Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-25 Special MinutesAPRIL 25, 1994 7:00 p.m. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and lead the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCILMEMBERS STEVE MULLET, Council President; JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ, PRESENT DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY DE RODAS. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS Fosterview (PRD) Quasijudicial: Discussion limited to clarification of the conditions of approval of the Fosterview Estates planned residential development (PRD), review of elevations and off -site perspectives for downslope and side yard buffers, and how the project meets design review criteria per TMC 18.60.050, continued from April 4, 1994. Request for Street Vacation of portions of Maule Avenue NEW BUSINESS Code amendment for family childcare homes The Council concluded discussion of the conditions and agreed that a public hearing on Final Plat will be held at a later date. A verbatim transcript of the Quasijudicial Public Hearing was distributed to Council and other pertinent persons on Friday, April 29, 1994. Quasijudicial: Request for vacations of portions of Maule Avenue between S. 141st Pl. and S. 141st St., S. 141st St. between Interurban and Maule Avenue, and for S. 141st Place between Interurban and the left bank of the Duwamish River. It was the consensus of the Council to approve the request for vacations and authorize Mayor to sign agreement; and prepare ordinances in final form for approval at next week's Regular Council meeting. Verbatim transcript distributed to Council on April 25, 1994 and other pertinent persons. Jack Pace, Senior Planner, DCD, explained that according to the Tukwila Zoning Code, family childcare homes are considered home occupations. The City interprets these home occupation conditions narrowly, and prohibits employees and customers from coming to the property. Thus, family childcare home operators who wish to do business in Tukwila residential zones must Special Meeting 4pril 25, 1994 Page 2 erode amendment for family Childcare homes (Cont'd) REPORTS obtain a conditional use permit. While family childcare homes are not prohibited from operating in Tukwila, the City's strict home occupation requirements to prohibit "permitted outright" status for such uses, and the conditional use process is a substantial barrier to family childcare homes. Pace stated that a check with Seattle, Renton, Federal Way, Kent, Olympia and SeaTac revealed that their requirements are all less restrictive than Tukwila's. Seattle, Olympia and SeaTac allow family child care homes with up to twelve children in all residential zones. A business license is required, however. Pace said Tukwila could allow family childcare homes which do not employ and assistant (thereby permitting from six to ten children in care at a home, depending on specific DSHS licensing requirements). Additionally, Tukwila could allow family childcare homes with six or fewer children outright, but require those with seven or more to obtain an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. In summary, Pace said staff is recommending that the Council review attachment "C" of the proposal and if there is Council consensus a public hearing should be scheduled and the material submitted tonight be prepared in final ordinance format. After a brief discussion and minor amendments to the ordinance, the Council agreed to schedule a public hearing for May 16 and adopt amended ordinance the same night. The amendments are as follows: In Section 2, (1), delete the words "building or premises" and add, following the word "the," "surroundine residential develonment." In same Section, (5), 1st line following the word "employ," delete the words "uq to two." Mayor Rants presented the 1994 First Quarter Activity Report and commented that January thru March was marked by several land use matters that challenged both the Council and the Administration with their complexity. He explained how pleased he was to confirm that revenues are running stronger than projected to date, and that we were able to carryover more cash than originally anticipated. He stated that the Council should be aware that these accomplishments are not inclusive of everything we have undertaken. Staff continues to feel the pressures of an increasingly heavy work load, particularly in Public Works and Planning. In spite of the many competing demands on their time, staff continues to put out a quality product. The Mayor said he will soon be providing the Council with specific recommendations to remedy some of the stress in these areas. The Council was impressed with the Activity Report and requested the Mayor keep the same format for future reporting. It makes reviewing much easier. Special Meeting 4pri125, 1994 ?age 3 EZeports (Con't1 10:30 p.m The Mayor read portions of a copy of a letter sent to Bruce Lang by Greg Nickels. Nickels stated in the letter their support for a transit line that would follow the Duwamish Corridor thru Tukwila CBD to SeaTac "It's the Coalition's goal to pursue environmental cleanup. Improved transit service will be a critical element in a plan to revitalize this area that is so vital to our regional economy. I believe that as members of the RTA Board, we should insure that a Duwamish route and a Southcenter station option are thoroughly evaluated and benefit from our support The Mayor commented that it appears we are united in our efforts at this point. The Mayor reported that he had gone to Bellevue recently to review the completed tape of the Pond Project. A copy of the tape will be provided him as soon as possible. He is hopeful he will have it in time to share with Council at the next COW. The tape is 7 minutes and 20 seconds long. Councilmember Hernandez reported that the recent Community Affairs and Parks Committee discussion focused on Youth Centers and various other avenues that could be explored to aid in keeping teens off the street at night. She said through the efforts of Karen Wright, the City will acquire eight (8) VISTA Volunteers to assist in this effort. Councilmember Robertson commented that not only does he supports the idea of a teens program, but suggested a presentation be given by Karen Wright at the beginning of the next COW meeting as to the purpose and plans of the program. The Mayor recommended that the $24,000 confiscated as a result of drug busts be earmarked for teen activities. Responding to Tukwila citizens, Duffle and Robertson recommended a stop sign be place at the intersection of 52nd and 149th. It is hoped this will slow down the speeding motorists in the area. The Council agreed to forward this issue to the Transportation Committee for discussion. kDJOURNMENT MOVED BY DUFFIE SECONDED BY CRAFT, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED Celia Square, Dept+ City Clerk Verbatim Transcript Fosterview Estates and Vacation of Portions of Maul Avenue Tukwila City Council Special Meeting April 25, 1994 Mayor Rants: I will now open the public hearing. We will hear from Staff with recommendations from the Planning Commission. Denni Shefrin: Good evening, my name is Denni Shefrin and I'm with the Planning division. This evening I'm going to try and keep things fairly simple. I think this might be a little complex on the surface and I would request that you stop me at anytime as I'm going through my presentation to ask questions. As Wally had mentioned, the Planning Commission had met on this project on the 14th and as you recall in December, the City Council approved this project, that is the preliminary plat and the PRD with several conditions. Two of which required that the project go back before the Planning Commission namely the off -site perspectives and downslope analysis, and secondly the confirmation that the project complies with the BAR design guidelines. The third items we are going to be discussing tonight are the clarification of the conditions that were imposed by the City Council. The reason why we're bringing these conditions back before you is several of these conditions merit further clarification in order for Staff to clarify as well as ease of implementation. So let me begin first of all with the off -site perspectives. If you will note behind you there are several exhibits and I would like to draw your attention to exhibit, I believe it's eight. The PRD provisions requires that for downslopes there needs to be a minimum amount of coverage for landscaping in order to screen houses that may be visible as you're looking as your standing off the property, looking upslope towards the completed buildings. The code however, does not provide for any clear definition in terms of how off -site perspectives are to be defined. So in essence we had to make several assumptions. What we attempted to do with the first assumption was try to establish locations where these off -site perspectives ought to be taken. And you will see that, let me see if I can get this to work, on exhibit eight we have chosen A, B and C as locations. The applicant has elected to stand essentially 10 feet from the property line again looking upslope. His locations were chosen keeping in mind what might be most visible. We chose not to consider areas where there were tract areas which would contain vegetation as well as areas which had been designated as open space easements as well as another condition imposed by Council which in essence means there would also be 15 foot native vegetation areas. So looking at areas A, B, and C as well as the off -site perspectives that are below actually the renderings, what we attempted to establish is how much of those buildings again would be visible. The way the provision in the code reads is that there needs to be 25% coverage at the time buildings are completed and that an additional 40% coverage after a 15 year period. What we've ascertained is that the project meets this requirement, however both the Planning Commission and Staff recommended six additional trees be planted. I have identified those trees for you in exhibit both eight and nine. The six trees are along the east edge of the property. Three located here and the additional three are located where this pointer is. There's also a table for your reference in exhibit two which is part of the Planning Commission report on page three which also illustrates for you how the project would comply with those off -site perspectives. Are there any questions? Rants: Dennis? Councilmember Dennis Robertson: Denni? When we.... you chose 10 foot from the property line as the point to calculate off -site perspective? Shefrin: That's correct. Robertson: I understand and it never occurred to me before you pointed that it wasn't real specific on how you did that. Wally can you grab exhibit 485, the photograph type one for a second? Thank you. The view that we were thinking of, at least I was thinking of, when that part of written, was if you were across the valley or down below on the freeway or somewhere away and you were looking up. And I realize this is looking the wrong way, but if you saw the back of all these houses from a distance, not just from somebody's property, an adjoining property line, but from a street the idea was that hillside property is something people want to develop because you get a view from it. But the other half is that that hillside is also part of somebody else's view. It's not only good to develop because you have a view, but you are also part of the view. And not just from the neighbors lot but from everywhere else. And the idea of the wooded hillsides we wanted to try and maintain. Now at the same time we wanted to encourage development and allow it. So I guess we weren't real specific. And the reason I'm going into this is when I look at these photographs, these perspectives here, from this angle it works fine but if you were say on the valley floor or across what would you see? Are these trees high enough up where they would actually shade the back, you know cover the back of the property or would they not? Shefrin: Let me come up and try to address some of your questions. I think we all realize now that we are a bit handicap because the code isn't terribly definitive. Robertson: Yes. Shefrin: And I think you're also aware at some point soon, hopefully we will be able to return to you and propose perhaps some definitions as we look at the PRD and possible amendments. Let me address your question. Keep in mind that the vegetation will be retained in the tract A, thank you very much. Vegetation will also be retained in tract B as well as in this area which is designated and actually approved now open space easement. As well as areas on the north. As we're looking at existing vegetation that would be retained so what we can't really establish is how much you're going to see from a tremendous distance away. We do know that there will be vegetation there retained in these areas. Also the streets act in essence as a buffer of some sort. So that's something else to keep in mind. These trees are existing which would be retained. There is a sidewalk that was specifically designed to meander to in order to retain those trees as well. And we're also proposing street trees along 42nd. So I guess it suffices to say that we've got vegetation that's existing that we're looking at to serve as a fairly substantial amount of vegetation that again would be retained in those areas. To serve as a screen from some distance away as well as close up. Something else we found too is that no matter where you're standing, if you move any direction you're going to be changing your perspective. It becomes quite subjective. But again, we were very concerned about what might be visible from this residence to the north as well as also from Southgate park. Robertson: OK, it sounds to be like you probably definitely met the legal requirements and most likely the intent. When that was written at least what I was envisioning was not single family houses but the apartments that we have on the hill here. And some of them still have some of the big trees left. If 2 you really try to look at it you would see that only 25% of the buildings were blocked. But the trees break up the monotony and everything else. The ones where they've gone in and stripped the hillside we had consultants point this out, they didn't leave any of the big trees especially what you have is this whole row of buildings. We didn't, at least I didn't envision, single family homes when that part was written but what we wanted to do was avoid the wall. It sounds to me the impact of a bare wall, the buildings. And of course when you move from place to place the perspective changes. But from almost any position you should still have 25% of the buildings obscured. It would be a different 25% each time but what it would do is still break up that appearance of a bare slope with buildings. Instead you'd still have at least some greenery and some feeling of the wooded hillsides. Rants: Are there any other Staff comments? Are there any other questions of Staff? Thank you Denni. Shefrin: Thank you. Next then I'm going to go onto the BAR design guidelines. I'm going to run through this fairly quickly and what you'll also note in exhibit nine I've attempted to identify each of the conditions, how they are physically to be implemented. Some of these conditions are not physical issues, they perhaps more deal with covenants, codes and restrictions and things of that nature. So in essence there are five design review criteria. Very quickly the first criteria is the relationship of the structure to the site. As you not the project proposes sidewalks throughout the project area as well as through connections to Macadam along 137th. There are no large pave areas, and again a lot of these BAR conditions, I should point this out, often times pertain to commercial development and not as cleanly to single family residential development. You'll also, you're also aware that the project is in essence surrounded by single family development as well. And of course that is what's being proposed for this project. Lots are smaller, but again surrounded by a tremendous amount of open space areas. Again with respect to the retention of the tract areas and the vegetation within those areas. Criteria number two, relationship of structure to the surrounding area. Again, the surrounding area is predominately single family. From that standpoint we believe the project complies again due to the type of structure that's proposed. Massing is similar, open space easements provide a visual transition to the site as does the vegetation to those areas. Setbacks for the most part are similar to those in the surrounding area. We brought this up earlier, with respect to a lot of the development in that area being developed while in the County. So what we've attempted to do is have front setbacks at 20 feet but the rear and side setbacks do comply with the R -1 single family zone standards. With respect to criteria number three, landscaping and site treatment, we've touched upon the vegetation being retained in those sensitive areas and buffers as well as vegetation located within the open space easements. Council also proposed another condition which required on through lots that there be a 15 foot buffer with native vegetation. With respect to criteria number four, building design, again we're proposing single family development. One component, or architectural procedure that's been retained or at least an attempt to be compatible with surrounding, is to design these homes with pitched roofs. You'll also notice the building elevations are depicted actually right behind Wally and Steve. Also, we requested that the developer try in cases where it was feasible to have the front entries be pushed out towards the street in order to attempt to reduce the predominance of the garage. You'll also see those on the building elevations. With respect to criteria number five, structures and street furniture. The only feature really that might be defined as street furniture would be the lighting. And you've got that in your packet, I believe it's exhibit six which has the design of the street lighting. What we attempted to do is have something that provides more of a residential character. Our typical street light standards in the City are 30 feet and we're proposing 20 feet 2 i 3 Shefrin: Yea, that's approximately what it would work out to be. ,2 J for the purposes of keeping lighting at what we consider human scale. That completes my presentation on the design review guidelines. Do you have any questions? Rants: Questions? Dennis. Robertson: The -on page three of the report dated 4/25, it talks about total encroachment of 400 square feet, under issues. Shefrin: You're looking at the conditions now? Rants: This is clarification of issues she's speaking of here. Right now she's speaking of BAR design guidelines. Any questions? Would you go ahead Denni? Shefrin: My pleasure. OK, this is where it gets a bit tricky. Conditions, again, I want to reiterate. The purpose of bringing these back before you is to make the conditions very easy to implement. And I think you'll note as you've gone back presumably through the minutes of that night's hearing, and have also identified each of the conditions verbatim, a lot of them are a bit confusing. I think in particular with condition one, the issue's a bit different. What we're attempting to do is bring an issue back before you for perhaps reconsideration. You'll also note that several of these conditions are conditions which we're recommending to potentially be omitted because they've either been combined with other conditions or they may be a bit redundant. So beginning with condition number one, you have required that S. 137th street which bisects the property, has a 40 foot right of way and 30 feet with the pavement with five foot easements on either side. As you recall, the project that was presented to you back in December proposed which a pavement of 28 feet. The purpose of doing that is also identified in page three of your Staff report. It's an attempt to reduce intrusion within the sensitive areas. That was again the sole purpose. We're attempting to look very staunchly at the PRD provisions as well as the SAO because the intent seems to be very clear. There's an exhibit on the far left, on the top that is the site plan that was approved by you back in December. You also might take some time to look at the comparison in terms of how lot orientations have changed as well. But getting back to this condition, there's a couple of different ways perhaps we could go. One would be again reducing, throughout the full length of 137th the width of pavement to 28 feet again retaining still the 40 foot right -of -way. Or perhaps narrowing the width of right -of -way or the width of pavement just at the crossing. Again, the crossing involves crossing the wet actually the watercourse. We recognize that there is potential concern in terms of providing adequate on- street parking. It's important to note that the project proposes four off street parking spaces for each of the residences. All propose a two car garage, all have driveways which would accommodate two vehicles. So we feel that there is adequate parking provided throughout the project area. So those are the two alternatives that we're recommending this evening. I can entertain questions now, or I can continue through the conditions, whatever your pleasure. Robertson: I have one question. You reference this 400 feet encroachment into the watercourse, is that basically two feet on either side? Basically your yellow line here and here, saying it's 100 foot on each side by two feet is 200? 4 Robertson: OK, that does not include the easement because an easement along the north side of five foot doesn't necessarily mean you encroach if you don't do anything, correct? Shefrin: Exactly. Robertson: Thank you. Rants: Denni I'm going to recommend in our process here that we go through the twelve conditions because you will come back for questions so that we have the applicants and the appellants have the opportunity to speak rather than addressing each of the conditions before we have all the information. She can come back and answer your questions then for you at the end. Otherwise you don't have the input from public or the applicant. Question? Robertson: I don't understand Wally. You're saying that we hold all questions until everybody has presented or we hold discussion and decision making until everybody's Rants: We hold discussion and decision making which is going to be lead to by the questions you have to ask I'm sure. Do we want to ask all the questions on the way through now before you have any input from the public or the applicant? Robertson: I would personally prefer to ask the questions as we go along of whoever's presenting without necessarily discussing it. But Councilmember Steve Mullet: If we're just asking questions I would prefer to do that too. It gets confusing if you get too far beyond the time. But we could keep the questions to informational, you know clarification of the thing. Rants: Sure, I understand. My thought was that we'd be asking the same questions again after we've gone through this process and we're not getting ready to make a decision. We'll be asking some of the same questions again. If not, if the Council's comfortable this way Councilmember .roan Hernandez: I think we need to ask a few questions as clarification as we go along. Rants: All right. Shefrin: So... Rants: It looks like you're going to get questions all the way through Denni. Shefrin: Actually I think that's a better idea because as I said we're going to try and keep this simple and I think that's a good way to do it. OK then, moving onto condition number two Hernandez: Can I ask a question on condition number one? Is your recommendation then that the width of S. 137th at the crossing be 28 feet? 5 Mullet: And that was in the original -that was the original plan. Hernandez: Then this recommendation as written needs to be modified. Mullet: When I read through this Denni I kind of got lost I guess. When you say your recommendation is to not do anything then with 43rd Place, or just not to put the houses off of 42nd? 43rd Place had two parts to it. Shefrin: The preferred recommendation actually is to narrow the full length of 137th throughout the project site to 28 feet. That is the preferred recommendation. Hernandez: Not to just be narrow at the intersection, but to maintain that all along. OK, that's what I needed to know. Shefrin: Any more questions with respect to condition number one? OK then, condition number two, you will note then that the recommendation, or actually the condition requires where 43rd Place is located, that there be easements both on the south and on the north sides. Because an easement is only being proposed on the south side, we are recommending that the five foot utility easement on the north side actually again because no utilities are being proposed, there's no need for that particular easement. And again because the applicant has demonstrated by the revised site plan that 43rd Place can be retained, we're recommending that condition number two be omitted. Because easements again are provided on the south side of 43rd Place. Any questions? Robertson: Could I help? I had a lot of puzzlement until I realized what you're doing is they have made corrections. For instance, 43rd Place, we not only did the easement thing, we widened the street and other things. So that was part of the confusion because we did a lot more then just put an easement on 43rd Place on the north side. WE put a sidewalk on one side and we widened the overall street to 24 feet from 20 to 24 feet, so this your recommendation doesn't make sense. However, the drawing shown here shows both the -which ever one it it- -shows both the easements and the street widening. So Shefrin: I think Dennis you're bringing up a good point. What I failed to mention is that based upon condition number two you'll note that the developer went back and evaluated the feasibility of omitting 43rd Place entirely. We're going with original design but attempting to in essence increase the lot sizes because I know that was a real issue for everyone. We also looked at widening the streets based on the condition where easements made most amount of sense and so on. And in turn as you can see in the revised site plan, the applicant has gone ahead and demonstrated that they can still take access and still meet the other conditions that is access off of 43rd Place, retain lots with access onto 42nd Place. We had some concerns again with safety in terms of many driveways accessing 42nd Place. Again they've gone back to the original proposal. They've basically demonstrated that they are able to comply with the majority of those conditions that were made part of the proposal back in December. So now we're looking at this keeping in mind that they've gone back, rethought and decided that they want to retain 43rd Place. How best can they do that, do these conditions still make sense now? Do they still make sense? That's why I'm bringing up condition number two once again. Do the easements made sense on 6 both sides since they aren't necessarily proposed. They were able to increase the width of the street and easements can only be introduced on one side. Mullet: So the one your omitting is the option to go off of 42nd? Shefrin: Yes, and also eliminating an easement on the north side. Mullet: An easement on the north side. But you didn't omit the condition to widen the road? Shefrin: No. Councilmember Allen Ekberg: Denni, on the recommendation as listed on page four, that paragraph, have underlined the very last five words, "condition number two shall be omitted." See that? In essence I've heard what you just said, the recommendation is to remove the five foot utility on the north side of 43rd. Shefrin: That's correct. Ekberg: If that was the case then condition number two would stand except for the five foot utility? Robertson: I think that's the confusing part because it shows on the drawing now as 24 feet instead of 20. Shefrin: What would happen this evening, is we're looking at revised site plan. If you choose to adopt the revised preliminary plat with conditions either as modified or conditions that you choose to add, what you see before you this evening then would become the final preliminary plat. OK? So what were trying to do is to avoid being redundant. I don't know if that help address your question. Ekberg: Yea it does. Shefrin: Any more questions then on condition number two? OK then condition number three, that the subdivision code be enforced in its entirety to include 15 foot buffers where there are through lots. Staff went back and looked at that whole section of the subdivision code and recognized that not only are we talking about 15 foot wide buffers on through lots, but we're also talking about retaining lot areas of R17.2 standards. However, you already went ahead and approved lot areas which would be smaller than that. So we had a conflict there. So what Staff in turn is recommending is that the condition simply read that there be a 15 foot buffer of native vegetation for through lots. Any questions? OK. Number four, this simply talks about the issue of performance bonds and the recommendation includes combining condition number four and number 15 and we've just proposed a reword combining those two conditions. I should also point out that you originally recommended and required that the performance bond should last for five years. Staff went back and researched State statutes and found that we were limited to two years and that's why you see it two years there. Any questions? Ekberg: So Denni, in this situation the State statute supersedes the City? 7 Shefrin: That's correct. Rants: Go on. Shefrin: OK, condition number five the hold harmless clause. Again Staff is recommending that the condition be reworded for clarity. Are there any questions? OK. Condition number six. Recalculate density bonuses due to different street widths etc. As mentioned earlier this site plan incorporates those conditions for the most part that were imposed by Council back in December. In turn the applicant went back and recalculated the density bonus plugging into the formula perhaps a change in the tract area based upon the increased width of 137th. What was found was that the density was not reduced, it remains unchanged. So what we're recommending is that that condition be omitted. Any questions? OK. Condition number seven, required was that perimeter lots be 50 feet wide. You can see that that's been introduced on the revised site plan and what Staff is recommending simply is that we actually specify those lots so this condition would apply to. You can see on page seven of the report the proposed rewording to do just that. Again to identify the specific lots where that condition would apply. Any questions? OK, then on condition number eight, lots- -this has to do with setbacks for lots. You will note that, and we talked about this just a little bit earlier, front setbacks we decided could be 20 feet. The typical required setback in a R17.2 is 30 feet, so again there was agreement of 20 feet. The project does comply with that and it had back when you visited it in December. The project also complies with the side setbacks as well as the rear setbacks for the R17.2 zone standards. The recommendation is that this condition be omitted because in essence the proposal meets this requirement without an additional condition. it doesn't change anything. Any questions? OK, then condition number nine, public access easement and trail at northeast corner. AS we understood it it was a matter of simply clarifying how this easement was to be identified. We proposed a rewording to again identify the utility /pedestrian access easement that in essence runs from the cul -de -sac northward towards Southgate park. And again were talking about just a reword. This has actually been noted on the revised site plan. Any questions? Ekberg: Yea, you mentioned running from the cul -de -sac? Shefrin: Yes. It also includes the area coming northward from off -site onto the property and running along the north property line. And Allen, I recall that this was your recommended condition. Ekberg: Yea, why don't you use your little light thing and point it out. Rants: Your magic marker. Shefrin: OK please -I hope -if this gets into somebody's eyes bear with me. All right so what we're looking at is this easement area here. Actually it's shown better here, we've outlined it in blue. Right along here and also as it runs from the cul -de -sac north. Ekberg: Why would the cul -de -sac be mentioned in this recommendation when it wasn't a consideration ?(1017). 8 Shefrin: There's a pedestrian easement, and actually they are proposing utilities within that easement area as well so we wanted to make sure it was identified to contain both utilities as well as pedestrian access. Ekberg: OK. Shefrin: Any questions? OK then, condition number ten, that the final plat be conditional upon satisfactory BAR review as required. WE went through that just a moment ago to identify how much it complies with the BAR criteria. And on page eight of your report I've identified the two conditions that were recommended by the Planning Commission. I can go through those but in essence there was a real interest in the Planning Commissions part to assure that there be a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees and that's what we've attempted to do here. The recommendation in essence involves replacement of some deciduous with the coniferous. And the second condition essentially involves ground cover and just to get some insurance's on the City's part that it would be healthy and it would survive and be viable. Rants: I think were probably OK with that one Denni. Shefrin: OK, condition number eleven. Again City Council to be satisfied with evaluation of off -site perspectives. We've gone through that already. And we're proposing a single condition with the addition of six trees. Condition number 12, I'm sorry, I'm assuming there's no questions on that. OK, condition Rants: Doing well. Shefrin: Condition number 12, the final plat be conditional upon the five foot high fence etc. We're proposing simply a reword again for clarity to clearly identify where this fence would go as well as where the dense shrub would be located again on the property to the north. Any questions? OK, condition number 13. There was reference simply to Rick's memo dated December 1st. The proposed change to those conditions would mean to actually identify each of those conditions that were called out in his memo. I have enumerated those on page eight and nine of your report. Any questions? OK, moving onto condition number 14. That the final plat be conditional upon item seven, again which has to do with Dennis I think this was your condition -in essence change make the change to -I'm sorry, OK, going back to condition number 15 at the bottom, we've changed the wording which states out a minimum. So I'm on page 9 condition number 15, the bottom of the first paragraph. So were proposing to omit this condition. Moving onto condition number 15, we have combined it with condition number four so we are recommending that this condition be omitted as well. Any questions? Jack now will be distributing for you the conditions as they would read. We renumerated all those conditions. I didn't want to pass this out earlier because it may confuse everything. But in essence these would be the conditions which would include those which would be omitted and modified. And that concludes my presentation. Rants: Thank you Denni. Any questions of Staff at this point? All right then well move on then with the applicant. 9 Bill Fowler: I'm Bill Fowler, Vice President, Dujardin Development Company. And we have our architect and our landscape designer and our engineer available to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Rants: Does the Council have any questions they would like to ask of the engineer or architect? Dennis. Robertson: Joe has a question. Rants: Oh, Joe pardon me. Duffle: I would like to ask the architect so you all approve of this document that you have before you? With all the different changes that we just went through. Fowler: Yes we have. Duffie: Beg your pardon? Fowler: We have reviewed it yes. Duffle: You agree with this? Fowler: Yes. Duffie: OK, thank you. Hernandez: Let me clarify that you find them acceptable then? Fowler: Yes. Rants: Thank you. Any further questions? ,Terry Bell:I think I stepped up here too soon. I think one of the other two people should be here. 2 9p Robertson: I have one I guess of the architect and the engineer. Lots 26 and 27 on exhibit 9 with that buffer in the back, the 15 yard, or 15 foot buffer runs right up adjacent with the property, with the house. I guess I have a couple questions. Effectively how will that -first off how will you do -how would you define native- -and I don't want to discuss what the word native means, vegetation, but as soon as some vegetation there -I was kind of curious how that would work in trying to decide a house. I know over time one of our problems in my house was the people who had it before planted too big of shrubs too close to the house. Robertson: Well I'm also worried about what that means as far as the impact of designing the house, drainage systems, since we're tightlining all of the drains out of the houses down and what that means as far as shrubbery is concerned. There's not much room there. 10 Jerry Bel1:My name is Jerry Bell, I'm a landscape architect for the project. My address is 2127 N. 148th St. in Seattle. It isn't -the type of plants is not really defined. We called out firs, hemlocks and cedars in there. And we would, we don't have to get too close to them. But you are right, if we plant these forest type trees too close to the building they will forever have to be pruned. So we did this because it was required. They said put 15 feet worth of native plantings in a buffer and that's where they went. And there wasn't any room left in some of those lots, you're right. Robertson: The land immediately behind those two lots is fairly steeply sloping down to the lots. Is that correct? Bell: Not really, not steeply no, that will all be regraded of course. Robertson: What? Someone from audience (unclear). Bell: That's right at the border line of mowable and not mowable. Robertson: I'm sorry, could you say that again? Bell: Well it's -2 1/2 to 1 is right on the border line of where you can mow it or where you can't mow it. Robertson: OK, the grass. Bell: We usually figure anything steeper than a 3 in 1 shouldn't be mowed but you can mow it up to 2 1/2. 2 to 1 is too steep. Robertson: OK, so then putting native vegetation -I'm assuming grass is not native vegetation. Bell: We didn't put grass in there. Since they call for native plants, and we assume, they just said native and we assume that meant trees since it was supposed to be a buffer. IF we get to the definition of that we wind up with where we can put fewer trees and more native shrubs then we don't have the kind of problem we're talking about, see? Put things like Oregon Grape shrubs in it and some of the other larger growing shrubs and fewer trees. We would hope that at least in the area where it comes close to the building we could do that kind of adjusting. Robertson: OK, thank you. My other question is, does that propose any drainage problems or maintaining drainage system problems? Eric Tzeitza: My name is Eric Tzeitza, the Civil Engineer on this project. No I don't really think so because the slope will be sloping you know be draining downward. We would have yard drains and things like that that would be picking up any runoff from those area. They would probably be downhill further so I don't see a problem with roots if that's what you're concerned with. 11 Robertson: OK, thank you. Rants: Does that conclude the applicants presentation? Sneaker did not identify himself: I have a question, it's more a clarification on my part. And that is on conditions one and two. If we go with -it seems to me there are two options under recommendations conditions number one. And I would like to know what the width would be if we were to lets say narrow it down at the crossing of the creek rather than right now just as narrow it. I'd like to know what width we'd be talking about so for design purposes. And on condition two, I'm not quite sure I know what this means because are we talking about just eliminating the five foot utility easement and leaving the 24 foot width or are we talking about going back to the 20 foot width and utility easements. Rants: I think those would be answered at the time the Council finishes their recommendations. Robertson: Can I ask Staff what they meant? If we take recommendation one, part two condition one recommendation two, we say narrow the width. I assume you mean to narrow it to 28 feet? Shefrin: That's correct. Robertson: As in the original proposal. That would -no that's 28 feet of pavement, the sidewalk would be additional on the, correct? Shefrin: The easement width does not change. Robertson: OK then the sidewalk Shefrin: Is within the easement, correct. Robertson: OK then the other one, I assume that all you mean on issue number two is basically to go with the plan as proposed I guess here except the five foot utility easement on the northeast side of 43rd Place would be deleted. Shefrin: Correct. Robertson: Otherwise it's a 24 foot street with a 10 foot easement here, five foot of which is on the other side, five foot of which is a sidewalk? Shefrin: Right. I apologize, I know that was a bit confusing in my presentation. I hope that clarifies. Rants: All right. We will open it for public testimony. If you wish to speak on this issue please come to the microphone, state your name and address. And they must be on the three items which are on the board over here. Does anybody which to speak on them? No one stood up to be sworn in that's correct, but one gentleman did come in late. All right, if there is no public testimony and we've answered the questions so there needs to be no rebuttal between Staff and the applicant I would think. We can close the quasi-judicial feature of this and continue with discussion. 12 Robertson: I'm not sure Ekberg: I'll need the access to questions during discussion as well. Rants: Right, you'll have that. Robertson: So we don't want to close the public hearing, we want to actually go through and have our discussion with the ability for us to ask Staff or the applicant particular questions. Rants: City attorney has said that she modified that enough so say that if we closed the public hearing we could ask questions of Staff. She did that some time back. OK? Are you comfortable with this? Speaker from audience responded: Yes I am. Rants: All right, public hearing is closed. So Joe would you be kind -I'm sorry we need that turned around so I can see. When we begin our discussion and it needs to stay within those three issues. I think we have already established a process for doing this. And there it is with the 15 options after we continue. Is anyone uncomfortable with that? Off -site perspectives, discussion? Hernandez: Well it appears that they've been met, I'm satisfied that they're met. Mullet: I'm satisfied that they've been met best as possible. Rants: Dennis? Robertson: I'm also satisfied that based on the Planning Commission report and the Staff recommendation of adding six trees that the off -site perspective needs have been met. Rants: All right. Well begin then with the BAR design guidelines. Duffie: I'm satisfied. Hernandez: I think I'm satisfied with those too. Mullet: I would pretty much agree with them also. Rants: No questions? Allen? Ekberg: No. Rants: All right. That brings us then to the 15 conditions and clarification of those conditions. Condition one. 13- 13 Robertson: Wally, as a discussion point since I've made my notes in here I would prefer that the Council work off of the books that were handed out earlier. I have no problem with the yellow sheet other than I don't have my notes and I haven't had an opportunity to read them. So I'd rather work off of these sheets here. Ekberg: Hers is out of order anyway. Robertson: OK. Duffie: Are you going to discuss each condition at a time? Rants: We're going to go through each of the 15 conditions Joe. Duffie: I have no problem with number one myself. Rants: You right now are in agreement with the Planning Commission and Staffs recommendations? Duffle: I can cover the whole things in one word but you know I won't do it. Ekberg: I'd just like to point out an observation in case someone is looking at the yellow sheet. Item two from our handout document -the numbering is incorrect on the yellow sheet. Mullet: I think these were the conditions that were referred to in Rick's memo that were not itemized in our Robertson: That's why I prefer to go with the book. Rants: We need to stay with our book. Duffie: Yea, stay with our book, I don't think we need to Robertson: I'd like to recommend that we leave condition one as originally written. There's two choices proposed by Staff and the Planning Commission. For Staff, actually this isn't a Planning Commission recommendation this is a Staff recommendation. condition one is that we either leave the street as originally designed at the 28 foot width or we narrow it at the crossing. Well we decided to leave it as 30 feet because that was the minimum street width in the TMC, and that's where we made the original recommendation. And this is a major through street. I certainly want to preserve open spaces and sensitive areas, but narrowing a street I'm not sure we gain all that much sensitive area in that one spot and I'm worried that it creates a potential safety hazard and everything else. I'm not sure there's much gain to doing it. It seems to me -or my recommendation would be to leave the condition as originally stated by the Council. I'm not sure there's much benefit to making it narrower. Rants: Any other discussion? 14 Hernandez: I'm concerned with narrowing it at an intersection. I don't know if I like that proposal very well. It doesn't seem like the logical thing to do. Mullet: Yea, that was my concern when we were looking at it first off. That the street be uniform in width. And I guess the pavement part was in the first part at 28 feet but it was the sidewalks and what not that varied in and out. I don't have -I share your concerns Dennis with the minimum size streets, it isn't a winner/loser for me as much on this issue as much as keeping the street, the driving part of the street the same width through the whole street and not narrowing it down at some point. I don't know though since my largest concern with this whole project was lot sizes. I keep struggling with the fact that adding more room with the street decreases the lot sizes and it didn't result in any lessening of lot, of number lots or anything else so it mearly gives us more pavement and less non impervious surface. I'm not sure that that extra two feet means much either that way. I'm having a difficult time just widening the street for the sake of the fact that that's what our minimum street size is, when non of the other streets around are that size. I recall all the testimony about new streets versus old streets and all that, but it still stands Rants: Before you speak again Dennis, does Allen have something to say? Ekberg: I'm in favor of leaving the street at what was proposed in our initial condition (unclear) because of the uniformity of the street and I also feel the street will have a high volume of traffic and will warrant and provide additional safety (unclear) (microphone kept cutting out) Rants: All right Dennis. Mullet: Could I ask Staff to clarify then? Rants: Sure. Mullet: Is there any other reason besides the crossing the water course why that- -why you wanted that street kept at 28 feet? Robertson: Steve, I understand your concern but when we first reviewed this back in December it was never my expectation that by widening the streets that we would reduce the number of lots or the density or anything. I was more concerned with the safety of the street. I do feel that these houses are going to be no different than houses anywhere else and there will simply be not enough parking in the driveways and the garages and people will park on the streets. It happens literally everywhere else in the City no matter what we do. And putting a narrower street through there, especially since we've already got a much narrower street through the 43rd Place and this is a main through street, by narrowing it anymore at all, all you do is raise the safety issues considerably. Plus the fact of the matter is, whether we want kids to play in the street or not there is not a great deal of play area. The only level ground around there happens to be this street. And its the same issue that Joe and I got involved in up on 57th Place. Tremendous number of kids play on that one street in Old Tukwila because it is flat level and everything else is hilly. So I'm really concerned about narrowing the street for safety reasons, nothing to do with density or number of lots. I didn't think it would have any impact and didn't intend it to. 15 Shefrin: Well Dennis raises the issue of safety. And more and more there's an extensive amount of research out there that suggests that narrower streets provide a safety factor. It causes cars to actually slow down and when we're talking about combining pedestrians, there will be children in the subdivision as well as vehicles. From that standpoint alone, we've looked at this fairly staunchly and feel very strongly that narrow streets are actually going to cause traffic to go slower rather than faster and speed up. Rants: I believe we used that philosophy on 160th? Did we not? And we are looking at that on 42nd, the philosophy of the width of the street versus the speed of the traffic. Shefrin: And actually, street trees have the same sort of effect because you're bringing there's a perception of bringing things closer in. It's not something that's necessarily measurable but again it has been proven on a national level that it does cause vehicles to go slower. Rants: Does that answer your question Steve? Can we put a motion on the table then for condition one and follow it that way? Robertson: I move that we leave condition one as originally written. Duffie: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded to leave condition one as originally written by the Council on conditions. We just had discussion. All in favor say aye. Those opposed (one, Robertson). Condition two. Robertson: Could I raise an issue that bothers me? On page four where Staff talks about the issue, it says the intent of the condition was to cause the applicant to have additional lots take access from 42nd Avenue South. That's not true at all. It was not the Council's intention at all when we looked at widening 43rd Place to force the applicant to have to access those houses from 42nd. When we talked about widening 43rd, we were concerned that it would then make it inadvisable to have a 43rd Place and the applicant might want to access from 42nd and we wanted to leave as much freedom. That was Councilman Mullet's point, design, we did not want to do the design from the table up here. It was never our intention to force it, that would be an effect perhaps of widening the street, but we didn't want, but it was not the reason for widening the street, that condition. Mullet: Actually since that was my condition and to clarify your point Dennis, it was to avoid exactly what you refer to in those three lots which are -by the time the buffer is on you have no yard at all because street's wider on one side and you have through lot with a big buffer on the back side and consequently you have very small ground space. Rants: Can you put a motion on the table then for condition two? Ekberg: I'll place a motion on that table that from condition two, the words "a five foot utility easement on the north side" be struck from that condition. 16 Hernandez: I'll second that. Robertson: I would agree with that as long as we leave the rest of the condition there. I understand Staffs intention of going with the new plan but it starts getting confusing going back and forth. So as we work through these conditions if the condition is unnecessary because the new plan already adopts what was recommended there I'd still suggest that we leave the condition there. It doesn't hurt anything in that case but -yea. Rants: I have a motion and a second both to delete five foot utility easement on the north side and maintain the rest of the wording as written. Mullet: And would somebody please state that wording then for the record? Rants: 43rd Place should be 24 foot pavement, 24 foot right -of -way, 10 foot utility easement on the south, five foot sidewalk on the south. Am I correct? Ekberg: Yes, that was my motion. Rants: All right, all in favor say aye.(unanimous) Those opposed. (none). Condition three. Robertson: I was the one that proposed the wording for condition three. I understand the dilemma it puts Staff in by the use of the word entirety, it was never my intention to do that. I think it's more of a reflection of how late the evening was getting. So I would propose that the words recommended by Staff for condition three be adopted. Rants: Would you make that a motion please? Robertson: Yes, I make the motion that the recommendation for condition three from Staff so it reads that, "TMC 17.24.040 G4 be implemented or for through lots of 15 foot rear yard buffer of native vegetation shall be provided." Rants: Is there a second? Hernandez: Second. Duffle: I second, go ahead. Rants: All in favor say aye? (unanimous) Those opposed (none). Condition four. Condition four is a recommendation to reword. Duffle: I move that we adopt the recommendation before as submitted. Rants: Is there a second? Ekberg: I'll second. 17 Rants: Moved and seconded to adopt the recommendation of condition four as submitted. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Condition five. Hold Harmless Clause. Is there recommendation or motion? Robertson: I'd like to put it on the table then suggest some changes to it. Mullet: OK, I'll move that we adopt the hold harmless language recommended by Staff. Hernandez: Second. Robertson: I'd like to then suggest an amendment to it. I guess I would like the attorney to listen to this. On the third, or after the word language on the reworded portion where it starts out, "Hold harmless language... After the word language and before the word shall I would propose the following words be added, Related to future slope stability problems caused by drainage. (Unclear) don't see the legal (uclear) to that. Robertson: OK. Unclearl -2095 (talking away from microphones) Ekberg: I would suggest to use that word since you're not trying to restrict it just to future slope stability. Hold harmless language including the relation....related to future slopes (unclear) so excluding anything else that the hold harmless agreement (unclear). Robertson: OK, I would take that as a friendly amendment so it would read then, "Related to future slope stability problems no, what would the wording be? Ekberg: (unclear) Robertson: OK, so you'd replace my words with hold harmless language that should including Let me read it over. Hold harmless language including relationship to future slope instability shall be prepared Robertson: That's fine, that would meet the needs. Speaking to that in reviewing the minutes of the December meeting, I realized that the purpose of this whole, this condition indeed was that was our concern caused by the extensive side drainage problems and the very very large drainage system. Let's just say unusually complex drainage system that's put in place here for all the houses. What we wanted to do is ensure that the future problems resulting from perhaps a mistake in the design of this would not be the City's. When we prepared this recommendation for this condition we did not in the wording in the condition itself, give direction to Staff as to what it meant. And it was very broad. I wanted to make sure that it includes that drainage issue. 18 Rants: Do you have the wording of this amendment Celia? Celia: No, it wasn't clear. Robertson: Why don't I withdraw my amendment and then let Rants: All right, I'd like it stated once more so that Staff has it so that we can be sure that it's included. Robertson: Were you the second? OK, do you withdraw the second? Rants: No he -he made an- -we're going to vote on an amendment. I just want the wording stated for Staff so that we have clarification. 2195 It should be restated for the record too. Robertson: Well then can I go back? I want to withdraw my amendment and let Allen make it remake it with his words. 2208 Rants: Did you second his amendment? All right, Allen please, you're free and clear. Ekberg: I'd like to make a friendly amendment to the motion. That the words "including relationships to future slope instability" be inserted between the second and third word of the paragraph. Between the words "language shall" So it shall read, "Hold harmless language including relationships to future slope instability shall be prepared..." Rants: All right. We have that now? Robertson: I'll second that amendment and in adding, clarifying exactly what that means, we want this Hold Harmless clause to at least include slope instability problems and there may be other issues as Staff works through the environmental issues. Rants: All in favor of the amendment say I? (Unanimous) Those opposed? All in favor of the amended recommendation say I? (Unanimous) Those opposed. That brings us to condition six. Ekberg: I make a motion that condition six be retained as one of the original conditions in its entirety. Robertson: I agree. I think it may be redundant at this point but it goes with the record and I think explains how the PRD was interpreted and adopted and is useful for that purpose. Ekberg: Call for questions? 19 Rants: Any further discussion? All in favor say I? (Unanimous) Those opposed. Condition seven. Can I have a motion on the table for the recommendation? Robertson: Can I ask a question prior to the motion, a question of Staff? The only difference between your recommendation and the original condition is you're specifying the lots. Shefrin: Correct. Robertson: It's my understanding that at this point, the lots -once this is adopted the lots themselves can no longer be changed. There are some minor changes which are within the purview of the department but changing and renumbering lots would not be. Is that correct? Shefrin: That's correct. Robertson: So your recommendation is mearly more specific, but its.... Shefrin: Exactly. Just to identify those lots which are constitute ?(2320). Rants: Councilman Duffie? Duffie: I move that we approve item number seven as submitted by Staff. Rants: Condition number seven. Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded to approve the recommendation by Staff for condition seven. Discussion? Ekberg: I'd like to ask a question first. Rants: All right, go ahead. Ekberg: I want to ensure that all the lots that are on the perimeter are included in this rewording. I just want that orally stated as being correct. Shefrin: That is correct. Ekberg: OK, thank you. Rants: All in favor of the motion say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Condition eight. Recommendation is to omit this condition as being redundant. Council pleasure? Robertson: I would suggest, make a motion that we leave the original condition as written by the Council. 20 Ekberg: I second that. Robertson: Speaking to that I think again, it clarifies the use of the PRD and especially in one of the more complex issues. And later as issues come up or someone tries to understand what occurred here, that this provides some type of guidance to what was certainly one of the more complex issues in the overall PRD. So I think it should stay as part of the record in one of the conditions. Rants: The motion is to retain condition eight as originally stated. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed. Condition nine. Public access easement trail in northeast corner. The recommendation here is just to reword but it still achieves what we wished it to achieve. It's just a rewording of it. Ekberg: Question on that. The word, "vacated" within that recommended rewording, what significance does that have on the City? Shefrin: Can you elaborate? Ekberg: In relationship to the -for instance in the relationship to the public utility access and trail easement that runs from the cul -de -sac to the park. That vacated as well? Shefrin: No its not vacated. Ekberg: So tell me the relationship between the two, and why one is and why one would not be. Shefrin: Let me come up and show you. The only small portion that's proposed to be vacated. Currently the dedicated right -of -way runs directly from the cul -de -sac. It continues north all the way down this direction. The areas that are proposed to be vacated from this point south. So what we're proposing is really were looking at this small cubed area here. We want to make sure that it's recognized that this would be retained although it would be vacated, it would be retained as a public access easement. So that's the distinction. Just a small area. Robertson: It would not then be part of the lot description for lot 16 -15? It would not be included in lot 15's description? It would be outside of it? Duffie: No, I'll have to yea no, it would not be. Robertson: No we give Duffie: No, you couldn't give it to the property owner, it would just be vacant. Is that correct? Robertson: Yea, the wording implies that we would be vacating that whole 20 foot strip along the 21 Shefrin: The easement fits within the parcel. It's an easement, it's not a dedicated public right -of -way. So as part of lot 16 or perhaps 15 this would be included in the gross lot area here. So all of this area is part of -this would be contained within the lot. Robertson: Does that mean then -what kind of future problems would be have with somebody wanting, saying that's part of my property if someone that bought lot 15? I hate bifocals, anyway, if somebody bought lot 15 and later wanted to plant roses.... Shefrin: This would be a trail, this would be the trail. So and there's also going to be (unclear) interfencing. This would be something that would be found out in Property "D" (unclear) Ekberg: Of my understanding it seems like the wording reword asks us to vacate this portion. Shefrin: If it's confusing, let's work on some new language Robertson: The original intent was to ensure that the whole 20 foot utility easement.... Rants: This is speaking to the property developer or owner. This is the recommendation condition that we're putting on them. That they will vacate that piece of property. Mullet: No it seems to me that the vacate that the word vacate implies only to locating the easterly edge of this run of easement, the way you've worded it here. And you're referring to the vacated which was at 137th Place, or what was that street? Shefrin: This one here? Mullet: No no, the one that's going straight. Shefrin: This one right here? Mullet: Yea. Shefrin: I believe that was referred to as 43rd Place, or 43rd Avenue. Mullet: OK, but that where the vacated, where you're referencing in your language beginning at the east edge of the right -of -way to be vacated. And that's so that just identifies where you're starting this trail. Shefrin: That's correct. Maybe it would be better to eliminate the word vacated. Because Robertson: And you're OK with the way it is then Allen? Mullet: I mean that's what that's saying to me is you're just locating that easterly point and then going west and that's the 124 feet. 22 3 Shefrin: That's correct. Robertson: So it's OK the way it is? OK. Rants: Do we have a motion on the table then? Robertson: The motion is Rants: Condition nine? Duffle: I make a motion that we approve condition nine as submitted. Rants: Staff recommendation. Duffie: OK, Staff recommendation. Rants: Is there a second? Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded to approve Staff recommendation on the rewording. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Condition ten. Robertson: I understand condition ten. We said that it would be conditional upon satisfactory BAR review. And the BAR came back after review and made two recommendations. So what you're asking is that we adopt those two recommendations they're suggesting as part of the condition. Rants: That's right. So let's put it in the form of a motion. Is there.. Ekberg: I'll make a motion to retain condition number ten in it's verbatim. Duffie: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded to approve condition ten verbatim as listed.... Robertson: To be clear, I'd make an amendment to that.... Rants: We don't even have a second to it yet. Robertson: I'll second it. Mullet: No. Rants: Don't second it, it will die. All right, now it's open again, table's open. 23 3o4 Robertson: OK, I move that we modify condition number ten to read that the final plat be conditioned by BAR that by the two BAR guidelines, nope? Duffle: We already have the two, they're already listed. OK, go ahead. Robertson: Let me finish, that the final plat be conditioned- -that the final plat include the BAR recommendations shown on page eight, that's one and two. I don't want to read them. Rants: You could say the BAR with two conditions, the list of two conditions and they're listed here. Robertson: Yes. Duffie: I'll second that, since they're already listed. Ekberg: I'll speak against the motion since we did in item two, on the three items we were to look at with BAR design guidelines. And when we decided upon the two we also decided upon these two items. Rants: That's correct but this is redundant. Item two listed these two conditions. Robertson: Well I want to withdraw my motion. Duffie: That's what I said before. Rants: Remove the recommendation? Robertson: We can just leave it because we've done it. Duffie: Yea, leave it as submitted. That's what I said. Ekberg: So I make a motion to retain condition number ten as submitted. Duffie: Seconded. Rants: Moved and seconded, all in favor say I? (unanimous) Number 11. Mullet: This is the same condition. Robertson: Yes, so that I move that condition eleven be retained as originally proposed by the Council. Duffie: Seconded. Rants: The recommendation here is to approve the revised site plan. 24 Robertson: No, condition 11 was dealing with the off -site perspectives. We've already adopted the ones that came back from the Staff and the BAR. So condition eleven mearly directed Staff and the BAR to look at the off -side perspectives. So retaining it mearly says, hey they -we directed them to do it, they did it and we adopted their findings. So I would leave condition 11 as originally specified. Ekberg: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? It seems to me you have failed to approve what has been recommended, you've made a list to recommend something but then you didn't approve what was recommended. It's all right, well see how it shakes out. Condition 12. Duffie: Now can I have a clarification on that? I thought we was approving Robertson: Ten and 11 consist of the same thing. They deal with number one and number two. Duffie: Right. Robertson: In reverse order, but anyway, number one and two in the board. We've already adopted the off -site perspectives recommendation and the BAR design guidelines. All we did in our 10 and 11 back in December was request that this be done. I don't see it's necessary to remove them, yea, just leave them alone. Rants: Condition 12 Staff recommendation was for a reword for clarity. Robertson: Do you have any problem with that? I don't. Rants: Can I have a motion then please? Ekberg: I make a motion to modify condition 12 to accept the recommendation as reworded. Rants: Is there a second? Hernandez: Second. Rants: moved and seconded to accept Staff rewording recommendation on number 12 All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed. Number 13. Again the recommendation here is to reword. Mullet: Now is that was these are? Rants: I think we're going to need some help to get through number 13. Shefrin: My pleasure. The yellow handout includes the conditions that were made part of Rick's memo dated December 1st as well as the other conditions. Let me get his memo. Robertson: We have too many different numbering sequences here. 25 Rants: Right, I'm not sure that this is that this helps us any. Shefrin: Yea I realize it's become confusing. Rants: Can you stay with the book please and have you explain it to us? Shefrin: Right, I'm almost trying to steer you away from using this in fact. ON page nine of the Staff report, what we've done is we've taken all the conditions out that were made part of Rick's memo. What the City Council did when they formulated the condition was again not identify the specific conditions. Again to keep all the conditions very clear for whomever is going to be implementing these ultimately, the recommendation is to again enumerate all the conditions that was specified in Rick's memo so that's what we've done here. I don't know if that help to clarify. So it's just a matter here of being more specific and specifically listing every condition rather than referencing a memo. Robertson: OK, then I would make the.... Mullet: There was before -there was some discussion in the Planning Commission about a percentage between conifers and deciduous. Did that -I can't remember, did that get accepted or was that Shefrin: Yea in fact the tree regulations have a specific recommendation in terms of percentage. We looked at that and that's been provided in essence in the revised landscape plans. We've gone back and looked at that to make sure it complies with the tree regulations. Mullet: So that would refer to this landscaping condition too here in this Shefrin: Yes, however on the plant legend, the sizes haven't been amended so we want to make sure that this is still in here so when we get a revised landscaping plan this will be called out. Robertson: OK. Rants: Shall we just Robertson: I want to -if I understand, we've adopted conditions all the way through 13, no all the way through 12. What you're suggesting is that we readopt 13, 14 Rants: What is being suggested by Staff is that we reword recommendation 13 and in the rewording says, that the condition numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 is described in this memo they be added as follows and that the condition number 15 and 17 be modified below. Robertson: But then there's another new Rants: So condition 13, here would be your recommended rewording. Am I trying to follow this correctly? 26 Shefrin: Well actually I'm going to confuse you even more. In your report there were three conditions that I didn't identify. Again, what were trying to do is renumber them, keep these conditions in sequence as well as identify them specifically. There were three additional conditions that I didn't include written out but you've identified them numerically where it says reword. The condition numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. But what I failed to include or spell out for you were conditions 8, 9, and 10. Robertson: That's what's missing here, OK. Shefrin: Right. So what we can do Robertson: Can I suggest a five minute break while you put this in exact order to that we could read it into the record Shefrin: I'm prepared to do that now. I'm prepared to do that now if that's OK. Following condition number 15 then, this would read as condition 16, "Should a sign be proposed at some future date, the design shall be reviewed by DCD to ensure that it's in keeping with the overall design of the project. That it is incited so as not to obstruct visibility to vehicles." Condition, I believe, 17, "Street lighting shall be designed to be more in keeping with the residential character of the area." Rants: Time out. Ekberg: Can you point out to me Rick's memo in this packet? Shefrin: It's not in that packet, it was in your earlier packet. Ekberg: Can I have a copy of that so I know what I'm looking at? Shefrin: Yes. Do you want a time out then well make copies and bring these back to you? Ekberg: Yes. Maybe before a break, let's move onto conditions 14 and 15, I think we can settle those before taking a short break. Rants: I'll agree. We're going to move to condition 14. When we come back we'll expect the information on 13. Recommendation here included condition 13 above. Ekberg: Let's go to 15. Rants: Omit this the recommendation is to omit 15 and to omit 14 and put them all -all of these conditions into 13. Ekberg: I move that we take a 10 minute break. Mullet: I second. Rants: Moved and seconded to take a 10 minute break, all in favor say I? Those opposed. 27 (recess) Rants: Council will you bear with me on this, the attorney has recommended for clarity that we go through all of these issues. The first one that is causing confusing to the Council and myself is the reword sentence. And Denni Shefrin has just recommended that we strike it because it doesn't refer to what were talking about, it only refers to numbers. Duffie: Where are you reading at? Rants: I'm on the recommendation for number 13, page nine. Robertson: So you're saying to strike number 13. Rants: Strike the reword. Strike the recommendation. Robertson: Leave it alone. Rants: Just strike that. And begin with condition number 13 which is Landscaping, street trees shall vary between conifers, deciduous. Minimum size shall be 21/2 caliber or 8 -10 foot height. And that is a condition. And we can take that one at a time for clarity to read them into the record. Robertson: I move that we adopt condition number 13 as read. Duffie: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. Discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed. Condition 14. Additional trees shall be provided as shown exhibit two of this packet. Shefrin: Excuse me, let me see if I can clarify. Rants: Excuse me? Shefrin: Let me see if I can clarify if you're searching for exhibit two. What the applicant has done in the revised landscape plan is gone ahead and incorporate those trees that were recommended back in December which at that time was exhibit two. So a suggestion would be is would be to retain that condition because again exhibit two refers to what the exhibit was back then. Rants: Exhibit two is available then? All right. Robertson: I move that condition number 14 be adopted as written. Duffie: Second. 305 28 Hernandez: For clarification we could say exhibit two, page three of this packet if you want to. It's on page three I think. Rants: I think that the Staff knows and now it's in the record what exhibit two is. And we have enough clarify on it. All in favor of the motion say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Condition 15 is in its entirety as written here on page nine under on page nine. Duffie: What about nine and ten? Rants: I would prefer not to read all of it because it goes two pages. Duffie: Yea OK, I would second that motion with the exception, with page ten. Because it continues -page ten, item B. Robertson: So the motion is to adopt condition number 15 A and B as is on pages 9 and 10. Rants: Um huh, is there a second? Mullet: Second. Rants: All in favor say I? Ekberg: Just a point of clarification, the three words, "at a minimum" following the word following has been put in place in this condition. Rants: That's condition 14, that's another condition 14, that's a different condition. Shefrin: Excuse me, sorry again, let me clarify. On condition 15, the bottom of that first paragraph on page nine, we've gone ahead and incorporated those words "at a minimum" after the word "following So that's reflected. OK? Robertson: Did I make the motion? I think I made the motion. I was my intention to include those words "at a minimum" in the original motion as shown on page nine and ten. Rants: All right. And it's been seconded. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Here's where we depart a little bit from the conditions in our book and if you would go to the memo please which was prepared for you. Number 16 is on the bottom of page two. Number 16 says, "should a sign be proposed at some future date the design will 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 obscure visibility by vehicles, or to vehicles." Robertson: I move that we adopt condition number 16 as read. Duffie: Second. 3G 4 f 29 Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Condition 17. "Street lighting shall be redesigned to be more in keeping with the residential character of the area. The final design shall be administratively approved by DCD." Robertson: I move that we adopt condition number 17 as read. Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Condition 18. "The discrepancy between the landscape and grading and street plan related to the areas to be held in open space easements shall be corrected. The correction shall accurately delineate the boundaries of these areas. The revised landscape plan, grading street plan must be consistent and provided prior to the issuance to land altering permits." Robertson: I move that the condition 18 be adopted as read. Hernandez: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Nineteen. Th developer shall erect the permanent three foot high split rail wood fence along the boundaries of all open space easement prior to any grading." Robertson: Move that condition 19 be adopted as read. Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Twenty. "The final conditions, covenants, and restrictions shall be submitted with the final plat application and shall include a revised legal description which specifically describes open space easement areas." Robertson: Move that condition number 20 be adopted as read. Mullet: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Now that brings us on page 10 of our booklet to condition number 14 which is now condition number 21. Robertson: Would you, I'm sorry Wally. Rants: 14 becomes 21 in the booklet. It's on page ten, 14 becomes 21. Condition number 21. "Included in condition 13 above omit this condition and refer to condition number 4." In other words it's redundant and has been spoken to throughout. You can delete having a 21 if you wish. Robertson: What was 30 Li Mullet: We did that. Rants: We just did it again. Robertson: We've already done it. So I don't think we need to do anything. Rants: Is there a motion to omit? Mullet: I move that we omit condition 21. Rants: Is there a second? Hernandez /Duffie: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded to omit condition 21. All in favor say I? (unanimous) And those opposed? Condition 22. Mullet: That was condition 15 prior. Rants: That's right. Recommendation here, the condition should be combined with conditioned four as modified, see page number 4 and number 5. Ekberg: I make a motion that we omit condition 22 as stated. Rants: Second? Is there a second? Hernandez: Second. Rants: Moved and seconded to omit condition number 22 which was 15. All in favor say I? (unanimous) And those opposed? Robertson: Do we move onto another item? Rants: We're through. Mullet: Are we going to make any more recommendation here? OK, no are we off of Fosterview now? Duffle: That's it. Rants: What more could we think of? We're done. Mullet: OK, I would like to ask one question of Staff before we go any further. And I would like to ask Staff one final question. And that's if you have any comments on what's gone on tonight in general or what we've done through this process, that would make it easier or better in the future. 31 Shefrin: Boy I'd like to throw that question right back to you. Mullet: We know what we want to make it better. Shefrin: It's been a long process. And tonight I appreciate you bearing with us and brining back these conditions so that they can be revisited. I think again, to emphasize the important that Staff needs to maintain consistency and continuity when it comes time for us to implement the conditions when they come forward with the building permit. We have no guarantee who will be ultimately reviewing it, so whomever that individual is they'll have those condition which now will read much more clearly so they can go back and it will just be easier. And again...go ahead. Rants: I would like to congratulate you on the quality of the work you've done on this, it's very very fine. Made great improvements with for all of the Staff work as we went through this. It's very very difficult issue that we had to handle and I know that we spotted a whole bunch of discrepancies with our PRD and we will be bringing it back to reconsider some of the issues in there which will avoid what we've had to go through. But you did do a very nice job and thank you very much. Shefrin: Thank you. Duffie: I have one thing I'd like to say. I'd like to congratulate you on the your pointer. I think that is real nice, you can stay back and point and you don't have to get in the way of the citizen. I think that's- you should make that a rule that we should keep at all times, it's great, thank you. Mullet: We need the steadier hand or we Shefrin: I know, that's real tricky, I should let you all try that. Robertson: I want one to use back. Rants: That's like a camera on telephoto isn't it? (0161 tape two) All right, we will move onto the request for vacations of portions of Maul Avenue, between 141st and 141st as listed in the agenda. We will, when I open the public hearing we will listen to hear Staff and then applicant and then citizen comments. Robertson: Wally? Rants: Yes sir. Robertson: I hate to do this but can I go back just a second, on the one we just finished are we done with the quasi judicial nature of it? We haven't adopted the final plat. Attorney Mike Callan: No, you have not adopted the final plat. 32 Robertson: But the puzzlement I have is that according to the memo prepared by Mr. Beeler, the final plat from this point on, once we adopt the final conclusions of tonight's stuff, that we really can't modify the final -so the issue's all over with it's mearly insuring that the final plat conforms with what we've proposed in preliminary. So I question why this stays as a quasi judicial kind of thing because it makes life complicated. Jack Pace: (Unclear) Mullet: But meanwhile our lips our sealed on this subject. Mike Callan: That is correct. (Unclear). Rants: Next issue. REOUEST FOR VACATIONS OF PORTIONS OF MAULE AVENUE Robertson: Now we're going to deal with a really simple issue, correct? Ron Cameron: My understanding is that this is a rubber stamp? Robertson: Great way to start a quasi judicial Rants: Public hearing is open. Mr. Cameron? Cameron: Ron Cameron, City Engineer John McFarland: (Unclear.) Rants: Thank you Mr. McFarland. Any one who is going to give testimony during this quasi-judicial hearing, please rise and raise your right hand. Celia Square. Deputy City Clerk: be the truth? Say, "I do." Participants: Participants responded, "I do." Rants: Is there anyone on the Council who has had discussion of this issue that might color your decision on this? You may begin Mr. Cameron. Do each of you affirm that the facts you are about tog ive to Cameron: The street vacation issue is somewhat complicated. It's Maul Avenue which is on adjacent to Interurban Avenue from 42nd Ave. S. bridge, continuing down to 405. The practice has been to exchange Maul Avenue for an equivalent 20 feet adjacent to Interurban. And that has been accomplished X13 33 for nearly the approximately two miles of the Interurban Avenue from one end to the other, basically we vacate Maul Avenue in exchange for right -of -way attached to Interurban. In the example on the drawing up there and has been presented the past two years to utility and transportation, Maul Avenue would be exchanged. In the drawing on the wall, S. 141st St., the green area on the left, would be vacated in exchange for easements for utilities that are in the Maul Avenue and would remain there. And S. 141st Place, the green area on the right, would be vacated in exchange for a storm drain easement that is inside that area for 10 parking stalls adjacent to the river that would be used permanently for access to the Green River Trail and river as well as 18 parking stalls numbered 1 -18 inside that green area for trail access and river access on weekends and evenings. Those parking stalls and river access and the trail easement that are all inside that S. 141st Place meet the conditions of RCW 3579010 for vacating a street end adjacent to a river. The vacation has proceeded in accord with the GMC 1160040 with notification, petition and hearing which we have tonight. IN the form of complications, the most significant one is the physical location of S. 141st Place, the area on the right. That right -of -way you'll notice in your agenda packet on some of the earlier drawings, is shown location not determined. And the reason for that is that if it is surveyed from the south it can show itself being to the north. If the survey is brought in from the north up at the freeway, the location moves south. So depending on which survey, which property owner that right -of -way is not determined. We spent a significant amount of work on this a few years ago. Some of the Council members remember that. And the end result of that survey was that the location is not determined, that we would spend a lot of money and a court case trying to determine it and there is no resolution on where it would be in a court. What this plan does with the vacation of those three streets, the provision of the trail easement, parking for the trail, the utilities, the relocation of Maul Avenue is that that question is taken off the table. What has been agreed to by the property owners as well as working with Metro and working with Puget Power over the past two years, is that this agreement provides for definition of the use of the land which is what we're really concerned about and let's that S. 141st Place location rest without actually being defined. For the legal use of the vacation, everyone has agreed to use the Alta. line of the Fairway Center development. WE put a fairly extensive package together. for those of you who have been through this, if you saw in the package seven times total at the committee's formally at least three or four more times has discussion. This package is a lot thinner and that's through the help of several attorneys reviewing and reducing comments that we had worked through over the past two years. Mr. Emus is here from ATAX tonight and may wish to comment as well as Denny Lensegraph from Puget Power. In the agenda packet we mentioned and I'll use this drawing here, one of the Puget Power questions was, are there poles effected by the vacation? There poles are outside of Maul Avenue, one that we have been working with could be or could not be inside S. 141st Place depending on where you choose to say that's where S. 141st Place is. We worked with Puget and will continue to work with Puget and the property owners on easement for that one pole and future undergrounding. We've worked with Metro in the location of their Alki CSO project, and they will be building and placing our water reuse line as part of the mitigation next to Interurban. They will be placing curve along Interurban and drainage and the base for the trail. Rants: Thank you Mr. Cameron. Are there questions of Mr. Cameron? Thank you. Any other Staff report? Normally we'd have an applicant at this point. All right. Mr. Lensegraf, did you wish to comment on this? If you're going to confuse the issue don't. Denny Lensegrav: I'm Denny Lensegrav, Manager for Puget Power in Renton and Tukwila right now and probably later on, Bellevue. At this particular point I have spent I should say we have spent ,.5 4 34 considerable amount of time with the City Engineer and Public Works Director looking at the survey. The surveyor put our poles on Maul Avenue, but it is incorrect. Our poles were recently as of a few years ago in what is known as the Interurban right -of -way that was sold by Puget Western which is a subsidiary of Puget Power. So we have no conflict with the vacation of Maul Avenue. Rants: Thank you. Lensegrav: That didn't confuse you did it Mr. Mayor? Rants: I'm easy tonight. Lense Iva": Oh, good. Rants: Easily confused. Is there any more testimony? Mr. McFarland, you stood up and raised your hand. Was there something you wished to speak on? John McFarland: John McFarland, City Administrator. Council President Mullet asked me to comment on the letter sent to him and I believe a copy has been presented to the Council, from Mr. Barry Winger who works with the Washington State Department of Ecology as a shoreline and coastal zone management program person assigned to this particular region. Mr. Winger wanted to alert us to the requirements of RCW 3579035 which prohibits the vacation of streets which abut bodies of fresh or salt water. And then goes on to provide an exception. I talked to Mr. Winger today after I had written this memorandum to you, it was late in the afternoon, and explained to him that we had gone through this process and looked at the exception and felt strongly that we met the criteria of the exception. Subsequent to my discussions with Mr. Winger, Jack Pace from the Department of Community Development also spoke with him and assured him that we had gone not only to the extent of meeting the requirements but had gone beyond the requirements of the State Shoreline Management Process to ensure that vegetation would not be either disturbed or if it was would be planted and enhanced in the area where were vacating the street and the parking lot will be built. If you want additional information on that Jack can provide it. Any questions with regard to Mr. Winger's letter that I might be able to answer? Mullet: In other words you feel he was lacking in some of the facts to begin with basically and was McFarland: Mr. Winger indicated that he did not have all the information and just wanted basically to alert us to the RCW requirement based on the information he did have. In his conversations with Mr. Pace, that were later related to me, he no longer has any objection to the vacation. Thank you. Rants: Is there any further testimony? Then I'll close this public hearing. We'll open for Council discussions. Robertson: I would move that the we do two things and I'm not sure of the order. One would be to ask the administration to prepare final ordinances as shown in exhibit three and four for Council approval in the next regular session. These are drafts, can we approve these tonight? Or do we need final ones? 3/5 35 Rants: I believe you can approve this draft. I would have to get clarification. Robertson: I think I would rather have a final one Attorney Callan: Unclear (speaking without mic) Robertson: OK, I'd make a motion that Council request the administration to prepare final ordinances based upon the two drafts and the agreement for the next regular session of the Council. Hernandez: Seconded. Rants: Moved and seconded. Discussion. Now you had something you wanted to say Mr. Cameron? Hernandez: I have a question. Rants: Does it address the issue of ordinances? If it doesn't address the ordinances stay there. Hernandez: Ron are we putting in a traffic signal on S. 141st Pl.? Cameron: We're revising the signal at 141st primarily for the future trail but also for the location of the Metro pipeline and our water reuse line. The comment I had was, we put draft on there is there was any changes tonight so it would distinguish these documents from a future final. That was an editorial on our part. Hernandez: Just out of curiosity, I recall when we visited that site that it looked like there was some permanent trucking truck parking going on in these nine or eight or nine parking stalls to the north of S. 141st Pl. Is that still the case? Cameron: This agreement, they would need to be relocated and that's been talked with the owner. Hernandez: OK. Robertson: Asking about the agreement on page whatever of the agreement, item 7G. It says "City will release to Fairway $3,750 representing the proceeds of an econo -block bond." Cameron: Yes, that was in the Fairway developer agreement. 0702 (moved away from microphone) 0710. Rants: We have a motion on the table to remove the words "draft" for next week with a completed ordinance. Robertson: There are two normal ordinances. 36 Rants: Prepare regular ordinances. Robertson: And the contract for approval next week. Rants: All right. All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Robertson: One week away. Rants: Um huh, next issue. END OF VERBATIM. 30 37