CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, February 28, 2000

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Grossman

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Hansen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exceptions of Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Grossman.

Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Lee and unanimously carried, Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Grossman were excused.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

(a) Officer of the Year

City Manager Robert Deis and Shoreline Police Chief Sue Rahr announced that Shoreline Police Officer Mark Brown was posthumously selected as Officer of the Year for 1999. Chief Rahr presented a plaque to Officer Brown’s mother, wife, and daughter.

RECESS

At 7:48 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen declared a three-minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 7:51 p.m.

Mr. Deis corrected a typographical error in the Dinner Meeting Minutes of February 14 which mistakenly identified them as the minutes of February 24.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Patty Hale, 16528 8^th Avenue NE, spoke on behalf of Camp Fire Boys and Girls. She urged Council and other Shoreline residents to join other adults around the country in recognition of Absolutely Incredible Kid Day on March 16.

(b) Ken Howe, 745 N 184^th Street, noted that Richmond Highlands will celebrate its centennial this year. He asked Council to create a Shoreline Landmarks Board.

(c) Terry Green, 613 N 179^th Street, spoke on behalf of the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce and reminded Council of the Chamber’s meeting at noon on March 8.

(d) Kristina Stimson, 2155 NW 201^st Street, addressed the Phase II development standards under review by the Planning Commission. She asserted that the proposed standards are not sufficiently specific to Shoreline. She advocated sub-area plans to supplement them.

(e) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177^th Street, reported that a City traffic engineer contacted him in response to his comments at the Council meeting February 22. He went on to advocate City actions to slow speeding traffic on 15^th Avenue NE north of NE 180^th Street and improvements to pedestrian facilities in the same area.

Mr. Deis noted City work on a sub-area plan for North City. He said the City may undertake similar initiatives in the future in other parts of Shoreline. He committed to communicate Mr. Elster’s concerns regarding 15^th Avenue NE to appropriate staff.

Deputy Mayor Hansen suggested Vicki Stiles, Executive Director of the Shoreline Historical Museum, as a resource for investigating a Shoreline Landmarks Board.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Ransom moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.

Councilmember Montgomery moved to change item 9 (b) to item 7 (d). Council-member Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

A vote was taken on the motion to approve the agenda, as amended, which carried unanimously.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Ransom moved approval of the consent calendar. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:

Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 24, 2000
Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of February 7, 2000
Minutes of the Dinner Meeting of February 14, 2000

Approval of expenses and payroll as of February 18, 2000 in the amount of $1,194,772.41

Motion to accept the highest evaluation score and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Red Carpet Building Maintenance in the amount of $76,777; and to execute change orders up to 10% of the original contract; and to authorize the City Manager to exercise the two one-year extensions to the contract upon satisfactory performance

Resolution No. 160 approving the transfer of the Cable Television Franchise from Edmonds Cable Company to TIC Cablevision of Washington

8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the Phase 1 amendments to the Development Code

Tim Stewart, Director, Planning and Development Services, discussed the process through which the City developed the Phase 1 amendments to the Development Code. He recognized the members of the Planning Academy in attendance at the meeting.

Anna Kolousek, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services, reviewed key differences between the existing code and the Development Code Phase I.

Next, Mr. Stewart discussed proposed amendments with which the Planning Commission and staff disagree.

Deputy Mayor Hansen opened the public hearing.

(1) Ken Howe, 745 N 184^th Street, advocated that the Development Code include a reference to the policy in the Comprehensive Plan that no particular neighborhood should have an over concentration of City services.

(2) Elizabeth Welsh, 2129 NW 201^st Street, expressed concern about the effectiveness of the pre-application meetings that applicants must conduct with neighborhoods for Type B or C actions. She said the process relies upon the willingness of developers to address neighbors’ concerns. She supported a minimum lot size for R-4 and R-6 zones of 7,200 square feet. Finally, she explained that many residents and some members of the Planning Academy are concerned about inconsistent City issuance of engineering variances. She said these individuals support the right to appeal such variances.

(3) Lena Wood, 20415 25^th Avenue NW, recommended that the City allow exceptions to the 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size on blocks in which two or more 5,000-square-foot lots already exist.

(4) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, supported a minimum lot size for R-4 and R-6 zones of 7,200 square feet and pre-application notification of and meetings with neighbors by applicants. She advocated a pre-application neighborhood meeting requirement for short plats as well.

(5) George Mauer, 1430 NW 191^st Street, advocated the right to appeal variances from engineering standards and supported early neighborhood notification. Referring to a 1998 survey of Richmond Beach residents, he reported that 76 percent of respondents very much supported design review. Noting that the same percentage of respondents expressed concern about growth in general, he asserted widespread support for insuring that citizens can provide input regarding development.

(6) Dennis Lee, 14557 26^th Avenue NE, represented the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association. He commented about the struggle between neighborhood property rights and developers’ rights. He said residents accept the growth inherent in the land-use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that a neighborhood-driven mechanism to allow exceptions to the 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size already exists in the code. He advocated neighborhood sub-area plans. He expressed concern about Council adoption of the Development Code Phase I before completion of the Development Code Phase II. He said provisions of Phase II could undermine those in Phase I. He advocated early neighborhood notification of variance requests.

(7) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193^rd Street, underscored the amount of effort that citizens have contributed to the drafting of the Development Code Phase I. He asserted a sense of ownership of the new code among citizens. He said the rights of neighborhood residents should be at least equal to those of someone seeking to develop a property in the area. He stressed the importance of early neighborhood notification of all Type A and Type B actions.

(8) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8^th Avenue NW, supported early neighborhood notification of variances. She advocated the right to appeal to a Hearing Examiner. She said the Hearing Examiner serves as a neutral judge of issues on which competing parties cannot agree.

(9) Kristina Stimson, 2155 NW 201^st Street, supported the permit review process in the Development Code Phase I. She said it provides the City with the opportunity for individual character and community pride. She advocated neighborhood sub-area plans as a next step.

(10) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177^th Street, identified neighborhood character as the underlying community concern. He asserted that Council must clearly establish the intent or purpose of each section of the code. He said appeals result from ambiguous or inconsistent rules. He advocated neighborhood notification of all major action, including Type A variance requests.

Councilmember Lee moved that Council close the public hearing. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

In response to Mr. Howe’s comment, Mr. Stewart explained the staff contention that decision criteria III.7(b)(B)(6) already addressed the concern regarding conditional use permits. He said staff will evaluate the relationships of development proposals to the Comprehensive Plan; therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the policies of the Comprehensive Plan in the code.

Noting that Ms. Welsh and other speakers supported the 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size, Mr. Stewart said the City can accommodate the 7,200-square-foot minimum and meet its requirements under the Growth Management Act (GMA) through provisions such as sub-area plans to increase densities in appropriate areas.

Next, Mr. Stewart explained that a variance from engineering standards represents a minor technical detail within the context of a larger development proposal. He noted that staff will treat an engineering variance requested as part of a larger permit as part of the larger action, subject to the code requirements of the larger action. He commented that changing engineering variances from Type A to Type B would significantly slow development of projects requiring such variances. He went on to note the decision criteria under III.7(a)(B), which the Director, or the Director’s designee, will use in considering variances from engineering standards. He asserted that the criteria are technically stringent.

In response to Ms. Botham’s comments, Mr. Stewart confirmed that short plats are considered Type B actions under the new code.

Councilmember Lee asked if the City will enforce the requirement of neighborhood meetings by applicants for Type B or C actions. Mr. Stewart explained that the City will not consider an application complete until the neighborhood meeting has taken place. He noted that applicants must provide a written summary of the meeting.

Noting Mr. Mauer’s comment about the importance of design review, Mr. Stewart acknowledged the diversity of Shoreline neighborhoods and the value of distinct design needs and criteria. He mentioned the City’s work on the sub-area plan for North City and the potential for similar initiatives in other areas in the future.

In response to Mr. Lee’s comments, Mr. Stewart noted concerns that the designation of development agreements as Type C actions was "too open-ended." He explained that staff has eliminated development agreements from the list of Type C actions. He identified sub-area plans as a replacement mechanism.

Mr. Stewart supported Ms. Wacker’s comments about the value of the Hearing Examiner. He noted one proposal to make the Hearing Examiner the review authority for three Type C actions. He explained the designation of the Planning Commission as the hearing authority for these actions as a means of including community values in the decision making process.

Referring to page 46 of the Council packet, Mr. Stewart noted that zoning variances have been designated as Type B actions, subject to neighborhood notification by the City and neighborhood meetings by the applicant.

Ordinance No. 230, amending the procedural and administrative provisions of the zoning code, adopting a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size and a minimum density of four units per acre for R-4 and R-6 zones; and adopting a new Title 20 and amending Shoreline Municipal Code 18.12.030(A)

Councilmember Montgomery moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 230, amending the procedural and administrative provisions of the zoning code, adopting a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size and a minimum density of four units per acre for R-4 and R-6 zones; and adopting a new Title 20 and amending Shoreline Municipal Code 18.12.030(A). Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Councilmember Gustafson noted Ms. Wood’s recommendation that the City allow exceptions to the 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size. Mr. Stewart said owners will retain rights to build on existing, legally-vested 5,000-square-foot lots. He explained that staff will otherwise rely upon the Comprehensive Plan and make a determination of appropriate zoning. He noted that the minimum lot size in low-density residential zones is 7,200 square feet. He said the owners could submit a suggestion of rezoning as part of an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan. As an example, he mentioned that properties abutting a major commercial facility might be rezoned to accomplish a transition to a neighborhood of single-family residences.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Stewart asserted the financial expense of making all City land-use actions appealable. He noted that the City issued over 2,000 permits in 1999. He explained staff intent to distinguish Type B actions as major, intensive land uses, subject to neighborhood notification and appeal.

Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted that all City actions are appealable through the courts.

Councilmember Gustafson noted his understanding of the annual opportunity for review and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. Mr. Stewart acknowledged the likely need for amendments to the Development Code over time. Referring to III.4(c) on page 50 of the Council packet, he noted that anyone may ask the Council, the Planning Commission or the Director to initiate amendments to the Development Code at any time.

Councilmember Gustafson stressed that the Development Code is a "working document." He noted a typographical error in section III.7(g)(B): (4) duplicates (3).

Councilmember Montgomery supported Ms. Wacker’s comments about the value of the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Stewart acknowledged that a majority of Planning Academy members supported the designation of the Hearing Examiner as the review authority for Type C actions. He said the Planning Commission unanimously supported the designation of it as the review authority. He reiterated the benefits of the Commission’s community perspective and sensitivity to community values.

Councilmember Ransom said the law created the Planning Commission to represent the community through the involvement of community members. He compared it to a jury, and he commented that it gives people the chance to convince their peers. He advocated that review of Type C actions retain this orientation.

Councilmember Ransom asserted a big dichotomy between the 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size in R-4 and R-6 zones and the 2,500-square-foot minimum lot size in R-8 zones. He recommended a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size in R-8 zones as a more realistic "buffer size." Mr. Stewart said the proposal to amend the minimum lot size in R-4 and R-6 zones to 7,200 square feet is relatively non-controversial. He indicated that a 5,000-square-foot minimum lot size for R-8 zones—which the City has not previously considered—is likely to raise significant issues. Councilmember Ransom said the minimum lot size in R-8 zones will become an issue. He mentioned the closed record appeal hearing regarding the Elena Lane rezone at the February 14 Council meeting as an example. Mr. Deis suggested the City could address the minimum lot size in R-8 zones during a future annual review. He noted the potential impact on City compliance with GMA housing requirements. Mr. Stewart mentioned that the Development Code Phase 2 will address residential densities and dimensions.

Councilmember Ransom went on to question the designation of the Director as the review authority for final formal plats (Table 3 on page 47 of the Council packet). Mr. Stewart described the review of the final plat as a ministerial determination of its compliance with all of the conditions and requirements imposed on the preliminary plat. Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that any different approach to final plat review would present the applicant with "moving goal post."

Councilmember Lee praised the citizen involvement in City policy development represented by the Planning Academy. She supported the designation of the Planning Commission as the review authority for most Type C actions as another means of community involvement in City decision making. Councilmember Gustafson and Deputy Mayor Hansen agreed.

Councilmember Montgomery and Deputy Mayor Hansen praised the Development Code Phase 1 as sensible, clear and concise.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the Development Code Phase 1 with the understanding that Council can consider amendments to address future issues.

Deputy Mayor Hansen described the Development Code Phase I as "a big step in the right direction." He identified the following typographical errors:

• I.4(A), page 41 of the Council packet—". . . except in compliance with the provisions of this Code and then than only after securing all required permits and licenses"
• III.4(g)(B)(2), page 52 of the Council packet—"If the Department determines that . . . is insufficient, the Department shall . . ."
• III.6(A), page 56 of the Council packet—"Any use, structure, lot or other site improvement . . . which was legally established prior to the effective date of this Code . . ."

In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that the City does not intend the code to prevent an applicant from meeting with a neighborhood before a pre-application meeting. He recommended the following revision of the first sentence of the third paragraph of III.4(a) (page 49 of the Council packet): "Pre-application meetings are required prior to the a neighborhood meeting."

Deputy Mayor Hansen expressed concern that III.7(b)(B)(6) might prohibit a civic center, combining City offices and those of other districts, "as an over-concentration of a particular use." Mr. Stewart explained that the City would identify a civic center as an essential public facility, to which III.7(b)(B)(6) would not apply.

A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 230, amending the procedural and administrative provisions of the zoning code, adopting a 7,200 square foot minimum lot size and a minimum density of four units per acre for R-4 and R-6 zones; and adopting a new Title 20 and amending Shoreline Municipal Code 18.12.030(A). The motion carried 5-0.

In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, City Attorney Ian Sievers confirmed that adoption of Ordinance No. 230 makes the second public hearing, regarding proposed Ordinance No. 229, unnecessary.

9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Ordinance No. 227, amending the City’s zoning map to change the zoning of a parcel located at 15282 Dayton Ave. N, from R-6 to R-12

Mr. Stewart reviewed the staff report.

Councilmember Montgomery moved adoption of Ordinance No. 227, the rezone of the property owned by Majid Dorriz from R-6 to R-12. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom asked if the proposal had resulted in an appeal or in controversy in the neighborhood. Mr. Stewart responded that the proposal has not been appealed. Referring to pages 147 through 150 of the Council packet, he noted that several citizens and two Planning Commissioners raised concerns about the proposal.

In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Stewart confirmed that review of the subsequent short plat application will include mitigations to address the traffic concerns raised during the Planning Commission hearing.

A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 227, amending the City’s zoning map to change the zoning of a parcel located at 15282 Dayton Avenue N, from R-6 to R-12. The motion carried 5-0.

(b) Proposed Surface Water Small Projects for 2000 and update of 1999 Surface Water Small Projects

Gail Perkins, Public Works Operations Manager, reviewed the staff report. She noted that the City has begun to focus more on infrastructure improvements in public rights-of-way after focusing previously on problems affecting private properties. She mentioned that new projects are requiring extensive hydraulic modeling, sub-basin analysis and environmental review, all of which increase project costs.

Deputy Mayor Hansen invited public comment.

(1) Patty Hale, 16528 8^th Avenue NE, noted a surface water drainage problem at NE 175^th Street and 10^th Avenue NE.

(2) Ken Howe, 745 N 184^th Street, said the installation of small asphalt barriers by individual property owners has caused surface water from N 185^th Street to drain into his and other people’s properties on 184^th Street. He noted that the barriers violate City codes.

Deputy Mayor Hansen praised the Public Works Department for resolving many long-standing surface water drainage problems in Shoreline. He confirmed Council consensus of the proposed prioritized list of Surface Water Small Projects for 2000.

10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Ransom moved to extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 5-0.

(a) Les Nelson, 15340 Stone Avenue N, expressed disappointment at Council approval of the transfer of the cable television franchise from Edmonds Cable Company to TCI Cablevision of Washington. He said the City did not hold Chambers Cable accountable for providing adequate service. He questioned whether the City can hold AT&T accountable. He also objected to Council placement of Resolution No. 160 on the consent calendar given that he had signed up to speak on the item.

(b) Patricia Pekol, 19144 8^th Avenue NW, commented that she and other members of the Planning Academy sought to make the Hearing Examiner the review authority on some Type C actions because they do not consider the Planning Commission to be a group of their peers. She asserted a bias on the Planning Commission in favor of the rights of individual property owners and developers and against neighborhood rights. She encouraged Council to consider the candidates for new Planning Commissioners carefully. She suggested that Council consider participation in the Planning Academy an indication of candidates’ commitment. She advocated a true jury of peers on the Planning Commission.

In response to Mr. Nelson, Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, said Chambers Cable may have made some errors in its haste to complete the upgrade of its system. He predicted service problems in isolated areas in coming months. He acknowledged that it has taken too long to address the problems about which Mr. Nelson complained. He indicated that AT&T has been responsive in addressing problems in the former TCI service area. He said he has advised AT&T of the problems about which Mr. Nelson complained.

In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Bauer said the City may enforce the same legal requirements of AT&T that it enforced of Chambers Cable.

11. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:10 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.

__________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk