastructure, offer residential design, and preserve mature vegetation. Expand the range of allowed residential uses to include infill toolkit uses in areas of the city having a cluster attached qualifier. Pro: Achieve zoned density; minimize public infrastructure; residential design. Con: Introduction of infill housing types in single family zones; without design standards, commercial uses may not blend with neighborhood. The following was discussed: - Lot size transition. When cluster short or cluster preliminary subdivisions abut a single-family zoned neighborhood, the lots in the proposed subdivision immediately adjacent shall be no less than the neighboring lot size, or the underlying zoning minimum lot size minus 10 percent, whichever is smaller. - Setbacks. Remove setback requirements from the subdivision ordinance and incorporate into the single family chapter of the land use ordinance. Steering committee: General consensus. These additional housing choices will provide the flexibility needed to avoid stagnant/rigid regulations that forces development to go vertical. PC Subcommittee: General consensus and recommended staff include those areas of the city containing a 'cluster detached' qualifier in addition to the areas of the city having a 'cluster attached' qualifier. ***See same heading for short plats above*** Preliminary Plats - Approval criteria for modifications: ***See same heading for short plats above*** Preliminary Plats - Plat alterations and vacations: As required by state law, municipalities are required to have regulatory provisions for the alteration and vacations of final plats. An alteration is an amendment of a filed plat. A vacation of a final plat is an action that eliminates lot lines created on a filed plat map. Preliminary Plats - Time extensions: Title 18 includes provisions for extending this time limitation with little direction to either the applicant or the city. These regulations are necessary to comply with state law. Establish prescriptive and predictable criteria for extending the time limitations of an approved preliminary plat. Pro: Satisfies state law. Pro: Provides clear expectations for both city and the developer. The state provides some guidance for processing alterations and vacations. Staff is recommending that alterations of final plats follow the same review process as a preliminary plat in this chapter. The exception is when the alteration involves a public dedication the alteration must following RCW 58.17.215. The vacation of a plat is proposed to follow those procedures in RCW 58.17.212. Criteria should include: 1. A minimum timeframe the request for extension must be submitted prior to expiration. 2. Demonstration by the applicant why an extension is required, that the extension will be contrary to public health, safety and welfare.
Final Plats- Approval criteria for final approval: The subdivision regulations do not contain design criteria for determining when all conditions of a preliminary plat have been met. The inclusion of such criteria will allow the city to define a transparent and predicable process for final approval. Pro: Establishes predictability and a common understanding of expectations necessary to receive final plat approval. Approval criteria to demonstrate a plat is ready for recording should include: 1. All conditions of the preliminary plat have been completed and accepted by the city; and 2. All procedural steps associated with the public facilities agreement contract have been submitted to and accepted by the city, including but not limited to: a. Record drawings of the public infrastructure. b. Cost statement. c. Deed of conveyance. d. Water form from the Whatcom County Health Department; and 3. All financial sureties for maintenance or any uncompleted work have been submitted to and accepted by the city; and 4. Required easements, deeds, covenants, and any other document required by the preliminary plat have been submitted to and accepted by the city; and 5. The final plat conforms to state law, Chapter 58.17 RCW. Final Plat - Review process: The current review process is linear prohibiting an efficient use of the applicant and city's time. Provide a concurrent review process for final plat approval. Pro: Provides a concurrent process that will reduce staff review time and increase efficiency. Concurrent process includes: 1. Construction of the plat infrastructure 2. Review of necessary plat documents. 3. Preparation of mylars with staff approvals as a recommendation that the final plan satisfies the final plat criteria. Upon obtaining recommendations from applicable departments, the resolution granting final plat approval is presented to the city council for approval. Final Mylars: Establish minimum requirements that must be provided on final mylars. Establish a minimum baseline for mylar documents. Pro: Provides consistent standards for surveyors to follow; would identify all state statutes. Staff is proposing to establish a separate chapter in Title 18 to address this issue specifically. A full discussion of the new chapter will be reviewed at a later date by a different technical group with expert knowledge in surveying.
Binding Site Plans - New chapter: The city's existing regulations provide a cumbersome process and lack the vision needed to obtain good development. Regulations should establish: Requirements and procedures for each type of division. An administrative approval process for a general binding site plan. A procedure for the alteration and vacation of a binding site plan. Administrative approval to finalize specific commercial and industrial lots. Pro: Opportunity to simplify the binding site plan process that is similar to the city's planned development review; allow residential uses. Propose a binding site plan process that includes the following: 1. A site plan approval. 2. Allowance for binding site plan of all three allowed types divisions, specifically including residential uses. 3. Application review process that is well-defined. 4. Establish a preliminary approval process that includes decision criteria and requirement to disclose all necessary infrastructure improvement requirements. 5. Provisions for filing the binding site plan through an administrative process after all conditions of the preliminary binding site plan approval have been met.