CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, January 24, 2000
7:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: None
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
(a) Proclamation of "Neighbor Appreciation Day"
Mayor Jepsen proclaimed February 12, 2000 as Neighbor Appreciation Day in Shoreline. Dick Nicholson, Chair, Council of Neighborhoods, spoke about the value of strong neighborhoods and encouraged residents to participate in Neighbor Appreciation Day.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Robert Deis, City Manager, noted the cancellation of the Council meeting on March 13 for lack of a quorum—several Councilmembers will be attending the National League of Cities conference.
Mr. Deis provided information in follow up to comments by Councilmember Ransom at the January 18 Council meeting. First, he discussed a newly proposed bill in the State Legislature that would create significant and expensive reporting requirements for cities proposing to assume special districts. Second, he reported on discussions between the Shoreline Water District and the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) regarding a service area east of Shoreline. Mr. Deis said SPU has assured City staff that it will include the City in discussions or negotiations with the Water District about the service area. He noted that staff has asked SPU to provide a written statement of this understanding.
Next, Mr. Deis noted the need to develop a process for reviewing applications for and appointing new Planning Commissioners. Mayor Jepsen recommended the formation of a three-member ad hoc committee of Councilmembers to review applications, conduct interviews and submit recommendations to the full Council. Councilmember Grossman, Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Lee volunteered to serve on the committee.
Larry Bauman, Assistant City Manager, advised that the terms of three of the five Library Board members will expire on March 31. Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom volunteered to serve on an ad hoc committee to review applications for the three Library Board positions.
Mr. Deis went on to report the following appointments to regional committees:
Finally, Mr. Deis mentioned a letter from Al Crane concerning Phase 2 of the Draft Development Code. There was Council consensus that staff provide a copy of Phase 2 of the Draft Development Code in the Council office.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, asserted that staff should include letters from citizens in the materials it provides to Council on land use decisions. She expressed her hope that the City will seriously consider the revisions that citizens propose to Phase 2 of the Draft Development Code. Finally, she encouraged citizens to apply for appointment to the Planning Commission.
(b) Stan Terry, 15811 28th Avenue NE, representing the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association, invited Councilmembers to attend the dedication of the association’s neighborhood information kiosk on February 12.
(c) Al Crane, 18551 Meridian Avenue N, presented a letter opposing aspects of Phase 2 of the Draft Development Code.
(d) Margaret Walruse, 14547 26th Avenue NE, thanked Council for its attentiveness to citizen input.
(e) Dennis Lee, 14547 26th Avenue NE, reported on the Planning Commission’s deliberations on Phase 1 of the Draft Development Code. He said the Commission did not seriously consider many of the proposed amendments. He asked that Council carefully consider amendments proposed for both Phase 1 and Phase 2.
(f) Robert Goiney, 829 NW 165th Street, discussed a lack of enforcement of the leash law in City parks, particularly in Shoreview Park. He requested that the City enforce its leash law, install appropriate signage and prohibit dogs from Boeing Creek and Hidden Lake.
(g) Brian Doennebrink, 20330 Burke Avenue N, addressed the Metro plan to eliminate 1.05 million hours of bus service by September in response to lower Motor Vehicle Excise Tax revenues. He noted a plan to eliminate five of six peak-hour bus routes in Shoreline. He provided materials to Council about proposed route reductions.
(h) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, expressed his concern that the Planning Commission is trying to hurry its consideration of proposed amendments to the Draft Development Code. He mentioned a proposal to restrict consideration to those amendments sponsored by Planning Commissioners. He stressed the importance of citizen participation. He opposed the "key informant" approach that staff has proposed for the Municipal Services Strategic Plan (MSSP) as a restriction of citizen input. He supported the inclusion of the Council of Neighborhoods in the process.
Mayor Jepsen asserted that Council receives and reviews letters from citizens.
Mr. Deis said the Planning Commission will consider all of the proposed amendments to Phase 2 of the Draft Development Code; however, it may limit discussion to the particular amendments it identifies. Planning and Development Services Director Tim Stewart said the Commission has not yet determined the rules it will apply.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that staff will address every proposed amendment. He said citizens may comment during public hearings on any proposed amendment, regardless of whether the Commission designates it for discussion.
Mr. Deis acknowledged that the effectiveness of the City’s leash law depends on the level of enforcement. The City is extremely limited in the enforcement it can provide. He said staff has emphasized education to restrict dogs from sensitive areas (e.g., creeks). Mayor Jepsen noted the divisiveness of discussions regarding enforcement of leash laws. He pointed out that the City relies on the County for animal control in Shoreline.
Councilmember Gustafson recommended that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee consider the issue of leash law enforcement and develop a recommendation for Council consideration. Councilmember Ransom supported this recommendation. He emphasized the need for a master plan for Shoreview Park to address this issue.
Mayor Jepsen asserted that Council must identify a clear work program before delegating the issue for consideration by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Montgomery confirmed the information that Mr. Doennebrink provided. She said Metro has postponed proposed reductions in bus service in the hope that the State legislature will provide additional transit funding.
Mr. Deis said the City has changed the process for gathering input to the MSSP to refer to "key stakeholders," instead of "key informants." He explained that the majority of the key stakeholders will be citizens, and the remainder will be business people. He confirmed that staff has included the Council of Neighborhoods in the process.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Montgomery moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and the agenda was approved.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Montgomery moved approval of the consent calendar. Council-member Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of Special Meeting of January 3, 2000
Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 10, 2000
Approval of expenses and payroll as of January 18, 2000 in the amount of $ 928,205.30
Ordinance No. 226, reducing the tax rate on bingo and raffles
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Implementation Agreement with King County to provide CTR Services
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Closed Record Appeal Hearing of the Planning Commission’s Recommendations on the Zevenbergen Subdivision
After Mayor Jepsen confirmed that Councilmembers had not had any ex parte communication regarding the appeal, Mr. Stewart briefly reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Jepsen noted that he will rely upon City Attorney Ian Sievers and upon Mr. Stewart to determine that the appellant and the applicant do not introduce new information or findings of fact. With that, he called for the presentations of the parties to the appeal.
Michael O’Connell, 620 NW 182nd Street, spoke on behalf of the appellants. He asserted the applicability of the Washington State vesting doctrine to this case. He said the zoning code required 390 square feet of recreation space per unit for subdivisions of eight or more units when the Zevenbergens submitted their application in 1998. There were additional requirements for recreation space totaling 5,000 square feet or more: it must be centrally located; it must be accessible and convenient to all residents; and it must have a street or roadway parking area along ten to 50 percent of the perimeter. He said the Zevenbergen application did not meet these requirements. In response to the Zevenbergens’ claim that staff waived these requirements at the time of the application, Mr. O’Connell asserted that staff had no legal authority to do so.
Mr. O’Connell argued that, under the State vesting doctrine, an application must be complete and must comply with current laws in order to vest. He referred to the Noble Manor case in which the State Supreme Court quoted from the legislative report of the statute for vesting of subdivisions. He said the report identified the full completion of an application as a prerequisite of vesting. He said the Zevenbergens argue that their fully completed application vested despite the fact that it did not meet the substantive requirements of the law.
Finally, Mr. O’Connell addressed the Friends of the Law case, in which the State Supreme Court held that an application can be considered vested even in the event of procedural defects. However, Mr. O’Connell differentiated procedural defects from substantial defects. He reiterated that the Zevenbergen application did not meet all of the zoning code requirements. He asserted that it was unlawful and that, as a result, it did not vest. He distributed, and asked Council to read, the King County ordinance referenced by the applicants’ attorney. Reserving the remainder of his time, he requested that Council deny the Zevenbergen application.
Courtney Kaylor, 2025 1st Avenue, Suite 1130, Seattle, Washington, represented the applicants. Asserting that neither the facts nor the law support the appellants’ claim, she asked Council to deny the appeal and to approve the preliminary plat as unanimously recommended by the Planning Commission. She reviewed the history of the project, including the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval in 1998, the appeal to the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner’s determination of procedural defects and decision to remand the issue to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Kaylor said the applicant agreed to certain conditions at the June 3rd remand hearing and to others during a subsequent meeting with neighboring residents. She said the agreements did not constitute a new or revised application. She explained that the applicant was responding to public comments and staff recommendations. She asserted the unfairness of penalizing the applicant for submitting to conditions the neighbors requested.
Ms. Kaylor quoted King County Code 19.36.085, as adopted by the City under SMC 17.05.010: "Applicant-generated modifications or requests for revision(s) which are not made in response to technical staff review, throughout the public process or from examiner conditions which result in any substantial changes as determined by the department including creation of additional lots or elimination of open space requirements shall be treated as a new application for purposes of vesting." She asserted that changes must meet all of these criteria to be treated as a new application. She said the changes to which the applicant agreed met none of them.
Continuing, Ms. Kaylor refuted the claim that the application failed to vest for failing to show common recreation space. She quoted RCW 58.17.033: "A proposed division of land . . . shall be considered under the subdivision . . . ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval . . . has been submitted to the appropriate county, city or town official" and "The requirements for a complete application shall be defined by local ordinance." She then referred to the requirements for a completed application under SMC 16.40.040. She said it does not require a plat application to demonstrate compliance with zoning code requirements in order to vest. She stressed that the application contained the required information, that staff determined the application to be complete and processed it accordingly and that the plat, therefore, vested. The appellants seek to have Council ignore SMC 16.40.040 and impose a new requirement for a completed application. She commented that Council cannot do so.
Finally, Ms. Kaylor said the State Supreme Court held in the Friends of the Law case that the application vested even though it did not comply with a substantive requirement. She quoted from the Court decision: "A preliminary plat application is meant to give local governments an approximate picture of how the final subdivision will look. It is to be expected that modifications will be made during the give and take of the approval process. . . . Once a completed application has been submitted, it is to be judged under the laws in effect at the time of submission. If the applicant can show that the plat, with the proper conditions and modifications, will comply with those laws, it will be approved."
In rebuttal, Mr. O’Connell said the applicant has represented the agreement to include recreation space as mitigation. He stated that compliance with the law is not mitigation. He reiterated that the application the Zevenbergens submitted failed to comply with the law. Supposing the application had come to Council for approval without a recreation space, he said the applicant would not have been able to revise it to include one. He asserted that the application should have been denied before and that it should be denied now.
Councilmember Ransom moved to deny the appeal based on the following key findings: 1) the developer filed a complete application in March 1998 which vested rights to develop under a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size; 2) subsequent revisions are in response to staff review, public comment or Planning Commission recommendations; and 3) revisions incorporated by the developer or proposed in the Commission recommendation do not materially increase impacts of the development. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion.
Councilmember Montgomery asked whether an application such as that in question must comply with all applicable regulations before the City may consider it. Mr. Sievers responded that such an application must comply with the City ordinance that determines when a plat will be complete and that once it meets that standard the application vests. He went on to say that changes an applicant makes during the review process that do not create new impacts are not considered a new application under City ordinances.
Councilmember Montgomery asked whether the City ordinance that limits the size of a building footprint in relation to the lot size applies to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Sievers mentioned a statutory requirement that a plat meet all zoning and other land use regulations upon approval. He did not know whether the City requires a plat to show building setback lines.
Councilmember Lee asked if the clear identification of the recreation space is a prerequisite for designating the application to be complete. Mr. Sievers said neither the appellants nor the applicants have disputed the staff determination that the application was complete. Mr. Stewart explained that staff identified the deficient identification of the recreation space during its review of the plat, and the clear identification of the recreation space became one of the conditions of approval that staff recommended to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Ransom reviewed the history of the application. He noted, and Mr. Stewart confirmed, the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation that Council approve the application with conditions. Councilmember Ransom asserted his understanding that Council is acting like a jury in a civil case to determine whether it has probable cause to believe that the recommendation is reasonable. Mr. Sievers agreed. He said the appellant bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that Council should not adopt the recommendation.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Sievers confirmed that the Planning Commission made a recommendation of approval regarding the identification of the recreation space. Mr. Stewart confirmed that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the application with conditions.
Councilmember Grossman favored City policy whereby developers and community members meet, discuss and resolve issues. He said it would set a bad precedent for the City to determine that a developer who participates in a public process and agrees to make changes has thereby submitted a new application. He expressed discomfort at penalizing a developer for cooperating with staff and the community. He said it is unrealistic to expect an initial plat application to be perfect from the outset.
Referring to King County Code 19.36.085, adopted by SMC 17.05.010, Mayor Jepsen asserted his understanding that modifications the applicant makes to respond to City staff, the public or the Hearing Examiner do not constitute a new plat application. He went on to note the examples of substantial change included under KCC 19.36.085 (3). He asked about additional legal definitions of "substantial change." Mr. Sievers noted that SMC 18.40.040 (B) states that "An applicant-requested modification . . . shall be deemed a new application for the purpose of vesting when such modification would result in a substantial increase in a project’s impacts. . . ." While acknowledging that SMC 18.40.040 (B) does not apply to subdivisions, he said it provides an analogy to help determine the subdivision code.
Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted his understanding that an applicant who concedes to a negotiated mitigation that does not substantially increase the impacts of the project has not submitted a new application for the purpose of vesting. Mr. Sievers agreed.
Deputy Mayor Hansen and Councilmember Lee noted that staff determined the Zevenbergen Subdivision application to be complete in 1998.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6-1, with Councilmember Gustafson dissenting, and the appeal was denied, based on the following key findings: 1) the developer filed a complete application in March 1998 which vested rights to develop under a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size; 2) subsequent revisions are in response to staff review, public comment or Planning Commission recommenda-tions; and 3) revisions incorporated by the developer or proposed in the Commission recommendation do not materially increase impacts of the development.
RECESS
At 9:18 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared a five-minutes recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:23 p.m.
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Motion to approve the preliminary plat for the Zevenbergen Subdivision, subject to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions provided in the Planning Commission report
Mr. Stewart reviewed the 22 conditions of the approval of the Zevenbergen Subdivision (pages 136-139 of the Council packet).
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved that Council approve the preliminary plat for the Zevenbergen Subdivision, subject to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions provided in the Planning Commission report. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart explained that condition five reflects the conclusion of the Planning Commission in favor of a public right-of-way over an access tract and that condition 18 was meant to preserve the trees along the northern property boundary.
In response to Council questions, Mr. Stewart said Attachment H (page 217 of the Council packet) is the exhibit the applicants presented to the Planning Commission to demonstrate how they would meet the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. He noted that staff has not yet reviewed and approved this plat map. In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, he confirmed that the plat map must reflect the written conditions of the Planning Commission report to qualify for approval.
Councilmember Lee said many residents of developments similar to the one proposed express concerns about the ability of fire trucks to locate and access their homes. She asked if the City’s new development code will address these issues more directly. Mr. Stewart mentioned the City’s objective for the new development code to provide clear direction of what the fire department is willing to accept.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7-0, and the preliminary plat for the Zevenbergen Subdivision was approved, subject to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Conditions provided in the Planning Commission report.
(b) Ordinance No. 225, amending the City’s Zoning map to change the zoning of a .75 acre parcel located at 20028 15th Ave. NE from R-6 to Contract Zone #CZ-99-02 subject to restrictive covenants (the Parker Rezone)
Mr. Stewart provided a brief overview of the staff report.
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 225. Council-member Gustafson seconded the motion.
Mayor Jepsen supported the proposed contract rezone.
Noting that the proposed building falls 14 units short of the 36 units possible under the adopted Comprehensive Plan land use designation, Councilmember Grossman expressed concern about City fulfillment of the housing requirement under the Growth Manage-ment Act (GMA). Mr. Stewart said staff supports the proposed building for this site. He acknowledged that the City must identify opportunities to make up the shortfall.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7-0, and Ordinance No. 225, amending the City’s Zoning map to change the zoning of a .75 acre parcel located at 20028 15th Avenue NE from R-6 to Contract Zone #CZ-99-02 subject to restrictive covenants (the Parker Rezone), was approved.
(c) Ordinance No. 224, amending the City’s Zoning map to change the zoning of a 1.6 acre parcel located at 15th Ave. NE and NE 166th from R-6 to Contract Zone #CZ-1999-01 subject to restrictive covenants (the Shoreline Village Rezone)
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 224. Council-member Lee seconded the motion.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Stewart said people residing north of the proposed project and south of NE 168th Street submitted most of the testimony in opposition to the project.
Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed concern that the proposed access road enters 15th Avenue NE mid-block. Mr. Stewart acknowledged this concern. He said both staff and the Planning Commission discussed it as well.
Councilmember Grossman acknowledged the objections of the neighboring residents, but he noted that the number of units proposed for the site is much fewer than the 55 units permitted under the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan. He reiterated his concern about meeting the GMA housing requirement. He also expressed concern about housing affordability.
Mayor Jepsen said he did not like the layout of the proposed development—he mentioned the parking and the orientation of the units in particular. However, he questioned whether Council values should influence the consideration of a proposal that has already undergone community and Planning Commission review. Mr. Stewart mentioned the design standards in the new development code as a means of influencing future developments.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 9:58 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Councilmembers Grossman and Gustafson dissenting.
Councilmember Grossman expressed uneasiness about Council "micro-managing design and projects."
Mayor Jepsen moved to amend the motion to add a Condition 21 to allow that prior to filing the Concomitant Rezone Agreement, staff and the applicant will revisit the site layout with the goal of rotating some of the buildings or reconfiguring them so that they face the street where feasible. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Grossman asserted that the amendment falls outside the role of Council. Mayor Jepsen commented that, not having adopted a design code, the City is in a "Catch-22 period" of not being able to provide much guidance to developers.
After additional Council discussion, Mr. Stewart said it will ultimately be the decision of the applicant whether and how to revise the site layout.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which carried 4-3, with Deputy Mayor Hansen, and Councilmembers Grossman and Ransom dissenting.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 224, as amended, which carried 7-0, and Ordinance No. 224, amending the City’s Zoning map to change the zoning of a 1.6 acre parcel located at 15th Ave. NE and NE 166th from R-6 to Contract Zone #CZ-1999-01 subject to restrictive covenants, and to the new Condition 21 added by Council, was approved.
10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, commented that the City’s road standards continue to be unclear. She said staff stated that the driveway in the Parker Rezone did not have to meet commercial road standards. After discussing the research she performed, she asserted that the driveway, as currently proposed, requires a road variance. She expressed concern about the variation from City codes that contract rezones can accommodate. She asked that Council consider this issue when defining contract rezones in the new development code. Finally, she asserted that Shoreline is satisfying its GMA housing requirement.
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:15 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk