Resolution 7924 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 23 of 31 law. The suggested definition of middle housing is not problematic, but it’s unclear what the definition would relate to or how it would be used. Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendment Criteria – EMC 15.03.400(E) 5. Have circumstances related to the subject policy changed sufficiently since the adoption of the plan to justify a change to the subject policy? If so, the circumstances that have changed should be described in detail to support the proposed amendment to the policy. 6. Are the assumptions upon which the policy is based erroneous, or is new information available that was not considered at the time the plan was adopted, that justify a change to the policy? If so, the erroneous assumptions or new information should be described in detail to support the proposed policy amendment. 7. Does the proposed change in policy promote a more desirable growth pattern for the community as a whole? The manner in which the proposed policy change promotes a more desirable growth pattern should be described in detail. 8. Is the proposed policy change consistent with other existing plan policies, or does it conflict with other plan policies? The extent to which the proposed policy change is consistent with or conflicts with other existing policies should be explained in detail. Staff comments: Based on an initial review, the proposed comprehensive plan policies are likely consistent with the above criteria in Chapter 15.03 EMC, state law, the multicounty planning policies of VISION 2050, and the countywide planning policies. Unified Development Code Text Amendment Criteria – EMC 15.03.300(C)(4) d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Everett comprehensive plan; and e. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety or welfare; and f. The proposed amendment promotes the best long-term interests of the Everett community. Staff comments: Based on an initial review, two of the requested development regulation changes (middle housing definition and height limit) will likely be consistent with the above criteria in Chapter 15.03 EMC and the comprehensive plan; the other two (critical areas, right-of-way standards) will likely not. The presence of critical areas somewhere on a lot does not have a sufficient nexus to prohibit development on portions of the lot that do not contain critical areas or their buffers. Most city rights-of-way were constructed before the latest design standards were enacted; prohibiting development in most areas currently designated Single Family in the comprehensive plan would likely not be consistent with state law. City staff do review all development proposals for adequacy of infrastructure and do require improvements, or deny development applications, as appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION/MOTION: Planning staff recommendation: advance the requested comprehensive plan policies for further analysis and consideration and to include the entire application, supporting materials, and regulatory provisions as comments to be considered as part of the comprehensive plan periodic update process. Planning Commission Recommendation: The entire application, supporting materials, and regulatory provisions as comments to be considered as part of the comprehensive plan periodic update process.