CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, July 23, 2001

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Lee and Montgomery

ABSENT: Councilmembers Gustafson and Ransom

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

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

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

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

Assistant City Manager Larry Bauman reported that the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation approved a $303,000 grant for the Interurban Trail Project. He mentioned that the next Council meeting will be August 20. Finally, he noted a reformatted version of the Aurora Corridor Project "Frequently Asked Questions" document.

Public Works Director Bill Conner reported on the 2001 Street Overlay and Slurry Seal Project.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Ken Howe represented the Historic Landmarks Committee of Shoreline, 745 N 184th Street. He presented a petition with 200 signatures asking the City to designate Ronald Place a historic landmark.

(b) Katherine Song, 16723 Burke Avenue N, advocated that the City establish a sister-city relationship with Boryeong City, South Korea.

(c) John Chang, 16229 6th Avenue, encouraged the City to establish a sister-city relationship with the City of Boryeong, South Korea.

(d) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, said he participated as a co-facilitator on "the original Aurora Citizens Panel Advisory Council (CPAC)." He asserted that consensus on the group resulted in Plan D, "which ultimately became the basis for the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Planning Commission." He noted his surprise that the work of the group was not presented to the Citizens Advisory Task Force.

Mayor Jepsen noted past Council deliberation about Ronald Place. He asserted that the future of Ronald Place is a critical piece of the Ronald Subarea Plan. He recommended that staff add the signatories to the petition to the list of people for contact regarding subarea plan discussions.

Mayor Jepsen advocated that the City investigate the proposed sister-city relationship. Councilmember Lee proposed that staff prepare a summary of the necessary steps for Council review. She expressed excitement about the proposal. Councilmember Grossman agreed.

Mayor Jepsen acknowledged the discussions of the Aurora CPAC.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Montgomery moved approval of the agenda. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the agenda was approved.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

Minutes of the Dinner Meeting of July 9, 2001
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 9, 2001

Approval of expenses and claims as of July 6, 2001 in the amount of $387,383.32

8. ACTION ITEMS: PUBLIC HEARINGS

(a) Public hearing to consider citizens comments regarding proposed Ordinance No. 282, which adopts the 2002-2007 Transportation Improvement Program for the City of Shoreline

Mr. Conner reviewed the staff report. He mentioned that the City has received public comments. He said most pertain to pedestrian improvements (e.g., sidewalks, wheelchair ramps and access to buses and bus stops). He mentioned an error on page 46 of the Council packet (the receipt of $47,040 in grant funding reduces the contribution from the Roads Capital Fund to $11,760) and an error on page 47 of the Council packet (the receipt of $119,940 in grant funding reduces the contribution from the Roads Capital Fund to $14,410).

Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.

Seeing no one wishing to comment, Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.

Ordinance No. 282 approving and adopting the 2002-2007 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program

Councilmember Lee moved approval of Ordinance No. 282 approving and adopting the 2002-2007 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion which carried 5-0, and Ordinance No. 282 was adopted.

(b) Public hearing to consider citizens comments regarding proposed Ordinance No. 281, which amends the Comprehensive Plan by adding the North City Sub-area Plan; and makes various amendments to the Development Code related to the addition of the North City Business District

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, provided a brief overview of the North City Sub-area Plan and introduced the project manager, Anna Kolousek, Assistant Director, Planning and Development Services.

Ms. Kolousek explained the purpose of the subarea planning process to provide a planning policy framework unique to North City and to preserve the privacy and safety of the single-family neighborhood surrounding the North City Business District. She went on to review the North City subarea planning process, the North City Sub-area Plan and the draft of Development Code Chapter 20.90, "Special District: North City Business District," recommended by the Planning Commission. Referencing pages 84 and 85 of the Council packet, she said the Planned Action Review allows the City to address mitigation during the planning process, before applicants submit projects to the City. She also discussed the City's commitment to make improvements, as outlined in Section 8, "Mitigation," of proposed Ordinance No. 281 (pages 70-72 of the Council packet).

City Engineer Chuck Purnell addressed the traffic mitigation proposals that resulted from the environmental review process. The transportation analysis involved 15 intersections in the area between NE 145th Street and NE 205th Street and Bothell-Lake City Way and Meridian Avenue N and four scenarios: 1) do nothing (i.e., do not implement the North City Sub-area Plan); 2) implement the plan with no mitigation; 3) implement the plan with mitigation scenario 1; and 4) implement the plan with mitigation scenario 2. Staff recommends the fourth scenario. Mitigation scenario 2 involves the traffic mitigation to neighborhoods streets and to 15th Avenue NE outside the North City Business District outlined in Section 8.3 of proposed Ordinance No. 281. Although scenario 1 results in a slightly better level of service than scenario 2, Mr. Purnell explained that the safety benefits of scenario 2 are significant, meeting many of the goals within the transportation element of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) regarding safety.

Mr. Purnell went on to discuss the project schedule. He said staff will undertake design of the North City Business District improvements and the design details of the neighborhood traffic mitigation during the remainder of 2001. He noted the intent to complete the design of the North City Business District street improvements and to construct neighborhood traffic mitigation during 2002 and 2003. He said staff will monitor traffic during and after 2004 to insure appropriate mitigation of the traffic impacts of the project.

Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.

(1) Gretchen Atkinson, President, North City Business Association, reviewed the history of association work with the City. She encouraged Council to pass Ordinance No. 281 and "to let North City become the economic star of the City."

(2) Marlin Gabbert, 17743 25th Avenue NE, spoke as a Planning Commissioner and as a 30-year resident of the North City neighborhood. He identified the North City Sub-area Plan as an opportunity to bring back the "mystique and charm" of North City. He encouraged Council to adopt Ordinance No. 281.

(3) Dick Nicholson, 15812 11th Avenue NE, identified himself as a 23-year resident of Ridgecrest neighborhood. Noting that North City is the center of a large population area in Shoreline, he asserted that the North City Sub-area Plan represents an opportunity to attract Shoreline residents who travel elsewhere to do business. He recommended passage of Ordinance No. 281.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed.

Ordinance No. 281 which amends the Comprehensive Plan by adding the North City Subarea Plan; amends the Development Code Chapter 20.40, Sections .020, .050, .120, .130, and .140 by adding the North City Business District Zone as a new special district amends the Development Code by adding new Chapter 20.90 that establishes the regulations for the North City Business District together with mitigation and an expedited permit review for approval of development applications that meet planned action criteria; amends the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by establishing a new North City Business District Subarea; and changes the zoning map by establishing a new North City Business District Zone

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved that Council adopt Ordinance No. 281, amending the Comprehensive Plan by adding the North City Subarea Plan and amending the Development Code by adding the North City Business Special District. Council-member Lee seconded the motion.

In response to Councilmember Grossman, Mr. Stewart said the Development Code does not currently permit five stories of wood frame construction on a concrete base. He advised that staff is preparing an amendment addressing this issue for Council consideration in the fall.

Councilmember Grossman expressed concern that the drop in grade from 15th Avenue NE on the west side of the street could result in an alley one story below retail stores. He stated that this will not work for retailers and that street parking is not likely to make up for the lack of parking on the same grade as retail. Referring to Figure 20.90.80 in the draft Development Code chapter, Ms. Kolousek explained that vehicles may access parking from 15th Avenue NE in the gray "alley zones." She said structures will need to include parking, and the alleys will provide access to it from behind. Referring to page 33 of the North City Sub-area Plan, Mayor Jepsen mentioned that staff and consultants addressed this issue during the design charrette.

Councilmember Grossman mentioned that live-work space is sometimes easier to lease than apartments but that zoning may not allow the "work part" of the space. Ms. Kolousek said the Development Code provides the flexibility for space in North City to be either an office or an apartment without a change-of-use process. She noted that the building code and fire and safety requirements still apply.

Councilmember Grossman expressed excitement about the North City Sub-area Plan. He said he has enjoyed "watching the whole process."

Councilmember Montgomery expressed excitement about the North City Sub-area Plan and its implementation. She expressed concern about the reconfiguration of 15th Avenue NE into three lanes. She acknowledged the effectiveness of the three-lane configuration of N 185th Street east of Aurora Avenue N, but she commented that 15th Avenue NE carries a lot of through traffic. Mr. Purnell said the reconfigured 15th Avenue NE will function similarly to 185th Street.

Councilmember Montgomery asserted the importance of vehicle traffic on 15th Avenue NE to attracting and sustaining new businesses in North City. Ms. Kolousek agreed. She explained the intent to slow traffic, not reduce it. She mentioned 8th Avenue NW in Seattle as a working example of a four-lane street reconfigured to accommodate parking on both sides, two lanes and a two-way left-turn lane. Also, she explained that the reconfiguration will not change the width of 15th Avenue NE and that the City can restripe the street or open the parking lanes to through traffic during peak periods if necessary. She reiterated that the proposed ordinance requires the City to monitor traffic.

Councilmember Lee expressed concern about the safety of a two-way left-turn lane. She noted the hazards of this feature of Aurora Avenue N. Mr. Purnell agreed that two-way left-turn lanes on multi-lane streets are unsafe when traffic exceeds 25,000 vehicles per day (as it does on Aurora Avenue N). He said traffic on 15th Avenue NE averages approximately 15,000 vehicles per day, and the proposed reconfiguration provides for only one lane of traffic in either direction.

In response to Councilmember Lee, Ms. Kolousek explained that the amount of development expected to occur within the North City Business District by 2015 (546 dwelling units and 241,000 square feet of commercial space) serves as a threshold for the analysis performed to satisfy the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). She said the City will need to reevaluate the mitigation measures once development in the district reaches this threshold, and developments that exceed the threshold will not receive the advantages of the Planned Action Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).

Councilmember Lee noted that Ordinance No. 281 requires the City to revise the 2002-2007 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to include the mitigation projects listed in Section 8. She asked if this will delay City approval of redevelopment applications. Mr. Stewart explained that staff can process building permits after Council adopts the ordinance based upon the City's good-faith commitment to include the mitigation projects in the CIP and to undertake the work. He mentioned that the ordinance requires the City to undertake traffic mitigation in the neighborhood prior to the main work on 15th Avenue NE.

Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that the North City Sub-area Plan represents a "great partnership" between the City and the community. He supported the project.

Mayor Jepsen said he has had reservations about the reconfiguration of 15th Avenue NE into three lanes south to NE 145th Street. He commented that the traffic improvements to neighborhood streets should not be called mitigation if three lanes move traffic as well as four lanes. He advocated the revision of Section 8.3 (i) and (j) of Ordinance No. 281 to include the parallel parking planned for both sides of 15th Avenue NE in the North City Business District.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Purnell estimated that the City will begin construction of the traffic improvements in North City in late 2002 or early 2003. He identified the organization and design of utility undergrounding as the "critical path item."

Mayor Jepsen referred to the "North City Business District Improvements" in the TIP that Council adopted earlier in the meeting (page 38 of the Council packet). He advocated that the City begin the improvements in 2001. Mr. Purnell said staff plans to spend $900,000 in 2001 on the North City Business District improvements.

Mayor Jepsen supported the North City Sub-area Plan. He encouraged staff to establish a "critical-path schedule" in order to streamline the City improvements.

A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 281, amending the Comprehensive Plan by adding the North City Subarea Plan and amending the Development Code by adding the North City Business Special District. The motion carried 5-0, and Ordinance No. 281 was adopted.

9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Motion to approve 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 and 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 [postponed from July 9, 2001]

The motion to pass these ordinances was on the table, having been postponed from the July 9 meeting.

Mr. Stewart reviewed the staff report. He discussed the four options that staff identified for the medical/dental complex located at the southeast corner of Fremont Avenue and N 182nd Street (pages 135-136 of the Council packet). He said City Attorney Ian Sievers prepared a draft contract rezone for Council consideration of Option 4 ("Explore other options for the re-creation of a 'P-Suffix' zoning designation . . .").

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved that Council suspend its rules to take public comment on the agenda item. Councilmember Grossman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Susan Falk, 15861 14th Avenue NE, supported "retaining a low-density status for 8-F (Area 8, Bundle F)." She commented that high-density zoning would affect the livability of the neighborhood.

(2) Warren Heggen, 15859 14th Avenue NE, supported a single-family zoning designation for Area 8, Bundle F.

(3) Vicki Westberg, 1231 NE 148th Street, read a letter from Janet Way, 940 NE 147th Street. Ms. Way expressed the concern of the Paramount Park Neighborhood Group about "any impact that might result from the Special Study Area to Paramount Park and the surrounding neighborhood. . . ."

(4) Jean Brown, 1540 NE 175th Street, commented on Area 7, Bundle D-1. She said the proposed R-12 high-density zoning will be consistent with the community-business zoning of properties "directly north, northeast, west and southwest." She advocated Council approval of the proposal.

(5) Kirk Storer, 701 N 182nd Street, Suite 103, identified himself as the owner of the Highland Park Place Professional Center. He opposed a zoning designation for Area 3, Bundle B that does not allow the property to remain "a conforming entity." He reviewed the zoning history of the property. He said the County designated the property RM-900-P in 1988, and the City changed the zoning to R-48 after incorporation unilaterally and without notice.

(6) Cynthia Wills, 18205 Fremont Avenue N, addressed Area 3, Bundle B. She said the Highland Park Place Professional Center has been a good neighbor. She clarified that neighborhood residents are concerned about potential future uses of the property. She urged Council to adopt Option 1 ("Retain the 'Low Density' Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation and Rezone to 'R-6'"). She discussed the potential implications of higher density zoning.

(7) Mark Simons, 721 N 182nd Street, identified himself as an owner in the Highland Park Place Professional Center. He concurred with neighborhood opposition to an R-48 zoning designation for the property. However, he said an R-6 designation "would cloud any titles or anything we do." He asserted that the Planning Commission recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation to Mixed Use and to rezone the property to Office was a reasonable compromise.

(8) Naomi Hardy, 17256 Greenwood Avenue N, said the number of single-family homes in the neighborhood of the Highland Park Place Professional Center has increased. She commented that traffic in the area is already heavy, given the proximity of Shorewood High School. She advocated Option 1 as consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

(9) Virginia Grafton Becker, PsyD, identified herself as an owner in the Highland Park Place Professional Center. She said the covenants of the condominium association stipulate professional medical and dental use only. Noting increased density in the vicinity of the professional center, she asserted that a "Mixed Use" designation makes sense.

(10) Fred Clingan, 532 N 183rd Street, said he understood that King County imposed a restriction on the Highland Park Place Professional Center property limiting its use to "that which can occur within an R-6 area." He advocated a continuation of the R-6 zoning with this conditional use. He reiterated that neighboring residents oppose an "Office" zoning designation for the property.

Mayor Jepsen questioned whether previous City actions have affected the RM-900-P designation that King County applied to the Highland Park Place Professional Center property by ordinance. Referring to page 134 of the Council packet, he asserted that Council seeks to continue what the County adopted by ordinance: "'the use of this site should be limited to medical/dental offices or uses allowed in the RS-7200 zone.'" He expressed concern about the option of "referencing the current zoning as R-48 and then going through a contract rezone."

Councilmember Lee asked what arrangement the City can make that is most similar to the County designation of RM-900-P. City Attorney Ian Sievers explained the proposal for a concomitant agreement between the City and the property owners: the agreement would quote the special approved site plan and reference the County ordinance that adopted the site plan; and the medical/dental office complex built according to the site plan could continue as a permitted use. He said staff identified an R-8 zone as the lowest density still consistent with a Comprehensive Plan designation of "Mixed Use." He explained that the "Mixed Use" designation is necessary "to justify an office use under the zoning code."

Councilmember Montgomery asked how R-8 zoning and a "Mixed Use" designation for the property could affect the surrounding neighborhood if a new owner chose to change from office to residential. Mr. Stewart said the property owner "would be entitled to any uses or densities allowed under the R-8 designation." He noted that an R-8 designation allows slightly more density. He said R-6 and R-8 designations have the same maximum building height.

Councilmember Lee expressed concern about a contract rezone. She commented that special contract arrangements are difficult to track and maintain. She advocated a resolution that does not require a special contract.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said the "P-Suffix" the County applied was "a flag on the zoning map" that pointed to the use authorities and restrictions for the site contained in County Ordinance 8498. Mr. Sievers reiterated that the concomitant agreement would adopt the site plan the County approved and refer to the County ordinance. He said "the only difference is that we're adopting a City of Shoreline zoning designation of R-8 instead of other 'uses allowed in the RS-7200 zone.'" He explained that the City would apply R-8 zoning to any future deviations from "the specific kind of office use and that specific site plan." Senior Planner Rachael Markle said the minimum lot size in an R-6 zone is 7,200 square feet, and the minimum lot size in an R-8 zone is 5,000 square feet.

In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Ms. Markle explained that the contract cannot revert to R-6 because R-6 zoning is not consistent with a "Mixed Use" designation under the Comprehensive Plan.

Deputy Mayor Hansen contested the assertion that the City had rezoned the property to R-48. Ms. Markle said Ordinance No. 128 included a map which "showed the zoning as R-48 with no P-suffixes referenced."

Deputy Mayor Hansen said he did not oppose R-8 zoning for the property if necessary for consistency with an office use.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Ms. Markle said staff does not recommend R-8 zoning with a "Mixed Use" designation because the office use would become non-conforming (which contradicts Council intent).

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Sievers explained that the County's RM-900-P designation predated the State Growth Management Act and the requirement for consistency between comprehensive plans and development regulations. He said the County, in effect, "stretched a lower density all the way up to medical/dental offices."

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried 4–1, with Councilmember Montgomery dissenting.

Mayor Jepsen summarized neighborhood input to Council as being in favor of keeping the parcel at its current use. King County Ordinance No. 8498 (which passed May 2, 1988) was, in essence, a contract rezone allowing the use. The property owners also wish to keep the current use, but they do not want to have to go through some sort of conditional-use process. They wish to stay consistent with King County Ordinance No. 8498.

Continuing, Mayor Jepsen said staff recommends that the easiest way to do that is to have a contract rezone agreement with the current owners with the underlying zoning R-8. This would be consistent with King County Ordinance No. 8498, yet update the terms to be consistent with Shoreline planning principles and definitions. Mayor Jepsen asked the owners their view on the proposal.

Property owner Storer pointed out that the property owners are not represented by legal counsel. Furthermore, they only received the proposal by fax on Friday afternoon. He said the owners would want their attorney to look at the language. Mr. Storer pointed out that the property is bound by a covenant that sets out what the owners agree to do for now and in the future. However, the contract rezone does not similarly bind the Shoreline City Council not to make any future changes.

Councilmember Grossman pointed out that any zoning is subject to change in today’s world because zoning and the Comprehensive Plan must be consistent. So every property in Shoreline is subject to this kind of exposure.

Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to amend the motion on the floor to adopt Ordinance No. 276 and Ordinance No. 277 to include Attachments A and B but subject to the concomitant rezone agreement being approved by the City and the property owners within a 60-day period. He explained that this would give the property owners an opportunity to have their legal counsel review the agreement. He stressed that the goal is to give the property owners the same rights in the future as they have now.

Responding to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauman said Attachment B does not reflect this direction.

The motion died for lack of a second. Deputy Mayor Hansen restated his amendment to amend Ordinance No. 276 Exhibit B to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map to Mixed Use and to amend Ordinance No. 277 Exhibit B to change the Zoning Designation to a contract rezone that would be negotiated with the property owners. If the property owners are unable or unwilling to enter into a contract with the City within 60 days from the date of adoption of this Comprehensive Plan and Zoning reclassification, it will revert to the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation and R-6 zoning.

Councilmember Grossman seconded the amendment. Noting his experience in commercial real estate, he assured the property owners that financing is based on the cash flow of the tenants. Being a legal nonconforming use will not cause problems with re-financing or the transfer of a medical practice.

Property owner Simons felt that the City was "blackmailing" the property owners by saying that if something can’t be worked out, the zoning will go to R-6. He felt the City is saying, "You can take it or leave it."

Mayor Jepsen responded that the Council wants the property owners to have what they currently have, but not a more intense use. He said the Council is trying to be understanding about the situation and is struggling with how to do that. He felt the goal is to set some period of time to be able to work out the process and to be able to have dialogue, while at the same time adopting the Land Use Plan and Zoning Code.

Councilmember Lee confirmed that her goal is to have the parcel in the same condition as it was under King County, or as close to the same as possible.

Mayor Jepsen agreed that is the Council’s goal. He felt the course of action now is to buy some time. He suggested that if something cannot be worked out within 60 days, the Council should revisit the issue and give staff more direction.

Property owner Becker asked why the Council’s goal is not to bring the parcel into a conforming status. She felt everything is becoming more complicated, requiring the property owners to pay legal fees. The goal is to develop the Comprehensive Plan for consistency. The current approach didn’t make sense to her.

Mayor Jepsen responded that the parcel is already non-conforming. If the City Council wanted consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, it would change the zoning to R-6 or Mixed Use.

Mayor Jepsen restated and clarified the proposed amendment as being to include Attachment A, page 138 of the Council packet, as a revision to the folio of maps in both ordinances and to address Bundle 3B through some sort of process with the property owners within the next 60 days. A vote was taken on the amendment, which carried 5–0.

Mayor Jepsen concluded that he didn’t think there was anything magic about the 60 days, although it would be great to get results in that amount of time.

A vote was taken on the motion to pass Ordinance No. 276 as amended and Ordinance No. 277 as amended, which carried 5–0, and both ordinances were adopted.

10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Susan Falk, 15861 14th Avenue NE, expressed confusion about which of the four options Council chose to address the Highland Park Place Professional Center property.

(b) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8th Avenue NW, said the cost of underground parking is too great for investors to support. She suggested a public-private partnership to develop a "parkade" to support commercial areas, such as North City.

(c) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, noted the benefits to citizens and the City of public notification of City actions.

(d) Cynthia Wills, 18205 Fremont Avenue N, commented that the neighbors and the owners of the Highland Park Place Professional Center have been "relatively pleased" with the situation with the property. She said the continuation of the situation should not be so contentious.

Mayor Jepsen explained that Council did not choose any of the four options staff presented to address the Highland Park Place Professional Center property. He said Council established a "60-day window" for staff to work with the owners to negotiate a contract rezone for the property. He said Council seeks to maintain the rights that were given to the medical/dental facility under the King County ordinance. He commented that a Mixed Use designation and R-8 zoning would allow the facility to continue to operate under terms similar to those of the ordinance.

Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted that inclusion of underground parking in the development of commercial buildings is essential to their success.

11. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:28 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

 

___________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk