SUMMARY MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
Shoreline Conference Center
Mt. Rainier Room
PRESENT: Mayor
Ryu, Deputy Mayor Scott, Councilmember Hansen, Councilmember McConnell,
Councilmember McGlashan, and
ABSENT: Councilmember Eggen
|
1. |
CALL TO ORDER |
At
|
2. |
|
Mayor Ryu led the flag salute.
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the
exception of Councilmembers Eggen and Hansen. Mayor Ryu noted that
Councilmember Eggen is ill this evening.
Councilmember McConnell moved to excuse Councilmember
Eggen. Deputy Mayor Scott seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. Councilmember Hansen arrived at
|
|
(a) Proclamation of
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights" |
Mayor Ryu read the proclamation
declaring
|
3. |
|
Julie Underwood, Assistant City
Manager, provided updates and reports on various City meetings, projects, and
events. She added that Shoreline will host
|
4. |
REPORTS OF BOARDS |
Councilmember Hansen briefly
reported on a water quality meeting and the Puget Sound Regional Council
meeting.
Mayor Ryu said she attended a meeting
hosted by the City Council and the Long Range Financial Planning Committee. She
said the City is doing more with less and has better management strategies, less
reliance on fees and charges, and is managing expectations.
Councilmember McGlashan
recommended the residents watch the video.
|
5. |
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT |
a) Gordon Meihaus, Shoreline, thanked
Councilmembers for approving the rezone of James Alan Salon. He noted that it
took 21 months for a successful local business to get a rezone. He said the
Council’s job is to set policy and they should have studied the options, cleared
up questions, and come prepared to vote. He noted that the Council should have
courage in the future to make decisions because delaying things like this
wastes money.
b) Charlotte Haines, Shoreline, thanked
the City staff and everyone involved in getting publicity out for the 11th
Annual North City Tree Lighting. She said it was a very successful evening.
c) Bob Phelps, Shoreline, Shoreline
Auxillary Communications Team, announced the members of the Emergency
Management Council. He noted that power outages are common in this area and the
new City Hall must be equipped with emergency power.
d) Nancy Rust, Shoreline, commented that
there is a lot of work needed on Shoreline's tree code. She said there needs to
be a special chapter dedicated to it. She said the first step should be to amend
the definition of a significant tree. She said local cities define a
significant tree as one with a 6 inch diameter at chest height. Additionally,
she said 24 feet is too high a standard for dogwood and madrona trees.
e) Les Nelson, Shoreline, discussed process
and procedure. He discussed public notification required for comprehensive plan
amendments. He said the hearing notice does not mention changes in density and
the City hasn’t let the public know the City is planning on changing the base
land use density. He said public process is needed to ensure there is clear
notification of these changes. He felt the City can do these docketed items in
January or later in order to follow the public notification laws.
f) Dennis Lee, Shoreline, distributed the
Briarcrest newsletter to the Council.
g) Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, referred to page
73 in the packet and discussed expansion of light rail into Shoreline by 2023. She
said Sound Transit (ST) met with the Shoreline Chamber of Commerce to promote
Proposition 1 and she asked how they were able to afford the two Shoreline
stops. She said ST noted that they didn't have funding under Prop 1. She also asked
ST about cost overruns and they responded that the board reserves the right to
change the transit plan at any time. She urged the Council to ask ST some
questions concerning this.
h) LeAnn Hofferd, Shoreline, discussed the
$5,000 matching grant request on the consent calendar. She urged the Council to
approve the request and thanked the Council for establishing the grant fund and
for their dedicated public service.
i) H. Pat Murray, Shoreline, said eminent
domain is very controversial and not business-friendly. He said it ran Monarch
Appliance out of town and there is a lot more pain to come.
Ms. Underwood thanked Mr. Phelps
for his assistance in ensuring the City can run during an emergency and his
commitment to emergency preparedness. She added that the Council will look at
the Planning Commission work plan regarding trees, and that staff can respond
regarding Mr. Nelson and Ms. DiPeso’s questions.
|
6. |
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA |
Deputy Mayor Scott moved approval of the agenda.
Councilmember McGlashan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously and the
agenda was approved 6-0.
|
7. |
CONSENT CALENDAR |
|
|
(a) Minutes
of Business Meeting of |
|
|
(b) Approval
of expenses and payroll as of |
|
*Payroll and Benefits: |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Payroll Period |
Payment
Date |
EFT Numbers (EF) |
Payroll Checks (PR) |
Benefit Checks (AP) |
Amount Paid |
|
|
10/19/08-11/1/08 |
|
26512-26697 |
8235-8280 |
38328-38335 |
$392,207.02 |
|
|
11/2/08-11/15/08 |
|
26698-26880 |
8281-8326 |
38468-38479 |
$518,019.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$910,226.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Accounts Payable
Claims: |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
Expense
Register Dated |
Check
Number (Begin) |
Check Number (End) |
Amount Paid |
|
|
|
|
|
38234 |
38272 |
$120,139.41 |
|
|
|
|
|
38273 |
38296 |
$441,575.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
38297 |
38309 |
$1,772.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
28132 |
|
($11.23) |
|
|
|
|
|
38310 |
|
$11.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
38311 |
|
$2,282.95 |
|
|
|
|
|
38312 |
38327 |
$52,966.53 |
|
|
|
|
|
38336 |
38366 |
$1,084,608.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
38093 |
|
($200.00) |
|
|
|
|
|
33338 |
|
($58.81) |
|
|
|
|
|
38367 |
38386 |
$19,307.70 |
|
|
|
|
|
38387 |
|
$800.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
38388 |
38408 |
$254,227.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
38409 |
38416 |
$40,552.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
38417 |
38465 |
$975,596.75 |
|
|
|
|
|
38466 |
38467 |
$6,735.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$3,000,306.01 |
|
|
(c) Motion to
Approve a Mini-Grant for the |
|
8. |
ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING |
|
|
(a) Public hearing to receive citizens’ comments on Ordinance
No. 507, which is based on the May 15, 2008 recommendation from the Planning
Commission with New and Additional language proposed by the City Council.
Ordinance 507 amends the Comprehensive Plan to rename the Single Family Land
Use designation as Campus; Establishes that a designation of a new Campus
Land Use and the addition of new uses to an existing Campus require an amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan; and Amends the Development Code by creating a
Campus zoning designation and adopting a Master Development Permit process;
and Council Action on Ordinance No. 507 |
Joe Tovar, Planning and
Development Services Director, provided a brief chronology of this item. He
stated that residents were confused about te difference between a Master Plan
and a Master Development Permit. He reviewed examples of Master Development
Permits and stated that the proposal is to call them Master Development Plans. He
highlighted that this is a quasi-judicial permit process. He said the master
drawing controls how each element of the plan is built, and this would provide
certainty with regard to future development for
Councilmember Hansen questioned if
Mr. Tovar had strong feelings about whether this is a plan versus a permit. Mr.
Tovar noted that it makes no difference to staff whether it is called a plan or
a permit.
Rachael Markle, Assistant PADS
Director, outlined the latest proposed changes. She noted that Exhibit D notes
the Comprehensive Plan amendments and Exhibit B includes the Development Code
amendments. She briefly reviewed the additions.
Councilmember McConnell noted that
the committee meeting just adjourned and has two Councilmembers it.
Mayor Ryu opened the public
hearing.
a) Dennis Lee, Shoreline, said his
objection is that a permit is only appropriate after the planning has been done. He said the environmental impact statement
was based on what is there now. He noted that if the density is changed from
R-4 to R-6, the permit will need to be changed anyway. He said the permit carries
out the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Plan needs some work. He said
he doesn’t want to see this come back and negatively affect the City later.
b)
c) Les Nelson, Shoreline, said he spoke
with the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED)
regarding the amendments and said the Planning Commission was not aware the
City was including a density change. He said it was supposed to be done with
future CP amendments. He noted that R-48 is excessive. He said the City has to ask
neighbors what they think and notify them, which is required by the Growth
Management Act. He said this doesn’t have to be done tonight. He felt the next
step is public process, so it can be approved in January.
d)
e) Boni Biery, Shoreline, asked if a proposed
change in land use density requires public notice and a Planning Commission
meeting. She asked if there is any reason this land use density change from R-6
to R-48 can't be done through normal public process.
f) Dwight Gibb, Shoreline, said he is confused
and baffled by all of the alternative language revisions. He felt that a plan
is not a permit and that a plan carries certain authority. He said the Development
Code sets limits, but the permit applies to specific projects and implies an opportunity
for public input. He noted that when it comes to applying for a new building it
will allow for scrutiny.
g) Saskia Davis, on behalf of Friends of
Fircrest, appreciated most of the changes made. She commented that the
revisions will serve the City and the residents of Fircrest to have required
considerations. She said she liked the term "plan" rather than “permit”.
She was pleased that existing uses will be permitted and other uses will have
to be applied for. However, she commented that the recommendation on page 22 is
too broad. She felt the developer should have to apply for anything that is
outside the current property usage. She noted that Chapter 20.40.159 should be
reworded to make existing uses specific so it doesn’t open avenues for new uses
that have not been previewed and recently submitted by Council.
h) Jim Walsh,
Mr. Tovar said the letters from
DSHS will be on record, but the Council will vote on what they want to do. This
is an open record hearing and they will give any weight they want to on this. He
stated that the notice was proper and all of this started in the spring. He
stated that the Planning Commission recommendation included existing uses and
new uses.
Ms. Markle noted that the Commission
wasn't contemplating specific densities and that the subcommittee proposed a
bookend and chose R-48 to provide assurances that the maximum would be R-48.
She said it could very well be less. She said it isn’t a density change, but a
density cap. Therefore, no notice was required to call out this density change;
it is not even a land use change.
Deputy Mayor Scott inquired about
the latest revisions to 20.20, Definitions. He noted that the shipping
containers language is highlighted “P-i” instead of “P-m” next to it.
Mayor Ryu communicated that putting
it at “P-m” meant that the City doesn’t want the property to become a container
yard; however, incidental shipping container use is okay.
Deputy Mayor Scott replied that light
manufacturing isn’t on the list. Mayor
Ryu said it needs to be added to the list.
Mayor Ryu reported on the
subcommittee's work and noted that the City staff did a great job facilitating.
She thanked the Councilmembers and said this isn’t perfect but it represents
the Committee’s best efforts.
Deputy Mayor Scott moved to adopt Ordinance No. 507. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.
Deputy Mayor Scott discussed Terry
Williams’ issues this evening. He asked if they were addressed in the committee.
Mayor Ryu noted that the phrase
regarding “seven acres” is from the committee. She felt that issue should remain
in the text and the first sentence should be revised to say “no greater than.”
Councilmember McGlashan said there
have been lots of statements and definitions that should be included, but
questioned the standards the City is adhering to. He said he didn’t see the
harm in including Biological Safety Level 3 (BSL 3).
Deputy Mayor Scott stated that it
is one thing to try to limit the BSL safety level, but offering terminology to
curb the level in the future is different. He said he is comfortable with the
proposed language "as currently defined."
Councilmember Hansen noted that
the Uniform Building Code (UBC) changes from time-to-time and the City adopts updates.
Deputy Mayor Scott said that was a
good point, but the UBC will not put in the level of risk that this could
potentially cause in the future. He questioned if the Council and the City is comfortable
in saying "current uses are fine." He noted that revising this isn’t
a slander to professionalism, but goes to the values of community. He asked if
the City wants to keep this at BSL 3.
Mayor Ryu noted that the City
needs to benchmark what is there to allow for existing uses.
Councilmember McGlashan added that
the City also needs to know who defines this. Deputy Mayor Scott questioned if
there is any reference that the City staff looked at BSL 3.
Mayor Ryu reviewed page 19, item 1
concerning the Master Development Permit. She noted that the subcommittee asked
for specificity and that they were struck between LU76 and LU77. She said they
got absorbed in the Development Code and asked where the Council sets policy.
Mr. Tovar replied that the Comprehensive
Plan map will show these as a policy change to campuses. He said the change to
"campus" is a policy statement and policy decisions don't just happen
in the CP. CP language is generalized. The details, he explained, are spelled
out in the development regulations.
Councilmember McConnell discussed
campus uses in Exhibit D and asked if the subcommittee stopped too early and
should have made this more specific.
Mr. Tovar replied that many codes
historically had this method of listing the things they will allow. He said the
trend has been moving away from that and to talk about the form, envelope,
etc. However, the City staff recommends
being as specific as possible.
Councilmember Hansen referred to
Chapter 20.20 Definitions and said he doesn’t care whether it is called a plan
or a permit.
Councilmember McGlashan suggested
an amendment to the motion on the specific land uses for maintenance facilities
and the power plant. He noted that there was a letter from the college
concerning the uses that were missed. He asked if the City staff can draft
language to add the missed uses. Mayor Ryu commented that putting in a
“catch-all” sets a bad precedent. Councilmember McGlashan noted that the letter
was from Crista Ministries. He said that they have to go through a permitting
process if they're doing something that's not on this list.
Councilmember Hansen commented
that this is precisely the problem with making lists.
Deputy Mayor Scott asked if their
current use is not on the list, and whether there is a process to propose
adding it later. Mr. Tovar replied that if the Council adopts this and then
finds out other uses later, a code interpretation could be made. He said it is Council's
clear intent to allow existing uses or ro say it's only good until the next
cycle of code amendments.
Mayor Ryu said she went through
the list on page 48 item by item. She felt that using CRISTA's letter as a
basis for adding a catch-all is not good policy.
Councilmember Hansen felt that if
any of these campuses are engaged in a permitted activity there should be a
line in the ordinance to clarify that.
Mr. Tovar commented that the process
would be interpreting the code, but it would helpful to have some language to
rely on. Ms. Markle offered proposed language. Mr. Tovar noted that the City
staff can bring code amendments once a year.
Councilmember McConnell agreed
with the proposed language and urged the Council to adopt it.
MEETING EXTENSION
At
RECESS
At
Ms. Markle read the proposed
language of the amendment.
Councilmember McGlashan moved to insert the following
language: “Other uses not listed in this section existing within the campus
zone as of the effective date of Ordinance No. 507 may be permitted as P-m
through a code interpretation.” Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which
carried 6-0.
Councilmember Way moved to insert a line for “Light
Manufacturing” between the lines with “Library” and “Maintenance Facilities for
on-site maintenance” and adding “P-m” under the FCZ and
Ms. Markle replied that as far as
the actual permit itself the City staff will analyze the actual proposed
density and a mitigation plan specific to that plan would be developed to have the
same end-product.
Mayor Ryu questioned what would
have happened if it was not called out and wanted to know what the density would
be. Mr. Tovar responded that the Commission contemplated having additional new
uses. He also stated that SEPA contemplated new uses, including residential, but
didn't state specific density.
Ms. Markle added that the density
is not proposed to be changed and the density remains on all those sites. The
sites are stuck at existing uses until they apply for a master development permit
and plan.
Mayor Ryu asked if there was any
consequence in saying "use R-36." Ms. Markle responded that it
reduces the total amount.
Councilmember McGlashan commented
that the Commission held the original public hearing and this is for the
changes made on the committee.
Mr. Tovar noted that the
Commission recommendation wouldn't require a new hearing. However, when
substantial changes are proposed there would have to be a plan put in front of
the public, including SEPA, with real numbers and real proposals.
Mr. Tovar replied that Shoreline
doesn’t have a PUD and doesn’t know why this language was put in the CP. He
said he would be happy to add it to the 2009 docket to expunge those words. He
said planning and development is a zoning tool and it involves a detailed
architectural site plan, preliminary site plan, public hearing comments,
conditions imposed, another hearing, and final planning and development.
Councilmember McGlashan noted that
this is a pre-step, so there's still two meetings. This was done because there
is nothing really to talk about at this first meeting, he said. He said there
aren’t any drawings; only feedback is given.
Deputy Mayor Scott asked for an
explanation of early community input and what other meetings are involved.
Mr. Tovar referred to page 41 and
said early meeting(s) are more conceptual and discuss budget, etc. He said
there is more of a dialogue. He said it is like the pre-application conference
with the City staff. He noted that the neighborhood meeting is more detailed,
but it is still in the pre-application phase.
Deputy Mayor Scott commented that
there are multiple meetings and opportunities even before these come to the
Council level.
Mr. Tovar replied that it is up
until the City has a complete application. He added that the hearings could
also be videotaped so the Council could watch them.
Councilmember Hansen commented
that if people have a half a dozen meetings, are they required to record each
one.
A vote was taken on the motion on the table to insert “or
meetings” on page 41 which carried 5-1, with Councilmember Hansen dissenting.
Councilmember McConnell called the question, seconded by
Councilmember Hansen. Motion failed 3-2, with Mayor Ryu and Councilmember Way
dissenting and Deputy Mayor Scott abstaining.
Mayor Ryu commented that this is a
lot of work and she takes the responsibility seriously. She said this doesn't
answer all the questions, but presents a good balance.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 507
as amended, which carried 6-0.
|
10. |
ADJOURNMENT |
At
/S/ Scott Passey,
City Clerk