CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, November 13, 2001
6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Hansen, Councilmembers Grossman, Gustafson, Lee, Montgomery and Ransom
ABSENT: None
BUDGET WORKSHOP
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 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 Grossman, who both arrived shortly thereafter.
(a) 2002 – 2007 Capital Improvement Program Presentation
Steve Burkett, City Manager, explained that the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is made up of the General Capital Fund, the Roads Capital Fund and the Surface Water Capital Fund. He provided an expenditure and revenue overview of the CIP, noting that the total budget for the six-year plan is $110,816,796. The program totals $14.2 million for 2002. He said this is a large budget for a city the size of Shoreline. He noted few changes from the program adopted last year. He said the budget peaks in 2003 with the work on the Aurora Corridor Project and the construction of a new City Hall. He pointed out that the Aurora Corridor Project relies heavily on grant funding. He concluded that, pending Council discussion, bond funding is projected in the CIP for the new City Hall.
Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, reviewed the projects in the General Capital Fund. She identified the following 2001 accomplishments:
Councilmember Gustafson arrived at 6:49 p.m.
Noting that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Advisory Committee has reviewed these projects, Ms. Barry highlighted the following 2002 planned activities:
Chuck Purnell, City Engineer, reviewed the 2001 accomplishments of the Roads Capital Fund. These included finalization of the environmental processes on the Aurora Corridor Project and the Interurban Trail Project, as well as completion of the planned action Environment Impact Statement and the initiation of design of improvements in the North City Business District. He noted that the North City project budget has been reduced by $1,000,000. He also highlighted the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Program and the installation of a traffic signal at 15th Avenue NE and NE 165th Street.
Turning to 2002 program highlights, Mr. Purnell reviewed the following:
Mr. Purnell noted ongoing annual programs related to curb ramp installation, sidewalk repairs and resurfacing. He pointed out three unfunded road projects: 1st Avenue NW slope erosion; Richmond Beach Road at 3rd Avenue NW; and 3rd Avenue NW widening project.
Mr. Purnell went on to describe the Surface Water Capital Fund. He noted substantial changes from last year’s CIP: a reduction in the need for small surface water projects due to the completion of 54 projects since 1997; and the reduction of the Ronald Bog Drainage Improvement Project budget by $1.5 million. 2001 accomplishments include the completion of the pre-design studies and alternative analysis for the Ronald Bog Drainage Improvement Project and the 3rd Avenue NW Drainage Improvement Project.
Councilmember Grossman arrived at 7:09 p.m.
Mr. Purnell concluded that the 2002 highlights include continuing work on the Ronald Bog and 3rd Avenue NW Drainage Projects. The ongoing annual program activities address stream and habitat rehabilitation through public education and community volunteer coordination. He pointed out that drainage projects currently unfunded are located at Dayton Avenue at N 183rd Street, 12th Avenue NE, Midvale Avenue, and N 155th Street at Corliss Avenue N.
Mr. Burkett reiterated the importance of grant funding for many projects in the CIP, particularly the Aurora Corridor Project. He said the revenue and expenditure picture for the Surface Water Capital Fund will be very tight in the future, which may require generating revenue through new fees or reducing the ability of the City to address some of the remaining problems. Mr. Burkett concluded that he will be reviewing the scheduling of CIP projects very closely to ensure the City has the staff and time to accomplish them.
Mayor Jepsen called for Council questions about the General Capital Fund.
Responding to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Burkett said the storage facility at Hamlin Park is not planned to accommodate a full service City.
Responding again to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Barry said staff has budgeted $30,000 in next year’s CIP to revisit the vision of the park system set out in the 1998 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She said the City has accomplished much of what was outlined in that plan. She explained that the master plans outlined for Cromwell and Richmond Beach Saltwater Park are more detailed and will involve a full-fledged public process. Construction is intended to follow immediately thereafter.
Councilmember Montgomery questioned hiring a consultant to determine the location of City gateways. She said Council could do this itself. Mr. Burkett said Council has identified four or five logical gateways. He explained the proposal to hire a consultant to review these sites to propose integrated gateways and signage. He said Council will have an opportunity to consider the scope of the work proposed for the consultant and to determine if it wishes to move forward with it.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Barry described the open space proposed for purchase near Paramount Park. She said the City was not successful in making this purchase this year, but it may receive a grant for the purchase if a local match is identified in the CIP.
Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Ms. Barry said if the Richmond Highlands Recreation Center has not been completed by the end of the year, funds will automatically follow into next year’s budget.
Councilmember Ransom asked about the schedule for the Interurban Trail. Mr. Burkett said construction was supposed to begin in November. Now construction is proposed for early next year for the south segment.
Responding again to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Purnell said the plan is to design the south central segment (155th Street to 175th Street) and the north segment (approximately 192nd Street to 205th Street) together in 2002 and to construct both in 2003.
Councilmember Ransom asked about funding for the bridge over Aurora Avenue at 155th Street. Mr. Burkett said the City hopes to receive grant funding for the structure, which could cost up to $3 million. The CIP contains $500,000-600,000 for Shoreline’s share. Without grant funding for the remainder, the option is to maintain an at-grade crossing. Mr. Burkett said the City would look for both State and federal grants.
Councilmember Ransom asked about a master plan for Boeing Creek Nature Park. Ms. Barry said Boeing Creek Park ranked at a lower priority in the original Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. She said the City has based work in the parks on the priorities set in the plan. She noted the difficulty of determining future work before revisiting the original plan next year.
Councilmember Gustafson confirmed that a long-range vision of what the parks should look like is critical. Ms. Barry clarified that work next year will not involve development of detailed master plans for every park.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concern about funding for the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center, the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council and the Shoreline Historical Museum. Mr. Burkett said these are addressed in the operating budget, which includes five-percent increases for the Arts Council and the Historical Museum. He noted that the Senior Center received Community Development Block Grant funds. He said the Arts Council and the Historical Museum requested more operational funds. Neither asked for capital funds this year.
Councilmember Grossman asked whether the Proposed 2002 Budget includes a contingency fund for capital planning purposes. He mentioned that the City may wish to participate with the School District and the City of Lake Forest Park with regard to some of the surplus properties of the District. Mr. Burkett responded that there is no such allocation in the CIP. He said the District has said it has money for capital. He commented that Council will have to make determinations about capital funding and operational expenses and that it will have to eliminate a lower priority project if it wishes to fund something in 2002.
Mayor Jepsen noted that the regular meeting should begin at this time and that the discussion of the Roads and Surface Water Capital Funds will, therefore, occur on November 19.
REGULAR MEETING
3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
City Manager Steve Burkett reported that Sears is continuing its retail operation at Aurora Square, that it is only closing its telephone catalogue service. He also highlighted several items in the Council reading packet: 1) a feedback mechanism for staff reports and presentations; 2) an update on the jail negotiations (options will be reviewed at a January workshop); and 3) answers to questions asked at the last budget presentation. Mr. Burkett said the swearing-in ceremony for newly-elected Councilmembers will take place at the December 10 Council meeting. Finally, he commented on the success of the City United Way campaign, with donations increasing by 80 percent to $15,847.00.
4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: None
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Gretchen Atkinson (North City Business Association) and Charlotte Haines (North City Neighborhood Association) invited Councilmembers and the public to the 4th Annual North City Tree Lighting Ceremony to be held on December 1, 2001.
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 Montgomery moved that Council approve the consent calendar. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and the following items were approved:
Minutes of Special Meeting of October 15, 2001
Minutes of Joint Dinner Meeting of October 22, 2001
Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 22, 2001
Approval of payroll and claims as of November 2, 2001 in the amount of $1,979,854.54
Motion to authorize the City Manager to extend the Professional Services Design Contract for Kubota/Kato/Chin for the Richmond Highlands Community Center Project
Motion to authorize the City Manager to increase the professional services contract for litigation services with Buck and Gordon LLP
8. ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public hearing to consider citizens’ comments regarding 2002 revenue sources, including the property tax levy Ordinance No. 298 levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline in King County for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2002 on all property both real and personal, in said City which is subject to taxation for purpose of paying sufficient revenue to conduct City business for the ensuing year as required by law
Debra Tarry, Finance Director, reviewed the staff report.
Mayor Jepsen opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one wishing to address Council, Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilmember Montgomery moved to adopt Ordinance No. 289 (Attachment A - Version A in the Council packet), establishing the 2002 property tax levy. Deputy Mayor Hansen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom requested County and Shoreline election results regarding Initiative 747 (I-747). Ms. Tarry said I-747 failed to pass in King County. Staff did not have Shoreline election results regarding I-747.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, City Attorney Ian Sievers said I-747 is not likely to be overturned as unconstitutional. Councilmember Ransom said Council considered implementing levies in excess of limits established by previous initiatives to enable the City to collect the higher rate in the event the initiatives were overturned. Mr. Burkett explained the staff recommendation that Council not levy a higher rate than that allowed by I-747. He noted that the difference between revenues from the one percent increase allowed under I-747 and those from a 1.89 percent increase (equivalent to the Implicit Price Deflator [IPD]) is only $56,255. He said the City can revisit the issue in one year.
In response to Councilmember Montgomery, Ms. Tarry confirmed that, withstanding court intervention on I-747, the only options open to Council are to increase the property tax levy by one percent, to increase it by a lesser amount or not to increase it at all.
In response to Deputy Mayor Hansen, Ms. Tarry said Council set the 2001 levy rate at approximately $1.52 per $1,000 of assessed valuation (AV).
Mayor Jepsen noted two of the factors affecting property taxes: 1) annual property reassessments, which continue to result in rising property values; and 2) the City property tax levy. He said the City has reduced its property tax levy from close to $1.60 per $1,000 AV immediately after incorporation to $1.52 per $1,000 AV last year. He acknowledged that reductions in the City property tax levy may not have offset increases in the AV of property and improvements, but he said the City "has come a long ways" from close to $1.60 per $1,000 AV to the proposed 2002 rate of $1.44 per $1,000 AV.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that the County levied a rate of $1.68 per $1,000 AV before Shoreline incorporated. Deputy Mayor Hansen said the County rate, including the road tax, equaled $1.79 per $1,000 AV before the City incorporated. He stated that the decrease in the City property tax levy represents a five percent rate reduction. Noting a potential increase in average AV of six percent, he identified a net increase in the levy rate of one percent.
Mr. Burkett pointed out that the City receives only ten percent of the property taxes that Shoreline property owners pay.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 289 (Attachment A – Version A in the Council packet), levying the general taxes for the City of Shoreline for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2002, on all property both real and personal which is subject to taxation. The motion carried 7–0, and Ordinance No. 289 was adopted.
Noting that Council has adopted the City tax rate before the effective date of I-747, Deputy Mayor Hansen questioned whether I-747 can, in effect, apply retroactively. Mr. Sievers agreed that the timing of the application of the initiative is ambiguous. He said he does not know of anyone preparing to challenge it, and he pointed out that the County intends to adjust property tax rates to insure that they do not exceed the maximum established by I-747.
9. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 288 rezoning a portion of property located at 14516 12th Avenue NE from R-6 to R-12
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, provided the staff report. He said the parcel is split zoned R-6 on the west and R-48 on the east. The parcel was designated Mixed Use in the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. Council amended the Compre-hensive Plan in July 2001, designating this as a special study area. The applicant asked for R-18 zoning, in keeping with the Mixed Use designation in effect at the time of the application, but the Planning Commission unanimously recommended R-12. Mr. Stewart said this proposal is probably the last reconciliation of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan. He noted that it represents a positive outcome of the pre-application neighborhood process.
Deputy Mayor Hansen moved to adopt Ordinance No. 288. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.
Councilmember Montgomery asked about evidence that R-18 would have negative traffic impacts as predicted by the neighbors. Mr. Stewart responded that the issue is that two additional units would have been allowed. The Planning Commission reached the conclusion that the lower density would be more consistent with the neighborhood character. Traffic impacts were not discussed.
Councilmember Grossman commented that although two fewer units would be built, the developer will be able to construct larger buildings. He said he would support the Planning Commission recommendation, because the Commission undertook a more thorough process than Council; however, he expressed concern about affordable housing in Shoreline and meeting the targets of the Growth Management Act (GMA). He stated that this is a missed opportunity to provide slightly more affordable housing with no reduction in the total volume of buildings.
Mr. Stewart said the developer showed various configurations at the Planning Commission hearing, and the neighbors liked the townhouse configuration as opposed to an apartment configuration. Councilmember Grossman said it would be helpful to see these in the packet. He said he is much more concerned about design than density. He asserted that Shoreline residents are concerned about design as well.
Councilmember Montgomery agreed that the main impact on the neighborhood is the appearance of the development. Noting that she would support the Planning Commission recommendation, she said she had difficulty understanding why R-18 was so objectionable.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that all six Commissioners agreed with R-12.
Mayor Jepsen said the City should start considering design massing as well as density.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7–0, and Ordinance No. 288, rezoning a portion of property located at 14516 12th Avenue NE from R-6 to R-12, was passed.
(b) Ordinance No. 293 amending the Development Code to change the density calculation in the R-6 zone to prevent the construction of more than one single family detached dwelling unit on a lot of less than 14,400 square feet
Mr. Stewart provided the staff report. He said this is one of approximately 60 amendments to the Development Code that the Planning Commission is currently considering. He explained that staff brought this amendment forward quickly to address the rounding up provision of the base density calculation in the Development Code. This provision allows two separate freestanding dwelling units in an R-6 zone on lots of 10,890 to 14,400 square feet. The amendment corrects this provision while still allowing duplexes or attached single family construction, subject to multi-family design standards. The amendment does not change the calculations for cottage housing or the requirements for a freestanding accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Mr. Stewart explained that the original rounding up provision was intended to meet GMA requirements. He said this is no longer an issue given the North City Subarea Plan and other provisions. He noted that the Planning Commission voted 6-2 in favor of the amendment, with the dissenting Commissioners supporting a more rigorous change to the Code.
Mayor Jepsen called for public comment.
(1) Marlin Gabbert, 17743 25th Avenue NE, urged passage of Ordinance No. 293. He said the provision as it stands encourages the creation of rental housing in single-family areas. He said rental housing encourages destabilization of the neighborhood. He asked the Council to direct the Planning Commission to take a second look at design standards in single-family areas.
(2) Bill Bettencourt, 1854 NE 171st Street, also supported the ordinance. He chided Council for allowing a "manufactured home park" on his block and urged them to be more diligent in the future in protecting neighborhoods.
(3) Gregg Opsal, 1836 NE 171st Street, submitted a petition of 90 of the neighbors requesting passage of this amendment. He said the neighbors were uninformed about the project and had no way to provide input. He felt let down by the City.
(4) Fredrick Rudnick, 16825 18th Avenue NE, said he had been active in the Comprehensive Plan process, which valued neighborhood character. He feared that now growth has become more important than community values. He urged Council to consider single-family design standards as well as closing this loophole.
(5) Felicia Schwindt, 2209 NE 177th Street, supported the ordinance. She said citizens had believed that all single family homes required 7,200 square foot lots. She urged Council to support other amendments that may come from the Planning Commission to address this problem.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to adopt Ordinance No. 293. Councilmember Montgomery seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom asked how many lots would fall into the category covered by the ordinance. Mr. Stewart responded that the number of existing lots is not the issue because developers can pursue lot line adjustments to give them enough property to build the two units.
Responding to Councilmember Grossman, Mr. Stewart said the homes at 1844 NE 171st Street are modular units. He explained that staff is not concerned with the type of construction but with the layout and configuration of the structures, both internally and externally to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Grossman commented that the basic issue seems to be that the units are "ugly."
Mayor Jepsen said his problem with the homes is that they are not responsive to lot layout or adjacencies—the homes, as rectangular boxes, are just set down on the lots.
Responding to Councilmember Montgomery, Mr. Stewart said there is no way to undo legally-permitted development.
Councilmember Montgomery said she did not wish to affect the permissibility of ADUs. Deputy Mayor Hansen concurred. He said Council did not anticipate that the provision, which was meant to assist with ADUs, would allow the creation of rental units.
Mr. Stewart reviewed City ADU provisions. He said on lots smaller than 10,000 square feet, the ADU must be attached to the residence. If the lot is larger than 10,000 square feet, a detached ADU can be constructed, but there are many restrictions involved. He reiterated that the proposed ordinance amends the base density calculation section of the Development Code, not the ADU section.
Councilmember Gustafson supported having the Planning Commission consider design standards to help maintain the character of the neighborhoods.
Councilmember Lee questioned whether the problem of "cracker jack" houses will truly be addressed. Mr. Stewart concurred that this amendment will not fix every possible problem that might arise. He assured Council that if other problems arise, they will be considered. He commented that single-family design standards are very complex, but that it may be easier to determine what does not fit neighborhood character.
Deputy Mayor Hansen asked if there are pending applications. Mr. Stewart said any application received before the effective date of the ordinance would be grandfathered.
Councilmember Grossman said he would support the amendment, but he said Council should be clear that this amendment does not address the "cracker box" issue. He expressed his hope that Council will continue to address this question. He asserted that this is a much bigger issue than density. He concluded the discussion by noting his disagreement with "anti-renter" comments. He said renters have different needs and sometimes different economic circumstances, but they can still be assets to the neighborhood.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 7–0, and Ordinance No. 293, amending the Development Code to change the density calculation in the R-6 zone to prevent the construction of more than one single family detached dwelling unit on a lot of less than 14,400 square feet, was adopted.
10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: None
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:56 p.m., Mayor Jepsen announced that Council would recess into executive session until 9:30 p.m. to discuss one item of potential litigation. At 9:52 p.m., the executive session concluded, and the special meeting reconvened.
11. ADJOURNMENT
At 9:52 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk