Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission discusses state-mandated unit‑lot subdivisions; asks staff to add clarifying language
Summary
The commission reviewed state-required unit‑lot subdivision language that would allow sale of attached dwellings with the land beneath them, and asked staff to add clarifying language to prevent circumvention of subdivision safeguards.
The La Conner Planning Commission reviewed proposed code language to implement a state requirement for unit‑lot subdivisions, a form of ownership that allows an owner to sell a dwelling with the land it sits on rather than an air‑space condo.
Michelle, planning staff, explained that unit‑lot subdivisions apply development standards (setbacks, landscaping, impervious surface) to the parent lot. She said that short plats would be the application route for four or fewer child lots while a full subdivision would be required for five or more. Michelle also said the ordinance must go through a 60‑day review with the Washington State Department of Commerce before council adoption; staff estimated a 4–6 month timeline to adoption if the town proceeds.
Commissioners raised concerns about how unit‑lot subdivisions might affect the Historic Preservation District, noting the district’s goal of maintaining original lot patterns and setbacks. Several commissioners requested clarifying language that would: (1) require all affected dwellings to be located within a single parent lot, and (2) prevent use of unit‑lot language to avoid full subdivision safeguards. Commissioners asked staff to draft wording that prevents parcel‑aggregation loopholes and to return the updated language for review.
Commissioners also discussed consistency in fire‑safety language. The group recommended referencing an "automatic fire sprinkler system" uniformly across tiny‑home, unit‑lot and residential provisions and noted that the local fire chief should review access and other site‑specific fire measures. Staff agreed to add clarifying language linking the fire requirements to the applicable fire authority review.
No formal vote was taken; the discussion produced staff direction to revise the draft code and return it for further consideration.
