20170509 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
May 9, 2017
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Thomas Mesaros, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Andrew Pierce, Legislative/Council Assistant
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5'11 Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PRESENTATION
1. PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONTH
Mayor Earling recognized several members of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in the
audience. He read a proclamation declaring May 2017 as Historic Preservation Month and calling upon
public officials, educators, business owners, property owners, and all people of Edmonds to join in
celebrating the history preserved in unique building and structures and strive to protect and preserve
Edmonds' heritage.
HPC President Tim Raetzloff accepted the proclamation, commenting the HPC is different than the
Historic Society and focuses on preserving and maintaining older buildings in Edmonds by working with
home owners and building owners. The HPC hopes to preserve the City's history rather than have older
buildings demolished. He thank the City for the proclamation and introduced Historic Preservation
Commissioners Steve Waite, Sandy Albery, Emily Scott, and Larry Vogel and the HPC staff liaison,
Planning Manager Rob Chave.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 1
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
Shannon Lair, a 12 -year member of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
explained she attended the April 25, 2017 Council meeting in support of the City maintaining its current
apprenticeship utilization language in Public Works contracts. She was saddened when it failed but angry
about some of the reasons. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott, who spoke in favor of the change, stated
few other surrounding cities had apprenticeship programs. The Public Works Director also spoke about
apprenticeship programs. She asserted both were likely using the wrong terminology and consequently
provided misinformation. A majority of surrounding cities do have apprenticeship utilization language in
their Public Works contracts. Apprenticeship utilization and responsible bidder language is what the City
has in its contracts; apprenticeship programs are what labor unions and contractors have. It was also
mentioned that smaller contractors who may have apprentices would have to lay off one or more of their
journeypersons. She asserted if the contractor was following the rules of the contract he was bidding on,
he would already have apprentices in his employment. Apprentices save money as they are cheaper labor
and do the grunt work while learning the craft. Contractors who are not using apprentices are also likely
not using journeymen, but rather have employees who may not earn union wages. Contractors refusing to
use apprentices also often do not hire women and minorities and may use undocumented workers, paying
them less than minimum wage under the table, discrimination at its worst. Responsible bidder and
apprenticeship utilization language helps drive out discrimination. Making a livable wage promotes the
economy and the City. People eat, drink, fuel their vehicles and often buy groceries in areas where they
work. The misinterpreted terminology may or may not have changed the outcome of the vote, but she felt
the need to clarify so when the language is next evaluated, it is done properly.
Larry Vogel, Edmonds, expressed his personal appreciation for the proclamation for Historic
Preservation Month. He has been honored to serve on the HPC for ten years, three years as chair and the
last two as vice chair. It has been a fantastic experience and through his involvement, he has gained a
deep appreciation for the City's heritage, history, and cultural appurtenances. Edmonds is blessed to have
a rich, multi -faceted cultural history and he was honored to have a part in helping preserve it and increase
the public's awareness.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Mesaros requested Item 6.4, Confirm Salary Commission Appointment, be removed
from the Consent Agenda as the Council was not prepared to act.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 2, 2017
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM
STUDY ITEM
UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT (AMD20170003)
Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the proposed Unit Lot Subdivision Code Amendment:
Application for a code amendment
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 2
o Application from private party
o Amendment would add "unit lot subdivision" as an option in the subdivision code
o Process is Type V
■ Planning Board public hearing and recommendation
• City Council public hearing and decision (potential ordinance amending ECDC)
Unit Lot Subdivision
o Doesn't change underlying zoning
o Doesn't change applicable design, height or bulk considerations
o External project setbacks are preserved
o Provides for an alternative form of ownership for multifamily projects (as opposed to
condominiums)
o Requires homeowners association and agreements for maintenance of common areas or
facilities, and building exteriors for multi -unit buildings
Mr. Chave displayed an aerial view of an existing, standard multifamily project which has a "parent lot"
for the overall project development. He displayed an aerial view of the same development with unit lot
subdivision where each unit is identified via the subdivision and owned by an individual. If the buildings
are attached, a common maintenance agreement would be required and the overall homeowners
association (HOA) would be responsible for maintaining internal drives, common and open space, etc. He
summarized unit lot subdivision was an alternative to condominiums or someone owning the overall
development and renting units. The recommendation is to include unit lot subdivision in the City's code.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the aerial view of an existing, standard multifamily project.
Mr. Chave explained if unit lot subdivision was used, each lot would contain a dwelling unit.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the benefit of unit lot subdivision versus condominium. Mr.
Chave responded the genesis was issues that occurred with condominiums a number of years ago such as
difficulty obtaining insurance. For example, problems with Dryvit and other products on building
exteriors that failed and subsequent issues with responsibility, etc. Builders and developers found
insurance got in way of dividing up ownership which created problems for the multifamily market. Unit
lot subdivision preserves the option for individual ownership which people want, but removes a
development from the condominium process. The Planning Board's recommendation requires common
maintenance agreements as protections. One of the benefits of unit lot subdivision is an owner is not a
common owner of the entire development. For example in a fourplex, the ownership is focused on those
four units. Unit lot subdivision potentially makes it easier to divide up ownership in a logical manner
while still providing for maintenance and ownership of the common areas.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the downside to unit lot subdivision. Mr. Chave answered
he did not see a downside; it is an alternative form of ownership which is a good thing as long as
protections are in place such as an HOA and maintenance agreements.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this did not go through the new committee structure. Mr. Chave
answered when there is a recommendation from the Planning Board, the recommendation is to the entire
Council. If the recommendation is forwarded to a committee, there is only review by 2-3
Councilmembers. The Council could forward unit lot subdivision to a committee but recommendations to
full Council have always come to the Council first.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this would apply citywide when it was only for Westgate. Mr.
Chave answered unit lot subdivision is not specific to Westgate, it would apply to multifamily
development citywide. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the applicant's name is Westgate Woods but
it is not specific to Westgate. Mr. Chave agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 3
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how problems with common areas such as the roof or decks would be
addressed if there was no condominium budget, meetings, etc. Mr. Chave said HOA and maintenance
documents would identify responsibility and authorize the ownership group to assess individual owners to
provide ongoing maintenance. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there would still be annual meetings,
budgets, etc. like a condominium. Mr. Chave agreed it would be similar. Councilmember Buckshnis
referred to the four-plex example and asked what happens if there are three great owners and one who is
not. Mr. Chave answered they are all responsible which is the reason for the agreements. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked if that was strictly spelled out in the code. Mr. Chave assured it was.
Council President Mesaros asked if developments have to apply to use unit lot subdivision. Mr. Chave
answered yes, just like any subdivision; a short subdivision for four units or less or the full subdivision
process for more than four units.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the statement that external project setbacks are preserved which he
assumed meant the outer perimeter of the parent lot. Mr. Chave answered yes. Councilmember Teitzel
observed within the parent lot there could be zero lot line setbacks. Mr. Chave agreed, explaining that was
unclear in the code unless unit lot subdivision was allowed.
Councilmember Teitzel recalled a statement in the packet that unit lot subdivision could help create more
affordable housing and keep the cost of units down. Mr. Chave said that was in the applicant's materials.
Individual single family lots tend to be larger while multifamily tends to be smaller ownership; to the
degree less land is owned, the land cost is reduced, potentially providing more affordable housing than a
standard single family development. It will depend development to development.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the example Mr. Chave provided, explaining Dryvit was a stucco
material developed in the dry climate in the southwest but failed in the northwest and had to be replaced.
Most condominiums were wrapped during the replacement and it took a long time to fix the problem.
Under unit lot subdivision, if a multifamily project used Dryvit, she asked if there would there need to be
16 individual insurance claims, lawsuits, etc. She recognized unit lot subdivision would be an advantage
for the builder but questioned the advantage for the owner. Mr. Chave answered the overall advantage for
the owner was individual lot ownership. He would think as a group, the owners could get together to seek
a remedy if a common product/installation were used. Worst case, the groups of owners in each duplex,
fourplex, etc. could seek to recover damages. Unit lot subdivision distributes the ownership as well as the
responsibility.
Councilmember Johnson remarked it also distributes the risk, commenting most people who bought
condominiums that used Dryvit were not aware of the problem. Mr. Chave answered most of those were
larger buildings with flats. The unit lot subdivision process would not apply to those buildings; a unit lot
subdivision cannot be used for stacked flats in a large building. Unit lot subdivision can only be used if
the ownership goes all the way to the ground. Councilmember Johnson commented Dryvit could be used
on any building.
Councilmember Johnson observed this was a proposal from an individual and she was interested in the
benefit to the homeowners. Mr. Chave commented the HOA provides some protections and collective
ownership responsibilities would apply.
Councilmember Tibbott commented there are more than six units in the aerial photograph of the
development used in the example. Mr. Chave clarified the code allows up to six units per building; the
aerial photograph illustrates multiple buildings. There is not a limit of six units in the overall
development. Councilmember Tibbott asked if a 24,000 -square foot lot in the RS -12 zone could utilize
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 4
unit lot subdivision. Mr. Chave answered no, a standard subdivision would be required in an RS zone.
Unit lot subdivision only applies to multifamily zones or zones that allow multifamily development.
Councilmember Tibbott observed there appeared to be some open space shown in the example and asked
if that would be a qualification in the parent lot. Mr. Chave answered it depends, it could be established as
a separate tract but if it is under common ownership, the ownership, maintenance, etc. would be addressed
in the subdivision documents. Councilmember Tibbott asked if there was any requirement for open space.
Mr. Chave answered only what was required in multifamily zones which includes setbacks and there is
typically some open space within the development in addition to drive aisles, etc. All the areas that serve
the overall development would be classified as common areas and would be owned and maintained by the
overall HOA. That would be considered in the review of the unit lot subdivision
Councilmember Tibbott inquired about percentage of lot coverage. Mr. Chave said that would be the
same as the underlying multifamily zone. Councilmember Tibbott said open space and adequate parking
would be beneficial and did not want that eliminated. Mr. Chave said a standard multifamily development
would look like one big lot, drive aisles, exterior setback, maybe some open space, etc. Unit lot
subdivision does not change that, does not give any bonuses or anything other than the ability to
subdivide the ownership within that multifamily development. He summarized the development standards
for a unit lot subdivision are exactly the same as a standard multifamily development, only the ownership
is different.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to Section 20.75.045.I, "An application for final Unit Lot plat will not be
accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face
of the final plat by the land surveyor of record." Mr. Chave explained this was requested by the applicant
after researching codes in other jurisdictions. In this type of subdivision, the lines are very specifically
drawn. If the subdivision was done up front, there is the chance that the party wall between the units
might not exactly align with the subdivided line. Having the foundations including common wall
foundations done first ensures the location of the subdivision line and provides confidence for the
subdivider that what is proposed aligns on the ground. Councilmember Tibbott observed it also provides
protection for the new owner that their property lines are certain.
Councilmember Tibbott commented one of the public comments provided to the Planning Board offered
critiques for unit lot subdivision, addressing some of the potential downfalls. Those were answered via
the proposed code, anticipating some of the potential problems. He commented the Planning Board
process illustrates the City's forward thinking and ability to provide protection for homeowners. He
referred to a picture of a triplex in the packet and described meeting one of the homeowners who was
thrilled with the opportunity to buy house. When asked how she liked having a home that she shared with
the neighbors, the homeowner said it was fantastic and went on to describe features of the home, private
backyard, etc. Councilmember Tibbott summarized unit lot subdivision is an opportunity for
homeownership for the "missing middle." He was in support of the proposal.
Councilmember Nelson asked if unit lot subdivision was condominiums but without the problems. Mr.
Chave answered to some degree; the problems with condominiums are somewhat anecdotal.
Unfortunately in the past there were more problems obtaining condominium insurance due to physical
problems with specific products. Councilmember Nelson asked if new condominiums were being built in
Edmonds. Mr. Chave answered they are still built but this provides another option. Councilmember
Nelson commented condominiums may not be utilized to the fullest due to the problems in the past. Mr.
Chave answered many of those problems are historical. Builders are still occasionally interested in
another option for dividing up ownership. Not everyone wants to be in a condominium association, some
prefer to own their own plot of land. There is also a difference in scale, large buildings will still be
condominiums; this type of ownership makes more sense in an individual building with up to six units.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 5
Councilmember Nelson referred to the applicability section which states unit lot subdivision is applicable
in the following zones: Multiple Residential, General Commercial, and Westgate Mixed Use, noting that
may have precipitated Councilmember Buckshnis' earlier question about applicability citywide. Mr.
Chave clarified it was not tailored for Westgate. Councilmember Nelson asked how unit lot subdivision
would look in General Commercial. Mr. Chave answered townhouses are allowed in Westgate and unit
lot subdivision would make sense in an area where townhouses are allowed. Unit lot subdivision would
not be allowed in General Commercial where there is commercial on the ground floor and residential
above. Unit lot subdivision would only apply to multifamily areas of Westgate; Westgate includes a
myriad different types of buildings and uses.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the language in the packet about affordable housing. She
asked whether that would depend on the builder's intent or would a percentage be required to be
affordable housing. Mr. Chave answered there was nothing in the proposal regarding affordable housing,
that was a separate issue. Unit lot subdivision is a way to provide smaller scale homeownership without
large lots which add to the cost. Some people like this type of development and for them, it is more
affordable than a traditional single family home on a larger lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas wanted
to ensure it was clear that affordable housing would not be required; it was only affordable if whoever
built it wanted it to be affordable.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she owns a townhouse like this in Charlotte. As part of a six-plex,
it was affordable and made sense for her family. There is a HOA and the same rigmarole with pest
inspectors, etc. like in a condominium. Mr. Chave commented in a development like depicted in the
example, he anticipated there would be a HOA for the entire development rather than for each building.
8. ADJOURN TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Mayor Earling explained the Council has decided to hold committee meetings on the second and fourth
Tuesdays. There are three committees: Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee meets in the Jury
Meeting Room, the Finance Committee meets in Council Chambers and the Public Safety & Personnel
Committee meets in the Police Training Room.
The Council adjourned to committee meetings at 7:42 p.m.
A ID O. EARLING, MAYOR
4� 17
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY C K
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 9, 2017
Page 6