Everett planners review draft land‑division code; debate lot splits, landscaping, easements and deferred improvements

City planning staff presented a first draft of a consolidated land‑divisions chapter at the July 7 Everett Planning Commission meeting and sought commissioners’ feedback on technical and policy choices, including how to implement the state lot‑split law, whether to require landscaping buffers along private access drives, and how to ensure deferred infrastructure gets built if parcels are sold before improvements.

“We have taken four chapters of municipal code that were separated… and consolidated those into one chapter,” York told commissioners, describing the intent to streamline navigation and clarify which standards apply to land divisions versus ordinary development. York said Exhibit A contains state lot‑split guidance from the Department of Commerce and Exhibit C contains the proposed new chapter.

Kelsey Hyde, the city’s land‑use planning manager who helped prepare the draft, told the commission she consolidated language to make the rules easier for applicants and staff to use. “Just my normal preface that he always calls me the expert of our entire code every time I’m here,” Hyde said, then walked commissioners through key items.

Key policy issues under discussion included:

- Encroachments and gaps: staff proposed removing a longstanding local requirement that encroachments and survey gaps be cleared before approval of a land division. Instead, York said staff will rely on standard recorded map conditions that treat encroachments as civil matters and will not hold up map approval. Commissioners noted many older North Everett lots have overlapping improvements and favored the change as a practical fix.

- Landscaping buffers on private access drives: the draft carries a historical requirement for a five‑foot, type‑3 landscape buffer on both sides of private access drives created through land divisions. Commissioners debated whether that buffer should apply only to land divisions or to all development, and whether it creates unnecessary costs or provides safety and maintenance benefits. York said the landscaping section will be brought back with clearer options.

- Lot splits, deferred improvements and enforcement: staff explained the lot‑split mechanism established in state law (RCW 58.17) allows sale of newly created lots before full installation of frontage improvements and that the draft implements deferred installation via recorded conditions or bonding. York and Hyde described enforcement through recorded map language and through building‑permit review: if a recorded condition ties completion of improvements to the first building permit, building‑permit review will trigger the required infrastructure.

Commissioners raised practical concerns: who polices deferred improvements, whether buyers will overlook recorded conditions, and whether deferral will lower barriers to entry and change who develops housing. York said the city can require bonds for some projects and that the draft preserves options to require improvements or bonding for larger or riskier divisions.

Other items discussed included treatment of critical‑area tracts (staff will generally continue creating protected tracts in land divisions), terminology cleanup (numerous overlapping access and street terms will be simplified and coordinated with the city’s Design and Construction Standards), and how converting alley access to front‑street access could create new curb cuts and reduce on‑street parking in some neighborhoods.

Staff asked commissioners to provide written comments; York said the next land‑divisions draft and related Title 15 (procedures) material will return to the commission on July 21, with additional meetings expected in late July and August to work toward a recommendation.

The commission did not take any formal motions on the draft land‑divisions chapter at the July 7 meeting; the exchange was a staff briefing and commissioner feedback session.