CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE
CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 7, 2004
Shoreline Conference Center
PRESENT: Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia,
Grace, Gustafson, and Ransom
ABSENT: none
1.
CALL TO ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at 6:37 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.
(a)
Commendation
for Sheryl Lundahl
Mayor Hansen presented a commendation to Sheryl Lundahl, a teacher at Parkwood Elementary School. She accepted the commendation and explained the recycling programs she has implemented at her school that won her an award as a King County Earth Hero at School. Members of her Recycling Club demonstrated examples of the posters and notices they had made encouraging recycling.
3. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT AND FUTURE AGENDAS
Steve Burkett, City Manager,
introduced Hurshid Urokov from Uzbekistan, who has been interning at the City
while attending Shorewood High School and living with the Collins family. Mr. Burkett also answered questions received
earlier regarding the North City Project, noting that the City now has all the
easements needed except for three parcels owned by two property owners. He said the project will be advertised next
week and the bid awarded on July 19th. In conclusion, he invited everyone to Saturday’s ribbon-cutting
ceremony for the north segment of the Interurban Trail.
4. COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Ransom noted the resignation of the
Economic Development Coordinator and suggested that the position not be filled
until the Council had considered either eliminating the position and hiring a
project manager for the North City Project.
Mr. Burkett said he planned to discuss options with Council at a July
meeting.
Councilmember Grace thanked staff for the tour of the
Aegis site and invited everyone to the open house at the airport on Saturday to
view the new concourse.
Councilmember Ransom
reported on his participation in the meeting of the National League of Cities
Steering Committee for Human Development.
He said the group discussed health care issues, immigration,
homelessness, and the impacts of the “No Child Left Behind” legislation. He said due to the use of criterion
reference testing, special education students are held to unrealistic standards,
thereby causing many schools to be considered “failing” and ineligible for
federal funding. He explained the
ramifications for local school districts and said that in some parts of the
country municipalities are taking over financing school districts that have
lost federal funding because of failing schools. He planned to submit a summary of these issues to the Council and
the Shoreline School Board for consideration.
5. PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Roger
Lowell, Shoreline, asked the Council to exercise its oversight responsibility in
the Innis Arden tree cutting code enforcement issue. He said the Innis Arden Club legally removed trees in its private
reserve that were deemed hazardous by an independent, certified arborist. He said the City code provides a complete
exemption for hazardous trees, but City staff has harassed the Club and
trespassed on private reserve property.
He said a City e-mail expresses disappointment that the exemption cannot
be repealed before the Club undertakes a tree removal program. He said Council should tell staff it must
enforce the adopted code, and that the Innis Arden reserves are not open to the
public or City personnel without permission from the owner.
(b) Kathryn
Carlstrom, Shoreline, said the City’s actions against the Innis Arden Club run
contrary to good governance and seek to unfairly punish private property owners
for removing hazardous trees. She said
the Club has gone to great lengths to manage its private reserves through
obtaining professional surveys and opinions and recommendations by expert
arborists. She said the Club has
provided multiple notifications and communications to the City regarding its
actions, yet a minority group called Association of Responsible Management
(ARM) has actively lobbied the City to discredit the Club’s duly elected board
and others by making unfounded complaints.
She urged the Council’s attention to this matter, noting that the City’s
actions undermine public safety and interfere with the Club’s responsibility to
maintain private property.
(c) Don Dally,
Seattle, owner of Pepper Hill Center, said accident statistics used by the City
show that medians do not significantly increase safety, but they do have a
significant economic impact on business.
He cited other statistics to show that a significant proportion of
businesses depend on automobile traffic.
He said that although other cities use barriers to discourage strip
development, Pepper Hill is a successful existing strip mall that should be
protected and preserved. He said Pepper
Hill meets design criteria for a direct left-turn access point, and that
Council should work with the state to reexamine this possibility. He noted that 27 percent of Pepper Hill
businesses could be negatively affected if direct access is not permitted.
(d) Pamela
Smit, Shoreline, asked that the City support the Innis Arden Club’s attempt to
make the community safe from hazardous trees, noting that children often walk
through the reserve. She said clearing
vegetation is an integral part of keeping the community safe. She felt the City is more concerned about
preserving trees than public safety.
(e) Marcella
Scott, Interim Family Support Program Manager for Center for Human Services
(CHS), thanked the City for its financial support of human service
programs. She outlined the many
services provided by CHS and commented on the positive impact these programs
have on the lives of Shoreline residents.
Councilmember Fimia said it
would be helpful if CHS could identify the extent of unmet needs in the
community.
(f) Janet
Way, Shoreline, on behalf of the Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund, announced a
potential agreement between the City of Seattle and a local developer to
daylight Thornton Creek at the Northgate Mall area. She said citizens led the way to a collaborative design, which
had extensive technical and public review and was unanimously endorsed by all
stakeholders. She said this agreement
is an example of what can be done when the government, community, and environmental
groups work together. She said Shoreline
should follow Seattle’s lead and consider design concepts in the areas of water
quality and flooding.
(g) Larry
Owens, Shoreline, introduced a new community-based, non-profit organization
called Shoreline Solar Project (SSP), which strives to bring practical
applications of renewable energy to Shoreline.
He noted that grant funding from Seattle City Light made it possible to
install a solar electric power system on the rooftop of Meridian Park
Elementary School. He commented on the
faculty support for the project, noting that he is looking for others who would
like to initiate similar projects at other public facilities. He said he wants to “put Shoreline on the
map” for conservation and using renewable energy sources. Finally, he announced that SSP and Meridian
Park Elementary would co-sponsor the First Annual Renewable Energy Fair on
Saturday.
(h) David
Schlesinger, Lake Forest Park, said he is not opposed to the downsizing or
eventual closure of Fircrest School because it will mean equitable compassion
for the developmentally disabled community.
He noted that only 1,000 of the 33,000 disabled people in Washington
live in state institutions, but they consume a disproportionate amount of state
resources. He opposed keeping open
institutions that are only operating at 25 percent capacity when there are
thousands of individuals waiting for needed services. He said that although the change would impact residents and their
families, the quality of care they receive would not change.
(i) Lance
Odermat, Seattle, representing Brown Bear Car Wash, urged the Council to
reconsider the Aurora Corridor project and the loss of left turn access into
his property. He felt this loss would
have a significant adverse effect on his business, which depends on convenience
of access. He said this opinion is
based on another car wash location that has experienced a 30-40 percent loss in
revenue due to the installation of medians.
(j) Jim
Lindsey, Seattle, noted his involvement in redeveloping Aurora Village and said
proper access is the key to the success of businesses. Noting that a majority of Aurora businesses
are highway-dependent, he said restricted access would result in a loss of
revenue, jobs, and decreased property values.
He pointed out that although there are no statistics regarding business
closure, ease of access is a priority for business. He asked that the City work with businesses and WSDOT to develop
a proper channelization plan for Brown Bear Car Wash and other businesses
located on Aurora Avenue.
(k) Elaine
Phelps, Shoreline, said she is a member of ARM, but she was not speaking for
the organization tonight. She said
instead of trying to remove the hazardous part or alter the hazardous condition
of the trees in question, the Innis Arden Club just cut them all down. She said the trees were not physically
marked for removal by a professional arborist, but by Club’s Reserves Chair,
presumably using the arborist’s report.
She felt that the trees were removed to preserve views. She emphasized the fact that trees preserve
habitat, prevent erosion, and are vital to the City’s life and health. She questioned the assertion that trees were
removed to make it safe for children, noting that a tree has never fallen on
anybody in Innis Arden. She urged the
Council to look at the total picture and find out exactly what happened.
(l) Hwyda
Harb, speaking for Shoreline Family Auto Care on Aurora Avenue, said access is
the most important element of her business.
She said southbound customers would no longer be able to access her
business under the current proposal unless they perform an inconvenient
u-turn. She estimated that 30 to 40
percent of her business comes from southbound traffic. She urged the Council to consider the matter
of business access very carefully.
(m)
Patty Crawford, Shoreline,
hoped that the Council was cognizant of several aspects of the Aegis
development during its recent tour, including:
the distance of the development from the edge of water; the fact that the
new south plan labels the creek in the buffer as a wetland; the number of trees
previously on the site; the size of the old footprint compared to the new
footprint; and the amount of peat removed from the site.
On another topic, she disputed
the claim that only two comments were received on the Development Code
amendments, noting that letters from firms representing the Thornton Creek
Legal Defense Fund and Twin Ponds Fish Friends represent the views of many
citizens. She also felt that staff did
not adequately address the concerns in those letters. She said the lack of public process has caused the delays in the
Aegis and Gaston projects and compared this to the successful Evergreen School
project, where there was appropriate public involvement.
Mr. Burkett suggested that
the Council discuss the Innis Arden issue at a future workshop.
The 30-minute limit had
elapsed for public comment.
Councilmember Fimia noted that people who sign up expect that they will
be allowed to speak. There was Council
consensus to suspend the rules and take comments of others who had signed
up.
(n) Ken
Cottingham, Shoreline, said WSDOT figures indicate that seven accidents
occurred between 1999 and 2002 in the first half-mile of Aurora Avenue, six of
which were right-angle collisions. He
said the only way to determine if accidents were caused by the two-way left
turn lane is by analyzing the accident reports. He urged the Council to look at the data before making a final
decision on design.
(o) Walt
Hagen, Shoreline, commented on his involvement in drafting the 1998
Comprehensive Plan and the many amendments associated with it. He said staff has changed the format and
reordered the plan to such an extent that it is impossible for the average citizen
to know what has been changed. He
questioned the timing of adopting Development Code amendments, noting that
Development Code changes should not precede Comprehensive Plan changes. He said the Comprehensive Plan should serve
as the vision. The Development Code
implements that vision. He felt there
should be no action on any master plans or the Development Code until the
Comprehensive Plan is updated.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen noted
that he would have to leave the meeting at 8:30 p.m. and he asked that Action
Item 6(b) be taken next. There was
Council consensus to do so.
6. ACTION ITEMS
(b) Letter to Washington State Department of
Transportation regarding Aurora Access
Councilmember Ransom provided the background on this item and explained the issues outlined in the draft letter in the Council packet. He said the letter asks WSDOT specifically to consider: 1. Shortening the length of the left turn access lane at 145th and Aurora (which is proposed to be 900 feet long) by having two left turn lanes turning onto 145th going east (one of which is to be a U-turn option as now designed). This would shorten the needed distance to 450 feet, and permit oppositional medians as listed below. 2. Accommodating the local businesses by using an alternative median consisting of “oppositional two-way left-turn lanes” in the median that are 150 to 180 feet long followed by a pedestrian crossing island 26 feet long.” 3. Installing a stop light and two-way left turn at 149th and Aurora so much of the traffic to small businesses and casinos can go down Whitman Avenue, one block west of Aurora from 145th to 149th (Whitman ends at 149th) and feed back into Aurora traffic.
He pointed out that potential developers and several Aurora business owners have stated that their businesses would not succeed without left-turn access to their properties. He emphasized the need to determine if the design changes would meet Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) requirements.
Councilmember
Gustafson spoke against sending the letter, noting the significant amount of
time and analysis that has gone into developing the Aurora Corridor
design. He felt that Council would be
“micromanaging” staff by working directly with WSDOT. While he agreed that Council should consider the potential
addition of a stoplight at NE 149th Street, he did not concur with a
two-way left turn lane for safety reasons.
He was satisfied with staff’s analysis and felt there would be
additional problems if Council tries to adjust the design to fit everyone’s
desires.
Councilmember
Chang said he visited every business owner in the first half mile of the
project several times, and most of them feel that medians would negatively
impact them. He noted that safety was the main issue put forth in support for
raised medians, but the majority of accidents have nothing to do with two-way
left turn lanes. He asked if the
Council was presented with these facts, and if safety is still the primary
reason for raised medians. He also
questioned the assertion that WSDOT requires raised medians. He disagreed that
Council is micromanaging staff, noting it is the Council’s responsibility to
find out what is best for the community.
Councilmember Ransom, moved to
submit the draft letter in the Council packet to the Secretary of
Transportation. Councilmember Fimia
seconded the motion.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen felt the first sentence of the draft letter did not accurately
reflect the motion that Council made on April 26. He also felt it would be inaccurate to include all property
owners listed in the draft, since some did not speak before the Council.
Responding
to Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmember Ransom clarified that the proposal for
oppositional two-way left turn lanes would also include unsignalized pedestrian
crosswalks every 150 feet.
Councilmember Grace moved a
substitute motion to send the revised version of the letter distributed this
evening by Councilmember Fimia, who seconded the motion.
Councilmember
Grace spoke in support of the motion, noting that it is an honest attempt to
try to address the concerns of the businesses.
He noted that Council would still have to consider the costs and
benefits of any proposed modification.
Councilmember
Fimia supported the motion, noting that it is important for WSDOT to hear these
concerns and to get WSDOT on the record as to what design changes may be
possible. She did not feel the Council
was micromanaging staff, but felt the Council was doing the staff work and
staff was doing the policy work. She
said Council should be able to tell staff and WSDOT to “make it as safe as
possible and provide as much businesses access as possible.” She felt if raised medians are proposed
because of WSDOT requirements, then WSDOT should speak to that issue. She referred to data from the draft
Transportation Master Plan suggesting that the accident rate along Aurora
Avenue is relatively low. She concluded
by questioning the basis for the original decision to install raised medians.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen opposed sending the letter.
He wondered why casinos were deleted from the substitute draft letter,
and asked if the casino listed in 2(a) of the letter was the same casino that
was delinquent in paying its gambling tax.
Staff indicated that it was.
Councilmember Gustafson
called for the question. Councilmember
Grace seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
A vote was taken on the
substitute motion to send Councilmember Fimia’s revised letter, which carried
4-3, with Mayor Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen and Councilmember Gustafson
dissenting.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen left the Council meeting at 8:30 p.m.
(a) Motion to
authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with MacLeod Reckord for
design services for the Interurban Trail North Central Segment
Jan Knudson, North City Project Manager, explained the proposal to
execute this contract as outlined in the staff report. It proposes that MacLeod Reckord provide services to include:
trail design, “urbanscape” architecture and traffic engineering services,
survey, preparation of plans, specifications, cost estimates and bid documents,
preparation of permit and environmental documents, preparation of right-of-way
acquisition documents as necessary, and public involvement. It will also include coordination with the
City’s 1% for Art Program and significant coordination with Seattle City Light
with private redevelopment efforts along the Trail alignment. The final product will be plans,
specifications and estimates (PS&E) for construction of the trail.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to authorize the
City Manager to execute a contract with MacLeod Reckord for design services in
an amount not to exceed $400,000 for the Interurban Trail North Center
Segment. Councilmember Ransom seconded
the motion.
Councilmember Ransom asked if
the $400,000 is part of the $2.4 million allocated in the Capital Improvement
Plan, and whether the City currently has the funding to construct the
project. Ms. Knudson said the $400,000
is included in the $2.4 million, but the City does not have the funding for
construction. She explained that the
project is very competitive for grant funding because it is the final segment
of a mostly completed trail.
Mr. Burkett added that the City
is optimistic that it will receive a federal appropriation by Congress for this
project as part of its transportation plan.
Mayor Hansen concurred, noting that the City has several opportunities
to finance the trail.
Councilmember Grace asked how
the City intends to gather input from the adjacent businesses for this section
of the trail.
Ms. Knudson explained that
the intended plan is to include workshops and open houses to present design
options. She said since the project
includes the City, Seattle City Light, and private property owners, all
stakeholders will need to be involved throughout the design process.
Noting that the south segment
does not include adequate access to businesses adjacent to the trail,
Councilmember Fimia suggested that the design include more such access.
Mr. Burkett agreed that
access is an important issue. He
explained that the City is currently working with Sky Nursery since the trail
is designed to go through its existing parking lot.
Responding to Councilmember
Chang regarding timing for project construction, Ms. Knudson said the City is
trying to accomplish design in 10 months, after which construction would begin,
depending on grant availability.
Councilmember Chang expressed concern about a complaint he received
regarding damage caused to the grass and soil by the contractor. He hoped this would not happen on other
parts of the project.
Mr. Burkett said the City is
aware of the situation and several agencies are evaluating it.
Councilmember Gustafson moved to call the
question. Councilmember Grace seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
A vote was taken on the motion, which was
approved unanimously and the contract was approved.
Councilmember Ransom asked
about the status of the south central segment and whether the park adjacent to
the trail at N 165th Street is planned for improvement.
Kirk McKinley, Interurban
Trail Project Manager, said the south central segment (N 160th to N
175th ) is currently at 60 percent design. He said staff hopes to be advertising for construction of this
segment, as well as the north B segment, by the end of June or early July. He noted that the trail would include a few
amenities adjacent to Darnell Park to make it more noticeable. Councilmember Ransom felt the Rotary Club or
other group could undertake improvements to the park as a possible project.
(c) Ordinance No. 352, amending the
Development Code Chapters 20.20, 20.30, 20.40, 20.50, 20.70, 20.80 and 20.90,
including changes to zoning variance criteria; changes to home business
regulations; allowing pitched roofs in high density residential zones to extend
5 feet above the base height limit of 35 feet; clarifying right-of-way
regulations; clarifying components of the sign standards; and making technical
amendments
Tim Stewart, Planning and
Development Services Director, reviewed the amendments to the Development Code
as described at the April 26 meeting.
He noted that three additional comment letters were received: two from private
groups, and one from the Planning Commission.
He explained the recommendation to adopt Ordinance No. 352 without
Amendment #5 (Zoning Variance Criteria) and to refer Amendment #5, Amendment #7
(Tent City Notice) and Amendment #10 (High Security Fencing) back to the Planning
Commission, since some comments made to the City Council were not heard by the
Planning Commission. He said staff felt
it appropriate to refer Amendment #7 in light of the controversy regarding
siting of the 2004 Tent City.
Continuing, Mr. Stewart
introduced Amendment #1, which changes the definition of public right-of-way
(ROW) to provide clarity on the uses of public ROW.
Councilmember Grace asked if
there was a problem with the current definition that necessitated this
change. Kim Lehmberg, Planning and
Development Services, said the current definition is confusing to customers
because it does not indicate what the ROW is actually used for.
Ian Sievers, City Attorney,
felt it important to emphasize sidewalks as one of the primary functions of
ROW. He explained that he did not want
to include gas, oil, and electric transmission line easements in the definition
because they are unclassified and fit more appropriately in the code section on
land use districts. He pointed out that
part of the SCL transmission ROW is unclassified, so there is a lack of clarity
in the current code as to what should be classified as ROW.
Councilmember Ransom asked
for clarification of Amendments #1 and #6.
Ms. Lehmberg explained that Amendment #1 adds parking as a use under the
definition.
Mr. Stewart explained
Amendment #2, which changes the site development permit (SDP) to include work
that had been previously covered under a clearing and grading (C&G) permit
in order to distinguish it from a stand-alone C&G permit. He said a SDP would only be issued as a
subordinate permit to allow for the development of a site consistent with a
previously issued permit, such as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He said it would not exclude any kind of
SEPA review or any other environmental review because those, if required, would
be done as part of the master permits.
Responding to Councilmember
Chang, Mr. Stewart said the present system is confusing because the City
currently issues C&G permits for sites that do not have any other permits
associated with them, as well as for others which are being developed in
accordance with an approved plan. He
said this would clarify these two different types of activities so the public
is aware that a SDP is consistent with some other permit or approval.
Councilmember Fimia requested
that Amendment #2 be removed for further consideration since it appears to be
very complicated.
Mr. Stewart explained that
staff and the Planning Commission recommend denial of Amendment #3, the
“Safeway Store Amendment,” which would require greater public notice on the
development of commercial buildings.
Currently, the code requires SEPA, and therefore a neighborhood meeting
and public notice, for any addition of 4,000 square feet or more. Additions less than this threshold require a
building permit and no public notice.
Denial is recommended because additional requirements require additional
resources and increased permit turn-around time, which slows economic
improvement. It is also thought that
public notice may create the expectation that public input is part of the
approval process.
Councilmember Chang wondered
how many projects exempt from the noticing requirement are proposed in a given
year. He wondered if the City could
inform the public about smaller projects that do not require SEPA review on the
City website.
Mr. Stewart explained the
City’s thorough public noticing procedures, including publication, mailings,
and posting of the site. He pointed out
that it takes a significant amount of additional work to ask for and receive
public comment, because it becomes part of the discussion of whether or not the
permit should be issued. He said staff
does not have the discretion to deny a permit if it meets all the requirements.
Mr. Sievers explained that
Amendment #4 is a reorganization of the section lettering and numbering; it
contains no substantive changes.
Mr. Stewart noted that staff
recommends referring Amendment #5 to the Planning Commission for further
review, since additional comments were received. Staff also recommends sending Amendment #7 back for review in
light of the recent controversy surrounding Tent City. He said although there were no problems with
Tent City when it located in Shoreline, there is concern that King County could
propose a similar project in Shoreline without public notice.
Moving on, Councilmember
Fimia asked if the change relating to the number of nonresident workers
employed by a home occupation was in response to concerns about parking in the
neighborhood. She wondered why a home
occupation could not have more than one nonresident employee working on-site.
Mr. Stewart said the intent
is to protect the residential character of the neighborhood but allow home
occupations as long as they are very limited.
Mayor Hansen added that the more employees there are, the greater the
impact on the neighborhood.
Councilmember Grace wondered
if there had been any complaints about employees connected to home
occupations. He felt perhaps the limit
could be increased if there is a legitimate need that didn’t impact the
neighborhood.
Ms. Lehmberg noted that other
jurisdictions allow, at the most, one nonresident employee on the site.
Mr. Burkett pointed out that the
City has limited information on the number of home occupations in Shoreline
because there is no business license requirement.
Councilmember Ransom noted
that Shoreline has a limited amount of commercial space, so many businesses
start out as small home occupations. He
felt the ordinance should allow at least one or two full-time equivalent (FTE)
employees at home occupations in order to encourage business growth and
economic development. Mr. Burkett felt
an FTE proposal could be problematic because potentially multiple employees
could work on-site at a given time.
Mr. Stewart emphasized the
need to protect the surrounding areas from any adverse impacts generated by
business activities.
Mayor Hansen noted that
violations of the code are mostly complaint-generated, so problems would only
arise if a business negatively impacts the neighborhood.
Councilmember Grace felt the
home occupation code should not be further changed if it has not presented a
problem in the past.
Councilmember Gustafson concurred
with the amendment as proposed, noting that the Planning Commission and staff
unanimously recommended the change. He
urged the Council to focus its attention on the more contentious issues.
Councilmember Fimia preferred
to refer the amendment back to the Planning Commission, noting that she would
like the amendment to be less restrictive.
She proposed the language that “no more than one non-resident working on
site shall be employed by the home occupations, unless additional employees
pose no additional traffic or impact to the community.” Mr. Stewart commented that enforcing such a
code would be difficult.
Continuing, Mr. Stewart said
Amendment #9 would allow a pitched roof to extend 5 feet over the 35-foot base
height limit in high-density residential zones. He then explained the issues surrounding Amendment #10, which
would allow high security-style fencing for police and essential
facilities. While the Planning Commission
recommended denial of this amendment, staff recommends that it be studied
further in concert with the City’s hazard mitigation plan.
Ms. Lehmberg explained that
Amendment #11 updates the City’s outdated handicap/disabled parking
requirements to reflect state law.
Moving on to Amendment #12
regarding ROW, Mr. Sievers said that the amendment clarifies the code to
reflect Washington statutes that cover exactions from private property for
public benefit [RCW 82.02.020]. The law
says that exactions or dedications can be required of private development
“where it is reasonably necessary as a direct result of proposed development or
plat.” It was intended to clarify when
government could require development to dedicate property rights. The United States Supreme Court has, over
the years, developed its own test for regulatory takings, or exactions, under
the “Nolan/Dolan” test. This says that
the mitigation has to have a nexus to impacts of the development, and that
mitigation has to be roughly proportional to those impacts. Mr. Sievers cited ROW cases in which the
courts did not require developers to provide access to other properties because
the need for access was not a result of the development.
Continuing, he explained the
most recent cases relating to exactions.
Here the Supreme Court applied RCW 82.02.020 and invalidated two
exactions, one of which was a ROW frontage improvement. The breakthrough ruling said that the
exaction does not have to be simply an ad hoc condition imposed as part of a
discretionary permit. Even if
conditions are imposed in the land use ordinance itself, such as a requirement
for sidewalks or half streets, they can be challenged if there is no reasonable
nexus to impacts of the development.
These rulings have caused the City to scrutinize the exactions under
20.70 very carefully. Requiring ROW to be extended to water bodies, when the
ROW does not go anywhere and is intended to provide recreational access to the
water rather than addressing a traffic impact of development, does not appear
to be allowed. The amendment of .050(A)
is a proper statement of when an exaction or dedication of ROW can be required.
Moving on, Mr. Sievers
explained that Amendment #13 simply changes the wording to require ROW for
alleys in the North City Business District (NCBD) instead of easements. In
North City there is a need for an alley system capable of serving as a fire
lane, which is included as a purpose of a ROW.
The term “easement” refers to something less than full ROW use.
Councilmember Ransom was
unclear how ROW for the alley is obtained and whether the property owner still
owns the property taken for ROW.
Mr. Stewart said the
amendment strengthens the current requirement that an alley easement must be
provided as part of redevelopment of the NCBD at the time a building permit is
submitted. If a full dedication of ROW
is required, there would be sufficient access for that and all other properties
and uses that might go along with a public alley system.
Councilmember Ransom asked
whether the status of existing alleys would change, to which Mr. Stewart
replied that this only affects those alleys shown in the NCBD plan,
specifically the diagram on page 316 of the Development Code [Section
20.90.080]. He said this only applies
to North City because the intensity of the development there requires an alley
system for rear access, fire lane access and vehicular access. When the NCBD plan was originally adopted,
it was envisioned that it could be accomplished through a system of easements. Now, staff and the Planning Commission feel
this requirement should be strengthened to require dedication of ROW to the
City.
Councilmember Fimia felt that
this amendment is basically a sanctioned taking of property. She recommended deleting it and continuing
to require easements. She said that
alleys are generally a good thing, but the dedication of property needs to be
fair to the property owner. She felt if
this is not done through an easement, then the City should have to pay. She did not support the City simply taking
property legislatively.
Mr. Stewart responded that
this was the issue that Mr. Sievers explained.
A mandatory dedication of real estate can be done for the public purpose
of meeting a need caused by development.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
proposed amendment allows the City to ask for the ROW whether there is
development or not.
Mr. Stewart reiterated that
the City would be allowed to require dedication under 20.70.050 in order to
incorporate improvements that are reasonably necessary to mitigate the direct
impacts of development. The NCBD plan
permits very intense development, such as 65 feet high structures with parking
underneath. This will require rear access to meet fire department
requirements. So in order to fulfill
the development rights established in the NCBD plan, a public access system is
required.
Mr. Burkett reminded everyone
that the dedication is only required if redevelopment is proposed. If a property owner is content with current
usage of the property, then there won’t be opportunity to have the alley to
provide access, unless the City buys it.
Councilmember Chang asked
what would happen if the owner does not wish to sell the property but is
willing to meet all the codes.
Mr. Stewart said that in that
case, a property owner would not qualify for the exemption from going through
State Environmental Policy Act requirements, which is the major incentive of
the NCBD plan. Under the circumstances
hypothesized by Councilmember Chang, the property owner would be required to go
back through SEPA and the normal development process rather than taking
advantage of the planned action exemption.
Councilmember Chang felt the
property owner should have the right to choose which approach to take.
Mr. Stewart said this would
not apply to projects such as simple tenant improvements, minor reconstruction,
or replacement of a building that burned down.
It would only apply to development of the intensity described in the
planned action. If there are no direct
impacts from the development that require the creation of the alley, then a
dedication would not be required.
Councilmember Fimia felt the
City would already have the ability to require ROW under 20.70.050 and there
should be no need for additional language specific to one area.
Mr. Stewart clarified that
all that is being discussed is a 20-foot strip between 175th and 180th
street parallel to 15th Avenue NE.
This is the only area the amendment applies to. The reason it is important to designate that
as ROW is in order to redevelop that portion of property along 15th,
with fire lanes and rear access.
Although it could be done through easements, staff and the Planning
Commission think it is more appropriate to require ROW dedication.
Mr. Sievers added that he
suggested the amendment in order to provide more uniform terminology. It is clear that a public alley easement is
a ROW. However, an easement can vary
greatly in its terms and how it is abandoned or extinguished. The use of the term ROW will make it clear
what other development standards are triggered.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 10:00 p.m. Councilmember
Gustafson moved to extend the meeting to 10:45 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Councilmember Grace suggested
that all amendments be referred back to the Planning Commission. The Council discussed the possibility of
postponing this item.
Given the time, Councilmember
Ransom moved to postpone further consideration of this item until next week’s
meeting. Councilmember Grace seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously.
There was Council consensus
to suspend the rules to allow Public Comment to be taken next given the
lateness of the hour.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT
(a) Janet
Way, Shoreline, appreciated the recommendation to refer Amendment #5 back to
the Planning Commission for further study.
She shared Mr. Hagen’s concern that it might not be appropriate to
revise the Development Code at this time, since it might not be concurrent with
2004 Comprehensive Plan amendments She
said the proposed site development permit would encourage piecemeal development
and incremental impacts.
(b) Walt Hagen, Shoreline, reiterated his
view that the Comprehensive Plan amendments should be considered before changes
to the Development Code. He felt the
current approach is an action to limit citizen involvement. He said that looking at the proposed
Comprehensive Plan with its totally changed format makes it impossible for
citizens to figure out the amendments.
He concluded that the Comprehensive Plan should be presented in a form
so that readers can readily see what changes are proposed.
7. WORKSHOP ITEMS
Tim Stewart, Planning and Development Services Director,
explained the recommendation to amend the recently adopted State Mandated
Building Code, which includes the International Building Code (IBC),
International Residential Code (IRC), International Mechanical Code (IMC),
International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC), International Fire Code (IFC), Uniform
Plumbing Code (UPC), and the Washington State Energy Code. He said local jurisdictions have the
authority to amend these codes to address local needs and conditions. He also noted that staff wishes to propose
several amendments to the IFC, IBC and IRC as well as provide discussion on an
optional International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) for Council
consideration. It is staff’s intention
to have the proposed amendments to these codes become effective on July 1,
2004, the date the state-mandated codes become effective.
Joining Mr. Stewart were Fire Inspector Mark Bunje of the
Shoreline Fire District, and Bridget Smith, Shoreline Building Official. Referencing the amendments on pages 149-153
of the Council packet, Mr. Stewart noted that some came from Zone 1 fire
marshals and others from the Shoreline Fire District. He said the overriding purpose of this item is to continue the
current level of protection for our citizens and improve coordination of fire
codes with other development regulations.
Mr. Stewart referred to the
IPMC, noting it was included in the report for further consideration, but staff
recommends deferring it until the discussion, later this summer, of the
proactive code enforcement goal set out by Council. Staff believes this might be a tool that could be used to enhance
more aggressive code enforcement and that it is a very good document in terms
of neighborhood quality improvement.
Councilmember Ransom
commented that one of his concerns is the regulation of sprinkler systems. He said sprinklering is a problem in
Shoreline because of the level of the Seattle Public Utility water table. He mentioned that some day there will be
four story buildings on Aurora Avenue, and he wondered if the Fire Department
and City have worked to ensure that the water department can deliver to meet
requirements.
Mr. Bunje agreed that
sprinkler systems may need higher pressure to operate, but he felt it is
important to work with the existing water availability for both the water
districts. He said that other than building more pump stations that serve a
larger geographic area, there isn’t much that either water department can do to
boost water pressure. Both work under a
gravity system. He concluded that SPU
is working on doing something more with its Foy station and the Shoreline Water
District is looking at expanding its North City area somewhat, but these are
expensive and long-term projects. He
said staff is meeting with different water purveyors on these issues.
Councilmember Grace wished
to ensure that amendment #27, referring to storage of hazardous materials, is
consistent with the City’s hazard mitigation plan. He also referred to amendment #34 and asked how this amendment
impacts the recent discussion of ROW.
Mr. Stewart said the City
and the Fire Department have agreed on the language of the ordinance and on a
common design standard. He said there
are currently a few small inconsistencies, but these will be worked out.
Councilmember Gustafson
asked if any items were contentious, to which Mr. Stewart responded that there
were no major areas of contention between the City and the District. Although the Master Builders Association and
some of the Zone 1 chiefs had some significant differences of opinion on some
standards, these are not big concerns in Shoreline because of Shoreline’s
current, more restrictive, regulations.
No Councilmembers expressed
opposition to bringing this item forward for adoption.
9. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:25 p.m., Mayor Hansen
declared the meeting adjourned.
_________________________
Sharon Mattioli, City Clerk