Hooper updates Title 10, Chapter 8 to implement state subdivision rules; planning commission role resized

City staff presented proposed changes to Title 10 (including Chapter 8) to implement recent state legislation that streamlines and time-limits subdivision review.

Staff described the background as state action (a referenced senate bill and house bill) that requires an expedited pathway for certain single- and two-family subdivisions. Key staff explanations:

- The city is adopting the state-required concept conference and a combined preliminary-and-final review for eligible subdivisions to simplify the process. - The planning commission will be the land-use authority for these applications; the city council will serve as the appeal authority. - The ordinance sets explicit time limits: the city must respond to a complete application within 15 calendar days; notice to affected water conveyance facilities also within 15 days; the city then has 20 business days to approve or deny after required materials are submitted. The process allows up to four review cycles before the city must approve or deny. - Staff proposed a technical review committee (TRC) composed of city planner, public works director (or equivalent), city engineer, planning chair (or representative) and city attorney by request, to review applications for completeness and speed reviews. The TRC is a staff-level mechanism meant to help the planning commission comply with the statutory time frames. - Minor subdivision rules were clarified: a minor subdivision will create no more than three lots from the original parent parcel; minor subdivisions may use simplified improvement-plan requirements if no new road is built; in limited circumstances the land-use authority may allow septic systems for minor subdivisions; the city explicitly requires new subdivisions to install and connect to sanitary sewer where available and updated sewer language now covers vacuum systems, developer-led lift stations, and other forms of sewer infrastructure. - Staff recommended a two-year vesting/recording window for approved subdivisions (record within two years or lose vesting), but the council discussed shortening to one year and adding a process for extensions. Staff agreed to consult with the public works director and the Hansen Group and return a revised timeline for the council to consider.

Staff also noted administrative changes: added definitions (e.g., building lot vs. parcel), clarified escrow and improvement timelines, and set an internal recommendation that approvals be recorded within the stated vesting period or be subject to updated ordinances.

The council scheduled a public hearing and ordinance action for Feb. 6 to meet statutory requirements and to allow public notice. Staff said planning commission had previously reviewed the draft and offered conditions; staff incorporated some technical edits since.

Council members asked for clarity on vesting, extension authority, and whether other cities use a one-year or two-year recording window; staff agreed to gather comparative examples and bring back suggested language. The city will finalize ordinance language and provide the final packet for the Feb. 6 public hearing and vote.