CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF WORKSHOP MEETING
Tuesday, January 22, 2002
6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Grossman, Councilmembers Chang, Gustafson, Hansen and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Montgomery
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exceptions of Deputy Mayor Grossman and Councilmember Chang, who arrived shortly thereafter, and Councilmember Montgomery.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to excuse Councilmember Montgomery. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, and Councilmember Montgomery was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
Wendy Barry, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director, provided an update on plans for Celebrate Shoreline in North City August 17, 2002. She said the parade will begin from St. Mark's Catholic School at NE 180th Street and 15th Avenue NE and end at Ridgecrest Elementary School, the festival site.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Gustafson said he attended sessions regarding youth commissions during the National League of Cities (NLC) Conference. He advocated that Council do more to "tap the resources" of the Shoreline Youth Council.
Deputy Mayor Grossman arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Councilmember Hansen noted the ongoing reorganization of the Suburban Cities Association (SCA). He also requested an update on the North City Business District Improvement Project.
Councilmember Ransom reported that the Jail Advisory Committee met with the SCA and with jail staff. He noted committee dissatisfaction with the completeness of information that jail staff provided. He advocated that the City pursue alternatives to contracting for jail services with King County while continuing to meet with the County to discuss services. Noting the County statement that it will not provide jail services to the City after six years, he said the City must eventually identify an alternative. He mentioned the County assertion of the high cost to operate the North Rehabilitation Facility (NRF).
In response to Mayor Jepsen, City Manager Steve Burkett said staff will present a jail services contract proposal with Yakima County at the February 11 Council meeting.
Deputy Mayor Grossman said he attended the King County Economic Development Conference. He reported that a panel of economists anticipated the continuation of the current economic decline for six to nine months and an economic rebound in six to 18 months.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Deputy Mayor Grossman said the economists did not discuss the prevalence of hiring freezes. He went on to note the unavailability of funding for worker retraining.
Councilmember Hansen mentioned that he recently toured Shoreview Park. He expressed his enthusiasm about the project, and he encouraged other Councilmembers to tour the park.
Mayor Jepsen reported on the January 15 meeting about the formation of a sister cities association. Continuing, he congratulated City Clerk Sharon Mattioli for qualifying for second-level membership in the International Institute of Municipal Clerks.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Revisions to Council’s Rules of Procedure
Ian Sievers, City Attorney, explained that the proposed changes to the Council’s rules are meant: as simplifications and clarification; to reflect changes in the law; and to include detail from other controlling laws. He outlined the rule changes enumerated in the staff report.
Councilmember Ransom proposed changes to several sections as follows.
Councilmember Hansen objected to this change. He said it is not appropriate to give the Presiding Officer approval authority. Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson concurred.
Councilmember Ransom said this amendment clarifies this section.
Councilmember Hansen suggested eliminating the entire section as redundant. He pointed out that the previous section lists the methods for placing an item on the Council agenda. Council discussed the ways items can be placed on the agenda and expressed consensus for eliminating Section 3.3.
Councilmember Ransom said this amendment clarifies this statement. There was Council consensus to accept this change.
Councilmember Chang arrived at 7:10 p.m.
There was Council consensus to accept this change.
Councilmember Ransom said the word "boisterous" is subjective and can refer to good or bad behavior. Mr. Sievers responded that the word "grossly" sets a very high standard of control by the Chair. After further discussion, there was Council consensus in favor of Councilmember Gustafson’s suggestion to delete the phrase "or who becomes boisterous" because it does not add anything new to the description of unacceptable behavior.
Councilmember Ransom said he did not want to lose the ability to question a citizen and did not agree that this provision encourages a dialogue between citizens and Councilmembers. He said occasionally Councilmembers wish to ask for a clarification by a speaker.
Mayor Jepsen noted that the rule as currently written requires the Chair to ask whether there are questions, which is not current practice. He said he did not want to start doing this. There was Council consensus to delete the sentence.
Councilmember Hansen supported removal of the address. Mayor Jepsen said the important thing is whether a speaker lives in Shoreline.
Councilmember Ransom sought to ensure that speakers leave their addresses in writing on the sign-in sheet. Mayor Jepsen directed that a greater effort be made to ensure that speakers sign-in.
Councilmember Chang questioned how the City defines "a recognized organization." Mayor Jepsen responded that the Council has been very flexible in its interpretation of this rule. Councilmember Change suggested that two speakers be allowed to donate their time to another, which would allow a six-minute presentation on any topic.
Councilmember Gustafson supported leaving the rule as is. He said it has been effective in the past.
Councilmember Ransom said Council should allow an organization or business affected by an action a longer time to speak at a public hearing. He asserted that one, organized, longer presentation is preferable to a variety of speakers.
Mayor Jepsen commented that the Council can suspend its rules to provide a longer speaking time if Councilmembers feel this is appropriate.
Mayor Jepsen opposed the donation of time by one speaker to another. Deputy Mayor Grossman and Councilmember Gustafson concurred.
Councilmember Chang commented that two minutes is not much time to present a particular idea. He asserted the appropriateness of limited donation.
Councilmember Hansen also "leaned against" donated time. He argued that Council has the flexibility to suspend its rules regarding the length of presentations.
Deputy Mayor Grossman said votes by proxy will deny the Councilmember the ability to make a decision based on the discussion at the meeting. Councilmember Ransom suggested limiting votes by proxy to issues on which Council has held a workshop discussion.
Councilmember Gustafson said he does not support voting by proxy, but he does not want to prohibit alternatives such as teleconferencing. Councilmember Hansen concurred. He said he does not want to eliminate the potential of Councilmember participation in a meeting via technology.
Mr. Burkett asked if there would be a limit to the number of Councilmembers participating in this way. Mr. Sievers asserted the need for a quorum of Councilmembers physically at the meeting.
Mayor Jepsen said he does not wish to rely on teleconferencing. He noted Council support to delete the staff recommendation to limit meeting participation to Councilmembers actually present. There was Council consensus to allow teleconferencing when four Councilmembers are present at the meeting.
Councilmember Hansen called attention to the rule that motions can be withdrawn without the withdrawal of the second. He noted that this does not reflect current practice. The City Clerk confirmed that this will represent a change in practice.
Councilmember Hansen advocated, for the sake of consistency,
the amendment of Section 5.2 to read "Any Regular
Meeting or Workshop may be canceled." He
requested a definition of the phrase "lack of agenda
items." He suggested replacing the phrase with "no
agenda items."
Mr. Burkett said staff would like the flexibility, in consultation with the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, to make a judgment about the number of items on the agenda and whether they constitute a viable meeting.
Councilmember Hansen commented that the item says "The Mayor or Deputy Mayor may cancel a Council meeting for lack of agenda items." Mr. Burkett said it is appropriate for the City Manager to contact the Mayor to suggest the cancellation of a meeting. Councilmember Gustafson supported efficient meetings that consolidate actions and make the best use of everyone’s time.
Councilmember Hansen suggested amending Sections 5.3 and 5.5 to clarify the time of the Council’s holiday recess as "no meeting after December 15th." There was Council concurrence.
Councilmember Gustafson requested a simple listing of the main motions that Councilmembers might make during a meeting for quick referral.
Deputy Mayor Grossman said the provision regarding the interview process for candidates to fill a Council vacancy is too restrictive. He suggested deleting the requirement that "the Councilmembers will ask the same questions of each candidate." Noting that candidates will have different backgrounds, he asserted the appropriateness of different lines of inquiry. He said normal hiring usually includes a list of common questions for initial interviews and more varied questions for follow-up interviews. He said Councilmembers should have more flexibility because the process includes only one interview opportunity.
Councilmember Ransom suggested referring to topics instead of questions.
Mayor Jepsen said there should be some flexibility for follow-up questions based on answers provided. He wanted to be sure the questions would be pertinent to the subject at hand.
Mr. Burkett suggested the addition of language under which Council would develop a set of three or four questions and under which Council could then develop other questions.
Councilmember Ransom said the goal is to be consistent. He said the rules should state that the questions should be consistent.
Mayor Jepsen directed staff to redraft this section.
Mayor Jepsen commented on the order of agenda items at regular meetings. He favored moving action items closer to the beginning of the agenda. He suggested moving items such as the City Manager’s Report, the Reports of Boards and Commission, and the Consent Calendar to the end of the meeting.
Ms. Mattioli pointed out that members of the public and staff sometimes attend for an item on the Consent Calendar and that they can leave after Council adopts it. She noted that moving the Consent Calendar to the end of the meeting will require these people to sit through lengthy discussions of other items.
Mr. Burkett added that if one of the concerns is to establish a time certain for public hearings, the rules could set a time (e.g., 8:00 p.m.), and Council could interrupt the meeting, if necessary, to hold the public hearing. With regard to the Consent Calendar, he asserted the psychological advantage of completing some work up-front.
Councilmember Hansen said the agenda has worked well over the years, and he favored retaining the current order.
Councilmember Ransom supported the idea of a time certain for public hearings. He said this would allow the public to be sure about when public hearings would occur. Council-member Gustafson concurred.
(b) Discussion of Proposed Emergency Human Services Funding
Rob Beem, Assistant Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services, reviewed the staff report.
Deputy Mayor Grossman supported the emergency human services funding process proposed by staff.
Councilmember Ransom mentioned the five suggestions he made during the discussion of the emergency funding at the December 11, 2001 Council meeting. He advocated that the funding process be broad enough to consider organizations other than social service agencies. He mentioned the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Senior Center and the Shoreline Historical Museum as examples. Mr. Beem said the proposed process includes only social services. He explained that the process would include the senior center but not the Historical Museum.
Mayor Jepsen commented that the motion allocating $100,000 in one-time funding for distribution for health and human services did not include Councilmember Ransom's five suggestions.
Councilmember Ransom said he had intended the funding to address more than just social services. He explained that he also meant to include youth services, the Shoreline Historical Museum and the Shoreline-Lake Forest Park Arts Council.
In response to Deputy Mayor Grossman, Mr. Beem confirmed that the proposed funding process includes youth services.
Councilmember Ransom expressed concern that the funding process address the broad base of services for which Council allocated the emergency funding.
Mayor Jepsen expressed support for the process proposed by staff.
Councilmember Ransom supported the proposed process provided that it admits applications for a broader scope of services.
Mayor Jepsen explained that the proposed process does not include the Historical Museum or the Arts Council because the past criteria for human services have not included them. He noted the question of whether to include them in the process. Mr. Burkett expressed concern about broadening the process to consider the funding needs of the Arts Council and the Historical Museum. He commented that that the City will not have any criteria to limit or assess applications for funding.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred with Councilmember Ransom that Council allocated the emergency funding to address a broad base of services. He noted human services as the primary focus. He said he understood that the City could use the money for other activities as well.
Assuming the validity of the criteria for human services as the basis of the proposed process, Councilmember Chang expressed support for the staff proposal.
Mr. Burkett recommended that the City separate consideration of funding for the Arts Council and the Historical Museum from the emergency human services funding process. Councilmember Gustafson supported this recommendation.
Mr. Beem expressed concern about asking the members of the Human Services Allocations Committee to balance the different needs for a finite pool of funds. He indicated that broadening the process to consider other funding needs will encourage more applications and extend the process. He noted the staff goal to complete the emergency funding allocation before beginning the two-year funding cycle in April.
Mayor Jepsen asked how Council would divide the $100,000 to separate consideration of funding for the Arts Council and the Historical Museum from the emergency human services funding process.
Councilmember Gustafson supported the proposed process for emergency human services funding and the separate consideration of the needs of the Historical Museum and the Arts Council. He requested that staff develop and prepare a recommendation. Councilmember Chang concurred.
Deputy Mayor Grossman suggested that staff request proposals from the Arts Council and the Historical Museum for presentation to Council with the recommendations resulting from the emergency human services funding process. He noted that this will allow staff to proceed with the proposed human services funding process.
Councilmember Ransom supported Deputy Mayor Grossman's suggestion. He said it is appropriate that Mr. Beem develop processes for the Arts Council and the Historical Museum now that Health and Human Services is part of the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
Deputy Mayor Grossman commented that Council, with input from community groups, established the Human Services Needs Assessment to acknowledge, and to begin to address, unmet social service needs in Shoreline. He said the assessment did not address the relationship of human service needs to other needs in the community (e.g., the Arts Council, the Historical Museum). He asserted that that relationship is a matter of policy choices.
Councilmember Ransom said the Director of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services has internal procedures for evaluating recreation, arts and museum programming needs.
Deputy Mayor Grossman commented that funding for human services is discreet from that for parks, recreation and cultural services.
Noting the support of three Councilmembers for the inclusion of the Arts Council and the Historical Museum, Mayor Jepsen commented that Council advocates a slightly broader process for allocating the emergency funding than that proposed by staff.
Mr. Burkett proposed that staff proceed with the emergency human services funding process and, separately, request proposals from the Arts Council and the Historical Museum. He said staff will present the Arts Council and museum proposals to Council together with the human services funding recommendations.
Mayor Jepsen confirmed Council support of this proposal.
(c) Development Code Amendments
Planning and Development Services Director Tim Stewart reviewed the staff report.
In response to Mr. Stewart, Mayor Jepsen agreed to bypass consideration of the 30 non-controversial amendments to focus on the nine controversial amendments. Council-member Hansen suggested that Council take public comment before discussing the separate amendments.
(1) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, commented on Tab 32. He said the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce, the Aurora Improvement Council and many people in the business community are unaware of the inclusion of changes to the sign ordinance in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. He suggested that Council direct staff to create a committee involving business owners in the development of the amendments to insure a proactive process.
Mr. Stewart first reviewed Tab 8, an amendment to add recreational vehicles (RVs) to the residential use table (Shoreline Municipal Code [SMC] 20.40.120) as a Permitted Use with Indexed Supplemental Criteria (P-I) in every zone and to add information to the Index of Supplemental Use Criteria allowing RVs in any zone with the owner's permission for up to two weeks. He said the Planning Commission does not recommend the amendment because property owners can accomplish this now with a temporary use permit. He said the City would use the "three strikes" code enforcement process to address violations.
Councilmember Ransom referred to the amendment he recommended in his memorandum of January 22: "Allow up to two weeks occupancy at a private residency for one recreational vehicle (RV) if self-contained, and up to one month if connected for water, sewer, and electricity. Not more than two occupancies per calendar year will be allowed with no permits required. If neighbors complain, then the private resident must register the use, or obtain permits as determined by the building official/code enforcement officer." He said Mr. Sievers suggested the deletion of the final sentence in favor of the standard City code enforcement process. He noted that the City of Mountlake Terrace allows RV occupancy for up to two weeks and that the City of Lynnwood allows occupancy for up to 30 days of RVs connected to utility systems. He advocated his amendment as a reasonable compromise for Shoreline residents.
Planning Commission Chair Marlin Gabbert said Reverend Steve Ulmer, who submitted the amendment at Tab 8, accepted the temporary use permit process as the means to allow RV occupancy.
Councilmember Ransom said Rev. Ulmer has since expressed concern that the temporary use permit process would be burdensome. Councilmember Ransom asserted that the requirement of a temporary use permit is unnecessary.
Chair Gabbert asked how the City will enforce Councilmember Ransom's recommended amendment. Councilmember Ransom said complaints by neighbors will initiate City enforcement.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said the target timeline for processing a temporary use permit application is 15 days. He went on to review the criteria for such permits in SMC 20.40.540. He said the cost of a temporary use permit is $119.
Mayor Jepsen said Shoreline residents are unlikely to obtain temporary use permits for two-week-long RV occupancies. He asked how the City would enforce the code after receiving a complaint about an occupied RV. Mr. Stewart said the Customer Response Team (CRT) would prioritize the complaint, conduct an investigation, and, in the case of a code violation, work with the property owner in an effort to obtain voluntary compliance.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said a two-week occupancy of an RV in a resident's driveway is, technically, a code violation. Mr. Burkett commented that most RV occupancies are likely to end before CRT begins to try to obtain voluntary compliance. He asserted the ineffective enforcement in all cities of code provisions concerning RV occupancy.
Mayor Jepsen questioned the prevalence in Shoreline of churches using RVs as temporary housing for visitors and volunteers. He noted this as one area in which he would share Councilmember Ransom's concern.
Chair Gabbert explained the Commission concern about RV occupants overstaying their welcome in single-family residential neighborhoods. He acknowledged that churches regularly use RVs to house volunteer workers.
Councilmember Hansen commented that Rev. Ulmer seeks to operate within the rules. He noted a paragraph of the October 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting minutes on page 54 of the Council packet: "Both Chair Gabbert and Commissioner Harris expressed their opinion that the rules should be clear and consistent. Mr. Stewart explained that there is a fee and a process associated with a temporary use permit." Councilmember Hansen said a visitor should not have to pay a fee to occupy an RV in a resident's driveway or in the street in front of the resident's house. He asserted that any City enforcement of an RV occupancy provision is a waste of staff time. He advocated passage of the proposed amendment to establish a policy with clear rules.
Noting that the amendments proposed by Rev. Ulmer and Councilmember Ransom differ, Mayor Jepsen asked which version would best achieve what Councilmembers Hansen and Ransom suggest. Mr. Stewart suggested that staff prepare legislation for Council consideration at the public hearing regarding the code amendments. He noted that Councilmember Ransom's amendment focuses exclusively on private residences. Councilmember Ransom said he did not intend to exclude churches.
Mayor Jepsen supported the last paragraph of Rev. Ulmer's proposed amendment. He expressed uncertainty about the preceding paragraph, which proposes to add RVs to the residential use table with a "'P-I'" symbol in every zone designation column. He requested clarification of the implications of this approach.
Deputy Mayor Grossman asserted a distinction between RV occupancy in a residential neighborhood and that at a church property. For example, he said he would not notice the occupancy of several RVs on the Crista campus. He supported church use of RVs as temporary housing for volunteers. He noted a need for monitoring to prevent RVs from becoming permanent facilities. He asserted the need to clarify Rev. Ulmer's amendment (e.g., about the frequency of RV occupancies, the number of RVs occupied). He said Councilmember Ransom's amendment does not address non-residential properties.
Councilmember Gustafson favored a compromise amendment to those proposed by Rev. Ulmer and Councilmember Ransom. He opposed the use of the temporary use permit process for RV occupancies. Councilmember Chang concurred.
Mr. Burkett and Mr. Stewart said staff will prepare language to allow RV occupancy subject to time and frequency limitations.
Mr. Stewart went on to review Tab 10, which addresses small livestock. Noting the staff position against entitling the use of small livestock in residential zones, he explained that staff now recommends that Council not adopt the proposed amendment.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart said the City will continue to address cats, dogs and fact-specific cases.
Councilmember Ransom suggested an amendment to allow pets of less than a specified number of pounds.
Mayor Jepsen confirmed Council consensus not to consider Tab 10 or a related amendment.
Next, Mr. Stewart reviewed Tab 15, which addresses height limitations in the R-48 zone. He noted that the height limitations of the proposed amendment vary depending on whether the R-48 property abuts low-density property (R-4 or R-6). Chair Gabbert said the Commission devoted a great deal of time to this amendment. He noted that the Commission recommends Council adoption.
In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Chair Gabbert said the Commission was unanimous in recommending adoption of Tab 15. In response to Councilmember Hansen, he acknowledged the absence of three Commissioners from the December 20 meeting during which the Commission voted on the amendment.
In response to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Stewart said a typical 60-foot-high building would include five stories.
Mayor Jepsen said a height increase from 35 feet to 50 feet on an R-48 property abutting an R-6 property is substantial. He noted his hesitation to support the amendment without fully understanding "where this is happening." He expressed even greater concern about allowing an additional ten feet in height with a special use permit.
Continuing, Mayor Jepsen said the proposed amendment does not address how the design code affects the zoning code. He noted his assumption that the design code would not allow an abrupt shift from 35 to 60 feet in height. He anticipated the tiering of the building from the height of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Stewart agreed that modulation of the building height would be a critical element of whether the building meets the standards for a conditional use permit.
Planner Brian Krueger reviewed a map illustrating the locations of the 15 R-48 properties in Shoreline adjacent to R-6 properties, the three R-48 properties adjacent to R-8 properties and the 29 R-48 properties adjacent to other, higher-density zones.
Mayor Jepsen requested additional information on the provision allowing a maximum height of 60 feet with a special use permit on R-48 lots abutting R-4, R-6 and R-8 properties. Mr. Stewart expressed staff willingness to prepare supplemental information. He said the process for obtaining a special use permit is rigorous. In response to Mayor Jepsen, he confirmed that Council would make the final decision of whether to grant a special use permit.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart said staff studied the building dimensions necessary to achieve R-48 density with units of various sizes. He offered to provide this information to Council. He explained that a building with 48 units must include multiple levels of sub-grade parking to comply with the height limits of the current Development Code.
Councilmember Ransom asked why the City has not separated high-density and low-density residential zones with medium-density residential zones. Mr. Stewart said Shoreline inherited many of the abutting high-density and low-density residential zones from King County. Chair Gabbert stressed the public input and constraints included in the conditional-use permit process.
In response to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Stewart said the City has received inquiries about proposals for buildings of 50-60 feet in height.
Mayor Jepsen anticipated the need for more Council discussion of Tab 15.
In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mayor Jepsen confirmed Council support of Tab 8, subject to specific wording, and Council opposition to Tab 10. Mayor Jepsen asserted Council support for Tab 15 with the understanding that staff will provide additional information to clarify the proposed amendment.
Mr. Stewart went on to review Tab 16, which addresses height limitations in industrial zones abutting R-4 and R-6 residential zones. He referenced the proposed "Figure Exception 20.50.020(2)" on page 42 of Attachment A. He said that portion of a building in an industrial zone abutting an R-4 or R-6 zone would be limited to 35 feet. He noted a required ten-foot setback for the next two stories and another required ten-foot setback for the final two stories.
Deputy Mayor Grossman noted the substantial grade difference between the site of the proposed Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) at Aurora Avenue N and N 192nd Street and the residential properties to the west. He asked if the Development Code takes such differences into account. He questioned a building height step back requirement in locations in which the abutting residential properties are substantially higher. Mr. Stewart said the Development Code does not take such grade differences into account. He said a TOD project at Aurora Avenue N and N 192nd Street would involve a "huge amount of public input" and would probably result in formal adoption of a master plan and accompanying zoning regulations.
Mayor Jepsen noted Council support of Tab 16.
Mr. Stewart went on to review Tab 23, which addresses the maximum allowable height of front yard fences. He explained the difficulty of enforcing the current limit of three and a half feet.
Deputy Mayor Grossman said he supports the current three-and-a-half-foot limit. He asserted that six-foot-high fences have a significant impact on neighboring property owners. He suggested better public education as the means of addressing the enforcement problem.
Councilmember Ransom supported the proposed amendment to increase the maximum height of front yard fences to six feet. He said the City should not be dictating a lower maximum fence height to property owners.
Mayor Jepsen said he supports the concept and the goal of the current three-and-a-half-foot limit. However, he commented that Council may not have appreciated the complexity of the issue. He suggested a statement encouraging that front yard fences not exceed three and a half feet with information explaining why.
Chair Gabbert said the Planning Commission originally recommended the three-and-a-half-foot limit for front yard fences but became more pragmatic as the difficulty of enforcing the limit became apparent.
In response to Councilmember Chang, Mr. Stewart advised that the Development Code allows trees, shrubs and hedges over six feet in height. Councilmember Hansen noted that the City of Edmonds enforces a six-foot height limit for hedges.
Councilmember Gustafson supported Mayor Jepsen's suggestion that the City encourage, but not enforce, a three-and-a-half-foot maximum front yard fence height.
Deputy Mayor Grossman objected to increasing the maximum height of front yard fences to six feet. Councilmember Ransom asserted the rationality of increasing the maximum height for front yard fences to the same as that for back yard fences.
Next, Mr. Stewart reviewed Tab 24. He noted the staff recommendation to amend the Planning Commission recommendation from "Any/all lighting shall be non-glare and shielded . . ." to "Any/all lighting should be non-glare and shielded. . . ." Chair Gabbert supported the proposed change.
Mayor Jepsen supported the revised amendment as "a step in the right direction."
Mr. Stewart went on to review Tab 26, which stipulates that garages and covered carports not protrude beyond the front facade of the main structure.
Mayor Jepsen asked if a garage could protrude beyond the front facade of a house if the house sat back from the required front setback. Mr. Stewart explained that the proposed amendment applies to "single family attached and multifamily design standards" (e.g., townhouses). Mayor Jepsen expressed support for the proposed amendment, and there were no other Council questions.
Mr. Stewart went on to review Tab 29, which proposes to change clearing and grading from a Type B to a Type A permit process and to increase the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) threshold from 100 cubic yards to 500 cubic yards.
Mayor Jepsen asked that staff return to Council with specific examples of projects that exceeded the 100-cubic-yard threshold. Mr. Stewart said staff will prepare illustrations for Council consideration.
Chair Gabbert said 500 cubic yards is a standard SEPA threshold in other jurisdictions. Mayor Jepsen suggested that staff provide information about other jurisdictions to Council as well.
Mr. Stewart went on to review Tab 32, which addresses the "Signs" subchapter of the Development Code. He said the Planning Commission agreed with staff about the need for more work before proposing major changes to the subchapter and instead recommended only technical amendments. He noted Commission support of a staff work plan to include groups such as the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce in a review of the sign ordinance, including issues related to banners, inflatable and rooftop signs. Chair Gabbert said the Commission decided to postpone substantive changes due to the lack of business community participation. He asserted the importance of business involvement in consideration of proposed changes to the "Signs" subchapter.
In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart said staff originally proposed to amend the "Signs" subchapter to remove banners and inflatable signs from the list of prohibited signs. He explained that the Planning Commission subsequently deleted the proposed amendments. He said the Development Code does not prohibit banners and inflatable signs now, and the proposed amendments would not change this status quo.
In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that an existing sign would be grandfathered. He mentioned Planning Commission interest in Council input on the amortization of non-conforming signs. He suggested this as an agenda item for another Council workshop.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 9:58 p.m., Deputy Mayor Grossman moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 4–2, with Councilmembers Gustafson and Hansen dissenting.
In response to Mayor Jepsen, Mr. Stewart explained that the information on pages 88 through 96 of Attachment A represents proposed amendments to the Development Code. He commented that the underlined additions and struck-out deletions are relatively non-controversial. He said other amendments were more controversial. For example, he pointed out that the addition of "banners and inflated signs or figures" to the list of prohibited signs (SMC 20.50.550) has been struck (page 92 of Attachment A). He suggested that staff clarify the actual, proposed changes in advance of the public hearing on the Development Code amendments. Mayor Jepsen supported this suggestion.
Deputy Mayor Grossman questioned the recommended, technical amendments given the acknowledged lack of business community participation. Chair Gabbert said the amendments the Planning Commission approved benefit businesses (e.g., increasing the maximum sign area). Mr. Stewart noted a number of technical amendments and clarifications.
Mayor Jepsen expressed confusion about the proposed changes to SMC Table 20.50.540B. Mr. Stewart said staff will prepare information to clarify the changes.
Mr. Stewart went on to review the topics for consideration on the 2002 planning work program that the Planning Commission recommended (page 43 of the Council packet).
Councilmember Ransom referred to the Development Code Amendment Comment Form that he submitted regarding SMC 20.50.550(E) (page 100 of Attachment A). He said Council struck the prohibition of rooftop signs from the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Commissioner McClelland referred to his objection of the prohibition of rooftop signs during the November 1 Planning Commission meeting (page 65 of the Council packet). He said staff dismissed the objection. He asserted that Council discussed rooftop signs and removed the prohibition of them from the Comprehensive Plan. He questioned the inattention to the Development Code amendment that he submitted.
Mr. Stewart noted that SMC 20.50.550(E) has prohibited rooftop signs since July 2000 when Council adopted Ordinance No. 238. He said staff considered Councilmember Ransom's Development Code Amendment Comment Form as a comment on the proposed amendments, not as an amendment. He offered to include it during the next round of amendments the City considers.
Councilmember Ransom objected to including the amendment in the next round. He said Council discussed rooftop signs many times, and Council voted to strike the prohibition of rooftop signs from the Comprehensive Plan. He made specific reference to Comprehensive Plan discussions of Larry Steele’s Aurora Rent roof sign and Chuck Olsen Chevrolet’s top of the building sign. He stated that the Development Code should reflect this decision. He asserted the need to delete the prohibition of rooftop signs from the Development Code.
Mayor Jepsen recommended review of the Council vote to which Councilmember Ransom referred to clarify whether it specifically addressed rooftop signs. He further recommended comparison of the Council vote to Ordinance No. 238 to identify any contradiction between the two. He asked if Council adoption of Ordinance No. 238 superseded previous ordinances.
In response to Mr. Burkett, Councilmember Ransom said the Council vote addressed all rooftop signs. He recalled extensive discussion and debate of the issue during Council consideration of the Comprehensive Plan. He asserted that a Council majority voted to delete the prohibition of rooftop signs. He said Council, Terry Green and the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce later discussed signage, including flashing signs, such as Ms. Green's sign at Highland Terrace. He recalled that Council subsequently approved flashing signs. He noted City approval of the flashing sign at the Drift On Inn. He questioned the prohibition of rooftop and flashing signs in the Development Code given Council discussion and debate and business community input.
Mayor Jepsen reiterated his recommendation to review the Council discussion of rooftop signs. He said he remembered the Council discussion but not a Council vote. Mr. Burkett commented that Council can decide now to change the Development Code to allow rooftop signs. Mayor Jepsen asserted the need to determine whether the Development Code language on pages 91 and 92 of Attachment A contradicts Council action during past discussion of the signage issue. He requested that staff include the pertinent meeting minutes as part of its report on the proposed amendments. He said each Councilmember can then decide what to do regarding the prohibition, in SMC 20.50.550, of "Spinning devices; flashing lights; pennants" and "Signs mounted on the roof."
Councilmember Ransom stated the importance of addressing flashing and rooftop signs. He asserted business community concern about these issues. He said the business community would be extremely concerned about amortization of non-conforming signs. He mentioned that the owner of the Drift on Inn spent $250,000 on the flashing sign there.
Councilmember Ransom asked the Planning Commission to reconsider sign restrictions on churches in residential zones. He said the Development Code seems to limit churches to small signs with a maximum height of 42 inches. He commented that many of the restrictions are continuations of those the County imposed long ago. He stated his support for the Shoreline Community Church position that the code consider churches like neighborhood businesses and, thereby, allow churches to have larger and taller signs. He mentioned that the code limits a block-long church to one sign but that it allows neighborhood businesses of similar size to have two signs. He said four churches have addressed the issue of signs with him. He advocated Planning Commission attention to the issue.
Mayor Jepsen thanked the Planning Commission for its work on the Development Code amendments. He also expressed appreciation to the individuals who submitted amendments.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Daniel Mann, 17920 Stone Avenue N, expressed the interest of the business community in having a standing body to work with the Planning Commission and staff on ordinances affecting "their ability to advertise their products." Referring to Tabs 15 and 16, he said residents of properties zoned R-8 and R-12 should have the same protections as residents of properties zoned R-4 or R-6.
(b) Deb Moore-Marchant, 16261 12th Avenue NE, asserted the importance of insuring police and fire department access to front yard fences. She also asserted the importance of addressing lights on signs (e.g., spotlights).
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:24 p.m., Mayor Jepsen declared the meeting adjourned.
___________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk