A site-specific zoning map amendment for three adjoining properties in the Gateway neighborhood that has drawn concerns from neighbors was a topic of conversation for the Mountlake Terrace City Council during its March 17 work/study meeting.

Councilmembers also reviewed a proposal to consolidate the city’s code enforcement provisions.

The proposed map amendment would affect three adjacent parcels — with a combined area of 0.92 acres — in the 5400 block of 240th Street Southwest. The proposal would change the parcels’ existing designation from Single-Household Residential, with an 8,400 square feet minimum lot area (RS 8400), to Single-Household Residential-Transitional (RS-T). Each of the three properties currently has a single-family home located on it.

“The proposal is only for the rezone, we have not received any development applications at all for this property and we can’t speculate what those would be,” Senior Planner Shana Restall told the council. “So we have to stick to the rezone criteria when talking about this and when making your decision.”

Land use in the area is designated as Urban Low Residential (URL) under the city’s existing Comprehensive Plan map. Any rezone and/or development permit applications must comply with the city regulations that are in effect at the time when they are submitted.

The transitional district is a single-family residential zoning designation that includes townhomes and commercial parking lots. The goal is to provide a transition between traditional single-household residential districts and the city’s Community Business Downtown (BC/D) zone. RS-designated zones generally allow for the same uses, but townhomes are not permitted in RS 8400-zoned areas.

Following a Feb. 28 public hearing on the proposed rezoning, the Mountlake Terrace Planning Commission voted 6-1 in favor of recommending that the city council approve the site-specific zoning map amendment.

A public hearing on adopting the zoning map amendment ordinance will be held during the council’s Monday, March 21, regular business meeting. When making its decision on the proposal, the city council can adopt the ordinance to approve the rezone as requested or to approve the rezoning with conditions identified by the council, deny the rezone or remand the proposal back to the planning commission for additional discussion.

To be approved, the rezone must be consistent with all of the applicable criteria including the following:

– The proposal is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.

– Any parcel of land contained in the request, whether under single or unified ownership, is not receiving special or privileged treatment.

– The proposal will not be materially detrimental to properties in the vicinity or the community based on the entire range of uses allowed in the proposed zone.

– Adequate public services will be available to serve the full range of proposed uses.

– The reclassification is warranted because of a change in circumstances, or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property.

– The proposed rezone would promote the community’s general health, welfare and safety.

Since the proposal was first submitted last summer, many residents in the neighborhood have submitted comments opposing the zoning change. They include concerns about increased neighborhood density, traffic and congestion, and pedestrian safety, including a lack of sidewalks in the area. There are also concerns about the proposal’s impact on adjoining property values, as well as the loss of affordable housing and privacy for neighboring residents if townhomes were to be built on the parcels.

“A lot of the (public) comments that we have received have dealt with Town Center subarea requirements,” Restall told the council. “And just to point out, this is not subject to those requirements. The zones that are, are the Town Center zone and the Town Center reserve zone; so this would not be either as is as RS 8400 or as RS-T it would not be subject to Town Center requirements” for development regulations and design standards, she added.

Restall noted that some comments have alluded to the proposal being a “spot zone,” adding, “staff’s interpretation is that it is a continuation of the (RS-T) zoning (designation) from the north.” Restall characterized the differences in dimensional requirements between single-family residential developments designated as RS 8400 and those designated as RS-T as “not too drastic and some don’t change at all.” There are some differences concerning setbacks and maximum lot coverage by structures.

City code doesn’t include density requirements, she said; it is determined by minimum lot size, and properties zoned RS-T can accommodate approximately four additional dwelling units per acre when compared to RS 8400 parcels.

Permitted land uses are exactly the same between the two single-family residential zone designations with two exceptions. Townhomes are not permitted on RS 8400 properties and cottage housing is not permitted on RS-T properties. With a lot consolidation, the three properties would currently be allowed up to 10 cottage homes under the RS 8400 designation’s permitted land uses.

Restall addressed some of the common themes expressed by those who oppose the rezoning. She said many of the comments submitted appeared to stem from misunderstandings.

“There were a lot of mentions of trees, the loss of trees, and just to point out that (site) developments with 10 or more existing trees are required to maintain 20% of those trees,” Restall noted. “This does not apply to single-family residential development when on one lot. So in reality a large development preserves more trees than building one single-family home, or it can.”

Regarding comments that suggest there is a lack of local infrastructure to accommodate additional density, she said it’s previously been well-established that developers can’t be made “to pay for basically all of the upgrades needed to accommodate density throughout the city.” Therefore, any infrastructure demands made by the city to the developer must be proportional to the individual project.

Existing required impact fees serve as a mechanism to help ensure that developers pay for their proportion of potential impacts to the city – specifically in Mountlake Terrace for traffic and parks. Those fees are then compiled in a fund that is used when the city makes local infrastructure improvements.

The council’s decision on the proposed rezone is a quasi-judicial action, meaning that it is obligated only to only determine if the application meets the currently applicable standards and criteria. Councilmembers are required to only discuss the issue in an open public hearing or meeting type of setting. They essentially function more like a hearing examiner in order to ascertain the relevant objective facts, rather than making their decision based on subjective personal opinions or biases – which could possibly lead to legal ramifications.

Councilmembers acknowledged the concerns and input of those who are opposed to the proposed rezone. Many on the council noted they would prefer to have a hearing examiner in place for such zoning and land-use decisions in the future so they can focus on making legislative decisions rather than quasi-judicial ones. Several also stated that further discussions on that matter — along with a holistic review of the city’s comprehensive zoning map and subareas — should be held, possibly at a work/study retreat, as part of the process for the city’s upcoming 2024 Comprehensive Plan update.

In advance of the March 21 public hearing on the proposal and the range of decisions the council can make, City Manager Scott Hugill said, “Depending on various applications and how the criteria are applied to those applications, some of those applications you are fairly required to approve – you’re bound. Others, even though they’re quasi-judicial, it is not necessarily a wholly objective decision on that.”

He added staff would work with the city attorney to provide the council with further guidance prior to the public hearing “so you can see the rationale behind the options in the staff report, you can feel comfortable with those options, so you can discuss those Monday night.”

During public comments Thursday night, resident John Fox, who is opposed to the proposal, said approving the rezone would negatively affect the character of the neighborhood because up to 40 townhome units could possibly be built on the property. He said he felt the city currently doesn’t need any additional townhome zoning to meet its growth management targets. “We don’t need more townhouses and please don’t set the precedent that will put growth into an area where it’s not supposed to go when we already have the capacity under existing zoning” that is concentrated in specific areas, he added.

“It’s not about growth versus no-growth, it’s about where and how to manage it reasonably so that reinforces our neighborhood character not destroy it, which this precedent would do,” Fox said.

In other business, the council also reviewed a proposal to consolidate an ordinance governing the city’s municipal code enforcement provisions.

Mountlake Terrace municipal code establishes a process for code violations regarding various types of nuisances, zoning regulations and permit requirements. Currently, those code violations are addressed by different enforcement processes scattered throughout various chapters of the municipal code. As a result, this can lead to uncertainty in the enforcement of code violations and their potential outcomes while also creating difficulties for city abatement efforts.

Therefore, staff has proposed modifying the code to establish one enforcement process that is applicable to all nuisances. The proposed changes were discussed with the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, Public Works, and Community and Economic Development staff to ensure the revised process will meet the needs of all the departments involved in that process.

City Attorney Hillary Evans said the consolidated code enforcement process would better be able to identify those responsible for violations and then provide them with ample notice and multiple opportunities for correction. It would also give the city some flexibility when allowing for those responsible to address the issue(s) and achieve code compliance.

The revised process is intended to be consistent throughout the municipal code and a violation of any chapter of the code would utilize the same process. Doing so will help provide the community with clarity and consistency in the application of code enforcement.

If approved, the new process will generally allow 60 days for voluntary compliance before a notice and order are sent out. It would also be more efficient by utilizing the notice and order process to move enforcement out of municipal court and into Snohomish County Superior Court.

The proposed code would allow for different timelines when achieving code compliance depending on the complexity of each individual situation and the violations involved. It was acknowledged that residents may face unique challenges for gaining compliance. Therefore, city staff would have the authority to be flexible and grant extensions when they observe that those responsible for the violations are making a good faith effort to comply.

To both properly implement the new process and to clarify the current code, staff recommended adopting a new consolidated code enforcement chapter, while also repealing and revising previous references to code enforcement found elsewhere throughout the municipal code.

The new chapter would also include the assessment of a daily monetary penalty, which is not capped at four days, for each violation that continues beyond the date set in a notice of civil violation or any hearing examiner’s decision.

The maximum penalty would be $100 for the first violation and $200 for a second or subsequent violation of the same nature or a violation that continues past a deadline provided by a notice of violation. The exception would be if a different penalty amount for a given violation is expressly authorized or required by a more specific city code provision. The daily fine amounts do not include any related fees, costs and assessments that may be required.

If corrective action is completed by the date specified in a notice of civil violation or a voluntary correction agreement, then the city may waive the monetary penalty. It will also have the discretion to impose monetary penalties in an amount lower than the maximum daily fines.

Evans said the new code enforcement process proposed will be much more efficient in helping the city to address nuisance violations and the consolidated code chapter represents an improvement to the existing municipal code.

The Mountlake Terrace Planning Commission previously approved recommending the proposal to the city council. A public hearing on adopting the consolidated code enforcement provisions ordinance will be held during the council’s March 21 meeting.

In other business, staff recommended that the council approve a $4.8 million contract with Thomco Construction, Inc. to perform work necessary for the Westside Water Main Improvement Project. Most of Mountlake Terrace’s water utility infrastructure was installed in the 1950s and 1970s and needs replacing in order to reduce leaks and meet demand.

Several of the water main replacement projects staff have identified are located on the west side of the city. They rank highly in the City of Mountlake Terrace’s replacement criteria and were subsequently grouped into a Westside Water Main Improvement Project that will replace nearly two miles of old cast iron water pipes and additional components.

The city received four bids to perform the work and Thomco Construction’s was the lowest, coming in at 21% percent below the engineer’s construction estimate. As a result, total anticipated costs for the project, including city staffing expenses for design and construction management, will be well below the nearly $8 million budgeted for the project in the 2021- 2022 biennium. Financing for the water main improvement project is being provided by a Washington State Public Works Board loan that is then repaid by water utility service fees.

To help keep the project on time, staff also recommended the council approve a contingency that allows the city manager to authorize change orders for up to a total of 10% of the contract’s cost

Construction is expected to commence within approximately two weeks of the contract’s execution and the project is anticipated to be completed within approximately one year. Work will begin along 66th Avenue West in preparation for that roadway’s upcoming pavement reconstruction project.

The council also reviewed a $276,545 professional services agreement with CentralSquare Solutions for permit, inspection and land-use management software. Staff recommended the council approve a five-year contract for the vendor to provide software and related services. After initial training and integration is completed, the software’s annual cost will be approximately $80,000 moving forward.

Community and Economic Development Director Christy Osborn said the software will greatly improve the tracking of permit applications and inspections both internally and externally. She added that it will also provide the city with increased efficiencies for staff, noting that over the last several years there has been a notable uptick in the volume of land use permits to be processed as well as in the complexity of local mixed-use and other types of commercial developments.

The upgrade is needed due to Mountlake Terrace’s current rate of growth and the greater complexities required of development reviews. The city’s current software used for its primary permitting, inspection, and land-use management system has been in place since 2004.

“We have kind of morphed a system over COVID for the last two years where we went from going from paper copies and having folks submit those into where we have gone for the most part fully electronic submittal,” Osborn said. “In saying that, we’ve previously kind of jerry-rigged and paper-clipped a system together. It’s not the best system internally and it’s not the best system externally.”

She added the proposed service agreement “will allow us to do this the right way, to integrate this properly, to update our software which is older and frankly outdated.”

The new software will help offer greater coordination among the various systems used and streamline city operations across several departments by automating processes for permitting, managing inspections, regulating land use and tracking projects. It will also provide applicants with status updates, increased accessibility and payment processing.

“I know the (cost) number looks a little bit daunting,” Osborn said, “but this is what all of the other jurisdictions and also our competition are using and this is what our community is asking for this information and the development community has been asking for this type of permitting for quite some time.”

Several councilmembers said they felt upgrading the city’s permitting, inspection and land-use management software is a great opportunity and it provide a valuable asset as Mountlake Terrace continues to grow. “This is so overdue,” said Mayor Kyoko Matsumoto Wright.

The city council will hold its next regular business meeting Monday, March 21 at 7 p.m. It will include a discussion of returning to in-person city council public meetings. See the agenda and information for watching/participating online here.

— By Nathan Blackwell