CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, September 24, 2001

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

Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Montgomery, who arrived shortly thereafter.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

Acting City Manager Kristoff Bauer noted the cancellation of the October 1 Council Workshop. He reported upcoming Planning Commission activities. He went on to address public comments at the September 10 Council meeting regarding the cottage housing project at Stone Avenue and 185^th Street. He said Council previously reviewed the project as part of a rezone application—the property was zoned R-6; the applicant requested R-12; and Council approved R-8. Mr. Bauer explained that the cottage housing provisions of the Development Code allow twice as much density (i.e., 16 cottages on the subject property). He mentioned other cottage housing projects at 1301 184^th Court and 300 N 160^th Place. He expressed the willingness of staff to revisit the cottage housing provisions if Council determines that the community cannot accommodate the density the provisions allow.

Mr. Bauer mentioned the design charrette for the Central Shoreline Subarea Plan scheduled October 8-11 at Ronald United Methodist Church.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Ken Cottingham, 350 NW 175^th Street, said he has 40 years of experience as a traffic engineer. He estimated that improvements to the Aurora Corridor north of Shoreline cost approximately $7 million per mile and that improvements in Shoreline will cost $25 million per mile. He stated that corridor capacity and safety are the same in the different locations, and he questioned the difference in cost. Moreover, he asserted that Council must reduce the costs of the Aurora Corridor Project in anticipation of likely decreases in gambling and sales tax revenues.

Councilmember Montgomery arrived at 7:40 p.m.

Mayor Jepsen expressed Council willingness to review the traffic study that Mr. Cottingham is conducting.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Lee moved that Council approve the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the agenda was approved.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Ransom moved that Council approve the consent calendar after removing "Joint Dinner Meeting Minutes of September 10, 2001." Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:

Workshop Minutes of September 4, 2001

Approval of expenses and payroll as of September 14, 2001 in the amount of $1,095,161.21

Ordinance No. 284 amending the budget to reclassify a position in the Public Works Department from an Administrative Assistant I to an Administrative Assistant II

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute written approval of the transfer of the Seattle Public Utilities Franchises to the Ronald Wastewater District

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute funding agreements with the Washington State Department of Transportation and with King County to receive funding for the Aurora Corridor Project

8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Ordinance No. 286 rezoning and establishing a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for a 1.22 acre parcel at Fremont and 182^nd St.

Mr. Bauer reviewed the staff report. He said the owners of the subject property have executed the contract rezone, and the City may execute the contract rezone, pending Council authorization.

Mayor Jepsen invited public comment.

(1) Darlene Howe, 745 N 184^th Street, urged Council "to vote as if it were your own house and your own neighborhood." She expressed concern that a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of "Mixed Use" would allow construction up to three stories.

(2) Naomi Hardy, 17256 Greenwood Place N, said the City did not involve the Richmond Highlands neighborhood in the preparation of the contract rezone with the property owners. She commented that neighborhood residents prefer a "Low Density" land use designation and R-6 zoning for the property.

(3) William Olason, DDS, identified himself as the developer of the medical dental complex at the property. He described the previous condition of the property and his efforts to improve it. He said the property "should be consistent with R-8 zoning."

(4) Brian Baxter, 704 N 184^th Street, discussed the growing density in the neighborhood. He acknowledged the medical clinic as an asset to the community. He described crowded traffic conditions on Fremont Avenue. He expressed concern that changing the zoning of the property will facilitate higher-density development at the site.

(5) Mark Simons identified himself as an orthodontist with an office in the medical dental complex. He said the proposed contract rezone is almost identical to the rezone the County authorized for the property in 1988. He asserted that a change to R-6 zoning is unfair. He said the resulting legal non-conforming use status would "cloud" his investment.

Councilmember Gustafson moved that Council adopt the version of Ordinance No. 286 set forth in Attachment C and changing the land use designation of the property located at 701 N 182^nd Street from R-48 to R-6. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.

Mayor Jepsen said he understood the P-suffix rezoning the County approved to equate to a contract rezone limited to the medical dental building then proposed. He said he also understood that if the building were somehow destroyed the owners would have the opportunity to rebuild it and that the property would otherwise revert back to what was then RS-7200 zoning. City Attorney Ian Sievers agreed.

In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Sievers explained that if Council changes the zoning designation of the property to R-6, the building would be a legal non-conforming use. Under the Shoreline Municipal Code (SMC), if the building burns down, the owners could rebuild it, provided they did so within a year. The owners would not have faced a one-year limit under the County code because the building was a permitted use under the contract zone.

Mr. Bauer clarified that the one-year limit under the SMC pertains to submitting an application for a permit to reconstruct a legal non-conforming use and that the applicant would have more than one year to rebuild the building.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Bauer explained that the City cannot replicate the County rezone because the SMC does not allow contract rezones in a low density area. He said the City must change the land use designation to "Mixed Use" and change the zoning to R-8 to allow the contract rezone.

Councilmember Ransom commented that R-8 zoning "is low density by comparison to other mixed use." He said Council has rezoned property along Stone Avenue to R-8.

Councilmember Ransom acknowledged that Dr. Olason has improved the property from its former use. He said Council previously discussed allowing the owners the same rights they enjoyed under the P-suffix County zoning. He said this necessitates an R-8 zoning designation. He disagreed that R-6 zoning, with the designation of the building as a legal non-conforming use, provides the owners the same latitude. He mentioned requirements the owners would need to meet to do significant remodeling.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Sievers said the owners would not need a conditional-use building permit to reconstruct the building according to the site plan. He explained that this requirement would apply only if the owner sought to expand the non-conforming use. He said Council would also have to approve an amendment to the site plan.

Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, said the only review necessary to approve a permit to reconstruct the building if it were destroyed "would be to make sure that the new building plans conform to the building code." He noted that the building would need to conform to the prior, legally-existing setbacks and the use would be limited to the prior, legally-existing land use. He clarified that expansion, not remodeling, would be problematic.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Bauer said the proposed contract zone (Option 1) would limit development to the current use and site plan and, thereby, prohibit construction up to three stories. Mr. Stewart reiterated that proposed Option 2 would limit development to the prior, legal non-conforming use. He commented that either option would "effectively preserve the status quo." He identified the distinction between the options as the ability of the owners under Option 1 to modify the use or site plan. He noted that this would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a decision by Council.

Councilmember Ransom asked if the owners could have added a second story under the P-suffix County zoning. Mr. Sievers said the P-suffix zoning limited development to the building footprints and elevations of the site plan.

Councilmember Grossman commented that the debate about the property focuses not on its current use but on possible future changes. He asked which of the two proposed options is "most similar to the bundle of rights . . . prior to the incorporation of Shoreline in the event the owners discontinued the current use." Mr. Stewart responded that the P-suffix County zoning would have permitted the equivalent of R-6 uses and designation after discontinuation.

Equating this to Option 2, Councilmember Ransom questioned the staff recommendation of Option 1. Mr. Bauer said staff responded to Council direction to work with the property owner to develop a contract rezone that best duplicated the P-suffix County zoning.

Deputy Mayor Hansen asserted his objective to duplicate the terms of the P-suffix County zoning. He noted the staff statement that the SMC does not allow contract rezones in a low density area. He identified Option 2 as "the next best thing" to his objective. He agreed that Dr. Olason has improved the property from its former use. He acknowledged the owners' concern that future changes to the Non-Conformance Section of the SMC could restrict their property rights.

Councilmember Gustafson noted his goal to preserve neighborhood character. He said R-6 zoning supports this goal while providing liberal non-conforming use standards for repair and remodeling. He reiterated his support for Option 2.

Councilmember Montgomery asked why neighborhood residents support Option 2 and the property owners support Option 1 if there isn't any substantive difference between the two options. Mr. Bauer said the proposed options are very similar as long as the current use continues. He went on to explain the differences between the options if the current use should change:

• Option 1 allows slightly more density because it permits redevelopment with R-8 uses under R-8 development standards. Option 1 also includes a "Mixed Use" designation, which could accommodate zones of higher density should the owners seek to rezone the property. Under Option 1, the medical dental complex would be a legal conforming use.
• Option 2 would change the zoning of the property to R-6 and make the medical dental complex a non-conforming use, subject to the current Non-Conformance Section of the SMC and any future changes to it. (While the difference between conforming and non-conforming uses is significant in some cities, the regulations of the Non-Conformance Section of the SMC are fairly liberal.) The limitations of R-6 zoning would apply to the property upon discontinuation of the current use. Should the owners seek to rezone the property, they would have to request changes in both the zoning and the land use designation (to a designation consistent with the proposed use).

Mr. Bauer said the property owners had a secure conforming use under the P-suffix County zoning. He explained that Option 2 represents a change and increased risk. He attributed the concerns of neighborhood residents to the pace of change in the area and the potential for additional change under Option 1.

Councilmember Montgomery asserted the legitimacy of the concerns of both the neighborhood residents and the property owners.

In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Bauer said staff has not been able to identify a solution that is mutually agreeable to the property owners and the neighborhood residents.

Councilmember Ransom commented that Dr. Olason invested in the property in good faith, developed a good building and improved the area. He asserted that changing the zoning of the property to R-6 and making the medical dental complex a non-conforming use will discourage other investors who want to improve areas of Shoreline. He opposed Option 2, and he advocated Option 1.

Councilmember Lee asked why the zoning of the property cannot revert to R-6 upon discontinuation of the current use. Mr. Sievers said the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan do not permit as wide a range of zoning as the County did when establishing the P-suffix zoning. Mr. Bauer explained that a contract office use and R-6 zoning are incompatible (contract office is not permitted in an area designated "Low Density;" although a contract office is permitted in an area designated "Mixed Use," the lowest density zoning possible in "Mixed Use" is R-8). He went on to say that an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to include contract office uses under the "Low Density" designation would allow contract office uses in all areas of Shoreline designated "Low Density." He commented that the distinctions between the land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan make them more significant. He indicated that the County's land use designations were less significant because they included a broader range of uses.

Deputy Mayor Hansen said if a developer were seeking a contract rezone for an office in a low density area, he or she would have to apply for it, and the City would then have the opportunity to review the application.

Continuing, Deputy Mayor Hansen referenced County Ordinance No. 8498 and County File No. 106-88-R. He noted the restriction on the P-suffix zoning that "the use of this site should be limited to medical/dental offices or uses allowed in the RS-7200 zone." He asserted that the P-suffix zoning limited the owners to an R-6 zone. Councilmembers Lee and Gustafson agreed.

Deputy Mayor Hansen called the medical dental complex a "nice project" in "a nice neighborhood." He said it is not a problem currently, and it should not be taking Council time. He commented that he finds himself in the same quandary as 60 days before.

Councilmember Ransom said he received four phone calls from neighborhood residents. He acknowledged their concerns. He reiterated that zoning the property R-6 and making the building a non-conforming use will discourage others from investing in Shoreline. He said Option 1 establishes "an R-8 type zone" and restricts the use of the property to medical dental offices. He recommended that Council oppose the motion implementing Option 2 and that Council adopt Option 1.

Deputy Mayor Hansen commented that he received 12 phone calls from neighborhood residents who supported R-6 zoning of the property.

Mayor Jepsen advocated "a P-suffix to an R-6 zone." He noted that the P-suffix includes an approved site plan and elevations and a restriction limiting use to medical dental offices or uses allowed in the RS-7200 zone. He said Council supports the rights the County granted the owners but does not want "to up zone the property beyond an RS-7200 zone." Mr. Sievers reiterated the concern about the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the zoning. Mayor Jepsen pointed out that the inconsistency already exists. He said Council seeks to maintain it.

Councilmember Grossman advocated a contract rezone with an underlying R-6 zone as a "one-time, one-shot" arrangement in "special, unique circumstances."

Mr. Bauer requested a five-minute recess to confer with Mr. Sievers and Mr. Stewart.

RECESS

At 8:35 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared a recess until 8:40 p.m. At 8:42 p.m., the meeting reconvened.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Bauer reported that staff explored the alternative of implementing a contract rezone with a "Low Density" land use designation and R-6 zoning. He said the alternative is possible, although it creates a small inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the zoning. He noted that neither the owners nor the neighborhood residents supports the alternative. He said the owners do not want to relinquish R-8 zoning, and the residents of adjacent properties oppose a contract rezone.

Mr. Sievers recommended that if Council favors a contract including R-6 zoning, the contract also include a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of "Low Density." He said the Comprehensive Plan is a general blueprint of uses sought within land use designations. He noted that the City permits medical offices in R-6 and R-8 zones as a conditional use. He said a contract allowing a medical dental use in R-6 zoning is "not too far off from being consistent" with a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of "Low Density."

Councilmember Lee supported the "middle option" (i.e., a contract rezone with a "Low Density" land use designation and R-6 zoning). She said she would support Option 1 if the complex were located at the corner of 182^nd Street and Linden Avenue. She explained that she supports R-6 zoning for the property "because it's smack in the middle of all of the R-8 zoning." She stressed that the City is not approving a new medical dental center. She said the facility was a "black sheep" under County codes, and the City is proposing to maintain it as one under its own codes.

Councilmember Grossman agreed. He said a contract rezone with R-6 zoning and a "Low Density" Comprehensive Plan land use designation "most closely mirrors the bundle of rights" the property owners had before Shoreline incorporated. Additionally, he said such a contract rezone is consistent with the process the owners underwent to obtain the P-suffix County zoning. He expressed his lack of concern with the slight inconsistency. He noted that any other project involving an office use, R-6 zoning and a "Low Density" land use designation would have to come before Council.

Mr. Bauer explained the steps necessary to achieve the "middle option" of a contract rezone with a "Low Density" land use designation and R-6 zoning: 1) a Council motion to adopt Ordinance No. 286 as shown on Attachment B; 2) a Council amendment to the ordinance to delete Section 1 (and renumber the subsequent sections); and 3) a Council amendment to "3. Uses" in Exhibit A (page 35) to replace "R-8" with "R-6." He said the amendments of Attachment B and Exhibit A will establish a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of "Low Density" and a reversion to an "R-6" zone at the cessation of the current use.

In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Mr. Sievers confirmed that the medical dental complex would be a permitted, conforming use under the proposal Mr. Bauer described. Mr. Bauer said someone would have to take the City to the Growth Management Hearings Board to challenge whether the contract use is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.

Councilmember Gustafson withdrew his motion, and Deputy Mayor Hansen withdrew his second.

Councilmember Gustafson moved that Council adopt the version of Ordinance No. 286 set forth in Attachment B with the following amendments:

• strike Section 1 and renumber the subsequent sections; and
• replace "R-8" with "R-6" in "3. Uses" in Exhibit A.

Councilmember Lee seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and Ordinance No. 286, as amended, was adopted.

Councilmember Ransom explained that he voted for the amended ordinance as the best possible compromise in the situation. He asserted that it will not "be a happy fit in the long run." He said R-8 zoning would have been a better choice. He reiterated his acceptance of the amended ordinance as the only reasonable compromise.

9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Connie King, 217 NW 177^th Street, read a letter she received from City of SeaTac Mayor Shirley Thompson. Mayor Thompson discussed City of SeaTac improvements to Highway 99 and encouraged Shoreline to undertake similar improvements to Highway 99.

(b) Nat Penrose, The Highlands, said Mayor Jepsen and City staff provided a presentation on the Aurora Corridor Project to residents of The Highlands on November 28, 2000. He noted his letter of January 29, 2001 in which he conveyed the recommendation of the neighborhood that the City proceed with the Aurora Corridor Project. He reaffirmed the comments in his letter and urged Council to proceed with the Aurora Corridor Project.

(c) Dale Wright, 18546 Burke Avenue N, discussed two Georgia Department of Transportation studies of the safety advantages of raised medians over two-way left-turn lanes. He said Citizens for a Safer Aurora emphatically support the raised median design of the Aurora Corridor Project.

(d) Ken Cottingham, 350 NW 175^th Street, said Aurora Avenue accident data does not distinguish accidents that occur in the two-way left-turn lane. He recommended that the City install street lights on existing poles on the west side of Aurora Avenue. He stressed the value of additional illumination during the construction of the Aurora Corridor Project.

(e) Jim Shea, 16309 Interlake Avenue N, asserted that political candidates and their support groups have disseminated misinformation and practiced unethical behavior during the current campaign season. He said one candidate, who is supported by the Aurora Improvement Council (AIC), has admitted to stealing other candidates' yard signs. He expressed concern about the amount of AIC financial support for candidate campaigns. He supported an election process that allows candidates to compete "on equal footing." He exhorted candidates to ascribe to ethical behavior and to respect the property of others.

10. ADJOURNMENT

At 9:10 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.

____________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk