Memorandum

Date:  February 20, 2002

To:  Mayor Katz and City Commissioners

From:  Gil Kelley, Bureau of Planning

C:  Interested Persons

Re:  Land Division Code Rewrite Implementation

The City Council has received for their consideration a report titled Implementation Report, Land Division Code Rewrite Project, February 2002. This report provides a brief overview of the implementation-related activities that have occurred since adoption of the Land Division Code Rewrite Project on September 26, 2001 and recommends delaying implementation of the new regulations until July 1, 2002. The report also recommends minor housekeeping amendments to the code language that was adopted by that project and identifies a few areas where staff needs additional direction from the Council before preparing specific amendments. Since publication of the Implementation Report, staff has identified several issues that were not addressed by the Report. These issues are described on the following pages.

In cases where we have staff agreement on an approach and specific language, we recommend that the Adopted Report be amended to incorporate the language shown in the Implementation Report or in this memo. In a few cases, we recommend that the City Council consider the options and, if appropriate, direct staff to prepare specific amendment language for consideration by the Council at a subsequent hearing on the Implementation Report. In other cases, we are recommending that the Council defer consideration of amendments to a future legislative project. We have outlined our specific recommendations, below.

Summary of Bureau of Planning Recommendations

Additional Requested Amendments

We understand that the Council may be requested to consider additional amendments to the adopted regulations. We strongly recommend that the Council defer to a future legislative project consideration of any amendments beyond those specifically referenced in this memo and in the Implementation Report. We recommend that the Council not consider any additional amendments in advance of the effective date of the new code for several reasons:

•  Additional amendments may have unintended policy consequences;

•  Continuing to commit resources toward minor tweaks to the Land Division Code takes staff time away from other higher-priority projects;

•  Allowing additional amendments to come forward in a piecemeal manner to the Council erodes the ability of the public to stay well informed and involved in the hearings process;

•  Allowing continued amendments decreases advance certainty for developers, implementers, and other jurisdictions for what is going to be in the code when it goes into effect; and

•  In some cases, implementation staff may raise issues that were previously discussed by the Council, and where the Council made a conscious decision to weight another public good more heavily than ease of implementation—allowing additional amendments may begin to disrupt this balance.

Issue 1: Lots terminology

Discussion: “Substandard” is no longer terminology used under the new code. Section 33.120.210 should be amended to delete the word substandard.

Amendment: Add the following language to page 15 of the implementation report.

33.120.210 Lot Size

C.  Ownership of multiple lots. Where more than one abutting lot or lot of record is in the same ownership, the ownership may be separated as follows:

2.  If one or more of the lots or lots of record is substandard does not meet the lot size standards in Chapter 33.612, Lots in Multi-Dwelling Zones, the ownership may be separated if all requirements of this paragraph are met. This separation is allowed even if the lots or lots of record do not meet the minimum lot size standards of Chapter 33.612, Lots in Multi-Dwelling Zones. Such lots and lots of record are legal, substandard lots.

Issue 2: Measurement of streams

Discussion: The Implementation Report includes an amendment to clarify measurement of seeps and springs. Measurement of streams should be clarified by defining the edge of the stream as its top of bank.

Amendment: Add the language in italics to pages 29 and 51 of the implementation report.

33.640.200  Stream, Spring, and Seep Standards

A.  Preservation in a tract. Streams, springs, and seeps must be preserved in a tract. The edges of the tract must be at least 15 feet from the edges of the stream, spring, or seep. The edges of a seep or spring are determined through a wetland delineation, performed by an environmental scientist, and certified by OPDR to meet the City’s definition of wetland. Where the edge of the stream, spring, or seep is less than 15 feet from the edge of the site, the tract boundary will be located along the edge of the site.

The edges of a stream are defined as the top-of-bank.

33.665.340 Proposals without a Land Division

F.  Streams, Springs, and Seeps.

1.  If there is a stream, spring, or seep outside of an Environmental Overlay Zone on the site, then the stream, spring, or seep must be preserved in a tract an easement. The edges of the tract easement must be at least 15 feet from the edges of the stream, spring, or riparian seep. The edges of a seep or spring are determined through a wetland delineation, performed by an environmental scientist, and certified by OPDR to meet the City’s definition of wetland. The edges of a stream are defined as the top-of-bank. Where the edge of the stream, spring, or seep is less than 15 feet from the edge of the site, the easement boundary will be located along the edge of the site. The following development, improvements, and activities are allowed in the easement:

Issue 3: Utility easements

Discussion: Title 34, Subdivision and Partitioning currently provides the authority to require utility easements for telephone lines and the like adjacent to rights-of-way. Continuing to allow these easements to be required will strengthen enforceability of the requirement that utilities be located within or near rights-of-way. Staff is also concerned that the word “near” may not provide sufficient guidance for the location of utilities. Section 33.654.130 should be amended to include the authority to require utility easements adjacent to the right-of-way.

Amendment: Add the following language to page 37 of the implementation report.

33.654.130   Additional Approval Criteria for Rights-of-Way

A.  Utilities. Utilities must be located within or near rights-of-way or utility easements that are adjacent to rights-of-way to the maximum extent practicable. Utility easements of up to 15 feet in width may be required adjacent to rights-of-way.

Issue 4: Final plat flexibility to accommodate curb ramps

Discussion: Staff in the Office of Transportation have requested that right-of-way widening be allowed without requiring an amendment to the tentative plan when engineering for a curb ramp at an intersection would require additional width. We recommend that final plat wiggle room be added that would allow limited street widening in these situations.

Amendment: Add the following language to page 39 and 43 of the implementation report.

33.660.220  Approval Standards

A.  Conformance with Preliminary Plan.

12.  Increasing the width of a right-of-way within 15 feet of an intersection to accommodate curb ramps, if approved by the appropriate service bureau. See Figure 660-1;

12.-13. [Renumber as 13.-14.]

33.662.220  Approval Standards

A.  Conformance with Preliminary Plan.

12.  Increasing the width of a right-of-way within 15 feet of an intersection to accommodate curb ramps, if approved by the appropriate service bureau. See Figure 662-1;

12.-13. [Renumber as 13.-14.]

Figure 660-1/Figure 662-1  

r-o-w

Issue 5: Flexibility to accommodate natural features within rights-of-way

Discussion: Staff in the Office of Transportation have requested that the regulations be amended to allow the flexibility to engineer street elements around trees and other existing natural features that may be encountered after tentative plan approval. There are two possible ways to provide this flexibility: 1) add final plat wiggle room to allow limited right-of-way widening in these situations (similar to issue 4, above), or 2) allow elements of the street to be placed in easements rather than right-of-way.

Transportation staff has requested that this flexibility be allowed through easements. Bureau of Planning staff is concerned that allowing sidewalks and other street facilities to be placed in easements is inconsistent with previous discussion at the Planning Commission and in other forums which supported disallowing sidewalks to be provided in easements on private, individually owned property.

Possible Approaches:

Option 1: Direct staff to prepare a specific amendment that would add final plat wiggle room for right-of-way width and bring back amendment for consideration at a future hearing.

Option 2: Direct staff to prepare a specific amendment that would provide flexibility by allowing street elements to be placed in easements in some situations and bring back amendment for consideration at a future hearing.

Option 3: Direct OPDR to monitor implementation of this provision as originally adopted and reconsider as part of a future legislative project.