CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
Shoreline Conference Center
Highlander Room
Monday, September 24, 2007
6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Mayor Ransom, Deputy Mayor Fimia, and Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, McGlashan, and Way
ABSENT: Councilmember Ryu
STAFF: Julie Modrzejewski, Acting City Manager; Joe Tovar, Planning & Development Services Director; Rachael Markle, Planning & Development Services Assistant Director; Dick Deal, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director; Eric Bratton, Management Analyst; Scott Passey, City Clerk
GUESTS: Shoreline Planning Commission: Rocky Piro, Chair; Sid Kuboi, Vice Chair; Will Hall; David Harris; Chakorn Phisuthikul; David Pyle; Michelle L. Wagner
Mayor Ransom called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. There were introductions around the table.
Mayor Ransom explained that the topic of tonight’s discussion is the Fircrest Master Plan. He noted that the 1992 Fircrest master plan included mixed use development, which can be used as a point of reference for this evening’s discussion. The Fircrest campus encompasses 86 acres, and the request from the State is to determine issues such as “highest and best use” and “community benefit” as they relate to any property deemed to be in excess of future operational needs of the existing campus uses/users.
Mr. Piro noted that the Planning Commission briefly discussed this topic at its last meeting in preparation for tonight’s discussion. He characterized the state’s request for City input on this issue as an “awkwardly challenging timeline.” He also said the task of defining “highest and best use” is one that should be considered with the citizens through a public dialogue. He wished to see options for redeveloping the existing facilities at Fircrest.
Ms. Modrzejewski suggested that Ms. Markle explain the desired work product and timelines.
Ms. Markle provided background on Fircrest and said that the State Legislature approved funding for a master plan of the excess property at the Fircrest site. She explained that the State Legislature expects a report from the Department of Social & Health Services (DSHS) that defines options for the highest and best use of the property that is in excess to the existing campus. DSHS has requested the Council’s and Planning Commission’s input on two specific questions in advance of two public open houses to be held by DSHS on October 10 and November 8 of this year, as follows:
1) What would the City consider a “community benefit” in regards to future use of excess land at Fircrest?
2) What would the City consider to be the highest and best use for the excess property?
Ms. Markle explained that
most of the excess property is located on land held in trust by the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR). Of the total 86 acres, 33.6 acres are considered
excess (not being used now or in the foreseeable future). She emphasized that
the master plan is not a plan to close Fircrest, but a plan to redevelop and achieve the
highest andmake the best use of the property.
She pointed out that the State Public Health Laboratory purchased its own land
on the site a few years ago.
Referring to the provided maps, Councilmember Way pointed out that most of the buildings on the areas designated as excess lands are not there anymore, so most of the property is open space.
Responding to Mr. Piro, Ms. Markle explained that the DNR does have some presence and oversees some of the property on the campus.
Ms. Markle then outlined the three options for public consideration as identified by DSHS, adding that DSHS is asking for the City’s input on Option #3:
Councilmember Way asked how the three options would impact the status of the existing facilities. Ms. Markle clarified that the existing uses will not change; tonight’s meeting is to share ideas on the preferred new uses of the excess property. Councilmember Way commented that new uses must be compatible with existing uses.
Ms. Modrzejewski noted that Deputy Mayor Fimia and Councilmember Way submitted their recommendations via e-mail, and that Deputy Mayor Fimia suggested consideration of existing and potential stakeholders in the process. Deputy Mayor Fimia suggested that the City not ask the State to select one option but to rank them in the following order: 1) benefit to the local community; 2) benefit to State operations; 3) financial return to the State.
Mr. Pyle asked about the current zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation on the subject site. He asked if a conditional use permit would be required for expansion of the Department of Health facility, and if there would be a proposal to change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan as part of the master plan.
Ms. Markle responded that the zoning is R-6, and the Comprehensive Plan designation is Single-Family Institution. She said there is no current proposal to change the existing zoning.
Mr. Tovar noted that the Council can and should consider all possible uses for the property, so they should not necessarily dismiss the idea of zoning or Comprehensive Plan changes. He encouraged the group to “brainstorm” and undertake a visioning process for the site.
Ms. Markle then asked the Council members and Planning Commissioners to write down their ideas on note pads, which were then transcribed and shared with the group. Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, and staff identified the following concepts they felt would provide a community benefit and highest/best use of the property:
Housing
Trail Connectors – Walking Trails, Paths
Community Centers
Services
State/Municipal Operations
Community-based Developmentally Disabled Facilities – Maximize What’s There
Uses
Under current zoning and use designations:
Open Space
Development Standards
Environment/ Sustainability
Cultural/Historical
Economic Development/ Employment
Citizens in attendance provided the following written recommendation:
State offices consolidation --
At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Ransom thanked the group for sharing their ideas and declared the meeting adjourned.
/S/ Scott Passey, City Clerk