CITY
OF
SHORELINE CITY
COUNCIL
PRESENT: Mayor
Hansen, Deputy Mayor Jepsen, Councilmembers Chang, Fimia, Grace, Gustafson, and
Ransom
ABSENT:
Councilmember Gustafson
1.
CALL TO
ORDER
The
meeting was called to order at
2.
FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Mayor Hansen led the flag
salute. Upon roll call by the City
Clerk, all Councilmembers were present, with the exception of Councilmember
Gustafson.
Upon motion by Councilmember
Grace, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and carried 6-0, Councilmember Gustafson
was excused.
(a)
Shoreline Star –
Mayor Hansen presented the
seventh Shoreline Star to
3.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
4.
REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: none
5.
PUBLIC COMMENT
(a)
Virginia Paulsen, Shoreline, noted that participants at the City’s
long-range financial planning meeting were not provided with complete and
accurate information upon which they could make reasoned decisions about
spending priorities.
She
noted that financial projections indicate a budget deficit of $3 million by the
year 2011, but the $11 million reserved for City Hall was not included in the
options that participants could vote on.
She said the greater concern is the fact that participants did not fairly
represent the minority community or east side residents. She said east side residents must be
taken into consideration when making any City plans because they will still be
asked to pay for bond issues and utility increases.
(b)
Shannon Clark, Shoreline, speaking on behalf of herself and her
neighbors, expressed concerns about the parking controversy involving the
four-plex located at
(c) Dan
Mann, Shoreline, said while there has been much controversy over the Aurora
Corridor project, the City should accept some responsibility for the delay and
admit that it made mistakes. He
said the end result is not much different from what the Shoreline Merchants
Association originally wanted, but the delays and increased costs resulted from
the City’s attempt to avoid an environmental analysis by filing a categorical
exemption (CE). He said the
development process must include collaboration and transparency with the
merchant community in order to avoid further litigation. He hoped that the next phase would be an
honest, expeditious process without predetermined outcomes so that it will move
forward in a timely manner.
Mr.
Burkett confirmed that staff would follow up on the parking issues at
Deputy Mayor Jepsen asked
staff to explain at a later date why the barricade on N 192nd was
removed.
Councilmember Ransom was
under the impression that Council would receive a more detailed report of the
code enforcement situation at
6.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor
Jepsen, seconded by Councilmember Grace and unanimously carried, the agenda was
approved.
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon
motion by Councilmember Grace, seconded by Deputy Mayor Jepsen and unanimously
carried, the following consent calendar items were
approved:
Minutes of Regular Meeting of
Approval of expenses and payroll for the period
ending
Ordinance No. 387 increasing the salary range for the
City Clerk position in the City Clerk’s Office
and
amending Ordinance No. 384 by amending the
2005
Exempt Salary Table to reflect this increase
8.
NEW BUSINESS
(a)
Presentation of the 2006-2011 Capital Improvement
Plan
Mr.
Burkett outlined the schedule for adoption of the Transportation Improvement
Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan.
He described the CIP as a long-term planning and management tool,
explaining that it
considers the next six years and make estimates about capital improvement needs
and resources needed to accomplish them. He
emphasized its flexibility and noted that it is not intended to include precise
cost estimates. He said the CIP
follows the priorities developed by the City Council in its discussion of the
Capital Facilities Plan and includes 51 projects at a cost of $161.5 million.
He
explained the allocation of the $42 million worth of City resources as a
proportion of the CIP and the priority projects that have been identified by the
Council. The
Councilmember
Fimia asked for further information on several topics:
·
What
other CIP projects might be eligible for the grant funding earmarked for
·
What
are options to reduce costs for the
·
What
is the source of gateways funding?
·
What
is the source of the additional funding for sidewalks?
She
pointed out that the CIP text had not been changed to reflect the additional
funding allocation for sidewalks and she wished to ensure all text is
updated. She also asked for a “more
vigorous discussion” of the items assumed to be funded by bonds, and whether the
priorities for assured funding and bond funding reflect Council
direction.
Councilmember
Ransom questioned the amount of funding for the sidewalk program, explaining
that he moved an additional $5 million from Aurora Phase 2. He thought this was in addition to the
$1 million in the existing budget.
He believed Council intended a full $6 million for sidewalks.
Mr. Burkett said staff
understood that Council put $5 million in the actual capital facilities
plan. He reiterated that the
proposal is subject to review and change by the Council.
9.
ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND
MOTIONS
(a) Ordinance No. 388 adopting a
Major Update to the
Comprehensive Plan text to meet the requirements set forth in RCW
36.70A.130(4)(a), adopting
the 2004 – 2005 Annual Review Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and
repealing Section 1 of Ordinance No. 178
·
addition of Policy
LU26, which was inadvertently omitted from the document;
and
·
substitution
of the word “investigate” for “encourage” in Policy U12 from the 1998
version.
Ms. Spencer provided a brief
background on the development of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Responding to a question
Councilmember Fimia posed earlier today, Mr. Olander explained the organization
of the final document. He said the
document was reformatted into categories rather than numerical order, which is
the format the Planning Commission originally recommended to Council. Ms. Spencer added that the policies will
be renumbered but each will be logged so the history of the changes can be
tracked.
Mayor Hansen called for public
comment.
(a)
Peter Henry,
Shoreline, thanked the Council for seriously considering and deliberating the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
He said although he didn’t get everything he wanted, he appreciates the effort that was
made.
(b) Mark
Deutsch, Shoreline, thanked the Council and Planning Commission for the
seriousness in which they approached the Comprehensive Plan update. He felt the process could have been
improved by allowing more dialogue between the Council and citizens and having
that reflected in the plan. He also
felt the findings should have reflected some of the general themes that the
public advocated such as “environmental protection,” “trees and views,”
“habitat,” and “affordable housing.”
He said there is an
implication that more weight should be given to letters from the public than to
those who comment at public meetings.
Finally, he encouraged the Council to revisit the issue of beach access
at
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to adopt Ordinance No. 388,
including the two errata items mentioned by Ms. Spencer. Councilmember Grace seconded the
motion.
Councilmember Ransom felt that
the public open space delineated in the
There was considerable
discussion of this proposal.
Responding to Councilmember Ransom, Mr. Olander clarified that the Public
Open Space (PubOS) designation is simply an informational overlay that
identifies areas that may be potentially purchased by the City in the
future. It does not mean that the
public has any ownership rights, and the underlying zoning must remain the
same. While the property owners
retain ownership of the buffer area, they must meet the requirements for limited
public access and buffer/wetland enhancement.
Councilmember Ransom felt this
115-foot buffer should be designated as PubOS since the area cannot be used for
development anyway. He felt it
would make sense to include the entire buffer area because it signals the City’s
interest in preserving the area for buffer enhancement or for a future
park.
Councilmembers asked staff if
this designation would be feasible and whether there were any “fatal flaws” to
the proposal.
Ms. Spencer said the original
staff recommendation was to designate 150-foot buffer area from the lake edge as
PubOS, so the proposal would be a combination of the staff and Planning
Commission recommendations.
A vote was taken on the amendment, which carried
6-0.
Councilmember Fimia commented
on the format of the document, noting her preference to have the goals preface
each chapter.
Paul Inghram, consultant from
Berryman & Henigar, said the document was
recommended in the proposed format because some goals may actually support
multiple different policies in various categories, and vice versa.
Councilmember Fimia commented
that the next update of the plan should follow the mandate of Policy LU7, which
requires that all proposed amendments be justified as to why the change is an
improvement over the current policy.
Councilmember Grace noted that
the review reflects a great deal of effort on the part of the Planning
Commission, staff, citizens, and the City Council, but the document now reflects
a good consensus of various viewpoints.
A vote was taken on the motion to pass Ordinance No.
388, as amended to include LU26, change “encouraged” to “investigate” in U12,
and show the public open space area delineated on Tile #433 at the south end of
Echo Lake following the 115-foot buffer area around the lake. The motion carried 6-0, and the 2004
update and land use changes were adopted.
(b)
Quasi-Judicial Actions—rezones associated with Comprehensive Plan 2004 –
2005 Annual Review Docket
(ii) Ordinance
No. 390, amending the City’s Official Zoning map Tile Number 429 to change the
zoning of one parcel located at 19671 15th Ave. NE (Parcel
#3971701190) from Residential 6 DU-AC (R-6) to Residential 24 DU-AC
(R-24)
(iii)
Motion to accept
the Planning Commission’s Findings and Determination
of Denial of the Crosby Rezone Request (File #20137)
(i)
Ordinance No. 389, amending the City’s Zoning Map (Tile #435) to change
the zoning from RB, Regional Business and R-48, Residential, 48 Units per acre,
to Regional Business with contract zone #RB-CZ-05-01, subject to restrictive
covenants, for the property generally located at the south end of Echo Lake,
19250 Aurora Avenue N., Parcel #2222900040
Councilmember Ransom moved to pass Ordinance No.
390. Councilmember Fimia seconded
the motion, which carried unanimously and Ordinance No. 390 was
approved.
Deputy Mayor Jepsen moved to accept the Planning
Commission’s Findings and Determination of Denial of the
Councilmember Ransom agreed
with the Planning Commission recommendation to deny this rezone, noting that
high density is not appropriate for this side of the street. He felt that building a four-unit
structure on this parcel would not be a reasonable use because it is only 7,700
square feet.
Mayor Hansen said that although
he struggled with this issue, he concluded that the street makes a logical
separation between the high density and low density designations, so he will
support the motion.
Councilmember Fimia concurred,
noting the temptation to “pave over everything” when the density designations
for adjacent parcels are increased.
She emphasized the importance of retaining the greenbelt, which enhances
the quality of life for both the high density on one side and low density on the
other.
A vote was taken on the motion, which carried
unanimously and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny the
Councilmember Grace moved to pass Ordinance No.
389. Deputy Mayor Jepsen seconded
the motion.
Responding
to Councilmember Ransom, Kim Lehmberg, Planner III, explained that the contract
rezone (CZ) has been reviewed at a more comprehensive level under SEPA, so that
when the actual building and site development permits are reviewed, they can be
judged against the SEPA and hopefully the project can be expedited by a SEPA
amendment rather than a full review.
She said the trade-off is that the owner is providing more of a wetland
buffer in exchange for a waiver of the tree retention
requirements.
Councilmember
Ransom asked if the proposal would allow a greater height limit than under the
MU designation. He also asked if
there was a conditional use agreement for up to ten stories.
Ms.
Lehmberg said there is no provision for altering the height restriction beyond
the 65 feet that is allowed in a RB zone, and there is no conditional use
agreement related to building height.
Mr.
Burkett pointed out that the proposed zoning for this site would actually reduce
the intensity of use on the property, since there could be more square footage
and more units on the property under the current zone.
Councilmember
Fimia asked for an explanation of the condition that waives the tree retention
requirement. She also raised
concerns about
Ms.
Lehmberg explained that the condition would waive the 20% tree retention
requirement, so the owner would not be required to retain 15 of the
approximately 75 trees on the property.
She said the owners determined that retaining 20% of the trees would not
make the preferred site plan possible, but the site plan could change and the
waiver might not be necessary.
Ms.
Markle noted that the replanting provisions still apply even if the tree
retention is waived.
Ms.
Lehmberg explained that the conditions require access to the trail but they do
not identify a specific access point.
However, if access is provided at
Referring
to page 199 of the staff report (Concomitant Rezone Agreement and Covenant
Running with the Land), Councilmember Fimia asked if the Council had the
authority to change the zoning at a later date.
Mr.
Sievers said the Council has the prerogative to initiate a rezone for virtually
any property in Shoreline.
After
Councilmember Fimia distributed a list of amendments she wished to offer at this
time, Mayor Hansen said he would probably not support any amendments unless it
can be demonstrated that they are significant or beneficial.
Councilmember
Fimia felt it was not appropriate for the Mayor, as chair, to express his
opinion on motions at the beginning of the discussion.
Councilmember Fimia
moved to require a binding site plan processed as a Type B action pursuant to
SMC 20.30.050 prior to acceptance of any application for subdivision, short
subdivisions, building permits, or any other development permits, and that all
parties to the current action be given notice of such a permit. Councilmember Ransom seconded the
motion.
There
was considerable discussion of whether the proposal with the contract rezone
constituted a binding site plan.
Councilmember
Fimia noted that making this binding site plan a Type B action would allow for
greater notification of any potential development action. She felt this would be important for
this site because of its significance and development potential.
Mr.
Sievers felt the contract rezone essentially entails a general site plan with
several conditions that control the development of the
property.
Councilmember
Fimia was not comfortable that there was a binding site plan because the City
Hall project, which the Council previously rejected for this site, is still
included in the plan.
Mr.
Burkett said the conditions state that “minor changes to the site plan may be
subsequently approved by the City of
Mr.
Sievers clarified that any major changes would come back to the Council for an
amendment to the binding site plan.
He confirmed that the City Hall proposal is a use that is included in a
broader category of uses on the site.
Councilmember
Grace was satisfied that the conditions appear to address the site plan
issues.
Councilmember
Ransom asked if changing the City Hall use on Pad A to the YMCA would constitute
a major change requiring amendment of the contract rezone.
Ms.
Markle felt such a change would be allowed under the contract rezone because it
is still the same type of use.
A
vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 2-4, with Councilmembers Chang and
Fimia voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember
Fimia moved to amend item 4b in the Conditions of Concomitant Rezone Agreement
to state that “the developer will incorporate 100 units of housing affordable to
50% median income. The units can be
provided off site in Shoreline and in partnership with a non-profit housing
group and/or the City of
Councilmember
Fimia noted that Shoreline only has about 800 affordable housing units, but the
need is for over 2,000 units. She
felt the site should be required to retain a certain proportion of affordable
housing units.
There
was considerable discussion of what constitutes affordable housing and how such
a condition could be enforced.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen felt 60% and above would be a more accurate figure for
“affordable,” since 60% is the tax credit limit. He felt it would be impossible
to provide affordable home ownership and serve 50% of median income unless major
subsidies were provided, and even then, property owners would not be able to
maintain their residences.
Councilmember
Grace preferred the original language of condition 4b, since the issue of
affordable housing should be viewed as a policy matter rather than just
incorporating it in one particular rezone agreement.
Councilmember
Ransom agreed that unless the housing was heavily subsidized, it would not be
possible for developers to provide such housing. He agreed that the language should be
stronger to require the developer to make an honest effort to incorporate
affordable housing, but felt the threshold should be closer to 80% of median
income.
Councilmember
Fimia accepted as a friendly amendment to change the 50% to 60-80% of median
income.
Mr.
Burkett noted that staff would interpret “will” as a mandatory requirement of
the contract rezone. He described
the “long, arduous process” that the City, property owners, appellants, Planning
Commission, and citizens have engaged in to arrive at this conditioned
agreement. He urged the Council to
seriously consider this process and proceed with caution because further
amendment might make the proposal unfeasible for the property
owners.
Mayor
Hansen agreed, noting the immense amount of negotiations on this proposal. He felt adding more conditions would
further constrain the developer.
There
was discussion of compromise wording between the perceived weaker “will attempt
to” and the very strong “will.” Councilmember Ransom suggested “use best
efforts.”
Mr.
Sievers said the current wording will require the developer to demonstrate an
attempt to get subsidies and work to provide the affordable housing.
Councilmember
Fimia stated that “will attempt to” is very weak language, noting that building
only one unit of affordable housing could meet the requirement of the current
wording.
A
vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 3-3, with Councilmembers Chang,
Fimia and Ransom voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember
Fimia moved to amend condition 4h to delete “not” and thus eliminate the waiver
of the tree retention requirement found in SMC20.50.350(B) to the site outside the wetland and
buffer. Councilmember Ransom
seconded the motion.
MEETING
EXTENSION
At
Councilmember
Fimia explained that condition 4h as presently stated would give the developer
an exemption from retaining 20% of the significant trees on the site, excluding
the wetland and buffer areas. This
means that all of the 75 trees on the site could be at risk for removal. She emphasized the functions that trees
serve and felt the amendment would protect the trees and enhance the environment
of the property.
Mr.
Burkett said the purpose of the proposed condition is to avoid unduly
constraining the site by the existing trees. He emphasized the requirement for tree
replacement.
Councilmember
Ransom opposed the amendment because it would make most proposals for the site
impossible.
Councilmember
Fimia felt the tree retention requirement should remain because there is no
specific development proposal. She
felt the Council would be abdicating its responsibility to enforce the
development standards by simply “rubber stamping” staff and Planning Commission
recommendations. Councilmember
Chang concurred.
A
vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 2-4, with Councilmembers Chang and
Fimia voting on the affirmative.
Councilmember
Fimia, moved that “their best efforts” be deleted from Condition #9 to require
that the developer preserve and enhance the existing higher quality shoreline
areas. Councilmember Ransom
seconded the motion.
Mr.
Sievers again confirmed for Council that there is a standard by which “best
efforts” can be measured.
Councilmember
Fimia felt the existing language does not provide adequate environmental
protection, despite the developer’s good intentions. She felt this condition has “no teeth”
as written.
A
vote was taken on the amendment, which failed 2-4, with Councilmembers Fimia and
Chang voting in the affirmative.
Councilmember
Fimia proposed a final amendment to eliminate “seek to” in Condition #17 to read
“the developers shall work with historical preservation organizations and the
City of seek
to
preserve the Weimann house. This
assistance includes the developer’s agreement to offer the house at no cost for
removal from the site.” Councilmember Ransom seconded the
motion.
Councilmember
Grace said it is not clear that the house can even be moved and such a condition
could put a burden on the developer and potentially jeopardize the project.
Councilmember
Fimia accepted the change of the word “shall” to “should” as a friendly
amendment. There was discussion of whether this
strengthened or weakened the condition.
Deputy
Mayor Jepsen noted that
Councilmember
Fimia noted that the King County Landmarks Commission felt the house was
significant and that it would be eligible for landmarking if it could be saved
from demolition. She did not feel
the amendment would constrain the developer, adding that it keeps the City’s
options open to potentially protect this very historic
site.
Mayor
Hansen and Deputy Mayor Jepsen opposed the motion because they felt the language
of the existing condition was actually more restrictive.
After
further discussion,
a vote was taken on the motion, which failed 2-4, with Councilmembers Chang and
Fimia voting in the affirmative.
A
vote was taken on Ordinance No. 389, which carried 6-0, and the rezone and
concomitant agreement for the
10.
ADJOURNMENT
At
_________________________