CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, December 14, 1998

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, King, Hansen, Lee and Ransom

ABSENT: Mayor Jepsen

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Deputy Mayor Montgomery, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Deputy Mayor Montgomery led the flag salute. Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present with the exception of Mayor Jepsen, who was ill.

Upon motion by Councilmember Lee, seconded by Councilmember Ransom and unanimously carried, Mayor Jepsen was excused.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

Robert Deis, City Manager, noted that the 1997 State Audit Report is available.

Mike Gillespie, City Engineer, reported on the completion of the construction at the north detention pond for a total cost of $250,000. Mr. Deis added that the pond now has a gate to control water flow and the structure meets dam standards.

After Mr. Deis noted that the comment period is open for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Richmond Beach Library, Anna Kolousek, Development Services Manager, reviewed the public meeting held last week on the DEIS. She said the meeting was well attended. About 30 speakers supported the park site; one opposed it, and one was neutral. The comment period closes on January 4, 1999. She said Shoreline is coordinating the analytical process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) with King County. The City will be responsible for issuing the permit after the environmental review process is completed.

Councilmember Ransom pointed out that the park site received the most points in the review and so was selected as the preferred alternative.

Responding to Mr. Deis, Deputy Mayor Montgomery expressed Council’s desire to see the design proposal when it is available.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

(a) Quarterly Report of the Council of Neighborhoods

Mark Deustch, Chair of the Council of Neighborhoods, reviewed the mission and objectives of the Council of Neighborhoods and outlined this quarter’s activities. He said the joint dinner with the City Council was favorably received and suggested that informal dinners be held, perhaps quarterly, instead of a joint retreat.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery welcomed more opportunities for potlucks, as did Councilmember Ransom.

Responding to Councilmember Lee’s question about the issues facing the neighborhood associations, Mr. Deutsch said three or four neighborhood associations are fairly well-established. However, other groups are looking for continuing issues to engage neighbors and generate more attendance. One neighborhood association is currently not meeting on a regular basis. Another challenge is how to engage businesses, as the North City Neighborhood Association has done.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Deutsch said the neighborhood organizations’ strengths are that they are forces to improve the City, and the people involved are creative and good problem-solvers, as well as dedicated.

There was Council consensus to have quarterly dinners with the Council of Neighbor-hoods.

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS

(a) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, explained her error in looking at Council packets last week. She also asked that Council review all public comments on long subdivisions, paying special attention to surface water systems, minimum lot sizes and road widths.

(b) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177^th Street, spoke to three topics: 1) the safety of hammerhead roads and narrow roads (he said there may be a discrepancy between the road standards applied by the City and the Shoreline Fire District); 2) a church expansion without expansion of its parking lot; and 3) adoption of a major institutions policy like the City of Seattle’s.

(c) Dennis Lee, 14547 26^th Avenue NE, was concerned about the preservation of the character of residential neighborhoods, saying this should be a theme woven through all the new building codes. He said citizens should be informed and involved in the process of developing these codes.

(d) Robert Kaghne, principal of Einstein Middle School, explained that three years ago the school got a readerboard but the City denied a permit to install it, saying the sign could not be higher than six feet in a residential neighborhood. He asked for a waiver to install the sign, noting it could have a timer so that it is not lit continuously. Finally, he called attention to the use of Einstein by other neighborhood groups.

(e) Diane Yates, 16504 22^nd Avenue NE, introduced herself as King County Councilmember Maggi Fimia’s new legislative aide for the part of the district that includes Lake Forest Park and Shoreline.

(f) Cathy Lin Scott, co-president of Einstein Middle School PTSA, provided the background on the Einstein readerboard issue. She asked for approval of a 12- to 15-foot-high illuminated readerboard. She requested that the fee be waived if this requires a variance, and she called for immediate action.

(g) Susan Macek, 19844 10^th Avenue NW, supported the library in the park, noting the DEIS shows there are no adverse environmental impacts to putting it there and doing so will allow continued active recreation in the rest of the park.

(h) Ron Jablonski, 649 NW 195^th Street, spoke as president of the Richmond Beach Library Association to support the park site for the library. He said the DEIS covers all the issues, and it makes environmental, economic and social sense to site the library in the park.

(i) Peter Schwindt, 2209 NE 177^th Street, commented that to date development policies have been imposed from above, which makes citizens feel they have to fight to preserve their neighborhoods. He wanted an interactive dialogue between citizens, staff and the Planning Commission in the development of any new policies.

(j) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193^rd Street, felt he could speak for the Hillwood neighborhood in support of the Einstein readerboard. On a second topic, he expressed the opinion that staff and the City Council do everything possible within the law to grant development permits. He said Council should attend to the interests of Shoreline citizens.

Regarding the readerboard, Mr. Deis said he and the school district superintendent have agreed to discuss issues, and he will attempt to resolve this matter and report back to the Council. He said the workplan for the development codes will be discussed at a January workshop.

At 8:28 p.m., Councilmember Lee left the Council table.

6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilmember Gustafson moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember King seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 0.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the consent calendar. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 0, and the following items were adopted:

Joint Dinner Meeting Minutes of October 26, 1998
Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes of November 5, 1998
Dinner Meeting Minutes of November 9, 1998
Regular Meeting Minutes of November 9, 1998
Committee-of-the-Whole Minutes of November 12, 1998
Joint Dinner Meeting Minutes of November 23, 1998
Regular Meeting Minutes of November 23, 1998

Approval of expenses and payroll as of December 4, 1998 in the amount of $ 708,473.21

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement for services in an amount not to exceed $30,000 with FX

Video for the provision of audio/videotaping services for 1999

Motion to authorize $5,000 in Mini-Grant funds for the Meridian Park Neighborhood Association to purchase playground equipment at Meridian Park School and eight neighborhood identification signs within the Meridian Park neighborhood

Motion to authorize the City Manager to (1) execute grant funding agreements with the Washington State Department of Transportation and the Transportation Improvement Board; and (2) execute engineering consultant agreements with the selected consultant, including future amendments for right-of-way and construction administration services as needed, for the design of intersection improvements at 15^th Ave. NE and NE 165^th St.

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with the North Rehabilitation Facility in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for 1999 landscape maintenance to support the road, surface water, and park programs

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Red Carpet Building Maintenance contract for an amount not to exceed $99,485 for janitorial service, with the authority to sign change orders for up to 10% of the contract amount

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute a revised interlocal agreement with King County for the hourly rate of public defense screening services for indigent district court defendants

Ordinance No. 182 amending Ordinance No. 146, as amended, by creating a General Capital Fund, a Roads Capital Fund, and a Surface Water Capital Fund; adding appropriations to these new funds; and eliminating the Special Capital Improvement Fund and the Appropriations to that fund

Ordinance No. 185 amending Ordinance No. 151, which established medical, dental, vision, life and disability insurance and other benefits for City employees, in order to pay for the increase in the cost of benefits

At 8:32 p.m., Councilmember Lee returned to the Council table.

8. ACTION ITEM: PUBLIC HEARINGS

(e) Closed record appeal hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the application of Charles and Barbara Dohner for a preliminary long subdivision (File #1997-02453)

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked if any Councilmembers have an interest in the property that is the subject of the hearing; if any Councilmembers stand to gain or lose financially as a result of the outcome of this hearing; and if any Councilmembers have engaged in communications outside this hearing with opponents or proponents of the matter to be heard. Councilmembers indicated negative responses to all questions.

(Councilmember Gustafson had stepped away from the Council table during this exchange.)

Mr. Stewart explained the difference between quasi-judicial and legislative decisions: in the legislative process the decision body asks what should be; in a quasi-judicial decision the question is whether the application complies with the existing law. Legislative decisions set the rules for quasi-judicial decisions.

Mr. Stewart said this hearing was postponed from the November 23^rd meeting. Its purpose is to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the permit application. He described the proposal as outlined on pages 99 and 100 of the Council packet and reviewed page 101 and pages 106 to 111 in the Council packet outlining the application’s route through the process. He said staff has found that the proposal is consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time it was submitted, with the subdivision standards of the City of Shoreline, with the King County Road Standards, and with the Shoreline zoning ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application with seven specific conditions (pages 111 and 112) and the SEPA mitigation.

Continuing, Mr. Stewart said the project has been quite controversial. There were 17 written comments and 18 individuals testified at the public hearing. Many comments addressed the history of storm water problems and the detention system and requested a 100-year storm detention system rather than a 25-year system. The recommendation is for a 25-year system because of the finding that the local storm water collection system does not have downstream problems. Another issue was lot size, since the subdivision has smaller lots than the surrounding neighborhood. However, staff found that all lots were consistent with the adopted standard of the Shoreline zoning code. Mr. Stewart said other areas of concern included the road access, safety and children, and mitigation issues.

Mr. Stewart said the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial of the application (found on pages 94 - 98), found that: 1) there were too many lots and the lots were too small; 2) the project was not in the public interest; and 3) the project was not consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Turning to the appeal, Mr. Stewart said it responded to the Planning Commission findings as follows: 1) the application meets all density requirements based upon the codes and requirements of the City of Shoreline at the time the application was filed; 2) the project meets the rules and requirements of the City meant to protect the public interest; and 3) builders cannot be expected to have projects that retain the character of a 1960s-style neighborhood when the public demands 1990s-style homes.

Mr. Stewart said the staff sympathizes with the concerns of the Planning Commission and neighbors. However, the proposal conforms to the laws in effect when the application was submitted. Therefore, staff recommends that Council grant the appeal and approve the plat subject to the findings, conclusions and conditions set forth in the staff report beginning on page 99.

The appellant/applicant, Gary Cooper, 20351 Greenwood Avenue N, felt the application was basically denied because of the lot sizes, which citizens felt were out of character with the neighborhood. He said the City has an obligation to apply the regulations in effect when the application was submitted. He emphasized that "public interest" and "public opinion" are not synonymous. He said the codes protect the public interest in terms of safety. If Council wishes to respond to public opinion, it can make legislative changes. He said neighborhood character is not an issue because this is based on codes and regulations.

Turning to drainage, Mr. Cooper explained that the preliminary drainage plan will be subjected to downstream analysis and perhaps mitigation or a 100-year system will be required. He concluded that most of the lots are configured in such a way that they meet the new setback requirements, even though this was not required.

Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Cooper said one lot has an existing home on it. The other lots are much smaller than this one. This home will be retained. Mr. Cooper said this lot meets the setback requirements under the code in effect at the time of the application.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery noted that a comment was made at the Planning Commission that building codes are analogous to speed limits, i.e., they set limits but if conditions change, then the limit should be lowered. The statement was made that the Planning Commissioners have a certain amount of discretion to determine the proper limits in given conditions.

Bruce Disend, City Attorney, said this analogy is incorrect. With regard to land use, the law is not so flexible because property rights have constitutional limitations placed upon them. He said the Council establishes the rules by adopting a zoning code. The only way to change the rules is through a variance procedure, which is a process also adopted by the City Council. He concluded that if Council does not feel the rules it has adopted are appropriate, then Council can change those rules. However, until such time as this occurs, the Council must apply the rules in effect at the time of the application. He said the issue of character of the neighborhood is sensitive and residents may feel a subdivision does not fit neighborhood character. However, there is no legal definition of neighborhood character. If Council took the position that it could approve or deny applications based upon the public interest or the character of the neighborhood, there would be no standard other than what occurs on a case-by-case basis. The judicial system does not support this approach, as has been clearly established through litigation.

Councilmember Ransom stated that he had previously discussed with the City Attorney the issue of liability with regard to positions taken by City Councilmembers. He asked whether Councilmembers are protected by the City’s liability insurance in cases where the applicant has clearly met all the requirements and yet the City Council chooses to deny the application.

Mr. Disend said if Councilmembers knowingly violate the laws and regulations adopted by the City, a court would determine that this is an arbitrary and capricious action and, to the extent that the applicant suffers injury or damage, would subject such Councilmembers to personal liability. Councilmember Ransom confirmed that in such a case the City’s liability insurance would not cover the Council.

Councilmember Lee voiced her difficulty in dealing with this issue and coming to a reasonable conclusion. She had the same question as the Planning Commission: if there are codes and laws that govern approval or denial of these permits, what is the purpose of the Planning Commission’s review?

Mr. Disend said one of the principle functions is to determine whether or not the application does meet the applicable laws and regulations. Secondly, some discretion may be exercised. The Planning Commission assesses whether adequate provision has been made for certain fundamental aspects of the development, e.g., adequacy of water, sewer, streets, and parks. So reviewing a proposal involves both a certain amount of discretion and measuring the proposal against the duly adopted regulations.

Councilmember Lee said it would appear that the staff would have more expertise to make the assessment than a group of citizens. She still did not see what areas of discretion the Planning Commission would have authority to mitigate.

Mr. Disend gave examples of discretionary authority: public versus private roads or the adequacy of parks. He noted that in some jurisdictions these reviews are done by a professional Hearing Examiner rather than a Planning Commission.

Councilmember King had serious concerns about the adequacy of the storm drainage system, given the history of drainage problems in the area. She asked that staff pay special attention to this. She felt this amount of new impervious surface will have some impact on the area’s drainage.

Daniel Bretzke, Planning and Development Services, explained that the King County Surface Water Design Manual adopted by Shoreline is based on a 25-year storm event. However, in some cases it might be cheaper for a developer to install a 100-year storm system rather than do downstream mitigation. He explained the drainage system in question, which is at the top of the drainage basin and goes into Puget Sound.

Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Bretzke said the 25-year storm is a design standard and corresponds to approximately two inches of water hitting the ground in 24 hours. In a 100-year storm this increases to three or four inches. He noted that since Shoreline adopted the County’s standards, King County has adopted a new design manual.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Doug Mattoon, Public Works Director, said the 1996 storm was almost a 100-year storm by some calculations and a little more by others. The determination is a function of where the measurement is taken and how much snow was on the ground. He said another way of looking at it is that there is a one percent statistical chance that there will be a 100-year storm at any given time. He did not know what the November storms were, but any one of them might have been a 25-year storm somewhere in the City. He emphasized that this project will not drain into the Third Avenue/Boeing Creek area, which is a problem area. Given this, the 25-year storm design is standard procedure.

Councilmember Ransom asked if the Council can increase the standard without being arbitrary and capricious, to which Mr. Mattoon replied that this is where engineering design review comes in. If there is a calculated reason to increase the standard, e.g., drainage into an area with known problems, it can be done. There is no documentation to justify such a requirement in this drainage basin.

Mr. Stewart said it is important to understand that this is a preliminary plat with preliminary designs. As the application moves through the process, much more detailed work will occur.

Mr. Bretzke said the conveyance system must be designed to meet the 25-year storm, i.e., there cannot be overtopping of the catch basin during a storm. Designing a detention system for a 25-year storm matches the flow on the property before construction at the 25-year storm level. This then gives preliminary calculations on the size of the pipes, the size and location of the orifices, and basic elevations to assure there is enough fall into the system. As the design is refined, it might need changes.

Councilmember Gustafson said that, based on the record, he concurred with the Planning Commission in its ruling. However, he realizes the legal requirements Council must meet. He expressed concern about the lock on the gate to the recreational playfield at Einstein Middle School and wondered if this could be viewed as a fault in the requirements.

James Holland, Planning and Development Services, said the access that staff reviewed in preparing the report for the Planning Commission was not the one on the project site but the one down 8^th Ave. NW. He said he found this gate open when he walked the site.

Councilmember Gustafson asked that this be checked. He also expressed concern about drainage. He asked about the adequacy of the one-way road and whether it meets the Fire Code.

Mr. Gillespie said the roads shown on the plat meet the minimum width for streets for this type of development. They meet the standards for two-way traffic but, in this case, it has been conditioned for one-way traffic because it is a loop. It is a public street and all the services will be accessible along the street. It was conditioned to be a public street because it is serving ten lots and it is in the City’s and property owners’ interests to maintain the street.

Returning to the gate to the playfield, Mr. Gustafson said he believed this gate goes into the park area and has been locked for a long time. He did not believe there was access to this area and he questioned whether this allows for meeting the recreational needs of this new housing area.

Mr. Holland said staff reviewed the most direct access by foot, but there are other accesses to the park. He said the gate was clearly unused and therefore he went to the most used access, which was the swing gate.

Mr. Gustafson asked if there is any legal way to make 7,200-square-foot lot sizes retroactive. Mr. Disend assured him there is not. Given this, Mr. Gustafson appealed to developers to recognize that the City has enlarged the lot size to 7,200 square feet and to comply with this lot size, which would fit with neighborhood character.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked whether there is flexibility to increase the density on the Einstein side and make the lots closer to the surrounding houses larger. In other words, as long as the number of lots per acre remains constant, could there be lots smaller where there is less visibility?

Mr. Stewart said at one time "clustering" of this type was permitted in King County; however, the code under which the application was made did not contain this provision.

Councilmember Gustafson stated there was no agreement with the neighbors about joint access to the road. Mr. Stewart explained the proposed access, noting staff had originally tried to encourage a joint use agreement but the neighbors to the south did not agree to this. The current design is to have parallel access to the lots to the south and new access on the north side. Councilmember Gustafson said he had the impression that the neighbors to the south were never asked about this. Mr. Stewart said it was part of the staff recommendation and SEPA review initially, but at the Planning Commission neighbors said this was never accomplished.

Councilmember Gustafson said joint use of the road would add to the project and make it somewhat more compatible. He wondered why the neighbors were never asked.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Stewart said all the lots meet minimum requirements and do not include easements or rights-of-way.

Responding to Councilmember King, Mr. Stewart stated that traffic impact analysis is standardized through the Institute of Traffic Engineers, who provide trip designation manuals. Ten trips a day is the standard. Councilmember King was skeptical of this figure.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Gillespie said the enforcement of the one-way street will be done by signage and in a residential area this is more-or-less on the honor system. Councilmember Lee questioned making this street one-way. She noted that even though it meets code requirements, it does not seem appropriate here. She felt the plat should be remanded to staff and the applicant to look for a win-win situation. She said she still does not have a clear sense of why the Planning Commission holds hearings and what discretionary issues it can address.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Disend said the City has a Planning Commission because the members bring their individual perspectives, experience and points of view. When applications come to the Planning Commission, there are a variety of viewpoints to measure, review and recommend, so there is a better chance of making sure that the public interest is served. He added that the Planning Commission has responsibilities other than land use review.

Councilmember King was concerned about the storm water detention requirements, the access, the number of trips, and the gate access to the playfield; but she feared Council was "stuck" with this project.

Councilmember Ransom pointed out that Council is aware of the citizens’ concerns. The moratorium on the smaller lots demonstrates this. However, the City Attorney has made clear that Council does not have any options. The project has met the legal requirements as determined by staff. Staff has explained how each item has been accounted for and that the project is in compliance. If Councilmembers voted against this, they could become personally liable for damages and the City insurance would not cover them. Neither would personal homeowners insurance. He felt it is unreasonable to ask Council, in the face of all of this, to deny the appeal. He said Council swears to uphold the laws and legal counsel has said clearly what Council must do.

Councilmember Ransom moved to grant the appeal and approve the Dohner Long Plat subject to the findings, conclusions and conditions set forth in the staff report that was presented to the Planning Commission and which is set forth in the Council packet beginning at page 99. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 6 - 0.

9. OTHER ACTION ITEMS: ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Motion to adopt the City of Shoreline Emergency Management Plan and approve implementation of the 1999 work plan

Mr. Mattoon reviewed the staff report.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery invited public comment.

(1) Scott Keeny, Commissioner, Shoreline Fire Department, said the fire department fully supports the proposed Emergency Management Plan and encourages Council to adopt it as presented and to adopt the 1999 work plan. He noted the ongoing development of the fire department’s emergency disaster plan as one of the department’s primary objectives for 1999. He said the department will soon adjust staff responsibilities to insure the necessary staffing to meet its roles and responsibilities under the plan. He mentioned the fire department’s interest in further discussion with the City regarding the possible co-management of the role of the Emergency Management Coordinator. In addition, he said the fire department would welcome the participation of the City and other agencies in locating Shoreline’s emergency operations center in the department’s new staff, administrative and training center. Finally, he underscored the ongoing work necessary to make the Emergency Management Plan operational and effective.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 9:55 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:45 p.m. Councilmember King seconded the motion, which carried 5-1, with Councilmember Lee dissenting.

Councilmember King moved that Council adopt the City of Shoreline Emergency Management Plan and approve implementation of the 1999 work plan. Council-member Ransom seconded the motion.

Councilmember Gustafson supported the cooperation of the City and the fire department in siting the emergency operations center and staffing the role of the Emergency Management Coordinator. He noted that the text of the Emergency Management Plan stipulates a formal review once every two years. He recommended that the City change this to be once every year. Mr. Deis mentioned the additional work necessary to make the plan operational, and he said staff is committed to annual reviews during the next few years. He asserted the City would need to consider its staffing to determine if it could reasonably commit to an annual review beyond that. Councilmember Gustafson suggested that the City delete the stipulation from page 18 of the Emergency Management Plan manual.

Councilmember Hansen expressed reluctance to begin stipulating future requirements without a better understanding of the City’s future staffing levels. Mr. Deis agreed. He indicated that staff will be better able to assess the staffing options and requirements of the plan after it is fully developed.

Councilmember Hansen supported the proposed Emergency Management Plan. Council-member Gustafson agreed.

A vote was take on the motion, which carried 6-0, and Council adopted the City of Shoreline Emergency Management Plan and approved implementation of the 1999 work plan.

(b) Approval of a Six Lot Preliminary Long Subdivision at 16326 Linden Ave. N. proposed by Doug and Dave Hageman (File #1998-00368)

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked if any Councilmembers have an interest in the property that is the subject of the hearing, asked if any Councilmembers stand to gain or lose financially as a result of the outcome of this hearing, and asked if any Council-members have engaged in a communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents of the matter to be heard. Councilmembers responded negatively to all of the questions. (Councilmember Gustafson had stepped away from the Council table during this exchange.)

Mr. Stewart reviewed the history of the proposals to develop this property. He explained that the four-to-two vote by the Planning Commission on the motion to recommend approval of the proposed subdivision to Council failed under the provisions of the Planning Commission bylaws, which require a majority of five votes for review of preliminary subdivisions. He discussed the two road standards variances required by the proposed subdivision. He noted the subdivision approval conditions on pages 165 and 166 of the Council packet.

Mr. Stewart asserted that a private street is considered appropriate for accessing six dwelling units. He said Development Services received 25 comment letters and two citizen petitions regarding the proposed subdivision. He reviewed the summary of these comments on pages 162 and 163 of the Council packet.

Mr. Stewart attributed the four affirmative votes on the Planning Commission to a perception of the current proposal as better, in terms of the character of the neighborhood, than the nine-unit apartment building, which could be permitted as a matter of right on this parcel. He said the two Planning Commissioners who dissented were concerned with the road variance, safety and procedural issues. Mr. Stewart advised that Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the findings, conclusions and conditions reviewed by the Planning Commission.

Councilmember King questioned the inclusion of a private road in the staff recommendation. Mr. Stewart said the development of a public or private road is at the discretion of the applicant in many cases under the City code. He advised that the road must meet the same standards of quality regardless of whether it is private or public. He noted that the private property owners, not the City, will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the private road. Councilmember King asserted there is no advantage to a private road. Councilmember Lee agreed.

Councilmember Ransom questioned the number of Planning Commissioners in attendance at the meeting at which the Commission voted on the proposed subdivision. Mr. Stewart said one Commissioner had resigned and had not yet been replaced; one Commissioner was absent, and one Commissioner had disqualified himself in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Councilmember Lee asserted that the current proposal resulted from the cooperation of the property owner, the developer, the City and the Planning Commission. Mr. Deis advised that the revisions to the proposal resulted from staff-initiated changes. Councilmember Lee commented that the developer and the property owner agreed to work with the City on the changes.

Councilmember Lee expressed concern about the private road in the proposal. She acknowledged condition number nine on page 166 of the Council packet—"The applicant shall implement a Maintenance Agreement. . . ."; however, she asserted that properties change ownership and that future owners do not adhere to maintenance agreements. She questioned the City’s position on private roads. Mr. Stewart said the King County Road Standards, which the City adopted, permit an applicant to request either a private or a public road. He explained that the City Engineer determines the appropriateness of public and private roads. He noted that staff has recommended a private road in this case.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked if the City can specify its right to implement a Local Improvement District (LID) to tax the property owners and maintain the road if the property owners do not maintain the road themselves. Mr. Disend advised that Council is not obligated to grant a private road. He said the record includes evidence to support the position that a public road is in the public interest. He explained that if Council determines, in reviewing the record, that the proposed road standard is inappropriate (e.g., for safety reasons), it may modify the related condition, reference the pertinent comments in the record, and require a public road.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery noted the large number of private roads in Shoreline. Councilmember Lee asserted that such roads are in poor condition as a result of neglect. She said the City must accept the private roads that already exist, but it has a choice about whether to allow more of them.

Mr. Gillespie said he approved the private road because it is a short street serving six lots; it is within the City code, and it is appropriate given the condition of the maintenance agreement.

Councilmember Lee noted that there is no way of enforcing the maintenance agreement.

Mr. Stewart explained that the maintenance agreement will be a requirement recorded on the plat and that it will pass to future owners as such.

Responding to Councilmember Hansen, MR. Disend said the City could not legally enforce repair of the road if a problem should develop because it would be private property.

In response to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. Gillespie advised that the hammerhead design of the private road meets the requirements of the fire district. Councilmember Gustafson expressed concern about the safety of the design. Mr. Gillespie confirmed that the City properly granted the variances for the project. Mr. Stewart said the property owner and contractor have met all of the legal requirements for the project.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery questioned the impact on the development of Council requiring a public, instead of private, road. Mr. Gillespie said the applicant would need to reconfigure the layout of the lots.

In response to Councilmember Lee, Mr. Gillespie reiterated that there is no difference in standards between a private road and a public road. He explained that the requirement of a public road would necessitate the reconfiguration of the layout of the lots because the area of the road would become public property. Mr. Stewart advised that the private road in the proposal is an easement and that the applicant has used the area within the easement in the size of the lots. The requirement of a public road would reduce the number of lots.

In response to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Mr. Stewart reiterated that staff granted the easements to allow for a project that is preferable to a nine-unit apartment building.

Councilmember Hansen moved to approve the proposed Hageman Preliminary Subdivision subject to the findings, conclusion and conditions reviewed by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.

(c) Approval of a Seven Lot Preliminary Long Subdivision 17327 Ashworth Ave. N. proposed by Carefree Homes (File #1998-00687)

Deputy Mayor Montgomery asked if any Councilmembers have an interest in the property that is the subject of the hearing, asked if any Councilmembers stand to gain or lose financially as a result of the outcome of this hearing, and asked if any Council-members have engaged in a communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents of the matter to be heard. Councilmembers responded negatively to all of the questions.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:40 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion, which carried 5-1, with Councilmember Lee dissenting.

Mr. Stewart noted that Ordinance No. 137 reclassified the subject property from R-6 to R-12. He reviewed the second condition of the third "WHEREAS" clause of this ordinance in particular: "The subsequent application for preliminary long-subdivision of the property shall propose division of the land in a manner identical to that reviewed by the Planning Commission for the zoning redesignation." The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed preliminary long subdivision on October 1, 1998 and voted 6-2 in favor of adoption. Mr. Stewart said the staff findings and recommendations include that the proposal conforms with the condition of Ordinance No. 137. He noted the conditions on pages 240 and 241 of the Council packet and the public comments and City responses on page 245.

In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Stewart confirmed that the City will address the stormwater retention system, and other aspects of the development, during the building-plan phase of the project. He also confirmed that the project will not proceed if these elements do not meet City requirements.

Councilmember Hansen moved that Council approve the proposed preliminary plat of Ashworth Gardens, subject to the findings of fact, conclusion and recommended conditions of the Planning Commission. Councilmember King seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.

(d) Ordinance No. 187 granting Seattle City Light, an electric utility owned and operated by the City of Seattle, a Municipal Corporation, a non-exclusive franchise to construct, maintain, operate, replace and repair an electric light and power system, in, across, over, along, under, through and below certain designated public rights-of-way of the City of Shoreline

In response to Councilmember Hansen, Mr. Deis confirmed that there have been no substantive changes in the agreement from that staff presented to Council at its workshop on December 7, 1998.

Councilmember Hansen moved that Council pass Ordinance No. 187 granting Seattle City Light a franchise to operate an electric utility. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried 6-0.

Councilmember Ransom questioned the return the City can expect on the costs of staff time invested in negotiating the franchise agreement with Seattle City Light. Mr. Deis said the City of Shoreline will receive $500,000 in revenues during the first year of the agreement. Previously, the City of Seattle retained these revenues for its general fund. Mr. Deis advised that the franchise will take effect on January 1, 1999, instead of February 1, 1999, as a result of a request by City staff. He noted that this one month of revenues will cover all of the costs of negotiation and lobbying associated with the agreement.

Councilmember King requested that staff study, and report back to Council about, the possible allocation of the new revenues to facilitate undergrounding. Mr. Deis said he planned to return to Council to present budget options and priorities. He noted that staff will discuss the development of the Public Works Department, and the related costs, at the Council workshop on January 4, 1999.

Councilmember Lee suggested that Council revisit the existing City undergrounding ordinance.

Councilmember Hansen supported Councilmember King’s proposal to designate the new revenues for undergrounding.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery said the City is not ready to designate the revenues for a specific project. She advocated a serious consideration of budget priorities.

10. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) Clark Elster, 1720 NE 177^th Street, advocated a moratorium on streets with hammerhead designs and on developments that designate private roads as easements and include the area within the easements in the size of adjoining lots. He said police officers have limited authority to enforce traffic regulations on private roads. He went on to question the deployment of traffic enforcement officers in Shoreline. He noted that two of the City’s three traffic enforcement officers go off duty at 3:00 p.m., when most traffic problems and traffic complaints begin. He suggested that the City consider redeployment to use its resources more effectively.

(b) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, referenced page 307 of the Council packet to point out that lots 5 and 6 of the seven-lot preliminary long subdivision at 17327 Ashworth Avenue N are each 2,230 square feet in size. She said she and Walt Hagen learned during a meeting with fire department representatives on September 17 that the fire department approves the widths of proposed roads before the inclusion of sidewalks. She asserted that roads the fire department understood to be 20 feet wide have turned out to be much narrower after the inclusion of sidewalks. She discussed the history of development proposals at 17327 Ashworth Avenue N. She noted the number of public comments submitted. She stated that a 20-foot setback problem and several factual errors exist in the proposal that Council approved.

(c) LaNita Wacker, 19839 8^th Avenue NW, reasserted her objection to the City Council and the Shoreline School Board both meeting on Monday nights. She discussed the wealth of culture and ethnic diversity within the Shoreline community. She advocated understanding, tolerance and respect of different customs and holidays.

(d) Patricia Peckol, 19144 8^th Avenue NW, asserted that Council approval of one of the developments proposed at this meeting rewards the developer for establishing an adversarial position toward neighbors adjoining the proposed development. She discussed neighbors’ willingness to participate in making improvements to the proposed development. She advised that the property owner participated in maintaining the adversarial position and that City staff assisted in getting the project approved. She said it is inappropriate to encourage such behavior in any situation.

(e) Virginia Botham, 16334 Linden Avenue N, provided copies of the electronic mail messages that citizens sent to City staff in an effort to insure that their letters were available to Council.

(e) Walt Hagen, 711 N 193^rd Street, stated that the fire department does not approve proposed developments for safety. He said the fire department determines only whether the proposal will provide access for fire department vehicles. He asserted that Council is responsible for public safety. He commented that City staff is not insuring public safety.

Mr. Stewart said staff will present suggestions to Council in January for a process to follow in developing the City’s codes. He advocated an inclusive, responsive process that works toward "win-win outcomes," as opposed to confrontational outcomes.

Councilmember King mentioned her impression, from the staff report on one of the proposed developments, that the property owner, the developer and City staff had worked with residents neighboring the development. She asked if the City can include a requirement of cooperation with neighbors in its codes. Mr. Stewart discussed a framework that would include development in accordance with certain standards as a matter of right and incentives for cooperating with neighboring residents. He said the Comprehensive Plan provides a policy base for participatory decision making, high-quality design and citizen involvement. He asserted the need to translate these policies into regulations and laws.

Councilmember Hansen requested that staff follow up Mr. Elster’s comments regarding deployment of traffic enforcement officers.

In response to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Mr. Stewart explained that the property at 17327 Ashworth Avenue N is zoned R-12 and that the minimum lot size for a duplex in an R-12 zone is 2,500 square feet.

In response to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Stewart said staff will discuss with Council in January the public participation process the City will follow in developing City codes. He noted that ideas include a "planning academy"—a participatory educational process regarding land-use planning regulations—and a developers roundtable.

Councilmember Ransom mentioned, in response to Ms. Botham’s comments, that Councilmembers have received hundreds of letters in recent months, that Council-members have read the letters and that they know the tone of the community in favor of neighborhood preservation.

11. ADJOURNMENT

At 11:15 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery declared the meeting adjourned.

_______________________________
Sharon Mattioli, CMC
City Clerk