CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Monday, May 22, 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 call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, reviewed the nomination form and process for selecting the Grand Marshall of the Celebrate Shoreline parade.
City Manager Robert Deis addressed construction along Thornton Creek at 2330 N 156th Place. He explained that neither Council nor staff responded to previous public comments about the issue because of imminent and actual legal action. He said staff used 50-year-old records, obtained from the State Department of Ecology, to identify the waterway at the property in question as a Class 2 stream. This necessitates a 65-foot buffer between the development and the stream. Mr. Deis said staff has advised the applicant and stopped work at the site. He went on to discuss the process the City followed in issuing the permit for the site. He commented that the applicant can submit a new application and request a variance, and staff can use criteria in the City code to determine whether to allow the variance.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Deis confirmed that the County records the City possessed did not identify the Class 2 stream at the property.
Councilmember Gustafson advocated the accurate classification of all streams in Shoreline. Mr. Deis advised that the records staff obtained from the Department of Ecology apply only to the property in question.
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, indicated that the new Development Code will include changes in how the City defines critical areas, streams and other aspects of the environment. He said the City will use the best available science as it locates and maps stream corridors to enable classifications to withstand challenges from all sides. He mentioned that staff will address these issues in more detail in its next presentation to Council on the Endangered Species Act.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Ken Howe, 745 N 184th Street, addressed agenda item 7 (d) regarding design services for the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center. He asked that the consultants meet with the neighborhood association before actively engaging in further design work.
(b) Gretchen Atkinson, 17714 15th Avenue NE, spoke as President of the North City Business Association. She thanked the Department of Community and Government Relations for assisting North City in its application for the Neighborhoods USA Neighborhood of the Year Award.
(c) Teresa Rinker, 17555 Fremont Avenue N, said City staff rejected an application for a permit to build a wrap-around porch at her house because the existing porch does not cover 60 percent of the face of the home. She requested the revision of this requirement. Noting the current lack of differentiation between a residential and commercial variance and the $3,000 cost of a variance, she also requested the implementation of a process for lower-cost residential variances.
(d) Gretchen Atkinson, 17714 15th Avenue NE, noted the excitement of the North City Business Association about the upcoming design workshop for the North City Sub-area Plan. She said the association hopes to attract new businesses to locate in North City.
(e) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, represented the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund and the Thornton Creek Watershed Management Committee. She expressed satisfaction with the recent court ruling against the City of Seattle and Simon Properties. She said she has advocated that the City of Seattle pay for revisions to a map that Seattle Public Utilities created of the Thornton Creek Watershed to reflect the outcome of the lawsuit.
(f) Patty Crawford, 2326 N 155th Street, said the City ignored concerns about construction at 2330 N 156th Place until she and her husband threatened to sue. She stated that the City has received the results of past scientific analyses which classified the waterway at the site as Coho salmon habitat. She said the State, not the County, regulates water and fish. She asserted the lack of variances from stream buffers. She favored the application of the reasonable use regulation of the new Development Code because a panel or judge would need to evaluate the situation.
(g) Tim Crawford, 2326 N 155th Street, distributed a copy of a letter from the State Department of Fisheries. He reiterated that the State regulates water and fish. He asserted that the City has ignored previous information about the waterway at 2330 N 156th Place.
Mayor Jepsen said the City developed a master plan for the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center with community input. He noted that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee reviewed the master plan. Mr. Deis explained that planned improvements to the recreation center focus on interior mechanical systems. He said staff committed to obtain additional public input on the expenditure of any funds remaining after completion of these improvements.
Mr. Deis agreed that staff will follow up with Ms. Rinker.
Mr. Deis said the documentation that staff obtained from the State Department of Ecology provided the solid legal standing the City needed to stop work at 2330 N 156th Place.
Councilmember Montgomery advocated Council consideration of the cost of variances. Councilmembers Hansen and Ransom agreed. Mr. Deis said staff will review the issue for further Council consideration.
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Councilmember Montgomery moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried 7-0.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Lee moved adoption of the consent calendar. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 24, 2000
Minutes of Workshop Meeting of May 1, 2000
Approval of expenses and payroll as of May 12, 2000 in the amount of $1,231,723.02
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for design services for the North City Sub-area Plan with Lennertz, Coyle & Associates in the amount of $60,000
Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for design services for the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center with Kubota Kato Chin Inc. in an amount of $91,050
8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) A public hearing to consider citizens comments regarding Phase 2 of the Development Code
Mr. Stewart addressed three technical corrections to the proposed Development Code.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
(1) Ginger Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, presented a letter and discussed her concern about open space. She said the proposed Development Code shrinks open space noticeably. She noted the elimination of tot lots and the reduction of setbacks from 20 to 15 feet between single-family and multi-family development. She opposed the ten-foot minimum road width. She commented that surface water tracts can satisfy up to 50 percent of the open space requirement and that the slope of such tracts can be as much as 33 percent. She urged Council to revise the proposed code to increase open space requirements.
(2) Dennis Lee, 14547 26th Avenue NE, advocated revisions to the proposed code provisions related to open recreational space, setbacks between single-family and multi-family development and design standards. He recommended that the City act soon to classify streams.
(3) Bill Bear, 2541 NE 165th Street, reviewed written testimony in which he advocated the restoration of the design standards deleted by the Planning Commission’s acceptance of amendments 156-159.
(4) Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street, advocated adoption of amendment 280, which would require the daylighting of a creek, when feasible, in the case of new development. She recommended that staff replace all references to "drainage ditch" with "creek." She referenced the decision in the court case against the City of Seattle and Simon properties as support for this point of view.
(5) Harry Allen, 1820 NW 195th Street #3, spoke as President of the Park Richmond Condominiums Association. He said the Comprehensive Plan limited mixed-use buildings to three stories and 35 feet in height. He noted that the proposed Development Code allows such buildings up to four stories and 60 feet in height, provided the extra story is stepped back from the street wall at least eight feet. He asserted that the step-back provision for the extra story does not mitigate the height of the building for neighboring property owners. He advocated protection of neighboring property owners by requiring that the bonus floor be stepped back from all walls at least eight feet.
(6) Randy Bannecker, 2240 E Blaine Street, Seattle, represented the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors. He supported the proposed Development Code. He said it promotes housing development consistent with the existing community.
(7) Peter Schwindt, 2209 NE 177th Street, commented on the success of the Planning Academy in which he participated. He asserted that staff incorporated the community values that participants expressed in the proposed Development Code. He advocated the restoration of the design standards, an increase in the amount of recreational open space required in multi-family development and an increase in the size of setbacks between single-family and multi-family development.
(8) Rob Hill, 17104 13th Avenue NW, advocated the inclusion of a conditional-use process in the proposed Development Code to allow the City to consider exceptions to height limitations. He explained that property he owns in a high-density residential zone is limited to 35 feet in height; whereas adjoining properties could be zoned as community business, accommodating buildings up to 60 feet in height.
(9) Rob Garwood, 155 NW 183rd Street, asserted that the City will have difficulties enforcing regulations in the proposed Development Code regarding fences. He advocated his amendment to remove the restriction on six-foot fences in front yards (amendment 274) or an amendment to revise the definition of "front yard" to achieve the uniform application of the restriction on six-foot fences to through, corner and interior lots.
(10) Felicia Schwindt, 2209 NE 177th Street, supported the provisions of Chapter V, Section 5 regarding tree conservation.
(11) Naomi Hardy, 17256 Greenwood Place N, strongly advocated amendment 150 to require that new and newly remodeled water and wastewater utility lines be connected to public utility lines in front of the property. She supported amendment 156.
(12) Jim Soules, 195 Second Street, Langley, represented The Cottage Company, which developed the Third Street Cottages in Langley. He provided materials addressing issues raised during meetings of the Planning Commission.
(13) John Chang, 14817 Aurora Avenue N, spoke as owner of Quest Inn. He said the current code requires motels to provide one parking space per unit. He said this requirement does not reflect his 18 years of experience at Quest Inn, where as many as nine parking spaces remain unused when the motel is full. He noted that many customers use bus transportation or come in groups. He asked Council to consider changing the requirement to .8 or .7 spaces per unit.
(14) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, supported the earlier comment that the bonus floor on a mixed-use building should be stepped back from all walls at least eight feet. He expressed support for the revision of the proposed code to require more recreational open space. He stressed the importance of design standards. He advocated amendments 164 and 165.
(15) George Mauer, 1430 NW 191st Street, advocated amendment 163 in favor of a setback between multi-family and single-family development of 20 feet.
Councilmember Montgomery moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Jepsen identified three frequently-repeated comments during the public hearing: support for additional recreational open space in multi-family development; support for increasing the size of setbacks between single-family and multi-family development; and support for design standards. He suggested that staff address the public comments and that Council take time to consider the information before proceeding. Council agreed.
Mayor Jepsen suggested that staff and Council address the classification of streams in Shoreline during the two upcoming discussions about the Endangered Species Act. Councilmember Gustafson agreed.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart explained that
amendment 280 would revise VIII.8.D-3 of the proposed Development
Code to read "The City shall may
require that a culvert be removed from a stream as a condition of
approval. . . ." He said the Planning Commission advocated
that the removal of culverts be left to the applicant’s
discretion. Councilmembers Gustafson, Lee and Montgomery
supported the existing language.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Anna Kolousek, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services, said properties to the north of the Park Richmond Condominiums are zoned neighborhood business. She acknowledged that Exception B-1.1d in V.4 of the proposed development code will allow mixed-use buildings in this zone up to four stories or 60 feet.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Ms. Kolousek acknowledged that Figure B-1.1e in V.4 of the proposed development code does not represent the text of Exception B-1.1d exactly. She explained that the exception, as currently written, does not require that the bonus floor be stepped back from the side and back walls of the building, unless the building occupies the corner of two streets.
In response to Councilmember Lee, Mayor Jepsen confirmed that properties north of the Park Richmond Condominiums are zoned residential and that the properties east and west of the property are zoned neighborhood business.
Mr. Stewart suggested that staff reconsider Exception B-1.1d in terms of where it would apply in Shoreline and that staff prepare alternatives for Council consideration. There was Council consensus in support of this suggestion.
Mayor Jepsen commented that he is more comfortable with the bonus floor pictured in Figure B-1.1e than with that allowed in Exception B-1.1d.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said the reduction in the maximum height of multi-family buildings (from 60 feet to 35 feet) is offset, in part, by the decrease in the size of the setbacks between single-family and multi-family development (from 20 feet to 15 feet). He agreed that staff will address the maximum height as an aspect of the information it prepares for Council regarding the size of setbacks.
Councilmember Grossman asserted that it would not be economically possible to achieve the allowed density in a multi-family zone given the height limitation. He said rental rates in Shoreline are not sufficient to justify underground parking, and surface parking will seriously limit the size of a building on a multi-family site. Mr. Stewart explained that the City established the 35-foot maximum height in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Stewart noted extensive debate at the Planning Academy and Planning Commission of the restriction on fence height in front yards.
Councilmember Ransom said six families in his neighborhood agreed to a 20-foot easement for an alley behind their homes. He opposed requirements that would subject these families to additional setbacks or that would prohibit them from constructing a six-foot fence along the easement. He asked staff to provide additional information on this issue for Council consideration at its next meeting.
Mr. Stewart read V.2.C-3.1. He said the proposed code allows six-foot fences on an alley with a 20-foot setback. He noted the need to modulate such a fence to avoid creating a "tunnel" effect (V.2.C-3.2).
Noting that the easement Councilmember Ransom described runs behind the homes, along their rear yards, Ms. Kolousek (after consultation with the City Attorney) said rear yard fences can extend to the property line; whereas, front yard fences are restricted.
Mayor Jepsen explained his understanding that V.2.C-3.2 was meant to address fences along private roads accessing new homes on short plats behind older homes. He said such fences run along the side yards of the older homes. Therefore, he suggested that the proposed code focus on fences along side yards.
Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted that the proposed code should define hedges and that hedges serving as fences should be treated as fences.
Councilmember Lee advocated revision and clarification of V.2.C-3. She went on to ask how the City will enforce restrictions on fences. Mr. Stewart said the City would allow all existing structures to continue as legal, non-conforming uses. He explained that the City would apply the restrictions to new development permits. He mentioned the City’s code enforcement program as the means to address new structures that violate the Development Code.
Councilmember Grossman advocated City efforts to educate property owners about the Development Code to prevent violations and code enforcement actions.
Mr. Stewart agreed that staff will revise V.2.C-3 in an effort to clarify it further.
Mayor Jepsen addressed amendment 150. Mr. Stewart acknowledged the logic of the amendment for the installation of utilities in a new subdivision. He asserted that the amendment is impractical in Shoreline where utilities have already been installed in almost every area.
Mr. Stewart went on to address minimum parking requirements. He said the City should be able to waive parking standards for developments that depend on mass transit. He referenced V.6.B-2.2, under which the Director may approve a reduction of up to 50 percent of the minimum required number of spaces.
Mayor Jepsen returned to the issue of the size of setbacks between single-family and multi-family development. Ms. Kolousek said the size of the setback relates to the height of the multi-family development and perception of the development from a distance. She acknowledged the 20-foot setback in the previous code, but she noted the reduction of the maximum height from 60 feet in the previous code to 35 feet in the proposed code. She noted that the previous code stipulated the same maximum height for single-family residences. She indicated that this reduction in maximum height, combined with the design standards for multi-family developments in the proposed code (e.g., modulation of the façade, modulation of the roof line and landscaping requirements), justified the 15-foot setback.
Referring to Ms. Botham’s letter, Councilmember Lee expressed concern about the ten-foot minimum width of joint-use driveways in the proposed code. Ms. Kolousek explained that the ten-foot minimum width applies only to single-family driveways (Engineering Development Code [Attachment A], page 8).
Councilmember Ransom read the definition of hobby kennel in King County Code 21.04.525: "‘Hobby kennel’ means a noncommercial kennel at or adjoining a private residence where four or more adult small animals are bred and/or kept for hunting, training and exhibition for organized shows, field, working and/or obedience trials, or for the enjoyment of an identifiable species." He noted that the definition says that an adult cat or dog is one of either sex, altered or unaltered, that has reached the age of four months. He further noted that the proposed code limits the number of small animals to three per household, of which several must be spayed. He suggested the addition of a "hobby kennel" provision.
Mr. Stewart pointed out that the definition Councilmember Ransom read was from the 1993 King County Code. He said the County removed the definition before the City adopted portions of the King County Code by reference. He commented that staff could add a "hobby kennel" provision to IV.2.B, "Use Tables," of the proposed code.
In response to Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson, Councilmember Ransom estimated at least 100 hobby kennels currently located in Shoreline. He said he talked with two hobby kennel owners.
Councilmember Montgomery asked why the County removed the definition of hobby kennel from its code. Mr. Stewart said staff would research the removal and report back to Council.
Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that staff should add "Bull trout" to the definition of "Salmonid" in Chapter II of the proposed code.
Mayor Jepsen confirmed Council direction to staff to provide additional information on the following: Section V.2.C-3; mixed-use development; hobby kennels; design standards; setbacks; and open space. Mr. Deis requested policy direction from Council on these items.
Mr. Stewart explained the policy issue of design standards as a question of whether to include Sections V.2.C-1 and V.2.C-2. Councilmember Gustafson requested that staff provide the arguments for and against the inclusion of these sections. Mayor Jepsen asserted the need for further Council discussion.
Mayor Jepsen compared the issue of setbacks between multi-family and single-family development to that of mixed-use development. He requested additional information in order to understand better the setbacks that staff has proposed.
Regarding open space, Mr. Stewart referenced pages 153 and 154 of the proposed code. He noted V.3. Exception B-4.1b as the focus of contention. He said staff will develop information for Council about the positive and negative aspects of the proposed language.
Mayor Jepsen advocated additional discussion regarding V.3. Exception B-4.1c as well.
Councilmember Lee expressed concern about smaller setbacks between multi-family and single-family development combined with smaller minimum road widths. Mr. Stewart said staff will work to clarify the distinction between "driveway" and "road."
Councilmember Lee went on to express concern about V.3. Exception B-4.1b.
Councilmember Gustafson expressed his inclination to eliminate V.3. Exception B-4.1b in favor of preserving open spaces. He advocated further Council discussion of the issue.
There was Council consensus in favor of additional time for further Council consideration of the proposed code. Council will consider Ordinance No. 238 at its June 12 regular meeting.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 9:58 p.m., Councilmember Gustafson moved to extend the meeting until 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Ginger Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, discussed the history of the maximum height in R-8 and R-12 zones. She said the comprehensive plan that the County adopted for the area of Shoreline in 1995 increased the maximum height for R-8 and R-12 zones from 35 feet to 60 feet. She stressed that the proposed Development Code merely returns the maximum height to that in effect before the County action.
(b) Rob Hill, 17104 13th Avenue NW, reiterated his request for a conditional-use process in the proposed Development Code to allow the City to consider site-specific exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation. He agreed that a 60-foot multi-family development 15 feet from a single-family home would be unreasonable. He explained that the property he owns is located in a high-density area of office and apartment buildings. He said the County issued a building permit for the site prior to the incorporation of the City; however, the permit was omitted from the list of active projects that vested at the time of incorporation.
(c) Matt Howland, 19237 Aurora Avenue N, noted the competing goals in Shoreline of preserving large residential lots and meeting the requirement for new housing under the Growth Management Act (GMA). He encouraged Council to consider the difficulty of constructing a multi-family development of 48 marketable and affordable units given the 35-foot maximum height and the open space, setback and parking requirement in R-48 zones. He commented that young families and retired elderly residents need affordable housing.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart noted potential alternatives to address Mr. Hill’s situation (e.g., a sub-area or small area plan for the property; a request during the annual review of the Comprehensive Plan for a new designation in conjunction with a rezone).
Councilmember Gustafson expressed his appreciation for the citizen input and staff development of the proposed code.
10. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk