Loading...
Narrative.pdfNSE ,OiCIATES INC LAND SURVEYING 4HARM February 3, 2017 City of Edmonds Community Development Department Planning Division 121 51h Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Request for a Code Amendment to Create a new section ECDC 20.75.045 Unit Lot Subdivision And to add Definitions to ECDC 20.75.030 And to Remove ECDC 21.100.040.E City Planner and Planning Board: lad f..I n 4., ",„ n ry " �r..:1rifir .,_ I In or around 2000, the City adopted an interpretation that Town House subdivision were permitted by the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) because ECDC 21.100.040.E provided instruction as to how to create such a subdivision. In this interpretation, lots could be created that were non -conforming to standards of ECDC title 16, but where the development as a whole conformed to the standards of ECDC title 16. Using that interpretation, the City approved several such subdivisions. Similar Codes that permit this type of development have been adopted by cities across our region as a response to a crisis in liability in the State Condominium law. For several reasons, the State condominium statute has created unusual liability for condominium developers. Small architecture firms and many builders can't get insurance to design and construct condos. When insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This situation has artificially depressed the multiple family residential market at a time when our region is experiencing a housing crisis. In 2008, the then Hearing Examiner for the City of Edmonds denied an application for a townhouse subdivision and struck down the use of the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation. The discontinuance of the interpretation did not stem from a dissatisfaction with the process or results by staff, applicants or City residents. But rather was based on doubt expressed by the Examiner as to the legal adequacy of the use of an interpretation of a definition section to effect complete deviation from bulk standards. The solution to the Examiner's decision was either to appeal that decision as incorrect, or withdraw the interpretation and begin work on a new code to replace the Townhouse Subdivision interpretation and to replace the Townhouse Subdivision definition that led to said interpretation. Neither the (then) applicant nor the City chose to appeal the Examiner's decision. Following said Hearing Examiner decision, the City withdrew the interpretation of Townhouse Subdivision and began to pursue a code amendment. The code amendment process has been tied to the overall code revision process. However, that process is large and has inherent issues that are slowing the process. In the meantime developers are having trouble moving forward with townhouse developments due to the problems with the State Condominium Statutes. In the 1980's the City of Seattle, adopted a Unit Subdivision Code. This code allows the creation of zero lot line lots that can be as small as the footprint of a dwelling unit, so long as the overall development meets the bulk and development standards of the parent lot. This code has been very successful and has stood the test of time. Now, with the condominium insurance crises, many jurisdictions are seeing the unit lot subdivision as solution to continue implementing .titi .N_.---------- ­ .... ... ... w.w.... ............................. , ....--1-111 ....... �w G &I ,,I"n`Jnup! C, ,,lio l:,id i r i i!i n Lr�. ISLAND COUNTY 840 SE 81h Avenue, Ste. 102 Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 tel: (360) 675-5973 / fax: (360) 675-7255 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 125 East Main Street, Ste. 104 Monroe, Washington 98272 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9732 Anticipate / Understand / Guide / Deliver www.Harmseninc.com SKAGIT COUNTY 603 South First Street Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fax: (360) 982-2637 Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative February 3, 2017 their comprehensive plans in multiple family zones. Jurisdictions such as Kirkland, Redmond, and Snohomish County have adopted similar regulations. To create this code we propose to add a section to the subdivision code (ECDC 20.75.045). For coordination in the overall code several other amendments are needed. First ECDC 20.75.030 contains some definitions pertinent to subdivision. Two new definitions need to be added here. Second ECDC 21.100.040 is the existing definition of "Townhouse". Subsection E contains the directions for a Townhouse Subdivision. That section would be in conflict and should be deleted. And finally, since there is a "Townhouse" definition for vertically separated dwelling units, there should be a "flats" definition for horizontally separated dwelling units. I propose that definition as ECDC 21.30.032. As well as the unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that have been adopted. In the proposed code amendment for the City of Edmonds we have addressed these issues: Issues of concern and addressed within Unit Subdivisions and proposals to address the issues: 1. How many units can be included in one unit lot? There is a new trend in real estate development and investment. That is for a developer to develop a multiple family site with several multiple unit buildings, then sell individual buildings to property management companies for future leasing of the individual units. The option to use the unit subdivision to separate multiple unit buildings within one development is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by other jurisdictions. However, since it is not expressly prohibited, and is not contrary to the intent of the Unit Subdivision code of the Comprehensive Plan both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted this. In Edmonds, this option would also not violate the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we have expressly permitted this option in this proposal to avoid future confusion. 2. A subdivision is a two dimensional division of land that implies ownership of everything above and below the two dimensional box described in the plat. Therefore, there can be no portions of any one unit that overhangs a portion of another unit. This excludes flats. Other codes are not clear in the exclusion of flats except by interpretation of definitions. We added a section to expressly exclude flats — except in the instance where a unit lot would contain an entire multiple family building. 3. The point made above in number 2 also creates a potential problem in exterior maintenance. When I asked a supervisor at the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development (DPD) what is the one thing you would change with your unit subdivision code, this is it. In point 2 above I described the projection of the two- dimensional lot lines. When looking at the exterior of a building that is divided in this fashion, it might be hard to tell who owns what. Because of this, it is possible for owners to have trouble coming to an agreement over who maintains what. Therefore, I have added a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the building(s). 4. A unit subdivision only works if it is associated with a development — either a development proposal or an existing development. As in no one can apply for a unit subdivision as a standalone the way a standard subdivision is applied for. This aspect of unit subdivision is not clear in other codes. In Seattle, this is enforced by interpretation. Snohomish County is still struggling with this issue and is now enforcing it through their Urban Residential Design Standards section. We created a section for this purpose. 5. In many jurisdictions (Redmond and Snohomish County are examples) access requirements are not tied to the type of development, but instead to the type of permit. Therefore, if a multiple family development is proposed with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lines are required. However, if a subdivision is proposed, the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard. In Redmond's code this conflict is not addressed, and multiple family developments choosing to use a Unit Subdivision must either construct roads that are not appropriate for multiple family development (and don't comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan), or the applicant must apply for a road deviation — which the City has been approving. This was not the intent of Redmond's Unit Lot Subdivision. To insure that this result does not occur in Edmonds, we have added a section to clarify which regulations should apply. Unit Subdivision Code Amendment Narrative February 3, 2017 6. Both the City of Seattle and Snohomish County have a section discussing that this process creates non- conforming lots. Neither is explicit about how that impacts the future unit owner. Our proposal is more explicit about the impacts to future unit lot owners. Seattle required a notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat to ensure that future unit lot owners understand this impact. Other jurisdictions do not make this requirement. We believe that Seattle is right to require the notice to be recorded on the final Unit Lot Plat and have included that requirement in this proposed code amendment. The City of Seattle will not accept a Unit Lot final plat application until at least the development foundations are installed and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot line is set on the common wall. Snohomish County does not make this requirement. This requirement is not codified in the Seattle Code. It appears that Seattle makes this requirement based on experience. As a project manager, I have seen very few foundations installed precisely per plan, so Seattle's requirement makes sense to me. I asked four licensed land surveyors who have experience in construction staking what they thought of this. Two of them agreed that Seattle's condition makes sense. Two of them said that it should be up to the building inspector to require foundation staking in a unit subdivision. My impression is that requiring the foundations to be installed and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof than requiring the buildings to be staked and the inspector to verify. Therefore, I have added a section requiring that, at a minimum, development foundations are installed and located by the project licensed surveyor prior to the submittal of a final plat application. House Keeping Amendments: 1. Two Definitions should be added to ECDC 20.75.030: "Unit Lot Subdivision" and "Parent Lot" 2. With this addition, ECDC 21.100.040.E. the portion of the definition of Townhouse that give subdivisional direction should be removed. 3. ECDC 21.30.032 — Add a definition of "Flat(s)" Thank you for you considered review of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with any questions or concerns. Sincerely John Bissell, AICP Planning Director Harmsen Associates, INC.