CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, June 12, 2000

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Montgomery and Ransom

ABSENT: Councilmember Lee

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 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 with the exception of Councilmember Lee.

Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Montgomery and unanimously carried, Councilmember Lee was excused.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

City Manager Robert Deis noted the potential cancellation of the July 3rd workshop. He also gave the schedule for next week's North City design charrette.

Continuing, Mr. Deis addressed the issue of the fireworks ban. He explained that Shoreline Police confiscated fireworks last year. He noted their philosophy to issue citations only when a matter of public safety was involved. Shoreline Police issued no citations last year. Mr. Deis said he and Police Chief Denise Pentony met with the Fire District Chief and determined that this is a good philosophy. However, staff proposed enhanced enforcement this year with the addition of four more patrol officers. There will also be enhanced educational efforts and advertising of the ban.

Council concurred with this approach.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Chief Pentony said the Council of Neighborhoods has heard the recommendation and was very supportive.

Mr. Deis turned to a memorandum regarding the King County Transit local option sales tax proposal. He provided background on King County Executive Sims' proposal to place a measure on the November ballot for a 0.3 percent increase in sales tax to fund public transportation improvements, using the funds generated from the 0.2-percent portion of the tax to fill the gap left by Initiative 695 and those from the 0.1-percent portion to fund major regional transit infrastructure projects, such as the extension of Sound Transit light rail to Northgate.

Councilmember Montgomery noted that Shoreline residents already pay a significant tax for Sound Transit and will not be as well served as had been anticipated. She recommended some caveats to Council support: guarantees that light rail will extend to Northgate and that services cut in Shoreline will be restored.

Mayor Jepsen concurred with this assessment. He said if "King County is made whole by the proposal, Shoreline should be made whole." Noting the difficulty of obtaining good transit service in Shoreline, he thanked Councilmember Montgomery for her representation on the Regional Transit Committee. He expressed skepticism about the expenditure of the revenues from the 0.1-percent tax. He commented that the voters who supported the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) had understood that light rail would extend to Northgate.

Councilmember Gustafson asserted that Shoreline should lobby for the extension of light rail to the King-Snohomish County border.

Councilmember Montgomery clarified that Sound Transit (RTA) staff had said funding to include the Northgate link in the early phase of RTA looked very likely. She explained that Sound Transit staff later emphasized the caveat "if the funding is available."

Councilmember Grossman asserted his support for mass transit. However, he questioned that the County can identify $20 million in budget cuts.

Noting his skepticism, Councilmember Ransom said Shoreline should probably support the proposal, but with as many caveats as possible. He said the County conducted a productivity study in the early 1970s that identified potential savings of 15-20 percent in specific departments. He suggested that another study might result in similar findings.

Deputy Mayor Hansen supported the proposal to the extent that it increases bus transportation. He expressed skepticism about the Sound Transit project. He said a good surface bus system is critical to its success.

Mayor Jepsen summarized Council consensus in support of the 0.2-percent portion of the tax with the caveat that the County maintain transit service levels in Shoreline. He noted more skepticism about, and less support for, the 0.1-percent portion of the tax.

Mr. Deis concluded his report by describing the items collected at the latest recycling event.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Bill Bear, 2541 NE 165th Street, distributed the Briarcrest Neighborhood newsletter and remarked on the high turnover of residents in the neighborhood. He said such turnover can be used as an index for problems in the neighborhood. He encouraged Council to consider protection for renters.

(b) Terry Green, Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, invited Councilmembers to the Wednesday meeting of the Chamber to honor former Police Chief Sue Rahr and to welcome Chief Pentony.

(c) Ginger Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, emphasized the need for recreational open space in apartment complexes. She opposed crediting storm water runoff tracts, roof decks and balconies as open space.

(d) Ken Howe, 745 N 184th Street, distributed a copy of the historic preservation ordinance from Lacey, as well as other information on becoming a certified local government to do historic preservation. He urged the City to become a certified local government.

(e) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177th Street, commented on a traffic problem at the intersection of 15th Avenue NE and NE 196th Street. He advised that he brought the problem to the attention of Council several months ago and that no one has gotten back to him about it.

(f) Ros Bird, Shoreline Arts Council, invited Councilmembers to the Shoreline Arts Festival in two weeks.

(g) Charlotte Haines, North City Neighborhood Association, reported that North City won third place in the Neighborhoods USA competition. She said this proves that mini-grants function as seed money for neighborhood improvements. She thanked the City Council, staff and the Council of Neighborhoods for help over the years.

(h) Gretchen Atkinson, North City Business Association, invited Councilmembers to the North City tree lighting in December.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Montgomery moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Ransom asked that Council pull all meeting minutes from the Consent Calendar except those of the Dinner Meeting of May 8. He then moved approval of the consent calendar, as amended. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the following items were approved:

Minutes of Dinner Meeting of May 8, 2000

Approval of expenses and payroll as of May 26, 2000 in the amount of $609,068.74

Ordinance No. 239 amending Metricom's franchise (Ordinance No. 100) to implement blanket permitting and to clarify the franchise fee

8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARING

(a) A public hearing to consider citizens comments regarding a revised application for open space current use tax assessment under the King County Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS) for the Pym property, located between 20th Ave. NW and 17th Ave. NW

Gabe Snedeker, Planning and Community Development Department, provided background on the previous application for an open space current use tax assessment for the Pym property, and he explained the current proposal.

Mayor Jepsen noted that, if approved, and based on current property values and tax rates, Shoreline would lose less than $40 per year in tax revenue as a result of this action.

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about the trail that goes through the property and whether the City is guaranteed its use. Mr. Snedeker pointed out that the trail could be rerouted if the property owner decided to eliminate it.

Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to address the Council on this item, Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Councilmember Montgomery moved to: 1) approve the revised Pym PBRS application as submitted; 2) execute the Decision of Granting Authority, subject to the conditions and restrictions enumerated in King County's report to the City of Shoreline (dated April 26, 1998); and 3) forward the recommendation indicating the Council's decision to the Metropolitan King County Council. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.

Responding to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Snedeker said King County is the final authority because the County administers the PBRS program. Mr. Deis added that the County sets property valuations.

Ted Sullivan, King County Administrator of the PBRS program, asserted that King County is not the final authority. He said State law requires that both the City and the County approve the application.

Councilmember Grossman thanked the property owner for agreeing to take this step.

A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6 - 0.

9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Ordinance No. 238 adopting a unified Development Code, and adopting a new Title 20, repealing Ordinance No. 230 Section 1, repealing SMC Chapters 16.25 and 16.30, and Repealing SMC Title 18

Tim Stewart, Director of Planning and Development Services, reviewed the Development Code issues raised at the May 22nd public hearing, as outlined on pages 78 through 80 of the Council packet.

Mayor Jepsen said perception of quality design may differ from person to person. He recommended against the incorporation of design standards at this time. He advocated that the Planning Commission revisit the issue of scale and orientation.

Councilmember Ransom concurred. He questioned whether the proposed design standards may represent over regulation of individual property rights.

Councilmember Montgomery expressed appreciation for the work of the Planning Academy on this issue. She commented that she is uncomfortable trying to micromanage design.

Councilmember Grossman expressed support for good design in Shoreline neighborhoods. However, he indicated his reluctance to dictate "good design." He said he, too, does not want to micromanage design.

Councilmember Gustafson concurred with the previous comments. He advocated that the Planning Commission revisit the issue.

Mr. Stewart emphasized that the proposed code increases the open space requirement for one-bedroom and studio units from the current code. He said debate has concerned the exceptions, especially B-4.1c, which credits storm water runoff tracts for up to 50 percent of the on-site recreation space requirement. He explained the staff recommendation against changes to the proposed code.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom's question about the slope issue raised by Ms. Botham, Mr. Stewart said 33 percent refers to three feet of horizontal distance for one foot of vertical elevation. He said staff will revise this reference to make it clear, assuming there is no objection.

Mayor Jepsen commented that a one-to-three slope is actually about 19 percent, not 33 percent.

Mr. Stewart explained that staff reduced the setback to respond to the reduction in the maximum height of multi-family developments. He noted the staff opinion that the proposed 15-foot buffer will provide an adequate visual transition between multi-family zones, in which the maximum height is 35 feet, and single-family zones, in which the maximum height is 30 feet.

Mayor Jepsen supported the current buffer width. He asserted that the City could revisit this issue during its annual review.

Councilmember Grossman commented on the ratio between the cost per unit of housing and the maximum height in multi-family zones. He advocated that the City reconsider the maximum height in the most dense multi-family zones.

Mr. Stewart noted the specific landscaping and design standards with which developers must comply, in addition to complying with the setbacks.

Councilmember Ransom said the proposed code does not make clear that the requirement does not apply to back yards.

Anna Kolousek, Assistant Director of Planning and Development Services, said the proposed code clearly states that the 3’6" maximum applies to front yards only.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Kolousek said the requirement applies to chain link fences as well.

Councilmember Ransom stated that this change would be acceptable to breeders.

Mr. Stewart explained that the code requires the construction of a sidewalk if a home is torn down and rebuilt or if a home is substantially remodeled. He said this became an issue last week with a property in Innis Arden. He commented that it may become an issue in other neighborhoods as well. He said the applicant involved with the property in Innis Arden could apply for a variance from the engineering design standard, and the City could waive the sidewalk requirement. He explained that the City would waive the standard variance fee and charge the applicant on a per-hour basis.

Continuing, Mr. Stewart said he has agreed to discuss alternatives with the Innis Arden Neighborhood Association and The Highlands later in the summer (e.g., encouraging the development of sidewalks on certain streets only or developing a program for a "payment in lieu of" sidewalk construction).

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Rob Hill, 17104 13th Avenue NW, thanked Council for directing staff to work with him on his site-specific issue concerning the height limit for R-48 zoning.

(2) Dennis Lee, 14547 26th Avenue NE, said Briarcrest Neighborhood opposed R-48 for its neighborhood. He asserted that citizens will oppose an increase in the maximum height to allow more R-48 in Shoreline. He said R-48 is not the solution for affordable housing because it creates slums and degraded areas. He supported the inclusion of design standards in the proposed code to preserve neighborhood character. He said Council should err in support of more open space rather than less.

(3) Harry Allen, 1820 NW 195th Street, Unit #3, spoke as President of the Park Richmond Condominium Association. He reiterated the opposition to the bonus floor for mixed-use developments that he expressed at the public hearing. He said the minutes of the hearing erroneously indicate that he would accept a bonus floor stepped back eight feet on all sides. He stated that the real problem is the height and the bulk of the building. He said construction of a 60-foot-high building within 30 feet of Park Richmond would "blank out" air space, create shadows, disrupt air flow and destroy privacy. Noting several empty storefronts in his neighborhood, he asserted that an incentive for construction of more business space is unnecessary.

(4) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, supported the retention of design standards in the proposed code. He said property owners deserve protection. He opposed the bonus floor and a reduction in the size of setbacks. He said the main focus of the code should be maintenance of neighborhood character, not development rights.

(5) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177th Street, also supported design standards. He commented that design standards exist for other types of construction, but that single-family residents, "the most important segment of the community," are not protected by design standards. He feared that development that is not compatible with a neighborhood will force people to move away.

(6) Kristina Stimson, 2155 N 201st Street, supported general design standards. She suggested that each neighborhood could develop its own standards to supersede the general standards. She noted that Seattle uses this approach.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to adopt Ordinance No. 238 amending the City of Shoreline Municipal Code by establishing new Title 20, Development Code, and repealing outdated provisions of the Shoreline Municipal Code. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom's asked if the proposed code addresses parking on Aurora Avenue. Mr. Stewart said all land in Shoreline is subject to the provisions of the Development Code.

Councilmember Ransom noted complaints about proposals for shared parking and group entrances. He said Council has not discussed these issues.

Mr. Stewart explained that the Development Code includes specific parking requirements with opportunities for flexibility. He listed several examples.

Deputy Mayor Hansen addressed the issue of the bonus floor. He said he supported the bonus floor for mixed-use development, but he expressed concern about the properties west and east of the Park Richmond Condominiums. He did not know how to address this in the proposed code.

Mayor Jepsen questioned an increase in the maximum height from 35 feet to 60 feet for the addition of one floor.

Mr. Stewart said the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in question as Mixed Use and High Density Residential, both of which have a 35-foot height limitation. He said Council could change the Comprehensive Plan, but a permit application could vest at 60 feet. He noted a second approach imposing a more rigorous process for achieving a bonus floor (e.g., a conditional- or special-use permit).

Ms. Kolousek explained that a story is normally between 10 and 12 feet. She said a story of 25 feet is unlikely, but a 60-foot maximum height would allow for a pitched roof.

Mayor Jepsen suggested that a maximum height of 45 feet would be better than 60 feet.

Councilmember Ransom suggested 50 feet to allow for a penthouse with a vaulted ceiling. He said he did not want to restrict creativity.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to revise Exception B-1.1d to read: "Bonus for mixed use development in NB and O zones: in order to provide flexibility in types of housing and to meet the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the base height may be increased for Mixed Use development to 4 stories or up to 45 feet, if the added story is stepped back from the third story walls at least eight (8) feet, and subject to the following requirements: Residential dwelling units shall occupy a minimum of 25 percent to a maximum of 90 percent of the total floor area of the building." He said he would like to have this considered a temporary solution, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom proposed a substitute amendment to make the height 50 feet. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried 4 - 2 with Mayor Jepsen and Deputy Mayor Hansen dissenting.

Although no one wished to move an amendment with regard to design standards, Councilmember Gustafson reiterated the recommendation that the Planning Commission revisit the issue. He said the proposal is too restrictive, but he advocated the identification of another means of addressing the issue.

Mayor Jepsen advocated that the Planning Commission consider the critical issues of neighborhood character and the scale and orientation of buildings. He said the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed design standards satisfactorily address these issues. He asserted that the standards should apply only to new construction, not remodels.

There was Council consensus to have the Planning Commission revisit this matter.

Regarding open space requirements, City Attorney Ian Sievers said it would be a technical correction to substitute "three feet of horizontal distance for one foot of vertical elevation" for "33 percent" in the open space exception, V.3.B-4.1cii(1).

With regard to setbacks, Mayor Jepsen mentioned his preference to retain 20 feet.

Moving on to fences, Deputy Mayor Hansen noted that existing higher fences will be grandfathered. He noted that the height restriction will prohibit the construction of a patio or private area in the front yard.

Councilmember Grossman expressed concern about the "common sense" issue of defining the front yard. He said many homes in Shoreline, because of the topography, use the back yard (or downward slope) as the front yard. He noted that many homes in his neighborhood have a street on both sides. He pointed out that the variance process is expensive.

Mr. Stewart pointed out the distinctions between front, side and rear yards.

Councilmember Montgomery pointed out that people who live on a busy street will not be allowed to create a noise a barrier.

Councilmember Ransom said the current regulations seem to say that if the house is on two streets, it has two front yards. He advocated that the 3'6" height restriction apply only to the side of the house the address is on.

Councilmember Grossman suggested that the code give staff reasonable discretion to waive the full variance fee to address specific cases, as with the sidewalk issue in Innis Arden. Councilmember Montgomery indicated her preference for this approach.

Mr. Stewart explained the distinction between engineering variances (Type A actions) and other variances (Type B actions). He said Council could reclassify certain variances as Type A actions to provide more flexibility on some design items.

Councilmember Ransom moved to apply the 3'6" restriction only to the front yard where the street address is posted. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which failed 2 - 4, with Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom voting in the affirmative.

Councilmember Grossman wished to be able to move this into the category of an engineering review so that there was more flexibility. Mr. Sievers pointed out this would require a major shift in the code. Mr. Stewart added that something like this could be done, but only through next year's work program and annual review process.

Councilmember Ransom moved that the 3'6" restriction be limited to one front yard only. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 1, with Deputy Mayor Hansen dissenting.

Councilmember Ransom moved acceptance of the recommendation of staff to increase the number of unaltered dogs or cats that can be kept in the home from three to four. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 1, with Mayor Jepsen dissenting.

In response to Mr. Stewart's comments about concerns in the community regarding sidewalk requirements, Mayor Jepsen asked for concurrence to add this issue to the list of items for reconsideration by the Planning Commission.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 1, with Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.

A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 238, as amended, which carried 6 - 0.

(b) Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a design services contract not to exceed $2,374,266 with CH2Mhill for Phase 3, Part 2 for the base mapping, preliminary engineering and environmental review for the Aurora Avenue Corridor Project

Bill Conner, Public Works Director, explained a revised schedule for the Aurora Corridor project. He noted that construction should start in October 2001. Mr. Conner introduced CH2MHill consultant, Tim Bevans, who identified the critical paths for this schedule: completion of the environmental review work; and acquisition of the right-of-way needed to support the initial segment of the project. He said the environmental assessment and preliminary engineering will be done for the entire three miles of the project. At the same time, the construction documents for the initial segment will be produced. He explained how the right-of-way acquisition will proceed. He described the cost challenges and progress to date.

Mr. Bevans summarized comments at the open house, which included: concerns about potential historic buildings; air quality; neighborhood traffic; east-west traffic; pedestrian safety; economic impacts to businesses; and the transit-only lanes. He noted interest in adding urban interchanges. He outlined benefits of the proposal, including: meeting Comprehensive Plan level of service standards; accommodating a 20 percent increase in traffic; promotion of mobility by alternative modes; and access management to improve traffic flow and to reduce accident frequency and severity. He said enhancements will be investigated regarding the length of turn bays and additional lanes on east-west streets.

Mr. Bevans analyzed the proposal to add urban interchanges. He explained that such interchanges would: have to be designed to Washington Department of Transportation standards; attract higher volumes of traffic from I-5; cause more neighborhood traffic impacts; concentrate traffic/congestion at ramp terminals; require much more right-of-way and property impacts; restrict access to businesses; and increase the costs of the project to approximately $150 million. He noted that this alternative received the least support in the community and among other agencies.

Continuing, Mr. Bevans explained plans for coordination efforts, including open houses, meetings with special interest groups, updates at Council meetings, newsletters and announcements, fact sheets and web page information. He described the coordination with the Interurban Trail project.

Mr. Conner outlined the scope of work for the contract before Council. He described the contents of the design memorandum, which will cover the entire project (not just Phase 1) and include establishment of existing conditions and standards for lane width, curb height, sidewalk width, turning radii, types of lights and materials, driveway locations and parking lots. The environmental assessment will also cover the entire project.

Mr. Deis reiterated that the 2001 construction start date assumes the best case scenario for both the environmental assessment and right-of-way acquisition.

Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.

(1) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, submitted a letter on behalf of Concerned Citizens for Shoreline. He said the group has analyzed the advantages to the citizens of Shoreline of the proposed plan and finds none for east-west traffic flow or for speeding up flow on Aurora Avenue. He asked Council to review the project design in terms of traffic flow and pedestrian safety.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to authorize the City Manager to enter into a design services contract not to exceed $2,374,266 with CH2MHill for Phase 3, Part 2 for the base mapping, preliminary engineering and environmental review for the Aurora Avenue Corridor Project. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.

Mayor Jepsen thanked staff for addressing his concerns about the slippage in the project schedule. He confirmed coordination with the Interurban Trail schedule.

Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about three items: 1) the statement in the "Displacement Relocation Report" that no more than 21 businesses will be displaced; 2) that the City may be required to pay for the value of businesses in addition to property and buildings; and 3) the short timeline for right-of-way acquisition, which is scheduled to conclude in August of this year.

Mr. Conner responded that the 21 number is a best-guess figure. He agreed that for some federal projects, business owners are also compensated for lost business or the value of their business if bought out. He said these standards do not apply to the Aurora project, even though it receives federal funding and Aurora Avenue is a federal highway. He explained that Shoreline will be required to compensate the owner for fair market value of the property.

Mr. Deis said guidelines about how to treat individual businesses have not been established. This methodology, when developed, will be brought to Council for review.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom's question about when parking issues will be addressed, Mr. Conner said staff will try to identify a design that works best for the businesses and the movement of traffic along the corridor. He noted one option to approach and work with co-located businesses as a group. He explained that staff will negotiate parking during the construction phase so businesses will know how and when they will be impacted.

Councilmember Ransom noted past discussion of shifting the centerline to accommodate the location of the Hideaway tavern on the right-of-way. He questioned the feasibility of a shift to the east given the construction of the Walgreens building across the street.

Chuck Purnell, City Engineer, said staff identified the appropriate location of the building, and the worst case scenario would be replacement of the curb, gutter and sidewalk.

Councilmember Grossman asked when actual dates of construction will be available for businesses. Mr. Conner said the continuing public input period is part of development of the right-of-way policies and procedures manual. He noted that staff will present the manual to Council on July 17 and that it will serve as the basis of subsequent discussions with businesses.

A vote was taken on the motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a design services contract with CH2MHill for Phase 3, Part 2 for the base mapping, preliminary engineering and environmental review for the Aurora Corridor project, in an amount not to exceed $2,374,266. The motion carried 6 - 0.

(c) Motion to approve the new contract for police services and to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement and to approve minor wording changes that may occur in its final review and execution

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Deis noted that the contract for police services will take effect retroactively January 1, 2000.

Mayor Jepsen pointed out that Mr. Deis served as chair of the committee that negotiated the contract on behalf of the contract cities and that he has kept Council informed of the status of the negotiations.

Councilmember Montgomery moved to approve the new contract for police services and to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement and to approve minor wording changes that might occur in its final review and execution. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6 - 0.

10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None

11. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:42 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

 

_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk