CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, February 19, 2008 - 6:30 p.m.
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor Ryu, Deputy Mayor Scott, Councilmember Eggen, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember McConnell, Councilmember McGlashan, and Councilmember Way.
ABSENT: None.
|
1. |
At 6:35 p.m. the meeting was called to order by Mayor Ryu, who presided.
|
2. |
Mayor Ryu led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exceptions of Councilmember McConnell and Councilmember Hansen.
Councilmember McGlashan moved to excuse Councilmember McConnell. Councilmember Way seconded the motion, which carried 5-0.
|
3. |
Bob Olander, City Manager, reported on past and future City meetings, projects, and events.
|
4. |
Councilmember Eggen attended the Suburban Cities Association (SCA) Public Issues Committee. He reported that Councilmember Hansen was confirmed to the Hazardous Waste Board and there was a discussion about Metro route revisions. He added that there was an attempt to take the City of Shoreline out of the Seattle Metro area and put us in the eastside area. He also stated there is some conflict over the number of seats on the growth management and transportation boards.
Councilmember Ryu stated that the Shoreline Recycling & Transfer Station is open and it is the first certified LEED Gold industrial site in the United States. Mr. Olander clarified that the freeway ramps off of I-5 will only handle the large transfer truck traffic.
|
5. |
a) Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, commented that oil is more than $100 per barrel, gas prices have increased, and the economic situation is worsening. She added that the population is increasing beyond the earth's capacity which is leading to global warming. She discussed the mortgage crisis and that everyone has to make economic adjustments, including the City as it establishes its priorities.
b) Les Nelson, Shoreline, stated that the Planning Commission has the community business (CB) zoning item on their agenda this week. He said the Commission is working on making unlimited density apply to CB zones as well as regional business zones.
Councilmember Hansen arrived at 6:46 p.m.
|
6. |
|
|
Rob Beem, Community Service Division, introduced Comprehensive Housing Strategy Committee members Sid Kuboi, Janne Kaje, Kierdwyn Cataldo, John Behrens, Maria Walsh, Harry Sloan, and Chakorn Phisuthikul.
Mr. Kuboi presented the report of the Comprehensive Housing Strategy. He stated that affordability, housing choice, and neighborhood character were three key elements of the study. He noted that the demographics show that family sizes are getting smaller, and that based on the community assumptions the committee debate and deliberation of the three focus areas was further distilled into findings and strategies. These findings and strategies are items that the committee feels are the best ideas that could be successfully implemented in Shoreline.
Mr. Kaje highlighted that households are changing and families with children only make up 30% of Shoreline households with seniors, single parents/adults, and starters looking for different types of housing. He said there is a mismatch between today's demographics and the housing alternatives available. Neighborhoods have different characters and the preservation of neighborhood character is important to the residents. However, he said the push for higher density housing seems concentrated in a limited number of neighborhoods. Additionally, he said there is very little affordable housing in Shoreline. He said he hoped to see an "intelligent blend of diverse housing" in the future.
Ms. Cataldo gave an overview of the operating assumptions and strategies. The list of assumptions and strategies were defined in a list which encompassed the City’s values of housing affordability, choice, and neighborhood character. The committee, she stated, wants the City’s housing stock to be accessible to current and future residents. Shoreline is diverse and there needs to be viable alternatives for people with all needs. She explained that when Shoreline was incorporated the housing need was for nuclear families; however, now these houses no longer meet the need or are even affordable to a broad range of the City’s residents. She stated that community gathering places provide a public benefit and there aren’t many third places in Shoreline. She said the City needs to influence the market forces to shape new development to strengthen the communities. She commented that residents were interviewed concerning multi-family units or townhouses were built in their neighborhoods. Most responded that multi-family units would be fine, but there needs to be transitions between larger structures and single family properties. The committee suggested the Council direct staff to initiate a community education program to promote dialogue with citizens before implementing strategies. Regarding affordability, there are many people who commute from other cities to attend Shoreline Community College (SCC) because of the lack of affordable rental units in Shoreline. She encouraged having affordable housing for students, SCC employees and for surrounding businesses to help to alleviate commuter traffic and enhance the community. She reviewed the committee’s strategies to find land and funding for affordable housing. She concluded that there are several other assumptions, conclusions, and strategies in the report and urged everyone to review the document in detail.
Mr. Behrens stated that the City trying to encourage an intelligent mix of housing options focused on infrastructure needs, subarea plans, and pilot projects. He felt the hardest issue is the infrastructure challenges since this City is made up of a scattered pattern of development inherited from King County; without consideration of infrastructure needs there will be significant traffic and surface drainage issues. The next issue is the subarea planning process, which allows citizen control over development in their neighborhoods. He added that the usage of pilot projects will allow the City to start slowly in targeted areas with the support of the community. Finally, he stated that the committee determined that design standards are important in determining whether certain types of development fit into certain neighborhoods.
Mr. Kuboi commented that it is essential for the City and neighborhood leaders to work together to understand what the community benefits would be based on a more enhanced housing policy. The benefits, he stated, would include a more vibrant and diverse population, having people who work and learn in Shoreline actually live in Shoreline, having children and elderly living in same neighborhoods, and home ownership. Figuring out the City’s housing challenges should be about getting people and ideas together and the key is bringing the entire community along. He added that the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Report could be the start of an outreach program.
Mayor Ryu called for public comment.
a) Dennis Lee, Shoreline, used the term “market-rate affordable housing” which he defined as more affordable housing. He noted that the neighbors have been asking for a Briarcrest Neighborhood Subarea Plan for five years, but the City has to be genuine in its approach. He commented that his daughter is not able to buy a house in Shoreline, and he requested that the City explore opportunities available through infill development.
Councilmember McGlashan thanked the Committee for their work and verified that in October 2007 there was not one house for sale in Shoreline priced under $250,000.
Mr. Behrens concluded that the only way the City can have affordable housing is to preserve some of the existing housing stock.
Councilmember Eggen questioned if the numerous proposals to build small apartments would fit into the City’s vision for affordable housing.
Mr. Kuboi replied that the committee has advocated for expanding housing choices and what is right for one person might not be right for someone else.
Mr. Kaje submitted that affordability and affordable housing are just terms, and that even a person with income high above the median still wouldn’t be able to afford a home. He said this report isn’t just about strategies for putting units somewhere for the most needy.
Councilmember Way said the idea of remodeling homes is good. She felt the City has a tremendous stock of housing and wanted to know if there is available funding for people to remodel their homes.
Mr. Kuboi stated that one of the public sector developers from A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) said existing housing stock is your affordable housing stock and new construction is not the way to obtain affordable housing. Therefore, the City needs to have incentives to improve what's already here. He said this will take some direct financial incentives and code requirements for improving existing housing.
Councilmember Way noted that on page 20 the topic of “mega-homes” was raised and the City should address the issue. She liked the idea of incentives, subarea plans, design standards, and transition zones.
Mr. Kaje explained that the committee wanted to make clear the committee and the City are developing something forward-looking and proactive. The goal, he said, is to focus on what steps City can take to move in the right direction and to not be sidetracked by focusing on specific developments.
Councilmember Hansen commented that this is a daunting challenge and there are lots of competing issues and expectations to balance. He highlighted that the City code can be a problem for remodels and that the committee has done a good job.
Deputy Mayor Scott supported the findings of the report and it demonstrates that people are the greatest resource of any community. He asked Mr. Kuboi to address how the committee arrived at the process of developing operating assumptions from community values.
Mr. Kuboi responded that the committee had an open house, heard public comment, and held a “dot” exercise. He added that the Council did a very good job selecting the committee because he felt they were a representative subset of the community. Ms. Cataldo added that the diversity of the group was instrumental to their success.
Deputy Mayor Scott commented that “third places” was an important piece of this and said the final document from the committee should be taken in its entirety.
Mr. Behrens summarized that the idea is to have place to work and live with third places. He added that it is critical that new developments take into account that people need more than 400 - 500 square feet of space to live.
Councilmember Way asked for an explanation of the recommendation to conduct inventories. Mr. Behrens responded that the committee didn’t do them, but recommended that the infrastructure be inventoried so all the things that might limit the City’s future options are identified.
Mayor Ryu commented that she hoped the committee is open to the Council expanding the work, especially with subarea planning, housing inventory, housing development funding, and property tax exemptions for housing.
Deputy Mayor Scott said the intent of the committee is to have this go through a public review.
Mr. Olander said the Council should have a formal public hearing on the document on March 24, adopt it and then look at recommendations and priorities in the Council goal-setting retreat. Mr. Olander conveyed that the neighborhoods have to be involved for this to be successful.
Mr. Kuboi asked the Council to consider the fact that issues brought up in the report are in the interest of people who aren’t Shoreline residents yet.
Deputy Mayor Scott move to accept the recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Committee Report. Councilmember Eggen seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.
RECESS
At 8:04 p.m., Mayor Ryu called for a ten minute recess. At 8:16 p.m. the Council meeting reconvened.
|
|
(b) Continued Deliberation on Ridgecrest Commercial Area Planned Area 2 Legislative Rezone |
Mr. Olander stated that this item is a continuation in order to respond to Council questions. He stated that Planning and Development Services Director, Joe Tovar and City Planner, Steve Cohn have organized comments and Council suggestions into categories.
Mr. Tovar outlined the entire notification process for the project which included public notices, public flyers, email notices, website notices, articles written in the Currents, the It's Happening in Shoreline flyer, legal notices and Enterprise articles, the City Manager’s public reminders at the City Council meetings, and the slides that were on Cable Channel 21. He concluded that these efforts demonstrate that the City has been doing everything publicly and has made a reasonable effort to inform the citizenry. He discussed the handout which formatted the major issues as “Big Picture Questions” which came from the Council and the public. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended a new zone called Planned Area 2 (PLA2). He commented that the department tried to capture the larger questions like building heights, mitigations, and who will conduct the design review.
Councilmember Eggen said the parking requirements seem to go under the parking section at some point in time. He asked staff to clarify if the intent is to pass a motion at this meeting.
Mr. Olander stated that the Council should make a motion which will lead to possible revisions in the height, density, and design specifications. Those revisions, he stated, would tend to move into other discussions. He noted that this is an opportunity to bring forth general conclusions and amendments to the next meeting for formal debate and adoption.
Councilmember Eggen recommended that the Council outline the amendments before public comment occurs.
For the sake of discussion, Councilmember Eggen moved to accept the staff recommendation for the Ridgecrest Planned Area 2. Deputy Mayor Scott seconded the motion.
Councilmember Eggen discussed the need for transition zones in areas where a large buildings abut a single family neighborhood. Mr. Cohn stated it is in the staff report, the 3rd bullet under item B.
Mr. Olander asked Mr. Cohn to start the discussion by referring to the Commission’s recommendation on building size and design. Mr. Cohn displayed the sketches in a narrative format and explained the maximum heights when located next to a single-family building.
Councilmember Eggen stated that he is comfortable with adding a transition zone between single family and multi-family developments. He recommended creating an R-24 zone between single family neighborhoods and tall buildings as an intermediate stage. He dictated his recommended language for the proposed legislation.
Mr. Olander noted that this is a departure from the Commission’s recommendation, and if a transition zone is recommended this item would have to go back for consideration. He said it represents changing the existing neighborhood business (NB) zone to something similar to an R-24 zone with increased setbacks and other restrictions.
Mr. Tovar commented that with many of these suggested edits the City will have to determine if they are within the scope of what was reviewed. The revisions would convert this to an R-24 zone for the first 100 feet, he explained.
Councilmember McGlashan clarified the setback requirements on 163rd Street.
Councilmember Way commented that the Commission assumed both sides of the street at 165th Street and 5th Avenue would be retail; she asked if 163rd Street is planned for retail as well.
Mr. Tovar stated that the Commission recommended limited access and didn't explicitly prohibit retail. He added that the sketches are an attempt to show building mass, not represent the type of building that will be on the site.
Mr. Olander discussed the various transitions and setbacks, reminding the Council that they should focus their discussion on those two items.
Deputy Mayor Scott commented that Councilmember Eggen is trying to decide whether he could support a six-story structure or not. He said he felt a four-story structure was appropriate for the site, but now he feels a five-story is a reasonable compromise, with a maximum height of 55 feet.
Deputy Mayor Scott wished to change the recommendation to include a maximum height in the Ridgecrest Planned Area 2 zone of five-stories with a maximum height of 55 feet. Councilmember Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Olander stated that there may be competing amendments and suggested the Council discuss the west side first.
Councilmember McGlashan commented that the neighbor that lives to the west favors the proposal. He added that when he looks at the proposal the transition and setbacks make a difference and are acceptable.
Mr. Szafran responded that the current limit is four stories or 50 feet.
Councilmember Hansen added that a builder can fit five stories if they restrict their floor heights to ten feet, which is what has been done in the past.
Mr. Olander suggested that instead of going up 50 feet and stepping back maybe the Council would consider moving the third, fourth, or fifth floor to a different slope; either way it's better than what is in the neighborhood business zone. Mr. Tovar suggested that the step back could be on a 30 degree angle instead of 45 degrees.
Mayor Ryu wondered if dictating changes might trigger different scoping. Mr. Tovar replied that it deals with mass and if you change the zone things get complicated. He said it is simpler to use step backs and different angles.
Councilmember Eggen stated that his suggestions are based on similar regulations in Bellevue and that the details would have to be worked out. He urged the Council to consider and allow neighbors to have transition zones.
Mr. Olander responded that this would really need to go back to the Commission and would impact the Comprehensive Plan. He added that it would amount to less density and produce a change in the zoning. He said the compromise could be changes to step-backs and setbacks.
Mr. Tovar stated there are ways to deal with this question. The first is to push the building envelope farther away from 163rd, and that is within the scope. The second is to change the zone to R-24; this option raises other issues that were never discussed. He stated that it is also within Council’s discretion to go to a 2:1 slope or start with a 1:1 slope later.
Mr. Olander commented that Deputy Mayor Scott is not comfortable with the drawing on page 72 that displays six-stories and the setbacks on the west side. He added that Councilmember Eggen suggested some revised language.
Councilmember Hansen said he is comfortable with west side.
Mayor Ryu expressed concerns that the setback is only five feet, which isn’t equal with other properties in the area. She also added that she didn’t want solid five foot setbacks all the way down the street.
Mr. Cohn responded that the fire marshal said that there is no difference between a five or ten foot setback, because a ladder truck wouldn’t work at that location. He communicated, however, that the fire department could run hoses to fight any fire. He stated that the facility needed an extensive sprinkler system and the developer would have to resolve any water pressure issues.
Mayor Ryu was not comfortable with having six stories with transitional setbacks. However, she said she would be more comfortable with transitional setbacks, getting the structure at 2:1, and having the setbacks start farther in.
Councilmember McGlashan reflected on the large packet the Council read, including the letters and statements from residents. He commented that there were some who opposed it at first, then changed their minds after the Planning Commission review. He looked at this as a trade-off, because five stories can be built now and if the City revises this too much a developer will build something based on current regulations. He felt any revisions should be brought back for community review and comment.
Deputy Mayor Scott stated that up until this meeting the Council has been discussing four or five stories and in order to get to five or six stories there would need to be incentives. He said he wasn’t clear until tonight that five stories is allowed under current zoning. He said he didn’t want to make a decision based on a developer and not decide with favor toward the developer instead of what's best for the community. Mass and impact is still a concern, he said. He felt that five stories or 55 feet is a reasonable compromise.
Councilmember Eggen stated that there is a fundamental difference between the two zones and it is with the density. He commented that now the proposal is for unlimited density.
Mayor Ryu commented that the Council should consider all the amendments and looked forward to continued discussion.
Mr. Olander summarized that there were four competing proposals and Councilmember Eggen's substantive changes would require that this return to the Commission for a total revision to add a transition zone. He highlighted the Councilmember’s individual opinions and concerns on the issue.
Mayor Ryu wanted to move forward with Councilmember Eggen’s proposal and consider it for other planned areas too.
Councilmember Hansen commented that there have been extensive meetings, staff review, and public comments. With that, he felt the Commission came up with a very reasonable recommendation and he is supporting it.
Councilmember Way suggested having a 35-foot height limit on 163rd Street, a 2:1 stepback ratio, and a variable setback from the street on the west side.
Mr. Olander responded that the City staff can draw out a 2:1 sketch, but the same effect could be attained by setting back the 4th floor then going up, then setting back the 3rd floor. He thought there is a compromise that can be achieved if there is some modification to the upper floors.
Deputy Mayor Scott said that if there is going to be a compromise of six stories, then the Council should consider how far down that block there should be six stories.
Mr. Olander stated that he looked at the 5th Avenue side and restated Deputy Mayor Scott’s suggestion on how far from the south boundary that the six story requirement could be pushed. He said the area of concern is at the corner.
Councilmember McGlashan departed the meeting at 9:49 p.m.
Councilmember Way stated that she would like to see a plaza at the intersection of 5th Avenue and 165th Street to make it a welcoming space. She discussed a terrace treatment on stepbacks and potentially a third place on the top floor.
Mr. Tovar stated that a plaza has been discussed by the Commission on the ground floor and the City staff discussed having a public meeting space on an upper floor. He said both are within the realm of what we could be proposed. However, both suggestions raise some issues such as security, liability, and functionality in the building.
Mr. Olander voiced serious concerns about the suggestions. He said it is difficult to create a public space inside this building because it isn’t inviting. He said this may work if the facility is a restaurant, but this facility doesn’t show the ease and flow of a public space. He felt there would be too many security and functionality issues. He said the City would be asking too much of the developer to do this. He suggested that ground floor retail or coffee shops work well.
Councilmember Way stated that a courtyard could be where retail opens up and the businesses could be accessed from either side. She suggested research be done to see if there are any other developments that use this top-floor type of amenity.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Eggen moved to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m., Councilmember Way seconded the motion, which carried 4-1, with Councilmember Hansen dissenting.
Mr. Tovar responded that these suggestions can be written as standards into the proposal, but not into the design and some research can be done on a rooftop terrace.
Councilmember Eggen suggested that the minimum unit size be changed to 600 square feet.
Councilmember Way stated that there was a staff memorandum on January 25 with suggested language for low-impact development techniques for all new development in Planned Area 2. She read the techniques and wanted to add bike racks, Metro bus passes for residents, the use of native plants whenever possible, and prohibition of invasive plants.
Deputy Mayor Scott supported the requirement for 95% of parking for the facility being on-site parking.
Mr. Olander explained that the normal allocation for a condominium or apartment complex would be 1.5 parking spaces for each 2 bedrooms unit, and 1 space for studios. He said 1.5 to 1.6 per would be normal parking standards. The City estimated there would be 1.25 which could be increased to get 1.35 or 1.4. He noted that the Director has discretion to reduce the parking ratio up to 50% and increase the parking ratio and requirement for Metro bus passes.
Mr. Tovar noted that even making the parking ratio 1.4 or 1.5 would be more than other urban communities.
Deputy Mayor Scott said that comparisons to the City of Seattle are unrealistic because they are more urban than Shoreline because their transit system is better than it is here. The staff can’t assume that people won't have cars, but there can’t be overflow parking into a neighborhood that already has parking issues.
Councilmember Eggen said the parking requirements are important. He asked about including parking costs in rent. Mr. Cohn clarified that the suggested parking ratios are 1.0 per studio, 1.5 per one bedroom, and 1.8 – 2.0 per two bedroom unit. Deputy Mayor Scott agreed that the parking ratio should be 1.8 or 2.0 per two-bedroom unit.
Councilmember Hansen concurred with Deputy Mayor Scott and said whatever the parking is, it should be on-site. He commented that he has seen more projects suffer from parking problems than anything else.
Mr. Cohn said the proposal is stated that a majority of parking has to be on-site.
Councilmember Way suggested having the City staff work on a parking management plan for the area to include on-street parking on 5th Avenue and 165th Street. Mayor Ryu concurred.
Deputy Mayor Scott said the aesthetics for the building are severely reduced if there is parking on the corner. The street and the corner should be beautiful and walkable, he said. He felt the main features of the building shouldn’t be visually deterred by having cars parked on the corner.
Councilmember Eggen stated that the developer has asked that the codes be modified to allow residents to store vehicles on-site.
Mr. Cohn highlighted that the intent of "no vehicle storage on-site" means long-term storage. He stated that tandem parking could be allowed if there were two people in the same unit parking together.
Mr. Olander expressed concerns about the time and asked if Council wishes to continue the item at the February 25th meeting.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:30 p.m., Deputy Mayor Scott moved to extend the meeting until 10:40 p.m. Mayor Ryu seconded the motion, which carried 4-0, with Councilmember Hansen abstaining.
Councilmember Hansen departed at 10:31 p.m.
Mayor Ryu suggested there be more intimate lighting. She wanted to have at least two corners developed and liked the idea of some designed streetscape. She suggested the City impose some type of impact fees so the project can get done. Additionally, she wanted language from the City staff on solar homes and more sustainable features in this area and the City.
Councilmember Way suggested that the staff work toward landmark status for the Crest Theater.
|
|
(c) Community Priorities/Long Range Financial Planning Advisory Committee Appointments |
Councilmember Way, Councilmember Eggen, and Deputy Mayor Scott were appointed to the Community Priorities/Long-Term Financial Planning Advisory Committee.
|
7. |
At 10:38 p.m., Mayor Ryu declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________________
Scott Passey, City Clerk