Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-2003 - MinutesMEDINA CITY COUNCIL December 8, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING AND REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 7:00 PM Medina City Hall 501 Ever reen Point Road CALL TO ORDER Deputy Mayor Odermat called the meeting of the Medina City Council to order at 7:06 p.m. Present: Council members Miles Adam, Dew BL lazey,Thomas Morgan, Todd Nunn, Bob Rudolph, and Deputy Mayor Mary Odermat Absent: Mayor Dan Becker Staff Present: City Manager Doug Schulze, City Attorney Kirk Wine:>, Police Chief Michael Knapp, Public Works Director (PWD) Shel Jahn, Planning Director (PD) Joseph Gellings, Finance Officer Jan Burdue and Recording Secretary Caroll Wedlund POINT OF ORDER Public Hearing -- Historical Use Permit Application No 2003 01 — Medina Store —Deputy Mayor Odermat asked the Council for permission to hear the Historical Use Permit application for the Medina Store before proceeding with the rest of tonight's meeting. The Council unanimously decided to do so. City Attorney Wines explained under Ordinance No. 758, Procedures for Changes in Zoning and Historical Use Permits (HUP), the PC public hearing had been conducted. PD Gellings had sent the PC's recommendations to grant the HUP, with conditions. Ordinance No. 758 was written to give the Council two choices, based upon the PC's recommendations, to approve with conditions, or to reopen the public hearing and hear testimony before making a decision. His recommendation was to reopen the public hearing. He asked the Council to take a vote regarding whether to reopen the public hearing or conduct a meeting. Council member Nunn moved to reopen the public hearing, seconded by Council member Morgan, and the motion passed unanimously. Deputy Mayor Odermat opened the public hearing and asked the Council to confirm any discussions they had at any time regarding the store. Council member Rudolph revealed when he ran for office, he had in mind historical use issues in Medina. He had conversations with many people over the years, and had also attended PC meetings in which the store had been discussed. He liked the idea of the store, but was concerned whether the city could mitigate for neighbors and also have a grocery that made economic sense. Council member Morgan announced he had not signed a petition, nor had he met with the applicant. He had received e-mail and regular mail correspondence from residents, but had no financial interest. Council member Nunn relayed he had made statements about the grocery during the campaign, but had not met with the applicant. He had received correspondence and e-mail, but thought he had shared it with Council members. Council member Nunn indicated he had conversations with his wife about the grocery. He thought he had signed a petition about the grocery, but had no financial interest in it. Council member Adam stated he had received e-mails and flyers from residents, but that was his only involvement. Deputy Mayor Odermat disclosed she was a friend of the applicant, who had never lobbied her directly. She had no financial interest in the store. Mrs. Lee had discussed with her about what her decision should be so that she could do with her property as she wished, but yet not offend any community member. Deputy Mayor Odermat may have signed the first petition the summer when the store was closed, and she had campaigned as a supporter of the store. She had also had conversations with resident Shawn Fitzpatrick and had assured her she would look be very diligent in looking out for thE! concerns of the neighbors. Deputy Mayor Odermat was not sure what decision she would make, as any determination would depend upon what the public had to say and the PD's presentation. Pete Lucas, 7225 NE 8th Street, objected to anyone who had signed a store petition participating in tonight's public hearing. He felt it was unfair to have Council members who had signed a petition to hear this case. City Attorney Wines explained he did not know that made a difference. If anyone believed they might have signed the petition they should state whether or not if they would be influenced by that and whether they would be capable of making a fair and objective decision based on the evidence before the PC and the CC. Deputy Mayor Odermat polled the Council and everyone thought they could render a fair decision. Council member Adam had no problem. Council member Blazey did not sign a petition this past summer, and was not sure whether or not he had signed the one in 2000. Council member Nunn thought he had signed a petition a couple cf years ago, but felt he could make a fair and impartial decision, based on the recommendations of the PC. Counc I member Morgan had signed no petition of any kind. Council member Rudolph had not signed the recent petition, and might have signed an earlier one, but did not know for sure. Deputy Mayor Odermat indicated it did not influence her decision at this time. It was a very difficult decision, and the Council members had put a lot of energy and effort into trying to understand every concern and ramification of the issues surrounding the Medina Grocery. She assured Mr. Lucas the Council had heard him and would make every effort to be impartial. City Council Meeting Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 2 Recording Secretary Wedlund, a Notary Public, gave a group oath to citizens who had signed the sign in sheet. PD Gellings reviewed the Council packet portion regarding the Historical Use Permit for the Medina grocery. Council member Nunn noted a number of e-mails regarding the store had been circulated to the Council and staff today from residents Allyson Jackson and Nancy Price. PD Gellings stated they were included in the exhibits. PD Gellings gave a history of the store from its inception, noting the applicant's proposal was described in the September 23, 2003 memo in Council packets. He reviewed the revisions made by the applicant, and gave an overview of the latest change proposal effective October 28, 2003, in anticipation of the November 4, 2003 PC meeting. PD Gellings noted the applicant at that time was not going to reconstruct the accessory building, but rather combine that square footage into the main building, resulting in an increase in raw separation from the abutting residence to the store. Also changed on October 28, 2003 was the addition of the laundry pick up and drop off operations on the first floor. PD Gellings summarized the applicant's present proposal. The PC had recommended approval of the HUP, with associated mitigations, as well as the variances. He also reviewed the highlights of the PC's mitigation measures. PD Gellings noted the variances were listed in the draft resolution in the Council packet. He reviewed the conditions of PC approval, as contained in an 11" x 17" matrix that allowed the Council to view the process the PC had gone through in arriving at their recommendations in the draft resolution. He also asked the Council to consider how multiple businesses should be defined, noting only one business should be allowed with this HUP, PD Gellings noted also included were afterthoughts that had been communicated to him by PC members, in an effort to correct the record. He noted some very respected design individuals in this community had measured the store. The city had not required a survey with the applicant's submittal, which was consistent with policies of most land use applications. PWD Jahn referred to the paragraph entitled "Parking" on page three of the draft resolution containing the PC's recommendations, noting the final parking configuration would be approved by the PWD through the right-of-way use permit. General-purpose on -street parking spaces were to be nose -in angled with vehicle fronts pointing NW on NE 8 Street and NE on Evergreen Point Road. Both he and the Transpo Group had been concerned about the safety issue of perpendicular parking, which led to the recommendation of nose in angled parking. PWD Jahn also clarified he did not believe there would be more parking spots than were presently configured for the Medina grocery. PC Vice Chair Mark Nelson, 1233 Evergreen Point Road, explained the parking configuration still must be verified through a survey and through the DPW. Applicant's Representative John Decker, 510 East Columbia, Seattle, gave an overview of the proposal, noting he and the applicant had agreed with the majority of mitigation measures recommended by the PC. He reviewed the PC's recommendations, and noted the applicant's intention had been the first floor would be used as a market, with groceries, a community table, limited interior seating (not recommended by the PC), a deli, produce, wine and beer. A laundry pick up/drop off service would be located at the back of the first floor, and the second floor would be for bookkeeping, with the rest allocated for single tenant storage, namely the city could lease that space. There was also a proposal for a basement area to house mechanical and maintenance equipment. He indicated the main difference between the original submission and the latest was the original application had an exterior stairway, and now it was interior. Also, a second entrance had been added. Another change was providing a garage door to allow produce to be viewed from the outside. He read a letter dated December 8, 2003 into the record that had earlier been distributed to the Council, responding to the PC's recommendations concerning the HUP. Mr. Decker pointed out the reason for changing the program and design was to better satisfy neighborhood concerns regarding specific issues. He requested that the Council allow for some interior seating, to depart from the PC's recommendations regarding Sunday hours to 10 am to 5 pm year around, rather than 12 pm to 5 pm during the summer. Mr. Decker relayed the applicant felt the weather would dictate Sunday store hours, as if the weather was bad, it would not make economic sense to keep the store open. He noted when the store was originally built, the family running the operation had lived upstairs. PD Gellings interjected he had no hard evidence one way or the other. He had two communications, one between him and the current property owner regarding the former use, and the other from the former Medina Planning Manager's notes concerning a conversation with former owner, John Frost. Deputy Mayor Odermat pointed out at one of the hearings, a person had stated someone lived above the store in the past, which set a precedent about the past residence. Mr. Decker explained the PC had not made a recommendation regarding a community notice table or board, which would be used for flyers and notices. PD Gellings noted the PC had approved the idea of a community bulletin board. Mr. Decker relayed the PC had recommended limiting outdoor seating to 10, and they also wanted to limit seating close to the north property line. He continued the applicant wanted both indoor and outdoor seating, to City Council Meeting Minutes December 8.. 2003 Page 3 make the store as pedestrian oriented as possible, and to provide limited seating as respite for shoppers. In response to a question regarding whether or not the PC had taken a position regarding the garage door amenity, PD Gellings had decided not to recommend changes to the door configuration. In response to an inquiry whether there was any intention to mitigate for property south of the grocery, Mr. Decker stated there had been discussion and some proposals, but no final recommendation. Mr. Decker continued the applicant thought an interior stairway with a secondary first floor entrance on the south side would have less impact than an exterior stairway to the second floor. He also indicated it was the owner's intent for single management of both laundry pick up/drop off and for the store operations, if the use were approved. Mr. Decker indicated at this point, both pick up and drop off would occur on site, with no delivery from the store to residences. PD Gellings suggested the Council address this issue. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Deputy Mayor Odermat opened the pubic hearing to the audience. Connie Gerlitz, 2415 — 78" Ave. NE, noted there was concern about people who had signed the store petition, but none regarding those who had not. Ms. Gerlitz relayed a recent conversation with Deputy Mayor Odermat had revealed a need to hear everyone before making a decision. She indicated when the store was formerly in operation, the vast majority of traffic came when school was dismissed, and others stopped to purchase treats for their children. The problem had been with parking. Her preference was for perpendicular parking. Gerry Zyfers, 7640 NE 8th Street, spoke for Paul Saad, 7644 NE 81h Street. Mr. Saad had indicated he was a supporter of the building, but he was strongly opposed to this proposal, because the mass was much greater than the existing building. Mr. Zyfers displayed a drawing of the proposed building, noting the top of the fagade was 78 feet, 6 inches, whereas on the existing grocery it was 58 feet 6 inches. The fagade width of the store on NE 81h Street as proposed was 76 feet long, whereas the present store bottom was 58 feet, 6 inches. Mr. Saad had indicated a massive building with a large, unbroken fagade and a flat roof was exactly what the PC was trying to avoid. Mr. Saad had thought the proposed store mass was much larger than the original store. Mr. Zyfers turned to the stairwell, noting the exterior stairwell had at least broken up a portion of the present building fagade. Speaking for himself, Mr. Zyfers displayed the green flyer the city had sent last spring. He was in favor of the store, as it was the soul of Medina, but it was important to take the time to "get it right". He showed a colored picture of the old store, as well as a new depiction. Mr. Zyfers noted the store had shifted to the east and was significantly wider. Further, the new store would not be conducting the same business. There was also the primary use of the laundry to be considered, as it was a retail establishment that had not been there before, and a second door had been requested to accommodate that use. He emphasized such use would create more traffic on NE 81h Street. Mr. Zyphers showed a drawing of the east location, noting there was now nothing to break up the fagade on the east. What had been an exterior balcony was now becoming interior space. He challenged the present proposal as a gross deviation from the historic design, and cautioned that alterations would make the building more imposing. Mick Larkin, 632 Evergreen Point Road, emphasized part of the immediate neighbors' frustration with this process was no one had been listening. He stressed the Council should spend a little more time studying the green store. The Council had received documents five minutes ahead of time before this meeting, which he felt to be very unprofessional. He noted the addition was 990 square feet larger than the original store footprint of 2,160 square feet. That meant a 50% increase in retail space, and a 50% increase in traffic and delivery trucks. Now nearby residents would even be forced to endure a laundry service. He thought the applicant was blackmailing the city, with her comment, "If I do not get what I want, I am not going to do it." Fred Buck, 850 — 82"d Avenue NE, voiced opposition to the proposed grocery. Stella Mills, 850 — 82"d Avenue NE, agreed with Mr. Buck, and was against the garbage location, as that service was operated during "off hours". She emphasized nothing had been said about parking on Evergreen Point Road and on NE 8`h Street. She had attended a Council meeting a couple of years ago and listened to a city -paid engineer state he would not want the store in his neighborhood. There was a sidewalk that went nowhere, and 82itl Avenue NE had become a raceway. Further, the majority of delivery truck drivers did not obey the speed limit. Ms. Mills also stated she had heard a rumor city hall was asking for five new employees. She suggested this money be allocated for police officers, because with the increased traffic, they would be needed. City Council Meeting Minutes December S. 2003 Page 4 As the nearest neighbor, Jackie McGahan Curtis, 7616 NE 8th Street, relayed her understanding there was divided feeling about the store. Now, the plan was to incorporate that square footage into the main market. No one had asked the neighbors whether this was a good idea. She preferred for that square footage to rebuilt and used as storage for the store. The new building would be a noise buffer, and would also keep the grocery the same size. Shawn Fitzpatrick, 7622 NE 8th Street, echoed what Gerry Zyfers and Mick Larkin had stated. She felt the city used the term "historic" to its own advantage. Ms. Fitzpatrick questioned how the grocery could be approved without a survey, and how could the city not know the square footage? She noted the old store had no interior seating. Someone had indicated at a prior meeting a child purchasing a soda could crash his/her bike if trying to ride and hold pop at the same time. There had never been any outdoor seating at the old store, and there were no reports of kids falling off their bikes. Laundry service, a seamstress and the market constituted more than one business. Further, the city would have to prove there had formerly been a residence on the second floor. She stressed the storage shed had never been for retail use, so the applicant should not be allowed to add that square footage to the store. Further, an eight -foot concrete wall was needed as a noise buffer. Also, neighbors needed to know the number of parking stalls and the number of employees. The PC had stated they did not want it to become a coffee shop. She urged that the grocery be closed on Sundays, as neighbors needed one day of peace. Charles Pember, 7617 NE 8th Street, his was the third house from the grocery. He requested the Council to consider that the storage shed space now being added to the main building square footage had never been used as a merchandising tool. Nothing was ever sold out of that building. To incorporate that square footage into the main store was not right, as it was just creating some new grocery space. He added historically, multiple cash registers applied to separate vendors, and such an arrangement could very easily work into that. He emphasized the PC had recommended no indoor seating for a good reason. Mr. Pember wanted the store closed on Sundays. Alice Eilers, 1428 Evergreen Point Road, stated she had enjoyed living in the city for 42 years, liked the convenience to Seattle and Bellevue, yet Medina had a country -like atmosphere. She and her husband had enjoyed the Medina store of years ago, when it was mostly a destination for walkers. She predicted the proposed grocery would not be the same little green store, as it must be a prospering retail center in order to survive financially. Ms. Eilers was concerned about traffic, noise and air pollution. She thought there was already enough traffic in Medina. She questioned what had happened to the guise of historical preservation. Ms. Eilers also queried what if the profits were not enough; would the Council change the rules again so the applicant could have a more profitable business, leading to more traffic and more parking? She stated not that many years ago, a builder cut down trees and bushes in Medina Park so he could have a better view of it. The Park Board had objected loudly and the Council dissolved the PB, resulting in the builder getting away with his blatant "rule -breaking". She queried whether the storeowner would do what she wanted and no one would actually stop her in the future? Ms. Eilers also asked why the Council was spending the citizens' tax money with so many preliminaries? Further, did anyone who wanted to build receive the same treatment? What was the Council's motivation for doing this? Was such action to please Mrs. Lee and get her to sell her house for more city offices and expanded government in Medina? She also suggested an unbiased traffic impact study be done before the Council proceeded further. Dave Mellor, 7611 NE 8th Street, who had lived in Medina 40 years, noted the store used to be a clean -run, tidy operation, but as proposed, it was a monstrosity. He voiced confusion about mitigation issues. Coffee and seating meant increased parking. He had counted 34 cars at Tully's recently. The historical use was a farce. He also relayed about a year ago, a woman obtaining petition signatures had indicated she had an "open check book". Peter Lucas, 7725 NE 8th Street, referred to his letter dated December 8, 2003 to the Council, noting changes had occurred to the application in October 2003, specifically, laundry service, sewing and a change in building configuration. In September, the applicant had the original plan. Now residents found out there would be a laundry and a sewing area. A larger box had replaced the old charm. He emphasized without the laundry and sewing area, the original configuration would work for the store, and it would have the original charm and character. Further, there had been no claim the laundry was necessary for the successful operation of the business. Susan Potts, 8443 NE 6th Street, appreciated the stability of this public hearing. She voiced support for the store, and suggested 30-minute parking would prohibit people from parking at the store and going to the beach. She was of the opinion indoor seating should be prohibited. The city wanted to encourage walking to the store. It created a sense of community that was important to the neighborhood. She emphasized if the grocery were demolished and a house built to replace it, the bulk would be there "lot line to lot line". Ms. Potts noted there were little stores in operation though out Seattle. She asked the Council to approve as small sized building as possible, to address neighborhood concerns. City Council Meeting Mlnutes December 8, 2003 Page 5 Storeowner, Hae C. Lee, 512 Evergreen Point Road, thanked citizens for their concern about the store. She related little boys had stopped by with a flower and told her to "Be strong, we will have the store." She noted everyone was concerned about the outside of the grocery. Kids left their bikes in front of the store. As a parent, she felt it was dangerous for children to sit at the corner of the store. She did not want to place a chair outside, in an effort to ensure children's safety. Employee wise, she never had a break when formerly operating the store, and worked 10-hour days. Ms. Lee related she had made pizza, sandwiches and soup in her store's back -room kitchen. Carolyn Clark, 2548 Medina Circle, noted In October, a petition to save the green store had been circulated to Medina citizens, and 334 signatures had been collected in five days. She read aloud a letter included with that petition, and spoke for the people who had signed it. Those who had signed it included senior citizens who had children that had frequented the grocery. Also included were new residents and others with established families. Ms. Clark emphasized the grocery was a city treasure. Further, change was not a bad thing. Many who signed the petition had personal memories about the grocery. Jennifer Gulrajani, 3215 — 78th Place NE, stated she grew up in Medina and remembered going to the store as a girl. Her parents still lived in Medina, and she wanted her fourth grade son to have a similar experience. On the way home from school he wanted to stop at the Circle K, but it was not a safe place. When the store was closed, she really sensed a loss. She had been one of the residents gathering petition signatures. She emphasized a large majority of Medina citizens were in favor of the store. The ambiance of the area was why numerous citizens had returned to Medina Katie Phelps, 2516 Medina Circle, voiced approval of the store, noting it was supported by a vast majority of Medina's citizens. The PC had been listening to this support. She asked the Council to realize 90% of those present wanted the grocery to reopen, and requested them to take action for the vast majority of our community. Ally Svenson, 1135 Evergreen Point Road, and Mary Alhadeff, 2415 — 80t' Avenue NE, were very supportive of the store. They had discussed the details of the grocery with the applicant, and believed it to be appropriate for Medina. They were in favor what had been proposed, as it was supportive of Medina's history. The need for a community center was also voiced. Betsy Johnson, 3210 — 78th Place NE, was in favor of the store, as that and the post office made Medina unique. She emphasized the store could be reopened in a manner that would make Medina a more attractive place to live. Ms. Johnson noted the applicant had really tried to propose a business in synch with the character of Medina. Ms. Johnson wanted a nice community store where she could send her four children on their bikes. Further, most people were in favor of the grocery. Liesbeth Bosch, 7814 NE 14th Street, understood people in the neighborhood were worried about the new store being larger than the present one. She emphasized there should be no difference between homes demolished and larger replacements. The size of the green store was not bad at all. She was in favor of a grocery. Lisa Fleischman, 7641 NE 121h Street, voiced support for the store. She had lived in Medina 2-1/2 years, and everyone talked about the grocery with fond reminiscence. She cautioned the Council should be thoughtful, realistic and sensitive to neighbors' concerns regarding size and bulk. She also questioned whether dry cleaning was really legitimate and if it would be useful to the community at large. Ms. Fleischman thought use of the word "historic" was a double-edged sword, as the store would not be selling duck feed like it did many years ago. She was in support of the green store, but urged the Council to be thoughtful to the citizens around it. Anne -Marie Ryan, 1076 Lake Washington Boulevard, was in favor of the store as it existed before closure. The grocery was a great destination for children, families, walkers and dog walkers, and it was a needed facility for the neighborhood. Mary Douglas, 904 — 881th Avenue NE, noted she lived in Medina Heights, and had been a resident for 38 years. Her parents still lived here, as did her brother. Her children attended school in Medina. Ms. Douglas noted the store was the "heart of Medina", and had been an important part of her childhood. It was a treasure that made Medina unique. Ms. Douglas urged, "We all need to work together." Allyson Jackson, 7633 NE 141h Street, noted she had attended a lot of meetings. She relayed the green store was the heart of Medina, but the Council should also be sensitive to the neighbors around it. The owner had tried to City Council Mee[ing Minutes December 8, 2003 Page 6 respond to their concerns, and the neighbors had given her more concerns. Ms. Jackson pointed out a majority of the community and the neighbors were in favor of the store. She stated the traffic study was a non -emotional fact, and urged the Council to review it, as that document showed the store's reopening would not significantly increase traffic. Ms. Jackson noted the owner had tried to bring the stairs inside as a safety measure. She pointed out the "greater mass" was the shed's square footage added to the grocery. Doug Martin, 1633 Evergreen Point Road, stated he had come to this hearing without opinion. After listening to all the speakers, he had yet to hear anyone say they did not want the grocery. People wanted the store, but did not want some of the things associated with it. However, in order to survive, the store must be economically viable. The owner and her representative were the only ones who knew what it would take to make a store economically feasible. There were things the Council could consider once given that information. If neighborhood concerns made the store economically unviable, the city might consider ways to subsidize it. Joeil Lundquist, 8621 NE 61h Street, stated her children were raised in Medina, and had always enjoyed going to the store. She was hopeful it would be here for her grandchildren, who would enter Medina Elementary School in another year. She urged the Council not to rule out the seating. Ms. Lundquist had been a member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation for 50 years, and they were concerned about adaptive use. She noted Monticello had major historic support. Ms. Lundquist was hopeful the city would allow the applicant to sell a substitute product in place of chicken feed. She urged the Council to allow residents to be able to sit down to drink coffee. The City Attorney urged Paul Saad, 7644 NE 8th Street, to only speak for 1-112 minutes, as Gerry Zyfers had already spoken on his behalf for that amount of time. Mr. Saad was in favor of the store, and wanted to see it built. However, he was concerned about the second story. It could be made smaller, and as presently proposed would have the "railroad effect" of a long, narrow building. He wanted the new roof to look the same way as the present one. Mr. Saad urged that the operation of store not be "micromanaged". He further recommended a review of the store process a year and a half in the future. Mr. Saad was concerned about the building mass, as he would like to see it articulated like the current building. He also urged people to measure the store. Speaking as PC Vice Chair, Mark Nelson, 1233 Evergreen Point Road, relayed the PC tried to identify neighbors' concerns, and he thought he had captured them. However, since that meeting, there had been some new issues worth the Council's consideration. The purpose of the PC's yellow matrix was to show the Council what concerns had arisen and how the PC tried to identify and deal with them. The PC had not heard the concerns with the same degree of passion. He noted the PC had not dealt with Mr. Saad's idea of mass along the building south fagade, and he would like the Council to review it. The PC had only addressed lot coverage, and had not dealt with the size of the store. They had thought it was in the best interests of the neighbors not to have the accessory building, but after hearing the comments tonight, maybe it was better for it to remain there. With regard to use of second story storage, the PC had been polled and they did not hear that as a proposal. He felt the city subsidizing the store was an interesting concept. VC Nelson had also heard other input tonight regarding citizens wanting more seating, and that was worth noting as well. He also felt limiting the second story addition might be something to consider. Maybe it could follow the setbacks of the current underwriting zoning and only that amount of the second story would be allowed to project into the setbacks as granted into the variance. He was not sure the PC would have come to the same conclusions after hearing tonight's testimony. Patrick Boyd, 2541 — 78th Avenue NE, liked the store as designed, and had no problem with the second story. He was of the opinion the Medina grocery was being filibustered, and should not be studied to death. He urged the Council to make a "tough decision". Deputy Mary Odermat concluded the public testimony portion of the Medina store HUP. A recess was taken at 9:47 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. Mr. Decker indicated the applicant had stated it would be difficult to make the store viable with only 2,400 square feet. Diversification of services was needed to make it economically feasible. In response to a question regarding whether the square footage of shelf space would remain the same, he replied affirmatively. Mr. Decker continued the previous application heard by the Hearing Examiner had been scaled back and modified in keeping with the configuration of the original store. He suggested the only other alternative was a residence upstairs. Council member Nunn relayed he had received a number of calls from PC members about additional issues and he had made a list of them, which the Council discussed. City Council Meeting Minutes December 8.. 2003 Page 7 City Attorney Wines advised if the city was already restricting uses, it may not make a lot of sense to control who would operate the laundry and dry cleaning pick up/drop off service. PD Gellings added there had been a concern the city should not interfere with management of the store operation through that restriction. Following discussion about limiting parking to 30 minutes, Deputy Mayor Odermat asked if enforcement would be an issue for the city. City Manager Schulze replied he thought it would be an issue for the owner, who would be very interested in parking limitations, due to the store's close proximity to the beach. He added MPD officers would drive by on a regular basis, and he did not see enforcement as a big time-consuming issue. Those parking over the 30-minute limit would be issued a citation no different than anywhere else where there was a time limit. After the Council reviewed all the issues surrounding the grocery, City Attorney Wines proposed another amendment to the resolution to add at the very end, "The conditions incorporated in this resolution shall be incorporated into a concomitant agreement which would be recorded against the property." Council member Nunn moved the Council approve Historical Use Permit Application No. 2003-01 — Medina Store as noted below and the variances associated with it, as proposed by the PC and modified by tonight's public hearing, including the City Attorney's most recent amendment. Council member Rudolph seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. A recess was taken at 11:33 p.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 11:40 p.m. Uses --Use of the property shall be limited to a neighborhood market that caters to the Medina community. The applicant's October 28, 2003 description of this neighborhood market use, including dry cleaning pick-up and laundry pick-up service, shall be adhered to with the following two exceptions: use of the basement shall be restricted to mechanical equipment, bookkeeping and storage that supports the market use occupying the first floor, and use of the second floor shall be limited to bookkeeping and storage in support of the market use as well as storage space leased to a single outside party only requiring infrequent access to the storage area. Seating —Total interior public seating shall be limited to six seats. Total exterior public seating shall be limited to 10 seats maximum and shall be restricted to within 40 feet of the Evergreen Point Road property line. Hours —Business hours shall be set within the following allowances: 7 am to 7 pm Monday through Friday, 8 am to 7 pm on Saturday, 10 am to 5 pm on Sundays, and closed on all holidays. Holidays are defined as all State of Washington holidays. Traffic —The traffic issue is not restricted directly, but is controlled through public seating and maximum parking restrictions. Parking —Provided parking shall include two designated employee spaces as represented in the site plan and a maximum number of customer parking spaces that does not exceed the number presently on the site, as determined by the PWD. In addition, re-established parking spaces shall not extend outside of the area presently devoted to parking. All store employees shall park only in spaces designated as store or employee parking. The final configuration of parking shall be approved by the PWD through the right-of-way use permit. General-purpose parking spaces are to be on street. The PWD shall strive for parking stall widths of at least nine feet. There shall be a minimum of one ADA parking space. All on street general-purpose store parking shall be limited to 30 minutes. Cooking —The applicant's October 28, 2003 proposal to limit cooking activities such that no exterior odors are produced shall be adhered to. No commercial grill shall be allowed. In addition, the applicant shall not conduct any cooking or baking operations that produce grease -laden vapors or otherwise require a Class 1 vent hood per the Uniform Mechanical Code. Deliveries —Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a loading and delivery plan for approval by the Planning Department. Delivery times shall be confined to Monday through Saturday business hours. With the exception of newspapers, deliveries are not permitted on Sundays. Delivery vehicles shall not cross sidewalks in accessing the site. After Hours Activities —Exterior automatic teller machines, vending machines, pay phones, newspaper boxes as well as all external self serve mechanical or electronic devices shall not be permitted. Garbage —The landscaping plan and the design of all trash and recycling receptacles shall minimize susceptibility to rodent and bird infestations. Routine trash and recycling pick-up shall involve hand -carting the receptacles to the City Council Meeting Minutes December 8. 2003 Page 8 pick-up vehicle at Evergreen Point Road. The applicant shall consult with a pest control professional and, if an infestation problem is found in the existing building, shall take extermination measures prior to building dernolition. Exterior Signage—Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a signage plan for approval by the Planning Department. The signage shall be oriented to pedestrians and slow -moving traffic. No direct or indirect illuminated signs will be permitted. Lighting —Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit an outdoor lighting plan for approval by the Building and Planning Departments. The overall level of site illumination shall be similar to that of a normal single- family residence. All light fixtures shall be shielded to prevent visible glare from abutting properties. Landscaping and Noise/Visual Impact Buffers —A landscape plan shall be submitted for city Landscape Consultant approval. The Landscaping Consultant's approval shall include whether vegetation adequately softens the appearance of the east masonry wall as viewed from neighboring properties. The Landscape Consultant shall consider the desires and preferences of neighbors. The applicant's final design of the east masonry wall shall use the eight -foot height variance granted in conjunction with this historical use permit to have adequate height and siting to block noise and visual impacts to the east. All significant trees on the site shall be retained. Pedestrian Facilities —The final configuration of pedestrian facilities shall be approved by the PWD through the right-of-way use permit. The PWD shall consider safety and aesthetics in the transitions of walkways to adjacent properties. Restrictions on Changes of Use after HUP Approval —Changes of use are not permitted without a new Conditional Use Permit or Historical Use Permit. Approval of this Historical Use Permit does not guarantee the approval of a permit for another use. The review of future applications shall be limited to the applicable review criteria and not include circumstances specific to the applicant. Review of Final Architectural Plans —Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural elevation drawings for review and approval by the Planning Department and PC Mark Nelson. The purpose of this review shall be to ensure that the final plans for the new building meet the applicant's stated objective of replicating the historic character of the existing buildings. The elevations shall specify the proposed color scheme for the building. The scope of this review may include any character -defining attributes such as color scheme, volume, scale, and massing as well as the detailing of windows, doors, cornices, entry covers, and awnings. Modified versions of the variances consolidated with the review of HUP 2003-01 are necessary to allow for operation of the historic use, and to minimize the impacts of the historic use on adjacent properties. This necessary set of variances is as follows: 1. A variance to reduce the required structural setback from the NE 8`h Street property line from 20 feet to 7 feet, and 2. A variance to reduce the required structural setback from the Evergreen Point Road property line from 25 feet to 8 feet. 3. A variance for total structural coverage no greater than the existing structural coverage as certified by a licensed surveyor. This variance is approved with the following conditions: A. Fagade modulation shall be required on the south fagade at or before a distance of 58 feet, as measured eastward from the west wall of the building. (1) Modulation standards a. The minimum depth of the modulation shall be 5' 0". b. Additional modulation points are allowed. c. Roof eaves shall be allowed to encroach within the modulation step back. Roof eave design shall replicate existing roof eaves. B. Height modulation shall be required on the south fagade at or before a distance of 58 feet as measured eastward from the west wall of the building. (1) Modulation standards a. The intention is to replicate the scale of the existing building. b. No portion of the roof proper may extend higher than 25 feet above the lowest point of original grade at the building wall. City Council Meetinq Minutes December S, 2003 Page 9 C. The height of the proposed building will be stepped down at the point on the south facade described above similar to the existing south facade. d. A shed roof similar to that which is proposed upon the north side of the building shall be provided at the east end of the building. C. Exterior elevations are to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and PC Mark Nelson prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. A variance for the proposed masonry wall along the east property line is to have a height of eight feet where the Zoning Code limit is four feet for the first 30 feet into the lot and six feet beyond. PUBLIC HEARING 2004 Fee Schedule Review —City Manager Schulze distributed updated changes to reflect $75,000 in revenue that would come from the 2004 Fee Schedule. Discussion of the 2004 Fee Schedule was tabled to the January Council meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Council member Adam moved, seconded by Council member Morgan, to accept the consent agenda. Council member Rudolph requested modification to the minutes, which was acceptable to Council members Adam and Morgan, and the motion carried unanimously. E-1 Minutes from November 10, 2003 Council Meeting — approved with change page 2, lid cost is $60 million E-2 Minutes from November 24, 2003 Study Session — approved with change, bldg. Permit revenue is S600,000 E-3 November 2003 Checks and Finance Officer's Report -- approved E-4 Adopt Ordinance Establishing Schedule of Fees — adopted E-5 Authorize City Manager to Execute Small Works Roster Interlocal Agreement -- authorized E-6 Adopt Ordinance Amending 2003 Budget -- adopted REPORTS Police Department —Chief Knapp gave an overview of MPD activity during November: a. Four burglaries were committed within a nine -day period, and there was a good likelihood MPD would be able to identify the perpetrator. b. A resident gave chase to a car prowl suspect and signaled a neighbor to call 911. The suspect, who had an extensive criminal record, was apprehended and arrested by MPD. c. A resident reported a bank theft of $44,000, of which the bank would only honor $6,000 of the amount taken. Chief Knapp cautioned residents to monitor their bank accounts. d. Citizens were reminded Christmas presents were an invitation for burglary, and should be kept out of sight. City Manager Performance Review and Employment Agreement —The City Manager Performance Review/Employment Review was tabled. Discussion of Zoning Code Housekeeping Changes —Discussion of the Zoning Code Housekeeping Changes was tabled to the January Council meeting. Resolution Regarding Health Insurance Premiums —Discussion of the Resolution regarding health insurance premiums was tabled to the January meeting. PUBLIC HEARING Pubic Hearing--2004 Budget— Deputy Mayor Odermat opened the 2004 Budget public hearing. Council member Nunn moved, seconded by Council member Adam, to continue the 2004 Budget public hearing to a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. on December 22, 2003, ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn at 11,50 p.m., and the motion carried unanimously. Attest: Caroli P. Wedlund, Recording Secretary F; Deputy Mayor Mary Odermat