Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-20 Special MinutesTUKWILA CITY COUNCIL December 20, 1993 Tukwila City Hall 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 5:10 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION 5:10 p.m. MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR 1 HOUR TO DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES. MOTION CARRIED. 6:00 p.m. MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Regular Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL JOE DUFFLE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; STEVE LAWRENCE, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; ALLAN EKBERG; STEVE MULLET. OLD BUSINESS Finding Conclusions Foster View Estates, PRD /Subdivision Verbatim Transcript attached* (57 pages) *PRD /Subdivision was approved with conditions. tiD Craft Excused MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER CRAFT. MOTION CARRIED. OFFICIALS LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; JACK PACE, Sr. Planner; DENNI SHEFRIN, Associate Planner; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst. CITIZENS COMMENTS Roger Baker, 11662 42nd Ave. So., thanked the City for approving a new community center. CONSENT AGENDA a. Approval of Vouchers: Nos. 68504 through 68798 in the amount of $513,606.79 b. Authorize Mayor to sign High Capacity Transit Interlocal Agreement with Metro. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting December 20, 1993 Page 2 NEW BUSINESS Ord. #1685 Establishing a Moratorium on Specific Properties Citizen Comment 1 �Y3 MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, 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 FOURTEEN LOCATIONS; ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR, AND ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND REZONES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT ORDINANCE NO 1685 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* In support of the motion Council President Lawrence explained he feels an emergency exists because the City is going through an unprecedented time in trying to comply with the Growth Management Act and reassessing the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Tukwila Tomorrow Committee has identified several areas they feel need to be protected until the comp plan can be amended. Councilmember Robertson agreed. Mayor Rants offered the following procedural amendment. MOVED BY RANTS, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO AMEND SECTION #5 PUBLIC HEARING TO READ AS FOLLOWS: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 207, LAWS OF 1992, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE HELD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF ITS ADOPTION. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Mullet stated he was hesitant to approve a moratorium on something he is not familiar with. Councilmember Hernandez stated she was comfortable with the moratorium as she had attended the Tukwila Tomorrow meeting when the areas were discussed and had visited the sites referenced. She asked that a waiver process be included in the process. Betty Gully, 13017 Macadam Road South, read from a memo prepared by Grant Neiss, Tukwila Tomorrow Committee member, regarding the moratorium. Neiss' memo stated that the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee had discussed at their last two meetings the idea of an additional moratorium to cover the areas outlined on the map in the agenda packet. The majority decided to wait until they have finished with Phase II before making a decision on recommending the moratorium expansion. The rationale: there are Tukwila City Council Regular Meeting December 20, 1993 Page 3 Citizens Comments (con't) Ord. #1685 REPORTS ADJOURNMENT several other properties that may have zoning changes, 2) these decisions have been delayed until the end of the Phase II process, 3) if this moratorium is enacted now, three or four months down the road may need to be changed, extended, or another moratorium passed because other properties may be included. The majority feel that the delay will not be harmful. Councilmember Robertson encouraged Council to move ahead with the moratorium as it could be amended at a later time by adding or deleting properties. Senior Planner Jack Pace briefly reviewed the current and proposed zoning of several key areas under consideration for the moratorium, and pointed out that the existing comp plan does not match the current zoning map. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AREAS ONLY: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Lawrence reported the City received a request from RCAA to release of the second $5,000 that was authorized by Council earlier in the year. He suggested the money be released. Council and Mayor disagreed about releasing the money. Councilmember Mullet suggested Mayor Rants release the money after January 1st and that Council discuss the issue later. Council bid Councilmemeber Lawrence "farewell" with their best wishes. W. Rants, Mayor r r ✓47J. f i,< ale E. Cantu, City Clerk ukwila City Council eliberations Foster View Estates PRD /Subdivision ecember 20, 1993 Rants: Steve? Mayor Rants: The council has before them and has had for some time now, application for a plat Foster View Estates. It is complicated. The Council can give one of two recommendations. They can deny the application or they can approve the application, or they may approve with conditions. The review criteria from the zoning code on page 1855, I'm going to go over the eight listed criteria of the zoning code here. "Planning Commission and City Council should find that the proposed development plans meet all of the following criteria in their decision making. One, requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met if appropriate. Two, reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in section 18.46.070. Three, adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated. Four, compliance with the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter and chapter 18.45. Five, time limitations if any for the entire development and specified stages have been documented in the application. Six, development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relative plans. Seven, compliance with the Board of Architecture Review Guidelines section 18.60.150. And number eight, appropriate retention preservation of existing trees and vegetation recommended by the director of the Department of Community Development." Joan? Councilmember Joan Hernandez: Before we begin the process I need to declare that in reading my material and doing my research that in response to a letter that was in our packet from Nancy Lamb. I think it was dated -oh I had it right in front of me here -I don't have the date on it -oh, here it is, excuse me. December 2, 1993, there was a suggestion that we view this roperty on Martin Luther King Way and south Cloverdale and I did drive by and view that roperty. I probably need to disclose that, I did that. ants: Are there any City Attorney Linda Cohen: Do you feel that will impact your decision? Will you still be able to make a fair decision Councilmember Joan Hernandez: I definitely will be able to make a fair decision. I don't believe that that could possible totally influence my decision one way or another, there is so much other material to be considered other than just the appearance of that particular piece of property. It was just something that I did and I wanted to declare that I did it. Councilmember Steve Lawrence: I need to disclose that one of the people that signed, two of the people that signed a petition opposing certain points of this development did attend a party at my house two weeks ago. We didn't have discussion regarding this or any topic remotely related. Rants: Any other disclosures? All right, let's begin with number one. Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been met if appropriate. Councilmember Dennis Robertson: I have several points to make there. I want to get to that in a moment. I'd like to just talk about street widths first. What I propose we do by the -what I'd like to do is raise some issues I found in looking at the ordinances and stuff, and basically discuss In with the Council. I have two kind of general areas of concern. One are street widths and the econd deals with lot arrangements through lots and an issue of prevailing patterns. Now I'm terpreting both of those generally to be something that comes under require -item one, 846112.1 which is requirements of the subdivision code. So I start with the first one, street 2 I v idths. Basically I went and looked at some different TMC's in the subdivision code and the first ne is TMC 17.20.050 Streets A Extension. What it says is proposed streets shall extend existing streets at the same or greater width unless approved by the Department of Public Works and authorized by the City Council in approval of the plat. The second, yea go ahead, your welcome to vote. The second is TMC 17.24.040 Public Rights Away, Section A, right -of -way widths. It says street widths may vary according to function, traffic generated topography. The following minimum street widths for streets as defined in Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan shall apply unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works and authorized by the City Council approval of the preliminary plat or the short subdivision committee in the case of short plats. Then if we look at the preliminary plat drawings, actually Wally what we need on the wall I think as we go through this is one of these drawings. Is there some tape somewhere, or stick pins or -let me stop for just a second Rants: Is this the site plan that has been in the record? Robertson: Yes, this is- -these are copies of the site plans that were presented Rants: Would you note for the record, Councilman Duffie's arrival. (6:20 p.m.) Robertson: All right, start over again. If you look at preliminary plat drawing one of five, dated 8/16/93, and this is part of the material provided to us in the public hearings there's -and we look at the code. What I want to point out is the code, there's probably two kinds of streets in the code that apply here in my mind. One is what's called a local street and the code says the right -of -way is 50 feet and the pavement has to be 30 feet. However, the right -of -way code also goes on to r ay, may be reduced to 40 feet with five foot easements on each side if the subject roadway will e traversing or adjacent to wetlands and watercourses. If look at plat map one out of five, we ake S. 137th, 40 feet of it, the eastern one half, that's the part the right that's adjacent to the water ourse is indeed 40 feet at the right -of -way as recorded on the plat itself. However, the -let's say the western most half of the street continues on at a 40 feet right -of -way. And that is not adjacent to any sensitive area wetland for water courses the code requires. Also the code says that the pavement has to be 30 feet, yet the actual pavement is 28 feet with a five foot sidewalk on either side. The second street that's in there, and the only thing it could be is a local street, the code requires again 50 feet of right -of -way and 30 feet of pavement. However, the actual right -of -way is 20 feet and the pavement is 20 feet as recorded on the sub division plat map, plat map one out of five. Also there's no sidewalk on this street, on 43rd Place South. Finally I'd like to point out on this part off of the map, that the code requires -has a cul -de -sac that says the roadway in a cul -de- sac, the roadway right -of -way, the code right -of -way is 40 feet. Well, S. 137th Place has an actual right -of -way of 40 feet as shown on the plat map, OK? It says that the pavement has to be 26 feet, a minimum of 26 feet, the actual pavement is 28 feet. So in this case the proposed plat is larger pavement wise than required and the right -of -way is the same. However, when you get to the turn around, that's the circle part, the code says that the right -of -way has to be 80 feet, OK? But in the right -of -way, or in the map, plat map, the right -of -way is shown as 50 feet. Councilmember Steve Lawrence: That's a radius Dennis, that's half of it. Hernandez That's 40 at the entrance. Councilmember Steve Mullet: 40 at one spot and 50 at the another, 80 or 100, it may be 90 on the end. r obertson: You're right, it has to be 44 feet actual pavement, but its 50 feet. So, the road -OK, t me go on. That's the policy question. OK, S. 137th St., the way I see it, the S. 137th St. has a n foot right -of -way reduction for the western one half. The eastern one half has a right -of -way at fits the code. The western one half of it, length of it is ten foot less right -of- way... ullet: That's the main street. 3 Robertson: That's the main street that goes through. Yea, it's basically its the same street all the way through according to the map. And this portion to here to here the right -of -way according to the code can be 40 feet with five foot easements. Lawrence: OK. first off Dennis, they don't have easements on that section so they've reduced the 40 feet without the easements too. Mullet: This, there's another whole packet of maps, there's one that has- Robertson: This doesn't have any dimensions on it, this is the wrong one. Yea, this is the one I want, let's just stick this one up. Councilmember Joe Duffie: Which map are you using? Robertson: This is November 17th, November 12th rather, 93, 8/16/93 up here on the date, received November 12th, 1993, OK, what it shows here is a 40 foot right -of -way width throughout the whole length of 137th with a 28 foot street width or pavement width. What I'm making is that it appears that on the pavement is two feet too narrow through the whole length and the right -of- way is correct, or it meets minimum code requirements for basically the eastern half of the street length which is adjacent to wetland, watercourse and the western half does not, it's 10 foot too narrow what? ouncilmember Allan Ekbera: It looks like on the map that the width expands in a westerly i rection. Lawrence: No, it's the same Robertson: It doesn't say that. Lawrence: It says it's the same Robertson: As near as I can tell, it's the same here anyway. 43rd Pl. South, there's a 30 foot right -of -way reduction the whole length of the street, I mean it's 30 feet narrow right -of -way than the code requires and then 10 foot. Now, in trying to understand this, I look back, and looked at the Planning Commission report, page 11 that we were provided as part of package dated 8/26/93. And the quote in here, it says is to reduce the amount of impervious surface area and to in effect to cause traffic to move slowly which is desirable in a residential neighborhood. The PRD public hearing, I mean that's right out of the report provided by Staff, during the PRD public hearing Ron Cameron on page 16 of the transcript we were given, dated 12/7/93, says the same adding that compatibility with existing streets is also important with Macadam Road as twenty feet wide and 40 to 42nd as narrow as 20 feet in some places. Ron also compared 137th to the recently completed 160th street that we did as part of the residential program, from 51st to 53rd, and he said that was 24 feet wide. Again, reading through the data more, Erich Tietze as part of the PRD public hearing on the 7th of December, on page 31 of the transcript, stated that the one way street on 43rd, that was -this is a quote copied right out of there -that was not originally proposed by us although those Tots 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 riveways on 137th. The fire department did not wish to fight fires along 42nd Avenue so they equested access to the rear of those houses. Now, an alley could have been provided, but nfortunately the way fires are fought they are fought, is they're fought by address of the house. herefore this address would still be 42nd. So the compromise was reached to provide a one 4 ay street to serve all those houses thereby gaining the benefit of fire protection for those houses nd eliminating potential hazards on 42nd by reducing the number of driveway accesses to 42nd and the number of driveway accesses on 137th. That's his explanation. Terry Gibson on the same night on page 33 of the transcript added that there's two or three places in King County where almost the identical geometry's as here were applied. He also states that the 43rd place one way street loop was safer because it results in only one place on S. 137th where there are left turn accesses. I guess that's implying since it's a one way this way, there's only one place. You obviously don't have a left turn here only 137th because its one way going south. The last quote 1 found that was added to this was in the Planning Commission minutes dated 9/23/93 on page three of the transcript. Ron Cameron, the City Engineer states that 43rd PI. South was made a one way road so that it could be narrower and the lot sizes bigger, that's a direct quote. Rants: OK, do you have a point to make here now so we could -on this issue? Robertson: Well, yes, I'm just building the argument. Rants: I know you are. Robertson: I thought everybody would want to go through. Pam Carter- -the counter arguments to the street widths that were provided during the public hearing, Pam Carter a citizen, on 12/7 on page 24 of the transcript, stated, "in talking about the street width and the fact that a lot of the older streets are 20 foot wide and 42nd will be increased to only about 24 feet, we're talking about already 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 the width of your street isn't estricted by the fact that if you widen the street you end up on somebody's doorstep. Macadam, could be wider? Are you going to widen it? Well, there's a number of homes there that would ave to go if it was widened to what it should be end of her quote. I also know myself, that S. 60th was not a new street. When we did it recently we didn't create a new street, it is an existing street with existing lots on it. And what was happening is that we went through and undergrounded and put sidewalks in. Also, on the 160th section that Ron Cameron discussed, in his comment that section has only two houses that access it, from 51st to 53rd. So it seems to me that when you try to compare 160th to these new streets proposed in PRD, you run the same problem you do when you compare Macadam and 42nd. In all those cases we're dealing as Pam Carter stated, with existing streets, with existing houses with existing lots that we're put in place before the current code was written. Also, like I said, in 160th's case, it doesn't have houses accessing on to it as these streets would here. And I'm assuming that the more curb cuts you have in the streets the bigger problem narrowness is. Also, going back to this, Mr. Hagardson, Planning Commission member, in the minutes from their December 23rd meeting, on page two, asked, quote, if this site is so unique that they should break from all precedent, he said that other developers have gone along with what the City has required of them and he would prefer to keep the image that they have pushed for in the past. He said that in the past they have asked developers to decrease lots sizes in order to put in a 30 foot street. In this project the streets are 20 feet wide. I presume he's talking about 43rd Place there, and as I pointed out, Ron Cameron in that same meeting had said that 43rd Place was made narrower, made a one way road, so that it could be narrow and the lots sizes bigger. The issue -to looking at it, I think there is no issue with the cul -de -sac, there is however an issue with S. 137th St. and 43rd Place South. In S. 137th Street, I'm not -it would seem to me since it's a fairly short street, widening it for the part that isn't adjacent to the water course, the right -of -way, I wonder about that. The purpose of narrowing the right -of -way for the water course and sensitive areas was to protect them so that we didn't go in and cut them up and people didn't park on them and stuff. In this case here where there is fil owever is no sensitive area, it seems to me we're creating a policy issue if we narrow the right -of- ay requirements below what the code calls for. That's a policy decision. 5 1 ullet: Should we discuss that before you get too far on? I mean that's its also an issue of hat good does it do to make that part of the street ten foot wider when the rest of it isn't. Lawrence: That's correct. Mullet: I mean, do you gain anything by doing that? Robertson: You certainly wouldn't.... Mullet: And in effect do you just make the lots smaller, those are pretty big lots on.... Robertson: They are deeper lots. Mullet: You could make it ten foot wider on that side and just knock ten feet off 9999???? Tots, but you wouldn't really gain anything. Robertson: That's a fair question for the right -of -way portion. The only reason I can see doing it is that is the policy we have and we've had other people develop to. If we narrow a right -of -way requirement for a street because the right -of -way requirement in no way effects the safety issue or anything else, as near as I can understand. And this street has as many accesses off and on to it as any other residential street would have and it is a through street. If we narrow it, it concerns me that we're creating a policy that we're going to have to live with that every other developer would come with. And that was the question that Mr. Hagerton asked in the Planning Commission minutes, and the basic reason it seems to me that the streets narrower is to allow the lots to be arger. That in itself is a very dangerous precedent to set, to say that we are going to narrow a treet so that the lots can be larger. ullet: The TMC does give us the option of extending the street at the same width or greater width if we want if its approved by Public Works and Council.... Robertson: That's correct, and that's the policy question Mullet: And that's the policy decision too. So we're not violating policy if we say in this case, (unclear).... Robertson: That's exactly correct. And I wanted to point out then in this case if we did it would follow the same pattern that was set in the right half or the eastern most half of the street. So I want to throw that out as one policy question. Mullet: So that's one street issue. Robertson: Yes. That second Mullet: Should we take a consensus on that, or how do you want to deal with it... Robertson: Well the second one is 43rd Place, I think they're somewhat different issues. Mullet: They are. Very different issues. Rants: Take the one issue first then, Steve? or Joe? ouncilmember Joe Duffie: No, go ahead. Councilmember Steve Mullet: That's what that's the thing that bothers me you are going from one width to the other as you move through wrence: The 40 -30 seems very reasonable. Don't you think that the 30 foot pavement r e quirement seems very reasonable throughout 137th? Especially wrence: Yea, this narrowness of streets was a concern of mine too, and it's very clear in the MC that this is really a safety issue that should be given a great deal of weight. I think that arbitrarily narrowing the street to 28 feet when 30 was even required I think as a bare minimum here -30 feet. Even though we received testimony from Public Works that it may be in conformance with other streets in the area, those are substandard streets. They're substandard on safety issues. I think its important that we maintain a minimum of 30 feet throughout on that main street of 137th and this also does require an additional easement -a permanent easement on either side which is not addressed the way it is right now through the sensitive area. It needs to have a five foot easement on either side which isn't there. And you would have to have an additional easement throughout the property and that is to allow if at some point the street is more of a major collector, which isn't foreseen at this time, or has some additional parking problems or whatever comes up, there is some latitude to widen it if necessary. Mullet: Are we going to narrow the sidewalks if we if we make the pavement a foot wider on each side? Are we going to effectively narrow the sidewalks? Lawrence: Well this also has minimum sidewalk requirements. Hernandez: There are not sidewalks on this part. Lawrence: On which part? It's one side. Robertson: Can I go back Steve? I think you're in correct on one point. I think the minimum right -of -way for the eastern most section of 137th is... wrence: The right -of -way is correct but the pavement isn't, it says... obertson: But the right -of -way there is correct is what I want to say, it could be 40 feet. Lawrence: There's no easement there Dennis so they're lacking 10 foot of easement, five on either side. Robertson: Oh, OK you're correct. Lawrence: And even by this there's a -at least ten foot of easement that isn't on the map that should be there. 6 Robertson: You're right. And you can't -in my mind there's no way you can justify taking easements away because of a safety issue, it's not a safety issue. Lawrence: No, if this was a nice straight street on fairly even topography, I could see perhaps having a narrower street the 28. But this street goes up and down in its elevation gain, it's an S curve and a fairly short distance. It seems like that -I'm not even sure 40 feet would be adequate for the right -of -way overall. But like Mr. Mullet, I'm not sure having one part 40 and one part 50 really makes sense either, you make create a safety hazard then by arbitrarily narrowing the streets. It seems like the 40 30.. o bertson: With a 40 foot easement.. D 1 7 Lawrence: Especially if parking was restricted to one side only since it does go through S curves.... Mullet: I have no problem with a two foot greater requirement for pavement. Personally I don't see what it's going to gain anything, I just don't.... Robertson: I agree with you except that's what the code calls for. Presumably as far as I know, since we're never -in the six years I've been here I've never voted on and approved that I know of, a street width narrower than that for a new street. That once we set the policy for doing it we have to have a definite reason that we can apply each time. And I can't, for the life of me understand how I could justify a narrower in this case. I agree with Mr. Hagerton. Rants: By definition, 160th is -you are calling that not a new street. Robertson: That's correct. Rants: By definition you're saying that's an old street so we can make it 28 feet. Robertson: Yes, there was existing lots, existing houses. Rants: I'm just curious how you're coming to this conclusion of... Robertson: And its no different than 42nd and one of the problems with 42nd, we've already i i tarted discussing that, is the variation in both the street width, the right -of -way width, the lots, ow far back each house is set. You know to compare a new situation to an existing one, boy I ish we could because on 42nd some of the problems there are almost putting the street and dewalk on someone's porch, yea. Rants: Any other comments on this? Joan? Hernandez: Well my concern in only with the 43rd Place South. The fact that it's one way and it's very narrow. Mullet: Can we get to that one next though Joan, let's just take this one and get it out.... Robertson: I'II make a proposal that we widen the pavement to 30 feet. Believe -and with a five foot easement on either side. And the policy decision would be -and the justification for that decrease in the policy or in the code -the policy decrease would be that that's appropriate for the part that's adjacent to the sensitive areas and that it makes sense to continue it for the following, yea for that community, whatever that length which is roughly equal to the part that is parallel or adjacent to the... Rants: OK, you're going to make a recommendation on a condition. All right would you spell it out so that a we can.... Robertson: We're just talking through this now Lawrence: This is discussion, when we get -if we get into an approval with conditions we'll formalize these points. ants: Oh, all right I just wanted to have these formalized. obertson: So we're talking about 137th 8 J uffie: So you're talking -going to make 137th a 40 40 feet, is that right? Lawrence: It's a 40 foot right -of -way right now, it would require an additional five foot of easement on either side that the TMC requires. And it would be 30 foot of pavement instead of 28 throughout on 137th. Robertson: So what becomes is 30 foot pavement, 40 feet right -of -way with a five foot easement for the.... Duffle: Oh, is that right? Robertson: I believe... Mullet: And that would apply -and you can reduce on the wetlands adjacent to the wetlands, you can reduce it to 40 feet with a five foot easement on each side, OK, so it to the wetlands, but what about then the other part where we're saying we're just going to leave that the same because it's the same and have a five foot easement on each side. Robertson: It's a continuation of the same street. Yes, yes, the easement, yes. I don't see why you Lawrence: I think you'd want uniform easements in case there's ever a need to do anything with the street. You wouldn't want a narrow on one -or no easement on one section then a five foot asement on the other if the right -of -way is the same width. ullet: Now the question, to go further down the line is, when somebody puts a house on a of they obviously can't build on an easement. Robertson: So the house has to be set back past the easement. Mullet: Does the easement count as part of the setback? Robertson: I believe we've been doing that, yes. Mullet: Because I don't, if we're going to be plattable lots, I don't want to impact... Robertson: It would be my understanding that the easement counts, and that's what they've been doing throughout this. Easements count as part of the... Mullet: You just can't build on it but its part of the... Lawrence: Ask them if its... Mullet: I don't know if we can Rants: No, you had to make a.... Mullet: All we can do is say what we know. I don't even know if I could have asked that question obertson: From my understanding from the rest of what they've done and from the testimony, asement issues is part of the -in other places on here and I think I could show you where the 9 1 513 L asement is used as part of the setback requirements, if there were any. So if we're agreement here do you want to go onto 43rd? Rants: Let's go onto 43rd? Mullet: Is there any disagreement? Lawrence: We haven't voted on it so we'll just discuss it. Robertson: No one wants to raise another point on it then? Duffle: Dennis let me say, this is from 137th is there -the same all the way through, is that correct? OK, all right we've got you. Robertson: The only difference -well that's not totally true Joe, the only part that's different on the part of 137th, the eastern most half, that is parallel and adjacent to the water course from what received -read hear has no sidewalk on one side... Duffie: OK. Lawrence: It has the same right -of -way though. Robertson: But it has the same right -of -way and street width just no sidewalk. uffie: Right that's what I wanted to hear, OK. obertson: OK, 43rd Place. It has -as we said it's basically 20 feet pavement, 20 feet right -of- ay with no sidewalk for the entire length. Lawrence: I'm not sure that's true, I think there is a sidewalk on the west side. Robertson: No, there is a 10 foot utility easement on the south side -or west southwest side. There is no easement on the north. Lawrence: No, there is a sidewalk there. There's a sidewalk. Duffle: Yea, there is, there's one on there. Lawrence: Nothing on the east side but there is one on the west side. Robertson: All right, so there's a five foot sidewalk and a ten foot utility easement on the south, southwest side but no nothing on the north and the east side. The pavement itself is 20 feet and I believe the right -of -way is listed as 20 feet for the entire length also. This is an easement but not a right -of -way, which means you can be on -yea. OK, that's a significant reduction. Mullet: Joan had some comments, we've heard yours. Hernandez: Well, yea you're getting to them. I mean I was just, I didn't think it had -I thought I had read somewhere that there was no sidewalk. I was quite sure I had read that somewhere, but I was concerned about... !Mullet: I think we determined there was sidewalks on one side. 10 ernandez: ...the narrowness of the street and the fact that there was no off street parking. 1 h ink there was parking on -I had asked the question one time and I think I was told there was arking on one side only. But with the street that narrow I'm concerned that people would park on both sides of the street and possibly block fire truck access. 5l `f Duffie: Well we can always do like we did -put up signs, no parking on one side. Hernandez: You know I can understand in cases where we would possibly have a street already developed and make that exception about a new development. But to have this be a totally new development and to allow that narrow of a street -you know I -1 do have a concern about that. I would really be totally in opposition to what we've done in the past and our guidelines for new development so.... Mullet: My concerns come from what Staff developed to facilitate this situation. Originally all these lots fed onto 42nd. And I think this argument could go either way. I don't -you know 42nd has a certain amount of traffic on it but my street has a certain amount of traffic on it too and 1 back out on it and drive on it everyday. I'm not concerned that 42nd has more traffic then would be safe to have a driveway coming onto. There's ample driveways all along 42nd where people come out. The points Staff made was that they thought it'd be safer -they thought it would be safer if you didn't have ten lots coming out on 42nd but pushed them onto a set back street and brought them out in one spot. Fire department also said they thought it'd be better if they could fight fires off -not having a fire truck sitting on 42nd blocking up traffic. Now I'm sure they can fight a fire off 42nd just as easily as they can fight a fire off this cul -de -sac road but they felt it was safer to not be sitting in the middle of 42nd with a fire truck. Now we could save about 3,000 feet of road and put it on the property if we said that road can't be there run all those sidewalks off of 2nd. And that's really the issue here. obertson: Yes, OK, I'd like to add a couple more points I'II get to. One of the problems with t hat street in there now it creates two sets of through lots. And our code -the subdivision code says that through lots should be avoided. It also says, and I'll come to that later, that there's a requirement for 15 foot natural buffer at the back side of a through lot. So by having that street there we've created several sets of problems. Ron Cameron I believe, I can look that up if you want, one of his arguments he said well it was no different than taking two short plats.... Mullet :Two to four short plats side by side. Robertson: Yea, well actually it is because its ten, but more than that the bigger concern is that if we use that argument and allow that to be part of a policy decision difference, everybody short platting here would be coming in -or everybody else with a subdivision for a short plat would be coming in saying hey, we get something different because this is no different. Well indeed it is different than two short plats, it is a subdivision with ten lots on it not two four lot short plats. Mullet: I fully concede that it's different, I have no problem with that, it's who made the difference and if the developer goes back to the other system is it viva la difference or should we go back and say-- OK -as far as I can see they have every right to come off of 42nd with their driveways if they want to. Robertson: Yes, I think also there's an argument that we're going to get to later that the adjacent property and the prevailing use is everywhere else along the virtually everywhere else along the length of 42nd Avenue including that portion in the City of Sea Tac, the front yards are on 42nd. 1 r nd as far as I know there is no data to show that there's a fire department or a fire problem with ose houses. And that's the prevailing use of 42nd. 42nd is also part of our residential street ogram itself. These are different. I think we have two choices. One is if that street -for now is if e're going to leave that street the require it to be a full width street, or- -cause 1 don't -it would be kberq: iscuss this, 11 6 s" he only one way street in a residential area in the City, we're setting a heck of a precedent, or to equire that -to request that the street be removed and we go back. And I think we should discuss that point later. OK, I've said my point. Mullet: I have one other thing that I would like to throw in for discussion. And personally I don't care if those driveways come off of 42nd or off 43rd, but the citizens were concerned about the view on the perimeter of this thing. And it seems to me that by leaving that street in there, we have given more opportunity to visually block the fact that there's a bunch of homes in there from 42nd. Now whether that's comparable or not to what is on 42nd may be another argument, but it does allow for better screening if we don't run driveways right out onto 42nd. Because its pretty hard to screen a driveway where you can't look right down and see a house. Robertson: OK, I want to come back to that argument. I think that I disagree with that but the -it is a policy issue. OK, and I haven't seen any data that shows there's a safety need for it. It seems to me -that it and anyway having a narrower street there provides safety. It is definitely different than a short plat, two short plats side by side. I mean that's an interesting argument but a dangerous one from a policy standpoint. It creates through lots and if we have the through lots then we have another requirement I think I'll show you that for 15 foot buffers... Rants: Is there any consensus on the Council that they want to do something with this at this point? Move it one way or the other, like we did with condition one? Any consensus here to do something with 43rd? Ekberg: I think one question we might want to put around the table is, will it be better to have ccess off of 42nd for those homes or off the street as identified for those homes? Like if we get hat one cleared up we can go onto what do we do with 42nd, if anything. obertson: OK, do you want to put this aside for now and come back and talk about arrangements, through lots and prevailing patterns? Duffle: We need to discuss it now, we here. I think I would like to see -like the rest of them- we've got 42nd, is an access off of 42nd so I don't see why should change it, for me I would like to see it the same as the rest of the streets. Lawrence: Ekberg: Duffie: Robertson: Duffle: Lawrence Robertson: Duffie: 1 518_ 1521 30 foot wide then for the pavement? We're talking about access points for driveways at this point. Access to 42nd. You're saying lots 25, 26 through 31. Through 35 should be accessed to 42nd. So you don't need that street then. OK, can we hold, that's not the question. 1 thought you just asked the question? (Everyone talking at once) OK, I'll make it real clear the issue I want to get an answer to so we can further is do we want to allow access for those homes off of 42nd or off the street depicted n the map as 43rd? Joe says off of 42nd. I'II speak up right now, I prefer to see it off of 43rd ecause I think it will be a less traveled thoroughfare for kids to be on and as a safety issue. Hernandez: I would agree with that comment. I would prefer to see the access off of 43rd. I would like to see some way that can be addressed. I don't know what the solution is, but I think it would be safer not to have the access, individual access onto 42nd. Robertson: If so, then we're back to the question of Ekberg: Let's get this answered here, who else has an opinion? Lawrence: I'm in favor of having the street on 43rd provide the access. I think we need conditions though for parking on that and perhaps an easement on both sides rather than just one. Ekberg: That's another issue. Rants: Steve? 12 161c Mullet: I would rather see the lots that are there maintained to their, you know not go down any smaller than they are. I'm afraid if we widen that street Ekberg: That's not the issue. f ullet: Well, that's going to be the next issue, so I will not, I'll go either way to protect the ots. kberq: Well we got three, one, undecided. Robertson: Well the prevailing pattern is for the access to be on 42nd, the whole length of 42nd. Ekberg: Is that what you support for this question? Robertson: 1 -it gets back to the other issue Duffie: No no Dennis, stick to the question please. Do you or do you not, all you've got to do is say yea or nea and we keep going. Robertson: yes, I support the access off of 42nd. Ekberg: OK, two that says yes, three that says no and one undecided. So 42nd isn't an issue anymore, let's go on. Robertson: Can we go on and talk about 43rd for a second for the width of it. OK, as a policy question this would be the first as far as I know and as far as the testimony shows, one way and narrower residential street we've allowed to be built under the new code. I agree with the Planning Commission, again the same point that they made earlier that there is no -the only reason that -and that's what Ron Cameron said before the Planning Commission, the only reason to have the street narrower was to allow the lots to be larger. I think that's an incredible precedent to set. You would have absolutely every developer whether it was residential or commercial or dustrial asking for exactly the same right. And I can't justify that. ants: Is there a recommendation for something to happen with 43rd so we can move on ere? 13 'Ekber Let's clear up the issue of the one way consideration, get that off the table. Robertson: There's nothing in the code that says one way for residential, I could find no reference anywhere. Lawrence: In this particular case if there's a street there I think it's appropriate as one way as a safety concern. Ekberg: I have no concerns about one way residential streets. Lawrence: But I am concerned about its width. Robertson: Can I comment on the safety? All of the arguments presented by the consultant and by Ron Cameron basically show that there are no safety issues throughout the streets at all. All of the factual arguments said basically there are no safety issues there. Throughout the length of that street. Lawrence: As I recall some testimony that was the issue for taking a right turn only there onto a one way, was a safety concern. Robertson: Yes, but on the other hand when they argued about the street itself and whether it should be and dealing with some of the citizens comments they said basically its below all of the standards that you would use. I can't see a safety issue as a basis for the one way issue. kberq: Does anybody else have a concern about the one way issue? ullet: The one way issue was -this was all a mitigated situation, so if you pick it all apart you throw out all the other things that were part of why it happened. And maybe that's what we're going to do. I don't think you can look at it individually without looking at the other things as to why that decision was made. And one -way was part of- -since you don't have opposing traffic you could have a narrower street since it was only one -way. And that was one reason for allowing a one -way narrow street there. Now if we don't agree with that, then fine, we can throw this whole street out and say everybody comes in off of 42nd, contrary to what the fire department wanted and contrary to what our traffic experts felt and the whole thing. And that's -I don't think that -I think that argument will go either way and I don't think that's a killer to me. Rants: It doesn't seem that there's a problem on the Council with the one -way street. If nobody on the Council has a problem with the one way street can we move into whatever the next step of this issue is? Robertson: The next step is the width of it. Both the pavement and the right -of -way and the easements that are required. And again, as a policy -the basic reason there is to allow the lots to be larger. I'm flat out think that that's an incredible policy is precedent setting, I'm against it. Rants: Is there a recommendation from the Council that we can get consensus on to what to do with 43rd then? We can leave it the same or Lawrence: I'd recommend that it be made 24 feet and that the five foot easement be on either side. Right now there's already utility easement on one side so basically you'd need a five foot asement on the east side of it. And the 24 feet of it would be of pavement, curb -to -curb and it ould stay one way. uffie: Stay a one way? 14 wrence: That's what I would suggest, now discussion. Robertson: OK, I would counter that saying I'd make it the same size as 137. That still allows it to be narrower than the code recall, code calls for but what it does -the pavement would be 30 feet, 40 foot right -of -way with a five foot easement. My argument would be it'd be the same street then, at least we could justify it saying its the same throughout.... Rants: Do you want to spell yours out again and I'II try to get some consensus here? Mullet: My argument would be there's no sense in having it if you are going to make it that size because it impacts those lots so much that the project would want to come back in off of 42nd. So why don't you just say let's get rid of it, instead of trying to angle a way to get rid of a couple of lots in there because suddenly you're not going to have the room to do it. Lawrence: Are you saying that for the 30 feet and the 24, or just the 30? Mullet: I say go back to 42nd, make them all put their driveways in from 42nd, and add 3,000 more feet to the lots in there. Ekberg: I want to consider Steve's point in making it a 24 foot pavement with a five foot easement on a northerly flowing direction, I think that's what I heard you say, is that right? Lawrence: It was 24 feet of pavement we'd have to add. I would suggest we add a five foot asement on the east side of that. kberq: One consideration that comes to my mind is that currently we have 12 foot nes on some of our residential streets, which means a 24 foot width bed which allows two lanes of traffic flowing both directions. If we limit it to 20 foot pavement currently, we could never expand to a potential two lane road access there if the need ever developed. So that's a consideration I want to put on the table. Rants: You do have a ten foot utility easement in there already. Lawrence: Any way, the reason I suggest 24 is that we had a lot of testimony that this street was too narrow, that people will park on it even though its not required for parking the real life people park on the streets at times. And at 20 feet, if people are parking on both sides its impossible to get through safety perhaps and even at 20 feet if they're parking on one side, it may be congested enough that emergency vehicles couldn't get through easily. Rants: OK, so the recommendation I have here is widen 43rd to 24 feet with a five foot easement on each side. Is that your recommendation? Lawrence: There's already utility easement on the west side, add a five foot on the east is what I suggested. Rants: OK, let's see if we've got consensus here. Joe? Duffle: I have a question, OK, they're going to make that a one -way street? ants: Yes, it's still one way Joe. Do we have consensus on this? Joan? No, yes, yes. It's ours, it better be yes huh? ernandez: I agree with Steve, I can accept that. L obertson: No for now. Duffle: 32 15 Rants: No for now? (Polling Council) Yes? No. I've got a three and three. We'II move on. Robertson: OK, let's talk to the -OK, in this packet, in this particular thing we're dealing with- where the heck remember we're dealing with the requirement of subdivision code for the proposed development to be met. If -I want to talk about landscape, the throughlots and prevailing patterns. OK, TMC 17.24.040.G.1 arrangements. It says each lot must have access to a public street that is approved at the time of plat review. However, rather than designing flag lots access shall be accomplished with common drive easements. Location of yards shall reflect a prevailing pattern within the neighborhood. For example, if adjacent developed lots front on this street, subdivision Tots fronting the streets shall also establish front yards for those lots. That's- those are quoted words right out of the code, even the example where it said for example, if adjacent developed lots front on the street the subdivision lots fronting the streets shall also establish front lawns front yards for those lots. OK, TMC 1724040G section 4, Through lots. Residential through lots are not encouraged and shall only be approved if there is a topographic or traffic safety concern preventing double tier lots. Approved through lots shall be permitted access to only one street unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works and shall provide a 15 foot rear yard buffer of native vegetation. I point out that lots 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 Robertson: No there are just -30 not 31 and 24, 23, and 22 and probably 13 although I don't now how you would, it's a weird one a corner one, are not counting 13 are throughlots. I onestly don't know if you consider 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20, well, rather 16, 17, 18, 19 have hroughlots. wrence: Let's see if everybody agrees on that first. /5 11 Lawrence: I think there's a topographic situation that would preclude Mullet: It's not a road anyway. Robertson: yea, but even -OK, if the throughlots are allowed, and they can be, the code is very clear. If they are allowed the back part back portion has to have a 15 foot buffer of native vegetation. I'd like to point out that for lots 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 and 24, 23, and 22, no where in the subdivision plats is I see any 15 foot buffer of native vegetation. OK? OK and 12. OK and on TMC 1846060A3, Setbacks. This is out of the PRD itself. It says yard requirements of TMC 1850 shall be waived within the PRD however setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the ?and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties, or the type of development which may be permitted. That again establishes the same point that the subdivision code is, that you have to be similar to the adjacent. OK, TMC 18.46.060C, Planning Departments. It says the standards of the subdivision code for residential subdivision shall apply to planned residential developments. Such standards are not in conflict with provisions of this chapter. On final approval of the PRD following the PRD shall be in accordance with procedures of the subdivision code if any lots are to be transferred. That tells me that basically they have to be similar to adjacent property. Under 18.46.121 or 18.46.112, Review Criteria that we're dealing with now. It says that the Planning Commission and City Council shall find that the proposed development plans meet all of the following criteria in their decision making. One of course is that the requirements of subdivision code for the proposed la evelopment have been met if appropriate. So that subdivision code 17.24.040G1 and G4 I can ee no reason why they don't apply here. All right, then when I went back and looked at the wrence: 15 foot buffer. Robertson: Of native vegetation. And that's lots 25, 26 Mullet: Does that mean they would have 15 foot of blackberries? Lawrence: I think that's spelled out elsewhere what that means. Lawrence: It's true, it is exotic. 16 !Robertson: OK, I can tell you -by the way there's some testimony on this do you want to hear at first? On the records there was testimony. OK, the only common testimony that I could find during the PRD public hearing was on page 13 of the transcript 12/7/93 and that was by Denni Shefrin. When she said, I also want to point out in terms of compatibility with the adjacent or surrounding neighborhoods we're looking at a very eclectic neighborhood with respect to size, architectural styles, lots sizes, housing types and that sort of thing. So it became -it becomes again objective to try to identify what the specific characters are which identify that particular neighborhood. She was talking to that. Also on page 14 she says, I don't think that we gave any more higher standard than the other provision to the code. So we did look at provisions 18.46.060A3 yard requirements 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 has been retained and where the houses will be placed. I think the perimeter that perhaps is most significant is that area that fronts 42nd Avenue. I think we're looking at varying setbacks but I do believe they're compatible with the surrounding lot pattern. By the way if your curious what eclectic means, the American Heritage dictionary defines it as an adjective, "choosing what appears to be the best from diverse sources, systems or styles consisting of components selected from diverse sources." So it means diverse. OK, that's all I can find in the records that would deal with this. Lawrence: I agree on the yard -the buffer on the back side. Rants: Do we have a proposal here? Robertson: I'll point out then, it would see to me that we would require a that if for all throughlots hat the back part would have a, is that 15 foot? Robertson: 25, 26, 27, 28 29 and 30 and 24, 23, and 22 are all clearly throughlots. And in the plats where they show the vegetation and stuff, no where does it indicate a native buffer 15 foot wide, as a buffer. Mullet: Does the buffer have to be a -is it like a wetland buffer or does it have to be like an easement where you just -it doesn't describe what that buffer is. Lawrence: I would assume its a planted, maintained buffer. I don't know if you can it or if there are other requirements or not- Robertson: But it would be something that you couldn't put a road through as a buffer or a building in or a patio on or anything like that. That would be my understanding. uffie: Let me as a question, OK? If you're going to make those lots -if you're going to ake those lots throughlots which ways the house going to face? It's going to face 42nd I mean 3rd which we haven't decided yet or are you going to face 42nd? Which one which way you oing to face? Which one is going to be the facing street? ire 17 obertson: That goes back to the discussion Joe we were just having on whether this should be 3rd place. If we have a 43rd Place... Duffle: My concern is this, how are we going to make a decision that these lots are going to be another be a throughlots and we haven't decided if 43rd is going to be a open street or not? Rants: I think you can avoid this by saying that on throughlots you'll have a 15 foot buffer and you don't have to address which way the house is going to the site plan. That's not know. Mullet: Well one of the stipulations specified that if you have 43rd Place there both those Tots are going to face on it, that's what I read. If adjacent developed lots front on the street, the subdivision lots fronting the street should also establish front yards for those lots. Robertson: That would -does that mean adjacent within the subdivision or would that mean lots adjacent to the subdivision? In this case on 42nd for instance, all of the lots that are adjacent to the subdivision, front on 42nd. The same thing is true on 44th, 137th, there's as near as I can tell the neighborhood is built up. And for 42nd its the whole length of the street all the way into Sea Tac. So that's back to my argument.... Mullet: But if you take that argument and pursue it to its end, then 43rd Place becomes unnecessary. Robertson: That's correct. ullet: So then you don't have any throughlots. obertson: The one's I just described are not throughlots. Mullet: Can we review -can we send that whole thing back as specifically as we can to solve that problem, or is this something.... Rants: These are the -these are the conditions that you are thinking are serious problems that need to be addressed, yes. Mullet: Well I think we have the choice of, I mean they could either address the throughlots situation or get rid of 43rd Place is what is boils down to. That's the option. Robertson: Yes, if they leave 43rd Place in then they have to have the 15 foot Mullet: That addresses the throughlot situation Robertson: Which is the buffers at the back and we have a problem that the houses fronting on 42nd Avenue are the lots that are on 42nd should front on 42nd to be consistent. And I'm sure this is the same discussion Staff had and the developer going through this analysis. In my case from looking at the -I saw no argument that actually convinced me there was a safety reason why you wouldn't have them fronting on 42nd myself. Rants: Let's don't get back into an argument that we already rolled on, let's see if we can keep moving forward here. ullet: So then we'd have consensus that the throughlot situation has to be resolved? ould that be -go ahead, I'm sorry. 18 kberq: I think there's probably adequate consensus to ascertain throughlots shouldn't be, hould be resolved and I think that a way to propose that is to enforce what our ordinance is by inserting the request that 15 foot rear buffers be included on the property. Rants: That's the one that has come from Steve over here. I have a temporary number three here. Joe? Duffie: My concern -I don't have no problem with that -my concern is this -which way is the front street? Is 42nd going to be the front street or is 43rd? Ekberg: I would go with how they have their houses and driveways laid out on the plot plans provided. Duffie: I mean -but your -I'm confused because you're not really saying we gave not voted on 43rd as a street, we come up with -we have a limit here now. And now we've got to come up with saying you've got to have a buffer on 42nd which we haven't decided 43rd is a street, or are you going to vacate the street? So how can we make a decision on this? Robertson: Can I raise one more point, if we look at map 2 -5 look at lots 26 and 27, we're going to assume that that buffer cannot be on the city's right -of -way, it has to be on the lot itself, that 15 foot buffer. That 15 foot buffer, I don't have an exact measurement, but I would guess on lot 27 and 28, there's not 15 feet between the back of the house and the back of the lot. So they would have to move the house forward. I just thought I'd point that out. That in several of these lots it's robably not possible to do that. ullet: There's probably also some topographic reasons why they didn't, can I have a pair f binoculars so I can read that, why they didn't want to put lots 24, 22, 23, 24 fronting off of 137th. Robertson: Those are two foot intervals, so lot 23 would have a 14 foot drop from the back of the house to the street. A minimum of 14 feet by that. And what looks like to be about a 40 foot distance, that's fairly steep driveway, probably too steep. Rants: Is there a different recommendation? Do you want to move with this? Right now I have 15 foot buffers of native vegetation. Robertson: The problem I'm going to come back to is I don't believe looking at this with the way the lots are laid out, we're in a quandary. If we say that the throughlots have to have a 15 foot buffer, we leave it as its laid out and we even if we don't widen 43rd Place. And if we leave the lots with a 15 foot native buffer in the back what they have is a native buffer right up to the house. I don't think that's practical to be honest, in several of the lots. And if we do that we've just created a precedent allowing a street to be significantly narrower than code so that the lots can be larger. That's what it says in the public testimony. The if we remove 43rd, have lots 25 through 30 front on 42nd as lots 32 through 35 do, there are several issues. One is, they have to jump 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 feet, 8 to 10 foot grade the way it's set up here in a distance of maybe 30 feet. Is that a reasonable driveway Steve? 1510 feet and 30 feet? That's a 33 Mullet: There's a lot -on 42nd there's a lot of driveways that are steep than that, but you can also move -if you also don't have 43rd Place in there it allows you to move the houses back. So I think that's a reasonable thing that can be worked out... obertson: And they would have a steep -OK then they have the same driveway problem for is 24, 23, and 22 because its a fairly steep slope there. At least it seems to be if we do that what e've done is make the part along 42nd consistent with the rest of 42nd Avenue fronting on it as verywhere else in the City. We've removed the problem of putting in a 15 foot native vegetation 19 uffer where there's not space for it in some cases and we solve the problem with throughlots. ecause throughlots in general are not desirable is what the code says. Mullet: We also bring in the 42nd issue also. It gets into lots 1, 2, and 3 also which are- which front on 42nd. Robertson: Yes, OK, I don't like the idea of designing something, but there's a policy issue. The policy issues are the street widths we're dealing with out of the subdivision code, the policy issue of throughlots and the policy issue of being compatible and comparable with the prevailing street pattern, adjacent properties, and the issue of following the code. The policy issue of following or not following the 15 foot native vegetation buffer called for in the code for throughlots. The problem is that we end up designing the property designing the development. And that just deals with those. If we also talk about the prevailing property and we extend that definition to the entire perimeter we have a real problem with lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and yea, especially because they don't follow the prevailing pattern or property around the perimeter. If that has to follow the prevailing pattern, the prevailing pattern in the neighborhood is lots no narrower than 15 feet. Lawrence: Dennis I think we're straying off the subdivision. We're getting into meeting PRD requirements. Robertson: OK, well what do you want to do. This is back to the... Mullet: I don't want to design this either and I would love to give this back to Staff and let them resolve this buffer issue if they can work it out the way it works out. obertson: Well then if we leave it like it is I think it's simply enough stated that we would say hat 43rd Place has to be a certain width pavement, and right -of -way and easement. Lawrence: All throughlots should meet the standard requirement here. Robertson: Yes and say that all throughlots meet the standard requirements as stated in code. Lawrence: This is a "shall" not "may.' Rants: That's what we have here on conditions two and three. Lawrence: I'm not certain they can't meet the 15 feet. We don't have an exact precise measurement and maybe they can, I don't know. Robertson: Then I would suggest for consensus part of discussion that we say that 43rd Place has to be the same width as S. 137th because I can't find a policy reason for making it narrower. Lawrence: I thought we moved off of that one already. Duffle: Yea, we did. Robertson: We never concluded, we didn't get a Rants: We had a three three, yes we did. We ran a vote on it had a three three to make it 4 feet with a five foot easement on the east side. obertson: I'm coming back as saying -I would say make it that we say that it has to be onsistent -43rd Place has to be consistent with 137th. i lawrence: Robertson: Lawrence: a one way. Robertson: OK, I didn't see a code basis for it, there's nothing I can find mentions it. Anyway, I don't care I just can't see a basis for it being narrower and I would also say then the subdivision code requirements for throughlots have to be met. Lawrence: I would agree with that part of the throughlots. I think -I don't agree with making the road up to 30 feet in width. I don't think that accomplishes anything. A one way -24 should be adequate if you make it a 30 foot width both directions then you've created a safety hazard. Robertson: What would you do with the easements in the right -of -way. If the pavement is 24 what would you do for right -of -way and easement? What's the proposal there? Lawrence: The right -of -way stays 24, there's a utility easement already existing on the west side and I would include a easement on the east side of five feet in case they ever wanted a sidewalk basically. Robertson: uffie: �..a wrence: easement. Duffle: Robertson: Lawrence: Duffie: street, and 1 Rants: Hernandez: Lawrence: Hernandez: Rants: agreed with obertson: ants: 20 Would you make it a two way then? There's nothing in the code, I don't think we can make it one way or two way. I think we can, we've had a recommendation by the traffic engineer to make it OK, I'll go with that. Then you're going to make it a one way? You're going to leave it a one way? Yea, my proposal's still the same as it was before. 24 one way at the five foot Are we taking consensus on that? I'm against it. So 43rd Place 24 feet pavement? Let's go around and see what people think. I have talked to people in the City here and they are not in opposed to a one way don't want a one way street period. I'm against it. OK, Joe's against it. Joan? I thought we had already voted on this? We were three three. I haven't changed my mind. You thought it was all right. Steve, thought it was all right. Dennis you said you it now? Yes. Allen you're still there and Steve? ullet: We don't move at all. We move what's off the roads and off their roofs. 21 ullet: I think that those directions are going to cause more problems down the road. Rants: it's four two or five one, so we can move on. Robertson: You didn't have a five foot sidewalk on the utility, yea. Rants: Yes he did. That was on condition two, condition three that you were looking at was a 15 foot buffer. Robertson: We said that the- Rants: That's part of it now. Robertson: We said that the subdivision code 1720040 has to be enforced. Duffle: I don't mean to be critical, but if we intend to get through this we've got to stop going back and forth, back and forth, changing our mind. We've got to keep going. Rants: Any other requirements to the subdivision code before we move onto number two? Steve? Lawrence: In the TMC17.24040 item D utilities, sub section two, there's storm drainage. They have mandates that adequate storm drainage should be provided for proper drains of all surface water. One of the major concerns of the public in the public hearing during both the MDNS earings and the PRD hearings was that the approved mitigated drainage systems, a lot of it ailed for decisions that were to be made in the future. If they encounter a problem, that an expert ill be brought in and it will basically be solved. And I think what we need is a performance bond hat gives some insurance to the people that are going to move in there within a certain time frame. If indeed there will be problems that there's a bond that will enforce that, and give the City authority to mandate that the developer comes back and solves those problems. And this is part of -the reasons I bring this up under this section is it is part of the subdivision code. To have this type of drainage. And it is part of the zoning code to allow us to require a performance bond. Rants: Is there other discussion on a performance bond? Robertson: Yea, I'd like to speak to the subdivision code. Speak to the same issue that Steve just raised. There's a letter memo from Gary Schultz, DCD Urban Environmentalist, dated 7/23/93 to Rick Beeler and Denni Shefrin, and in the memo it talks about the lack of biofiltration. The change in design from one to another -from the what was existing apparently in May of 93 to what to some time in June it was changed, June or July. I realize that we approved the MDNS and the fact that that analysis will go onto mitigation's, however as part of the bond requirement I would like to -and in support of what Councilman Lawrence is saying, I would like to read a couple quotes out of his memo. The City may become totally responsible for the drainage system on and off site once a project is completed. The site has potential to cause significant sedimentation and pollution problems for downstream areas. What this site is -if you look at -this is what I wanted to point. Everything all this dark blue on what's this -plat plan four out of five, is tightlined to vaults that are tightlined underground. The only biofiltration then that occurs is on -this is the new design instead of in swells it occurs down on 133rd in a City right -of -way. So we moved the requirement for all the biofiltrations filtering that Steve's talking about, off of the site and out of hat would be the responsibility of the PRD, to City owned property in front of somebody else's roperty I might point. And a swell on 133rd is a ditch, a grass lined ditch. So... 22 obertson: Yes, and that's in his- Mullet: What lands in the grass stays in the grass or runs downhill as it normally does. It's not a Robertson: What he says is removing most of the site's vegetation and adding impervious surfaces will greatly increase runoff volume and potential erosion on site. Both nutrient and conventional pollutants could be expected in the site runoff after development. In particular, residential areas contribute herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers and animal waste to runoff. Most of this pollutant load is nutrient which reportedly is treated by wet pond construct to wetland infiltration basis. Then he said, other than source control, limiting the amount of pollutant contact runoff the BMP's mentioned above for treating nutrient pollution are not recommended by the geotechnical reviewers. Biofiltration will be able to remove conventional pollutants associated with roof tops, asphalt and gasoline engines. Mullet: This specific point was raised in the MDNS Dennis and I don't intend to get back into that. Specific questions were asked at that time. Rants: The only request here is should we have a performance bond. Mullet: And we heard argument at that time between biofiltration swells and tight vault. I remember specifically discussing some of this with the people. and the experts said that the tight vaults would serve better in this circumstance than a biofiltration swell. obertson: No, they said they would- ullet: And they would begin looking at that as the project developed. Lawrence: I don't want to open up the MDNS. Robertson: I don't either, the point I'm trying to make is we have now taken the responsibility for that entire biofiltration. The design today performs none of it on the PRD, it's been all moved off to the 133rd. So I would like to see a fairly significant bond issue there, because we've just bought into that with this new design. There's no ditches anywhere. Lawrence: I wanted to bring this up because it is a fairly complicated set of conditions provided in the MDNS for surface water handling that system. And this requirement by the -the subdivision code does require that the surface water be handled properly. So I think in order to fulfill this it would behoove us to require a bond to make certain that all those previous conditions and -some of those apply to future things that are not yet decided, that all of those be met properly to satisfy. Mullet: I don't think you're going to find much argument for requiring a bond. Lawrence: For the record I don't want to open the MDNS. Rants: Is there anybody that disagrees with requiring a bond? Joan? Hernandez: I'm glad the statement arose that it should because I believe that bonds are warranted in this particular case.. ants: Dennis are you OK with that? obertson: Yes, I would like... 5a 23 ants: Let me go on down if I can please, consensus? Yes, so we have consensus for nconditional performance bond. Mullet: Dennis raises the issue of how much, I don't know if that's a pertinent thing. I would also -I would like to raise the issue of when does the bond start? We have some interpretation in the TMC that we can go for five years, standard practice is one year, we can go for five years. When does the five years start if we decide to do that? This project may be under development for two years, three years. You know if we say five years does that leave us only two years of window when the whole thing is done and we get to see what really happens or do we say five years from the time it is all done that the bond has to run. I think that's a pertinent issue too but I don't know how these, the technicality of how these bonds can be run. Any more than how much it should be because how much cost can you incur. Lawrence: The element of the code that I'm looking at -if you want to turn in your book to page 1895 is 18.96.040 Performance Bond is the title. Starts out, the Planning Department may authorize the issuance of a temporary occupancy permit condition upon and that does give some guideline for the bond but I do believe it is up to DCD to determine precisely. Robertson: I would like to add to the performance bond a hold harmless agreement. It seems to me if you look -I mean there was testimony in the MDNS hearings and those are an official part of the PRD material, I'm not reopening that, but there was testimony there that leaves one to be concerned over the long term stability of the slope. I can give quotes to it. It bothers to me. I would like to see the City insured that its not financially responsibly for the stability of those houses. I'd like to see a hold harmless document part of the final document indeed for each lot hat we're held harmless from instability of the slopes. ants: Is there consensus on the Council to add that to the performance bond a hold armless clause? Lawrence: Shouldn't that be in a separate document? Robertson: Yes, it's part of the, it's a separate document and becomes part of the final document and deeds for each lot. Lawrence: I thought we had the bond? Ekberg: Do we have a consensus for the bond? Rants: Yes we went through that, yes. Robertson: This is a hold harmless document as part of the final documents and deeds for each lot. Ekberg: So that would run then with perpetuity with the lot (unclear)? Robertson: Yes, that's for slope stability issues. Rants: All right, I think we've got some f f ernandez: I think that's warranted based on some of the testimony that we'd heard that some the adjoining property owners wanted to be protected against avoidable losses due to soil stability. 24 obertson: Also the applied geotechnology report on 51793 page six stated, "because of the oderate to steep slopes and presence of clay soils we judge that unless that plan extends some grading for the proposed lot layout /density is property sequenced constructed and monitored, there's potential for slope stability problems to occur both during and after construction. Yes, there are layouts aimed at minimizing site cutting 9997799777 shall also be considered. Since we're not doing that and we have that one before us I would like to I guess protect the City from long term, 20 or 30 years. Rants: We have agreement here that we're going to do that. Are there any other requirements to the subdivision code to be brought up if they're appropriate? This is still question one, or not question -item one. All right, everyone satisfied? Item two, reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in section 18.46.070. Ekberg: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to say that we've been here for an hour and forty minutes and I like to ask for a recess. Rants: All right, it's been -is there a second to that? (seconded) Moved and seconded, all those in favor say "aye (unanimous). Those opposed? (no response). )62-- Rants: ....(unclear)...Criteria listed in 18.46.070. Any discussion of density bonuses that whether or not they meet the criteria? Robertson: I have one, according to the density calculations provided -I've got a Xerox copy off one of the maps. I guess I need to tell you which one huh? Here is it right here. OK, according to ne of five, 8- 16 -93, under the way the density calculations are done for the bonuses, one of the hings that happens is you take -you deduct a percentage of right -of -way within the net parcel rea from the net parcel area. So that when you calculate you don't include areas that would ave had to have been streets. Now I was told, I asked in one of the meetings, I should go look that up, but was told that the 12% here was based upon the actual street sizes. Percent of right of -way in the parcel area. Well we just changed that right -of -way, we've just increase it. We increased both S. 137th St., we increased 43rd Place South. Without being able to do calculations that I'm not capable on the fly right now, I haven't the slightest idea. Lawrence: That's going to impact the density but that's administrative isn't it? That will be done administratively as a result of other changes? Robertson: Yes, but what I was going to request is -as part of the condition we requested that the actual density calculations be redone with the new right -of -way as we requested. And the calculations be redone. TAPE TWO Lawrence: due to possible changes here, or due to definite changes if this is approved with conditions. Item two though states that reasons for density bonuses meet the criteria as listed in section 18.46.070. And I think we should turn to that section and go through those quickly to make certain that they do appear to. And that would be on page 18 -53, under single family subsection two. We have A, B, C, and D. First one, at least 15% of the natural vegetation is retained. That seems apparent from all the testimony and evidence given. Second one, advantage is taken or enhancement is achieved of unusual or significant site features such as views, water courses or natural characteristics. I think the preservation of the water course and I ome of the natural buffer areas around that would satisfy B probably. C, separation of auto and edestrian movement is provided especially in or near areas of recreation. The roadway will be eparated by a buffer, although I'm not exactly certain- -does anybody recall exactly how much of buffer was to be along the roadway there? 25 !Mullet: Doesn't the sidewalk provide for that separation of auto and pedestrian movement? Lawrence: I think it was brought up in the Planning Commission hearing that they needed a physical barrier between where people recreate, i.e. backyards in the buffers and sensitive areas. Robertson: yes, there's a requirement for a Lawrence: That was one of their recommendations, was a requirement for a fence? Physical separation? Mullet: Oh, that was a split rail? No that wasn't what that applied to was it? Robertson: Yes, but I think we're going to -I was intending to deal with the Planning Commission recommendations at the end of all this. Lawrence: Well, I thought if we're going to see if this satisfies item two here, each one of these has to be met. Robertson: OK. Lawrence: And I think without the Planning Commission recommendation, check it, everybody check that and see if I'm right on that. E ullet: So we've got -you said essentially you've your concern is with lots 23, 22, 23, 24 h ich are the throughlots which... wrence: Well there a number of lots that have backyards that go right up to the sensitive areas and its buffers. Robertson: That's basically lots 31 through 35 through 41 they are the ones that back onto it. And 21, 20, 19. Mullet: How does, wait a minute, how do lots that back up to the sensitive area buffer come under "C Separation of auto and pedestrian movement? Lawrence: That, oh I see, I was looking in terms of or near -in or near areas or recreation. The only recreation in this area would be personal recreation areas. You would not consider those? Mullet: I could see if you -you know backyards might quality but.... Lawrence: That's what I was considering is backyards as sort of personal recreation areas. Mullet: But only where they're adjacent to roads. Robertson: Yea, that's auto and pedestrian movement, I don't think that applies Steve. Lawrence: OK. ullet: And then "D wre +nce: Well then "D" would be the compliment the land use policy's of the comprehensive Ian. They're significantly broad, it certainly would do that. 26 obertson: I'd like to raise an issue and see how the Council feels. And the issue deals basically ith the perimeter of the property. Rants: Is that as it pertains to density? Robertson: No. Rants: Because we are on density now. Mullet: Is it going to pertain somewhere else Dennis? Lawrence: Does anybody suggest any conditions on this density then before we go on? mean on the -yea on the density standards? Excuse me we're on the density bonus. Rants: So yours would probably be adverse environmental impacts. Robertson: No, we're dealing with -no I think it deals with density because it says development- item two D there says development aspects of the PRD compliment the land use policy's of the comprehensive plan. That deals with density. Under 1846060 and we're talking about the PRD one here, "A3 Setbacks, says yard requirements in TMC 1850 shall be waived within the PRD. However, setback and design of the perimeter PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the ?(unclear) and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. Lawrence; Dennis, if I can interrupt, this has to do with the application though in the PRD l ather than the reason for the density bonus which is -two is for reasons for density bonuses. I hink you're on down to later on when we discuss whether or not this complies with the PRD. Robertson: OK, then I'II hold my discussion. Rants: Do you have at this point a condition to calculate recalculate density bonuses due to different lands different street widths? Robertson: Right -of -ways, yes. Rants: Anything else on number two? Move to number three then. Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated. I assume that that was the MDNS that we've already done? All right. Robertson: I would point out that this whole PRD and the MDNS was subject to future studies and those future studies and the actual discovery of site conditions so that's still left as part of a whole thing. It's not over with yet. Rants: OK. Number four. Compliance of the proposed PRD to the provisions of this chapter and chapter 18.45. Lawrence: OK, this is the big one I think personally. I think first off -let's see -if I can find my spot -in relationships to adjacent areas in 18.46.090 on page 18 -54. If you can find that, 18.46.090 headed Relationship To Adjacent Areas. ullet: f e Do you have the page in the little book? awrence: 18 -54, same page as the density transfers. This section here mirrors the ction you were referring to Dennis on setbacks. And both of them seem to allow a higher 27 tandard for the perimeter for properties that are adjacent to other properties. And this also goes ith the intent of the ordinance on the same page, previous column under density transfer. ensity transfers are intended to provide the protection of wetlands, OK, water courses and associated buffers, while allowing development which is consistent with existing zoning to the greatest extent possible. Unfortunately this is so broad that some people might interpret it as being meaningless but I think it does lay a foundation for the intent of the ordinances for everything that's done here to fit within the neighborhood basically. And if you refer then to the setback provision on the same page which says setbacks from property lines of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with those of existing development of adjacent properties or if adjacent properties are undeveloped the type of development which may be permitted. One more time there, it's requiring that there's some compatibility. And then back to the setback provision on page 18 -53, under 18.46.060 Relationship Of This Chapter To Other Sections and Other Ordinances under "A" subsection three, Setbacks. Yard requirements as described in chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD. And they have been apparently -by the way this is done however, and a big however there, setbacks and design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk of the streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. Now the term perimeter, it's difficult to know whether or not this should be interpreted as just the area that's along roads or truly the perimeter. I think the easiest way to go and the most logical is with the definition of perimeter which are the perimeter properties. Which include quite a number of the lots. In fact, let's see if I have a list of the lots here on the perimeter. OK, perimeter Tots well -OK perimeter lots I think are lots 1 through 9, 14 through 19, 25 through 30, 32 through 35, and 41. All of those are on the perimeter of the property. Some face the street, some face adjacent properties, some face a park, some face an abandoned street which may be used in the future for pedestrians, yea, is used for pedestrians now but may be in some point officially for that. I think we need to onsider whether or not those lots should have a higher standard than the interior lots. There ertainly is sufficient latitude I think to require a higher standard. Robertson: And this is a requirement for setback or what? Lawrence: It says setback and yard width. Yard requirements as described. So setbacks and design of the perimeter. So I would assume that setbacks -let's see... Mullet: It was my understanding from the testimony that -and I didn't measure each house up there with a yard rule -that all setback requirements were maintained in this in these lots. The lots were smaller but the houses were setback for setback requirements and side yard requirements. So I don't see where.... Lawrence: I would assume though that yard requirements under the section of yard requirements, if you go on the zoning, further back in the zoning, there's a chart which shows the yard requirements. It's on page, it's a table that follows -let's see it's 18 -62 I guess. It's not labeled as 18 -62 but if follows 1861. And it seems that in the ordinance itself where it says setbacks and design of the perimeter. I don't know if design of the perimeter would be limited to a lot design or to a house design? Pretty vague. Mullet: Pretty vague statement. I mean you could say design of the perimeter as in single family lots rather than duplex or something else would be comparable or you could... Lawrence: This section deals specifically though with setbacks and basically lot size. fivullet: If the setbacks are the same as the comparable area then it just means they have to e the 30 feet back and 7 1/2 foot yard on the sidelines or whatever. But the yard sizes are aived so that wouldn't necessarily indicate the backyards which you're not really seeing from the 28 erimeter anyway. Would be my interpretation. The perimeter that would be looked at would be he perimeter that's pertinent. Lawrence: Well, I agree, it's the front -you would worry about the front and if it's the back you'd worry about the back and you worry about the side in all cases. One of the requirements in the zoning for R -1 is a 50 foot average on Tots. Robertson: That's the one that I would jump in if I -if you point to 18.46.060 A3 where this is right off the start of the PRD. This is talking -it talks about setbacks and yard requirements shall be waived within the PRD. However, setback and design of perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with the bulk and streetscape of the existing development of adjacent properties or the type of development which may be permitted. I think the issue that would -we talk about bulk and stuff -and design -I think the only real issue here in my mind is width of some of the lots. Lawrence: And on that same chart the width for R -1 should have a mean lot width which would be the average of 50 feet. A lot of these lots comply, some of them don't. Robertson: A lot of them are a lot wider too. Lawrence: If you're trying to be comparable to or compatible with the neighborhood, 50 feet probably wouldn't be adequate because there are probably in excess of that. But there's an or in here that it can be compatible with the type of development which may be permitted. Which would be the R -1 which does have the 50 foot requirement. obertson: So I think 50 foot would be the -if we were going to discuss any limitation, it'd be a 0 foot width. Lawrence: I would think and 50 feet if you take the front setback, the house footprint and the back setback and a 50 foot width, it is still a very small lot. It does not establish -it doesn't really establish any particular minimum size other than the width. Rants: The 50 feet, are you pertaining to simply the perimeter 50 feet not the interior 50 feet? Lawrence: The average of the lot that faces a perimeter if 50 feet. Some portions might be 35 some might be 65 as long as the average would be 50. Robertson: But for instance if I look at lots 25 it says 36 but I don't think that's fair because it doesn't include the curb. A let's take 26 is 53, 27 is 52 almost 53, now 28 is 47 slightly smaller on the perimeter on 42nd, 29 now is near as I can tell the way -it's 58. Lawrence: Well it on that same -on one of those other sheets it lists the average for each lot in the development also. Robertson: But I think the part we would have to deal with wouldn't be the average, it would be the part that is really on the perimeter. I think that's what would actual bulk in the scale... Rants: I think throwing the average in there is going to... wrence: I have to disagree though because if you look at a particular lot you're i sibility goes beyond the front of the lot. Your visibility goes for the length of the lot. And if arrows way down on one end and the average is less than 50 feet and you have houses jammed ogether that are visible from the street. Just because you're seeing the back of the house you're Lawrence: that I think. 29 till seeing them jammed together and you have an appearance which is not compatible with the eighborhood perhaps. At least if you have a minimum and this would be a very minor change really for most of these, a lot of them no change, at least if you have a minimum you are setting a minimum standard of compatibility rather than leaving it so vague. Robertson: 41 for instance, on the far east side, I would have a hard time -I mean it's got a narrow width Tess than 50 feet that's 48, 47 but it basically fronts on 137th. I would be more- what? Ekberg: You're talking 41? Robertson: Yea. Ekberg: 41 the perimeter length is 105 feet, its more than 50 for this case. Robertson: Yea, it would be the ones that strictly front onto the perimeter would be the issue. The -if we thought that the perimeter issue defined it, the lots that would mostly be affected would be 5, 6, 7, 8, 9- -those are clearly the narrowest lots. They're 29 -of course on the perimeter it's 46, 35, 35, 31. One more time though, TMC addresses average so we would have to go with Robertson: OK, well the average can't be much -in all cases is far less than 50. Those would be the key ones and then there's a couple that front on 42nd. That would be about it. ants: All right, can we make a sentence here that we can get consensus on? Mullet: Make a stipulation that the mean width of all lots on the -or that the mean width at the perimeter of all lots on the perimeter be at least 50 feet? Or be an average of 50 feet? Rants: If you use the mean it already -it does that. Robertson: I would be more comfortable if we said the mean- Mullet: You can only comply with what the TMC says. Robertson: I know it. And reading the TMC if we said that the width of the lot that's on the perimeter has to be- -would be 50 -each lot.... Rants: Lot width on perimeter would be 50 feet minimum. Robertson: A minimum of 50 feet. Rants: Do we have consensus on that? Lawrence: I think we have to include average on the 50 foot mean. Mullet: What does the TMC actually say? r obertson: No no I didn't -you mean of the whole lot? No I'm more comfortable- -since we're alking about -the part that -the type of the bulk and streetscape of the existing development and f adjacent properties. The issue there is the impact that this has on the adjacent properties. If hey design a lot that's narrower on some other part, I don't think the impact is really in adjacent X 33 Lawrence: Yea. 30 ;6 34f roperties. I would be more comfortable if we talked just about that the minimum width is 50 feet n the perimeter... Rants: Well, we have a suggestion, let's... Mullet: I need clarification on what -Steve are you really talking about the mean width of the whole lot be 50? Mullet: And he's strictly talking about the width on the perimeter. I agree with Dennis that the actual width of the perimeter is pertinent width. Rants: I have three over here that agree with perimeter width of 50 feet. Lawrence: I want to say something first. Rants: Go right ahead. Lawrence: Before you finalize, well this isn't final anyway, this is a density issue, just because a lot achieves 50 feet at the edge of the property does not mean that the appearance of density is lessened throughout. If it narrows to 20 feet say on the other end, which that would be an extreme example. The point of this and having averaging in the TMC is to require lots that average a certain width. So that the density appearance is there's sort of a minimum appearance of density that's allowed in single family. And in order for this to be compatible with or rn omparable to the surrounding neighborhood at all I think you have to have some sort of inimum standard. Robertson: Does the code say that the lots can't be less then 50 foot anywhere? Not here but outside of a PRD? Lawrence: I didn't read that but if that's a mean obviously if it's the mean it has to be less then somewhere. Otherwise they would stay at a minimum of 50 foot. Robertson: Yes, I still think it's an appearance issue.... Lawrence: I do too, but the appearance isn't solved by having 50 foot at one end only. Rants: You are also implying some code and some ordinance which is different than the PRD which waives certain kinds of things. And I hope that we're not doing something here that is illegal to satisfy something that is legal. Lawrence: I think if you cannot have any impact on the density issue what -so -ever then you rendered several sections of this meaningless. Robertson: Oh no, I think the density issue is like the density anywhere else in the code. The density credits gives them the right to build so much at a maximum. Assuming that it fits onto the property in the layouts and everything else. You can always build less, bigger lots or whatever they want. It depends how it all comes together. That's the same -the way density applies anywhere in the code. So that density, that 41 as it is now, and it has to be recalculated, I don't elieve guarantees there has to be 41 lots. I mean they could choose to build 12.. wrence: The allowable density's we've maintained in any project are for multi family for xample are allowable. It's their decision to spend enough money to make it perhaps. Rants: All right, Joe? Duffie: OK. 31 L beson: And rarely do you achieve that for a variety of reasons, setback, height limitations, you name it... wrence: Well we've created some conditions and I heard someone to move a house noting perhaps one way or the other. And this would give them some guidelines as to how far Lawrence: Site coverage. Robertson: Yea, so here the issue's clearly still apparent and I'm uncomfortable in dealing with appearance other than at the width of the lot at the perimeter. I think cause even in the existing code you can have widths narrower. Lawrence: I'm not precluding that, just requiring it meet the bare minimum of existing code in width so it will be compatible or comparable with the surrounding neighborhood to some degree. It still will be far far more dense than the surrounding neighborhood even with that bare minimum. That's to be understood. How else are we going to enforce any compatibility? And this definitely requires that they shall be compatible or comparable to. Do we just go out and say, it's too dense, fit it. It's too dense on these four Tots but the rest is great, fix it. OK, we haven't given them any direction. I'm concerned too if we say it needs to meet a minimum of 50 feet now we've been specific, someone of course will holler that we're being arbitrary. However I think that meeting a bare minimum for the existing zoning in width, which does not require 7,200 square foot lot, you can still have a 3,500 square foot lot that's 50 foot in mean width. To me it's not that arbitrary. It's just giving sufficient guidance. Mullet: It will only be 70 feet long but that.... ants: Yea, but we do have some language on the table here that three people have greed to that the perimeter lot shall be a minimum of 50 feet at the perimeter. wrence: I'II shut up now, I've said my piece. Rants: All right, do you wish to agree with that comment on it? Hernandez: Well in 18.46.060 it's seems to be the issue is compatibility with existing development of adjacent properties, so I would have to say that it's meeting the bare minimum in width. Rants: OK. I know. All right, are there any other density issues that you wish to address? Councilman Lawrence. Lawrence: I think we haven't discussed the setback element. The setback on the part of the property that faces the street or adjacent properties need to be adhered to. For example, it's only on the rear property, what is it a 10 foot requirement, 8 foot? If I can find this, let's see. If the front yard faces it would have to be 30 feet, and the rear yard would have to be 10 feet if that's facing the perimeter. So I think those two need to be addressed. We would still have a setback of ten feet on a rear yard or 30 feet if it's the front yard facing. Mullet: I don't think there's any of the lots that didn't comply with that. obertson: Yes, especially since the ones that are through Tots, a lot of them are... hey could move it. So I would suggest that on the perimeter the front or the back, which ever ces the perimeter should meet the minimum standards of R -1 on setback, which would be 10 eet for back and 30 feet for front. Robertson: I would agree with that because the section 1846060A3 is titled Setbacks. It starts out, however setbacks are designed on the perimeter, so I think that that would seem rational to me that you can't move -in the process of changing those lots, that you can't move the house three feet from the setback. You have to follow the minimum R -1 setbacks for the perimeter houses. Only for the ones that are on the perimeter. Lawrence: Only for the side that faces the perimeter necessarily since they are away from the interior. Robertson: Yes, that's correct. Only for the sides facing the perimeter. Because what we're dealing with is the appearance of the bulk of the scale and the appearance of this to the adjacent properties. Rants: All right, do you want to make a suggestion here? Lawrence: I just did. Rants: I'II write it down if you'll make it again. Lawrence: The properties that face the perimeter front or back yard or side, whichever side faces the perimeter shall meet the minimum setback requirements for R -1 which would be 10 lo ot for the rear, 30 feet for the front, and the side one's a little more ambiguous. I guess just so erybody knows, it's a Rants: I hope you wrote faster than I did Lucy, thank you. Robertson: As far as I know, those have been. ullet: The MDNS did include staging. 32 J6 Lawrence: It's 10% of the lot width or not less than 4 feet is the side one is the case of. I think 41 is the only facing the side. Rants: Any other comments on compliance with the proposed PRD to the provision of the chapter? Then we'll move onto number five. Time limitations if any for the entire developments specified stages have been documented in the application. Any comments? Rants: All right. Robertson: Did you, I didn't notice anything. Won't that come up again in the final plat? Rants: I would think so. Number six, the development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans Robertson: I want to go back to five for a second. It talks about specified stages. And I'm concerned that there is an awful lot of because of the slope stability issue and drainage, there is a necessity for staging. There were lots of documents referenced in the MDNS appeal and stuff and that will -and I believe that will come before us as part of final plat. obertson: OK. A '7 33 obertson: Did include staging. I'm assuming when we see the final plat that there will be taging proposed by Staff. I think it's appropriate at this point to require it specially since some of hat was left to further studies. Rants: All right. Number six, development in accordance comprehensive plan- comprehensive land use policy plan and other relevant plans. Any comments? Yea, all right, we'll go on then. Number seven, compliance with the board of architectural review guidelines. Robertson: I haven't there's the BAR is supposed to review it but that's primarily for architectural which deals with the building itself and landscaping, not with densities for the BAR is my understanding. Rants: Roof design, roof composition, siding, paint, that's BAR's position on that. I do believe that where it has not been documented or presented as advertised as a BAR, the requirements have been met by Staff. If you want to put something in here that's fine. We'll just keep moving on this. Robertson: The quandary I have if it's -if we refer to these at this point and this is going back to BAR, I guess they could still review it and add to it. right? Lawrence: You need to suggest it goes back though. Rants: If you wish it to go back to BAR, that's Robertson: I think it needs to go back to the BAR and one that's what the code requires, and II econd we're required to use the BAR guidelines as part of the review. ants: Do we have consensus? Steve, Allen, Steve and it looks like we already have five. Robertson: But I have another question. I have an actual question about one of the guidelines in the BAR. And that I don't believe is complied with at this point. Should we wait until the BAR reviews and it comes back to us? Mullet: I don't think it hurts to mention it now and get it out in the open and we have this opportunity to have people address it. I just... Lawrence: We've had no testimony though regarding the design of the proposed buildings which is part of what the BAR looks at. Mullet: Is your question relating to design of buildings Dennis? Robertson: Well actually, one of the guidelines deals with parking and service areas, and the visual impact of large paved areas. Duffle: We haven't covered that yet. I don't think that would be appropriate at this time. Rants: We haven't been into that at all so that would be -I believe... Robertson: I think we should wait then until the BAR ants: ould not be an issue when it came back.... The BAR should do their work and maybe they will cover it and you won't have -it 34 wrence: Where's the citation requiring BAR? WE should site that shouldn't we? I can't emember. Robertson: Well first, the compliance that requires BAR review? Lawrence: Yea, where's the citation on it? Robertson: No, I think I think no I think we were going to amend that to Staff. That really wouldn't change the density or the layouts of lots or anything. r r u llet: But that's the only other thing that would have to do with preservation or existing ees and vegetation. Rants: An issue that Staff needs to address and come up with a formula for it, and some things need to be done.... Robertson: Acceptance of final plat should be conditional upon that, right? Can I.... Rants: Can I go ahead now? Are you through with.... Robertson: I want to talk about covenants for a second that bothers me. But I don't know... Rants: Have we addressed covenants? Robertson: 18.46.060G, it reads the Board of Architectural Review shall review guidelines for single and multi family developments, period. The design review in PRD shall utilize the guidelines in TMC 18.60.050 which are the BAR guidelines. Rants: OK, any more comments? We'll move to number eight. Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation recommended by the director of the Department of Community Development. Allen, you picked up your microphone... Ekberg: I believe we covered that in mitigation, determination of non significance. Rants: I believe we have. Are there any other comments on this one? Mullet: We had the other one comment made earlier about down slope vegetation which the BAR I assume should kick in on. Is that -that was... Robertson: Are we going to give direction to the Staff on prepare covenants, bonds, hold harmless agreements? Apparently the use of covenants to maintain and guarantee that things such as public drainage systems and especially drainage systems on private property is really a real problem so, I think we ought to give Staff some direction that when they prepare this that the covenants not be used as a means to guarantee things related to slope stability. I would reference the Planning Commission minutes from 9/14/93 on page nine say, Ms. Shefrin said that the PRD requires that there be general language that would be covered in the covenants. This is regard to the sliding stuff. Staff is required that there would be refinements to the covenant restrictions that would be imposed at the administration level. The issues of maintenance, monitoring, preservation and liability would be handled at the Staff level. Next Mr. Mulina asked about enforcement of those covenants. Mr. Pace said that there are two levels. The City of ukwila does not enforce covenant restrictions. The City attorney feels that the City should not be volved in enforcing home owner association covenants. How well they are enforced depends pon how active the homeowner association is. Mr. Mulina asked if it could be placed in ovenants. That adjacent homeowners be involved in the association. Mr. Pace said he was not 35 ware of any covenants that went beyond the confines of specific development. I would assume his is in relationship to the stability problem. Because the drainage -the stability, the slope stability totally dependent upon this tightline drainage system working. So all I'm asking is that Staff look at means to ensure that the drainage systems are maintained over the life of the project. That they do not rely on covenants, because if the City is not going to enforce those covenants, then we depend upon a homeowners association to do that, if the safety not only of the people on the property the safety of their property and themselves, but of people downslope depends upon those systems then I believe that something more forceful, more -I guess more binding be used other than a covenant. And ensuring that the drainage systems are maintained and I could go back and reference things, but in the MDNS SEPA hearing that we had, there was a lot of discussion that related the total drainage system, including the tightlines from the ease of the house, and the driveways and everything to slopes stability. Rants: So you want to have really the covenant written bearing in mind with the bonding... Robertson: Something other than a covenant that was... Rants: That covers the City and the people who live there.... Mullet: Covenants can apply to what's going on in the property but when effects what's going on outside the property there has to be something else. Robertson: And the slope stability is dependent upon the according to the testimony on the drainage system itself. I'm just requesting something other than a covenant. Unless Staff can show that the testimony in the Planning Commission meeting minutes is not correct. That's the ID my thing I have to go on at this point. But I'm very concerned about the liability 20 or 30 years rom now. Rants: All right, but that's a Staff issue there. At this point we've run through all eight of the review criteria, and I believe we have eight conditions or subjects of concern to the Council. Those subjects of concern can be addressed two ways. You could either reopen the public hearing and speak to them, or you could make them conditions to the approval tonight. Lawrence: Before we decide on those I think we should also look at all the recommendations by the Planning Commission. And see if anyone wishes to include any of those recommendations that may be additional, not duplicating what we've said. Robertson: OK, those are summarized on PRD app.... Lawrence: There's a separate document dated November 23rd and it's included in one of the packets too from Rick Beeler. Robertson: Staff recommendations? Mullet: It starts on the back of the second page of that. Where's number one -it must start somewhere else. Robertson: Yes, so if we look at the memo dated September 1, 1993 from Mr. Beeler to the Mayor and the Council. Well, I'd start out by saying that the Planning Commission recommendation number one is incorrect and I would not include it in any of the la recommendations from the City Council. wrence: I would agree. You might want to -do you want to go through these? Why on't you go ahead and go through these. 36 15 0 obertson: Does everyone agree? Lawrence: You might want to read them for the benefit of the audience. Robertson: OK, number one says that the lot line between lots 12 and 13 be shifted so that lot 13 is a minimum of 5,000 square feet in area. I think that's, or I believe that's incorrect because no where in the PRD or the ordinances does it state that a lot has to be minimum 5,000 feet. So I think that's incorrect recommendation to the Council and I would make a motion to move that we delete it. We don't consider it. Mullet: I agree. Lawrence: I don't think we need a motion at this point. Robertson: Number two, that lots 26 through 28 be reduced from four to three lots. I also think that that is based upon the idea that you have to have 5,000 square feet and that's in correct and should be deleted, and should not be considered as one of our recommendations. Mullet: I agree. Lawrence: Agreed. obertson: Three, that lots 38 through 41 be reduced from four to three lots. I also agree that's ased upon a concept of a minimum square footage of 5,000 which is not correct, so that should of be included. ullet: Agree. Robertson: OK, four, that a five foot high black color coded chain link fence be erect along the north property line up to the Southgate park boundary, and that a dense hedge be planted on the property immediately north of the site. I'd recommend we include that. Lawrence: I would to, and all parks, part of this is on park property and part of this is on borders a private property. And along parks we always have a fence line. And it would be reasonable to include that here and to include a hedge that would limit the visibility or the impact of the development. Mullet: Wait a minute now, let's get this straight where this fence goes. It says be erected along the north property line to the Southgate Park boundary. Does that mean it starts at 42nd and follows the park boundary and end where the park ends, or does it start at the opposite end and protects the other neighbors and stops at the park? Lawrence: You're right, that's the way it's worded isn't it? Mullet: Personally, I don't believe in putting a fence around a park. Especially it's a park that's supposed to be open to the people around to use. Now if you put a fence around it, there's no restrictions on that park now, there never have been, and the fact that you put a few lots along side of it which effectively would provide some people who could use that park, now you've estricted their use. Now they have to walk around 42nd and walk back in the front. wrence: It doesn't preclude a gate, however I will say that one of the problems we've ften had in this City is where a park is next to a property that inevitably there ends up being a ence built. And it's often requested of the City. 37 obertson: I'd like to retract my recommendation too. In the past, the parks I know of, we've put the fence on the park when we finished the park to be used, to protect the property owners, not the other way around. So in this case I think I was in error recommending this. I think this is not the responsibility of the PRD developer, when we developed that park it would be the responsibility of the City. Rants: I believe it was the request of the neighbors that live to the north that that fence be put in there. Mullet: So you think it was written to put the fence between the Foster View and them, and not between Southgate Park and Foster View? Rants: That's right, that was a request of the neighbors up there. Lawrence: Well I would agree with that but I do think the City then needs to look at putting in a fence to protect the property from the property owners if they request it from the park because that park has been noted for having some problems, and all parks do generate some impacts on the surrounding areas. And we've been faced with complaints before that required fences. Mullet: It doesn't make sense to me though to put that fence there, then it restricts.... wrence: At their request I said. obertson: T he other problem I have is as far as I know, we don't require fences as a part of e veloping a lot normally. I-- between two people the fence is an issue... Mullet: Is there anything in our code that requires, we often see a fence around a development, but is it in the code or is it because the development which is to accentuate their line and... Lawrence: So are you opposed to any fence there at all? Robertson: I would be opposed to requiring, I think if property owners on any of the sides want it that's their business. Lawrence: I just said we'd do it at their request. Robertson: That's another issue I think that the property owners.... Lawrence: I know, I want to apply that as a condition but I think we should bear that in mind. Robertson: But then we'd be building a fence on private property Lawrence: We'd put it on the park property. Hernandez: I have to refresh my memory but it just seems as though that was inserted because r e had testimony that the adjoining property owners wanted a retaining wall and this was put in eu of the retaining wall, it was agreed to put a chain link fence. As I recall that was done for their enefit and... Robertson: OK, then let me try rewording this again then. Then a five foot high black color coded chain link fence be erected along the north property line from Southgate Park boundary, on top of the rockery, from the Southgate Park boundary east to the property boundary. And that a dense hedge be planted on the property mean north of the site. ants: It was a shoulder wall and chain link fence because they'd requested it and that's by it's in there. Hernandez: Uh huh, I thought it was important to be in there for that reason. I'd have to read the other minutes to be sure that was the case. Rants: And it was to keep kids from falling off and things like that, it was a safety.... Mullet: It's on top of the wall? Rants: As I understand it. Mullet: So it's a safety issue Lawrence: Now you're talking about strictly on the private property? Between the two private properties? Robertson: We're talking about along here right? Lawrence: Well, that's a walk way too. Robertson: Yea, this is the.... Eo wrence: Or it's an easement road.... bertson: It's an easement road.... wrence: It will be used as a walkway. Robertson: What do the site plans show? ....a four foot high rockery. Mullet: I think that's appropriate if it's a safety issue along the top of a rockery to require a fence along there, I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if it's part of the PRD process... Robertson: Yea, it's a four foot high rockery there. Rants: Well it went through the public hearing that the Planning Commission had and that was their recommendation. Rants: That was the recommendation. 38 I `f,2 Robertson: Five, landscaping. Street trees shall very between confers and deciduous, minimum size shall be two and one half inches caliber or eight to ten foot high. I would concur with that. ullet: Yea, I agree with that. It's pretty standard isn't it? kberq: We went through a large long series of designing trees for the central business istrict, types of trees. Should we incorporate those types of trees in residential developments? wrence: They, I think they ignored the recommendations anyway in the CBD. They ent with -I think the only recommendation we ever given as a City was to have... Rants: You're still in a quasi judicial mode here folks. And your wondering down to the PUD and different kinds of trees, so... Robertson: I would suggest that we don't, that we stick with this besides this is standard for residential and it went through the Planning Commission. Rants: I'd leave it that way. Robertson: OK, six, additional trees shall be provided as shown on attachment H. I would agree with that. Seven, do I have to read all of seven? Mullet: Yea. 39 15 4 3 Robertson: The final wetlands mitigation slash enhancement plan is for the roadway crossing and buffer reduction. The plan must be provided to and approved by DCD prior to issuance of land altering permits. Recommended vegetation must include a diversity of trees compatible with existing vegetation. A final wetlands mitigation plan shall contain the following. A: the amount of clearing and grading proposed for the roadway crossing at the water course and any grading within the associated wetlands slash buffer areas including cross sections showing areas of disturbance. B: report which describes, 1) the purpose of the enhancement slash restoration, 2) reas to be enhanced slash restored, 3) how areas would be enhanced slash restored, 4) elected plantings for roadway crossing and buffer reductions, 5) when enhancements would ccur, and 6) two year maintenance slash monitoring program. I agree with all including the two ear monitoring program. Ekberg: So we allow other opportunities for the Department of Community Development to add additional items to this list as they see necessary? Robertson: OK, I would then change the final wetlands mitigation plan shall contain the following: Lawrence: Shall contain but not be limited to. Robertson: I have should contain a minimum. Lawrence: OK, yea at a minimum of following. Robertson: Eight, should a sign be proposed at some future date the design shall be reviewed by DCD to ensure it is in keeping with the overall design of the project and that it is sited so as not to obstruct visibility to vehicles. Mullet: Is that an entrance sign they're referring to? Robertson: Yea. Mullet: And that would have to comply with the sign code on top of it at that point. obertson: OK, nine, street lighting shall be redesigned to be more in keeping with the esidential character of the area. The final design should be administratively approved by DCD. here was testimony as to lights being too big and bright and bulky. I would -or something like hat -I would agree with nine. Ten, the discrepancies between the landscape plan and grading nd street plan related to areas to be held in open space easement shall be corrected. The orrection shall accurately delineate the boundaries of these areas. The revised landscape plan and grading and street plan must be consistent and provided prior to issuance of land altering permits. I would agree with that. Eleven, the developer shall erect a permanent three foot high split rail wood fence along the boundaries of all open space easement locations prior to any grading. Rants: That's in the SAO, that option was in the SAO to have it fenced. Robertson: There's a problem with that by the way, there is, well actually there's not because they're going to change the boundary for the class three wetland in tract A. The actual boundary is going to be adjusted on some of the lots to be a little narrower than the required buffer and that's allowable by the SAO for class three, with mitigation, there will be mitigation. And the reason for that is that in order to do the slope they would have had to do that or build some type of retaining wall and I would think there would be less damage to minor changes to the wetland by doing what's proposed then by... Lawrence: Is there any reason that the split rail fence in particular was required? It seems rather odd. Robertson: More rustic, more keeping... Mullet: Do I read this then that there is a split rail fence now all around the water course and he wetland? obertson: Yes. ullet: And that's the fence that delineates the boundary of the buffer. It starts at the buffer and works.... Robertson: Between the property and the buffer. Mullet: Yea, OK. I prefer that to a chain link fence that I think was suggested in some of the meetings and what not. It seems to me like it's -yea I do too. Robertson: I prefer this too. Lawrence: to visit. 40 Mullet: I don't think we want to worry about the kids climbing in and out of there a lot. Lawrence: They'll climb a twenty footer if they're going to... Rants: I think Dennis has one more guys so.... obertson: Twelve, the final conditions, covenants and restrictions shall be submitted with the nal plat application and include a revised legal description which specifically describes open pace easement areas. I agree with that as long as the other covenant, easement and hold armless agreements that we've discussed are included in this... Mullet: If vision is an appropriate thing, then this seems to me much more visually attractive and it lets everybody know which side of the fence they belong on. And it allows wildlife to move better too, like raccoons that are going to want 41 1 ullet: Well ours would start at 13 then, is that correct? Robertson: Well actually they renumbered because we did away with one through three. Lawrence: We should have these come after ours I think. However, before we formally adopt ours I'd like to move for a five minute recess. Robertson: Yes, I would agree. Rants: Do you want a recess, or did you want to go and converse some place? You wanted a recess. Lawrence: A five minute recess. Rants: All right, moved and seconded to have a recess, five minutes. (Recess taken) OK. Let us begin again, Mr. Lawrence, you need to proceed. Lawrence: Proceed I guess, we need to proceed on the formalized motions for the conditions. Ekberg: One thing I was going to bring up and I didn't feel comfortable bringing it up looking at the Planning Commissions, item number four. We talked about the chain link fence being erected along the north property line from Southgate Park east. It also appears that there's a twenty foot utility access easement through here which goes on up to the roadway here. And at he point of development it appears that there would be no access from 43rd to Southgate Park. I eel this would be a beneficial time in the community for pass through of pedestrians to the park. nd for citizens who live and reside within the plot have access to the lower Riverton area. So I'd 'ke to see you make it a condition that that easement be made available for trail access and right f -way. Lawrence: I agree with that. Robertson: So that becomes -you would add that as item- Ekberq: It would be attached to the Lawrence: Number nine I think. Robertson: That would be an easement to the north? Rants: It's number nine. Lawrence: What's that called, is that called a utility easement? Ekberq: It's a twenty foot utility access easement on the north east boundary line, as it approaches 43rd Avenue. Lawrence: You want that to be also entitled a public access easement? Ekberg: Public access easement yes. ullet: That doesn't necessarily mean it's a road there. obertson: End trail is what you want, right? k berq: End trail, yea. Mullet: Yea, we could discuss that as part of the vacation which is another... Robertson: Yea, would you rather leave that as a OK. So where does that leave us? Lawrence: OK, Wally has the list of the nine conditions that Council has discussed and that we can include along with the conditions that we have agreed to that the Planning Commission put on it. Rants: Will we need now to make a motion with conditions and then list the conditions, and make sure the conditions are -or do you want to go through -just do the conditions first and vote on them to make it formalized? 42 Lawrence: I think we need to have a motion to approve with the following conditions. Rants: You need a motion for the conditions, I would think so. Mullet: As long as we're sure of the wording on the conditions when we finally.... Robertson: Did they leave with Joe? Rants: Joe's gone. wrence: Linda, we were discussing formalizing these motions. If these are going to be onditions of approval should we make a motion to approve with the following conditions and hen vote on each one individually or, what would be the easiest to do? Cohen: I think it would be appropriate to... Lawrence: That would be the appropriate way to do it? OK. I'm not entirely satisfied with this so I'm not going to make the motion for approval, someone else will have to. 1 Tukwila City Council Deliberations Foster View Estates PRD /Subdivision December 20, 1993 Verbatim Transcript 43 MOTIONS: Mullet: I move that we approve with the following conditions.... Robertson: I'll second. Do you move that we approve the PRD as submitted with the following conditions? Mullet: Yes Lawrence: Can you tell us what these are and we'll formally... Mayor: I can. Condition #1: Widen 137th to a 30 foot pavement with 5 foot easement- Robertson: 40 foot right -of- ways... Rants: 40 foot right -of- ways. Lawrence: O.K., I move that South 137th Street which bisects the property have 40 foot right -of -ways, 30 feet of pavement curb to curb, and 5 foot easements on either side. Robertson: I'll second. Mayor: All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Condition #2: Widen 43rd to 24 feet with a 5 foot easement on the east side. Lawrence: I move that 43rd Place be widened to a 24 foot easement with 24 feet of pavement and a 5 foot easement on the east side. Robertson: Can I add that the agreement also included a 10 foot utility easement on the south, a 5 foot utility easement on the..well, we should describe the street.. Mayor: A 10 foot easement is in there. Lawrence: It's in there already. Robertson: No, what we're describing -I think we should describe the street totally. Can I suggest a substitute wording? Lawrence: Go ahead. Go for it. I'll withdraw my motion. Robertson: I move that we condition 43rd Place should be 24 foot of pavement, 24 foot of right -of -way, 10 foot utility easement on the south side, a 5 foot utility easement on the north side and a 5 foot sidewalk on the south side. Lawrence: Second. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Lawrence: One element we didn't consider was the steepness of this grade that might preclude having driveways there. Mayor: That's the amendment you have seconded, I assume? Mullet: I will second it. 44 Mullet: Can we have a little more discussion on this one? I don't basically disagree with making the street wider, but I'm concerned about one thing which I will say now. And we discussed whether driveways could be on 42nd or could be off of 43rd Place, or which way would work best. I am concerned that when you add a little bit to these streets, you don't really change how the PRD configuration comes out. And to me in some cases it might be better for looking at streets and lots and everything else if you're going to do this to say that we would be better of having the driveways on 42nd. And I would like to give staff an opportunity to look at that and see if that is true or whether we should have a wider street on 43rd Place. Mullet: I know. That's why I'd like to give them the opportunity to deal with that with the developer to see if it's applicable. Robertson: Could I suggest -Let me try an amendment and see if I can get a second. An amendment to the motion that's on the table. That amendment would be to modify 43rd as describe or allow 43rd Place South to be deleted in its entirety with Lots 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 fronting on 42nd Avenue. And that's the applicant's choice. Mayor: Any further discussion? Robertson: On the amendment. Hernandez: Could you clarify that? Robertson: Certainly. What it says is either widen this street as we described, or the applicant can delete the street in its entirety and have Lots 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 front on 42nd Avenue. So this would become a back yard then lying essentially between 22, 23, and 24 and the ones described. Mayor: What you've done is allowed staff two options to look at. Robertson: I would assume in that amendment there would be some lot adjustments including 31 would have to have access on 137th. So I would assume they would extend to include part of the street. Part of the street of 43rd Place South. Mayor: Any further discussion? Lawrence: I would agree with that and I'm counting on staff to make certain that it's done in a safe manner with the driveways since that is a steep grade. Robertson: Would you make an amendment to my amendment then that's subject to -that change subject to staff approval if they choose it? Lawrence: I think it is anyway since they would have to get input from fire, police.... )6 Mayor: We're voting on the amendment, allowing access on 42nd. Hernandez: I don't feel comfortable with that. I'm just going to have to vote no on that I guess. Lawrence: What element don't you feel comfortable with? Hernandez: On the safety issue of having'access to 42nd Ave. Robertson: The only thing I could add to that is that the entire rest of the length of 42nd Avenue, all of the lots front on 42nd Avenue. And in speaking to the motion- the amendment -if they chose to do that, that would eliminate some more pavement on the thing, would allow larger lots, both of which I think would be desireable all the way around. Mayor: Any other discussion? (no response) On the amendment then, all in favor say "aye" (Lawrence, Ekberg, Robertson, Mullet); those opposed (Hernandez). On the onginal motion was to widen 43rd to 24, and so on and so on and so on. Any discussion? Mullet: As amended. Mayor: As amended now. Any further discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Condition #3 was 15 foot buffer of native vegetation. Is that moot, now? Robertson/Mullet: No. 45 Robertson: Can I make the motion -I'll make a motion that we request that subdivision code 17.24.040 be enforced in its entirety to include 15 foot native buffers where there are through lots. Ekberg: Second. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Jane, were you able to get all of that or will you be able to get all of that? Cantu: Subdivision code be enforced in its entirety to include 15 foot buffers. Robertson: 15 foot buffers of native vegetation in through lots. Mayor: All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Condition #4 Performance Bond. Lawrence: I move that the Director of Community Development and the Public Works Director be authorized to require performance bonds regarding surface water -help me out on this.. Robertson: and slopes stability... Lawrence: Surface water and slopes stability issues. Robertson: for each phase of the proposed project development. 16`41 Mayor: This is going to last anywhere from 1 to 5 years. You can have a performance bond that still is in there. So it's not just during a phase of construction or something. It is 46 Robertson: Yes, but my intention would be is depending how they lay out the phasing, is they have to put a fairly high performance bond for a particular part.... Lawrence: Dennis, you re -word it the way you wish on this, because I hadn't included that part for phasing in mind. You go ahead and..I withdraw my motion. Robertson: O.K. Let's try- -I move that we authorize the Director of Community Development and the Public Works Director with the concurrence of the City Attorney to require performance bonds for each phase of each phase as appropriate of the development. Mayor: O.K. Now, is there a second? Lawrence: Second. Mayor: Is there any discussion? Robertson: Can I point out why I did it for each phase? I think there's a possibility that the performance bond for a particular phase may be fairly large -an early phase- and if a later phase doesn't require them, then I'd like to see that returned to the developer then so he doesn't have to have the money tied up. And in the -in the material presented in the MDNS SEPA hearings and m material presented here, there's lots of discussion about phasing, performance bonds and issues. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor... Lawrence: The way this is worded is it's optional at the discretion of those department heads, and I agree that's the way it should be, they are the experts in this and they do have the knowledge and background in assigning the values... Robertson: I'd like to withdraw my motion. Lawrence: For what? Robertson: What I want to do is.... Lawrence: I haven't withdrawn my second yet, but go ahead and tell me. Robertson: O.K., my purpose for withdrawing my motion is I would like to make it that the City Council as well as the -during the final plat review as well as the City Attorney -needs to review and approve the a -I would like to amend that to my motion. Mayor: You've withdrawn it. Lawrence: I'll withdraw my second. Mayor: Keep this clean, please. (560 Robertson: O.K., I move that the DCD Department of Community Development Director and the Director of Public Works propose -be authorized to set up performance bonds based upon development phasings phasing of a development- to be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the City Council prior to the final plat approval. Lawrence: That's fine. It's still at their discretion to authorize it, but we have review. Robertson: Yes. Mayor: Is there a second? Lawrence: Second. Cohen: I think that there may be a problem with that. There may be with council reviewing that that that may be separation of powers issue and that's specifically delegated to administration. Ekbere: Can we mandate? Lawrence: I think we really do need to leave it to their expertise to assign this if it's necessary. This is a very complicated project, and I think there's some likelihood it may be necessary, but there may be other provisions that don't require it. Robertson: O.K., I'll make a motion... Mayor: You going to withdraw your motion? Robertson: No. I want to amend my motion by withdrawing the City Council approval. Lawrence: I'll second that. Mayor: Moved and seconded to amend the motion by withdrawing City Council. Discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response). To the original motion as amended. I don't think we need to read it again do we? All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Condition #5 Hold Harmless Clause. Robertson: I move that the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works prepare appropriate home hold homeless clauses to go into appropriate deeds for the lots dealing with slopes stability, long term slope stability issues. Mayor: I don't know if you want to be that specific, Dennis. A hold harmless clause... Lawrence: Let's just wait a minute. Go ahead and look it up, see how you wrote it before. 47 Robertson: O.K. I move that -I'll re -word this. I move that the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works prepare appropriate hold homeless clauses -hold harmless clauses -to be included with the appropriate lot deeds. I had the wording here somewhere. Just a second. /S5 f Mayor: Alright. Now do we have a second? Mullet: I'll second that. 48 Mayor: I would think you'd want hold harmless clauses entered with their deeds, and that would be sufficient. Robertson: O.K., I'll try this again then. I move that... Mayor: Alright. We've got a clean slate again. Robertson: I move that the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works prepare hold harmless clauses to be recorded with appropriate lot deeds as reviewed by the City Attorney. Mayor: Discussion? (no response) Good. All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Number #6: Recalculate density bonuses due to different street widths. Robertson: I move that the Director of Community Development re- calculate the bonus density calculations based upon the street widths of the final PRD and require that total density be adjusted accordingly. Lawrence: Second. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Number #7: Perimeter lots shall be a minimum of 50 feet at the perimeter. Robertson: Say that again? Mayor: Perimeter lots shall be a minimum of 50 feet at the perimeter. Robertson: O.K., I move that the Director of Community Development require that the lot widths of perimeter lots be adjusted to be a minimum of 50 feet at the perimeter- -per lot at the perimeter. Mullet: And you had a specific TMC that that was per? Robertson: No. That's all been in the discussion. Mayor: That's in there. Is there a second? Ekberg: Second. Mayor: Is there discussion? Lawrence: It's inadequate. Mayor: Moved and seconded. All in favor say "aye" (Hernandez, Robertson, Ekberg, Mullet); those opposed: No (Lawrence) Number 8: Minimum Setbacks -I stopped writing after I wrote minimum setback. Lucy, it's up to you to say it. 49 Lauterbach: Minimum setbacks are front, back or side and should be kept at (unclear) R -1 criteria for the side facing the perimeter. Robertson: I move that the Director of DCD review and require that perimeter lot setbacks be adjusted per the R -1 setback requirements. Only for the setbacks that are on the perimeter of the lot perimeter of the property. So that doesn't mean all of the other setbacks. The perimeter of the development. Ekberg: Second. Lawrence: One problem here. This initially was proposed to match either the -or to provide comparability, I guess, to the neighborhood. And the neighborhood was -or to provide comparability to the existing zoning if something else should be built. But the neighborhood was done under King County regulations and we need to have the more lenient of the two, or else we're in trouble. If we have something more restrictive of the two, there's an "or" in that clause this is based on, and it's come to my attention that King County required 20 foot front yard setbacks at the time the area was developed. Robertson: O.K. Then I would amend my motion to add the "or King County setbacks" in effect at the time Lawrence: I think we're safer to just amend it to 30 feet -or 20 feet for front yard setbacks. Robertson: Well what about side setbacks? Mayor: You don't have any in a PRD. Robertson: O.K. Lawrence: No, you do on the perimeter. Did that have a second? Ekberg: I don't think so. Cantu: I've got a second on the original motion, but (unclear) Ekberg: It's this second issue I'm not that concerned about. Robertson: O.K., I'll withdraw my motion if the second withdraws. Ekberg: I'll withdraw it, too. Mullet: I'm not sure that it's a worry. If I want to build a new house on my lot next to me, I'd use the current code. If I want to extend my house under remodeling, I get to use the existing codes -the old codes. But if I want to build a new one, I use the new codes, unless... Lawrence: This is based on being comparable to or compatible with one of two things: the existing neighborhood, which was done under King County standards, or with Tukwila standards for R -1. Now when there's an "or" included there, normally a developer gets to choose the less stringent. So if they get to choose the less stringent, they would go with the standards the existing community was built under. That's the 1565 50 problem. If we require the more stringent of the two when it's an "or" in here, when it's based on compatibility with one of two things, their choice, we have to choose the least stringent, I think, to be safe. Robertson: I agree. Lawrence: I don't like it particularly; however, I think that's the way the law would read. Robertson: Why don't you try the motion. Lawrence: O.K., I move that lots that are on the perimeter of the development be required to have minimum front yard setbacks of 20 feet and minimum side and back yard setbacks, or minimum back and side yard setbacks of Tukwila's R -1 zone on the side that faces the perimeter of the development. Robertson: Second. Mayor: For discussion. In the PRD which gives you the option of not having a setback on a side yard -you are amending the PRD at this point. Lawrence: No, it says "yard requirements as described in Chapter 18.50 shall be waived within the PRD; however, setbacks in design of the perimeter of the PRD shall be comparable to or compatible with Robertson: And we're dealing only with the perimeter, Wally. Mayor: Alright. Lawrence: Only the perimeter. There's a more stringent standard for the perimeter so it will be compatible. Mayor: Jane, call you repeat the motion? Cantu: I can probably get part of it Lawrence: It's on the tape, isn't it? Cantu: Lots on the perimeter of the development be required to have minimum front yard setbacks of 20 feet or minimum back and side yard setbacks of Tukwila R- 1 zone. Lawrence: On the side that faces the perimeter of the development. Mayor: Any further discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Robertson: To go back and discuss, we're only talking about perimeter lots and the perimeter setback and not any other.... Lawrence: This isn't going to work the way it's worded. Robertson: I don't think so either. Lawrence: The way it's worded will allow a duplex, essentially. Because we're only talking about the side facing they'll still have to have a minimum back or a minimum front, but if we're not required -we should require the side setback on all of them. Mullet: Side setbacks are under current Tukwila code. 51 Lawrence: I just said the side that faces the perimeter of the development. So for example, if the back faces the perimeter of the development, that's the -the back setback would be the one we'd be dealing with. That would not preclude having zero lot lines on the side -the way it's worded. Robertson: Correct. When we discussed Mullet: Except that they're not doing any zero lot lines. Robertson: Yea, but they're going to have to readjust- Lawrence: They may. Robertson: We'll force a readjustment of the siting of the house, anyway. When we talked about zero lot lines, that was to allow an extra -wide buffer- -every other one for plantings and stuff on steep hillsides. In this case, that's not part of the plan. So I would share Steve's -about what I said when we talked about it, that's when we created the SAO, that's what I meant. How would you modify your- Lawrence: Is it proper to amend something we already passed? How's that work? Robertson: We can make a motion to retract it. The prevailing side can. Lawrence: Yes, I move that we retract the previous motion. Robertson: I'll second that. Mayor: All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Lawrence: I move that lots that are on the perimeter of the development have a required front yard setback of 20 feet if the front yard faces the perimeter; side yard setbacks that are equal to Tukwila R -1 code; and a back yard setback equal to Tukwila R -1 code if the back yard faces the perimeter of the development. Robertson: Second. Mayor: Any discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Move to Number 8: Public access easement and trail at northeast corner. Ekberg: I make a motion that the 20 foot utility access easement be identified as public right -of -way for future trail and... Lawrence: Right -of -way or public access? Ekberg: Public access for future trail improvements. Lawrence: Second. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Hernandez: Allan, as I recall in the testimony there was some testimony about the vacated street would be left open for access also. Is this what you... Ekberg: We haven't discussed the vacation of the street yet. If that was to occur, I would like to see a right -of -way for pedestrian access. Lawrence: Easement. Ekberg: Easement. Hernandez: O.K. Mullet: This is the start of that. This is a portion of that... Mayor: Any further discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye' (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). And the last condition was the return to the BAR. Robertson: Well, there's actually two more. I would make a motion that the final plat be conditional upon a satisfactory BAR review as required in TMC 18.46.060(g). Ekberg: Second. Mayor: Approval of the final plat. Did you get all that, Jane? Cantu: Conditional upon satisfactory BAR review. Mayor: O.K. Any discussion? Lawrence: O.K. It's clearly cited in the TMC here under the PRD 18.46.060(g): "The Board of Architectural Review shall review guidelines for single family and multi family development That's within this type. "The design and review of the PRD shall also utilize the guidelines of Section 18.60.050 Mayor: All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Robertson: I have a comment. It's my understanding that the BAR recommendations can be appealed. So if there is an issue raised, that that is appealable. And that contingency is included as part of- -since that's a legal part of the BAR. Lawrence: Well, it would follow the normal.... Mayor: How would you like to handle the 12 items now of the Planning Commission? 52 Robertson: I've got one more. I move that the final plat be conditional upon staff providing Council with a satisfactory evaluation of the off -site perspectives or a modification to the planning requirements as required in Legal Conditions in 18.46.060(f)(1). That's that one about 25 percent -it has to be at time of occupancy, and 40 percent so many -down slope stuff, yea. I'm not sure that's a big issue. I just- that's a part of it. Mavor: Alright. Is there a second? Lawrence: Second. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Lawrence: That was item #9 was it? Mayor: That was 10. Lawrence: That was 10? Mayor: Yes. Now, did you wish to enter something here on the Planning Commission? Lawrence: O.K. Somebody made a motion or suggested on Number 4 of the Planning Commission one and they made a modification. So they need to read that with their modification in it. Ekberg: That was four? Robertson: Why don't we make a new one? Ekberg: That was my second item. The individual item I just talked about for the trail. Mullet: No, that had to do with a fence. The Number 4 was the fence. Lawrence: Was there any other modification? Mr. Mullet, I thought you read part of this wasn't it where the hedge should be planted? Was it changed? Robertson: When we tried it 53 Mayor: No. Steve went back and accepted the way it was written because it was alright. Robertson: Since four is different from the other ones let me -and we basically went along with the other ones, let me move that final plat be conditional upon -final plat approval be conditional upon a 5 foot high black color coded chain link fence erected along the north property line from the Southgate Park boundary east; and that a dense hedge be planted on the property immediately north of the site. Hernandez: Second. Mullet: I think it's important that the fence be on top of the bulkhead. Lawrence: That's what I recall. Robertson: And that- -O.K., let me remove -start it over again. I withdraw my motion. Who seconded it? Anybody second it? j557 Hernandez: I did and I'll withdraw the second. 54 Robertson: O.K., I'll move that the final plat be conditional upon a 5 foot high black color coded chain link fence be erected along the north property line from the Southgate Park boundary east on top of the bulkhead or rockery, and a dense hedge be planted on the property immediately north of the site. Hernandez: Second. Mavor: Moved and seconded. Discussion? (no response) All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Robertson: O.K. Then last I move that the items on page 2 and 3 of the memo from Rick Beeler, Director of the Department of Community Development, dated December 1, 1993 Lawrence: Seven had a modification. Their 7 had a modification. So I think you need to do... Robertson: Items 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as defined. Lawrence: Shall become -what are we on? Robertson: Conditional upon those items. Hernandez: Second. Mavor: Moved and seconded. Discussion? (no response). All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Robertson: O.K., I move that the final plat be conditional upon Item 7 on Page 2 of the memo from Rick Beeler to the Mayor and City Council, December 1, 1993, as written with the change at the end of the first paragraph, the word between the word "following" and the colon, the three words "at a minimum" be inserted. Lawrence: Second. Mavor: Moved and seconded. All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Now to the original motion. Ekberg: Before we do that can I ask just a question. We talked about a performance bond during the construction phase, and we talked about a hold harmless agreement after the construction's been complete and homes may be sold, etc. Is there any need or requirement or possibility of a performance bond that would last for a duration of "x" number of years past the completion of the project to cover -to protect for on -site or off -site property owners from unforseen circumstances resulting from this development, in case there is a slippage of land as a result of the development two years after the development occurred. The homeowners not a part of the covenants not on the property have suffered the damage. Robertson: I'd add to that I'm really personally very concerned about the bias (unclear) swale- -the only one required for this is now on 133rd, off site on city right of -way in front of somebody else's property. And that in itself may not be sufficient and may require modification, maintenance, everything else and the there's a whole lot of stuff in this. And at this point, we've bought into that whole thing I believe. And I'm concerned. Lawrence: It's been adopted I think. Robertson: I know. Mayor: It has been. Do you have a motion to put on the floor, Allan? Ekberg: I'll put a motion on the floor that a performance bond to last a duration of 5 years from completion of all phases of the project to protect on -site and off -site property owners from unforseen circumstances related to this development. Hernandez: I'll second your motion, Allan. Mayor: Moved and seconded. Lawrence: I think we need to find a citation in here that allows up to 5 years. Robertson: I think in 18.45 under the SAO. Hernandez: On 18.45.135 Assurance Device (b) It talks about "monitoring of alterations may be required up to 5 years So I don't know if that would apply or not. Robertson: Where are you at now? Hernandez: 18.45.135 Assurance Device (b). The bottom -the last sentence in (b) talks about monitoring for 5 years, but I don't know whether that would be an applicable reason. Cohen: I have a legal point. There is a state statute that RCW 58.17.130 that prohibits a performance bond for a period of any more than two years after final approval and even though our ordinance provides... Mayor: Ours is out of compliance with state law, and state law takes precedence. Mullet: I would amend Allan's motion to read two years and to also stipulate that damages be confined to water related and slope related damages for this performance bond. Robertson: Do you mean slope stability? Mullet: Yes. 55 Mayor: Moved and seconded. All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Lawrence: Hold off a second on the other vote. Just a minute. Chapter 18.96 Administration Enforcement -the performance bond there towards the end of it says "if the conditions are not satisfied within one year from the date of the deadline specified in the temporary occupancy permit That's the only think I can find that S51 56 states a date. Demand may be made by the City against the bond or its equivalent for completion and performance. That states one year. But that's after occupancy. Mayor: The motion as amended reads "performance bond to last the duration of two years from completion of all phases of the project to protect on-site/off-site property owners from unforseen circumstances related to this development as it pertains to slopes stability and water. Lawrence: Jane, can you read the first line of the original motion. Cantu: To require a performance bond -the original one was to last 5 years after completion. Lawrence: Yea, and that's been changed. So you're requiring it. It's not at the discretion of the department. It's being required then. Ekberg: I prefer to see it required unless we legally can't do that. Robertson: Yea. I have a question. Our ordinance 145.135 (b) requires an insurance device. It doesn't say bond. It says "an insurance device to cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies May require a letter of credit or other security device. Would that still come under the same definition as a bond? Walters: What provision are you looking at again, Dennis? Robertson: 18.45.135 Insurance Device. That's page 18 -51 in this grey thing. Mayor: It guarantees performance and maintenance requirements of the section. Robertson: Yes. And that's for alteration of a sensitive area. In this case the slope- the Category II, III, and IV slopes qualify definitely as sensitive areas. And the amount of cut and fill here would definitely qualify as changing them. So there's- what we'd want to do is cover the monitoring costs and correction of possible deficiencies. If assurance devices can be letters of credit, security device, which is a bond -I'm just wondering if-- that's in the code itself. Mayor: We're really covered already. Lawrence: Well, no, it's different though, this one says the Director of the Department of Community Development may require. Now you're saying shall require basically. Robertson: Can I try this a different way then and leave it -I don't know if this is legal. If they would withdraw that and we said we would require for a period of up to 5 years if- -or the maximum allowed by state law. Not to -for a period maximum allowed by state law not to exceed 5 years? And quoted 18.45.135 exactly? And then that lets you work the issue later? Lawrence: Linda, are we entering into- Walters: Here, let me read you, Dennis, what we're looking at. RCW 58.17.130 provides for a bond in lieu of construction of improvements, and pertinent language reads "in addition, local regulations may provide for methods of security including the I� (C posting of a bond, securing to the municipality the successful operation of improvements for an appropriate period of time up to two years after final approval Robertson: Peace. Peace. I agree. Walters: O.K. You've got a good point. I think that this would supercede. I think a court would probably take the more restrictive state statute. Lawrence: I have a question though. By requiring it -by the Council requiring a bond, which is the proposal, are we crossing the line between legislative and administrative. Walters: No, I don't think so because your Code authorizes you to do that as part of- -under the SAO. Cohen: To make a condition.. Walters: Right. I think that's an appropriate condition. And also I would point out I think a lot of the concerns you've raised are going to be addressed through the hold harmless agreement. So a lot of this, I think particularly with the bond, is probably duplicative. Mayor: Alright. So your motion still stands? Ekberg: Yea. Robertson: Call for the question. Mayor: All in favor say "aye" (unanimous response); those opposed (no response). Now are we ready for the original motion with conditions as stated.? Robertson: Call for the question. Mayor: All in favor say "aye" (Hernandez, Robertson, Ekberg, Mullet); those opposed (Lawrence). 57