CITY OF SHORELINE
SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL
The purpose of these minutes is to capture a high-level summary of Council’s discussion and action. This is not a verbatim transcript. Meeting video and audio is available on the City’s website.
Monday, May 22, 2023 Council Chambers - Shoreline City Hall
7:00 p.m. 17500 Midvale Avenue North
PRESENT: Mayor Keith Scully, Deputy Mayor Betsy Robertson, and Councilmembers John Ramsdell, Laura Mork, Doris McConnell, Eben Pobee and Chris Roberts
ABSENT: None.
1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was called to order by Mayor Scully who presided.
2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.
3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
4. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER
Bristol Ellington, City Manager, reported on various City meetings, projects, and events.
5. COUNCIL REPORTS
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Council heard comments from the public from approximately 7:04 p.m. to 7:19 p.m. Written comments were also submitted to Council prior to the meeting and are available on the City’s website.
Susanne Tsoming, Shoreline, spoke regarding cottage housing regulations and encouraged Council to include requirements to maintain and increase Shoreline's urban tree canopy.
Nancy Morris, spoke regarding cottage housing regulations and asked that Council approve amendments 8, 9, 10, and 19, to help protect the environment.
Kathleen Russell, Shoreline, requested some amendments to the regulations for cottage middle housing in the interest of tree preservation.
John Sheller, King County Library, introduced KD Hall as the new Director of Communications and Marketing for the library system and highlighted updates with the local library.
Tom McCormick, Shoreline, commented that little growth is needed in Shoreline to meet the King County 2044 growth target and asked that Council consider how much growth they want to encourage.
Nick Curatola, Seattle, urged the City to complete a comprehensive plan for ground floor commercial space with room for flexibility to achieve its best use over a broad requirement for commercial space.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
Upon motion by Deputy Mayor Betsy Robertson and seconded and unanimously carried, 7-0, the following Consent Calendar items were approved:
|
(a) Approval of Workshop Dinner Meeting of April 24, 2023 Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of May 1, 2023 |
|
(b) Approval of Expenses and Payroll as of May 12, 2023 in the Amount of $2,445,193.60 |
|
(c) Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Rodarte Construction, Inc. in the Amount of $1,607,365 for the 20th Avenue NW (NW 190th - NW 196th Street) New Sidewalks and Surface Water Improvements Project |
|
8. |
ACTION ITEMS |
|
(a) Public Hearing and Discussion of Ordinance No. 986 - Interim Regulations to Require Ground Floor Commercial Spaces and Uses in All New Multifamily Buildings Within Certain Zoning Districts for Six (6) Months |
Rachael Markle, Planning & Community Development Director, explained the public hearing and discussion will cover Ordinance No. 986 which would implement an interim requirement for ground floor commercial space in new multifamily buildings. The Ordinance sets standards for ground floor commercial spaces in all non-residential zones and outlines development incentives. Staff included a vesting proposal so the interim regulations do not apply to new multifamily and mixed-use projects that are in the planning and design phase. Ms. Markle stated the regulations would apply for a duration of six months, unless extended for an additional six months, and then Council would need to develop permanent regulations.
Mayor Scully opened the Public Hearing.
Bob Gregg, Edmonds, spoke about things that make a successful commercial space in a mixed-use building. He expressed opposition to an 18-foot ceiling height requirement as it could conflict with green building programs.
Mayor Scully closed the public hearing.
A Councilmember asked if the Ordinance could include a vacancy timeframe requirement and if the City would help with promoting available commercial space. Ms. Markle responded that staff is researching an occupancy requirement as part of the draft scope of work and will bring information back to Council as part of the permanent regulations.
It was asked if the six-month window for interim regulations would be effective, and Ms. Markle stated that the provided duration is set by State law. She acknowledged that developing permanent regulations during this time may not be practical due to the amount of work involved with going through the Planning Commission and Council process, and an extension may be needed to get the full value of the Ordinance.
Councilmembers commented that there should be a concentration of development in high traffic frontage areas and that strategic application of commercial spaces could improve walkability. Council asked for more information on the 18-foot ceiling height requirement and any potential LEED issues it may create.
Councilmember Roberts encouraged staff to strike the references to MUR-35 and 45 and TC-4 on arterial streets and limit the regulation to MUR-70 and existing commercial zones.
Mayor Scully stated Ordinance No. 986 is scheduled to for adoption on June 5, 2023.
|
9. |
STUDY ITEMS |
|
(a) Sound Transit Lynnwood Link Extension Light Rail Project Update |
Mr. Ashlie-Vinke explained the scope of the project which will include four stations across 8.5 miles from Northgate to Lynnwood. Staff project 63,000 to 74,000 daily riders on the Link by 2035. Mr. Ashlie-Vinke shared details on the project contractors and stakeholder engagement and he stated that the project is almost complete at 85%, then the team will move to finishing the systems installation.
Mr. Harlow described several achievements since construction began in 2019. He stated that construction is progressing well despite the challenges faced due to the pandemic and concrete strike and provided an update on the work currently happening at both Shoreline stations. He explained that they are currently working on systems construction which includes the overhead catenary system, signaling systems, and communications. The community will begin to see trains run without passengers this fall. As the project moves towards opening, project staff will conduct testing and certifications, first responder training, operator familiarization, and simulated service. Mr. Harlow stated revenue service is expected to begin in summer or fall of 2024.
Councilmember McConnell commented that she would like to see unique stations with art installations and Mr. Ashlie-Vinke said they have been working with local artists to add these elements and he can come back with art renderings.
A question was asked about the types of issues that come up during testing and Mr. Harlow answered that every project is different and will have their own issues. But he noted that since the introduction of the Series Two train from the Northgate extension, there has been a need to adjust the OCS cables to accommodate both the Series One and Two trains together.
Councilmembers asked about traffic impacts, neighborhood parking around the stations, and for a status update on the development of the City’s parking program. Mr. Harlow stated that Sound Transit will monitor traffic patterns through a Before and After Study to mitigate traffic conditions. Ms. Nammi added that City staff are currently developing a parking enforcement program and a framework for residential parking zones. She said the challenge they are facing is how to implement what is needed now while waiting on the analysis from Sound Transit, and other variables.
Mayor Scully and Councilmember Roberts expressed that neighborhood parking issues around light rail stations has been a significant concern of the community, and a plan to address parking issues needs to be in place before the stations open. Ms. Nammi stated that the review framework of evaluating traffic patterns three months before and the three months after opening is set by the Federal Transit Administration. She cautioned the challenge would be justifying a station contributing to a parking problem if the City makes a decision on parking before Sound Transit’s analysis is complete. Mr. Harlow suggested waiting until the beginning of 2024 to make any decisions on parking as construction traffic can throw off traffic statistics. Council asked for a response from staff on the parking issue before the next Light Rail update to Council.
|
(b) Continued Discussion of Ordinance No. 984 - Amending Chapters 20.30 and 20.50 of the Shoreline Municipal Code to Establish Development Regulations for Cottage Housing, and Resolution No. 512 - Amending the Fee Schedule to Provide For a For-Purchase Affordable Housing Fee In Lieu |
Elise Keim, Senior Planner, provided the staff report. She responded to questions previously asked by Council relating to density, affordability, and impact fees, and then introduced Councilmember’s proposed amendments to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Mayor Scully asked each maker of a proposed amendment to explain their reasonings behind it.
Councilmember Roberts highlighted that, as part of the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) Major Update, the Planning Commission will soon be revisiting the community’s vision for what residential zones should look like. He asked if it made sense to wait to adopt development regulations for cottage housing until after the Comp Plan is updated. A Councilmember asked if cottage housing would be addressed as part of the upcoming middle housing discussion, and Ms. Keim responded that House Bill (HB) 1110 defines cottage housing as a type of middle housing. If Council adopts development regulations now, they might need to be amended later to align with HB 1110. There was discussion over whether to move forward with adopting regulations. Margaret King, City Attorney, pointed out the City would lose grant money if there is a delay, and suggested it might be helpful to have regulations in place to get feedback from the development community. A majority of Council expressed interest in moving forward.
Amendment #1 -
Minimum Cottage Size
Councilmember Roberts said Amendment
#1 would delete the minimum size requirement so cottages can be built smaller and therefore be more affordable. It was
asked if the Planning Commission discussed minimum floor size, and Ms. Keim
responded that they established a minimum size to prevent tiny home villages.
Amendment # 2 - Fee-in-Lieu
Councilmember Pobee stated there should be a plan for how to spend fee-in-lieu money before it is collected. Ms. King asked if the amendment’s intent is to remove any bonus for affordable housing. She cautioned that the City does not currently have an ownership affordability program and some townhome developments in MUR-45 may be able to build a bonus unit that they can then sell at market rate. Ms. Keim added that if this amendment passes, it will strike reference to fee-in-lieu and will delay the ability of a project to utilize the affordable housing density bonus provision until the City establishes an affordable home ownership program.
Amendment #3 – Density Bonus
Councilmember Roberts said HB 1110 requires residential zones to allow three units without an affordability requirement, and four units with an affordability requirement. The Planning Commission’s recommendation only allows two units on a standard sized lot. He questioned why a developer would build two units now when they could build four units after the HB 1110 requirements go into effect.
Amendment #4 – Whole-unit Density Bonus
Councilmember Roberts said Amendment #4 has the same rationale as #3 but changes a fractional unit to a whole unit.
Amendment #5 – Height
There was no
Council discussion on Amendment #5.
Amendment #6 & 7 – Building Coverage & Hardscape
Councilmember Roberts pointed out the Planning Commission’s recommendation provides a hardscape and building coverage bonus for cottage housing developments. He said the community wants to preserve open space and reduce the amount of hardscape as much as possible, so this amendment strikes the PC’s recommendation. There was Council conversation on whether HB 1110 will allow cities to keep hardscape and building coverage standards.
Amendment #8 - Critical Areas
Councilmember Roberts talked about the importance of preserving and protecting critical areas and stated the City should not be encouraging development on parcels with critical areas.
It was asked if the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) offers enough protection, and Ms. Keim replied that it does. Ms. King shared her concern that this amendment as written would prohibit someone from consolidating properties and building on them if there is a portion of the property with a critical area buffer. Several Councilmembers expressed that this would be better addressed in the CAO which is applicable to all zones. Mr. Bauer noted the CAO will be reviewed as part of the Comp Plan Major Update.
Amendments #9, 10, 19 – Tree Protection
Councilmember Pobee said helping nature is helping people. Mature trees provide necessary shade and insulation and reduce air conditioning and heating costs. Amendment #9 would change the code to state trees 24 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) are not partially exempt and nonexempt trees require tree replacement. Amendment #10 would increase the minimum tree retention to 35% for all sites, would not allow developers to remove trees 24 inches DBH or greater unless it is hazardous or dead, and would require tree replacement. Amendment #19 encourages developers to design around trees by reducing Park Impact Fees as an incentive for tree protection.
It was asked when a holistic review of the City’s tree code will occur, and Mr. Bauer responded that it is not currently on the workplan. Upon request, Ms. Keim explained how tree removal under the proposed amendments would work. It was pointed out that if this amendment passes, the fees should be listed in the Fee Schedule and not the development regulations. There was varying interpretation of how Amendment #10 would play out. Staff will come back with a proposal that meets the intent but doesn’t conflict with itself.
Amendments # 11-16 – Parking
Councilmember Roberts said HB 1110 will prevent cities from requiring parking when middle housing is located near transit. Amendments 11-14 provide a number of options for reducing or eliminating parking. Ms. Keim stated Amendment #12 is this the closest to the requirements in HB 1110. Councilmember Roberts said Amendment #15 would require a parking study if a cottage development with 5+ cottages has a parking ratio of less than 1:1. Amendment #16 would require parking in the rear or side of the development.
Amendment #17
and #18
Councilmember Roberts said these amendments are related to requiring certain design
standards and only apply when there are five or more cottages.
Amendment #19
Councilmember Roberts
said Amendment #19 would offer an incentive to protect trees by reducing the Park
Impact Fee (PIF). Two Councilmembers stated they are not supportive of reducing
PIF when the protected trees are located on private land.
Ms. King said, based on Council’s discussion, staff will work on reworking Amendments #9 and #10, and will also look at #19.
|
10. |
ADJOURNMENT |
At 9:55 p.m., Mayor Scully declared the meeting adjourned.
/s/ Jessica Simulcik Smith, City Clerk