Loading...
2017-03-22 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 22, 2017 Chair Rubenkonig called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5th Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Carreen Rubenkonig, Chair Nathan Monroe, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Malia Clark, Student Representative BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2017 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. VICE CHAIR MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rubenkonig referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. She asked if any Board Members attended the March 17th Diversity Commission meeting. None indicated that they were able to attend. Chair Rubenkonig also asked staff to provide an update on recent City Council actions relative to the Highway 99 Subarea Plan and the Sign Code Amendments. Mr. Chave advised that the City Council is ready to move forward with a public hearing and final approval of the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, and they made one minor tweak to the Planning Board's recommendation relative to the Sign Code Amendments. Instead of the grandfathering provision, they added six square feet to the allowable sign area. This gives businesses the choice of having a pedestrian sign or some other sign option. The amendments will come back to the City Council for final approval at their next meeting. Board Member Crank added that she watched the television version of the City Council meeting and was pleased that most of the Board's recommendations regarding pedestrian signs were accepted by the City Council. She was particularly pleased with the decision to eliminate the permit free for blade signs. She noted that the City Council did not spend a lot of time discussing the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. Board Member Robles reported that an article was recently published in THE EDMONDS BEACON that mentioned the Planning Board several times and gave them credit for their good work. INTRODUCTION TO HIGHWAY 99 DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS Mr. Shipley provided a brief overview of the recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code to help implement the Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He provided a map to illustrate the subarea, which is a 2.3 mile stretch of roadway along Highway 99. He also provided a map to illustrate the current zoning. Mr. Shipley explained that the current Comprehensive Plan identifies four different districts: Hotel, Residential, International and Healthcare. As per the subarea plan, the International and Healthcare Districts would be retained, and the Hotel/Residential Districts would be consolidated into a single Gateway District. Mr. Shipley advised that, as currently proposed, the General Commercial (CG) CG and CG2 Zones would be consolidated into a single CG zone with a height limit of 75 feet. The difference between the two zones is 15 feet in height. The CG2 zone allows a height of 75 feet, and the CG zone limits height to 60 feet. Much of the remaining zoning is a remnant of old county zoning that was inherited over time. Instead of having six or more zones in the subarea, the new, consolidated CG zone would be applied to most of the study area. Much of the current zoning was inherited when the area was annexed from Snohomish County. In some cases, it is inconsistent with parcel boundaries. Last night, the City Council recommended that a few of the Multi -Family Residential (RM) parcels on the east side of the corridor be included in the CG zoning, as well. Impacts associated with commercial development adjacent to residential zones will be mitigated via step backs and other design standards. Mr. Shipley explained that the purpose of the proposed Development Code amendments is to strengthen the current design standards and incorporate them directly into the zoning code. The proposed design standards are intended to apply throughout the corridor, but more detailed standards will need to be created to address unique circumstances. He reviewed the proposed Development Code changes as follows: Parking. It is typical for current development to have a sea of parking between the building and the street. However, the subarea plan envisions a more pedestrian -friendly environment going forward. Staff is recommending that the City set a standard that would limit the amount of parking that comprises the area between the building fagade and the primary street. For example, the City could require that no more than 50% of the required parking spaces could be located in front of the building. In addition, a standard could be added that would result in most vehicular parking being located at the side or rear of the building. For example, a proposed amendment could limit parking to no more than 40% of the total street frontage. The intent is for the majority of the primary frontage to be building or amenity space, with parking located to the side or rear of the building. • Transparency. In order to create a vibrant pedestrian environment, it is important to avoid large, blank walls along the street front, and a proposed amendment would require a certain amount of transparency on the ground floor fagade that faces the street. • Activity Zone. The current standard is a 4-foot wide landscape strip in the setback area between the sidewalk and the private property. This creates a barrier between the pedestrian space and the building rather than enhancing a safe and comfortable pedestrian zone. Rather than a barrier, the proposed amendment would require a 10-foot activity zone that allows a range of active uses like sidewalk cafes and amenities such as public art, street furniture, street trees, etc. The intent is to create a buffer between the cars and the sidewalk. Board Member Lovell asked if the area along the street where the light poles, waste baskets, etc. would be located is part of the activity zone. Mr. Shipley answered that the area is actually part of the right-of-way, and the 10-foot activity space would be located between the right-of-way and the building. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 2 Vice Chair Monroe asked if the code would require access to the buildings from the street side. Mr. Shipley agreed that would be best, but the code amendments have not reached this higher level of detail yet. • Setback. Generally, the intent of the subarea plan is for buildings to be located closer to the street and oriented towards the pedestrian areas. However, that may not always be possible. The current proposal would require that at least 15% of a new building must be located between 10 and 20 feet of the property line of the primary street it faces. Other frontages would have some type of landscape requirement to provide a buffer. • Amenity Zone. A proposed amendment would require an amenity space to be part of any new development, but no firm figure has been identified for how the space would be calculated. • Building Orientation. In some situations, street -side development is not always feasible to do because of existing buildings. It is not the City's intent to limit redevelopment by requiring that buildings always be located along the street. While buildings cannot always be oriented towards the street, the amenity spaces could connect to the pedestrian zone to allow people to walk into the development between the buildings. This option would provide some flexibility, but still achieve the goal of enhancing the pedestrian experience along the corridor. • Stepbacks and Setbacks for RM and Mixed Use (MU) adjacent to Single -Family (RS). Proposed amendments would establish stepback and setback standards for RM and MU development that is located adjacent to RS zones. The intent is to ensure that MU and RM development transitions into the RS neighborhoods. The current 15-foot setback requirement between Commercial and RS zones would be maintained, and there would be no stepback requirement for the portion of building up to 30 feet in height. However, a 10-foot stepback would be required for the portion of building beyond 25 feet in height on sides with lot line adjacency to RS zones. An additional 10-foot stepback would be required for the portion of building above 30 feet. The total stepback between the upper floors of neighboring parcels would be 35 feet. • Parking Standards. As proposed, the parking standard would be relaxed and become more flexible to only require one parking space for residential units less than 700 square feet in size. The commercial parking requirement would be loosened to one space per 500 square feet, and the first 3,000 square feet of commercial use within a MU development would be exempt from the parking requirement if a shared parking plan is in place. In addition, developers would be allowed to present project -specific studies that reflect special situations that warrant a reduction in the required parking. Chair Rubenkonig noted that the presentation is very similar to the presentation that was provided at the Board's December 14'h meeting. She asked Mr. Shipley to specifically identify the changes that have been made since the last presentation. Mr. Shipley answered that allowing frontage to be amenity space rather than just building will result in flexibility but still achieve the goals they are trying to capture of making the area more pedestrian friendly. He noted that, in some cases, it may not be possible to bring all buildings to the street front, and this flexibility is a good option to connect the buildings to the street. Chair Rubenkonig asked if the proposed amendments would require that the building fagade be modulated. Mr. Shipley said that the current code allows for building modulation, but it is not necessarily required. As currently drafted, buildings must be located between 10 and 20 feet from the property line, and this allows some flexibility in the depth for modulation. Board Member Lovell observed that new CG zone (combined CG2 and CG) would allow a maximum height of 75 feet, and this may create some concern if buildings are located close to the street front. Mr. Chave explained that the proposal would also require stepbacks for the portion of building above 25 feet. He suggested overall bulk is more important than fagade modulation. It is difficult to get uniform street fronts at the street level is buildings are required to move in and out. While the current proposal would not force a uniform line, it would not require modulation, either. Vice Chair Monroe suggested that much of the concern could be addressed by requiring a building entryway on the street front side. Vice Chair Monroe asked if the proposed requirements for parking and amenity spaces are consistent or more stringent than what is required in other jurisdictions. Mr. Shipley answered that he does not believe they are more restrictive in terms of developers not wanting to meet the requirements. Developers seem to be more interested in height and the opportunity to scale back the parking requirement based on a site -specific study. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 3 Board Member Robles recalled that the last time the proposed code amendments were presented, there was a fairly stout comment from the Board on the viability of a 10-foot activity space given the velocity of the traffic along the corridor. However, he does not see that the proposal was adjusted to address this concern. Mr. Shipley pointed out that developers would be allowed to provide amenity space along up to 50% of the street frontage, and the 10-foot activity space between the building and the street would be separated by a 5-foot right-of-way. However, he agreed that the pedestrian atmosphere will not be similar to what exists in downtown Edmonds. Board Member Robles asked if there are any incentives to encourage this type of development, and Mr. Shipley pointed out that the proposal would allow buildings to be setback between 10 and 20 feet from the street, and a 5-foot right-of-way buffer was added to provide an additional buffer. Board Member Crank suggested it would be helpful for the consultant to provide mockups to illustrate how the proposed amendments would impact both existing and new development. Mr. Shipley pointed out that existing development would not be impacted by the proposed amendments, which only apply to new development. The only potential impact would be the proposed amendment that prohibits pole signs. However, existing pole signs would be allowed to remain. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the intent is to encourage new development in an existing scene. She asked where the balance would be between the current look and what is proposed as the new look. She asked how this issue would be addressed by the Architectural Design Board (ADB). Mr. Shipley noted that a lot of the existing development along the corridor is located towards the back of the lots, with parking along the street front. New development located closer to the street could take place on these properties. Mr. Chave pointed out that the properties along Highway 99 are of varying shapes, sizes and configurations. Some property owners many just want to refurbish an existing building or add additional buildings, and other property owners may want to tear down the existing buildings and replace them with new development. The intent is to figure out a way for all of these activities to move forward but at different stages. Board Member Crank said she likes the concept of activity spaces between the buildings and the sidewalks. However, she asked if the walkways in front of existing buildings would be done as part of a single project or if they would be done piecemeal. Mr. Shipley answered that sidewalks would be done has redevelopment occurs. Mr. Chave added that the City has some money for this purpose and it is desirable to enhance the public spaces along the frontage, but a lot more funding will be needed. CODE AMENDMENTS FOR UNIT -LOT SUBDIVISIONS (AMD20170003) Mr. Clugston advised that this is an application by a private party, Westgate Woods, LLC, for a code amendment to add a new section to the subdivision code, which would provide for unit -lot subdivisions. The process would allow for the creation of a fee -simple ownership option in residential projects in Multi -Family Residential (RM) zones as an alternative to condominium ownership. He reviewed that from 2003 to 2008, the City had a process known as a "townhouse subdivision," which was based on a 2003 staff interpretation (Attachment 6). This process resulted in several projects, two of which are included in the packet: Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2) and Cooper's Crest (Attachments 3 and 4). He noted that the only difference between the before and after photos is the presence of internal lot lines between the individual units. The developments were designed to meet all of the requirements for the particular RM zone, just like any other RM project, but the lot lines were created to allow the fee -simple sale of the individual dwelling units. Mr. Clugston further reviewed that during review of a townhouse project in 2008, the Hearing Examiner identified some inconsistencies between how the townhouse subdivision process was being applied based on the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. In particular, the Hearing Examiner noted conflict with three elements: minimum lot area, internal setbacks and insufficient access within the development. The City Council overturned the Hearing Examiner's decision, but the project was never built due to the recession, and the permit eventually expired. Since the 2008 decision, no townhouse subdivisions were approved because of the concerns highlighted by the Hearing Examiner and the lack of clear authority and standards in the code. Mr. Clugston advised that the applicant is seeking to codify a fee -simple process for RM projects in the RM zones that is consistent with the subdivision and zoning ordinances. The applicant's narrative and proposed language was included in the Staff Report as Attachments 7 and 8. The existing subdivision code is included as Attachment 9, and the current RM zoning code is Attachment 10. In addition, the City received one comment letter in response to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) from a planner in Mountlake Terrace, who provided some good insight to consider. He noted that some local Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 4 jurisdictions currently have a form of this process in place, including Seattle, Mountlake Terrace and Snohomish County, and the applicant has worked with a number of these codes. He has reviewed their processes and created a proposed amendment that takes the best of each one and refines it to meet the City of Edmonds' needs. Board Member Lovell said he reviewed the material in the Staff Report and felt it would have been beneficial to have a graphic illustration of a project that meets the criteria outlined in the proposed amendment. His understanding is that the individual living units would need to be 1,500 square feet in an RM-1.5 zone in order to be divided into fee -simple lots. He felt that would be a very difficult task to achieve. Mr. Clugston clarified that is not really the intent of the proposed amendment. He referred to Attachments 1 and 2, which provide aerial views of the Cascade Cottage Project. Attachment 1 shows a regular RM project with detached units. Per the current code for the RM-2.4 zone, each unit needs at least 2,400 square feet of lot area. However, that does not mean that each dwelling unit needs to be that size. It is more a density number. Attachment 2 show the same aerial photograph, with the lot lines drawn as part of the townhouse process. The squares are not all 2,400 square feet. The density is based on the entire lot rather than the individual lots. This needs to be clearly addressed in the proposed amendment. John Bissell, Harmsen & Associates, Inc., advised that he is present to represent the applicant, Westgate Woods, LLC. He attempted to explain the concept of unit -lot subdivisions and fee -simple lots, which he agreed is very complicated and technical. He also explained the difference between a condominium project and a subdivision project. With a subdivision, lines are drawn over the ground to create separate lots, but that is not the case with a condominium. Only the units, not the underlying ground, are individually owned. He advised that State law enables jurisdictions to have subdivision laws, but condominium laws are handled by the State and local jurisdictions are excluded from the process. It is important to recognize that the processes are different, and the State's condominium statute has created unusual liability for condominium developers. Small architecture firms and many builders cannot get insurance to design and construct condominiums. When insurance is available, it is prohibitively expensive. This has resulted in a very low inventory of RM units in Washington State and rents are skyrocketing. In response to this growing problem, a number of jurisdictions are seeing the unit -lot subdivision as a solution to continue to implement their comprehensive plans in RM zones using the same density requirements and built environment as is currently allowed. Mr. Bissell explained that unless cities amend their codes in some way to support the development standards of the parent lot, they will end up creating a bunch of smaller lots. Most zoning codes have a minimum lot standard in the RM zones, which prohibits the creation of separate dwelling units. It is not possible to reach the density the comprehensive plan anticipates by using the subdivision code given the requirements for setbacks, lot area, etc. He referred to the Cascade Cottages (Attachments 1 and 2), noting that he was the planner for the project. The project was originally designed to fit the units on the site without a subdivision. The original plan looked at the exterior boundaries and how individual units could fit on the site. The units are separated from each other by six feet, as required by the building code, and the project is consistent with the required street setbacks from 75 h Avenue and 210th Street. The project was approved by the Architectural Design Board and found to be consistent with the RM development standards. Subsequently, the developer decided to sell the development as separate lots using the townhouse subdivision provision that was in place at the time. The properties were divided into 16 separate lots. Although none of the individual lots are 2,400 square feet in size, the parent lot is large enough to accommodate the 16 units based on the density allowed in the RM-2.4 zone. Although the parent lot was subdivided, the project was still required to meet all of the zoning, density, design, subdivision, and engineering standards that are required for RM development. He cautioned that any provision that allows for unit -lot subdivision and fee -simple lots should also include appropriate standards to ensure that the built environment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bissell said he has done consulting work in a number of different cities and for various developers. About 15 years ago, he contracted with the City of Edmonds to review projects under its unit subdivision code, and he has also been a development consultant for the City of Seattle and gone through the process as an applicant. The City of Seattle has had a great deal of success and very few problems with their provision, which provided a good model for him to start with. However, as well as unit subdivisions are working in other jurisdictions, there are some issues with each of the codes that have been adopted. These issues have been addressed in the proposed code amendment. He reviewed the issues/problems as follows: • There is a new trend in real estate development and investment in which a developer builds a RM site with several multiple -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies for future leasing of the Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 5 individual units. This opportunity is not expressly prohibited or permitted by any of the effective codes being used by other jurisdictions. Because it is not prohibited, it is not considered contrary to the intent of the unit subdivision code and both Seattle and Snohomish County have permitted it to occur. This option would not violate Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment expressly permits it as an option to avoid future confusion. 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. No portion of any one unit can overhang a portion of another unit. Therefore, flats are excluded from the provision. While many codes are not clear on this exclusion, the proposed language expressively excludes them. A unit -lot subdivision includes the exterior of the building, which can create a potential problem in exterior maintenance because 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. To address this concern, the proposed amendment includes a section requiring a joint maintenance agreement for the exterior of the buildings. • Snohomish County's provision is fairly new and has experienced problems because it is too generous with the building community stakeholders group and does not include enough controls to protect the neighborhoods or county against problems that can arise. At the same time, the provision cannot be used for detached units. They now believe that was a mistake and are in the process of amending the provision to allow attached units. • The City of Redmond's provision is also new and does not consider the relationship between the code and public works standards. For example, access requirements are not tied to the type of development, but instead to the type of permit. Therefore, if a RM development is proposed with no unit subdivision, standard drive aisles and fire lanes are required. But if a subdivision is proposed, the regulations then require the installation of roads meeting a different standard. Because the use affects the environment and not the type of permit, language was added to clarify which regulation should apply. The City of Seattle does not accept unit -lot final plat applications until at least the development foundations are installed and the surveyor of record has located the foundations to ensure that the recorded lot lines are set on the common wall. However, this is not a codified requirement in Seattle, and it is not included in the County's provision. He explained that because foundations are not always installed precisely per plan, this requirement makes sense to him. He contacted four licensed land surveyors who have experience in constructing foundations, and received a mixed response. He expressed his belief that requiring the foundations to be installed and verified by the surveyor prior to final plat is more foolproof than requiring the building to be staked and the inspector to verify. This requirement was included in the proposal. Mr. Bissell referred to the cover letter he submitted with the application (Attachment 7), which reviews all of the potential issues and explains how the proposed code amendment would address each one. The proposed language would be added to the subdivision code to give clear direction. The proposal includes specific requirements, such as maintenance agreements for the maintenance of the exterior of the building. In addition to minor amendments to correct terms, new definitions would be added for "unit -lot subdivision," "parent lot," and "flats." A portion of the definition of "townhouse" would also be amended. Mr. Bissell referred to the comment letter submitted by Edith Duttlinger, Senior Planner for the City of Mountlake Terrace, which recommended some potential changes. For example, she strongly recommended that flats not be allowed in townhouse subdivisions, and the proposal specifically excludes them from the provision and adds a definition for "flats." Chair Rubenkonig asked Mr. Clugston to explain how a private individual can propose a development code amendment. Mr. Clugston answered that the code allows citizens to make application for code amendments, which are Type 5 decisions that require a public hearing before the Planning Board and a Planning Board recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Lovell referred to Attachment 5, which describes a townhouse proposal that failed the test as determined by the Hearing Examiner. He summarized that the proposed amendments are intended to revitalize the ability to do townhouse development in Edmonds. Mr. Clugston agreed that is the intent. He explained that the City does not currently have a process for unit -lot or townhouse subdivisions to create fee -simple lots for RM projects. The applicant has applied to amend the code to add that process within the code and make sure it fits with the rest of the code. He recalled that, with the 2008 project, the Hearing Examiner found a number of issues with the interpretation that staff had been relying on. The Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 6 applicant's proposal is intended to address these issues so the process can work. He clarified that the development that was proposed in 2008 met the code requirements for RM development, but the Hearing Examiner found that subdividing the property into separate lots did not meet the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. She felt the minimum lot size would have to be 2,400 square feet based on the RM-2.4 zoning. This issue needs to be made clear in the proposed new language. Mr. Clugston also explained that drive aisles are typically required for dense RM development, but as soon as you have access ways that serve five or more lots, the street setbacks outlined in the code would apply. This is something the City's previous townhouse interpretation did not address. The intent is to have the same development, but allow the parent lot to be subdivided into separate lots. It is important to make sure that all of the proposed changes are consistent with the existing code. Board Member Lovell asked Mr. Bissell to share more information about the new trend of development and investment where a developer builds a RM site with several multi -unit buildings, then sells individual buildings to property management companies. He asked if this must be done in order for the concept to function property. If so, what is the maximum of number of units allowed per building. Mr. Bissell said he is not proposing to alter the existing limit of six units per building. He suggested it is not so much about the number of units per building but the idea that you could have two buildings, each with a number of units, and the lot lines would go around the buildings rather than the individual units. He reminded the Board of his earlier comment that this type of development is a new market trend. While it would not alter the built environment, it would provide flexibility in the code for different ownership options. Board Member Lovell asked if this type of development has occurred in other communities, and Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. He explained that the demand for apartment units is very high and this is a real change in how the economy of Puget Sound had been working for a long time. The people who own the buildings and lease them are called "legacy developers." For most of his career, he had one legacy developer and now he is working with about ten. He said the current market of building owners is not equipped to own 60 or 80-unit developments. As developers transition from a business model with a 4-year investment cycle to a business model with a 50 to 60-year investment cycle, this type of development will become more popular. Board Member Crank asked if the proposal is intended to apply to a specific plot of land or to a specific development proposal. She also asked how the provision would be applied to future requests of this nature in single-family zones. Mr. Clugston said the provision is only intended to apply to existing and future RM development, and not single-family residential zones. Even with the provision, RM development will still have to meet all design standards and the base zoning requirements. From the outside, the development will look no different whether it is subdivided or not. It is a matter of ownership of the different pieces of the site. For existing developments, owners can apply for a unit -lot subdivision and create fee -simple lots to sell off. The provision would apply to both existing and new RM development. It could also be utilized in other zones in the city where residential development is allowed, such as the CG zone along Highway 99 and the commercial zones at Westgate. Mr. Chave summarized that the proposed provision is simply an ownership option, and it does not change zoning, density or bulk requirements. It simply gives another way to divide up ownership of a piece of property. It may apply to existing buildings as well as new construction. It is not intended to be a project -specific application. It is a legislative change to the code that would apply throughout the City. Board Member Crank asked staff to clarify the Board's role in the process of moving the proposal forward. She noted that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 26`". Mr. Chave said this presentation was intended to be an introduction to the proposed provision before going forward with a formal public hearing. The Board is more used to applications that are quasi-judicial, and this particular proposal is legislative. That means the Board Members are free to ask questions and discuss the proposal outside of the formal public hearing. Board Member Robles noted that condominium agreements protect people, as well. For example, one person's behavior or decision could impact the value of another's property. He asked how the rights of the individual property owners would be preserved. While he understands the reasons for pulling away from the condominium concept, it is important to recognize that subdividing into separate units would result in the residents losing their collective power to defend their properties. Mr. Bissell said that most subdivisions have a homeowner's association that has certain rights, particularly when common areas are involved. A lot of protection can be obtained through a homeowner's agreement, and he always relies on his attorneys to write the covenants for his projects. Board Member Robles asked if the code could include a provision that requires the construction company to maintain a reserve or if it would that be the responsibility of the individual owners. Mr. Chave Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 7 expressed his belief that a not all unit -lot subdivisions would have homeowner's associations, and that is why building codes are so important. Building codes require certain things in a fee -simple setup that are different than for condominiums. The assumption is that individuals would be in charge of their own lot and not rely on the neighbors or a condominium association. Board Member Robles asked if condominiums that are subdivided into fee -simple lots retain their value more or less than the traditional type of arrangement. Mr. Bissell said that unit -lot subdivisions have been done in Seattle since the early 90s, and they have held their value as well or better than traditional condominiums. He said he does not believe value will be an issue. Some people want the condominiums for protection and others prefer not to be in condominium situations. Board Member Robles observed that property owners purchase property with certain assumptions, and he voiced concern that they might not always be fully informed. Mr. Chave said the subdivision will be recorded on the legal documents that are part of the real estate transaction. It will be up to the real estate agent to know this and inform the buyer. This is outside of the government's control. Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the City of Seattle requires that the developer be in charge of the homeowner's association for one year, and then it becomes the responsibility of the individual owners to govern themselves. Mr. Bissell agreed there is not clear answer for what the best approach would be. Mr. Chave referred to the provision in the draft proposal that would require a maintenance agreement for when the units are in a single building. This agreement will probably not be covenants to the extent of a condominium association, but maintenance of the buildings that are connected will be covered through the agreement. Typically, with subdivisions, there are also underlying utilities that have maintenance agreements attached to them, as well. Vice Chair Monroe asked what Mr. Bissell anticipates will be the counter argument against the proposal. Mr. Bissell said he does not anticipate a lot of opposition to the proposal. However, when he has been involved in projects that modify the lot area in some way, the standard objection is that the zoning code says you have to have a certain lot area and you are throwing that out the window. He tries to point out that the total lot area is the same as if there were no subdivision. Mr. Chave summarized that the proposal is essentially overlaying smaller ownership over a larger development. Any agreements for maintenance or agreements that otherwise apply to the development would still be there. All the provision would do is allow for the transfer of ownership of the units, but it would not absolve the owners from their responsibilities for maintenance, drainage, internal driveways, etc. It would not change density, either. Vice Chair Monroe emphasized that, as proposed, the provision would only apply to RM development. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the April 12'h agenda includes a presentation on the Highway 99 Code Amendments. On April 26th, there will be a public hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendments for a proposed change from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way Corridor. A public hearing on the Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendment is also scheduled for April 26`h. The Board's retreat is tentatively scheduled for May 24th, pending confirmation from the Bartell Development Company that they will be able to attend that evening. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rubenkonig thanked the Board Members for focusing to move through the complicated proposal related to the Townhouse Subdivision Code Amendments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Monroe reported that he attended the March 151h Economic Development Commission meeting, but he did not have anything substantial to report. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 8