CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 18, 2005 Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: Councilmember Grace
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Hansen, who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Hansen led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Councilmember Grace.
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and carried 6-0, Councilmember Grace was excused.
(a) Proclamation of Water Polo Week
Mayor Hansen read the proclamation recognizing the achievements of the Shorewood Girls Water Polo Team, which placed third at the Washington State Water Polo Championship Tournament. Members of the team accepted the award and thanked the City on behalf of the team and Coach John Reiss, who was not able to attend.
(b) Shoreline Star – Larry Blake
Council members joined Mayor Hansen at the podium to recognize Larry Blake as the tenth Shoreline Star. Mayor Hansen outlined Mr. Blake’s contributions and volunteer activities in the community through his involvement in Vision Shoreline and the Transition Team, Shoreline Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Board, Shoreline Bond Advisory Committee, Richmond Little League, and Hillwood Soccer. Mr. Blake also served as Grand Marshall of the Celebrate Shoreline Parade in 2004. Mr. Blake accepted the proclamation and thanked the City, the Council, and the community for this recognition.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
§Julie Modrzejewski, Assistant
City Manager, clarified that the City has not yet purchased the three acres of
the South Woods property as was reported in the Shoreline Enterprise. The
Council has simply authorized the City Manager to make an offer to the school
district. She then provided an update on several items, including the 10th
Anniversary Birthday Celebration held at the Historical Museum on July 14, free
lunchtime concerts in Shoreline City parks, a specialized recreation dance
sponsored by local businesses, and completion of playground improvements at Richmond Beach Community Park. She reported on the installation of Shoreline Arts
Festival art murals at various locations in the North City Business District, and
on the completion of the Hidden Lake dredging project. Finally, she
introduced two City staff members, Jeff Forry, Permit Services Manager, and Ray
Allshouse, Building Official.
4. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Connie King, Shoreline, commented on the City’s improvement of King County infrastructure since the City incorporated. She commended the City for the additional water capacity and beautification provided by the 3rd Avenue NW drainage project. She pointed out that 3rd Avenue was not originally a through-road at the intersection with Richmond Beach Road. She thanked the Council for its efforts to make the City more attractive.
(b) Ken Cottingham, Shoreline, commended the City on the 3rd Avenue NW drainage project, but questioned the rationale for having a separate contractor finish the asphalt driveway connections. He felt the driveways should have been finished at the same time the road was paved. He asked if the City used money from its annual road overlay program to pay for this work. He asked the City to provide him the final financial figures on the 3rd Avenue project.
(c) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, thanked the Council for its decision to preserve the South Woods property for public use. She said she honors her representatives on the City Council and she is proud to be part of a City that cherishes its natural surroundings.
5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Councilmember Chang and carried 6-0, the agenda was approved.
There was Council consensus to address item 7(a) next.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
(a) Capital Improvement Program Update
Jill Marilley, City Engineer, provided an update of the following CIP projects: Aurora Avenue; 3rd Avenue NW Drainage; North City; and the Annual Road Surface Maintenance Program. She noted that preliminary work on Aurora Avenue will precede any heavy equipment and earth-moving activities in the month of August. It is anticipated that the Interurban Trail North segment will be complete in August. Despite the fact that two separate contractors are finishing the paving work on 3rd Avenue NW, the work is covered in the project budget. The City continues to work with North City businesses to mitigate the impacts of the North City project. Staff estimates that 7.3 miles of overlay and 6.8 miles of slurry seal will be completed as part of the annual road surfacing maintenance program. Ms. Marilley concluded her update by mentioning that the public process for the Richmond Beach Saltwater Park master plan will commence in late fall.
Ms. Marilley clarified for Mayor Hansen that improvements to the Boeing Creek Stormwater facility and the underground sewer storage facility in Boeing Creek Park will be constructed in the fall, as opposed to mid-2005.
Noting the slow progress on the Brightwater project, Councilmember Ransom questioned King County’s ability to complete it by 2010.
Councilmember Gustafson asked if there are plans to ensure that the Interurban Trail makes a seamless transition to the trail in Edmonds. Ms. Marilley said that until Edmonds completes its section of the trail, it will install interim signage to direct pedestrians and cyclists. She added that the 175th to 192nd segment is scheduled for construction next year.
Councilmember Gustafson questioned the rationale for completing the driveway connections separately from the bulk paving project on 3rd Avenue NW. Ms. Marilley explained that the City was able to achieve a cost savings by having the bulk of the paving done first, with a separate crew finishing the driveway seams later. She expressed appreciation to those affected by the extended construction schedule for their patience and understanding.
Councilmember Chang asked about the status of the Gateway Project at Aurora Avenue and N 185th Street, and the Walgreen’s project at Aurora Avenue and N. 175th Street. He wished to be assured that the City has resolved all the issues related to the SGA project.
Ms. Marilley noted that SGA (Gateway project owner) has opted to construct the Interurban Trail, which they said should happen before the end of August. She said the City has been diligently working with SGA throughout the course of the project.
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director, noted that the City issued Walgreen’s a building permit at the beginning of January, but thus far there has been no activity on the site. He said there are a number of permit conditions related to the Interurban Trail.
Councilmember Ransom pointed out that companies such as SGA and Top Foods have built large portions of the Interurban Trail at their expense, yet the City has received state and federal funding for most other portions of the trail. He said one cost estimate indicated it is costing the Gateway Project over $800,000 to build its section of the trail. He considered this to be an exorbitant amount for an individual property owner to pay. He felt the Council should have further discussions about how much the City can require adjacent property owners to pay for the trail.
Ms. Marilley said the City’s estimate for what it would cost to build the trail in this section is considerably less than $800,000. She said it is not uncommon to require developers to make frontage improvements when they build or redevelop, but the Council can revisit this policy if it wishes.
Councilmember Fimia requested that future CIP updates be provided in a spreadsheet format that would include original budget figures, expenditures, and timelines. She also requested responses to the following questions:
1. What is the total budget for the 3rd Avenue NW project?
2. What is the project description?
3. When was the road overlay? When was it bid? When was it awarded? When did they start?
4. When did staff know about the road bed?
5. What left to do with the project? What’s the budget for the pieces that are left?
There was Council consensus to start the public hearing prior to 8:00 p.m. If the public comment did not last until 8:00 p.m., the Council would declare a recess, reconvene at 8:00 p.m., and then hear any additional persons that wish to speak.
6. ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING
(a) Public hearing to consider citizens comments on
extension of the Moratorium on the Filing,
Acceptance or Approval of Cottage Housing
Developments ending August 23, 2005
Ordinance No. 397 extending the cottage
Housing moratorium
Mr. Stewart commented on the public hearing process in the Planning Commission, noting that a variety of opinions were expressed, both for and against cottage housing in Shoreline. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend a six-month extension so that they can adequately study the various options. Mr. Stewart noted that the Planning Commission has been under a “time crunch” because the Critical Areas ordinance update is due by the end of the year.
Mayor Hansen opened the public hearing.
(a) Leslie Addis, Shoreline, supported the moratorium extension and thanked the Council for its willingness to revisit the issue. She emphasized the importance of preserving the beauty of neighborhoods, adding that cottage housing should not be allowed in low-density residential areas.
(b) Bronston Kenney, Shoreline, said cottage housing should be eliminated in Shoreline if the basic question of need cannot be answered. He asserted that cottage housing is a “gimmick to circumvent zoning” and that City staff has not seriously examined the issue since the first moratorium was enacted. He estimated there are nearly cottage housing 60 projects planned for Shoreline, and these all encroach into the City’s zoning code. He asserted that a majority of residents strongly oppose cottage housing and urged the City not to expend resources to study it further.
(c) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, urged the Council not to follow the Planning Commission recommendation to extend the moratorium because the current cottage housing ordinance is “excellent.” She said cottage housing residents do not object to cottage housing because cottage housing fills the housing needs of a diverse community. She said the moratorium has put a “stranglehold” on the market at a time when interest rates are low. She said zoning is not a property right and objected to the “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) attitude of some.
(d) Mark Deutsch, Shoreline, urged the Council not to extend the moratorium, noting that cottage housing developments can be wonderful. He said the Planning Commission indicated it does not intend to recommend elimination of cottage housing in Shoreline. He said although there is not an overwhelming majority of people opposing it, the City should address the issue of placement.
(e) Janet Way, Shoreline, explained that the Growth Management Act (GMA) requires cities to have more density, and neighbors have a right to participate in the policy development process. She alluded to past problems concerning notification of cottage housing development proposals. She said the moratorium is a proper tool for the Council to consider, and it is not just a NIMBY issue. She said although cottage housing may be an option for some, cottage housing must adhere to the highest design standards.
(f) James Acheson, Shoreline, said cottage housing will not solve any problems; instead, the City should allow high-rise structures in commercial areas like the Aurora corridor. He felt residential lots should remain ¼ acre. Cottage housing buyers will want to “move up” and eventually the cottage housing developments will deteriorate. He said density should be decreased in “nicer neighborhoods” and incentives should be used to promote high density development in more commercial areas.
(g) Brian Derdowski, Bellevue, said that the City’s existing ordinance is inadequate, and the Council should send direct the Planning Commission to adopt a timeline to produce a recommendation before Christmas. He said there is no evidence that King County considered the environmental effects of eliminating the minimum lot size. If Shoreline eliminates minimum lot size vis-à-vis cottage housing, there may be a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) gap. He asked the Council to identify the defects in the ordinance, ask the Planning Commission for a product before Christmas, and ensure every cottage housing project goes through its own individual SEPA review.
At 7:54 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared a six-minute recess. At 8:00 p.m., the Council reconvened. Mayor Hansen called for public comment.
(h) Randy Hughes, Shoreline, urged the Council to “kill” the cottage housing ordinance because the opposition to it far outnumbers its proponents. He urged the Council to listen to the Planning Commission, which has a far better background on land use issues than the Council. He felt that a Christmas deadline would not be enough time for people to deal with the issue. He said if the Planning Commission decides there is a need for cottage housing, it should be put in higher density areas or areas specifically zoned for cottage housing.
Upon motion by Councilmember Gustafson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and carried 6-0, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Fimia moved adoption of Ordinance No. 397, which extends the current cottage housing moratorium from its expiration date of August 23, 2005 to February 19, 2006. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion.
Councilmember Ransom said although there are opinions on both sides of the argument, the primary issue is whether cottage housing should be allowed in R-4 and R-6 zones. He has heard no protests from anyone against cottage housing in R-8 or R-12 zones. He said cottage homes are legally condominiums and should be zoned appropriately. Although he had hoped the Planning Commission would have arrived at a conclusion by now, he supported the extension because he feels the Planning Commission should have a complete record.
Councilmember Fimia also supported the extension, although she regrets that a conclusion has not yet been reached. She said she would resubmit her proposal for a cottage housing review process she submitted back in January.
Councilmember Gustafson supported the extension because the Planning Commission requested it, but he would like to hear back from them on the issues of use, location, and design. He felt that the character of some neighborhoods is being disrupted by cottage housing. He asked about what Shoreline’s GMA requirements are in terms of density.
Councilmember Chang concurred with the previous speakers, noting that he feels cottage housing does not belong in R-4 or R-6 zones. He hoped the Council could arrive at a fair and balanced conclusion.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen supported the moratorium because the Planning Commission is the expert on land use issues. He pointed out that they are currently under pressure due to several other land use issues. He felt the current ordinance could be modified somewhat, but the primary issues relate to proximity and design.
Mayor Hansen expressed support for the extension.
Councilmember Ransom said the presumption that Shoreline must have 2,500 more GMA housing units is not necessarily true, since cities can pay to have their density requirements transferred to other jurisdictions.
Councilmember Fimia said Shoreline needs to promote higher densities along Aurora Avenue and 15th Avenue NE, since these areas are being developed as transit-oriented areas.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6-0, and Ordinance No. 397 was adopted.
Councilmember Fimia proposed that the Council adopt a process for addressing the cottage housing ordinance and suggested that it be added to a future agenda. Councilmember Ransom supported this proposal. It was decided that this item would be added to the August 22 Council agenda.
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 8:20 p.m., Mayor Hansen declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk