CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
Monday, February 25, 2008 - 7:30 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 7:36 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.
|
3. |
Bob Olander, City Manager, reported on various City meetings, events, and projects. He stated that Comcast has formally requested to renew their franchise agreement with the City. Therefore, the City has placed a survey on its website in order to collect public input for the proposed franchise agreement.
|
4. |
Councilmember Way reported on her trip to Olympia and that she testified on the Evergreen Cities bill. She said that 102.5 FM KZOK held a contest for the best Puget Sound High School Band, with Shorewood High School placing second and Shorecrest winning first place.
Councilmember Eggen attended the SeaShore Transportation Forum as an alternate member. He said the group presented the Sound Transit 2 (ST2) Plan. The plan explains what Sound Transit will do now that Proposition 1 has failed. He said an item of concern is that there is no service to Shoreline in the current plan. He also said there was also an update on HOV tolls in the future.
|
5. |
a) Laethan Wene, Shoreline, invited everyone to the Shoreline Community Church’s annual “Eggstravaganza” Easter Egg Hunt on March 22 at Shoreline Stadium.
b) LaNita Wacker, Shoreline, applauded the Housing Strategy Committee. She said that the committee emphasized the needs of seniors, students, singles, and starters in their report. She said the City has grown in size, but smaller apartments and condominiums are needed, too. She stated that the City needs to provide more housing choices.
c) Dennis Lee, Shoreline, said he is passionate about the Briarcrest Neighborhood Subarea Plan. He said he feels as if he has an adversarial relationship with the City staff because there are issues of control and trust. He said he would like to have Deputy Mayor Scott oversee this process and focus on the spirit of the process. He stated that the notification process is flawed and he would like to discuss this issue further.
d) Jim DiPeso, Shoreline, stated that Jack Bradley, the “Maverick Man” passed away a week ago and he lived in his Ford Maverick that was parked by Schuck’s Auto Parts on Aurora Avenue. He noted that there is a memorial service on Saturday.
e) Les Nelson, Shoreline, said that since the moratorium was created for developments on Aurora Avenue the residents haven't been able to meet with the City staff. He said something needs to be worked out regarding a transition zone and that an R-24 zone seems to be a reasonable choice among the options.
f) Gary Batch, Shoreline, stated that North City is beautifully done and the idea was to revitalize the area. Unfortunately, there was an ugly box apartment building and a gas station added. He also stated that there is a proposed 440-unit apartment building at the old YMCA site and wondered why Ridgecrest is being micromanaged. He felt that the North City area is overlooked.
g) John Behrens, Shoreline, stated that a lot of the development going on is based on having a transit system. He discussed traffic increases and stated that the City should address population issues. He noted that the transit system won’t be done for another twenty years.
Mr. Olander stated that the groundwork on the Briarcrest Neighborhood Plan will begin in March. He added that Ridgecrest needs to be finished before the City can address the moratorium, however, the City staff will begin working on it as soon as they can.
Councilmember Way asked for a response concerning Mr. Batch's question about Ridgecrest.
Mr. Olander responded that the North City did have a Subarea Plan and it was a major plan adopted by Council which included apartment densities. He said the City has invested $9 million in North City and it was an intense project.
|
6. |
Councilmember Way pulled Item 7(i) and suggested making it Item 8(c).
Deputy Mayor Scott moved approval of the agenda as amended. Councilmember Eggen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the agenda was approved.
|
7. |
Councilmember McGlashan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 7-0, and the following items were approved:
|
|
(a) Minutes of Study Session of January 22, 2008 Minutes of Business Meeting of January 28, 2008 |
|
|
(b) Approval of expenses and payroll as of February 13, 2008 in the amount of $1,269,499.49 as specified in the following detail: |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
*Payroll and Benefits: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Payroll Period |
Payment Date |
EFT Numbers (EF) |
Payroll Checks (PR) |
Benefit Checks (AP) |
Amount Paid |
||
|
|
01/13/08-01/26/08 |
2/1/2008 |
22535-22729 |
7306-7343 |
35371-35379 |
$389,761.39 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$389,761.39 |
||
|
*Accounts Payable Claims: |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Expense Register Dated |
Check Number (Begin) |
Check Number (End) |
Amount Paid |
||
|
|
|
|
2/1/2008 |
35334 |
35359 |
$46,196.75 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/4/2008 |
35360 |
35361 |
$1,417.93 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/5/2008 |
35362 |
35369 |
$216,932.09 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/5/2008 |
35370 |
|
$684.00 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/6/2008 |
35380 |
35388 |
$104,686.22 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/6/2008 |
35389 |
35391 |
$26,044.13 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/6/2008 |
35392 |
35394 |
$145,887.00 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/7/2008 |
35395 |
35410 |
$238,301.75 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/8/2008 |
35411 |
35421 |
$72,895.35 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/8/2008 |
35422 |
35445 |
$25,687.06 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/11/2008 |
35446 |
|
$725.82 |
||
|
|
|
|
2/13/2008 |
35447 |
|
$280.00 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$879,738.10 |
||
|
|
(c) Motion to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the 2008 Public Health & King County Local Hazardous Waste Management Program Grant Contract for $26,810.44 |
|
|
(d) Motion to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the 2008/2009 Washington State Coordinated Prevention Grant Agreement for $59,689 |
|
|
(e) Motion to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the 2008/2009 King County Solid Waste Division Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Interlocal Agreement for $40,596 in 2008 and $40,596 in 2009 |
|
|
(f) Motion to Authorize the City Manager to Execute the King County Green Building Grant Agreement for $20,000 to Support Environmental Certification of the New City Hall |
|
|
(g) Ordinance No. 494 Vacating a Portion of Midvale Avenue North between N 175th Street and N 178th Street |
|
8. |
Mr. Olander introduced Kirk McKinley, Aurora and Interurban Trail Project Manager, and Alicia McIntyre, Aurora Corridor Project Planner, who then provided the staff report regarding the Sound Transit (ST) Phase 2 proposal.
Ms. McIntyre stated the two resolutions are separate but related. She stated that the first resolution is the Sound Transit revised Phase II Preliminary Corridor Concept proposal. She explained what the proposal consisted of and stated that the City staff recommendation was to adopt Resolution 272 and the Planning Commission and City staff recommended Resolution 273.
Mr. McKinley explained that the draft resolution was very general and it is the City staff intent to revise it based on Council direction.
Mr. Olander discussed the financial details and stated that the ST Board is considering an additional sales tax of up to .5 cent.
Councilmember Eggen commented that Shoreline is only getting a small amount of service and that would be phased out as the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system evolves.
Councilmember McGlashan stated that $3 to $4 million for this is a large spread. He questioned if there are more accurate figures. Mr. Olander stated that he can ask Finance to come up with a more accurate number.
Mr. McKinley then discussed Resolution. 273 concerning the Aurora Avenue transit service. He stated that the Commission struggled with having cross-county transit service on Aurora Avenue.
Rocky Piro, Planning Commission Chair, noted that the Commission resolution asks for a more singular, integrated bus rapid transit system in King and Snohomish Counties that interfaces at Aurora Village. He added that residents patronize businesses in Shoreline, North Seattle, and South Snohomish County. Additionally, there is a lot of high density development along Highway 99 which lends itself to transit. He then summarized the resolutions.
Ms. McIntyre displayed the ST proposal for the Aurora Corridor. She outlined the Commission recommendation and the current City staff efforts and recommendations. She explained that the Transit Now initiative included a BRT system and that Aurora Avenue will receive an additional 5,000 hours of service. Additionally, Metro held a competitive process for service "partnerships" and there were 90,000 hours budgeted.
Mr. McKinley highlighted that the City did meet the criteria for a Speed and Reliability partnership with the City of Seattle, but other partnerships such as a financial partnership were more competitive. He stated that the County Council will make the final decision on where the allocations go and the Metro staff has made the preliminary recommendation.
Councilmember Eggen asked if the City staff has an idea where a new transit station would be.
Mr. McKinley said the City is interested in starting a dialogue with the transit agencies and they have talked about locating it at the State Route 104 overcrossing, Costco plaza, or at the Shoreline Park-n-Ride.
Mayor Ryu called for public comment.
a) Wendy DiPeso, Shoreline, wanted the Council to ask ST specific questions regarding the Sounder and bus rapid transit. She said it would be nice to get input from BRT systems around the country. She stated that ST never compared a light rail surface system with BRT. She noted that fatalities should be taken into account, too.
b) Les Nelson, Shoreline, did not believe the City will get viable transit on Aurora Avenue. He added that he takes the 304 Metro bus and there need to be bus schedule improvements. He said he would like to see the full plan come together. He urged the Council to try riding a bus to get across Shoreline.
c) John Behrens, Shoreline, commented that he rides the 358 bus downtown, and it is not rapid transit. He discussed putting in a light rail system on the county line that stops in Shoreline. He pointed out that a light rail system doesn't address the east-west traffic needs and that this $140 billion solution will leave the City with the same problems it has now. He suggested that the City tell Metro and the transit authorities to put the investment into buses to increase the system.
d) Carl Otterstrom, Corridor Lead of the King County Aurora Rapid Ride project with King County Metro, thanked the City staff for their work and the residents for their interest. He stated that the rapid ride buses are from the same bus manufacturer as those which are used by Community Transit (CT) and will not present platform problems when transferring. He noted that CT is looking at ticket vending machines for cash purchases and having the ORCA card compatible with all the systems. He concluded that Aurora Avenue is dense and it is a multi-purpose corridor that carries over 10,000 people daily.
Mayor Ryu commented that the City has CT, which is different from Metro. She added that because the services work together people don't see a boundary between Shoreline, Seattle, and Edmonds. Now, she stated, ST is operating and they want more money but are giving us less service. Therefore, there are three different agencies that need to work together. She wondered if the funding that ST wants can be given to Metro and CT to address the City’s problems.
Mr. Otterstrom responded that the difference is in what ST sees as their mission. He said ST is focused on inter-county connections and high-capacity transit (light rail). He said the dialogue about the agendas needs to be about what needs to be accomplished with this money to ensure cities get the best "bang for their bucks."
Councilmember Hansen commented that ST has been very forthright with the City in the past. He explained that they promised the City that they’d get nothing out of it and have kept their word. He said the Finance department calculated that the citizens of Shoreline have paid over $3 million into ST from 1998-99 and there have been several different formulas involved but the funds cannot be redirected. He supported the Commission resolution but has reservations about the second one. He added that he was not in favor of ST, but people voted for it. He warned that once the City gets into the project the ground rules cannot be changed.
Councilmember Way said the resolutions are linked and it seems as if the City will have to keep reminding these transportation agencies about our issues. She said the resolutions express the City’s concern.
Councilmember Way moved to adopt Resolution No. 272 expressing concern regarding Sound Transit’s Revised Phase II Preliminary Corridor Service Concepts Proposal, and to adopt Resolution No. 273 regarding promoting a single, integrated, continuous bus rapid transit system along the Aurora Avenue/State Route 99 Corridor. Councilmember Eggen seconded the motion.
Councilmember Hansen moved to divide the question. Deputy Mayor Scott seconded the motion, which carried 5-2, with Mayor Ryu and Councilmember Way dissenting.
Councilmember Way stated that the City staff can go back and make recommendations to the item later.
Mr. Olander commented that it is better to add a suggestion on what the City proposes to the resolution.
Councilmember McGlashan asked if it would be a benefit to include other counties in this discussion.
Mr. McKinley responded that the first step is to speak with ST, other regional transit providers, and transit committees.
Councilmember McGlashan highlighted that he agreed with Mr. Olander to create legislation that will propose a solution instead of communicating negativity.
Councilmember Eggen wanted the City staff to identify the consequences of the Council decision and clearly understand what is and isn’t possible.
Mr. McKinley reminded the Council that Councilmember McGlashan is desirous of more regional information from other counties.
Rocky Piro, on behalf of Puget Sound Regional Council (PRSC) stated that this item has generated some interest with other jurisdictions and it is moving into a regional arena.
Councilmember Way suggested amending the resolution to add the terms "and the six transit agencies" to make it a regional effort.
Mr. Olander felt that this didn’t have to be put in resolution form and that the City staff would work with the other agencies as appropriate. He added the City should support PSRC and all inter-county efforts.
Mayor Ryu agreed that the City needs to insist that more service is received with ST Phase II. She commented that the way to ensure success of regional system funding is to determine what cities are paying and what are they getting in return.
Councilmember Way withdrew the amended language and directed the City staff make note of Wendy DiPeso’s questions.
A vote was taken on the motion to adopt Resolution No. 273 regarding promoting a single, integrated, continuous bus rapid transit system along the Aurora Avenue/State Route 99 Corridor, which carried 7-0 and Resolution No. 273 was adopted.
There was Council consensus to postpone discussion on Resolution No. 272 until the Council meeting of March 3, 2008.
RECESS
At 9:29 p.m., Mayor Ryu called for a
five minute recess. At 9:34 p.m. the
Council meeting reconvened.
|
|
(b) Continued Deliberation of Ridgecrest Commercial Area Planned Area 2 Legislative Rezone |
Mr. Olander noted that the item is a continuation of Council discussion. He urged the Council to look at each option and ask questions.
Mr. Cohn went through the slide show presentation and discussed several options concerning corner treatments, materials, colors, shapes, and the carved-out spaces in the area. He explained the matrix and displayed pictures of the various features.
Councilmember McGlashan reminded the Council that the picture is only a massing study and the building represented is larger than it will be.
Councilmember Way clarified that the hybrid 1:1 stepbacks are ten feet further back and asked why Option 4 presented a reduction in economic viability.
Mr. Cohn responded that the hybrid is different from the Planning Commission recommendation because it adds another ten foot setback above 35 feet. He added that some of the building mass is taken out when you reduce the setback, thus the economic viability is reduced.
Mr. Tovar stated that the reduced economic viability would be minimal.
Councilmember Way suggested adding terraces on the stepbacks to make them economically viable. She added that 2:1 would reduce unit count.
Mr. Olander said the building would have the same visual effect regardless of which option is chosen.
Councilmember McGlashan expressed concern that if deck space is given the rents will be increased. Councilmember Way responded that the proposal is not to make every unit "affordable."
Deputy Mayor Scott discussed proposal #3 and suggested lowering the floor area ratio (FAR) to 3.75 and determine what 20% moderate income means.
Mr. Cohn stated that 20% moderate income is defined in the state statute and in King County it represents 100% of the median.
Deputy Mayor Scott asked if the City can legislate 20% moderate income indefinitely.
Mr. Cohn replied that there is a limit on the length of time the definition can be used and it relates to the tax exemption.
Mr. Tovar stated that the property tax exemption has time limitations, but this is addressing the zoning code. He added that maybe a covenant should be recorded on the property.
Deputy Mayor Scott questioned why the City can't require 3-Star Built-Green on five story developments.
Mr. Cohn responded that it is possible, but the City staff believes it wouldn’t be viable because the reduction from six to five stories throws the balance off.
Deputy Mayor Scott asked if that would be the same case for a public plaza. Mr. Tovar replied that it is less of a cost issue for the applicant.
Deputy Mayor Scott wondered if these assumptions are based on this particular developer.
Mr. Tovar responded that they are based on the current market. He added that they haven’t asked anyone to build to these standards or asked anyone to build to 3-star Green. He noted that this isn’t an empirical science.
Deputy Mayor Scott asked if it was reasonable to expect that the City can get these three items in one space or if they should be spread out among another development site in PLA2. If the City is looking at a five-story structure it may lose some community benefits, but possibly gain benefits with the other sites/developments.
Mr. Cohn responded that the moderate income part might be the hardest to develop. He stated that it would require a certain amount of total units to be built for this to occur.
Mr. Tovar added that all things are possible, however, the regulations would need to be reworked.
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 6-1, with Councilmember McGlashan dissenting.
Councilmember McGlashan questioned if allowing different types of development on different corners opens the City to discrimination issues. Mr. Tovar replied that the City would need to adjust and craft regulations.
Councilmember Eggen discussed Option #6 which states that moderate income levels will mainly be achieved by building 20% of the units as studios. He asked if there would be any low income family housing at all.
Mr. Cohn stated that it would be very difficult to achieve low income family housing; these would more than likely be one-bedroom units at a moderate level.
Mayor Ryu asked if City staff would recommend removing the R-24 restriction if the developer wanted to build three stories. She stated that under that zoning they could have three stories of solid block-type housing. Mr. Cohn replied that the Commission recommended four stories and the structure has to be mixed use. Mr. Olander added that the current zoning is Neighborhood Business (NB).
Mayor Ryu said that under the hybrid option the density is about R-100 and Option #4 is between that. She said Councilmember Eggen's suggestion is for R-60. She pointed out that the major concern brought forth by the community is that this property is located next to R-6 and R-8 zones and would increase the density in the area. She commented the Councilmember Eggen's proposal is not that much less than what the current zoning would allow. Mr. Cohn responded that it is very difficult to estimate what the densities are.
Councilmember Way noted that one of the four-story examples conceptualized by staff is “Built Green.” She added that five story structures seem more viable in Seattle. Mr. Tovar stated that Shoreline is not comparable to Greenlake, and location is everything.
Deputy Mayor Scott asked about the parking issues and when they would be discussed. Mr. Olander stated that this direction is for the City staff to put the package together for the final ordinance.
Councilmember Hansen said the Council should consider item #5 as the recommended option before the straw vote. He stated that it doesn’t add anything but it could restrict the developer's ability to design the project by having overregulation.
Mr. Olander summarized the Council consensus concerning amendments to the Proposed Ridgecrest Planned Area 2 Legislative Rezone, Building Size and Design/Transition Issues and stated that Option #6 is not favored, Option #7 is also not favored, Option #1 received three votes, Option #4 received the most votes, and Options #2, 3, & 5 had four votes. He concluded that Option #4 was most preferred by the Council.
Councilmember Way felt that the concave style would be much more preferable.
Mayor Ryu discussed amenities and site design issues and suggested that the Council accept all of the recommendations of the City staff.
Councilmember McGlashan expressed concerned about creating a public space on the corner, as Councilmember Way suggested.
Councilmember Way said that the focal point of Ridgecrest is Crest Theater and a good designer can do it. She said she wants that corner to be the focal point.
Councilmember Eggen stated that he is concerned that the Council is moving towards managing contractor decisions.
Councilmember McConnell said she isn’t sure recommending all of these would restrict the project.
Mr. Tovar stated that the City staff doesn’t think the recommendations are unreasonable conditions to impose.
Councilmember McGlashan felt that having a covered portion of the plaza is getting too much into the design and development of this project.
Councilmember Way said that a covering provides protection for pedestrians and brings extra value to the plaza.
Mr. Tovar stated that the Commission wanted retail here but they know there is no guarantee. The Commission concluded that it must be designed so there can be retail and this is an attempt to find middle-ground.
Mayor Ryu summarized the Council consensus to limit the maximum percentage of non-retail use in the storefronts facing 5th Avenue NE to 50%.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:36 p.m., Councilmember Way moved to extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m. Deputy Mayor Scott seconded the motion, which carried 4-3, with Councilmembers Hansen, McGlashan, and McConnell dissenting.
Mr. Olander stated that the City staff concern was that the neighbors wanted retail, and it takes a while to fill retail space. He said the City staff went beyond what the Commission recommended to at least recommend 50% retail. Mr. Tovar commented that it may be difficult to fill the commercial space if the percentages are increased.
Councilmember Eggen felt the space will command rents higher than the commercial space across the street until the clientele and demand develops. He felt 50% was reasonable.
Councilmember McGlashan pointed out that Option #13b requires indoor access. Therefore, he said he could see that location being a service side.
Councilmember Way commented that the only reason she suggested this option is because Mr. Tovar said the City could require residential only on 163rd Avenue and it seems appropriate to have residential there.
Deputy Mayor Scott agreed, noting that there needs to be some separation between the commercial and residential to soften the impact.
Councilmember Eggen stated that the ground floor units will have higher ceilings to be consistent with commercial ground floor and it isn’t clear what the impact is on project viability.
Mr. Tovar was not convinced there will be a single building on this site, nor is he sure it will affect viability. He highlighted that at one point the Commission recommendation did include residential along 163rd Street.
Councilmember McGlashan stated that he thought form-based code said building facing south would have a townhouse facade, but not to limit it to residential. He said he would like to still keep the townhouse look.
Councilmember Way stated that the look and design is important, but it could have more of an impact if commercial is allowed on that side.
There was Council consensus to direct the staff to create amendments to the Proposed Ridgecrest Planned Area 2 Legislative Rezone based on Options #8, #10, #12, and #13b under Amenities and Site Design Issues. There was also consensus to direct the City staff to create amendments to the Proposed Ridgecrest Planned Area 2 Legislative Rezone based on Options #14 under Parking Issues.
Mr. Cohn explained the City staff recommendation because it would set a limit on the amount of on-street parking or have the owner restrict occupancy if they can’t find parking opportunities for their tenants. He noted that this is done in Lynnwood.
Councilmember Eggen expressed his concerns with requiring on-site parking for 95% of the units. He added that it would be hard to distinguish between resident and non-resident cars. He said this doesn't seem practical.
Mr. Cohn responded that it would be tied to a parking management plan which could include stickers and keeping track of license plate numbers. He said the City staff feels it is a feasible solution.
Councilmember Hansen agreed with Councilmember Eggen. He stated that he owns a commercial building in Edmonds and he has called 911 probably 15 to 20 times this year and nothing has been done. He said it is extremely difficult for cities to enforce parking.
Deputy Mayor Scott added that there needs to be a permanent on-site solution.
Councilmember Eggen felt that the site can conceivably wind up with 50% pushed to an off-site location temporarily, then the problem comes back and the vehicles begin parking back on the street again.
Mr. Tovar further explained that a parking management plan is the owner's responsibility and it would be recorded as an ongoing obligation through a covenant.
Councilmember Way expressed concern about how this compares to the parking management plan that was created by the developer in North City.
Mr. Tovar commented that the parking management plan in North City wasn’t designed by the City staff and doesn’t have any developer restrictions. He added that this language came from Lynnwood and they have experience with parking management.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 11:03 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting to 12:00 p.m. Councilmember Eggen seconded the motion, which failed 3-4, with Councilmember Hansen, McGlashan, and McConnell voting in the affirmative.
|
|
(c) Ordinance No. 495 Amending the Economic Development Advisory Committee Membership by Adding Five Additional At-Large Members; and amending SMC 2.65.020 |
This item was rescheduled to the March 3, 2008 City Council Meeting.
|
9. |
At 11:04 p.m., Mayor Ryu declared the meeting adjourned.
/S/ Scott Passey, City Clerk