Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-06 Special MinutesDecember 6, 1993 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:10 p.m. ADJOURN TO REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATION CITIZENS COMMENTS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Robertson disclosed that he and John McFarland had exchanged informal comments regarding the legal issue. McFarland had said he hoped it wouldn't end up in a lawsuit; Robertson responded he hoped they (Council) had made the right decisions. Robertson said he had spoken several times to other Councilmembers about timelines, processes, etc., but never about the contents of the issue. Councilmember Mullet agreed. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ONE HOUR TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City Council 7 p.m. to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOE DUFFLE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; STEVE LAWRENCE, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; ALLAN EKBERG; STEVE MULLET; JOYCE CRAFT. LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; RICK BEELER, DCD Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; LYNN DEVOIR, Parks Superintendent; ALAN DOERSCHEL, Finance Director; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; GARY SCHULZ, Urban Environmentalist; DENNI SHEFRIN, Associate Planner; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. Parks Superintendent Lynn Devoir introduced artist Mary Hamilton who donated an art piece entitled "Find Me" to the City. Mayor Rants and Art Commissioners Nancy Lamb and Bill Gorjance formally unveiled the sculpture. Dave Costain, Vice President of Contracts for South King County Chamber of Commerce, gave a brief overview of the Chamber's accomplishments in 1993. Shauna Mintz, Comm unity Affairs Liason, Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting December 6, 1993 Page 2 Citizens Comments (con't) CONSENT AGENDA Res.# 1283 PUBLIC HEARINGS Foster View PRD /Subdivision OLD BUSINESS Ord. #1679 Establishing a Moratorium Along Hwy. 99 highlighted upcoming holiday events offered by the Chamber of Commerce. a. Approval of Minutes: 11/15/93 b. Approval of Vouchers: Nos. 68221 through 68503 in the amount of $3,291,487.73 c. A resolution accepting the donation of artwork entitled Find Me. d. Authorize Mayor to sign 1993 -1994 GMA Grant Interlocal Agreement. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. See Verbatim Transcript attached. (32 pages) *Following testimony, the hearing was continued to December 7, 1993. Verbatim Transcript attached for 12/7/93 (40 pages) MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Linda Cohen read an ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, RELATING TO LAND USE AND ZONING IN THE C -2 ZONE ALONG HIGHWAY 99; ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR, AND ISSUANCE OF, BUSINESS LICENSES AND BUILDING PERMITS FOR CERTAIN USES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1686 AS READ.* DCD Director explained that Council needs to determine which areas to include in the moratorium and noted that the Pacific Highway area had received the most attention relative to establishing a neighborhood center there. Councilmember Robertson noted that with several modifications the ordinance could be extended to cover all of the areas shown in the map (on page 19). The basis for the changes would be the potential zoning changes and comprehensive land use plan changes that are being considered by the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee and through the whole GMA process. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting December 6, 1993 Page 3 Old Business (con't) Ord. #1679 Establishing a Moratorium Along Hwy. 99 Citizen Comments Councilmember Hernandez suggested that Mr. Beeler could put together a similar moratorium that would cover those areas being considered for comprehensive land use changes. Councilmember Ekberg agreed adding that Council has had discussions on the ordinance as it relates to Pacific Highway, but not on the other properties. The consensus of the Council was to have DCD return with a recommendation for looking at the other properties listed on the chart. Councilmember Robertson requested a draft ordinance that would based upon building permits and zoning changes. Robertson added that Council had talked about going from 137th south to 154th. Beeler clarified that DCD would attach a new map that has all the C -2 properties and draw on that map the changes council wanted. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO AMEND THE TITLE OF THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: IN LINE THREE DIRECTLY FOLLOWING THE WORDS "HIGHWAY 99" INSERT THE WORDS "SO. 137TH TO SO. 154TH MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO AMEND SECTION 1 (D) TO ADD THE FOLLOWING WORDS TO THE END OF THE SECOND SENTENCE AFTER THE WORD "ENVIRONMENT "AND CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING EXTENDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORIENTATION FROM SO. 148TH STREET TO SO. 154TH STREET MOTION CARRIED. Rick Beeler asked that Council clarify the uses it intends to delete from the moratorium as listed in the first "Whereas" clause of the ordinance. MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO DELETE WORDS 'BOWLING ALLEYS" AND "THEATERS" FROM THE FIRST "WHEREAS" CLAUSE: REMOVE THE WORDS 'BOWLING ALLEYS" AND "THEATERS" FROM SECTION 4. DUTIES OF THE CITY CLERK. MOTION CARRIED. *ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TITLE BY INSERTING THE WORD "NEW" BEFORE THE WORDS "BUSINESS LICENSES" IN THE FOURTH LINE. MOTION CARRIED. Jackie Dempere, 4033 So. 128th St., said the moratorium on Highway 99 would increase the demand on existing industrial zoned lots in the City. She asked that a moratorium not be issued unless all areas zoned in conflict with surrounding neighborhoods be included. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting December 6, 1993 Page 4 Old Business (con't). Citizens comments (con't) NEW BUSINESS Ord. #1680 Levying General Property Taxes for 1994 REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION MOVED BY MULLET, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 1680 AS READ.* *ORIGINAL MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Lawrence responded that the ordinance coming forward next week would reflect Dempere's concerns about all other areas. Grant Neiss, 16318 45th Pl. So., stated he felt Council was taking the right approach by dealing with the issues separately. Betty Gully, 13017 Macadam Road So., stated she supports a moratorium that would help to preserve residential neighborhoods. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY EKBERG, THAT THE ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Linda Cohen read an ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, LEVYING THE GENERAL TAXES FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA IN KING COUNTY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 1994, ON ALL PROPERTY, BOTH REAL AND PERSONAL, IN SAID CITY WHICH IS SUBJECT TO TAXATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO CARRY ON THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS OF SAID CITY FOR THE ENSUING YEAR AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Finance Director Alan Doerschel gave Council the new figures based upon King County's assessed valuation. MOVED BY MULLET, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO AMEND THE FIGURES IN THE ORDINANCE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION: $2,524,908,907.00; REGULAR TAX LEVY: 3.01071: TOTALS: 3.12071. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Mullet briefed Council on issues discussed at Finance and Safety. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, TO DISPENSE WITH EXECUTIVE SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting December 6, 1993 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE 11:00 p.m. MEETING BE ADJOURNED. MOTION CARRIED. W. Rants, Mayor zc e Yan0 E. Cantu, City Clerk 1 PUBLIC HEARING FOSTERVIEW PRD /SUBDIVISION DECEMBER 6, 1993 1 Mayor John Rants: Before we open the public hearing tonight on the PRD, I would like to cover a couple of things. It's important that we have time for all the citizens that wish to address the Council in this issue to do so. In the interest of hearing the desires and needs of the Community. So with that in mind, we will follow the following process: we will have 15 minutes for the planning commission presentation, 15 minutes for staff presentation. Council may ask questions after each of those presentations. Then there will be five minutes allowed for rebuttal. Then citizens will be allowed to speak for five minutes and we will go through as many citizens that wish to speak. We would like to impose tonight a 10:00 time limit on this issue. It's possible we will be through listening to it by that time but possibly not. Then we will schedule another night if need be. Council may ask questions after each citizen speaks if they wish have a desire to do that. Any comments or questions? Joan? Councilmember Joan Hernandez: I assume then we would be continuing old business for people that might be here for old or new business, be continuing that at 10:00? Rants: Yes we will. We will not close the Council meeting at 10:00, we will just close this section at 10:00. Yes, 15 for both the applicant and the opponent. Alright, then we will open the public hearing and ask if there is a member of the Planning Commission here. In y Attorney Linda Cohen: If I might interject at this point. This is a quasi judicial hearing d this hearing is du novo. If there has been any exparte contacts at this time, or any violations f the appearance of fairness doctrine now is the time to say something. Councilmember Joyce Craft: I feel that I have an appearance of fairness conflict in that I was on the Planning Commission before I was elected to the City Council. Cohen: Do you need to disqualify yourself? Craft: Yes. Cohen: Ok. Rants: Tonight you will be an interested listener. Duffle: No, she cannot be in the Chambers, she has to leave the Chambers. Cohen: I believe she can remain under these circumstances. Rants: She's allowed to sit in as far as I understand, she just cannot vote on this issue. Cohen: There are certain circumstances where one would not be permitted in the chambers, I don't believe that this is one of them. obertson: In past circumstances like this we've Councilmembers have had to totally leave the `cambers so it does no way influence the decision. ants: Is the Council comfortable in asking Joyce to leave the chambers? Rants: You need to know that it is nothing personal. Craft: Ok. Cohen: Ok. 2 ncilmember Joe Duffie: I would be I would be very relieved if she did leave because I t want it interfering with the Council because we have had this before. Cohen: Are there any other, any exparte contacts? Councilmember Dennis Robertson: 1 would like to reveal that the two I did before the executive session. That one, I had a discussion with John McFarland last week briefly on the issue. He merely said that he hoped that this worked out such that there were no lawsuits either way. And I commented some to the effect that I hoped it worked out, and I was going to basically base my decision on what was right. And that was the source, the total content of that discussion. And I had a conver phone call from Jackie Dempere a couple nights ago discussing, to discuss another issue on the agenda for tonight. And at the end of that phone call she raised the issue about something in Foster View and I told her that I couldn't discuss it that it was inappropriate. She said she was sorry and agreed. And there was no discussion of content and for the life of me I can't remember what she said other than something to do with Foster View. There was no discussion on it and those were the only two. And I don't feel personally that either one of those would in anyway, in anyway have anything to do with my decision tonight. Cohen: Anything else? ncilmember Steve Mullet: I would say that I probably had a couple similar statements e people have said what are you doing, and I said we can't talk about it you know. It's cally non relevant as far as I'm concerned. Rants: Would a, are you ready to swear in? Cohen: Not quite yet. I would just quickly state that the Council will vote at the, eventually after collecting all relevant evidence to either approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve with modifications, or disapprove the proposed PRD proposal. And the review criteria that they are to use is set out in said Tukwila Municipal Code 184612 r9quirements of the sub division code for the proposed development have been met. Reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in section 1846070. Those criteria are, at least 15% of the natural vegetation is retained. Advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of a unusual or significant site features such as view, water courses or other natural characteristics. Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided especially in or near areas of recreation. Development aspects of the PRD compliment the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter and chapter 1845, time limitations if any, for the entire development in specified stages have been documented in the application. Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans. Compliance with the Board of Architectural Review Guidelines. Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation recommended by the director of The Department of Community Development. Since, I would also just by way of caution, advise people not to revisit the issue of the MDNS which was decided in the SEPA appeal. Those issues have been decided. I'd also ask before we swear everyone in if there any exhibits that are going to be used that we can have them marked ahead of time for clarity sake. We can do that at this time. Kosterlitz._Attornev for Applicant:) need to raise some preliminary points about that, is this p propriate time? osterlitz: We are entitled to make reference tonight on this proposal during du novo. We will ake every effort to limit the testimony to 15 minutes. One way that we can do that best, although the DNS is now a closed issue, much of the evidence was put on the back area, similar background evidence that we put on to address issues at the PRD. I'm going to ask in the interest of saving time that we make the record of that proceeding part of the record herein along with this exhibit rather than simple matter of 578 other jurisdictions. That way we won't need to run through again along with preliminary matters in this closed hearing du novo. Cohen: I think that's a fine idea, does.... 3 Rants: I think there's consensus on the Council. Cohen: Since testimony must be given under oath, all who wish to speak if you would stand at this time and respond I do to the following: Do you affirm the facts that you are about to give in this matter to be the truth? Group, I Do. Cohen: I believe we're ready to proceed. Rants: Now is there a member here from the Planning Commission? Alright then we will hear from Staff. Mr. Beeler are you the lead? CD Director, Rick Beeler: Thank you. I'd like to first start off that with amount of erspective, and that is that we're talking tonight about not only the PRD, Planned Residential evelopment, but also the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat is part of a two phased process here there's the preliminary and then later next year will come the final plat. That comes back to you with the final engineering and documentation before any building permits can be issued on the individual lots created on this development. We're looking at basically a final PRD and a preliminary plat. I'd like to move to what I think is probably the key issue, and that is the density standards and the density transfer provisions of the Tukwila Municipal Code chapter 18.46.070. And just run through those because our packet contains a lot of information and I wanted to correlate that information with the supplemental information of the for better term call9d the legislative history. And to try to more precisely show where I got some of the interpretations that I did. 18.46.070 sub paragraph A states what the basic density of the PRD should be. And the term basic density isn't defined but it does say that it shall be that as permitted underlying zoning. Underlying zoning is R17.2 or 7,200 square foot lots. This becomes what we in the profession call the theoretical density. In other words if you took the total acreage divided up by 7,200 square feet, you would come up with the approximate lots that could be developed. However, through the subdivision process and the PRD process, the basic density becomes refined. And that occurs in two places. Following on down to 18.46.070 sub paragraph two under B single family, we have a critical definition or limiter on the lot size. What is says here, and I'll read from that section, it says a minimum lot size less than the yard requirements of the R7.2 district. In other words the Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may authorize, a minimum lot size less than the yard requirements of the R17.2 district. If you take that, and I calculated that in the Staff report, that meant a lot size less than 3,456 square feet. That was a limitation or a provision of the ordinance that was codified in one of the early drafts on February 20, 1991, dated draft page 26. I think that supplemental has been given to you as part of the legislative history. t m not sure we need to enter that into an additional exhibit other than to fold it into the history that already given to you. In there on the top quarter of the page, same section, says paragraph o second line, the same wording that I just read to you, but the word "not" had been inserted in e early draft but scratched through. So instead of reading a minimum lot size not less than the ard requirements of the R17.2 district, it now says a minimum lot size less than the yard 4 11s irement. So we're left with the basic, in terms of a minimum lot size we have that the Council lanning Commission can recommend, the Council can approve a lot size less than that 3,400 e square feet. The only reason I mention that is that it seems to be one of the key issues, is do we have a minimum lot size in the PRD process. And if we do that seems to be it. Now the more difficult section is in the density transfer under that same 1846070. Subparagraph D called Density Transfer. The density transfer provision also has in there the density, in subparagraph one, the density transfers are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands and water courses and associated buffers. I'd remind the Council, as I look through the legislative history this particular provision was discussed several times during your deliberations. And there was several suggested wordings in there. Perhaps, and that was discussed on March 7th and also on March 15th and June 3rd. Perhaps the most definitive discussion was on May 16th, but what the Council did in the discussions was to remove from this section the areas of potential geological instability. And to simply leave it with wetlands, water courses and associated buffers. And the May 16th transcript of your meeting indicates the discussion of perhaps why this was done. And in there your rational was that you should that a development should be able to build move the density from the buildable portion or unbuildable part onto the buildable part of the slopes. But that you didn't want to allow transfer of density from the steep slopes along with wetlands and water courses their density transfers onto the buildable parts of the slopes. When we looked at this we therefore interpreted it that way. Also you have in the similar history of the definition of the steep slopes back in 18.062.02, where density transfer was defined as a credit for housing units which are not allowed to be built in wetlands, water courses, or their buffers. In similar history of the wording there where you took out specifically did not want to include the steep slope areas. The developable definition, or undevelopable or buildable definition then became the other area wglooked at when we were processing this application. In your packet I think there is one exhibit needs to be clarified. I think it's on page 5 of my memorandum to you I had a staff pretation of 1991 more precisely November 25, 1991, listed as attachment E, and that's ally attachment 1. Those calculations there were based on what I've just said. The Sensitive s Ordinance included the in several sections, 18.45.020 and 080 that slopes. Areas of potential geological hazard could be built on subject to the geotechnical studies and working out those details. So looking at sub paragraph two of density transfer, the undevelopable sensitive area buffers we did not look at the slopes as being undevelopable. That all the information we had was that they were developable. The last paragraph of this section is sub paragraph five which says that development of the transfer density shall be confined to buildable areas of the site and shall not intrude on sensitive areas or their buffers. This section in looking at your legislative history, you'll find that this is probably one of those sections that appears first in your discussions when the Council was refining the concept of density transfer. This sub paragraph five seemed to persist throughout the drafts that you did and was not updated, but I think the discussions were all looked at. Slopes, number one, when you talk about the density transfers, one slopes were buildable you just had to do the geotechnical studies. There may be some that are not buildable, but for the most part they were unless geotechnically they couldn't be, history of landslides etc. When you take the whole density transfer section together, read it in it's cont as a unit. It and what I just said, it was clear to us that when the Council adopted this section that it would allow for the density calculations of the formula if you will of sub paragraph two that's in the Staff report and was used also in attachment one thereof of the Staff's interpretation. That being that the applicant was entitled to 41 lots. There are conditions that were imposed. We had originally recommended the conditions in the Staff report which were conditions five through twelve was our recommendation. Planning Commissions added recommendations one through four. We continue to advocate that the Sensitive Area Ordinance and the record established to date justify the 41 lots and that based on, and attached four conditions, the conditions five through twelve. I t we would add one and that would be the condition number four of the fencing and the ring or the hedge at the north side that makes a great deal of sense. That is basically how rrived at the position we took in 91. How we processed this application in the, using the sitive Area Ordinance and the PRD ordinance and the sub division ordinance. Recalling that t is the first real acid test if you will of those two, excuse me those three ordinances taken 5 io gether.on a piece of property this big with every kind almost every kind of sensitive area you uld have on it. Are there any questions of me before Denni Shefrin speaks? Rants: Thank you. Dennis? Councilmember Dennis Robertson: In reading, I have a basic problem Rick. If we go to 18.46.070, could you tell me where in there that it says that density credits can be applied to single family? I can see clearly where it says in 1846070 C, in multi family residential districts it talks about density credits. However where it talks about single family in 1846070 B 1 and 2, it talks about lot sizes and etc., but no where does it mention density credits. The way I remember the legislation, and the way I read this, unless there's a mistake, density credits as calculated through this whole thing that you just explained are only applicable to multi family. Beeler: I don't think that, I don't recall in the looking at the legislative history that that Robertson: Wait a minute, let's go back to before, because you haven't brought legislative history into this yet, go back to 18.46.070 and tell me where in there it says single family. Because the place where it introduces density credits is 18.46.070 C. Now am I reading that wrong? Denni Shefrin. Associate Planner: I see where you're looking Dennis. And if you continue, there are subparagraph C which does speak to multi family residential districts, and if you continue to subparagraph D which is in a separate area, it talks about density transfer which in turn is applied to single family and multi- family development. obertson: Where does it say single family and multi family in subparagraph D? hefrin: It applies to both. obertson: Where does it say that? Shefrin: Density standards. Beeler: Under density standards you have a small "a Robertson: Density standards, give me the. Beeler: Basic density, "A Basic Density Ok then under B single family, C then it says multi- family, then you move to D which is density transfer. By construction, that's the way that would Robertson: By construction? Beeler: The way it's outlined those would be applied. Robertson: It clearly says in 18.46.070 C, I'II read, "in multi family residential districts the Planning Commission may recommend, the City may authorize, a dwelling in density not more than 20% greater than permitted by underlining zones or increase equal to allowable density credits as set forth in subsection D of the section." Then it goes on, "if the site contains sensitive areas or buffers..." then it goes on to give rules. No where in B where it talks about single family does it mention density credits. It talks about minimum lot sizes, it talks about a variety of things, but it does not in anywhere say density credits. If you go down under D, density transfer, no where ere does it mention, I just thought I would eeler: In the way that the code is structured, I would think that the most appropriate efinition, construction of this would be that its was by vote. As I recall in all the meetings that we ti on this, that we never looked at putting it in just for multi family. We talked about growth of ingle family development and lots. Robertson: Actually I went back through it. And if you can find that I'd be interested if you show me where because most of the discussion, in fact about all of the discussion actually occurred was dealing with multi family. That's what I remember and that was my quick review of the notes, so before we conclude this I'd appreciate it if you could show me where that was at. Because as I read it at the moment it says that it does not apply, or does not say that applies to single family. The only place it says the density credits apply is to multi family. Beeler: Any other questions? Councilmember Steve Lawrence: Rick, something that's really puzzled me is this interpretation on 18.46.070 (B) (2). I'll read the short paragraph. It says, "In R -1 single family residential districts on sites containing sensitive areas or their buffers, the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may authorize minimum lot size Tess than the yard requirements of the R -17.2 district following findings that amenities or design features listed below are substantially provided." In trying to duplicate the calculations of this yard size, and in looking at the definition, the yard requirements have to do with the amount of lot that doesn't have any building on it, right? 6 Beeler: Correct, what we call the setbacks, yes. Lawrence: Ok, now in reading what Staff has prepared here and in this I know this is a cloudy ent here, but why would we recommend, based on yard size something Tess than a building I ss than yard size when yard size is strictly the area you don't build on? I mean if you just take t rea you don't build on and then you recommend that, as you can go below that minimum as where you do build on. I don't get the connection. How did that ever possibly evolve. It seems like one word is missing here that would clarify the whole thing and would be a minimum lot size with less than the yard requirements. The "with" fell out of there is the intent. I don't understand how anyone would possibly construe, using yard size when yard size is intended for the area not to be buildable, as what the buildable size would be. Beeler: Yes, I understand. The when the word "not Tess than" was stricken from the ordinance, in the early drafts, I don't clearly recall what the discussion was at that time. Why we took the word "not" out of there. Because certainly if we had the word not in there it would have helped here which said that the floor of the lot size would be that which is left over after you take the setbacks out. In other words, the part that would normally be built on. And I don't recall that. We didn't do the transcript on that part either but my notes didn't reflect why that was taken out. Robertson: I have an August 16, 1990 version that was sent to the Council from the Planning Commission. And in that version, that's August 1990 the word "not" is stricken and that's the first place it shows up. Lawrence: The way it's written now is really non sensical. And to me the only intent had to have been, and being part of the writing team, the intent was that the we would have the authority to waive the yard size. Right? To a new minimum. Not the authority to waive the lot size to be less than the yard would have been. That makes no sense at all. ler: I agree. rence: I don't understand the Staff interpretation about this how it can go below 3,000 feet cally. It was never part of the ordinance. '*,3; 7 eeler: If you look, there seem to be two ways of interpretating this. One is, and you've hit n both of them. And we felt that it was closer to the Council's intent in what you wanted to do ith the PRD and the Sensitive Area Ordinance that you were looking at a minimum lot size down to, and actually I floor of the 3456 or whatever it is. That you were not, the other interpretation is is if you read this one way there's no minimum lot size. And I don't believe with any stretch of the imagination that was your intent. So we used the former and said the language here would say that the lot size could be deviated down to a minimum of the 3400 and some square feet. Robertson: I can, reading again from the notes, when this was sent to us, there's a proposed Sensitive Area legislative summary goes background, the proposal, the process and then talks about subdivision text, PRD development. And the only part of the text that deal with this that would come close to this in explaining what was here, it says allow flexibility yard requirements and in structure types in PRD's in R -1 zones to allow zero lot line development and greater clustering ability. At the time we were dealing with the report that had come from some consultants, and one of the things that we wanted to remember, the zero lot line issue so that we could leave a wider space in order to allow buffers of large trees enough so it would still look like on a hillside and stuff. That was the basis for all of those discussions. But there's nothing in here in the notes in stuff I can find that would explain it other than that. Rants: Are there any other questions? Thank you Rick. Was Denni going to follow up with this? Beeler: Her presentation would be to run through the project. And to kind of refresh your minds about the design of the project in itself. If the Council wishes we could dispense with that. ants: Would that be helpful to the Council? No? eeler: Ok, is there anything else Denni? Thanks. Rants: Our next will be to allow citizen comments. Excuse me? I'm sorry. Attorney for Applicant., Amy Kosterlitz:Good evening Mayor Rants and members of the Council. My name is Amy Kosterlitz I'm the attorney for Dujardin development ?spelling? My address is 1011 Western Avenue in Seattle. We're here tonight to ask the Council to approve the PRD and subdivision as well as the minor lot boundary adjustment to crack an encroachment. As we've mentioned at previous meetings, the applicants been with City staff for approximately three years to design a project which Staff has determined complies with your ordinance in all respects. I want to run through the eight criteria for the PRD and I'm going to use as a basis for my remarks, the record that's been made before the Council at the DNS hearing and which all of our experts have testified to the various issues, since we only have 15 minutes tonight. I think first though, because it seems to be important in the Council's mind I wanted to address the issues of the minimum lot size and density transfer formulas. I've written a legal memorandum on this which is in your packet, so I'm not going to run through that all again, but just try to address the points that have come up here tonight. We agree with the Staff interpretation of these provisions. On the density standards, your code reads that for single family if you have a lot that has sensitive areas on it, the City Council may authorize a minimum lot size less than the yard requirements if you substantially provide certain design features. If you have a lot that does not have sensitive areas on it the language reads not less than the yard requirements. It's not entirely clear to me what the Council meant but I see what the ordinance says. And the ordinance has to stand by what it says not by what somebody meant. That's the notice that it gives to members of the public such as urselves and in this situation, we do comply with the requirements of the ordinance and in fact rguably would not even need to meet these four criteria but clearly we do more than 15% of the atural vegetation is retained, in fact 45 Advantages taken of or enhancement made of the site features such as the views, having put the wetlands in, sensitive area tracts and site of the houses (2cc' 8 I nd those. Separation of auto and pedestrian movement is provided with sidewalks as well as th for the park. Development aspects of the PRD compliment the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. With regards to the density transfer revisions applying here to both single family and multi family, would be my reading that under as provision D of the section it would apply to both however, if it didn't apply to single family development the result would be that we would be entitled to 50 some units since that is the lot area divided by the 7,200. That gives us the number of units. The effect of the density transfer provisions as I understand them here is to reduce the lot size and to give us only a certain amount of credit for those sensitive areas rather than being able to count them in total. So if we were to take your standard way of computing density, taking the entire lot and dividing it by 7,200, I don't remember the exact calculation, but there's 48 or 50 some odd lots. So it seems to me that to the extent that you are trying to limit density, its in your interest that these provisions apply to this development. With regard to the density transfer provisions, we also agree with the staff. It's clear that density transfer is defined both in this section D and in the beginning of the ordinance to provide protection for wetlands, water courses and associated buffers while allowing development consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent possible. The ordinance uses undevelopable sensitive areas and their buffers in contrast to buildable areas and both the ordinance itself as well as the legislative history makes it clear that steep slope areas are buildable to the extent allowed under geotechnical report conditions. Moving back just briefly to the eight criteria for the PRD approval that were set out by your Council. The PRD first requires that the subdivision criteria be met, and they are met here. The Tukwila subdivision ordinance states statutory criteria for land division approval set forth very general considerations of providing for the public health, safety and welfare provision for adequate water, sewer, storm drainage facility, roads, etc. WE covered these issues in our I t 'mony in the DNS hearing. Many of these considerations are dealt with more specifically in r Tukwila ordinances including your Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the Tree Preservation nance, and the PRD ordinance itself. I'll discuss how we meet these as we go on. The artment is also summarized on page size of its report how the project meets the goals of land sion. Including the goals of protecting environmental amenities, preservation of drainage patterns and trees, conformance with existing street plans, preservation of trails through easements and provision of a diversified housing supply. The second requirement for a PRD is that the reasons for density bonus meet the criteria set forth in 18.46.070. This requirement might technically make no sense as there is no density bonus provision, but rather density transfer provision which is probably what was meant to be referred to here. And this means, as I read it, that if you have a lot with sensitive areas and you want to be smaller than the 3,456 square feet then you need to meet those four criteria. We are not asking for a lot smaller than that size, but if this is interpreted differently to get any kind of variation from the R17.2 zone, I just wanted to point out again, we do more than meet all of these four criteria. The third requirement for the PRD is mitigation of adverse environmental impacts. The Council, its last meeting determined this requirement was met and mitigated DNS conditions are satisfied and upheld that mitigated DNS. Fourth, the PRD needs to comply with the PRD ordinance requirements. Those are the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. We went through in detail, through the geotechnical study, drainage study, and wetland study, discussion that occurred at the last meeting, that these requirements were met. Your department agrees that these requirements were met and I'II just address one of them at this point that came up in a letter that came in about an issue of whether we had adequately made arrangements for a wetland buffer enhancement plan. And I wanted to point out that we did hand in a wetland buffer enhancement plan after the DNS, before the preliminary plat hearing, before the Planning Commission. The Staff determined that it was too conceptual in nature and that we needed more detailed plans. And they made it condition of the preliminary plat, a recommended t co dition to the Planning Commission, that Planning Commission adopted that we needed to do a detailed wetland buffer enhancement plan they set forth what the various elements of that would be. And most importantly they said that plan needed to be done before land altering its were granted. The letter from Mrs. Lamb says that we can clear and grade before we it a wetlands buffer enhancement plan. And I think if you look back at the language of the condition of the Staff and the Planning Commission, it clearly says that we cannot clear and grade 9 P--1- efore we have that plan, but in fact that an approved wetlands mitigation buffer enhancement Ian needs to be submitted and approved before we get any land altering permits as is appropriate here. I can understand the concern she would have if she felt that was not the case because obviously we need to do that before we can get the clear and grade permits. I wanted to emphasize that. I also wanted to point out what we're talking about here in terms of wetlands buffer alteration. We're talking about a very minor encroachment into wetland buffers at the edge of a few of the lots. It was actually recommended by the City Staff in order to avoid massive retaining walls in those areas. The encroachment we're talking about does not exceed ten feet at any given point. And that's what we're talking about here. This is not some major incursion, in fact if this became a major issue for the Council we can forget the incursion into the wetlands buffer and put up the retaining walls. We just agreed with the Staff that it made more sense to eliminate those retaining walls, do this minor incursion and do an enhancement plan. We've set forth the vegetation we'll put in there. Obviously there need to be more detailed information about the clearing and grading and the assurances for monitoring and reporting and maintenance of that vegetation. And those will be part plan that we submit prior to the land altering permits. In addition, the buffer enhancement plan for the roadway crossing will come at that time. Again, Staff asked that that be delayed until we had a better clearing and grading concept which is typical and makes sense. One other issue about the wetlands that came up and meeting the SAO here, and we've brought Garrett Munger, our wetlands biologist to testify about this tonight. They originally did a wetland boundary assessment that was disagreed with by the City Staff. The City Staff cut back their idea where some wetlands were in one area added wetlands in the area. It was a predecessor colleague of Mr. Mungers, Mr. Strong who did the original report. Mr. Munger has reviewed it, and gone out there today, and he agrees with the City's assessment. And if you have any questions about that he'll be happy to testify as to that. The setting of wetlands oundaries is a somewhat subjective exercise. You often get a certain amount of variation, but I hink that there's ability, and I think Gary Schultz from the City and Garret can both address this, hat where the boundaries are now are valid under sensitive ordinance criteria. Fact two criteria five, relating to the documentation and phasing requirements, one of the mitigation measures required as part of SEPA is the approval by the department of a phasing and sequencing plan which is to include erosion control measures prior to the issuance of land altering permits. That, rather than some specific phasing of house portions or numbers, will control the phasing of this project. Criteria number six, development must be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Again your Staff, on pages nine and ten of its report, documents how this development meets your policies of encouraging housing and owner occupied housing in the City. The project also meets the comprehensive plans general goals for preserving environmentally sensitive areas, by meeting the more specific implementing regulations of your Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The seventh requirement relating to the Board of Architectural Review Guidelines, doesn't apply to single family development. Number eight, the project meets the requirement that there be appropriate retention of existing trees and vegetation as recommended by the director. Since your PRD ordinance was written, the Council passed a Tree Preservation Ordinance, which specifically sets forth the requirements for preservation of a certain percentage of vegetation. We do meet those requirements here. We have our landscape architect who can speak more specifically to those requirements, the Staff has also determined that those are met. With regards to an issue that was raised in Miss Lamb's letter about assuring wildlife habitat, I believe misconstrues the sentence in the DNS. According to testimony of Rick Beeler at the DNS hearing, the DNS simply says that the amount of area already being set aside in sensitive areas tract, will in the departments opinion will be sufficient to provide for wildlife habitat. There's no further proof or standards on this issue. This issue was discussed in detail at the DNS hearing where the Council recognized that the City does not have specific standards for wildlife protection, other than preservation of wetland areas and their buffers. With regards to long term protection of sensitive reas, we're basically willing to handle these areas anyway that the City Council wants. The City as chosen at this point, or the department and the Planning Commission, not to ask for a dedication of these areas, and has asked that they be maintained in a natural state by the homeowners association. Again, we're willing to do whatever the Council wants here. If they feel 10 more control by dedicating them that's fine with us. If that's perceived as an undue en by the taxpayers, we're willing to have them preserved by the homeowners association. j's ovenants for that need to be submitted and approved prior to building permits and final plat under your ordinance and need to be reviewed by your City attorney. With regards to the roads and driveways, these have been scrutinized in detail by the Public Works department. In an effort to accommodate the topography and avoid additional unnecessary impervious surfaces and retaining walls, some of the roadways do have Tess widths than the standard. The ordinance specifically allows the City to modify the standard in appropriate cases, and our traffic expert in the City's Public Works department are here to address further how they came up with their decisions on this. Rants: Amy, we are at the end of 15 minutes. Kosterlitz: Ok, thank you very much. For all of these reasons we ask that you approve the PRD and we have experts here who would be happy to answer questions. I want to be sure that we incorporate by reference, the record from the DNS hearing and I here move its incorporation. And we obviously would like an opportunity for rebuttal. Thank you very much. Rants: Council questions for Amy? Dennis? Robertson: On page five of your memo to the City, paragraph two called department property interpreted the density transfer formula, the second paragraph, will you comment please? terlitz: I'm on page five, what paragraph? ertson: One, two three, third paragraph down, with the word however. terlitz: However, right. Robertson: As the department has ably pointed out in its recent memo to the Council. Do you have that memo? You didn't, you reference it but you didn't provide a copy of it. Kosterlitz: I think its the same memo that you have only it has a different date because it was actually put into the packet later. Its the exact same memo that you have here. Robertson: This is November 24th. The one we have is dated Kosterlitz: December 1st? Robertson: Yes. Kosterlitz: It was originally dated earlier than that, and the packet got delayed for the legislative history I think the date was changed. I saw a copy of it earlier than that. Robertson: This was due to come up last week, which was what date? The 29th. So ...(unclear)...was full? Kosterlitz: Its a, I mean, that's what I was referring to. J enson: The packets weren't delivered. terlitz: Right, I saw a copy of it before it got into the packets. ertson: Oh, can I have a copy? You referenced it, I would like a copy of your copy. Or' 11 1 osterlitz: Sure. Rants: Any other questions? Steve? Lawrence: Who do you represent on this? Kosterlitz: Dujardin Development Company. Lawrence: And your profession, you're a land use attorney? Is that your specialty, land use? Kosterlitz: Yea. Lawrence: And for what purposes did they retain you? Kosterlitz: To help them understand the regulations that apply to this development and to work through these processes of their representative. Lawrence: So you've applied independent analysis of this ordinance, the various ordinances? Kosterlitz: I was retained midway through this process, so any analysis that I have has been applied since I got involved. And my analysis has progressed through the process as various issues were raised. For example, I didn't think a lot about certain provisions of the density transfer when I was first retained because we relied on the City's interpretation. I've given a lot more f ought to it since it became a contested issue in front of the Council. awrence: When were you retained, roughly? Kosterlitz: Oh boy, Lawrence: Just within a couple of months. Kosterlitz: I would say a year and a half ago, maybe. I can get you that Lawrence: The reason I ask this, I'm not trying to be smart or anything, the staff people who provide interpretation are not attorneys. Obviously, and I think you were probably hired to provide a little bit more precise interpretation. And I want to clarify for my purposes that you were really the one that they primarily relied upon at least after you were retained, for final advise as to interpretation to all of this? Kosterlitz: The Staff? Lawrence: No, your employer, your client. Kosterlitz: Oh, yes. Lawrence: You were primarily relied upon after you were retained rather than just strictly upon Staff. You put another slant onto it that presumedly would be perhaps more expert. osterlitz: To the extent that I was involved. I mean they had various consultants meeting eparately with the City, so I wasn't involved in every issue. There are certain issues that I've only ecome acquainted with, for example certain geotechnical and drainage issues as these became ontested issues. rence: But the PRD and the Sensitive Area erq: So it's subject to interpretation? terlitz: Yea. 12 I s I terlitz: Basically, I did not provide interpretation of that because they did rely on the Staff. They did not think that was an issue. I did not think that was an issue. You would have to say at what point, but for a long time in this proceeding, they basically assumed the number of lots based on their discussions with the City of how the ordinances work. I would come in on a case by -case basis of issues to advise them about as they felt there was a problem that required legal interpretation. Rants: Any other questions of Amy? Dennis? Robertson: I would like to know the memo, the memo you represented, I would like a copy and I would like to know when you received it. Kosterlitz: Ok, 1 will look and see if I can find that for you. Robertson: Thank you. Rants: Allen. Councilmember Allan Ekberg: Amy you were talking about density transfer, 18.06 Kosterlitz: Right. erq: And in that it doesn't specifically say multi- family or single family, it mentions number nits. And it has potential basis for density credit. And then when we reach 18.46.070 it has s A, B, C and D. In a legal standpoint just in chronological order, each items A, B, C, and D the same weight? Kosterlitz: I'm not sure I understand the question. They're different. One talks about basis density, one talks about some provisions specifically for single family, one specifically for multi- family, and one a generalized concept of density transfer. Ekberg: I understand that but in the eyes of someone who reads legal documents on a regular basis, if 18.460 has four reference points, reference A, B, C and D, do they all relate to each other. Kosterlitz: That's a hard question to answer because lots of cities don't draft their ordinances like legal documents and their a number of ways that you can interpret it. I interpreted this to imply to the whole ordinance because each section seems to stand alone. And to talk about dwelling units, not multi family or single family, that generic term. So there were a number of factors that lead to my interpretation besides the fact that it was just a separate section D. Ekberg: With that general interpretation, that A, B, C, and D all relate to one another, hearing that correctly, why in your opinion would item C specifically call out item D for a multi family application of section D for density credits, whereas items A, B, and C don't? Kosterlitz: You know, I can't really answer that. There are a number of things that have been raised about this section that don't necessarily make total sense. I didn't draft this ordinance so I i s 't tell you. 1 kberq: Thank you. Rants: Joan? Councilmember Joan Hernandez: Amy, at what point in the process were you advised that there were no minimum lot sizes? Kosterlitz: I guess I always assumed there was no minimum lot size because the City approved lot sizes down to the size that we had and they had letters from the City saying there were no minimum lot sizes. When the Planning Commission first raised the issue of 5,000 was the first time I ever thought about, was there some minimum lot size. Hernandez: So all along the proposal was for the 41 lots? Kosterlitz: Well, I can't say that for sure. Phil says that originally he thought he had 48 lots, I've seen a lot of other numbers. Basically, since I've been involved it has been 41 lots. Hernandez: But without using the density transfers, you would have actually been able to get more than 41 lots, is that correct? Kosterlitz: The way I understand it, and you might want to ask your Staff this, the City typically computes density is to take the lot size and divide it by the, you know square footage of the zoning like 7,200 and come up with the amount of lots. And if you do that here, depending on ow you consider what is the total lot and whether you look at dedicated areas. You know there's little triangle across the street and stuff. You come up with somewhere between 48 allowed lots nd 51 or more allowed lots. And I don't think we've ever spent a lot of time thinking about hether it was 48 or 51 because we felt that this density transfer provision pulled out a certain amount of the area from that standard calculation and gave it a specific density that resulted in 41. So I've never spent a lot of time trying to figure out how many Tots total we could get because the Staff was telling us we weren't entitled to all of those lots, that this was the formula that applied. The density transfer interpretation occurred before I was involved. I think that the consultants were having trouble interpreting that provision and applying it and that's why the code interpretation occurred, is my understanding, I was not a part of the project at the time that it was. I've looked at it since and its consistent with the interpretation that they're making now. Rants: Any further questions? Thank you Amy. Kosterlitz: Your welcome. 13 Rants: I think I would not be remiss for citizen comments now, alright? If you would like to make comments, please try to limit your comments to five minutes so that everyone can be heard. You must remember that the issue is the PRD, I just remind you of that as we go through this process. So who would like to raise their hand and be the first to speak this evening? Mrs. Springer? Please state your name and address when you get up here. Elizabeth Sorinaer: I'm Elizabeth Springer, 13325 Macadam Road South. The development of the issues tonight is very interesting to those of us who live in this area. Mainly because nobody's faced the fact that Staff and the attorney for the speculator have been working together for three years in what the State or somebody refers to as the black box. In other words, to r three years we haven't known what has going on. We were given three weeks notice from we egan to develop what this means to us who live nearby. The, there's a great deal of discussion f density and one thing another, but I haven't heard one thing said about the traffic that's going rush out on 137th, down the hill, across, down to Macadam, left for about 50 -75 feet and then 14 j again on 137th to Far West Paint and the freeway. This is a very dangerous situation and I believe anybody has given it any thought. At least it doesn't appear in any of the statements ese people. But we have one overriding concern, and that is that we live in the area. And we appreciate that the Council appears to be looking very carefully at it, but there's no play space in this. Are they going to consider that the park is their play space? There is some discussion and there's been a great deal of concern, by the people in the area who fear that their going to get, we understood at one time, a small piece of the property. But then we heard also that 43rd will become part of this development. That's our transportation, pedestrian transportation to the top of the hill. If we don't have that, it's another quarter of a mile and more hill. Maybe its over a quarter of a mile. And that's unacceptable. We don't, the last thing we need is to be cut off from transportation to the top of the hill. If this difficulty continues we hope you as Council members will remember that we are people, I'm sure you do, that we are people and we are there and that we need. I can just see if this land is donated to the speculator, and the speculator says you can use this anytime you wish to go up the hill, yes, and comes Fourth of July and somebody stands there and lets off a couple of firecrackers and the homeowner says, no, you people aren't going to be allowed on this area. I think that we better hang onto our public land, all of it. Rants: Thank you Mrs. Springer, that's five minutes. Next citizen that would like to address the Council. Any other citizens? Mrs. Lamb? Nancy Lamb: Thank you. There are some people here, Mrs. Garber brought somebody that may have a harder time coming back to testify and I'd like to step aside if she would be wanting to testify at this time. Ok. Thank you for reading the letter I submitted last week. My n e is Nancy Lamb, 4251 S. 139th Street. There seem to be some extraordinary interpretations variances permitted here to a number of zoning code regulations. In previous hearings we ns have raised lots of questions about interpretations of the TMC. Does a powerful loper have special privileges when it comes to going with the letter of the law or with its spirit? hese variances result in future development proposals insisting on such things as 20 foot wide streets for 10 houses? They'll be able to point to FosterView and say, look you let them do it here. This is a frightening thought. Do developers feel entitled to help manipulate the TNC and choose and which section or subparagraph they'll follow, or which definition is more applicable? The, I have about four items that I would like to cover with you and I'll try to condense them as briefly as I possibly can. In my letter last Friday I included some information on the wetlands extension. That has been referred to tonight already, and I would appreciate very much hearing from the consultant and from Gary Schultz as to why that has been eliminated. It was established by Mr. Strong in a dry period of time in the summer of 1990. He flagged it and noted that there was moist but not saturated soil there. Where did that soil go? He stated in his overall report in November, that in reality this area is not isolated but is continuous with a mainstream channel. It was positive in all parameters for being a wetland. Where did it go? I have some rain data here I'd like to pass out, it might save time if I pass it out at the end though. Referring to the Tukwila Hillside Design and Development Standards, I have a copy for you of the illustration recommending a different layout of side yards. I have also prepared a rather unprofessional poster showing you what seven identical houses will look like side by side. I'm sorry I don't have the proper copying equipment to flip for reverse mirror images. I'll pass this around. In my letter to Council I also included some photos and information about Lakewood Commons. And a very interesting formula came to me that when they take their 37 acres and subtract about one acre for wetland, they have 36 acres. If you divide that by 249 Tots that leaves the amount of buildable area, or area per dwelling unit, at 6,298 square feet. That compares to FosterView where if you take the wetlands and track areas subtract another acre for where they haven't bulldozed or don't l ose bulldozing, you come up with an area of 6,534 square feet per dwelling unit. That's a r ence of 256 square feet. The visual effect and the apparent density of that Lakewood mons proposal is going to be effectively what we would have there at FosterView. They've n the Lakewood formula, where it was applied to flat land, and applied it to Tukwila where l o ose hillsides have been declared valuable assets. Supposedly protected as sensitive areas 15 henever possible. This proposal is not reasonable use of the FosterView property. Comparing it "o Lakewood the FosterView proposal amounts to the look and feel of mufti-family density. In a ,neighborhood where single family zoning is R7,200 up to R12,000 square feet. Finally I'd like to address the recontouring of the FosterView hillside. A huge amount of the land is being moved around. A huge amount is being cut and filled. When you do that you are changing the slopes, you need to compact the soil. Especially where the slopes are 30 -40% after grading. The rainfall will no longer enter the ground in the way that it does now. It will be stopped a hard surface underneath a little bit of topsoil and a little bit of grass. Definitions of to compact, and I would refer you to the impervious surface Tukwila Municipal Code where there are, where its, please refer to that, I hope you might have time to do that in a second. This whole proposal readily does not allow the water to readily enter the land anymore and its therefore impervious surface over most of it. Right now they're saying 51 is impervious, but virtually the whole thing. Rants: Thank you Nancy, I'm going to stop you right now, but you can speak again if you would. Alright? Mrs. Lamb: Thank you. Rants: Are there any other citizens who wish to speak? Marilynn Van Hise: My name is Marilynn Van Hise, my address is 13708 41st South. As I have sat in the various public meetings held to discuss the Dujardin project, and listened to the various comments and arguments, I have come to the conclusion that this is a case of letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. On the one hand we have the developer sticking to the provisions of II the City ordinances, which have been mitigated, set aside, abandoned and moderated to suit him nd his advantage until there is little left of the original restrictions. He has even taken the liberty f situating one of his houses right in the middle of a small tongue of land he does not own. On he other hand we have residents of the community who thought City ordinances were written to protect current residents environments and ensure the safety of this environment for the future. We feel threatened by, number one, potential loss of established trees and ground cover on the hillside. The scalping and denudation of the land to accommodate the building, removes a considerable sound barrier which protects over 41 homes surrounding the area from some of the noise of 1 -5. This vegetation also helps absorb increasing air pollution from the traffic on 42nd. Removing trees and ground cover and their established root systems, and recontouring the hillside, in some places at right angles to what is current, does not seem to give much promise of stabilization to the earth. And what protection do wetlands have with the recontouring to be done sometimes almost as close as five feet to the border. The trees the builder says he will install, will not provide canopy or route systems comparable to what is there now for at least 15 to 20 years. Replacing 40 -50 foot high trees with 8 -10 feet high ones is not a very fair tradeoff. Number two, increase traffic on at least one street which already has a density problem. 42nd street is not the safest street, especially for walkers. In icy or snowy weather it is downright dangerous for anyone who uses it. Present residents who's driveways open onto it, do not in any case have enough clear vision to safety enter it because of the volume of traffic in the speed of those driver. Number three, too many houses on small lots. Tukwila is an old community mainly of individual houses. Some of us have lived here for decades. Some of us live in houses that have been here for decades. We don't want the character of our neighborhood jolted with a housing project that in part will look like packed parts of Ballard, Allentown, or Timberlane in Covington. Number four, a wetland area which is only slightly protected. The builder has agreed to put a low fence around the sensitive areas, but this will not keep kids out who seem to have a natural affinity for water and mud. It will not prevent adjacent homeowners from dumping yard waste or trash into it. The 1 i omplaint has been stated several times that citizens have not been listened to. The response om the builder and the City planning office has always been, yes, we have listened to you. But nce there has been little or no response in modifying things to meet objections, what proof do e have that anyone has heard what we have been saying? The builder, who has no more than a /q33 tary interest in this community, expects a sizeable return on his investment. We who have in this community for decades expect the preservation of our environment. Ordinances m ated for the convenience of the newcomer, in this case the developer, do not protect citizens who are already part of the neighborhood. It is not an easy compromise to resolve. I remind you that your decision in this case will set the precedent for all future requests for ordinance mitigation. It is my hope that the next time a petitioner is allowed mitigation of a city ordinance, it is to the benefit of the current city residents and not to outsiders who couldn't care less about the environment of the community. Thank you. Rants: Thank you Marilyn. Any other comments? Janelle Scarber: Hello, my name is Janelle Scarber, 13716 41st Avenue South. I just want to state first off that I really take offense to us being told that we only have five minutes each. You gave the Planning Commission 15, you gave the developer 15 minutes. And we have endured meetings where they have gone on and on and we have not complained about that. And we have kept our talks to just a couple of minutes. And now, you're saying that we only have five minutes each. It just seems a little bit unfair. So that's just what I wanted to say first. After reviewing the recent updates received by us to the applicants plat plans, were in the property lines for lots 1 -12 had been increased by extending those lines across 35 foot utility access easement, we have a problem. By including utilities access easements to the lot size, instead of calling it a road with a name or number, makes it appear that these lots are quite substantially larger than they are in reality. This is but one of many small discrepancies the developer has incorporated into his material. Early on during the informational meetings. we commented that we could not believe the plat drawings and that the developer could change concepts even after final plans were p nted. The Tukwila planning staff replied, oh no, they have to stick very closely to what they p sed. So now we see that the average lot size increases considerably even though the p erty and all the purchase reference lots will not be able to utilize the area for anything of s ance. This is also true of the Tots north of 137th on the east side. First we see that is shown to be left in its current natural state. But when the clearing starts we bet that little of that type of property is left. Why do we, the concerned citizens of Tukwila, get up and contest the predetermination of a totally mitigated development? Our feeling is that any developer of residential property that requires a land use law attorney in his hip pocket, should immediately be considered suspect. Where were our guardians of the cities assets when this applicant first arrived in town? Keeping the public unaware for over two years, also is suspect. During that time the Planning Department was jumping through the hoop to accommodate the developer in any way they could. But we, the residents, were not given notice until quite by accident we were invited to attend the first informational meeting. We say, quite by accident, because very few property owners were made aware that a meeting was being held, placing a miniscule notice in the paper does not get the word out. Perhaps that was the intent. We realize that a property owner cannot be deprived of their rights of their property as long as it meets the applicable codes, laws and ordinances. But for a johnny- come lately speculator to purchase a property that by their own admission is difficult to develop, not to mention the intended additional costs, tends to make one wonder, or at least it should. If you go back a few years and review the minutes of the City Council at that time, you see a slowly evolving SAO and zoning update being addressed. The Council obviously was attempting to put some protection of sensitive areas in place and trying to balance that against the property owners use of their property assets. This was all done while the State of Washington was also tumbling in its attempt to set guidelines. Reading the minutes, you find that the intent was to protect the owners of record primarily and not down the -road speculators. Granted this SAO was put together without the expertise of the land use expert ov seeing their efforts and guiding them away from the Achilles heel that we see today. The Cecil's record at that time could not have envisioned that an outside speculator would come in ash in on their oversites. With a greed driven speculator and an expert land use law a ey of questionable ethics, telling Tukwila how to administer their own codes and ordinances, it is ndeed tantamount to having a legal gun placed at the City's head. Without the means to 16 /34' 17 ounter such an onslaught, we will refer all the data at our disposal to the State Attorney General's ffice for review. Now I will refer to the SEPA MDNS hearing. Questions I posed were not nswered by the applicant nor by the Council. I'm restating those questions and request an answer before Council will adjourn. Question one, who or what process allowed All Seasons construction of Redmond to dig test holes 11, 12, 13 and 14 on December 3, 1992? These test holes were not on the property alleged to be owned by Dujardin Allegra. If permits were issued we would like to review them. The test holes were dug on the west side of 43rd Avenue South and at the lip of the ravine edge on the east side of the site property. The holes were not inconsequential. They ranged from 14 -15 feet deep. Runoff very probably did invade the creek that courses from the ravine from south to north. Incidentally the test hole soils showed an average moisture content of 33 In other words, you could literally ring water out of it. There is a term called wetability in the geologists vernacular. It is closely tied to another term, permeability. Simply put, this indicates how easily a subterranean strata, or in this case soil absorbs water Cohen: Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt, but you explicitly said that you were going to revisit a number of the questions of MDNS. And that clearly has been decided. So with all due respect if you could address the issues that deal with PRD it would be very helpful for the considerations before Council today. Scarber: Ok, the next point of concern is, there are at least 57 properties that fall within the 300 foot radius of the outer boundary. The property that should have been notified by mail of the informational meetings, as well as the follow on meetings and hearings as this is a zoning issue 7,200 square feet foot lots mitigated to 3,800 and above. The Tukwila Municipal Code, 18.92.020 clearly states that it shall be done. Now if we skip back to chapter 1806.010 of that same t ocument, under general definitions, it states that shall is mandatory. Please remember that efinition. The municipal code also states that all the listings shall be taken from property wnership of the King County treasurer. The word shall now becomes a real issue. It obligates e City to comply with its own regulations. If we need to we are quite sure we can get an understanding from Linda Cohen or if needed, the Attorney General's Office. After three verbal requests to Rick Beeler and Denni Shefrin, we finally resorted to a written request, for copies of all subsequent lists of citizens notified regarding any and all meetings, hearings, concerning this development. Finally, Wednesday, December 1, 1993, we did receive from DCD what is supposed to be the actual list that the mailings were compiled from. Anyone looking at them can see they are not taken from King County property ownership records. They are incomplete and inaccurate. Names are not current, they are misspelled, they are not even addressed correctly. What this indicates is that the applicant has perhaps broken the law as has the Planning Department. Now we have a dilemma, no matter what the intent. What we have is the developer that dug on city property without a permit or go ahead from the agency that releases the contractor of liability. And we have Tukwila municipal codes that mandate code compliance and that did not happen. Rants: Janelle, excuse me for interrupting, but I would appreciate if that is the end of 6 minutes. If you would come back after other people have had an opportunity to speak. Ms. Scarber:Ok, I have another residence's letter that wouldn't take that long if I could read it. She doesn't want to come up here and read it herself. Rants: Is it very quick? Because I would like to give everyone an opportunity. Robertson: It's a letter from another resident. She's not, if I understand it, you're speaking for i a omebody else? s. Scarber:I am speaking for somebody else, yes, this is not my own. I am reading a letter from ckie Dempere, 14033 S. 128th St. She starts out, I am here because I believe that what this 18 ln cil will decide today will have a bearing on the future social fabric of Tukwila. Today's ruling ive, or take creditability from this Council. We are a new city composed of several hborhoods. Residents want to take control of their lives. We are also a city without a newspaper from where citizens can express their not news worthy opinions. Also a city that just had two unopposed Council races. Our Council meetings week after week are attended mostly by City personnel, lobbies from Boeing and the Chamber of Commerce. Today our Sensitive Areas Ordinance will be tested. Mitigation and tradeoffs will be examined. At stake is what may be the only large publicly owned undeveloped land in our city, next to a large park to boot. This land could become the Broadmoor or Holly Park of Tukwila. I consider it a diamond that needs to be shaped with skill and care. This project offers the unique opportunity for the City and its owner to work together by using available laws, technology and incentives. Moving soil around will cause problems long after these homes are sold and the City, that is to say we, will be left with the bill. Let's save money and the environment by requesting that footings and foundations be built protecting the hillsides. Drilling into the ground to firm soil, pouring concrete with slip forms, and joining all these columns with a slab deck. This slab will leave below undisturbed vegetation, soil and animal habitat. This about the landscaping money saved. Only one side or entrance to each home built on these slabs should be at road level. Let the contour of the land be like it wants to be and provide a development of which Tukwila can be proud. I would eliminate totally the entrance from 42nd Avenue South. Who will want to live in a thoroughfare. Look at Magnolia, the residents don't mind the circles, it keeps traffic away. I see a very dangerous intersection and one where a victims lawyers will have a field day. Maybe the City could find a safer access using its property in exchange for some low income homes in this development. Tukwila needs more single family housing and Foster Estates must appear like a godsend. Like you, I am for more single family homes in Tukwila but not in this price range. We have plenty of these, we need a lopment that serves Tukwila's needs for lower and upper income families. A development for l vila residents who want and can afford more than $200,000 for a home so that they don't e elsewhere. A development where Tukwila's land contribution, families with incomes that can afford a $100,000 loan could move in, like our teachers and police officers. Homes of different sizes for singles or family that appreciate living in a park like setting but in the City. The developer of a place like this could name the price. On this issue only you have the citizens who you represent, involved as they should. We need to attract solid citizens and then encourage them to attend Council meetings by paying attention to what they tell you. To many creative Tukwilans feel their ideas will be cast aside by arrogant officials. We desperately need some Mayor and Council candidates for the next election. Maybe this Council chamber can be full on a weekly basis. Let's work together to create a place where wildlife and original vegetation are undisturbed. Where blackberry vines cannot flourish. A retreat between major highways and shopping centers, a place that can truly represent its name sake like our Foster Golf Course and Foster High School do. Rants: Thank you Janelle, will you see that the City Clerk has copies of those please. Scarber: When can people who didn't get to finish their talking get to speak. Rants: After everyone has had an opportunity to speak. Anyone else who would like to address the Council? Pam Reiss: My name is Pam Reiss, I reside a 13531 43rd Avenue South. Rants: Excuse me, the City Clerk did not get your name please. s: Pam Reiss, the first thing I'd like to mention is on page seven of Mr. Beeler's memo he s a recommendation for the Council to accept conditions five through twelve. And I talked to Staff and they agreed that it should be four through twelve. And those numbers are on page of Mr. Beeler's memo. I agree with a lot of the things that were said here this evening. The 19 ain concern that I have is that density. I understand that probably that's a mood issue at this oint. That we have to accept 41 and the Planning Commission's recommendations will not be ccepted. And I think that's a pity that smaller homes and smaller lots, I don't know, I mean, you can find those anywhere. It just seems like you can go to Bellevue and you know the north end the south end, they're everywhere. But Tukwila really seems to have a unique feel to it. I've had occasion to bring friends into the area, I've moved here recently, and co- workers, and they're all surprised. You know we'll go to old Tukwila and it has a certain charm to it, and the area where we live it feels real rural. And people are surprised and really pleased when they go to Tukwila. I mean all they think of Tukwila is Southcenter and the apartments that you see up on the hill. So I don't know if there's anything can be done to reduce the density on this property, it sounds like not, but if there was I would sure love to see that. And that's about all I have to say. Rants: Thank you Pam. Anyone else? Ron? Ron Lamb: Before I start, we're expecting at least one other person to testify, so I hope that the hearing can be held open or there's someway that that person can get their testimony in. I guess I'll speed read the way everyone else is. I am Ron Lamb, 4251 S. 139th Street. By now you've heard and read a considerable amount of testimony about Foster View Estates proposal. You've seen how City staff, particularly the Department of Community Development staff has sided with the developer against the residents of the neighborhood time and again. You've probably also noticed a lot of anger and distrust of the City from the neighborhood. This saddens me a great deal because it didn't have to be that way. But what you are now faced with is a neighborhood that is up in arms over an inappropriate development. Admittedly some of the distrust, some have distrusted the City all along but many others supported the annexations of this neighborhood into in he City trusting the City would protect their homes and neighborhood from devastating land use pacts. Many of those people now feel betrayed. And you may be their last hope. Some have nade statements out of this sense of betrayal and I would ask that you look past that to the cause f their anguish. Keep in mind that many of the residents speaking at this hearing lived here for decades. They haven't, they don't have consultants and lawyers speaking for them, but they've observed this site over a long period of time in all kinds of weather. They know what they're talking about when they warn of the instability of the slopes and the presence of springs. And remember too, that they are residents of the City you look to you to protect their neighborhood. Also keep in mind that there's one thing that nearly everyone in the neighborhood agrees on, this proposal is too dense for the site because of its problems. And these problems are not trivial. They present serious life safety concerns. I'II discuss the issues of springs and slopes instability first, I'II discuss these two issues individually, but they are related, keep that in mind. The springs add to the instability of the hillside. Springs, as Terra, the developers geotech consultant points out, the geology of the site is basically two layers. A light loose layer of soil over a compacted relatively impervious layer that was compressed by 3,000 -5,000 feet of glacier ice in the last ice age. And anyone who's gardened in this area knows the top layer isn't very thick. Rainwater falls on the surface, seeps through the top layer, when it reaches the impervious bottom layer it can't go down anymore so it travels laterally. When enough water travels laterally it pops to the surface wherever it can, wherever the soil is thin, or wherever the soil have been cut as in grading. You can't predict where a spring will pop up from one down pour to the next. I've seen a spring on our property migrate over time from the middle of our field to the side of the ditch. So despite the uncertainty of Terra, we who live here know there are springs. I would refer you to, for the sake of time, the Hammond, Collier, Wade and Livingston Associates independent consulting engineering report, hired by the City. Beyond the supposed expert opinion about the presence of springs, by the way they express grave concern about it, beyond the expert opinion we have personal observation from long time neighbors. I myself observed a stream of water as big around as my 'nger jutting out of the ground along the east side of the property during a November storm three ears ago, as I testified at the Planning Commission hearing. You don't need to take my word for I would also refer you to the written comments of Edward Lindstrom, including the concurrence f James Yates, as to the presence of springs on the property. And that letter is in your packet. 1 20 1I you've read it. Again I ask, if these springs pop up a year after construction or ten years or twenty years later, who will repair the damage? We all will. And how will those eowners of the future feel about the present day decision makers? The city Department of Community Development and the developer say we will know more about the springs when the road goes in. But I would point out that the road is going through the flattest and driest part of the sites except where it crosses the sensitive area, and where it reaches 42nd Avenue. Also keep in mind that the road and the houses will be built during relatively dry weather, as most construction is done. So the chances of catching the site at its worse are minimal. That certainly has been the case with the testing that Terra did to determine site conditions. Terra's first pits were dug on July 25 and 26 1990. We checked the rain data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration appropriately abbreviated as NOAA to see what the weather was like on those two days. It probably won't surprise you to learn that it was dry. Normal rain fall for July is 0.74, or about three quarters of an inch. July 1990 had 0.58 or about a half an inch, or a quarter of an inch below average. From July 7 to July 25th, SeaTac recorded no measurable rain. On July 25th, the first day Terra dug test pits, SeaTac recorded .100th of an inch of rain, a barely measurable amount. Anything less would not be measured. SeaTac recorded no measurable rain on July 26th, the second day Terra dug test pits. A second set of test pits was dug by Terra on December 3rd, 1992. Although you might assume that early December is a wet time of year, rain data from NOAA shows that in 1992 it was not. From December 1st, through December 3rd, 1992, the day Terra dug additional test pits, SeaTac recorded no rain. In the preceding two weeks there were only three days of measurable rain. Those three days produced a total of only a half an inch, in two weeks, and no rain for three days prior to the test. November 1992 had about average rainfall but the last two weeks of the month were unusually dry. And I'll skip the blow by blow, the day by day description in the time of interest. On November 30th for example t e was .015 of an inch, for a two week total of about a half an inch. Hardly the November isoons the Seattle area is famous for. And hardly a fair test for the existence of springs. Slope bility. As early as October 29, 1991, concerns were expressed about the instability of slopes is site, particularly the amount of earth moving that would be required. I refer you again to the Phil Fraser memo of October 29, 1991 which was part of the SEPA packet and has been made part of the record here. Hamlin, Collier, Wade, Livingston Associates also found cause for concern. Although applied geotechnology relied solely on Terra field test, in other words they didn't dig their own test pits, it too found serious concerns about the proposed site. And I will be back. Rants: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Fred Sherman: My name is Fred Sherman, of 13715 42nd Avenue South. My comments are also shared by Marjorie Cargo of 13723 42nd Avenue South who is in attendance. Mrs. Cargo and I have followed the progress of the Foster View Estates project through numerous sessions involving the public since we were first notified of its existence last July. We were initially appalled that the Department of Community Development, according to Mr. Rick Beeler, used what he called collective wisdom in reaching some of his decisions, and thus his departments guidance to the developer in formulating the developers planning for this project in the early stages. We believe input from the surrounding neighbors in the project area should have been requested by Mr. Beeler's department early on in this project. That information would have been, would have meant a much more accurate decision process for his department, the size and number of lot units as plans were being put together in the early months of the project by the developer. These later community sessions would have gone much smoother had the public been brought into the process at a much earlier stage to gain the wisdom of people who have lived here for decades. I live directly across the street from the project and have been there for 18 years, and my next door r�hbor, Mrs. Cargo's been there over 40 years. We certainly know what it's like when we really ave a deluge of water. That's a very important issue that others have discussed here. I've through that property with the recent rain we've had, and its not exactly real heavy rain but it efinitely wet down there. Luckily the worst of it is in those water course areas. But the whole 1 A7t3g 21 rea is, as Mr. Lamb says, the very thin layer that has to take that water. And it can cause major roblems. Mrs. Cargo and I believe the number of allowed homesites should be reduced. urther six units or so below what your Planning Commission recommended to you, the 39 units. The same condensing process should be used resulting in larger lot sizes as the public has requested numerous times over the past months. Larger size lots mean the developer can ask more for the property and still do well on the project in our view. And it would be more appeasing to those of us that live around there. I've commended the developer months ago that I thought at least the planning was done well. Wonderful graphs and the like, but our concern is the fact that as citizens, this is kind of our last resort. You folks are citizens as well, and we look to you to look out for the best interest of us who live here. I've lived here a long time and I expect that those that are elected to represent me very carefully look this project over. Resize. And I hope that you will do that. I found it especially interesting, the comments early on I believe by Mr. Robertson about density credits. Whether there seems to be some problem there, whether it applies to multi family or single family. I hope you very carefully look at that, so that special rules aren't created for one individual. Like I say I'm not against development of the property, I just think it should be done properly and applied to all. That's certainly extremely dense when you compare the entire surrounding area. Lots are no where near that small. So I hope that you look at that issue very carefully and that you get a more detailed description from Mr. Beeler on collective wisdom. If he's going to use that process, let's have some community input. I don't appreciate asking for our input after the deal was all said and done and signed off. We have a Department of Community Development that has worked extremely close with the developer, as it should. They've almost held hands working through this. But please take advantage of the citizens and get our input real early in this so that we're not surprised and that we know that we're part of it. And then all this would be mute, or this process would have been smoothed out long ago. So at's pretty much all I had to say. Please look at this very carefully, take your time, and look out r your fellow citizens so that everybody is happy in the end, hopefully. Any questions? ants: Thank you Fred. Sherman: Ok. Rants: Is there anyone now that would like to address the Council? Alright, that being the case we will start. Excuse me, behind you, Fred? Fred Palmer: Yea, my name if Fred Palmer and I live at 13916 42nd Avenue South. I happen to own a piece of land adjacent to this development immediately to the west of it, or pardon me to the south of it, I'm sorry. And I want to reinforce some of the things that have been said, mostly by Mr. Lamb here about the springs. On my land, was an artesian well which was used to sell water to some of the residents in the area. And I just want to warn you that there's water under pressure in that immediate area. And many of those springs originate at the nursery site. And I also, many years ago, had a verbal agreement to buy that property from Mr. DeGrief. And it happened, the agreement occurred one week before he passed away, so I was not able to purchase it. But I am intimately familiar with the way the springs come out of that hillside and these are more than springs that are created by the rain which is going through the surface. You might maybe know about the water sources that are on the west side of Hwy. 99 there, as being the major supply of water to Riverton many years ago. And that type of erupting springs occur on that other property. And if these holes were dug at the time that you're relating to, then I doubt very much whether you'd see it. And my concern would be primarily when they go to make the cuts. That's when you're going to find out. And what I worry about is that this thing has become a very legal interpretation of the ordinance. And I would advise the Council, or recommend, that ey consider flexibility in dealing with this problem. Because I believe you will encounter it when ou go to develop it. And so many issues, if they're just black and white they create problems ter on. One of the other issues I have is with the vegetation around the site. I'm really over all leased with the way the development is laid out. I've witnessed many attempts to develop that /'31 22 erty, and this is one of the best I've seen in many years. I do have the same concerns about t ensity and the safety of the entrance on 42nd Avenue South. I firmly believe that that's going t a major hazard when we do have snow and ice. I would like to see more evergreen trees added to it. I know at the last hearing I recommended this to one of the City officials, and I see there are 16 more trees added and to me that's not enough. It could be very inexpensive to add small size trees to the sensitive area. Not around the homes necessarily. And then one minor thing, is one of the proposed trees is a Sitkas Spruce, and that's very vulnerable to aphids and I suspect that you'll end up with major problems in that tree growing properly. I would recommend a tree such as a giant redwood as having a much more tenacious root system, and one that could produce a very large tree in a very short period of time. Its just a minor issue. Thank you. Rants: Thank you Fred. Would you like to take a break? Ladies and Gentleman, Council has asked for a five minute break. We need a motion? I think so. We're still in a public quasi judicial thing. We need a motion and you do not want to talk to anyone about this topic. Duffie: I make a motion that we go on a five minute break. Rants: Moved and seconded, discussion? All in favor say I. Rants: Let's call the meeting back to order. We're still on our public hearing. The issue is the PRD. And we will listen to the next speaker. Is that Pam? Pam Carter: Do I have to be sworn? Because I wasn't here earlier. t You have to be sworn, yes you do. ertson: Someone get the City attorney? Yea, the swearer. She changed her mind. Rants: Mike you're empowered to do this, will you swear this witness in please? Mike Walters: Do you want to raise your right hand please? Do you swear and affirm that the testimony that you are going to give here tonight is the truth? Carter:: I do. Pam Carter, 4115 S. 139th Street. I'd like to clear up a few points In previous stuff it's been talked, there's been the comment that residents were satisfied with the development because they didn't show up to some of these later meetings. Will, these were publicized as neighborhood meetings. I have noticed for the second meeting, "Foster View Estates informational meeting number two, blah blah blah, at your request the second of two informational meetings will be held to learn about Foster View Estates." Then it tells about where it is located. "If you cannot attend and have questions, feel free to contact..." So it was never publicized as a place for citizens to give their input on the project, it was to learn what was being proposed. In fact it was at that first meeting that we were told that if there were no sensitive areas in this tract, that 58 homes would go, would be allowed on it. Now we're hearing 50. When they said 58 it sounded like the reduction down to 41 homes was quite a large reduction. Much more than the reduction from 50 homes down to 41. There's one other thing that I wanted to mention to clear up, that I had difficulty when I was reading the Planning Commission packet. I wanted to make sure you understood that each lot only one model of home may go on it. I had talked in there about a buyers ability to select from eight different models and that confused me, so I wanted to make sure you understood this as you went along. If you pick lot number 10, its only one model that may go on that. If you pick lot number 27, only one of the models will go on that. You may II elect from a group of models. Like I said, I found it confusing, I didn't know if you did. Slope ility, I still have some questions about that but even if we accept the slope will be stable and "neered. You have all these analysis and reports and on -site engineer, what is there to prevent a meowner from deciding to terrace their property? Later on they want a flat spot in their litp 23 ackyard. The only way to get it is to do some terracing. What effect will this have on the slope? there anything to prevent the homeowner from doing that at a future time? That hasn't been ddressed in any of the materials. Moving on to open space easements, I see you do have something back behind you with the mention area one, two, three and four. It says one of the purposes is to maintain reasonable lot sizes. I don't know how those open space easements maintain reasonable lot sizes. But once again, what protections are there for the future to prevent a homeowner who has one of these easements on their property, from cutting down all the natural vegetation? From terracing it, from doing something else with it. The applicant makes no mention of this in their proposed conditions, covenants, and restrictions. So if they're to serve the purpose of retaining existing vegetation, restricting development, and reducing the potential for erosion, then those CCNR's have to tell how they may be used, or how they may not be used. And who's responsible for maintaining them? This was not included in the recommended conditions. Areas for play and recreation. Now I know they're not required to have separate play area, but that subject was raised at one of the hearings, I don't remember what hearing it was, and the comment was, well the kids can play in the yard or the street. I mean in the sensitive area or the street. Well, the sensitive area really isn't a play area, playing in the street really isn't very safe. Some of the homes, the yards are so steeply sloped you've got a postage stamp in the front and a steeply sloped back yard, they do not fit the character of the surrounding single family neighborhoods where we have yards. We can put the little kids wading pool out, there's a place for that, maybe shoot some hoops. Many of these lots have no suitable area for that at all. Its like a condominium development, where there's no play area for kids, but in a condominium development you would then require a separate play area for adults or children. And this isn't here. Some of them have yards that are so steep they're to be unusable. When we've been looking at them, my husband and I joke, well the kids will have one leg shorter than another other I d r you've got ropes to attach them to the house. They just aren't very usable yards. I wanted to emphasize my concerns about traffic. I heard Fred mention that. I know the site distances are equate, if everyone travels the speed limit, the weather doesn't get cold. But real life you know eople travel faster than that. The road does get icy. It is a problem. This is a road that serves the 34 houses on the interior of the project as well it will be used by people down towards Macadam. So if you do permit this, I hope you require some sort of warning signs or lights and we don't have to wait till there's serious accidents before we get that sort of amenity. Rants: Pam, I'm going to have to interrupt now. Carter: That was my, Rants: We've been working on Carter: On the five minutes. Rants: Well, I've been fudging. Carter: Ok, but we get to come back, right? Rants: Yes, you may. Is there anyone else that wishes to address the Council for the first time? Alright, Nancy do you wish to come back? The name would be satisfactory now, just your name please. Mrs. Lamb: My name is Nancy Lamb. I have some handouts for you that I hope Jane will be able to distribute. I was starting to address the issue of impervious surface. The definition, t cording to TMC is, 'those hard surfaces which prevent or retard the entry of water into the soil the manner that such water entered the soil under natural conditions preexistent to velopment, grading or alteration of the land. Such surfaces include, but are not limited to, roof ps, asphalt or concrete paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, 24 pacted surfaces, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces which similarly effect the natural ation or runoff patterns existing prior to development. TMC 18.46.070(D) says the maximum aunt of impervious surface calculator for the total development allowed on sensitive area sites, will be 50% for each single family development and each multi family development. If the recontoured land here will be compacted and altered to make the development stable on the steep slopes, and if water no longer readily enters or leaves this land, in the manner or patterns that exist today in its natural condition, then the recontoured land is impervious." No more than 50% of the site can be impervious. But already the houses, driveways, streets and sidewalks add up to 31 of the site. Because of all the contouring, cutting and filling, this TMC definition of impervious would apply to most of the buildable area. Sod over an impervious surface doesn't yield a pervious or permeable surface, not on the net look at that. If you build a house with, instead of shingles, a living sod roof like they do in some European countries, your house would still be counted as impervious surface. The rain fall doesn't penetrate what's under the sod and the sod is top dressing. If you built a roadway and then put sod over it, the same definition of impervious would imply. The preexisting natural infiltration or runoff patterns would be altered. Sod or grass on top of a couple inches of loose dirt is superficial treatment, but the basic soil surface of Foster View will effectively be impervious due to yards worth of compaction to try keeping the recontoured hillside stable. Again, the preexisting manner in which water enters the soil, will be retarded by the compaction and that spells impervious. Well, do proponents want Council to forget this technical definition of impervious? But apply their choice of other definitions? They want us to stand by what the definitions and what the TMC says. Where does it say, which TMC definitions get more emphasis than others? Later on when Dujardin gets this land altering permit, which subparagraph of the grading and clearing regulations might they choose to emphasize and which may be ignored? Symbolically buried under 175 yard of fill in the sensitive Again I ask, do proponents feel entitled to choose which section or subparagraph they'll f Or which definition is more applicable? Do their maneuvers have more impact than the ry of residents? Or is it ultimately up to you, the Council, to interpret the legislation and apply 1 h best interest of the community? I'd like to make one more comment based on a question Mr. Robertson asked of Miss Kosterlitz having to do with her memo dated November 24th. asked repeatedly in the time leading up to the November 29 hearing date for the staff report. I was told on November 22, Monday of the week prior to Thanksgiving, for a copy of the staff report, I was told it wasn't ready yet. And a memo was expected from Amy Kosterlitz. I found out later that day that memo had come in and they weren't going to have the staff report ready at least until the next day because they might very well wish to respond to something that Miss Kosterlitz had written. Then on the 24th, her letter is dated, she has already seen the staff report and citizens were not given the staff report when the attorney for the proponent was allowed to see it. Thank you. Rants: Thank you Nancy. Who would like to speak next? Pam? Carter: Pam Carter. I'II finish up mine, I guess I was.messing up the Mic. I was going on to lot size, that's a continuing concern of mine. In my letter that was in your packet, I pointed out the range of lot sizes, but a better statistics is the median size, where half the lots are bigger, half are smaller. Even that is squewed because there's a couple lots that are very large size. And that's why I did the graph that I passed out, to show you how those, the bottom scale is in thousands of feet so its every 500 feet. So it would be lots that are 4,000 to just under 4,500 feet. The next one is 4,500 feet to just under 5,000 etc. etc. And when you look at those lots, remember that they include a total of over 22,000 square feet in easements for public access, utilities and open space. Now these easements add to the lot sizes but these are unusable by the property owners. The easements range from just a 28 square feet, just a piddling amount, to 5,797 square feet. Most of tl i are in the 1,200 to 1,800 square foot range. Interestingly enough, lot 14 the easement area ger than the remaining part of the lot on lot 14 because its got the easement on the north and then to the west for the public access. And these public access easements, they're estrian paths, across peoples property. Who's going to maintain those paths, is it the 25 l omeowner, the homeowner association, the City? That hasn't been addressed. Does it belong the CCNR's? I don't know but I don't see any mention of who maintains those at all. And when ou're talking about lot sizes, even the Planning Commissions recommendation of reducing the project to 31 lots, doesn't address the narrowness of some of the lots. If you look at lot six through 10, the widest is 36 feet wide there at the street. It doesn't get a whole lot wider as it goes back. The narrowest is 291/2 feet across. Picture that. and related to lot size is the lack of on street parking. Now I know they're required to have two off street parking spaces, and they do have that per house. But in the single family neighborhoods usually we have on street parking for overflow guests. And this project has very little. On 137th you'll be able to park on the south side of the street. There's very little legal parking on the little loop street, 43rd and then there's some on the neck of the cul -de -sac. There's only 24 on street legal parking spaces for those 34 homes. Now I'm not counting the homes that access directly onto 42nd. I figured that out by making up, I have real cute little blue cards here that shows where the parking spaces are. There's a couple right here, there's one on this 43rd, there's several along here. That's stretch it, those people have got to drive small cars and park real well to get parallel parked that close together. There's a few here and a couple at the neck. You can't park here because of hydrants, can't park here because of hydrants, can't park here because of hydrants, and then I squeezed in one little spot that I'm not sure is legal, that's a total of 24 spots for people to park other than driveways for 34 homes. And as far as parking for to go into the park this way, you'd have a total of 5 spaces to park in, I mean to park legally. Not parking next to the hydrant or too close to a driveway. So that doesn't really fit in with the character of single family neighborhoods. In fact everything seems cramped about this. I keep coming back to the point I made in my letter, density transfer, waiving minimum lot size sounds real great until you look at this site. I mean this is a worse case scenario. We've got wet ground with springs, we've got steep slopes, we've got sensitive areas, so its real ifficult to cram the maximum number of lots and make it work well, common sense be damned. you told me a hear ago that the City, they'd be putting allowing 41 lots on there, I would have aid you're crazy, Tukwila has high standards. There's a lot more common, you know, this ouldn't happen because we're very careful about how things are done in this city. So I'm just surprised that this has happened this far, that it's, with the 41 lots. It's not that it shouldn't be homes, I mean I agree it'd be nice to be a park, it isn't, it's privately owned. Homes is what its zoned for. But I'm concerned about the access onto the street and the density of that many homes. Thank you. Rants: Thank you Pam. Mr. Lamb? Mr. Lamb: Ron Lamb, part two. Road widths. The streets are substandard in width. 43rd pavement width is 20 feet, the right -of -way is 30 feet. The 137th street pavement width and right of -way is 28 feet. According to Tukwila Municipal Code, 17.24.040 A local public street must have at least 50 feet of right -of -way and 30 feet of pavement width. An alley can have only 20 feet of right -of -way and 15 feet of pavement width. But as an alley, as defined in TMC 17.04.040, can serve only as a secondary means of access to abutting property. 43rd Place serves as a primary means of access to ten houses, not the six houses stated by Ron Cameron before the Planning Commission. Mr. Cameron also told the Planning Commission that 43rd Place will be one way, but that isn't reflected in the Staff recommendations or on the site plan. And TMC does not make distinction between one way and two way streets and its street width requirements. Robertson: Pardon me Ron, are you going to give us a copy of that? Mr. Lamb: Yes I will when I'm done. I've summarized some so you'll get the complete report. Other issues. Please take a look at the triangular parcel east of 44th Avenue that will be dedicated i i the City. The red triangle up there. I can see the benefits of the developer of getting rid of the nd that he can't develop. But what is the benefit to the City? What can the City use this small olated parcel for and how will the City maintain it? Now please look at the sidewalk on the east de of the property along 44th Avenue, in the red there's a sidewalk that runs through there. The 26 p slope would make this sidewalk dangerous in the fall when covered with wet leaves from the e overhanging trees and in the winter when ice would remain on it because it is in the shade. why isn't it a wetland? The dedicated wetland of tract A ends at the property line. But in reality do wetlands observe property lines? Is this sidewalk an essential service that qualifies it to cross a wetland? No, its not an essential essential according to the definition in TMC 18.45.080 C3. Further more, why is that 30 foot strip being dedicated to the City? What does the City need it for? Next, please note the two shared driveways on 42nd serving four houses. Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35. As I spoke before the Planning Commission, I am still concerned about shared driveways particularly on a busy street like 42nd. I would also refer you to my comments about the need to demonstrate some type of public benefit. The PRD application calls it extraordinary public benefit. The developer has not met that criteria. If you'll look at the recommendation from the Planning Commission, you'll find that it comes to you with only three members voting in favor of the recommendation out of a seven member board. To my calculations, that is not a majority. And in particular, I'd like you to take a look at the comments from one the one Planning Commission member that voted against the proposal, Mr. Hagerton, who stressed deep concern about the issues of slope instability and springs. He said that it seemed that he was more concerned about those issues than Staff was. Unlike the SEPA hearing, the burden of proof is no longer on the citizens. The burden of proof is on the developer. Further, the City Council has the responsibility to challenge Staff, City Staff opinions because City Staff has developed the pattern of waiving requirements, postponing the answers to critical and interpreting ordinances and requirements to the developers benefit. Here are some of the things the City has waived, postponed and interpreted to the developers benefit. Waived the environmental impact statement process, choosing to use a mitigated determination of non significance instead. Waived the minimum street width requirements, waived the left turn land on 42nd Avenue, allowed the roadway struction in a sensitive area, allowed the wetlands area to be reduced by eliminating the finger, h my wife spoke about, on the west side in the vicinity of lots 30 and 31. Allowed the iminary plat to proceed before the SEPA appeal was heard. Allowed for removal of natural erstory and tree clearing, including cedars and other significant trees. Postponed the required s nsitive area maintenance plan. Postponed getting answers to questions about springs. Postponed getting the answers to questions about slope instability. Postponed getting the answers to questions about whether the proposed drainage plan is adequate. Postponed getting the answer to the question of who will maintain the sensitive area. Postponed getting the answer to the question of public access to the sensitive area required by TMC 18.45.08005. Postponed the required enhancement or replacement of the sensitive areas so that was quote, no net loss, as is stated in TMC. Interpreted the definition of buildable, which is the basis of the formula to determine density, with the Foster View project in mind, if you will note in the developers attorney's letters. 1 would also point out that if the City Council approves the preliminary plat before we have answers to these key questions about slides and springs, it will be up to City staff who hasn't paid enough care and attention to the project so far, to be responsible for overseeing the project and assuring that things are done right. The DCD director could issue the remaining permits and neither the City Council nor the citizens would have any more say in the manner. Rants: Ron, that's five minutes. Scarber: JaneIle Scarber. With the help of a friend and neighbor, we can vest wide ranging areas of Tukwila, Foster, Riverton, Thorndike and old Tukwila with a synopsis of the proposed development and whether they approved or disapproved of the density etc. I will testify that we've presented only a brief understanding with no attempt to elicit a response. Either way the overwhelming majority was against allowing a development at the FosterView site. Of the 109 homes canvased, 102 signed our petition, which I'd like to put in as an exhibit. It has been stated he developer that the small number of residents who had spoken out at meetings and rings indicates the majority of residents approve of the development. And /or are in ement. Due to lack of time and manpower, we weren't able to visit every property in Tukwila, if you look at the consecutiveness of the addresses on each page, which represent a different 27 1 i treet and area of Tukwila, you will note that almost every resident signed our petition. Examine e lists and addresses. They speak for themselves. I'd like to go on record so I don't take up me, that my husband and I are in full agreement with what Ron stated about the different things that have been mitigated and put off as far as this development. I'm trying to cut this short. We also ask for a peer review of the City's environmental check list and to the applicants counter part of it. And the Audubon Society gave us the name of a person who went to the site and did environmental checklist. He has a degree from Western Washington in environmental science and ecology with considerable knowledge of hydrology and water resources. As we've said before, that you can have five different people do one of these and they would all come out a little bit different. My husband and I attended a sensitive areas workshop and it was put on by King County and as there are currently no specific State guidelines or certification required, we could ourselves at this point, qualify to do an environmental checklist. I also wanted to mention, Edward Lendstrom's letter that's in your packet from July 10th of 93. It's very interesting that he also states that there are seven springs in the area. The red strip up there at the south end on 43rd, 44th, every map that we have seen it says that that area of 43rd, 44th is a 60 foot access right now. So there's nothing for the developer to give the City when the City already owns it. That seems rather erroneous. We're also wondering about the right -of -way area on 42nd. Looking at the maps that the public works department had at an informational meeting, it shows the right of way on 42nd being a little bit strange. Its not so much on each side, it varies depending on where it is. And there, if you look at that map there is, that drawing there, the area that the developer plans on using for the driveways for the four houses on the very southwest corner, are going to be, the "Y" of them are going to be on what is already right now City right -of -way. And they plan on clear cutting that area also. And that seems like that's using a citizens right -of -ways for something that they don't own. I guess that's it. I ants: Thank you Janelle. almer: I'm Fred Palmer again. I just want to add one other point. Obviously there's been give and take, and I have to assume that possibly the project will be built at some level that may yet to be determined. But one of the surest ways to keep people honest is for the City to require bonds that go beyond what, when the developer moves away from a project, and I specifically would urge that in connection with drainage and with the livability of all the green material that's put on that site. A one year guarantee is normal, and should be acceptable. But the bond, in other words, if the City is going to give in on a number of these issues, I think its only fair that the developers give back something in assurances that its going to do what is promised. And if something goes wrong, that they will take care of corrective action. And in particular for the homeowner that moves in to one of those homes and does develop problems, that it will be solved. I've been in other developments, we can cure a lot of problems with proper landscaping. But I've been in the middle of where builders and residents are arguing about who's responsible to make repairs to a drainage system that was all engineered ahead of time but didn't exactly work out the way it was planned. Thanks. Rants: Thank you Fred. Anything else? We move over to the applicants? Sherman: Fred Sherman again on behalf of myself and Marjorie Cargo. We also ask that you look very carefully into the items that Ron Lamb mentioned. The mitigated, postponed, requirements and that sort of thing. That's a comment I didn't mention but I would like to put our comment down that. And look carefully into the comment of Mr. Lamb extraordinary public benefit I thought something. In regards to the large number of lots. Thank you. te ants: Mr. Lamb? Go ahead, I'm just trying to determine the process. r. Lamb: Ron Lamb, I will finish this time. The developer's attorney and City Staff are trying to ad you to believe that your hands are tied. That you must acquiesce to some magical density 28 us formula regardless of the conditions of the site. They're trying to lead you to believe that same formula should apply on this steep, unstable, wet hillside as would apply on a level dry cel. That not only doesn't make sense, that's wrong. The PRD ordinance says, you have a much greater responsibility. The intent of the PRD ordinance, which is stated quite clearly, is to achieve creativity of design, not cram as many houses as possible onto a steep, unstable, wet hillside. The developer's attorney and City Staff are contending that the planning commission had no authority to reduce the density even by two lots. That may be true. Cohen: Excuse me, I need to interject. Everyone was going to get an opportunity for rebuttal but not second rebuttals. If I'm not correct, you had already used up your five minute rebuttal period and then went over a little bit and were going to submit the balance of your remarks. Mr. Lamb: My understanding is that we could complete our statements. Rants: The understanding was that there would be a second time around. And we've done that. Does the Council, I'II leave it up to the Council. Do you wish to start a third round here? Hernandez: I'd like to have him finish his train of thought. It's just kind of hard to have all these interruptions. If he could just finish the topic that he's on, it would be more helpful to me then having so many interruptions. Robertson: Will that, if I understand the issue, there's two issues here. Is the second and third time considered rebuttal or is that just considered a continuation of the original statement? en: It's my understanding that there are statements and there are rebuttal periods. And the people who were appellants before Mr. Lamb had used that time, was my understanding, the City has not had their opportunity for rebuttal nor has the applicant at this point. Rants: I would say that we are completing a statement. I know that Mr. Lamb had a long time that he wished to speak and we are completing the statement. But we need to, we will have to give the same courtesy back on the other side when we begin to listen to that. Is that satisfactory? Robertson: Will I would say if you, if we go, I think that would only be fair but then we have to ensure that if the other side presents more original presentation that is not a rebuttal. We are not into a rebuttal point at this. Rants: We have not been rebuttal at this point, its been just a statement. And because some of them had more of a statement than five minutes worth, it has taken a little longer. Would you do it as Councilmember Joe Duffie: If we, like right now the time is right now is 2200. In five minutes its going to be 10:00. Rants: Just excuse me a minute here, I don't want to get into legal trouble. Mr. Lamb: Excuse me, I'll solve the problem, I'II submit it in writing. Rants: Thank you Ron, I appreciate that. We have ten minutes yet Joe. i f ie: I just want to make sure, is that going to be enough time for them? 1 o ants: It will not be but I believe on our next time that we would open with them. I would e to take this ten minutes for the City, and on the next day come back and, is that alright with u Amy? Kosterlitz: Yes. 29 ig -I 7 Rants: That we open with you then in rebuttal? Rick? Robertson: While Rick's getting prepared, I would like to answer a question I posed of him. I did look in the transcripts that you provided us of the meetings, and we did refer to R1 area and discuss it as part of the density transfer credits. So, its in the very first set, the November 13th 1990 transcripts. We discussed R1 as well as R2 and R3 for density transfers. Rants: Is there anything you wish to say at this time Rick? Beeler: Gary Schultz would like to talk about 2183 issues. Robertson: Is this rebuttal stage? Rants: We are not in rebuttal. This is no... Beeler: This is, I thought this was we were using the ten minutes tonight to 2194 is that correct? _ants: It is not my understanding that we did that at the beginning with your fifteen minutes nd their fifteen minutes. We've now listened to the citizens and now its time to begin a rebuttal rogram. Am I, go ahead say... ohen: Will what has basically happened is that there's been an hour and a half on one side, then the applicant has basically had 15. So it, the Council proceeds how it likes. I thought that the understanding at the beginning was that they had each gotten five minutes and then an additional five minutes for rebuttal, applicant 15 minutes and then five minutes for rebuttal and the same with the City. I may have misinterpreted. I thought those were the ground rules that were set. Robertson: Can I read from the... "ohen: We can either break it or we can finish it. Rants: I'm going to suggest that we hold all rebuttals and all comments to the next meeting if that's alright. Its only six minutes and I would just assume do that and get some better direction and... Robertson: You are really alright. According to the public hearing rules that we have here, after speaking of citizens, they get five minutes, then it goes on to say after speak has spoken the Council may question speaker. No one may speak a second time until everyone wishing to speak has spoken. So there is no reason to presume that as long as the citizens want to speak they can keep speaking and using time as long as they only do it in five minute increments. Rants: That's right. That does break a chain of thought but if you're going to get to everyone. I need legal advise here. Are we alright to break it at this point and begin at the next date that we set? ants: We're alright here, we're alright as far as the city's concerned, I think I will ask for a otion to continue the public hearing and then we'll determine a date. 30 ertson: Do we need the date as part of the motion? Rants: We should have. Robertson: Let's pick a date first. Lawrence: I would prefer to do it this week and get this over with. And I would suggest, now is Wednesday excluded at one point, I'm curious, are there objections to Wednesday? Rick, what's the problem with Staff? Beeler: It's not the problem with Staff, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold public hearings in this room. Rants: On Wednesday. Beeler: On Wednesday night. They need the room for the public hearing transcripts and tape recording procedures. Rants: We also need this room for transcripts. Lawrence: How about Thursday? (discussion among Council) Lawrence: How about Friday night? (discussion among Council) r The Planning Commissions hearing be postponed? ts: That's a public hearing isn't it? Ekbera: We've done that before. Rants: Did we advertise the public hearing for the Planning Commission? Citv Clerk: I'm sure we did. Robertson: I would prefer that we schedule it for either Thursday or Friday. Thursday's not available, correct? Duffie: No Wednesday. Cause I was thinking, when's that park dinner? That's tomorrow? Robertson: I prefer that we schedule it Thursday or Friday. Rants: The 9th or the 10th. Robertson: I move that we take a five minute break while we discuss. Rants: Is there a second? Ekberg, Second. R t s: Moved and seconded take a five minute break and come back and set the date. All i or say "aye (unanimous response). Those opposed: (no response) Break 10 p.m. 1 o'? ffie: The park commission dinner be rescheduled? 31 ffie: I solve this, I make a motion that we cancel the meeting and continue on with this ight, let's go. Rants: Is there a second? Robertson: You don't have anything on the table? Ok. Lawrence: I'II make a motion we continue this for one more hour, the public hearing and then we'll extend the meeting to do our other business after that and we'll try very hard to get all public testimony in that one hour. At least we'll alleviate some of the conflicts. Robertson: In opposition to that, Rants: We don't have a second yet. Hernandez: Can I clarify your motion? Is your intention to deal with the rest of the business on the agenda tonight then after the public testimony? Lawrence: Yes. There's a timely issue on there. Rants: Yes, its my concern also. Ekberg: There was one evening I believe that Council was free and staff was free except Linda wouldn't be here. But Mike possibly could be, we would have one representative of legal uncil. Would we okay with that, comfortable with that? rnandez: What day was that? The 10th? Ekberg: Linda, what day do you fly out? Cohen: This Friday. Rants: I'm going to make a suggestion that we go to the 20th which is a regularly scheduled. Rants: We couldn't do that because you weren't going to be here. Hernandez: I think the best proposal is that we just continue this evening. I would rather see us move the rest of the business to the next regular meeting. Lawrence: It's a moratorium that's the problem. Robertson: The difficulty I have with continuing tonight on this is I do not think there's time to listen to the rebuttals and make a decision. So we are going to have to continue it anyway. That's now, second thing is, there is another issue on the agenda that has a timeliness associated with it. And plus it also has people that are here to speak on it. So it, I think has the same. I think somewhere along the line we're going to have to pick a night and someone may not be here. But that's possible, that was possible tonight. awrence: We ruled out tomorrow because of the Park Commission dinner. Can that be scheduled? i q 1 I H L ence: I mean we have a serious conflict here, this is a lot more important than a dinner. andez: Yea, I would to. If the Mayor can make our apologies to the park director. Lawrence: Or else have an early dinner. Robertson: Can I make a point, after we finish all of the testimony, I would appreciate at least one night, preferably several nights myself to reflect on the material and look at it. So rushing to do it his week doesn't allow me to have time to study the issues and I want to. There's been a lot of information presented. Mullet: Dennis I agree with you, but don't mind continuing the hearing tomorrow night and getting all the testimony out of the way. Mullet: But I still would want time to reflect on that. Robertson: Ok, if we heard all the testimony, then it wouldn't matter if witnesses wouldn't be here, is that correct? Rants: Correct. Robertson: I'd go for that. Rants: The requested a half an hour, then you have rebuttals from the other side. rtson: I make a motion that we continue the meeting tomorrow night for the purpose of c leting testimony and rebuttals. L ence: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded, discussion? Robertson: 8:00 pm. Dinner will be over with by then. 32 Rants: All in favor say "aye (unanimous response). Those opposed? (no response). O.K., 8:OOpm tomorrow night. Robertson: Before we move ahead, should we set a time for the discussion and decision? We need to schedule a time, at that point we wouldn't have to worry about anybody being I would think other than Staff and the City attorney's. (More discussion- everybody talking at once) Robertson: I make a motion that we continue, that motion was for testimony and rebuttals. I make a motion that we continue the meeting on to the 20th, December 20th, for discussion and findings. Regular time, 7:00 pm. Lawrence: Second Rants: Moved and seconded to place on the agenda for the 20th discussion and findings, d ssion here? All in favor say "aye (unanimous response). Opposed? (no response). So, t rrow night at 8:00 for continuing the rebuttal and on the 20th for discussion and findings. j�� 1 Rants: ...citizens... Tukwila City Council Continuation of Foster View PRDd /Subdivision Hearing December 7, 1993 1 Mayor Rants: Council would like to talk a minute about process this evening. It's been recommended by the City Attorney and by staff. The staff would go first tonight and finish their presentation as they have to come. Then we would open it to citizens comments and complete that issue for new testimony or anything that's incomplete that citizens would be able to say. And then go to the applicant for the completion and rebuttal. Is that satisfactory with Council this evening? Councilmember Allan Ekberg: I didn't follow all of that. The staff would present... Ekberg: ...for new or incomplete... Rants: Yes. And question from the Council. And then citizens. And the applicant would be the final- -the burden of proof rests with the applicant tonight -and the rebuttal and the final testimony from the applicant. Councilmember Steve Lawrence: You included a rebuttal time for citizens, too, then? You said for new or incomplete. a nts: For...no, I just said -yes, I said for testimony which is new or was not given last night. wrence: It's just awkward. Rants: You find that awkward? Lawrence: Help us out. Linda Cohen, City Attorney: O.K. I believe the citizens had in total an hour and a half last night and the applicant had 15 minutes as did the staff. The staff could both finish up and use their- -it's my understanding that they're going to be using a portion of time tonight for whatever remarks that they have plus rebuttal. That citizens will be able to use their time for rebuttal. And that the applicant with finish its remarks and rebuttal included all in one in order to accommodate Council and expedite the process. That way everyone has an opportunity to say whatever it is they need to say to the Council. And since the applicant has the burden, they have the opportunity to respond last. Rants: Is that satisfactory? Ekberg: Do we have time associated with these? Rants: I would prefer not to time tonight. Last night I felt like I was more of a timekeeper than anything else, and I would prefer not to do that. I would just caution that everybody make sure that the information they have is not already on the record. That they are talking of new things that they wish to have on the record. ohen: And I would just ask that they be pertinent to this particular hearing and not re -open e MDNS and the SEPA appeal. E .r Is there rebuttals to the rebuttal? How long can we continue? Ro ertson: One set of rebuttals, I would presume. Rants: One set is what I would assume, and that's why it's laid out that staff will have theirs, and then the citizens can talk on the rebuttal of whatever the staff has said, what the applicant has said, and the applicant also has the opportunity for rebuttal at the end. Cohen: I think you can think of it tonight as being rebuttal for each of the parties since the staff and the applicants were cut short yesterday. The suggestion is to give them a little bit more flexibility and leeway in their presentation in case they have some information that they weren't able to present yesterday, and they need to today. Ekberg: Does the audience understand that? (audience indicates "no O.K. Could you, Linda, draw this discussion on that piece of paper over there and steps 1 through 3, 4, 5. Who speaks first, who speaks second, who speaks third. Cohen: Staff goes first... Ekberg: Could you write it down on that piece of paper, because I don't want any confusions like we had last night. That's what we're trying to achieve here -no confusions. Ra ts: My interest in not timing this evening is to be sure that we've covered the process tl ughly. That the citizens and the applicant have had ample opportunity to address the it and to say the things that are on their mind I was not pleased, as Joan said last night, nterrupting you in five or six minutes, but it is the way the TMC is spelled out and that's w�f I adhered to. Tonight I think a little more flexibility, and I also think we will stay here tonight until this testimony is completed. Robertson: Wally, could I suggest you ask the staff, the applicant, and the citizens if they have any difficulty with the procedure for tonight. Rants: Is there anyone that has any difficulty with this procedure? (response) Mr. Lamb? Ron Lamb, 4251 So. 139th: I'd like to get some clarification on the time limits for staff and applicant. I'm hearing several different things here. That's there's going to be time added for theirs -I would point out that each of the citizen's comments were limited to five minutes. Some of us were able to get up for an additional five minutes, which is a total of 10 minutes. I would like to know that everyone is operating under the same guidelines and ground rules. Thank you. Cohen: I might just inquire how much time do you think you're going to require, Mr. Lamb? Lamb: Me, personally? Cohen: Yes. Lamb: Probably not much. C n: Which is? Less than five minutes. 2 kbere: All right. Well, I'll ask these guys- -what do you think would be reasonable for this vening's presentations? Rick, go ahead, tell me. How much time do you need? 3 la ohen: Oh, I'm sure that that would be accommodated. mb: I'm asking about staff and applicant time. Cohen: It was my understanding that everyone was going to have an opportunity to say what they needed to say tonight. Rants: That was my intent. To allow it to be completed. Without a time limit on you or a time limit on the staff. I have a rough idea of how much time the staff will need and a rough idea of what the applicant has asked for. Lamb: I would like us to operate under the same ground rules as we operated under here last night if you don't mind. We came prepared with those ground rules in mind and I'd like to see if we can observe them. Rants: Linda, were you waving at me or... Cohen: If you'd like me to comment on that, I'd more more than happy to. Robertson: Well, let's propose a different set then. Lawrence: I think it's probably a moot point. (to applicant) Are you going to go over a half an hour. Is that what was promised you last night? ian Kosterlitz. Attorney for Applicant: No, no. wrence: O.K., are you going to go over a half an hour? (staff indicated "no Cohen: I think it's very important that we have a complete record. Everyone has an opportunity to say what they need to say. If Mr. Lamb needs to speak for more than five minutes, he'll be granted that. But the record needs to be made. Rants: That is what I was endeavoring to spell out this time, that if Mr. Lamb wanted more than five minutes, he was going to be welcome to do that. Ekberg: And I concur that they should have as much time as possible, but for my information, according to our TMC, is there specific time periods set aside for rebuttal? Cohen: No, because under our TMC they refer to this hearing as a public hearing, but clearly this is not a "typical" public hearing. It's a quasi-judicial hearing. You have an applicant that -an developer that has something at stake that has a specific interest there. It's most definitely quasi-judicial. A record needs to be made. They need to be able to tell Council.... Ekberg: So what you're telling me is that the time limits we applied yesterday weren't really applicable in this case. Cohen: They were applicable because you voted that's what would be reasonable under the circumstances. Whatever you found to be reasonable as long as everyone was able to express themselves. There's no magical number to tell Council. Whate 'er you found was reasonable would have been sufficient. Beeler. DCD Director: I think we need -we intend to be as brief as possible. There's four to speak and we hope to stay within the 30 minute timeframe. Not because we think we need more time, but we think we can get our points in- -the points we didn't get presented last night. Robertson: O.K., could I ask Mr. Lamb? If they stayed within- -and any other citizen or person -if staff stayed within 30 minutes, if the applicant stayed within 30 minutes of their presentations, and you were allowed -five minutes a Rants: As much time as they need. We should do that. Robertson: Would that -as much time as you need. Would you be satisfied? Lamb: I'll state again that I would like to stick with the ground rules that were laid out last night. There are a number of people, as you probably noticed, who aren't here tonight, who were here last night, who were given those strict five minute limits Ekberg: Ron -Ron, I'm trying to get to conclusion on this. What is your understanding of the ground rules- -your perspective? Lamb: Five minutes. Ekberg: Each party would have five minutes. Yea. ence: We need to get on with this. Last night when we left, they were told a hall an hour w we left because I didn't know if I'd be chairing this or not so I was trying to remember what was told. And they were told a half an hour. So we need to get on with it, I think. Rants: That's right. Is the Council satisfied with what we've done that we can go on with this. The citizens be allowed to talk as much as they need to or as much as they have a desire to. Steve? Councilmember Steve Mullet: I would like to hear what needs to be said. I think the citizens said what they needed to say last night. Whether it was in five minutes or 10 minutes, it was a little disjointed if they had to come back twice, but I think they got in what they wanted to say. I would like to hear what the staff has to say and I'd like to hear what the applicant has to say. And I'm willing to sit here to Christmas if that's what it takes. Rants: And they'll still have an opportunity for citizens to say anything new this evening. Alright. Joan? Councilmember Joan Hernandez: I agree. Lawrence: Let's go. Rants: Dennis? rtson: I also agree. I would like to point out, however, that this is a continuation of it. I nderstand the citizens concerns in having their presentations broken up into five minute ns where they had to come back. We started out with a set of rules last night. We asked embody to follow it. Near the end -and we followed the rules reasonably well last night. They were written in the back of the packet. Tonight we're changing them. We did warn that we 4 Robertson: I have also. Rants: ...which is four... 5 Ou ould change them at the end of last night, so I'm comfortable doing it. I also understand their stration with the process where the rules appear to change on them from night to night. And apologize for that. I would think next time we do this, we must endeavor to be a little bit more consistent. Rants: The effort tonight is to allow the testimony to be completed for the Council's benefit. So that folks have an opportunity to talk for the Council's benefit. It is a suggested format that I've put in front of the Council and at this point three Council people have agreed with it. And I think you have, also.... Robertson:...five, you've got five agreed. Rants: I have five agree? Then let us begin. I would remind everyone that was sworn in last night that they are still under oath this evening. I do not need to hit the gavel because the public hearing is now resumed. (8:20 p.m.) And the first testimony then from Mr. Beeler and staff. Rick Beeler. DCD Director: Good evening. There will be four of us testifying. Myself, followed by Denni Shefrin, then Gary Schulz, the Urban Environmentalist, then Ron Cameron, the City Engineer. First, I'd like to just enter into the record some general comments and then some lg ecific ones. First, regarding the process. I'd like to remind the Council again that this is a RD -a preliminary plat and a boundary line adjustment that were submitted to some very orous staff review and peer review because of the TPO and the SAO requirements. This is e first really large project where those two requirements- -those two ordinances were involved in a single family sub division. Staff's role in that review was to provide the information and comments on those processes towards meeting the requirements of all the ordinances. No ordinance requirements were waived. All procedures were followed, and all of this was not a quick process. This took two plus years for us to do to get it to the point where the staff professionals were satisfied that this was -that the proposal complied with all the ordinance requirements in order to advance it to the Planning Commission and to the Council. The test of these applications have been read to you by the city attorney last night. I'm not going to repeat them other than just for point of clarification that demonstration of a public benefit, a (quote) "public benefit is not required That was stricken by the SAO Ordinance from the Planned Residential Development Ordinance. I'd like to enter into the record at this time Denni, would you distribute my memo -the one that was requested last night -my memo of November 23rd. I think it was referred to 24th; it's actually November 23rd. That was addressed to the Council. That was the one that you asked Amy Kosterlitz to provide. I'm providing it to you now, and I'd like to just briefly explain why that memo -why that happened. Robertson: I would point out that the request was made of Miss Kosterlitz because she referenced it in her -in her document. O.K.? (conversation in background) I just wanted to say the request was made of her and it doesn't in any way change yours. If you want to add something now, that's fine. The request was not made of you. Beeler: I understand. As I said, it was not -you requested it of Amy Kosterlitz. I'm providing a I 's opy since I generated the memo. This staff report was prepared for the prepared November th public hearing as part of the normal council packet. That packet was ready to be tributed and the applicant requested a copy which we provided as we would to anyone questing it. However, later that day, it was decided to postpone the public hearing to ecember 6th. Therefore, I withdrew that memo and so notified the applicant, and copies were 6 ln istributed any further. I used the additional week in preparation of the December 6th i g to prepare my December 1 memorandum to you which is the one that came forward to you in the packet for last night's public hearing. During that week I reviewed the memo and added the introductory paragraph regarding vesting, comments regarding the Vision Tukwila and vesting, calculations of the PRD minimum lot size, and the recommendation. I just used the additional time for additional thought and supplemented that additional memo of November 23rd. And that's the story on why you have two memos. Robertson: November 23rd was a Wednesday? Beeler: I don't have my calendar. Tuesday or Wednesday. Robertson: It was Tuesday. And what day was it decided not to distribute the -to cancel the meeting and not distribute it? Beeler: I think it was that day. I think it was that afternoon, the best of my recollection. I understand the concerns of the neighborhood which they have very clearly and very strongly stated regarding these applications. I hope that everyone understands that staff is constrained, as is the Council, to applying the adopted ordinances and procedures of Tukwila and state law. Land use decisions are balancing under legal requirements of the Public Interest in Private Property Rights. I feel we have appropriately struck that balance on this complex property with complex applications. Therefore, staff continues to recommend approval of the applications for the 41 lots subject to the conditions 4 through 12 in my report of December 1. That c ludes my introductory remarks, and now I'd like to call Denni Shefrin. i Shefrin. Associate Planner: Good evening. I'm Denni Shefrin, the associate planner and ct manager for this project. I'm only going to address three points that were raised last m t. The first point being the issue of lot areas relative to the easement, and how one goes about calculating those areas and how they take into consideration easements. It's very common for lot areas to include in their area calculations utility easements, and in particular, the issue that was brought to question last night were those lots were there's an easement adjacent to Lots 1 -12. There is a 35 foot wide utility easement directly north and actually at the rear of those particular lots. And, again, it is very common for lot areas to include easements. My second point relates to the PRD provisions as it pertains to landscaping and site treatment on hillsides. The PRD states that after grading is completed, that there be a minimum landscape coverage of 25 percent of structures for slopes and side yard buffers shown from off site perspectives. If you'll look at the landscape plan, which is behind you -and I'll be happy to go up and -if you need me -to be a little more specific. Vegetation is going to be retained within the sensitive areas, I guess specifically, wetlands, watercourses, and the related buffers. You'll also note that the blue line above the landscape plan, the colored landscape plan, shows an additional four areas which are going to be set out and retained in open space easements. Those areas highlight additional vegetation which will not be disturbed as part of construction. The intent of retaining those areas is obvious in the sense that to retain existing landscaping as well as to provide a visual buffer to adjacent areas off -site. And the third point that I wanted to raise is that where the PRD requires that streets, roads are perpendicular to slopes and ridges, that there be landscaped medians. This site does not propose any roadways that would be perpendicular or that would intersect ridges or sloped areas. In essence, the roadways are- follow the contours of the existing topography to the greatest extent possible. And that concludes my comments. If you've got any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. ts: Do you wish to speak to each one or do wish to wait until the staff has completed their c ents. Robertsr:n: I think I'll speak to each one. 7 ernandez: I have some questions, and I don't know if this is the time to ask them or not, but I eed to point to some areas on the map. I can say this first. There was testimony from some of the adjoining property owners whether they would have access from the south, so I just wanted to ask a question. I think you can hear me from there. Is it my understanding that this (referencing a point on Exhibit 2) would remain open to them to have access? Shefrin: Yes, that would remain open. Hernandez: And one of the other questions was I recall in testimony, but I don't recall reading it, that there was some mention of -I believe it was this street (Exhibit 5) possibly being a one way street. Could you clarify that? Shefrin: Yes, that's correct. It would be one -way from north to south. And I do apologize, that was inadvertently omitted from the staff report, but that is correct. Hernandez: And so there was parking proposed on one side only. So what side would that be? Shefrin: I think Ron will have to address that. By the way, parking is also allowed on driveways. Each of the residence proposes a two car garage. So in essence, on site each lot would provide four off street parking spaces. Hernandez: And what was the width of this street compared to the width of this street? hefrin: I'd have to take a scale. Ron might know off -hand as well. I don't -I want to say 20 et, but I'd need to take a scale to be certain. ernandez: O.K., those are my questions. Robertson: Denni, if I understand what you said, the vegetation coverage portion requirement of the PRD for 25 percent and whatever -you say is met by the trees that will be left in the open space areas? Shefrin: In essence, 45 percent of the existing vegetation will be retained. What the PRD states, is that 25 percent of the coverage of structures needs to be retained in vegetation. That is as I just stated as per the -well, the TPO also requires a minimum of 20 percent of canopy coverage. But what we have here is. a 45 percent tree canopy coverage. Robertson: But that's for the canopy coverage. But there's another portion in the PRD that requires that 25 percent of the vertical side of the building be required be covered at the time of occupancy? Shefrin: That's not how in essence we interpret the code. It talks about -what we're interpreting it is canopy coverage. And you'll also notice, too, that we're requiring landscaping along each of the street frontages as well as on each of the lots. And I failed to point out, too,, that on sloped portions of the site along side property lines. Those areas would also be vegetated. Robertson: I'm sorry. I'm -let me read something to you. I'm puzzled.. As soon as I find it. This is different than the- er nandez: M aybe I c ould ask another question that I thought of. What was the significance of eding the small triangle portion to the City? )/7/5 Rants: O.K. We'll go back to Mr. Robertson. Are you ready? Robertson: Yes, but I want to follow up on that question. You talk a little faster than I can hear. The street vacation portion -is that included in the total site area of the lot, in the calculation or not? Shefrin: Yes. Robertson: It is. At this point. Has that been approved or.... Shefrin: The street vacation has -are you asking whether the street vacation has been approved? Robertson: Yea. 8 Ip ion _'n: It was something that the developer agreed to do. We didn't see that it served any to retain as the subdivision. So it was something that was agreed to. That portion as well as the portion south, adjacent to the right -of -way which you can also see is of the same color. And the City accepted it as a trade. In essence, part of the proposal includes a street vacation which is directly north of the cul -de -sac bulb. So, part of the criteria- -and I understand that the resolution's been passed for the street vacation -is to look at some way to obtain some sort of trade for land area. rin: No, it has not. rtson: Second question -then come back to my original point. On 18.46.060 (1) This is .cape and site treatment for sites of Class II, III, and IV. Geological Hazard Areas. Downslope and side yard buffers. Elevations and off -site perspectives should show minimum landscape coverage of 25 percent of the structure at the time of project completion with anticipated 40 percent coverage within 15 years. This standard may supplement or be in lieu of the applicable landscape yard requirement. This is -my understanding when this was written -is it's not coverage of vertical, it's a coverage of the side of the building. The basic feeling behind this, at least my interpretation, is that the -any property or development on a hillside not only has a view, it is part of the view. So the intention was to leave -to leave coverage of the buildings themselves, so they didn't stand out nakedly to the extent that say the apartments do on the south face here of the City. You read that differently, then? Shefrin: Yea. Let me walk up and point out to you how we interpreted this section of the Code. Robertson: I don't know what they did with it. Shefrin: I agree. This is a confusing section. The way we have interpreted the section is providing landscaping along the sloped portions of the site -of each of the lots, I should say. And that's what you see here shaded in kind of a grey -green color. We have interpreted the ordinance to read that there needs to be landscaping adjacent to the structure against the structure. That's something I'm sure that we can work out with the landscape architect, but that is not how we've interpreted the Code. When we talk about off -site perspectives, we're looking at .gain, the opportunity to retain landscaping around a majority of the perimeter of the site. again, that s something we would achieve by looking at retaining these areas, Area 1 and 2 in particular in an open space easement. ertson: O.K., then, I take it that at this point, you don't know since it wasn't included as part of the design whether or not down- sloped that's view of the property from -of the 9 ic velopment- -from down -slope and side, development view of a particular building or the operty from the side, whether or not that that -25 percent of that is covered at the time of cupancy or 40 percent within 15 years. You have no knowledge- -you have no way of knowing at this point whether it is or is not because that wasn't part of the way that the PRD was put together? Shefrin: Well, again, I'm having even a difficult time understanding your question. Can you re- phrase it? Robertson: Sure. My understanding of this is if you take any building here, the intention was at time of occupancy, view of this particular building, 25 percent of it from down -slope looking up at a building, or from the side looking at it, would be obscured by vegetation -25 percent at time of occupancy, 40 percent at 15 years. That's my understanding when we created this ordinance. And if I understand your answer, is that that was not incorporated in the design at this point. It may or may not be true right now, you simply don't know. Shefrin: We don't know. That's correct. Robertson: O.K. Thank you. Cohen: Denni, has that exhibit been marked so that you can report this in the record. Rants: Exhibit 2. obertson: And 5. eeler: I would only add that the -a lot of the down- sloped property includes the wetlands and e watercourse buffer there, I think, which would, especially for several of those lots, meet that requirement. And some of the angles, some of the existing vegetation between the houses would do it, too. I think there's some trees out on the front along the street. Robertson: Mr. Beeler, was it your understanding that -it is your understanding that my interpretation of this Code is correct or incorrect. Beeler: I apologize, but I missed your reference. Robertson: 18.46.060 (f) (1). Beeler: O.K., I'm sorry. I was in the wrong Yea. I recall -now that I've seen this I recall the discussion during the SAO process and following along with what you've said, that's correct. My understanding is that this project does meet that. If it doesn't, it's very- -and I'm not saying it doesn't -but if it doesn't, then there may be some trees that need to be shifted. Robertson: Then let me go back. The first question. The question I asked you first was is my do you agree with my interpretation, basically? Beeler: Yea. t eier obertson: Yea. That was what the SAO process said, too. Beeler: I understand that. 1 0 1 y rtson: O.K. The second question then I guess that I didn't ask that you answered is that elieve that the PRD, the way it's constructed at this point, meets these requirements. Beeler: Yes. When you add the street landscaping, when I say street landscaping -along the front there's some side yard landscaping near the corners of the buildings- -the combination thereof. Robertson: Did you perform any analysis to back that -to substantiate that -or is that just visually as your sitting here -as your standing here right now? Beeler: I didn't do the analysis myself. Robertson: Do you know if an analysis was performed? Beeler: It was my understanding in talking with Jack Pace today that that was indeed true. That he had done that -he had done some analysis to document that or to -in his mind -to enable me to say what I just said. Robertson: Was that analysis documented anywhere? Beeler: I don't know. It may be visual. That he did it visually from those plans. Again Robertson: It may be an analysis by looking at the plans, but not calculated out or written here. er: Yea. And again, this is the first time that we've had to use this provision. We have a eptual plan here of landscaping to document the PRD. And again, while it's a final PRD, you still have the subdivision process coming, too, which you could further refine those so that if that landscaping isn't there, we can get it there. Robertson: That's not the question I asked. Robertson: O.K. Can you check with Mr. Pace tomorrow, and if there's any documented analysis to back this up, can you provide that to the Council -I guess to me and to everybody- and if it's not that it was merely his informal analysis, could you provide a written statement from him saying that, please? Beeler: Yea. I don't think he's got anything in writing. He'll be here on the 20th. Robertson: So, he's on vacation right now? Beeler: No. I can get something from him -a written statement from him. Robertson: Well, I would.... Rants: I understand your question, and yes, it will be taken care of. rtson: Thank you. ts• Steve? 11 wrence: Denni? Sorry, not that easy. I have a question about the access to Southgate Park. h ink in written testimony from one of the adjacent property owners, they were very ncerned about the pedestrian walkway that would go right behind their property. And the way it appears in the drawings, it's designed for two purposes. One is to access the neighborhood to the east in general -to the east and to the north -and the other is to provide access for this specific neighborhood. Is that correct? Shefrin: Well, maybe -I suppose to a lesser extent from areas to the north. They would be afforded opportunity for access along 42nd Ave. Lawrence: I mean you have to go all the way around though to get there. So they could.... Shefrin: I suppose it would probably be easier to state that the most direct access would be from the interior of the site as well as properties east and south. Lawrence: O.K. Given their concern about the pedestrians walking by and making noise or littering or whatever people do when they walk by your house, I'm kind of curious why the lot was -or why the pathway was extended from the furthest east portion of the development so it went by their property. Why it didn't connect up with more westerly lot. So it would have avoided the private property issue all together. Shefrin: Is your question this portion right here? Lawrence: No, not that portion. That portion primarily since that seems like that's the one they uld have more flexibility on. The developer could have placed it at any particular point, and seems further west it would have provided access for the development, plus it would have eviated the fears, somewhat, of that property owner. h efrin: O.K. There's two points to answering your question. The first point is this area also serves as utility easement. So it's a way to combine those areas for easements for utilities rather than looking at other areas for disturbance to some of those sloped portions. Secondly, it you look at Condition #4 of the recommended conditions, that is, that the Planning Commission has forwarded on to you, we've worked very closely with this property owner. And the provisions that we've come up with, again which is contained I believe in Condition #4, speak to putting vegetation actually on their property as well as a fence to provide some sense of separation between the trail portions -they don't feel intruded upon, as well as a visual screen with respect to vegetation. Lawrence: I understand that, but it seemed to me one of the complaints was just the noise and people going by. And it could have been alleviated if the walkway had been further west. And it seems like that wouldn't be too difficult to accomplish. I understand about the easement, but and easement can be covered up as just part of the lot anyway. Shefrin: Another issue is the topography. What would happen is if we were to shift it further this direction, we would be looking at fairly high retaining walls. So, that's why.... Lawrence: Which way does it slope? Cohen: Denni- -could I interject? The record doesn't reflect which way you're pointing so if you n describe the direction and also the exhibit you're working off of. efrin: This is a fairly north -south slope. wrence: It couldn't just be steps like you'd have anywhere else? 'n: Well, we've also got to consider handicap access, so there's a whole series of considerations which need to be given. Lawrence: Is it going to be paved then, and it will be a certain slope that meets handicap standards? Shefrin: That's correct. Lawrence: It will. Shefrin: Yes. 12 Lawrence: What's the percentage of slope for that? Shefrin: I would have to defer to Ron. He's saying 5 percent. Lawrence: I thought handicap standards were a lot less than that. Shefrin: I can get back to you on that, but those were the factors that were considered. Lawrence: O.K., but I am curious about that. O.K., the other one is -the big one -on the density transfer issue. In listening to citizens talk about some of the problems with the density, I u rstand that they're concerned about the number of lots, etcetera, having such a dense a arance that it doesn't look like it fits with R1, perhaps, in their opinion. And this document it in the PRD sort of is inconsistent. One of them says that they minimum lot size p 'lions and other sections of this code are waived. And that seems to be an absolute. But, u r the density transfer section in 18.46.070 section (d), under the title Density Transfer, it says that density transfers are intended to provide for the protection of wetlands, and I can understand that so far, watercourses, associated buffers, doing all those things, basically, while allowing development which is consistent with existent zoning to the greatest extent possible. Now, I can see where the one mandates that the lot size be waived. And then you go through the PRD calculations for density transfer, but it seems like if you go to the greatest extent possible, you would do everything you could to prevent unusual clustering while still allowing ample possibility to achieve that density. Have you guys- -was there never an objection to having the cluster of really tiny lots? The average is 6700 square feet or so, and yet there are a whole bunch of lots that are much, much smaller than that. Was there no more effort to achieve the average to allow the 41 and still nothave it appear so dense from the outside? Shefrin: Yea. I understand your question. I would say, though, that one of the objectives and one of the outcomes of applying the PRD and the SAO provisions is to really create opportunities for clustering, specifically in order to retain the sensitive areas. Again, this is the wetlands, watercourses, and their associated buffers. Lawrence: I understand that, but I'm curious. I'll have to point to this Exhibit 5. For example, in what possible way does this facilitate saving a wetland any more than having this a little more spaced out. Some of these lots are fairly large. I don't understand how allowing some so very small and others so very large accommodated the wetland, particularly. Why not a more even distribution throughout the property? S n: There's so many ways to answer the question. I think for one once you begin to set out y oadway configuration, one o objectives we were looking at was to create a throughway to, in essence, create a more efficient circulation system not only within the subdivision but within the surrounding area. So, '((7 13 ere's a series of implications once you start shifting things around. I do want to also point out at the PRD specifically allows attached units. So I would say and suggest that when we're oking at to the greatest extent possible complying with the intent of the R1 single family underlying zone, that we are providing for single family detached units, again as opposed to attached units. So again, once you begin to shift things around, you might be coming up in this case with tighter lots as well as lots that are.... Lawrence: O.K., you just stated that the shift was to accommodate the roadway and density transfer doesn't mention any rationale for accommodating roadways. Shefrin: No, but what I'm -the roadway also -the intent is to follow a particular contour in order to avoid impact and disturbance into the sensitive areas. So once you begin to create that roadway configuration and set out your lots in order to avoid and recognize the required buffers, this is the outcome. We've looked at several different iterations and Ron would be able to get into to that in a little bit more detail in terms of lot area or lot pattern configurations that will, hopefully, help to give you a picture of what we've undergone in terms over the two year process. Lawrence: O.K., this is really difficult for me to understand how if the roadway is going to cross the sensitive area somewhere, that's kind of a given. If you have to have a through road, it's going to cross it somewhere. I still don't understand why that would be the rationale for allowing greater clustering that would be less compatible to the surrounding neighborhood when you still had 6700 square feet average or so to work with. i ,a hefrin: The question is what is compatibility. What is it that the City is trying to be compatible 'th. And if you look at the (conversation in background) -I'm sorry? wrence: I mean from a staff point of view, you know compatibility is always going to be subjective, granted. But to almost cut in half -was it really to accommodate the roadway or was it to accommodate keeping the maximum density? Shefrin: It was to accommodate and, in essence, meet the intent of not only the PRD, but the SAO and the TPO, and again, there was a whole series of regulations that we had to look to and understand each of those individual provisions and understand how they had to be melded together to allow for the allowable density. Getting back to the issue-- Lawrence: Just a second. I want to interrupt you there. We often have developments we allow that don't get their maximum allowable density, don't we? In multi family? For example, they might be allowed 28 units per acre or whatever, but they end up with 23 because certain things just can't always be done even though it's allowable. Isn't that 41 sort of analogous to that -it's allowable? But something may happen in terms of a roadway or compatibility issues that may not allow it it seems. Shefrin: Well, I think that I might even defer to Rick, but I think the best way to answer the question is in looking at the number of regulations that we had to evaluate in order to arrive at something that we felt was as compatible as possible with the site conditions, the existing vegetation, the sensitive areas, and so on, I think this is something that we've arrived at and we are able to give our endorsement. I also want to point out in terms of compatibility with the adjacent or surrounding neighborhood. We're looking at a very eclectic neighborhood with espect to architectural styles, lot sizes, housing types, and that sort of thing. So, it becomes gain subjective to try to identify what the specific characters are which identify that particular eighborhood. 14 ence: O.K., one last question about compatibility. Setbacks 18.46.060 (a) (3) says yard r cements as described in Chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD. 0. IC, that makes sense. I can understand that. However, a big however there. Setbacks and design of the perimeter. The PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk of the streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or type of development which may be permitted. Now I know it's subjective, but one more time- -this is an R1 neighborhood where actually lots are generally much, much bigger than the minimum allowable of 7200. It seems to me the whole perimeter there -was that taken into account that the entire perimeter of this development should be comparable to or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood when these are less than the required setback and less than the required width a lot of them, which would normally be required, but were waived for this. However, said it's not necessarily waived for the perimeter, it's only waived for the interior possibly. I'm just wondering if that was a consideration that went through Planning's minds collective minds- -when they were working out the arrangements, if special considerations were given that the perimeter has a higher standard than the interior. Shefrin: I don't think that we gave anything more higher standard than the other provisions of the Code. So, we did look at that provision and we feel that we met it. If you look at the landscaping that's been preserved along the perimeters, it's a function of both. The topography, the landscaping that's been retained and where the houses would be placed. I think the perimeter, perhaps, that is most significant is that area that fronts 42nd Ave. And I think we're looking at varying setbacks, but I do believe that they're compatible with the surrounding lot pattern. ia ence: O.K., I don't think I heard anyone complain about landscape. It was about density arance more than anything. O.K., thank you very much, Denni. s: O.K. Steve Denni, I think there's one more. Shefrin: Oh, sorry, yes? Councilmember Steve Mullet: A citizen alluded to the dedicated section on Exhibit 2 where the path goes -that the City already owned that. Would you clarify that? Shefrin: Actually, I'm going to have Ron speak to that. Rants: Thank you, Denni.. Mullet: Thank you. Rants: Gary Schulz? Gary Schulz. Urban Environmentalist: I'm Gary Schulz, City Urban Environmentalist. I think most of the Council knows that I've worked as a professional wetland ecologist prior to coming to the City. So I just wanted to point that out. The statement that I'm going to make tonight will be focused on wetland planning, and I'll try to keep that kind of brief. The Foster View project submitted a wetland report. Actually, probably one of the first things submitted was a wetland report and got me involved in_the project right at that point which was over a year ago- year and a half ago. So the boundaries of the site plan that you see right not were verified by my s nd approved early on. And it's always nice to go out on a site and do that before the flags s In the site plan, the reduced buffers and the watercourse crossing are to be a essed in a final wetland mitigation plan. And that is a condition recommended by the 'ng Commission. Staff has accepted the proposed mitigation in concept because the final roadway design is not ready for our review. That's something that will come towards the final )t141-/ 15 art of planning this project. The final wetland mitigation plan will be submitted and reviewed 'or to any land alteration on the site. I think Terra Associate's biologists is going to prepare at for us or for the project. There is one item of concern that's been raised and I think I need to address that. When I first when out on to the site and reviewed wetland boundaries, there was a small area that joined in with the watercourse, and if you want me to show that to you, I can. Basically, from a professional opinion, I determined that it was not wetland. However, the area is as described a shallow swale. In relation to surrounding topography, there's very little difference. It could be an area that would carry rain runoff into the creek. But in order to call it a wetland you have to have three criteria. And in looking at that area closely, I didn't find the hydric soils or wetland type soils. So, with that I went ahead and contacted Terra Associates and met with the biologist that is now working on this project. We met on the site, we discussed it, and we agreed to change the boundary. That modification is what you -you don't see that lobe -it's in the original report which I have. I don't think it's in your packet at this hearing, but it's a very small area. I went and double- checked again today, and I'm going to stand by my original determination. So if you have questions regarding that, I'd be glad to answer anything right now. I don't want to -I didn't want it to be too technical, so.... Ekberg: Gary, I'll take you up on pointing it out on the map. Schulz: O.K. I brought the report with me so I don't know if it needs to be entered in, but I can sure pass the map to you. Robertson: Is that report part of the MDNS SEPA appeal? I ohen: Yes. obertson: Is it part of the record? Cohen: Yes. Robertson: O.K. I think we have it. Schulz: I'll use Exhibit 5. This is probably as good as any. The area I'm talking about is approximately east of Lot 34 and 33 and specifically, I can't say which one, but it's in that general area. So that's where I'm pointing right now. Robertson: I have a question, Gary. You said that in your professional opinion, it is not a wetland, but it was a swale that carried water to a stream. It would not qualify as a Category III stream? Schulz: I don't believe so. No. It's a very, very shallow, indistinct type of feature. There's no -I was out there today after the rain, and there was no running water. Most of the soils there are pretty permeable and you're not going to see a lot of standing water. Also, this area, Dennis, is estimated about 10 to 15 feet above the watercourse so it's on a slope. It goes up pretty steep. Robertson: O.K. Rants: Joan? i ernandez: While he was there I wanted to see if he could point out where the test holes were ken. rg_ Ron, when does an access street turn into an arterial? t lz: O.K. Have you seen this report? Here's the map. You can see lobe on it. And instead inting out -well, I guess should point out -I don't have exact locations of that lobe here. So it s and for me to say exactly where I put the holes. But I did three-- Hernandez: Can you just point them out on that map in relation to this one? Schulz: Well, they were right in the center of it. So I would say, you know, if the lobe was in this area of Lot 33, then I would have started about at the center of that lobe and worked my way down to almost the edge of the creek. Hernandez: O.K. Thank you. Rants: Thank you, Gary. And who is next? Ron? Mr. Cameron? Ron Cameron. City Engineer: Hi, Ron Cameron, City Engineer. I have five primary points with some minor roman numeral things. The first part is on street widths and that's been brought up several times. And I'd like to go through the four steps to that. First, the subdivision code allows deviations to the right -of -way and street width standards approved by public works. That's in the 1977 Subdivision Code. It allows public works and engineering to make deviations based on considerations. That has been considered and been basically approved by Council. The December 16, 1991 Functional Arterial Classification by ordinance addressed that. Inside that functional classification, street widths -were adopted. And we had several hearings on that through 1991 including local access streets and the street widths shown in what are less than the subdivision code as minimums. 16 rtson: Again, what was the citation? eron: The Functional Arterial Classification and presentations on that were in March if I remember right as well as October and December of 1991 with staff papers showing those widths and the tabulations. Those are also included in the state Urban Arterial Standards for the arterials. Our presentations included access streets for both residential and commercial streets. And in essence, for an access street it can have a 28 foot minimum. The PRD allows for deviations as well that are compatible. What's compatible? Sensitive Area Ordinance. In the case of this site? Land Altering Ordinance. What are we going to do in the way of relocating and moving earth? What's in the area? In looking at this development, if you step back and look at the vicinity map, what's (unclear)... Using the 1985 large aerial on the wall-- at the top as an illustration coming through 42nd the site is located on the top of the hill here. Compatibility -it has access to Macadam Road. Macadam Road is approximately 20 feet wide. If and when we approve it, improve it in the next 10 -15 years, it will probably be only with a ped path and it will remain as a collector arterial 20 feet wide. 40 -42nd as you know is in the process of design now. The best we're going to do on that is some place, some locations will be 24 feet wide because of right -of -way limitations. Coming down this hill we will look probably very similarly what we just built on 160th which is 24 -28 feet wide coming up this hill. 160th in here is 26. We all know just from recent -on completion of 160th -24 feet wide. Collector arterial. That's one classification above an access street. So, compatibility is what's that street going to connect to? In this case, this access street in the order, connects to two arterials that are essentially none with more than 20 feet. And the neighboring residential access streets are all in the order of 18 -20 which is common throughout the City. The compatibility's there for the street width decisions. Where Sensitive Areas Ordinance, what are we going to do to construct aiside? Land Altering compatibility with the street hierarchy that it connects to. /1 L(e 17 ameron: It's designated in our Functional Classification Ordinance. In this case, going ough that, we did talk about this particular connection. And it is not foreseen as being a collector arterial. A collector arterial generally carries more than 1,000 cars a day. This street, as was pointed out earlier and we'll defer to the applicant to do the volumes, our projection is something on the order of 200 -400 per day substantially less than a collector arterial. Two hundred to 400 vehicles per day traveling that street. A collector arterial is 1,000. South 160th, the one we just completed with 24 feet, has almost 2,000 a day. So, without going into the numbers The fourth point on the street width is we've done a number of iterations. In the form of policy it's CIP Policy #8 of the February 1993 Financial Planning Model. That policy has had a number of iterations in strength in the past decade. Basically, the way it is in the current CIP, it says it strongly encourages through street development for developments such as Foster View. At one point a few years ago, that policy basically said no cul -de -sacs or no deadends would be allowed without specific Council approval. And we went as far as providing some designs and alignments for another location. So those are the concepts of where we got to the street widths. The through street there is 28 feet compared to 42nd that's going to be 24 as an arterial. The one -way loop as a deviation is 20 feet. We will not prohibit parking. Again, if you've looked at the through street, the decision and compatibility in getting to that, one of our policies, one of the practices we're using on the smaller subdivisions short plats is two side by side four unit lots. You may recall this if you were on one of the committees of being a 20 foot with 12 feet of hard surface. This again exceeds that with the same number of units. So we are compatible. And that policy as well has been brought through the committees. The next point I'd like to just make and we can make copies of these drawings...These are plans that have been brought forward by the developer at our request. ants: Are these part of the record? ameron: They will be part of the record. We would just like to make copies so we have them our files. Cohen: I don't think they're.... Cameron: They are not part of the record at this point. Rants: That was my question. Cohen: Why don't you move to have them made part of the record at this time. Cameron: You betcha. So moved. Cohen: And designate a number so we know what you're referring to or at least describe the exhibit. Cameron: Exhibit number 6? I don't know what next number would be. Shefrin: (from audience addressing the exhibit- (unclear) Cohen: Start over at 1P. Pick a letter. Cameron: This particular drawing was submitted and has a date of July 10, 1991. It is not a first 1 o nclear). It was submitted for our review. In the case of staff -our role is basically regulation. e are not the designers. We walk a fine line of taking over designed property, private roperty, and what we will allow. In this case, the first iteration came in as I recall there were o cul -de -sacs. That two cul -de -sacs was in direct conflict with the strong policy presented by uncil at that time on no cul -de -sacs. There will be through streets and particularly this //7/ 1 Cohen: Is there a date on that? ertson: Could I ask why? Cameron: Coming up this hill... 18 tion had been talked about in developing that policy and when we approved the 150th t, (unclear). This has a 25 foot street coming in approximately (unclear) with lots from the very north boundary and another 25 foot street with one loop coming around. That was (unclear) for a number of reasons. We asked the developer to make another one. And this was the second one. I'm not sure if this is the third one. This has some iterations, changes in the driveway, changes in widths, changes in lot configuration, changes in alignment. Cameron: That's very similar and this would be P2. Cohen: Page 2 if fine. Cameron: Page 2. Page 3. You can see we have now come to a connection of 42nd and 137th. A cul -de -sac coming to the south. Another deadend alley providing access. There were a E amber of problems with that. Again, each one of these in the form of iteration and staff review, primarily it was held by DCD. It goes back to the developer. Some of these we would have two, three, four meetings on. What were sensitive areas problems, what were access problems, what were lot configuration problems, what were drainage problems. In between these there were other drawings. For example, we suggested a couplet of one way streets. If a one -way street came around the top over here with a connection (unclear) and in that we could go in and do basically a big circle. And they have a connection that satisfied that through street, but there were a number of problems with that. (unclear)...sensitive area and again the licants were (unclear) in office to be designed. This is now down through Page 5- -this is 4. Again you can see a beginning version of what you have up there evolving. Again, ecting 42nd to 137th. O.K. This one has cul -de -sacs different ways. And in effect, the hs almost make them one -way streets. It would be better at that point because of the width, t sensitive area again and the lay of the land to just go ahead and do that one little loop as a one -way street. The traffic as you can see as you come off 42nd, you come in go around and go back out. We're down to 42nd. At that time they got the first traffic study and pointed out we'd had a number of discussions on the traffic distributions. How much is coming from the east; how much is coming from the west. What are the reasons. What modeling was used for the applicants on transportation. Expertise to do that. We basically came to agreement on that analysis which again led...(unclear) which gets to essentially the version that's before you for today. The point of all that is that in two years or two years plus, we have looked at a number of street configurations more than one time, both ourselves, Planning and Parks and Rec department with the applicant. The answer that's come up is to do a street that's compatible with the streets in the neighborhood in terms of width that serves the traffic enhancements there is terms of volumes in the future. It does not impede safety. Fire as well was involved in each one of these, the Fire Marshall. So as Rick has pointed out, these reviews have had a number of staff reviews. Without going up there, there are two questions of pedestrian traffic. (unclear) There were two questions. 43rd (Exhibit 5) with garth at the top currently peds come from the top from the north down 43rd along a trail on the street that has failed with sliding as pointed out by the soils folks. That pedestrian length will be continued. The portion of 43rd that will be vacated is on this very steep area here. Part of the vacation, when it comes to you was we looked early on, again, in the iterations that aren't shown in those drawings, can we make a connection of 43rd Ave. if the curb portion is 43rd Place, can we make a connection directly in there. That continued to diminish to we can't make a physical roadway connection. Could we make a pedestrian connection. But because of the topography, it just couldn't be e. /'A 19 bertson: It's too steep for the road? Cameron: Too steep is basically what was found in that analysis. We didn't do the analysis, the applicant did. The question that I'm trying to speak to is that pedestrian access is being cut off. The pedestrian access is over here now. It will remain there. The vacation of 43rd does not affect that. This pedestrian link on the utility corridor was put in primarily on the utility corridor it gives us access or Val Vue, because it's in the Val Vue Sewer District access to that sewer. It also provides access to Southgate Park in the future. It's consistent with Tukwila Parks and Rec non motorized tran plan. In McMicken Heights we have exactly the same type of trail through the neighborhoods on 48th. We're looking at building one at Tukwila school between the houses on these little 10 foot and 12 foot wide easements for people to walk either to a school or to a park so they don't have to go out and around on 42nd. And there is no access down here. This trail, both by Parks and Rec, ourselves and Planning, looks to serve this development as well as the development to the south because they'll be able to come down 44th through 137th and into the park without getting out on the arterial street. And again, it's a narrow 24 to 28 foot someplaces 36. Primarily very narrow arterial. So the ped points -this will remain. This will serve more than that. And it's consistent with other neighborhood trails that exist now. There's a total of 9 of them or 13 total but 8 or 9 that are comparable to this and we're looking at two or three more. Mullet: Do you want to address the path while you're here? Cameron: This? la ullet: No, the other one. meron: This one. Mullet: No, no. Come down. Cameron: This one. Mullet: Is that our property or is that their property now. Cameron: That's our property (Exhibit 2). North is at the top. We're talking about the east side of 44th Ave. south of 137th. 44th Ave. is substandard right -of -way existing, and you can see it on this drawing if you follow the extension of 43rd where it comes from the north to the south at 137th. If you extend the east curb line across 137th to the south, you can see that it falls essentially where that border is now and where those homes are. We have about 20 feet of street. The development is providing the additional right -of -way to get 50 feet comparable to the north side. This sidewalk or ped path is built here not as a simple little thing. I don't know how many times the development applicants were in the review. It included review by the Dept. of Fisheries on the hydraulic project permit that would be required to build our normal frontal improvements. Normally if a subdivision or development is coming in, on 42nd we give them our plan and they build these frontal improvements. Over on 44th that's their frontage. They would build them. The choice was to build frontal improvements over here with the drainage and the fisheries problems that we experienced is that what we really need is a place for these neighbors to walk that gets them to this sidewalk and again down through here or on across out the roadway. Because of the bank, the ditch, the cost and the driving force in that was sheries. What the answer was is a place for people to walk out of the roadway. There would t be with this subdivision any of their units fronting on 44th. So that's how that got there. gain, a number of iterations of meetings and what can be done. f`Wl et: I think the specific comment by one of the citizens was that that section was already And that's what I wanted clarification on. It is the applicant's. 20 Cameron: It is the applicant's and they will dedicate it and instead of building- -you may have got more than a two bit answer there, but it's been more than two bits of work. Robertson: Before you leave, I have a couple questions that would help on this map, Ron. The part that's proposed to be vacated -that street... Cameron: It's the extension into here. It's not shown. That's on Exhibit 2. Robertson: Yes. The existing functional arterial classifications -if I remember that right and from your descriptions that includes in some cases showing streets put in or through streets running through. Is that true? Cameron: On the functional arterial Map? Robertson: Yea. Cameron: It designates existing and future, yes. Robertson: O.K. Does it show a connector from the north there where that street is proposed to be vacated that would run to the 137th Place? II t eron: No. We only show a connection of 42nd to 137th and we show the other one that we few years ago up on the hill up here that went with another subdivision like this going to orth. Robertson: O.K., and you're saying that it's your understanding, but you don't have the data to back it up that if that street was put through that it would be too steep it would exceed our guidelines that we have. And I can't remember whether that's 18 percent slope, 15 percent Cameron: 15 percent. When the applicant comes up -Jean and I did the most of that dialog and Erich did the calculations. And just who can get the communication. Jean was giving them to me. I don't remember the specific numbers, but Phil and I went and looked and basically, what you see is just what they said. That it would not be practical to try to make a pedestrian connection here with the grey. And that the roadway -this roadway and the improvement of this roadway fell out with the soils work that was reported in the previous hearings by their soils engineer. Robertson: O.K. One last question. The one -way street, 43rd Place So. I'm still puzzled. I've never seen a one -way street in a residential area. What's again, where in the ordinance does it allow one -way streets. Where does it not allow. Cameron: The subdivision ordinance allows deviations by public works as approved by Council so, basically, this would be us recommending to you based on the sensitive area, based on our.... Robertson: What sensitive area are you talking about? It eron: The sensitive areas and land altering of the full site. We aren't talking in public to the number of lots or the configuration. Just what do we need in the way of a street. e 20 foot here exceeds what we've done with two side by side short plats. We do not ever r foresee any other street network coming in here in the next -in the future. What's n ded to service in terms of a volume and as pointed out with the previous iterations you could 1 X 10 Cameron: Yes. This plan shows landscaping, yes. obertson: As does Exhibit 5. Will... ameron: That's pretty standard with any development that they do that. This is unusual in is -in how this right -of -way comes to the north here. It doesn't exist -I don't think it exists 21 e how this street evolved from an alignment like that to another you know...If you go through ose drawings, to what can we get in here. So it's a one -way street. We look at that as public orks making a deviation recommendation. One -way streets do exist in residential areas throughout the Puget Sound region and they do exist in civil engineering design handbooks. You know, that kind of a planning tool, and in this case there are a number of professionals involved in this decision: planning, parks, fire marshall. Rants: Do you have a question Allan? Ekberg: Ron, what consideration was given to a pedestrian access off of 43rd in an east -west direction to Southgate Park? And I'll point specifically where my mind's at. On Exhibit 2 this area right here pedestrian access? Cameron: We have a utility road there. I don't remember truthfully if that is in or out as a pedestrian access. Basically, the part coming around -it could be used but the demand that we've been brought to our attention is again coming from the subdivision to the park from up here to the park. That certainly could be used. The applicant may be able to address that. I just don't recall how we came to that conclusion right at this moment. Robertson: I have several questions still. On 42nd Ave. looking at Exhibit 2, Lots 32, 33, 34, and 35 share two common accesses to 42nd. The first question I would ask is why was it done that way? Cameron: Reducing the number of access points onto 42nd. I i obertson: O.K. The area that they cover that's shown as white on this exhibit, I assume that's ity owned, City right -of -way meaning that's not a part of the development, the proposed evelopment? Cameron: It won't be their property. They will do the improvements. Robertson: They will do the improvements to the paved areas for the access. Do those -as far as you know, will that area there be all along there be subject to any earth work, any earth moving, and altering, other than the actual paved areas? Cameron: They will do the earth work with their land altering...they'll do the frontal improvements of 42nd on the east side which is the curb, gutter, sidewalk and their driveways and their final grades. And we feel there's two advantages in that: 1) Their ahead of our project. It certainly fits our sidewalk code. If we were to defer it, then when we come back in to build, we'd be back into these yards with our construction equipment and need licenses to construct on that grade. So their final -we haven't got a final grade for that but we've given them our plans for the curb, gutters, street alignment. Robertson: According to Exhibit 12, if I read that, what will happen there is -at least my interpretation is -that that City right -of -way, their going to re -plant trees after they do land altering and build the access points in the sidewalk and curb and gutter. They will re -plant that area. Is that correct? 1 7( 22 of the plat. I could go check the survey drawings, but I don't have an explanation for why fight -of -way is that width. Robertson: O.K. One of my concerns in having (unclear) the whole thing is you talked- -when we do the improvements to 42nd Ave. itself, will this -will 42nd -what width will 42nd be here? Cameron: 42nd coming down the hill is on the order of 28 feet -26 and 28 feet. Robertson: Right -of -way or curbed.? Cameron: Curb to curb. And it's again to fit it in on any of these drawings along this hillside as it drops off. Robertson: Curb to curb. What does that mean? Sidewalk to sidewalk? Cameron: Inside of curb to inside of curb. Robertson: So that's paved area essentially. Cameron: Uh huh. 160th- -it'll be very similar to 160th coming up the hill from 53rd to 51st. Nearly the same thing and that's 26 to 28 feet. Robertson: What type of traffic will 42nd have per day on it? 1f eron: On the order of 3,000. Three to 5,000 depending on how far you want to look in the e. I think it will stay in the 3 -4,000 for rtson: Do you think that that same width that we have on 160th there for something that has double the traffic is sufficient on a curved area such as that? Cameron: On 160th between 51st and 42nd the piece that we've just completed -the volume's on the 1600 a day. But between 51st and 53rd it's over 3,000 a day. That segment takes the traffic of both 51st and 160th and then they go down the hill to Klickitat. Robertson: But that segment is wider than the upper.... Cameron: No, that segment is the 26 to 28 feet. It's again between a cut and a fill. In that case you remember we have a very large retaining wall where the fill was sliding away. And we will probably have some retaining wall in here as well to hold it. And so 26 to 28 feet will work. It's a 30 mph speed limit Robertson: O.K. Thank you. Rants: We have another question, Ron. Lawrence: You can go first if you want. Cameron: No, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to (unclear) a ence: That's fine. Question about sidewalks. Are all these sidewalks within the project ey on right -of -way, on private property, or how does that work and what determines e there at? 1 1 v meron: If they aren't on right -of -way, they are on our standard practice of sidewalk sement. 23 Lawrence: Alright, thank you. Rants: Did you have one last point? Now I'm going to time it! Cameron: Alright. This isn't in my -the landscape areas we have included in the pervious surface. We have not excluded them. Again, the developer -can I speak to that? The red triangle on 43rd on Exhibit 5 up there that's being dedicated, one of the things that we would look to that for is future use in that ravine. You know we've got as has was pointed out in the previous hearings erosion in that ravine. You know we have the silt vault in our CIP for that ravine. And we may or may not be able to use that extra space in control. If you go out and look you can see how we get down in there and what kind of use we can have there. The rest of that area is private property and we'll need easements to do that work. Rants: Thank you, Mr. Cameron Cohen: For clarification's sake is the red triangle on Exhibit 5 or is it 2? Rants: Two. Ladies and gentlemen we'll take a five minute break before we begin Citizens Comments. Break 9:34 p.m. 9:42 p.m. nts: We now reconvene and it's time for Citizens Comments. ho would like to be first? Mrs. Springer, please. Elizabeth Springer, 13325 Macadam Road South: This project poses great problems for us. I live just north of it down at the foot of the hill. The road that's eroded is our transportation to the top of the hill. You're going to give away some government property. I find that very disturbing. What do we know that in 100 years we won't need that little piece. But it looks like it would be a wonderful place to put a bench so that those of us who are trouping from tlie bottom to the top can sit down and rest before we go the rest of the way up the hill. We see -I hear you talking about the law and I would like to remind you that there are many interpretations of law. And sometimes it takes many years before they're straightened out. Did you notice in the paper today that Gordon Hirobyashi is now a hero? Fifty years ago he was incarcerated because he was Japanese American. He refused to knuckle under to what was wanted in the hysteria of the time. Now he's a hero. I hope I'll be a heroine 20 years from today if I'm still around. But this -I tried to tell you earlier that you are not observing the SEPA process. If this had been brought out to the citizens three years ago instead of being under wraps conducted by the Planning division without our knowledge, we wouldn't be in this position because we would have galvanized the entire community. This is not to the community's advantage. And it's just a bad, bad situation. Everybody is polarized on this issue and they are not -we're just not moving forward. We're looking at all these things. When Mayor Todd had this he was going to build high density housing and we said no way. It took telephone calls. It took trips to the county council, but it was stopped because this is no place...and I consider all those houses high density by the time you look at the land that's taken ay with the houses, the absorption that's there. We have to look -when we do these things, i have to look to the future. And you are rightly looking at the impact on 42nd Ave. So. but re is also a tremendous impact on 137th down to Macadam then with a sharp jog and then wn where you go down to -and you wind up out at Farwest Paint. That is a throughway for ople who come off the freeway and go up beyond this project, up to Riverton Heights. And p r73- 24 are many cars that use that during commuting and nobody seems to be paying attention. the corner of Macadam and 137th is where the school children gather. This is just a buu er And I'm not going to take anymore of your time. It seems to me we've hashed this over. When I hear how you're asking all these questions, it is very good. But they should have been asked three years ago. Thank you. Rants: Thank you, Mrs. Springer. Pam Carter. 4115 So. 139th St.: In talking about the street width and the fact that a lot of the older streets are 20 feet wide and 42nd will be increased to only about 24 feet, we're talking about alread existing streets with already existing homes. When we are talking about putting in a new development, you're talking about putting in new streets, and your width of your street isn't restricted by the fact that if you widen the street, you end up on somebody's doorstep. That's a problem with some of the streets. Macadam -it should be wider. Are you going to widen it? Well, there's a number of homes there that would have to go if it was widened to what it should be. But we're talking about a new development. You have standards in the law that say, you know, this is what the street's supposed to be, but then you're putting in a 20 foot street with parking. Our 20 foot streets in the surrounding areas, we don't park on them, we park off the pavement on the shoulder because, well for one, I don't want my car hit by someone coming down the street when you're out in the middle of the street. It seems I park there on the pavement. So the width really isn't sufficient to allow parking. In fact, one of the neighbors said she's firefighters have gotten after her for parking on the pavement because there's not enough clearance for a firetruck there. When you only have a 20 foot pavement, we park on the s n lder. If there's a ditch there, people don't park. So that, it doesn't seem to fit with the s that's the problem. It doesn't fit with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. ik you. s: Thank you, Pam. Fred Sherman: Fred Sherman, 13715 42nd Avenue South. My comments is shared by Marjorie Cargo, 13723 42nd Avenue South. Continuing on with some of my comments of yesterday, I did ask for a clarification from the Planning Department for Council's benefit on some of the decision process early on where Mr. Beeler had mentioned collective wisdom as a method in determining some of his decisions. The term as I understand it is gathering information from all sides, not just from the code and geothermal examinations and what not, to make the best possible decision. Of course those decisions were made without any comment from those who live around the area what -so -ever. So I would like to ask you to have him explain that to you. I'd also like to ask that when you do come out with a decision, that there were comments made, questions from Councilman Robertson to I believe Rick Beeler regarding interpretation of application of density credits. Did it apply to single family or multi family? I don't know that that has been clarified as yet. I think Councilman Robertson asked for documentation on that. I'd like to see the pages that pertain to that added to your report on your decision, so that those of us out here have it very clear in our mind. Also, its in my view its not the City's duty to provide property or the greatest number of lots are available to one developer or another simply for that developer's hope to gain the most from the sale of the property. My questions .and concerns regarding the project from day one have been with regard to density as you probably remember. I've the -we talked earlier, I believe it was Councilman Lawrence talking to Denni Shefrin about the density formula and is it all hard and fast. The Staff used a formula and they've explained it here, how they determined 41 units. Split set asides for sensitive areas and what not. My understanding i t this property would need set asides for sensitive areas, water buffers, no matter how many units built there. So that -so mute question. That set -aside is there no matter how many units you The formula has been explained, I understand the formula as said, but in the, right above it r the 1846.070 I believe it says density transfers are intended to provide for the protection of we ands, water courses and associated buffers while allowing development which is consistent with bi 25 xisting zoning to the greatest extent possible. Greatest extent possible concerns me. Decisions were ade on the size of these lots that certainly don't go overboard at all. Concerning the interest of all these people, as dozens of people have come forward over the course of this, regarding the lot sizes. There seems to be a formula has come up with 41 it was approved and then put to the people for their thoughts on the process. We were never asked our opinions on that at all, period, until well after the fact. And when the citizens are the ones that elect, well they at least the Council, and most of this happens before it gets to you, at least at this point I think you can understand our feelings. Because you are citizens as well. We're the ones that live here, we're the ones that pay taxes and we're the ones that vote. Part of the community development is hired staff, they're not elected but I do wish they would look out for the interests of the citizens more so then they have in this case. So I'm still asking that, if you do approve it that you do reduce these number of lots as I had asked for in a letter that I supplied yesterday. It says that the zoning should be, according to that what I just read, to the greatest extent possible consistent with existing zoning. No I understand that a PRD allows for some changes, cause you do have those set asides, but some reasonableness seems to gone out the window here when you have lots that go down to under 4,000 square feet. I ask you when you make your deliberations, to look out for the citizens interest and come up with a number that's more consistent with those that live in the neighborhood. I understand that it's going to be smaller than 7,200, but I think its been way overboard the other way. A decision that's been reached by Staff which represents us that we don't agree with and we were never asked for an opinion on it. You are citizens at the last stage of the process and you can do something about it. It doesn't -I don't see anything in here that says that you have to stick with 41, that's allowable amount on that property for the conditions that are there. What you actually fix as a number doesn't have to be that amount the way I read it. So you've got inputfrom a lot of citizens that_ think that it's wrong. And all we're asking is let's have some reasonableness. The developer could have done this on his own, but he wishes not to. So, what we're asking is reasonableness. The end result is e developer can, with larger lots, can always ask more money on them and he will come out very well n this no matter what. One last thing, just a comment, I know this has not been decided on but, 43rd lace South, I guess its in for requested closure as Ron Cameron was talking about here. I walked up ough there yesterday, I didn't find it too difficult to walk up the hillside. It does have a certain incline to it. I don't know the exact incline. Right now the biggest obstacle is blackberries, they're all over the property. I would certainly like to see that kept open. If not a road then at least a path. The closure is only for the benefit of the developer, certainly not for the benefit of the surrounding citizens. Whether its a path or a road I could, I don't care. I think it should be left open at least for a path. That may mean one less lot, something you can decide on. But the main thing is, when you review this look out for the citizens and come up with a formula that we all can be reasonably happy with. Ard take your time. There's a lot of information to go over. Several of you on the Council have mentioned that you need some time to absorb the information. And I hope that you do with well meaning thoughts for both parties. So, I hope the amount if somewhat less than the number that's been proposed in concrete so far. Thank you for your attention, thanks. Rants: Thank you Fred. ,Tanelle Scarber: Janelle Scarber, 13716 41st Avenue South. Um, I had a coherent letter put together last night to read, but with twice of getting five minutes at a time, I kind of rearranged what I was saying. So um I don't really know where I stopped and started on some of it. I, it was mentioned again tonight, the area along 44th that I contend already belongs to the City. I would like to see proof from Mr. Cameron or somebody that that area does not belong to the City, that it is not part of the 60 foot right away. That it belongs to the developer. The maps we have, or the charts from King County, show that the closed section, 43rd Avenue is 30 feet right -of -way. But at 137th it changes to 60 feet, from 137th to the south end of this proposed development. Then again it becomes 30 feet. It is kind of a strange section. If I am wrong, I would like to see proof that I am wrong. On the closing of 43rd l ace, if it can't be built as a pedestrian path, how can a house be built on it? It was mentioned tonight at it's too steep to make as a path, why couldn't that area not be abandoned or vacated to the eveloper. Why couldn't it be the a playground to the children of this development? The developer as not set aside any area for children or for a playground. It's been mentioned that there's the streets, 26 Iy of the streets are narrow like the part that they're talking about being one way. Where are the ren going to play? They're going to be out there in that street too. You've got a narrow street, ve got parking on one side, maybe you have it one way. And you have children also, children have bikes, they have takes, they have dogs. Some of these things just need to be addressed. I also last night brought up fact of the driveways for the southern most houses on 42nd. That they're driveways are on city right -of -way. Again, why should that be given to the developer so he can make Y shaped driveways for four houses? It certainly could have been laid out differently than that. Really that's all I had to say. In closing. you, each of you on the Council were elected by the people, for the people. And you took an oath to be., keepers of our City and protect our resources and our people and to represent both in a manner that would preserve and enhance our city for future generations. Please read all the letters, quotes, data and information from the residents and really listen to what we've all been saying. The old cliche about once its gone its gone forever is very appropriate here. Please think about it long and hard because this is a very precedent setting situation for our City. Thank you. Rants: Thank you Janelle. Scarber: I'd like to have my letter as Rants: Certainly, we can give it to the City Clerk as entry into the record. Scarber: I'd like to say one more thing. Pam Reiss was not able to come tonight she just asked if I would -there is a letter in your packet that part of it got cut off when the copies were made and she would just like to have -this is a copy from one of your other packets -she would just like to have it recopies so that you all have the complete letter and not have it chopped off. ts: Certainly. L amb: Ron Lamb, 4251 S. 139th. First I'd like to start out with a letter, read a letter from my wife Nancy, who's not here tonight. The letter will explain why. It's submitted 12/7/93 by Nancy Sandy Lamb, 4251 S. 139th Street Tukwila. Members of the City Council and Mayor Rants. Today my spirit stands in the way of attending the hearing. I'm mad, tearful, frustrated and embarrassed at the way this FosterView proposal has been handled in relation to private citizens. I realize I can't face sitting through another meeting tonight on this issue where proponents question citizens motivation but won't face their own, where I find the developers have advanced access to crucial drafts or memos, but a polite citizen is told to wait. Where parts of vital ecosystems are explained away by convenient subjective assessment where citizens who pay dues of long term commitment to their homes, neighborhoods and community, are put in opposition to speculators who's dues consist of development application fees. Where I sadly realize that citizen's honesty can perhaps be overshadowed by smoke and mirror arguments. Where hard one legislation to protect natural features will perhaps come down to a battle of intent versus letter of the law. Where I can only conclude that Tukwila's administrative side still doesn't understand that citizens want to try to preserve the natural environment and have sensitive, sensible development when its appropriate. Not high density in existing semi -rural areas. No, tonight I'll stay home and explain to our children that I've tried my hardest in standing up for what's right. That indifference would have been easier but that acting in good conscious is extremely important. That good government requires citizen involvement, that its up to the City Council now to do the best they can for the present and future citizens of Tukwila. In rebuttal, if you wish, I stand by the information I gave to the Planning Commission hearing included in your packet for this hearing. And by my past written and oral testimony to the Council as having been true to the best of my knowledge. However, I don't feel that the developer has proven that it's the right proposal for this site, nor that they'll do everything it takes to follow all the City's stipulations. As Fred Palmer stated, ik cial securities are warranted. Such bonds are authorized under several sections of the SAO as well e TPO and PRD and should be applied to the maximum allowed given the proposed destruction of pring filled hillside. It seems that either FosterView is an acceptable proposal or it needs to be t n ed down. Hopefully with Council's interpretation of its legislation to help DCD avoid future error. Lt- ou're facing a decision in a process that has been hard on you and on us. I understand that as Council embers you don't want to see a chasm developed between citizens and staff and I hope you nderstand that I, a Tukwila booster since the annexation process, hates that there is mistrust now. However, I know you will examine all the evidence with open minds and for that I thank you very sincerely. And I will submit this for the record. I would also like to submit her comments which were badly chopped up by time limits last night. I'd like to cover a couple of points on testimony that was given tonight. I made a point about a very long list of interpretations, allowances and waivers that has a been the nature of this process all along. There was evidence of another one which I don't think made it onto my list last night, the interpretation of consideration of easements as part or not part of the density formula. It is an interpretation. Another issue is the red triangle on the map up there. I don't know which exhibit it is I'm referring to, if somebody could help me who has better eyesight. Rants: Two. 27 Mr. Lamb: Thank you. It was stated that the City agreed to have this dedicated to the city. That it had no purpose to the development. And I ask you to consider that. Is that in the best interest of the City? Um, it was also an interpretation about the a the finger of wetland that was described by Mr. Schulz tonight. That is an interpretation. There is evidence of a wetland situation there. Um, on streets, I second what Pam Carter said about the comparison with existing roads. I think that we would all like to make the City and its rights -of -way better rather than just duplicating errors of the past. Particularly in the newly annexed areas. The question of the one way streets in a residential area, the answer was that the code allows for deviations and that it exists elsewhere but not in Tukwila. In other words, we need to hold a, hold everyone to higher standards. That's the expectation. On the issue of the sidewalk on the east side of the property, again its exhibit number, help me out, three, two? The r ectangle? ged ants: Two. Mr. Lamb: Two, thank you. Memory is not what it used to be. There was a statement that the benefit to the City is to get a comparable width with 44th on the north side of 137th. But I would point out that that road is closed and that the City has no plans to reopen it, and I hope they don't because its continued to slide over time. Couple more points and I'll submit this in writing too. Most of what needs to be said about this proposals been said. However, in rebuttal, I would point out part of the purpose of the sensitive areas overlay zones spelled out in 18.45.010B5B, standards are hereby established to meet the following goals of protecting environmentally sensitive areas. Five, protect the public against avoidable losses. Public emergency rescue and relief operations cost and subsidy cost of public mitigation from landslide, subsidence, erosion and flooding. That's part of the code. You have the power to avoid calamity in the future by denying this proposal. You're hands are not tied by what the Department of Community Development may have promised in the past. TMC 18.45.080 E8A clearly puts the power in your hands. "A" reads, substantial weight shall be given to ensuring continued slope stability and the result in public health, safety and welfare in determining whether a development should be allowed. Note that this section does not talk about granting permits or mitigating or doing further study. It says you must give substantial weight to the kinds of concerns the citizens have raised throughout this process. And if you do, you cannot possibly approve this proposal. Thank you. Rants: Thank you Ron. Ron, a couple questions. Duffle: Could I ask Ron a couple of questions? Rants: Sure. Ron a couple questions. I e uffie:I'd like the, you've probably noticed I've been sitting here and haven't said anything, I've been king it all in because I'm here to learn tonight. My concern is that a -what I've said is I hope no one t offended, if you do, if you'd like to talk to me after that's great. But you realize that we're here to the decision what the best for our City. My concern is that that property up there belongs to an idual. How we, what do you all would like to see up there? Would you like to see homes, maybe I'm out of line the attorney can tell me. Would you like to see homes there or would you like to see apartments up there? For that area what is the best site that I would like you, that you would like to see there? Cohen: I would just say that that isn't relevant to what we're, what you need to decide tonight. Mr. Lamb: In other words that's not the proposal. Any other questions? Rants: Thank you Ron. Any other citizen comments? Alright we will close that portion and we will begin the rebuttal portion from the applicant. Amv Kosterlitz: Good evening Mayor Rants and members of the City Council, this is Amy Kosterlitz again, the representative of Dujardin Development. While I believe most of the information points raised by the citizen opponents were adequately addressed by testimony at the hearing on the DNS, there are a couple of points that I will have various consultants address in a moment just to set the record straight. Before doing so, I would like to address a general theme stated by the citizen opponents. That the Department of Community Development has bent and varied your ordinances in their review and approval of this development and that the Council is being asked to condone this. Because this is patently untrue and unfair to your Department of Community Development who has in good faith, for no personal profit, tried to fairly apply the rules as they are written. It would perhaps be interesting for you to know, that rather than the cozy relationship the citizens have portrayed between the department and the applicant, this has been a very difficult and at times, contentious approval ss as I'm sure the Staff will attest to. My client has been asked, at tremendous expense, to go back e drawing board and redo this project countless times. Has been asked to provide second and third s on various items. In fact, this has been one of the most rigorous permitting processes that I h witnessed. I guess there are two sides to any story, but from the applicant side the rules have been bent against him, resulting in what you see today. And at this point, burdened by requirement and expenses that he fought during the approval process, he simply ask that you be fair and play by the rules as the department has applied them, so he does not have to start yet over again. While it is lotable, the citizens here are interested enough in their neighborhood to participate in this process. You need to remember that what is at issue here is an even handed application of your codes to private property. Not a popularity contest, or a decision regarding how to use public land. You are sitting on this application, not as politicians but as judges of what your ordinances mean and how they are applied to private property owners who come to the city and ask to be judged by the ordinances you have in the books, as interpreted by the professionals you have hired to apply them. The citizens are right that this decision has presidential value and other land owners in the City, or people who come to build housing and other uses, will look to see whether the Council treats them fairly. There are several cases where courts have found it arbitrary and capricious for a City Council to decide on a project based on popular opinion rather than the evidence and their ordinances. The citizens have spoken about the intent of the law, versus the letter of the law. And I would like to say that the project here clearly meets the intent of your ordinances. As best as I can judge from both the language of the ordinances and legislative history, the intent of your PRD and SAO provisions was to allow for clustering of development on the buildable portions of a site in order to preserve wetlands and watercourses and to maximize the ability to provide housing. That language by the way that we discussed before in'the density transfer ordinance, raised by Mr. Lawrence, I believe relates to, where it says greatest extent possible, allow development consistent -with zoning to the greatest extent possible. That means keeping close to the density that would be allowed by the existing zoning to the greatest extent to promote your housing g s while still protecting sensitive areas Like all clustering ordinances, this results in greater than al density on the buildable portions of the site than in conventional development. Rather than some kind of aberration, or bending the rules, the kind of smaller lots and dense situation the bors refer to as cramped or excessive is exactly what your PRD ordinance envisions. The ordinances may have gone further in this regard then anyone now likes, but in fairness, if you choose to 28 29 hange your ordinances you cannot do that in mid stream to a project applicant that has relied on them their current form. This is what the doctrine of vested rights is all about. I would also like to address a point made about the project needing to provide some extraordinary public benefit. I think Rick did address that in stating that the public benefit requirement was no longer part of the PRD ordinance, and as legislative history shows, was deleted. The reason the public benefit requirement was deleted as I understand it, was a recognition that the public benefit envisioned by the PRD ordinance was exactly this. The preservation of natural areas and open space. Once this became required by the SAO, the need to find this public benefit was no longer necessary. So this project by complying by your SAO and preserving the sensitive areas on the site, does, by definition, provide the public benefit formally required under the PRD. It also provides significant public benefits in terms of housing, stabilizing the drainage in this drainage in this area, and the like. A fundamental misconception formed here is that the Council's job is to eliminate all impacts of development. That is not the case. But the benefits of new housing, better drainage control for the area, better circulation, which are some of the benefits of this project, come the inability to keep the property in its current natural state and the increased noise and traffic etc. that more houses bring. Your ordinances, while giving a good degree of environmental protection, recognize these tradeoffs. Your comprehensive plan has housing goals too. Based on all of this we're relying on the Council to carefully consider the evidence and its ordinances and apply them in a fair and consistent manner I would now like to have Bill Fowler, Jean Bates, Erich Tietze and Terry provide some specific rebuttal testimony on particular points, answer questions the Council may have. Garrett Munger may also address the wetlands issue. Yes? Robertson: I requested a copy of the Kosterlitz: Yes, I have that for you. lit obertson: A question I would ask is, is this, is this a copy of a xerox copy of the memo that was rovided to you? Kosterlitz: I gave you the one out of my file because I didn't have time Robertson: Just ask City Clerk, I wouldn't want to take your file copy. Second question I asked along with that is when you were provided that? Kosterlitz: Right, the best of my recollection my para legals went down to pickup what was available from the file, as she had done on several occasions, and picked that up on the 23rd and I included a reference in it to my memo on the 24th. I did not know at the time that it wasn't final, it was signed, and that it was going to be changed, withdrawn, changed and reissued. Robertson: The a, any idea when the paralegal picked it up? Kosterlitz: I think it was on the 23rd, but I don't have a record of it. Robertson: Do you have any idea what time? Morning, afternoon, evening? Kosterlitz: Boy, I sure don't. I have someone monitoring the file on a regular basis and bringing me materials. Robertson: Could you ask the para legal when she picked it up? Kosterlitz: Sure. obertson: Thank you. osterlitz: I can do that. I don't know that she'll have a record of it. l'-0' 30 j rtson: Thank you. Kosterlitz: With that, if there are no further questions of me, I will turn this over to Bill Fowler. Bill Fowler, VP Duiardin Development: Thank you. I'm Bill Fowler, address is 7908 206th Street, S.E., Snohomish Washington. I'm Vice President of Dujardin Development. Our firm has been in the northwest for over thirty years, and I've been with the company for about twenty years. We're in the business of developing lots and building houses. In February of 1990, we signed an agreement to purchase the property now being reviewed. At that time, a moratorium was in effect pending adoption of your sensitive area ordinance. As I recall, an extension to the moratorium was granted, to permit the City to complete further public hearings and evaluations of criteria to be adopted in the SAO. During 1991, we had meetings with your City Staff and attended pre- application meetings. I was told that the City of Tukwila supported housing and they wanted us to proceed with our processing. Subsequently, many meetings were held with your Staff that involved numerous road configuration layouts and changes, several geotechnical and wetland studies, and several traffic studies. The process has been long, its been cumbersome, its been frustrating, its been expensive. Some of the audience are under the impression that we enjoy a cozy relationship with your staff. When I listen to their testimony, I get the impression that they think a conspiracy has occurred regarding our development. I can assure each of you and members of the audience, that we do not have a cozy relationship with your Staff, nor have we conspired to obtain shortcuts on the development process. City ordinances, regulations, land restrictions, and mitigation requirements, all add to the complex nature of the development process in today's market. The City of Tukwila is no exception. Our engineer, has spent countless hours on designing a system to handle the storm water, on and off site. Our traffic engineer has spent a II derable amount of time and study to ensure that the streets are safe. Our designer has labored for the to design housing that will compliment the terrain as well as provide marketability. Our land ttorney was hired to ensure that we complied with your various ordinances and that we properly m t your processing requirements. We have complied with your sensitive area ordinance, the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and other PRD subdivision requirements required by the City. We have followed your rules and your regulations and all I ask is that you approve this 41 lot PRD subdivision as presented. Do you have any questions? Robertson: Mr. Fowler, could you give me your address once again please? Fowler: Pardon? Robertson: Could you please give me your address again? Fowler: 7908 206th St. S.E., Snohomish. Robertson: Thank you. Mullet: I have one question. You, Amy alluded to great expenses, and you've eluded to expenses, and one of our citizens has eluded that you will get all your expenses back easily. Could you tell us approximately how much you figure you've sunk into this project into this time? Fowler: So far? About a quarter of a million dollars. Rants: Any other questions? Thank you sir. er: Ok, thank you. Bates: My name is Jean Bates. My address is 11207 Fremont Avenue North, Seattle, 98133. I'm representing Charles Morgan and Associates the architects on the project. I'd like to clear up some 31 ke isconceptions that have come up over the last two nights of testimony. The houses have been signed to fit into the topography to the greatest extent possible. The footings will be designed on a ouse by house basis using the recommendations of the soils engineers to assure that the foundations for each house is best suited for each soil and slope condition. There will not be seven identical houses in a row. Each lot does indeed have only one house that fits on it, but each house type has three different ele roof styles along with different ele or siding elevation types and the addition of brick that's optional. And with the choice of ten different, the paint samples that are up in the box, there are 10 different paint samples. The chance that there are would end up being two houses identical is pretty slim let alone seven in a row, because each of the houses are mirrored images. One of the other things I want to clarify is the on exhibit number two, the 30 foot wide red strip, um the survey was done by He Brank and Associates and in the legal description that is part of the record on sheet one of the preliminary plat subdivision, the legal description that is filed with the County includes that 30 foot wide strip as part of the whole parcel. And so currently now it is owned it is all part of the parcel, it is not part of the City. I think that's it that I had. Any questions? Rants: Thank you Jean. Erich Tietze: Good evening, my name is Erich Tietze, I'm with Erich Tietze and Associates, the address is 121 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 205, Edmonds Washington. I'd like to clarify a few misconceptions and erroneous points that have been made by the opponents in this project. The first one is with regards to the right -of -way width on 137th. It's true the pavement width is 28 feet, but the right -of -way width is 40 feet, not 28 feet. With regard to the one way street on 43rd, that was not originally proposed by us. All those lots that are to the west of 43rd Place were to be served by driveways accessing 42nd. The lots that are to the east of 43rd, were to be accessed by driveways on 37th. The fire department did not wish to fight fires along 42nd Avenue, so they requested access to e rear of those houses. Now an alley could have been provided, but unfortunately the way fires are ught is they're fought by the address of the house. And therefore the address would be still 42nd. So e compromise was reached to provide a one way street to serve all those houses thereby gaining the benefit of fire protection for those houses and eliminating potential hazards on 42nd by reducing the number of driveway accesses to 42nd and the number of driveway accesses on 137th. But I'd also like to point out that the opponents not only have access to driveways across right of way as we do, but its just a common thing for people to have private driveways going across public right -of -way. Cause there's usually a space between the edge of the pavement and the edge of the right -of -way. We're not taking any advantage of anything they don't already have themselves. I'd like to further emphasize that this subdivision is being proposed under the new sensitive areas ordinances. The surrounding area was not developed that way. In order to save the sensitive area we wind up with a denser area. The question then becomes, which is more important, density or less density or saving the sensitive areas. I think they're loosing site of the fact that we are saving a lot of sensitive areas and in doing so, winding up with an area that's more dense then what would be normally allowed, as they were allowed to develop before we came along, before the sensitive areas ordinances were developed. With regard to my hydrologic analysis on the drainage, there's been some comments about being, the landscaping being less pervious than the existing terrain. And that is true, the analysis takes that into account. The drainage systems that we're proposing will be adequate to handle the run off from this site. As I've indicated in the other hearings, not only will it be adequate to handle the run off from the site but it will alleviate flooding of off -site areas. I might point out too that in the larger storms, like a hundred year storm, a fifty year storm, so on, the rainfall intensity is so great that even on the existing site those areas are essentially impervious. Water is just going to run off. I just want to emphasize once again to with regards to off street parking, I think your zoning code requires two parking places for each residential site. These sites have a double wide driveway that's 20 feet long minimum that can serve two parking places and they also have a two car garage. So each of these sites has four off site parking places. Somebody has entioned that we are not meeting setback requirements. We are meeting all the setback quirements. With regard to the trail that's being proposed from the end of the cul -de -sac, that cation as been mentioned by Ron Cameron before, is a utility right -of -way but it also is one of the atter areas in the in that particular location and therefore you're going to wind up with a pathway S t's going to be more accessible, more usable by more people. There's been comment about the ation of the piece of right -of -way on 43rd, why that's not a street, why its not connected to the cul -de- I don't know the exhibit number, maybe you can help me out, but we have an exhibit over there showing existing slope grades. Lawrence: Exhibit Seven. 32 Tietze: Exhibit seven. As you can see according to the legend there, that area has slopes, if I can read that far away, of 15% to 40% and the maximum street grade that's allowed is 15 So without a significant amount of lowering of the grade of that particular hillside there's no way that a street is ever going to be allowed in there. It won't work. That's why that area is being vacated. That little red triangle there, the question is why are we giving that to the City, what benefit is to the City? As Ron Cameron has also indicated and as I've indicated in my drainage analysis, that creek is subject to erosion problems. And if the City is going to do anything to stabilize the banks, if they have that property they have a heck of a lot more leeways to what they can do with that then if it is owned by a private citizen. That's the primary reason why that is given to the City. And as my analysis has indicated we're going to be reducing the amount of runoff that goes to that creek. Thereby we'll be reducing the amount of erosion problems in that area. Regard to that 30 foot piece that's going to be vacated to the City, one of the opponents has indicated that its 60 feet wide according to the County records south of 137th and 30 feet wide north of 137th, the exact opposite is true as that plan indicates. There's been some issues as to why we have combined driveways on 42nd there. The real reason is to just limit the number of driveways that are accessing 42nd. In our final plan we may be able to put in some turnarounds there so people can actually head out of those driveways rather than having to back out on 42nd. I'm sure Terry Gibson the traffic engineer will get into this, but a lot of opponents live on west side of 42nd and they're complaining about problems with site distances. They are on the ng side of the street with regards to site distances. Fortunately the project that we're talking about better access in terms of site distances down 42nd. They don't have that luxury. I think that's about he comments that I had other than the fact there's been a lot of comment about evidence of springs, evidence of wetlands that the opponents have proposed. I for one haven't seen any evidence from any expert with regard to spring locations other than the ones that we have already documented. Or wetlands that haven't already been already documented and agreed upon by your City staff. I have personally and don't forget I'm under oath have contacted the author of that Hamlin Collier Wade Livingston report that mentions springs on the site and I said, where did you find these springs? And I think I mentioned this under the mitigated hearing on the DNS, the mitigated DNS, and he has indicated to me that the springs that he found were located in the water forest and wetlands areas that we are setting aside as sensitive areas. And I asked, did you find anything in the areas that we're proposing to build, and his answer was no. With that I conclude my testimony and I'll be.. Rants: Questions? Thank you. Tietze: Thank you. Terry Gibson:My name's Terry Gibson, Gibson Traffic Consultants, 1712 Pacific Avenue, Suite 100 Everett Washington 98201. I am the president and founder of my consulting firm, I have about 20 years experience and did all the traffic work on this project, which is about one complete study and,two or three follow -up studies at the request of either Ron Cameron or Denni Shefrin. Ron Cameron covered probably half of what I was going to present tonight, Eric his another point. Maybe I'll go to that one first. What he was referring to is a fact, and I think both Marilynn Van Hise if I have the name, and Fred Sherman both testified to this last night. They live on the west side of 42nd if I heard the testimony correctly, that's on the inside of the sharp curve there. Our, we to we moved the that 137th I ss point I don't know how many times but it I basically told the architect and our consultant team it needed to be at that very point because that's on the apex, or the outside of the curve which is the visibility in both directions. That's the best site distance along that whole road, is right where that h comes out. Anybody on the west side, is, from the inside and their site visibility is a lot worse than 33 nybody on the outside, so all our driveways on the east side, and the visibility from the driveways is not uite as good as that connector coming out which has to meet better standards because you have more raffle We do meet ASTO desirable standards for that connection point and we meet more than minimum standards for all the proposed driveways on the east side of 42nd Avenue. Elizabeth Springer brought up both nights the short cut down to the freeway. And I did look for the short cut, found the short cut went back in the Planning Commission hearings did some follow -up work and assumed if we had 20% extra traffic, more than I figured would go that way, would use this short cut and take 137th out to Macadam and down 138th, I forget the street names, but get down to the Interurban and I -5 interchange. The level service would still be "A" on the road, on all the roads which is most desirable. The traffic volumes would increase from 250 per day at Macadam on 132nd, 137th excuse me, they'd go up to 325 if you added extra traffic I did a worse case. At 325 daily traffic, would still be about half of what the liveable volume would be that I presented in my prior testimony in some of the viewfoils. That's about 325 versus 725 is still very liveable for the residents that live along 137th to the east. As for the one -way loop, 43rd Place, Ron Cameron has addressed this very well. I might point out, I used to live in Redmond in the bridle trails area, and there's two or three places there where King County or Redmond has applied almost an identical geometrics like what is proposed here that Ron Cameron really suggested that we use here, and we concur with that. The advantage of the one -way that I'd like to point out is the fact that you would have inbound southbound on the west portion of it, and then outbound or exiting eastbound would be on the eastern connection. You'd only have one egress point. The critical traffic at intersections is the traffic at the stop signs turning onto the road, mainly left. So you'd push all the left turn traffic onto 137th, the connector, way back to the mid point of the site while all the entering traffic that would come from 42nd, would enter near the intersection which isn't a problem for your cueing and the cars that stack at the stop sign at 42nd. So one -ways to have an advantage from a safety as well as circulation standpoint in minimizing the conflicts near the main tersection which would be 137th at 42nd Avenue. Pedestrian safety on 42nd Avenue, there was gnificant testimony by both Marilynn Van Hise as well as Pam Reiss. I might point out, Pam Reiss at me prior hearings made a very valid suggestion which I supported and I believe Ron Cameron has so supported. Part of our mitigation is to pay for 50% of a new pedestrian walkway which would be put on the existing 137th from 44th out to Macadam. And that would make a continuous walkway, we'll have a walkway on our new 137th connector and then with the new walkway proposed out to Macadam we'd have a continuous and safe walkway and by safe you would have concrete sidewalk with vertical curve and gutter which separates safety, vehicular traffic from the pedestrians. The safest way to do pedestrian flow. We'd have that all the way out to Macadam. Pam suggested that we don't forget about crosswalks connecting to the Metro and school bus stops and there's been some testimony about how the people congre the kids congregate down there. We are willing, if that condition isn't part of the record now, if in talking to Amy, we are willing to commit to that and the Council could impose that as an extra condition to make sure we have that safe connection from the new walkway to the bus stops and where the kids stop for the school buses. We would like to do that to make it safe for the existing residents that live on the east side. The other issue is the left turn lane on 42nd Avenue that was the, there's several people that testified about this. I believe Ron Lamb concluded with that last night. We did a thorough analysis of the left turn volume. And this is really looking at the southbound left turn from 42nd into 137th toward the plat. Even with this through connection which came and Ron's multiple charts in the sixth or seventh chart, the final chart, I added in the fact that some of the existing residents will use this connector to go to 42nd especially to go to the north. We estimate originally 13 cars would do that in the peak hour. Coming back from work, 13 cars would make that movement. With the connection and existing residents cutting through FosterView estates, it would increase to 21 cars in the hour. That's one every three minutes, that's not a lot of cars, it meets, it doesn't come close to meeting anybody's standards, ASHTO, City, WSDOT standards for left turn channelization. Let me point out the reasons why you really don't want a left turn lane and I think the residents would even support this. If you put a left turn lane on there you're going to be widening it from the 26 to 28 feet 1 e at Ron's talking about, to 38 -40 feet. What does that mean? Wider streets? Place for the cars in the 'ddle to turn? Cars can go faster around those left turns, they don't have to slow up for them when ey make the left turn. So widening the street will tend to increase the capacity, turning capacity as ll as pick up the travel speeds which is directly in opposition to what Ron Cameron is trying to do 34 J your street system. Even the arterials like Macadam and 42nd. Narrow the streets as much as you still provide safe lane widths, but it will end up slowing the traffic down which is also to the benefit isting residents as well as residents that occupy FosterView Estates. The other thing I'd like to point about the one -way and maybe this is somewhat obvious, maybe it isn't, but when you have the 20 foot one -way street in that 43rd Place loop, you basically will have a twelve foot driving lane. In this case a southbound eastbound driving lane and then the east portion or north portion of the street would be not used. So it could be used for parking, where there's not driveways, it could be used for bicyclists or even children playing in the street. I might point out in a very localized loop like that, if there was a kid hit it would be hit by the parents of the kids on that loop. And that's very unlikely to happen, if you only have eight to ten homes, that you would have an accident where parents would be speeding through at very short portion where its their own kids basically playing on the street. So that's really not an issue on this particular example since that will be a very localized street with only ten homes. That's the extent of my rebuttal and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Rants: Thank you. Gibson: Thank you. Garrett Munger: My name is Garrett Munger, I work with Terra Associates as a wetland biologist. The address of the firm is 12525 Willows Road, Redmond Washington 98034. Robertson: What was your last name again sir? Munger: Munger. .rtson: Could you spell it please? eer: M- u- n- g -e -r. Robertson: Ok, thank you. Munger: Our firm and Tom Strong with our firm, wrote the original wetland report which initially identified in a lobe of wetland extending off to the west of the larger drainage corridor. He was working with me at the time as an Associate, he was doing independent wetland reports and was the author of the that particular report. The area that is in question is an area which has been disturbed in the past. There are some big there is some evidence that there has been some fill material placed. It is an area which is perhaps difficult to do an evaluation or make a determination of whether it is or is not wetland. After the issue was raised initially by Gary Schulz about whether it was wetland or not, I met with him at the site, we did an evaluation at that time together. And it was our conclusion that the soils in the area did not meet the hydric soil criteria and in accordance with the wetland evaluation methodologies therefore the area did not satisfy the criteria as wetland. I returned to the site yesterday afternoon since this issue was raised again. I at that time excavated some additional holes to make sure that my initial observations with Gary were correct. And I would concur with what we had initially what we had Gary and I had concluded. Point out that there have been three wetland biologists that examined this area to this point. And two of the three have come to conclusion that the area does not satisfy the criteria for wetlands. Rants: Questions? Robertson: Pardon me, did you do any analysis of this as a stream site? er: Um, streams imply implies that there is a defined channel where there is some surface ment of water through the area. There is no surface identifiable channel in this area. It is a t eeler: Correct. obertson: And then it would be filed as approved? 35 4.1 q< efined, poorly defined, very broad swell through which there may during the winter seasons, there may e some subsurface movement. But there is no channel which would identify it as a stream. Robertson: Thank you. Rants: Thank you. Well I, that concludes the applicant. Alright, I believe that it is time to close the public hearing. Robertson: I have a couple quick questions of Staff. Rants: You want that during the public hearing? Robertson: Yes. Rants: Normally, that's fine. Who did you want to speak to? Robertson: Ah, Rick Beeler. 18.46.060.G, yea G, says that a Board of Architectural Review shall review Rants: I think you're going to need to give him that number a little slower. Robertson: Oh, Ok, I'm as bad as Denni, huh? 18.46.060G, basically Rick, it says the Board of Architectural Review shall review guidelines for single and multi family developments etc. Did or has a Board of Architectural Review reviewed this? eeler:The Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commissioner are the same. Denni maybe ou could come up and help me on this. I think that what you have in the next section sentence it says h at design or review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of section 18.60.050. And that section 18.60.050 is the Board of Architectural Review criteria so whether acting as the Planning Commission or acting as the Board of Architecture Review, they do the same thing. They were utilizing some of that criteria. Did you have anything else? Shefrin: No, I don't have anything else to add. Robertson: So the answer is, the Board of Architectural Review didn't do it, but you're saying that having the Planning Commission review was the same thing, sufficed. Beeler:Yea, I don't want to call off the top of my head what the public notice said, whether the public notice said Board of Architectural Review and Planning Commission or whether it just said Planning Commission. I'd have to look at that. Robertson: Could you check that for me please? Beeler:Umhuh. Was there another question? Robertson: Sony. One other -under 18.46.060.C. Filing requirements. The last sentence reads, upon final approval of PRD, filing of PRD shall be in accordance with the procedures of subdivision code, if any lots will be transferred and stuff. What I understand, and I'm a little puzzled, but I understand what's before us right now is approval, final approval of the PRD. Is that correct? er:It would be filed as approved, but it technically needs to have the plat go with it. In other words ave the applicant's proposal is the plat which is all combined into a preliminary and final approval ne approval. As well as the subdivision which is a preliminary approval now, final approval later. So the both would have to go be filed at the same time. That would be later under the final plat and the PRD would be filed at the same time as I understand it. Robertson: Ok, but we're not dealing with the subdivision, is that correct or not? Beeler:You're dealing with the preliminary plat. Robertson: Of the subdivision. Beeler:Yea, subdivisions Robertson: So we're approving that. Well earlier Gary Schulz stated that the final buffer lines will hasn't been defined yet and that will come from later. The questions I guess I'm asking is, if we're dealing with the final plat and subdivision, how can we vote on something that's not final? Beeler:The -I think Gary said that the final wetland buffer enhancement yea enhancement plan I think he said, would be completed prior to approval of a LAO permit, or Land Altering Permit. The Land Altering Permit would occur after the PRD and the preliminary plat is approved by you, the actual and the boundary line adjustment, if you approve those tonight. The next step for the applicant is to move towards taking out applying for a Land Altering Permit. Part of the application requirements that he must satisfy is that final wetland buffer enhancement plan and some of the other mitigation measures of t IONS. Then the applicant begins to construct the road roads through the property as a normal process. And again the springs issue would, mitigation would come into play at that time. And the storm drainage system would be installed in those roadways, the utilities run and that sort of t And once that's all completed and any other mitigation measures satisfied, then it comes back to the Council as a final plat with all of the final CCNR's, all of the easements to be conveyed to the City, those sorts of things. Robertson: Would then come back for final approval? Beeler: Correct. 36 Robertson: The buffers. When Gary Schulz stated that, sure come on up Gary, that there would be buffers to be addressed in the final wetland plan submitted. Is that the definition of the buffers or the enhancement plan for the buffers? Schulz: The, going back to the statements that I made before, Gary Schulz. Robertson: Yes your statements and trying to understand. I understood -and that's Rick what you said, is still do we have a final application and location of everything here? The buffers Schulz: We need -in order to determine what impact is going to happen on the watercourse, the crossing, particular we'll need to have a final design for the road. We don't have that now. So we don't really know how much area its going to take to cross that road, and also fisheries will be involved in that, in a permit. The buffer- reduction, we .pretty much know from the maps that you're looking at tonight, we can pretty much go ahead with a plan on that anytime. But 1 s rtson: What does pretty much mean in square footage? A hundred square foot, a thousand e foot? How much difference, variation are you talking about for the whole PRD? 37 chulz: I don't think there will be any variation in buffer reduction. There, we don't know how uch impact there will be to the watercourse right now, so that's why those that plan should be best if it apped everything together for enhancement. Robertson: Then the question I would ask is two things. I guess why hasn't why isn't that plan completed, the final wetland plan completed prior to submittal of the PRD to the Council? Beeler:The combination, the plats, excuse me, the subdivision ordinance is what is regulating in terms of the road and there's engineering requirements. And I'm going to try to not speak for Public Works, but as I understand it, when the engineers talk final design, and as Gary is talking about final design of the road, their talking about it in survey if you will language in that sort of precision. What you have there is a conceptual plan, if you will, but that is for engineering terms, but that it is very close. It's fairly precise in terms of what where it actually is going to be. What Gary needs and the applicant are going to be doing is working on running the final and reconfirming the survey and then looking at the very precise engineering calculations of where exactly the toe slopes are going to be for the and of that crossing, and fill there and whatever measures they're going to take to cross the street. That's what he's talking about in terms of final design. Robertson: Ok, thank you. Rants: Any other questions before I close public hearing? Ekbere: Rick you, in response to Dennis's question, you kind of outlined the series of processes and steps to reach a final conclusion of this project. Could you identify those in writing for us for future 1eference? ants: The process from here on through to where we go. Ok. Robertson: Could we have that within the next several days so we can use that when we do our analysis of all of this? Rants: Ok. I'm going to close Robertson: I think Ron wants to say something. I'm afraid Ron wants to say something. Rants: We are, we're within three minutes of having to extend this meeting which... Robertson: Ron, finish. Cameron: Clarification for Mrs. Scarber. The assessors map do show a 60 foot right -of -way as she rightfully says. That's what the assessors maps show. What we found in going through the development, what the applicant found is that right -of -way was never dedicated, the red part on the map over there. So both answers are right, I just wanted to clarify that. It was over two years ago that we went over that exercise.... Rants: Thank you, Ron. You had a question Steve? Joan does. Hernandez: I have a question, it doesn't really have to do with the public hearing but I just wanted to clarify, was Rick going to be able to be here on the 20th? We're you going to be able to be here on the 20th? S eeler:No, I'll be out of the country. '7 38 andez: Because was that what you were asking? I wanted to review the criteria, would this be e to do that or can that be provided for us on the 20th? Rants: Let's close the public hearing and go with that. Anything else for the record? Lawrence: I hate to do this, I have a question of the Vice President if that's possible. Its up to you guys. Robertson: I would vote to extend the meeting time line, 15 not to exceed 15 minutes or move to exceeding, whatever. Rants: Moved and seconded to extend this meeting 15 minutes, not to exceed 15 minutes. Discussion? Cohen: For clarification sake, before you close up the public hearing, any testimony that's going to be taken, if you want to receive any input from Rick Beeler or anyone else here, it needs to be taken before the public hearing is closed. Rants: But we're just extending the public hearing for 15 minutes. Robertson: And the time of the meeting, past eleven o'clock. Rants: All in favor say aye (unanimous vote), those opposed? (no response) Lawrence: Ok, I guess I want to know from your perspective, why the lots are such a wide variation e. We've heard a lot of testimony concerns about density and the overall density doesn't appear r outside the norm, six, I was wrong when I said 6,700 square feet, its 6,450 I think on one of your Why's there such a range from thirty nine hundred and something on up several thousand more? Fowler: Well what we're doing we're making of course 41 houses. I mean that's that was our goal to maintain a count of 41. As far as the size of the lots, that's a result of what land is left that we have to designate as lots. Lawrence: Why isn't is more evenly distributed? Like a whole bunch in the 6,000's a couple 7,000's. Instead of such a big range? Is it the lay of the land? Fowler: Well once, it depends it depends upon where the buffers and Jean can help me, it depends where the, yea its topography, its where the buffers, where the wetlands, their lines are established. Lawrence: Topography, where the wetlands are, and where the roads had to be, things like that? Fowler: Yea, correct. Lawrence: Ok, thank you. Rants: If I can, any disagreement? Public Hearing is closed. Robertson: I would like to deal with two issues, one is the meeting on the 20th. We said would open or begin at 7:OOpm, I would like to move that since its unlikely that we want to meet another night in the next couple of days after that, that we start that meeting at 6:OOpm. R Is there consensus on the Council to begin the meeting the 20th at 6:OOpm? It's a regular ay night. Jane would you make note of that, that we will do that. iq 39 ernandez: Question, will we be taking other testimony or will that just be for discussion purposes? ants: No, it is discussion and findings. Hernandez: And you think it needs to start... Lawrence: We may need an executive session in advance, one was scheduled after this, we may need e_le in advance of that. Robertson: I would move then, if we were to schedule the executive session in advance that that began at prior to at 5:00 or 5:30. I would like as much time as possible for discussion, and working through this so that we don't end up going another night. That's what I'm trying to avoid, and I'm not sure what will happen at that point so I want to allow that evening. That's my intention. Rants: Ok, Joe? Duffie:Ok, my question is that, I know we've got to do a lot, but I know you guys got, I want you'all to understand that we have families here, Christmas here, their going to have gifts here. We're going to run into a problem with these meetings, so if you expect anybody to be here, you're looking at the 20th, that's five days before Christmas. And then you've got the 27th. I mean what are you going to do, you going to have a meeting all during. Lawrence: The 20th was agreed last night. uffie:I understand that, but now your talking about thinking about another meeting. My concern is... obertson: No, I'm saying that I'm trying to avoid another meeting. Lawrence: He wants a longer evening set aside in case. I don't think we'll need it, but if you think we will I guess I have no objections. Robertson: I don't know, I just -I would agree with that. Second, before Staff, I would assume that when we go through the discussion, there maybe questions we want to ask Staff. Technical questions because they... Duffie: Can't do it. Robertson: We cannot discuss this with Staff? Cohen: Nope, that's why I said, if you have questions to ask, you need to reopen it and do it now. You will not have that opportunity on the 20th. Robertson: We cannot have a discussion with Staff of technical questions while we're doing our own? Cohen: No, this is your opportunity to do it now if you've got those questions, you need to do it now. Lawrence: Could it be reopened then? could it be reopened at that time? Cohen: Only if its, only if its advertised. I mean I would highly suggest that if there's questions, at's what this period is for, that's why there were two days of testimony, to ask all those questions and go through. The 20th is for your findings and your conclusions. Your deliberations. 40 rtson: But our deliberations means then that the only people you're saying that we can have a ssion with between now and then is legal, is our self. Talking to a mirror. Cohen: That's correct, you're the decision makers. You've heard all the testimony, its up to you to make the decisions. If you've got more questions everyone is here and you can ask them now or advertise and reopen it if you feel that that's necessary. But no, that type of interchange will not happen. Robertson: Ok, then I guess it doesn't matter whether or not Staff is here. Rants: That would be unique wouldn't it. Is there anything else for the benefit tonight or I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Ekberg: Ok, do we have consensus for 5:00 on the 20th? Lawrence: I'm not sure we're going to need it. Robertson: I think we should advertise it and then decide later whether or not we do it. Lawrence: For a full hour? Robertson: Sure. Rants: Let's have it advertised so that it can be there if you decide, otherwise we're stymied if you say I w to do it and its not there. S 's at least advertise it beginning at 6:00. Is there a motion for adjournment? D :I make a motion that we adjourn. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say I? Those opposed? We are adjourned. 1 /goo