CITY
OF
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang,
Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Grace
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon
roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the
exceptions of Mayor Hansen and Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, and Grace. Mayor Hansen and Councilmembers Chang and
Fimia arrived shortly thereafter.
(a) Proclamation
of Library Week
Deputy Mayor
Jepsen recognized April as National Library Month and acknowledged the
Joe Phillips, Chair of the Library Board, Mary Lynn Potter, Vice Chair, Judy Weathers and Anina Sill, Managing Librarians from the Shoreline and Richmond Beach Libraries, and Library Board members Jamie Holter and Yoshiko Saheki accepted the proclamation.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Gustafson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and carried 6-0, Councilmember Grace
was excused.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
§
·
advertisement of the request for bids for the Aurora Corridor and
Interurban Trail projects
·
Washington State Department of Transportation construction project on
Interstate 5 beginning at
·
City gateway project on
·
progress on the
·
new banners to be displayed for Shoreline’s Tenth Anniversary
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Fimia submitted an item for consideration
regarding City support for the Shoreline Solar Project’s 2nd Annual
Renewable Energy Fair.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Dale
Wright, Shoreline, commented that a new group called Progress Shoreline has
been organized to help achieve the original vision established by the
community. This group is dedicated to
building on what has been accomplished and helping the City move forward. He noted there is a small group in Shoreline
whose apparent purpose is to prevent progress in Shoreline. Rather than expressing their vision for the
City, they have focused on “obstructing the City Council’s efforts to move
forward” through “misuse of public comment privileges, delay tactics, distortions,
misrepresentations, intimidation, and litigation.” He
said Progress Shoreline will be supporting candidates who will work toward
continued improvement and who will represent all segments of the community. He urged all citizens to join in electing a “forward-thinking”
City Council.
(b) LaNita
Wacker, Shoreline, pointed out that the “17 acre” South Woods property, which
is jointly owned by the Shoreline Water District and
(c) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, expressed support for Ms. Wacker’s
idea, urging the Council to also consider purchasing the land at
(d)
(e) Bill
Ptacek, Executive Director of the King County Library System, thanked the City
for recognizing Library Week. He commented on the quality of library personnel,
resources, and services in the area, noting that KCLS is the second busiest library
district in the
Councilmember Gustafson
commented that employees of both libraries have been particularly helpful to
him in his research efforts, and Councilmember Ransom noted that the Library board
has been an effective liaison between the public and the King County Library
Board of Trustees in relaying citizen’s concerns.
Responding to Deputy Mayor
Jepsen, Mr. Burkett explained that the City received a letter from the school
and water district over a month ago offering to sell the property to the City. Subsequently, City staff met with
representatives of those groups, the Cascade Conservancy, and King County Councilmember
Carolyn Edmonds to identify potential funding sources for the preservation of
some or all of the property. He said
staff will continue to monitor this item.
6. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Continued deliberations on the 2004 Update of the Comprehensive
Plan and master plans for Transportation, Surface Water and Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
(a) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, reiterated the importance of urging
the school board to retain the school district’s portion of the South Woods for
potential purchase by the City. She also
asked that the City purchase the water district portion so that it can be
developed into a neighborhood park for Briarcrest. She said it is appropriate when considering
the Comprehensive Plan and parks expenditures that the Council refer to this
specific property, which was not available three months ago.
(b) Brian
Derdowski,
(c) Paul Tychsen, Shoreline, concurred with the previous speaker,
noting there is something fundamentally flawed with the concept of allowing
double densities in low-density, established neighborhoods. He said the term “bonus density” is a
misnomer for people who make the largest single investment of their lives in
their homes. He urged the City to adhere to the underlying
zoning density, and to follow the established procedures if it is to be
changed. He said despite what traffic
statistics might indicate, there is eight to ten times
more traffic on
(d)
·
Goal U II: Facilitate the efficient
and economical provision of appropriate, reliable utility services whether
through City-owned and operated, or other independent providers.
·
Goal U2: Investigate whether alternative provision options may or
may not be more effective at providing services to our residents.
·
CF29: Review and adopt
updated plans for non-city capital facilities and services and ascertain the
demand for: co-location of facilities by comparing with existing
City-owned services: service enhancements and coordination with city
facilities and services. Investigate
the actual costs to the public of co-location of facilities with the City.
She concluded that Thornton
Creek is not adequately defined in relation to
(e) Virginia
Paulsen, Shoreline, proposed the following amendment for Comprehensive Plan
policy EN68: “Utilize and require zero impact development strategies in all new
public and private developments, including use of permeable road surface materials,
solar energy designs, and green roofs in order to protect wetlands, minimize
groundwater runoff, and enhance the natural environment, including natural
drainage systems.” She said many new
technologies have emerged in the past few years that protect, enhance, and in
some cases, restore the natural environment.
She felt Shoreline could be a model city in this regard and urged the
City to consider zero-impact strategies.
Councilmembers Fimia and
Ransom supported retaining the language of the existing policies rather than
the Planning Commission recommendation to delete them. They contended that although these policies
are referenced elsewhere, they should also be included in the Comprehensive
Plan for clarity and ease of use. After
further discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
Deputy Mayor
Jepsen moved to retain the existing language for both items. Councilmember Gustafson
seconded the motion, which carried 6 – 0.
Mr. Stewart noted that the
City’s role is to encourage and regulate a variety of housing opportunities and
appropriate infrastructure, not necessarily to provide such housing and
infrastructure.
#38 (LU34)—
Councilmember Ransom moved that the language be changed to the following: “Clustering shall have densities consistent
with the underlying zone unless impacts to surrounding uses can be fully
mitigated and substantial public benefits can be achieved. Cluster densities shall not exceed the
underlying zone densities by over 25%.”
Councilmember Fimia seconded the motion.
Councilmember Fimia
contended that if the City wants to move in the direction of minimal impact or
zero impact development, the size of a building footprint is a major
consideration.
Mr. Stewart felt it could be
overly burdensome to operate under the constraint of designing a facility for
the smallest possible footprint. He felt
it could have other negative impacts in the community in terms of view
preservation and other related issues.
He said minimizing the footprint should be one of many considerations,
but it should not be the dominant policy.
Mr. Burkett emphasized the
importance of maintaining balance and flexibility in the policy. He pointed out that the ideal layout for City
Hall is a two-story structure encompassing approximately 53,000 square
feet. He said although it could be
constructed as a five-story structure with a very small footprint, this design
would not be as efficient or convenient for customers.
#91 (EPF9), #92
(EPF10), and #101 (EPF19)—Councilmember Gustafson moved to adopt the Planning
Commission recommendations.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded the motion. Mr. Stewart
clarified for Council that although EPF9 and EPF10 are recommended for
deletion, they are included in LU67 and LU68.
A vote was taken on the motion, which
carried 6 - 0.
Mayor Hansen expressed mixed
feelings about retaining this policy. He
felt that the phrase relating to slope elevation changes of 20 feet or less
could be problematic for some developments.
Councilmember Fimia asked
about the difference between the terms “elevation change of 20 feet or less”
and “40 degree slope.”
Mr. Stewart said the problem
with “elevation change of 20 feet or less” is that it only applies one
coordinate for measurement. Therefore,
if applied literally, virtually everything would be covered by this
definition. He said this policy is
redundant and covered in policy EN15.
There was considerable discussion of the cottage
housing moratorium and whether any policies should be changed at this time.
Councilmember Gustafson felt
it would be premature to make a decision on cottage housing during the
moratorium and before the Planning Commission, Council, and the public have had
a chance to weigh in.
Mr. Stewart said staff is
doing additional research and the Planning Commission intends to conduct a
workshop to discuss specific issues that have been identified for further
review. He said if the Planning Commission
and Council choose to reduce or eliminate the density bonus for cottage housing
in one or more residential zones, it would essentially eliminate the incentive
for developing cottage housing.
Mayor Hansen wondered if
simplifying the wording to state “allow cottage housing in medium density areas
of eight dwelling units per acre and up...” would satisfy Councilmember
Ransom’s intent.
Councilmember Ransom said he
proposed the specific wording because the definition for medium density is R-8
to R-12. He felt it is important to be
consistent with the definition for medium density.
Councilmember Gustafson
reiterated the importance of hearing what the community and the Planning
Commission have to say on the subject before taking any action.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen
concurred. He noted the possibility that
the Planning Commission and the public could recommend that cottage housing
remain in low-density zones but with significant design review process. He asked what the current cottage housing
allowance is now.
Mr. Stewart said in R-4 or
R-6 zones a conditional use permit is required for cottage housing, which
includes neighborhood notification and opportunity for appeal. In R-8 zones and
above, it is permitted as matter of right if development conditions are
met. Depending on the size of the unit,
current regulations allow up to double the density. Over 90 percent of the single family area in
Shoreline is designated R-4 and R-6, or low density.
Councilmember Fimia wondered
how the City has permitted cottage housing in R-4 zones when the current
Comprehensive Plan only allows it in areas zoned for six dwelling units per
acre and up.
Mr. Stewart said the first
set of regulations developed through an extensive community process resulted in
allowing cottage housing under a CUP in R-4 and R-6 zones.
Councilmember Fimia pointed
out that the Council might not have the opportunity to change the cottage
housing policy for another year. In the
meantime, the moratorium will expire and there might not be a mechanism for
making a change to the policy.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt the
Comprehensive Plan policy should not reference a zoning designation because these
are included in the Development Code.
Councilmember Fimia felt it
should include a zoning designation because the Comprehensive Plan provides predictability
to the public and policy direction to the Development Code. She felt to be safe, the policy should state
medium-density zoning, and the Council could make additional changes next year
in response to the public process if necessary.
Mayor Hansen noted that the
Comprehensive Plan is policy direction, not a regulation. He said nothing in the current policy
prohibits cottage housing in R-4 zones.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that many neighbors have been requesting this change, and Council’s action
would be a good response to show it is sensitive to their concerns. He
said the
Responding to Councilmember
Chang, Mr. Stewart said if the cottage housing issues are not resolved before
August (the time that the current moratorium expires),
staff would recommend an extension of the moratorium to complete the
process.
Mayor Hansen felt the
cottage housing issues would be addressed more effectively through the
moratorium rather than the Comprehensive Plan update.
Councilmember Gustafson emphasized
that the purpose of the moratorium was to allow for a public input process
before the Council makes a final decision.
He maintained that the Council should allow that process to proceed
before it makes a decision.
Councilmember Fimia
suggested that compromise language could be added to the policy to acknowledge
the current public process to avoid the impression that the Council has made a
final decision.
Mayor Hansen felt that
people generally understand that there is a public process and that the Council
has not made a decision.
Mr. Stewart wanted assurance
that this does not preclude the “payment in lieu of” option for the sidewalk
requirement.
Mayor Hansen noted that
these requirements are already included in the development regulations. Mr. Stewart affirmed that frontage
improvements are required as part of the GMA and Shoreline’s Development Code.
Upon Deputy
Mayor Jepsen’s suggestion, Councilmember Fimia
accepted the friendly amendment to add “or payment in lieu of.” A vote was
taken on the motion, which carried 5 – 1, with Mayor Hansen dissenting.
Councilmember Fimia wondered
how both impact fees and SEPA mitigation would affect developers. She wondered how the policy could be written
to ensure it is reasonable and not overly burdensome.
Mr. Burkett noted that
impact fees would not be imposed unless they are identified as part of the
City’s financial policies.
Mayor Hansen felt that the
feasibility condition provides the necessary protection to the City and
developers.
#373 (Ue)—Councilmember Fimia moved to adopt the Planning
Commission recommendation changing the word “encourage” to “require” in each
policy. Councilmember Chang seconded the
motion. Councilmember Fimia felt the word “encourage”
does not effectively enforce the actions of utility providers regarding tree
preservation.
Mr. Olander noted that City
requirements of utility providers are usually addressed through franchise
agreements.
Councilmember Ransom asked
for a legal opinion from the City Attorney.
Mr. Sievers commented that
“require” might be too excessive. He recommended the wording “negotiate and condition where
feasible” instead of either “encourage” or “require.” Councilmembers
Fimia and Chang agreed to this suggestion.
A vote was taken on the motion as amended, which carried 6 – 0.
Mayor Hansen noted that undergrounding
utilities in Shoreline has been a Council goal from the beginning of the
City.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
City should retain the recommended level of service standards for the police in
the Comprehensive Plan, noting that it has served the City well up to now and
it helps direct the City’s contracts and funding.
Mr. Burkett felt this issue
is more appropriately addressed as part of the annual budget. He noted that the number of police officers
is probably the most significant issue for the annual budget.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen felt the
emphasis should be on overall level of service rather than specifying a
recommended number of police officers per thousand residents.
Mr. Stewart said the
Planning Commission recommends deletion of this policy because it is a contracted
service for which the City can negotiate on a service/performance basis. He noted that level of police service is not
a requirement of the GMA.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that although these recommended indices are included in the police contract, having
them in the Comprehensive Plan helps provide guidance to the contract. He said the data in the annual budget has not
always been consistent, so including it here will help maintain the general
guidelines.
Mayor Hansen said he is more interested in the overall
quality of service than in specifying the number of police officers per
thousand residents. He felt that actual service levels and public
input should determine the recommended level of service rather than the
Comprehensive Plan.
7. ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________