CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, July 9, 2001

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

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

ABSENT: Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Councilmembers Lee and Montgomery.

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

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

City Manager Steve Burkett reported on the following:

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193rd Street, asked that citizens be allowed to participate on the new APT so that they will stay up to date on project activities.

(b) Auni Husted, 19712 12th Avenue NW, and Samantha Croffat, 20106 8th Avenue NW, represented the Shoreline/Lake Forest Park Youth Council. They explained the structure and activities of their group.

(c) John Chang, 14817 Aurora Avenue N, asked Council to consider the findings of the Aurora Corridor Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), which met prior to the formation of the Aurora Corridor Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF). He said these findings are as important as those of the CATF.

Mayor Jepsen noted that the new APT is a staff team to provide information for the public dialogue. He also noted that in his view the CATF built on the work of the prior committee. Councilmember Grossman commented that he co-chaired the CPAC. The group had diverse visions for Aurora Avenue, so no consensus was ever reached.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion. Councilmember Ransom asked that items 7(c) and 7(d) [Ordinance No. 278 and No. 279] be removed from the consent calendar and discussed as Item 9(b). A vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously, and the amended agenda was approved.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved approval of the consent calendar as amended to remove Items 7(c) and 7(d). Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:

Minutes of the Dinner Meeting of June 11, 2001
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 11, 2001
Minutes of the Workshop Meeting of June 18, 2001
Minutes of the Joint Dinner Meeting of June 25, 2001
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 25, 2001

Approval of expenses and payroll as of June 20, 2001 in the amount of $1,312,820.73

Resolution No. 177 authorizing the City Manager to make application for grants for budgeted programs and repealing Section I.B.2 of the Financial Management Policies and adding Policy F01-01

8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Public hearing to consider citizens comments regarding proposed Ordinance No. 276, which makes amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Text and Land Use Map, and proposed Ordinance No. 277, which makes amendments to the Development Code Text and Zoning Map

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, explained that this is the first annual review of the City's Comprehensive Plan and a reconciliation of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and the City’s Zoning Map. The reconciliation, which involves 881 parcels, can occur by amending the text of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Use Map, or the Zoning Map. He noted that there is only one area of disagreement between staff and the Planning Commission—Item 003B (page 70 in the City Council packet). The Planning Commission recommended adoption of a citizen-proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to state that "the base height for industrial uses will be no greater than 50 feet unless a master plan or subarea plan is completed." Staff does not support this proposal because the plan already contains goals and policies to protect residential development from the impacts of adjacent higher intensity uses. Furthermore, the Development Code provides for safeguards between Residential and Industrial Zones. He said the Development Code is a more appropriate place to legislate height limits and this item will be proposed as a Development Code amendment later this year.

Mr. Stewart provided two clarifications, found on page 75 of the packet. The recommendation for Area 2-Bundle C is that all of the parcels, including consistent parcels, will be changed in the Comprehensive Plan from High Density Residential to Mixed Use. The second clarification involved a mapping error in Area 2-Bundle F.

Mr. Stewart concluded by outlining the controversy over the Highland Park Place Medical Center, Area 3-Bundle B. First, he explained the height allowances in different zones. Height is limited in R-6 to 30 feet, or 35 feet with a pitched roof. In an Office zone the base height is 35 feet, but this may be increased up to 50 feet for mixed use development if the fourth story meets certain criteria. Under R-48 the base height is 35 feet. The issue is further complicated because this parcel had a King County zoning designation with a P-suffix that placed special conditions on the parcel. The height in the King County district was 35 feet, but it could be increased one foot for each additional foot of setback.

Continuing, Mr. Stewart said staff originally recommended that the parcel be downzoned to R-6 to make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The office complex would continue as a non-conforming use. The Planning Commission disagreed and suggested a Mixed Use Comprehensive Plan designation and a change to an Office zone. Staff now supports this recommendation.

Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.

(1) Fred Clingan, 532 N 183rd Street, spoke to Area 3-Bundle B. He provided background on King County Ordinance No. 8498, which changed the zoning on the property from RM900-P. He emphasized that this rezoning included a restriction on the use of the subject property to medical/dental offices or uses permitted in the RS7200 zone. Mr. Clingan said this "p restriction" was somehow dropped. He said the proposed amendment would allow buildings up to 65 feet. The residents wish to retain the current character of the neighborhood, rather than encourage further commercial development.

(2) Susan Piper, 18016 Fremont Avenue N, supported Mr. Clingan’s comments with regard to Area 3-Bundle B. She said neighbors like the medical/dental uses and would not like to see any changes. She feared development would create additional traffic and more pollution.

(3) Kay Wright, 18015 Fremont Avenue N, also spoke to Area 3-Bundle B. She said her property is an historic home, which she bought with the understanding that the current use would continue across the street. She feared the new owners wish to make dramatic changes to the property despite the fact that neighbors are unanimous in wishing to retain the single-family residential character of the area.

(4) Cynthia Wills, 18205 Fremont Avenue N, submitted a letter with the signatures of 83 Richmond Highland neighbors opposing a change for Area 3-Bundle B. She emphasized that the neighborhood fought hard to have the parcel designated Single Family Low Density in the Comprehensive Plan and wishes to see this retained.

(5) Darlene Howe, 745 N 184th Street, spoke to Area 3-Bundle B. She described why she purchased her property, noting the area is close to Aurora Avenue. This is convenient for shopping, but puts pressure on the area for commercial development. She urged Council to support an R-6 designation.

(6) Bruce Barner, 17825 Interlake Avenue N, spoke to Area 3-Bundle D. This strip of Interlake Avenue N is a cul-de-sac with seven houses on it. He opposed changing the zoning to include duplexes. He said the zoning should be based on the unique 30-year history of the single family homes on the street.

(7) Naomi Hardy, 17256 Greenwood Place N, spoke to Area 3-Bundle B. She said the entire neighborhood was canvassed during the Comprehensive Plan study, and 93 percent of the residents supported a designation of Single Family. She emphasized that the King County P-suffix limited development on the parcel. She said the parcel is surrounded by a single-family neighborhood, and everyone believed that if the medical/dental complex were redeveloped, it would be with single family homes.

(8) Walt Hagen, 711 193rd Street, also spoke to Area 3-Bundle B, supporting previous speakers. He said Council has committed itself to strong economic growth that complements the neighborhoods.

(9) Larry Cross, 2947 25th Avenue W, Seattle, supported the recommendation for R-24 zoning for Area 6-Bundle B. He pointed out that because of the power lines on the property, the site will be developed to R-18 standards, but it must be zoned R-24 to do so. He commended staff on the process.

(10) Deanna Blankenship, 1531 NE 172nd Street, spoke to Area 8-Bundle D-2. She supported the recommendation before the Council to retain the R-18 zoning.

(11) Francis Roll, 1509 NE 172nd Street, concurred with the previous speaker to retain the R-18 zoning of Area 8-Bundle D-2.

(12) Bill Bear, 2541 NE 165th Street, represented the Briarcrest Neighborhood Association in support of the recommendation to create a special study area for Briarcrest (Areas 9 and 10). He enumerated the physical characteristics of this neighborhood and said the people who live there are committed to their neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan’s goals. These residents want to have input into planning for the future of their area.

Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Hansen, seconded by Councilmember Gustafson and unanimously carried, the public hearing was closed.

Ordinance No. 276 amending the Land Use Element including Figure LU-1 Land Use Designations, Shoreline Master Program Element, Parks, Open Space and Recreation Services Plan, and Transportation Capital Facilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and amending Ordinance No. 178 Ordinance No. 277 amending the Development Code to reconcile inconsistencies between the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code including the reconciliation of all parcels in the City that currently have zoning that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designations; and amending 20.40.130 the Non-Residential Use Table to include Professional Offices as a conditional use in R-18 R-24, R-48 zones and as a permitted use in NB, O, CB, RB and I zones; and amending Shoreline Municipal Code Title 20

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to adopt Ordinance No. 276 and Ordinance No. 277. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.

Mayor Jepsen noted those who testified in favor of the recommendations before Council.

He asked for clarification of the recommendation regarding Area 3-Bundle D-2. Mr. Stewart explained that in this instance the Planning Commission recommendation is to change the zoning from R-6 to R-8 to match the Comprehensive Plan designation of Medium Density. One of the speakers spoke to leaving the area along Interlake as R-6 and changing the Comprehensive Plan to Low Density. This would require an amendment to each ordinance.

Mayor Jepsen favored retention of the R-6 zoning because he believes in having street faces be comparable to each other. This would require an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Other Councilmembers concurred.

Turning to Area 3-Bundle B, Mr. Stewart explained that the original King County ordinance adopted May 2, 1988 limited the uses on this parcel to medical/dental offices or uses allowed in the RS7200 zone. He said this is part of an "antique" land use code that has been modified and adjusted through the years. He said Council could pass a zoning amendment to continue the intent and spirit of the P-suffix and continue the current use while leaving the Mixed Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan.

Mayor Jepsen asked how a P-suffix follows a parcel. Mr. Stewart said the P-suffix takes on the characteristics of a contract rezone and continues on with the property. He pointed out that there is some confusion about whether the King County P-suffix continued when Shoreline adopted the King County zoning because of the map the City adopted.

Councilmember Grossman said he usually supports a higher density close to major corridors, but in this case he agrees with those testifying that the zoning should be changed to agree with the Comprehensive Plan and the use retained as non-conforming.

Mr. Stewart said this was the original staff recommendation. However, the Planning Commission heard not only from the neighbors but from the owner of the parcel, who was not supportive of the loss of development rights granted by King County.

Deputy Mayor Hansen said that irrespective of what zoning maps might show, Shoreline adopted the King County Code in effect at incorporation. Therefore, the restrictions on the property were adopted. He felt this ordinance would be legally binding.

Ian Sievers, City Attorney, said the King County map and text were both adopted. The problem is that if the map was adopted without the P-suffix, the text does not have anything to which to apply.

Deputy Mayor Hansen noted that a map change would have to occur by ordinance. It would not simply be a clerical error. Mr. Stewart agreed.

Councilmember Ransom said he received 11 calls from neighbors on this issue. At the same time, he felt that Council should protect the zoning allowed to the owner. He did not like requiring special processes for enhancements to the building. He preferred to see approval of some kind of inclusion of the former language to grant the owner the right given when he built the complex.

Deputy Mayor Hansen noted that he received six calls supporting R-6 zoning. He said he did not want to give the property owner additional rights, but he commented that if the facility burned down, it should not have to "go through a lot of hoops" to rebuild. He said King County restricted future use to something compatible with an R-6 zone without taking away the existing development rights of the property owner.

Councilmember Gustafson agreed with the original staff recommendation to rezone the property to R-6 with the use non-conforming.

Councilmember Ransom reiterated his support for R-6 but with a sentence to give the owner the current rights without a conditional use.

Mayor Jepsen expressed Council consensus that whatever is done now should be consistent with what was done in 1988. The question is how to do this.

Mr. Stewart said the current zoning could be left in place, which presumes the P-suffix to be valid. If the Comprehensive Plan were changed to Mixed Use, it would make the underlying land use consistent. He explained another option to pull this bundle out of the package, to ask staff to spend a little more time researching this, and then to come back with a more formal proposal to meet the intent of retaining the King County vesting at the same time protecting the neighbors from expansion of the vested rights.

Mr. Sievers suggested a contract rezone. Staff would need some time to meet with the owner to develop the contract.

Mr. Stewart said pulling the parcel would leave the status quo in place, in other words, an inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and zoning map.

Mayor Jepsen summarized that the incompatibility is that the Comprehensive Plan designates the area Low Density but the zoning on the parcel is R-48.

Councilmember Gustafson reiterated that he wished to see the zoning R-6. Mayor Jepsen said he was comfortable with what was in the King County ordinance, and this should be the framework for what action is taken. This would mean that the current use could remain but any change to the zoning would be to R-6. The remainder of the Council concurred.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to postpone the motion to July 23 and have staff prepare the ordinances to reflect the discussion on the two changes. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom said he had further items to discuss. Deputy Mayor Hansen withdrew his motion and Councilmember Gustafson his second.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart reiterated his explanation of the height amendment (003B) as first proposed by a citizen and modified by the Planning Commission. Staff does not support the new policy, but said the issue will be revisited as a potential amendment to the Development Code.

Responding further to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart explained that the Aurora Corridor Overlay was repealed when the Development Code was adopted. This means the prohibitions in the Overlay District are gone. The Development Code focuses on the building design and the relationship of buildings to street frontages and neighborhoods.

Moving on, Councilmember Ransom commented on Area 8-Bundle F. He emphasized that much discussion went into the decision to designate the parcels south of North City on the west side of 15th Avenue NE. He reminded Council of the desire to encourage business growth in North City. He quoted information from an Inca Engineers traffic study that shows 2,000 cars on Aurora Avenue weekdays between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and an average of 1,000 cars during the same time period on 15th Avenue NE. He said this strip between 145th and 205th on 15th Avenue NE is the only other area to support business growth beyond the Aurora Corridor. He felt the City should not discourage business growth here by zoning the area Low Density Residential. He suggested at least designating this Medium Density.

Deputy Mayor Hansen questioned how Medium Density encourages business growth. He also pointed out that this is a single family residential neighborhood. He said the Council supports a node concept for businesses rather than strip development. He concluded that the upcoming North City Subarea plan will help the City meet its Growth Management Act housing targets, so increased density is not needed along 15th Avenue NE.

Councilmember Ransom said the area is not strictly residential, as there are several churches and businesses in houses there.

Mayor Jepsen clarified that what is recommended for this area is a change to the Comprehensive Plan and land use map to be consistent with the R-6 zoning.

Councilmember Gustafson supported subarea planning and agreed that the North City Plan changes the vision of how 15th Avenue NE should develop.

Councilmember Grossman asked about the relationship between the development of special study areas, such as Paramount Park, and master plans for properties such as Fircrest.

Mr. Stewart said a master plan is done for property under one ownership and in collaboration with the neighborhood. It is then reviewed and approved by Council. Many of the institutional areas in the City are targeted for master plans. A subarea plan is a much more complex process that includes many property owners with diverse interests.

Councilmember Grossman emphasized the importance of having master plans consistent with subarea plans.

Mr. Stewart said the master plan process should allow the property owner, the neighborhood and the City to develop an agreement about future land uses and the intensity and scale of development.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart referred to a letter from Mrs. Mock regarding a change in her Paramount Park neighborhood. Her concern was about the dislocation of affordable housing. Mr. Stewart said this will be considered in the subarea plan.

Deputy Mayor Hanson reiterated his motion to postpone action on Ordinance No. 276 and Ordinance No. 277 until July 23 and to incorporate the amendments discussed tonight supporting R-6 for Area 3-Bundle D-2 and incorporating the language of the King County ordinance in implementing the Comprehensive Plan with relation to Area 3-Bundle B. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

9. NEW BUSINESS

(a) Ordinance No. 280 granting Puget Sound Energy, Inc.a Washington Corporation, a non-exclusive franchise to construct, maintain, operate, replace and repair a natural gas distribution system in, across, over, along, under, through and below public rights-of-way of the City of Shoreline

Kristoff Bauer, Assistant to the City Manager, said staff is looking for Council consensus to move this item to the July 23 agenda for action. The current Puget Sound Energey (PSE) franchise has expired. After a great deal of negotiation and progress, two items remain unresolved concerning insurance and indemnification.

Andy Swayne, PSE lead negotiator, also commented on the progress of the negotiations. He commended staff for its diligence in working through the issues. He said PSE is committed to achieving a franchise but it would not accept the current franchise. He said just a little more time is needed to work through the remaining issues. He felt there is some misunderstanding of the two positions. He asked Council to postpone action on this item until August, noting he will be on vacation during the next two weeks. He said PSE is not particularly concerned about the expiration of the franchise and will continue to operate under its terms. Explaining that the indemnification issue is related to the City’s concern about exposure to too much risk, he said the disagreement on insurance is a matter of limits being provided. The City is seeking an amount much higher than what has been requested from other entities. PSE is offering $5 million and the City is asking for $50 million.

Mr. Burkett said it might be appropriate to wait until August to take action on this item, since it appears there may be some opportunity to resolve the issues by then and the City will not be particularly damaged by waiting.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauer said the City wishes as much indemnification as is allowed by law for PSE actions in the right-of-way. Mr. Sievers added that indemnification involves the assets of the company beyond insurance coverage. The City feels it should be able to require indemnification up to the point where it is solely negligent. This is because of the huge cost burden that comes from litigation if the City is sued. Mr. Bauer added that the Washington Cities Insurance Authority, the City’s insurance company, recommends the indemnification language in the ordinance, as does the Municipal Research and Services Center.

Turning to the amount of insurance, Mr. Bauer agreed with Mr. Swayne that there might be a misunderstanding. The City is asking for proof that the company carries insurance so that if a catastrophic event occurs, the company has an asset pool to fund indemni-fication of the City. Staff had believed PSE had an umbrella major liability policy in the amount referred to in the franchise. Now staff has learned this may not be the case.

Mayor Jepsen referred to Mr. Swayne’s comment that PSE is making a good faith effort to comply with the terms of the expired franchise. Mr. Bauer agreed but pointed out that if an accident occurs, the City has no protection without a franchise, which places the City at some risk.

There was consensus to postpone Ordinance No. 280 until August.

Councilmember Grossman asked if a side agreement could be executed to protect the City on an interim basis.

Mr. Bauer said that according to State law a franchise must be adopted by ordinance. He promised to consult with the City Attorney about the feasibility of a side agreement that has the effect of a franchise.

Mayor Jepsen asked staff to explore a side agreement to create interim coverage until the franchise (Ordinance No. 280) can be brought back on August 20.

(b) Ordinance No. 278 reclassifying three positions in the Finance Department (One Finance Assistant II to a New Classification entitled Payroll Officer and two other Finance Assistant II positions to a new classification entitled Finance Technician) and amending Ordinance No. 270 revising the City of Shoreline’s Classification and Compensation Plan to add these classifications Ordinance No. 279 replacing the Administrative Assistant II position in the City Clerk’s Office with a new classification entitled Communications Assistant, and amending Ordinance No. 278 revising the City of Shoreline’s Classification and Compensation Plan to add this classification

Marci Wright, Human Resources Director, offered to answer questions.

Councilmember Ransom moved to approve Ordinances No. 278 and No. 279. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Wright distributed salary surveys.

Councilmember Ransom asked that salary surveys be automatically included in the staff reports on classifications. He was concerned that Shoreline has only 120 employees and 80 classifications when the usual ratio in a small city is 2-1/2 employees per classification. He said since incorporation, classifications have been added and the ranges increased despite the fact that best practices require a systematic analysis of job titles based on a point factor system. He said Shoreline’s more generalized approach is usually considered by the judicial system as "arbitrary and capricious." He concluded that the Council should be concerned about the trend and the fact that Shoreline does not have a unified and consistent classification system.

Mr. Burkett agreed that the City should not continue to add classifications and assured Council that he would take a look at the issue and make an effort to consolidate classifications. He concurred that there should be some sort of standard ratio between the number of employees and the number of classifications.

Councilmember Ransom also suggested a comparison of benchmark classifications with private industry as well as the ten comparable cities.

Mayor Jepsen felt this could be a topic for discussion at the budget retreat.

Councilmember Ransom concluded that with the salary data provided tonight, he had no objection to moving forward on these items.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Ms. Wright explained there is no salary survey for the Communications Assistant position because it is unique to Shoreline. This salary was set by an internal comparison to the Administrative Assistant III.

A vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously and Ordinance No. 278 and Ordinance No. 279 were adopted.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 9:52 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting to 10:15 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 4 – 1, with Councilmember Gustafson dissenting.

10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Bill Bear, 2541 NE 165th Street, distributed the Briarcrest Newsletter, noting these are distributed in the neighborhood by block contacts.

(b) Richard Johnsen, 16730 Meridian Avenue N, spoke on behalf of Michelle Lemoini, 1016 NE 198th Street. He asked what will be involved in the Ballinger Special Study area.

Mayor Jepsen commented that Mr. Stewart had explained subarea planning earlier in the meeting.

11. ADJOURNMENT

At 9:59 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk