Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-13 Committee of the Whole MinutesMarch 13, 1995 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS (general) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Neighborhood Revitalization TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES g7 Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Council President Joyce Craft called the Committee of The Whole Meeting to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. JOE DUFFIE; JOAN HERNANDEZ; JOYCE CRAFT, Council President; DENNIS ROBERTSON; ALLAN EKBERG; STEVE MULLET; PAM CARTER. JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; DOUG MICHEAU; Public Works Coordinator; DON WILLIAMS, Parks Recreation Director; STEVE LANCASTER, DCD Director; GARY SCHULZ, Urban Environmentalist. David Jacobson, 4208 South 115th, commented that he and his fellow tenants had received notification to terminate occupancy at the location of 115th and 42nd Avenue because the property is being purchased by the City for the construction of a new Fire Station. He requested an explanation of what measures would be taken regarding tenants relocation assistance. City Administrator McFarland explained that this issue will be discussed at the next Finance and Safety Committee meeting (March 14, 5:00 p.m.). Following that meeting, a recommendation for relocation allowance will be made and then brought before the next Regular Council meeting. Councilmember Hernandez commented that the Council met last Wednesday in a work session and that comments are being reviewed from that session. Mullet said another meeting is schedule for this coming Wednesday, March 15, 5:30 p.m., at the Tukwila Community Center. Public hearing opened Council President Joyce Craft opened the public hearing at 7:20 Quasijudicial: Sunshine p.m. A verbatim transcript (attached) was distributed to all Ridge Condo. PRD Councilmembers and other pertinent individuals on Friday, March 17, 1995. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 2 Public Hearing (Cont'd) The Council agreed to continue the public hearing to March 27, 1995. Recess 9:22 9:35 p.m. SPECIAL ISSUES Program and strategy ping. for 1996 CDBG funding Update on work plan for completion of Comp Plan Council President Craft called the meeting back to order with those present as noted above. Evelyn Boykan, Human Services Coord., explained that the City must indicate what strategies will guide use of federal funds for the 1996 Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan. She stated (currently, 1995), there is $92,000 of applications pending with a repair budget of $73,332. The goal of King County Consortium is to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities for low -and moderate income (up to 80% of area median) persons. Repair needs include insulation, plumbing, siding, dry rot, roof repair, wheel chair ramps, etc. Boykan also apologized for a last minute change to the Plan which included an additional statement in the second paragraph of the first page. It reads: "The City will also consider sunnorting regional or Consortium wide needs through a coordinated funding annroach with other iurisdictions and the County and small Cities funds. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to forward the Program and strategy Plan for 1996 CDBG funding to the next Regular Council for approval, pending additional information is furnished that will show how the 1995 funds will be dispensed. The Council requested that Boykan provide a copy of the Housing Code Support Study to the Council when it's completed, which should be within the next couple of weeks. After a brief update on the Comp Plan Work Plan by Steve Lancaster, DCD Director, the Council agreed on the following: To bring in experts from the state and/or others who have been closely involved in the GMA/CPP process to assist and answer questions. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 3 Work Plan/Comp Plan (Cont' d) Comments from Planning Commission members It was suggested that the services of Rob Odle be obtained for this task. The Council also agreed to a van tour of specific areas in the City. The tour is scheduled for April 14, 2:00 4:00 p.m. With regards to notice procedure, Lancaster informed the Council that notices for Council hearings will follow the same process that is used for all legal notices. Two direct mailings to all addresses in the City will be accomplished by either two special flyers or a combination of articles in the Hazelnut and/or special flyer. Lancaster explained that the Planning Commission has continued to make good progress. They are meeting frequently and for long hours. However, it appears that the Commission is going to be unable to provide a final recommendation on the Comp Plan by March 31. The Commission has indicated that it wants to review a final version of what staff believes reflects all of the decisions that they've made over the last weeks and months before they make a final recommendation. This means a final recommendation will not be available until three to four weeks after the March 31 date. Lancaster said a preliminary draft of the Comprehensive Plan will be provided to the Council in a three -ring binder format. This format will allow for replacement pages rather than having several different versions of the updated documents to work from. Vern Meryhew, 4431 South 148th, Planning Commission Member, complimented staff for presenting Comp Plan data to them in a timely manner. He said it might appear at times that the Commission is receiving the data at the last minute with not enough time allowed for appropriate review, but this results from the Commission requesting that certain information be added. He said the staff is doing an outstanding job and the Commission has accepted the fact that support will be limited due to staff's schedule demands. Grant Neiss, 16318 45th Place South, Planning Commission Chair, commented that he was present to answer any questions the Council might have regarding the Comp Plan schedule. Councilmember Hernandez requested that the Comp Plan schedule be included in every agenda, especially if changes are going to be discussed. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission comments (Coned) 11:00 D.M. An ordinance modifying terms for appointments to Ping Comm Jim Haggerton, 15820 43rd Avenue South, commented that the Planning Commission is running behind, especially on the minutes. The minutes are not being transcribed in a timely fashion even though this problem has been made known to staff. He said maybe staff needs more clerical help. George Malina, Planning Commission, agreed that transcription of the minutes has become a problem, he suggested that staff should lessen Silvia Schnug's workload so she can concentrate on doing the minutes. The minutes are being transcribed by outside help who is not familiar enough with the subject matter nor the participants. Therefore, the chance of errors are far greater. Councilmember Robertson suggested that maybe a Court Stenographer should be considered to attend and transcribe all meeting minutes. This would hasten the process as well as lessen the heavy burden that has been placed on staff. McFarland responded that he will meet with Lancaster tomorrow to find out the source of the problem and discuss how it will be resolved. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY EKBERG, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ANOTHER THIRTY (30) MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. After a brief discussion, the Council agreed to the following amendment in Section 1, 2.36.020 (Membership), first paragraph, third sentence -the ordinance should read as follows: When nominated by the Mavor and approved by the City Council. members. including those who become nonresidents during their term of office. may remain on the Planning Commission for six months or until completion of any special nroiect designated by the Mavor and City Council. or whichever time frame comes first. The Council agreed to extend the appointment of Jack Flesher to Position #4 on the Planning commission. The above amendment allows for this and all future extension of appointments of any member on the Planning Commission that may otherwise encounter ineligibility due to change in residency. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission Ord. (Cont' d) Tukwila Pond Property Right of Entry Easement Introduction of visitor RCAA Agreement for Services It was the consensus of the Council to forward the ordinance with amendments to the next Regular Council for approval. 1 l Councilmember Duffie informed the Council that after discussing and negotiating changes at several committee meetings, the Community Affairs and Parks Committee recommended a Motion be made at tonight's Committee of The Whole meeting giving authorization to the Mayor to sign the revised easement. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding paragraph 18-- "Additional Rights of Termination." Councilmember Robertson was intensely concerned that a clause was provided for the Corporation, but not for the City, to terminate the contract in the event circumstances beyond their control prohibited the development of the Park. However, City Attorney Cohen commented that she was comfortable with the wording of the Contract because the City is receiving a gift. This means the City is not in the same bargaining position as it would be with a normal contract. The Attorney added, though she is comfortable with the wording, the Council still reserves the right to make the decision that they are comfortable with. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Council (with Robertson and Mullet voting no) to forward the Tukwila Pond Property -Right of Entry Easement Agreement with revisions to the next Regular Council Consent Agenda. Councilmember Duffie introduced Ray Jackson who was in the audience as a visitor tonight. Jackson was is a former football player for the University of Washington, under the coaching of Jim Owens. Councilmember Craft stated that a draft of RCAA agreement was sent to the City in January. The purpose RCAA is to prevent community and neighborhood deterioration resulting from air, noise, and other pollution created by increased activities in and around Seattle- Tacoma International Airport. The Finance and Safety Committee considered various aspects of the agreement, including a requirement that RCAA monitor at least six sites in the City for noise. In return for services rendered, the City will compensate RCAA $28,000 in 1995. The money shall be paid in Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 13, 1995 Page 6 RCAA Agreement (Cont' d) REPORTS ADJOURNMENT 11:40 p.m. three installments of $10,000; $10,000; and $8,000. The contract will run January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to forward the RCAA Agreement for Services to the next Regular Council Consent Agenda. Mayor Rants announced the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) will be meeting on Thursday, March 16, to discuss the Vision 2020 update, and the Metropolitan Transit Plan. He also gave a brief report on how sales taxes are distributed per the MRSC Report. City Admin. McFarland informed the Council that Ken Reed, Executive Director of ACC, has been invited to the March 27 Council Meeting to entertain questions and concerns from the Council regarding ACC and the International Airport Master Plan. Also, Linda Rink, Suburban Cities, will be present the same night with an update on Suburban Cities. Lastly, there will be a short presentation from Makers, Highway 99 Consultant. The Highway 99 Task Force will also be present. McFarland also reported that he had recently met with Karen Wright to discuss the new initiative at the Foster High School called CPCET -a Task Force to look at critical transition periods for students as they go through kindergarten to 12th grade. McFarland said they are looking at ways to incorporate this initiative with the Neighborhood Revitalization Plan. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ADJOURN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED Craft, Council Presided C Lk_ f c. Celia Square, Deputy City Clerk VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT PUBLIC HEARING SUNSHINE RIDGE CONDOMINIUM PRD Tukwila City Council Committee of The Whole Meeting March 13, 1995 Revised 3/21/95 COUNCIL PRESIDENT CRAFT: Okay, then I'd like to open the public hearing on the Sunshine Ride Condominium PRD. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: At this time I'd like to ask any councilmembers who may have had any ex -parte contacts to disqualify themselves at this time since it is a quasi judicial hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PAM CARTER: I did have a conversation with a friend who said he noticed the signs up and got out of the car to see what it was and he said, "oh a condominium- that's sounds allot better than apartments." And I said well that's on our agenda for this council meeting, and that was the end of the conversation in that regard. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: Is there anything about that conversation that would influence the way you decide this matter tonight? CARTER: No. CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: If there is anyone who is going to testify, they need to be sworn in. COUNCIL PRESIDENT CRAFT: How do you want to do that? CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: Everyone can stand and raise their right hand. COUNCIL PRESIDENT CRAFT: Would you like to do that now? CITY ATTORNEY COHEN: Sure. Anyone who is planning on testifying if they would stand up and raise your right hand. Do you affirm that the facts that you will give in this matter will be the truth. AUDIENCE: (Positive Responses) COUNCIL PRESIDENT CRAFT: I would also like to say that there is a sign -up sheet at the back of the room for any citizens who want to comment later. Please sign up. So, Vernon, are you going to present this to us. VERNON UMETSU. PLANNER Yes. For the record, my name is Vernon, Umetsu, Department of Community Development. What we have before us tonight is the Sunshine Ridge Condominium Planned Residential Development application, file L94 -0090. The project in general is a 28 unit residential project with 59 parking spaces and associated site improvements. It's located at 15200 Macadam Rd. So. and a planned residential development approval is required due to the sensitive slopes on site basically slopes which exceed 15% and have a certain soil composition that has a high to extreme high probability of sliding. No streams or wetlands are located on the site. The previous previous to the late, as late as 1994 PRD regulations, we received this application, and therefore it is vested in the `92 PRD criteria. However, in doing its review, in reviewing this, we did use the `94 criteria as guidelines to clarify where site plans should be taken for screen analysis and other issues. The project is located...let me bring out this photo here. Just off Macadam Road, this is Southcenter Blvd., at 405. Macadam Road comes off here towards the north and this square of undeveloped land is where the project is located. To the east and north are the La Vista Apartments. To the immediate west is Southcenter View Condominiums. These buildings are largely 3 story. To date the project has received a mitigated determination of non significance. The sole condition of mitigation was related to additional geo- technical studies to ensure that the project could be built safely and a requirement for serving monitoring of adjacent sites, buildings -to make sure that they were stable during construction. The Board of Architectural Review approval is also required for this project as a multi family development. So the Board of Architectural Review and the Planning Commission held a joint public hearing. They discussed the matter and came up with their own separate determinations. The Board of Architectural Review reviewed a set of plans that were received at that time and felt that it largely satisfied the provisions of the multi family design standards and the specific development standards of the zoning code. They approved the project relative to, subject to incorporation of all design conditions as articulated in the staff report and as agreed to by the applicant. They also made the condition of approval that the project receive a planned residential approval from the Council. The Planning Commission recommended approval as well subject to further staff review of the project especially since the staff had not had an opportunity to review the new project designs prior to the public hearing. The group felt it was a good way to let the project go forward and still recognize where they; where the Planning Commission and the Board felt that the project satisfied the design criteria. This Council review is the final phase in design review and PRD approval. If approved by the Council it would go forward to Building Permit review and then construction drawings, and actual construction. Public notice was given for both the Planning Commission and BAR public hearing and the City Council public hearing. That consisted of mailing out notices to all property owners and residences within 300 feet of the site based on a matrix submitted by the applicant. We posted the roads Macadam Road on both sides, and we posted the property with signs facing the La Vista Apartments. Because of the affects on the La Vista Apartments, we also provided the manager with a posted notice of both public hearings. At this point the Planned Residential Development regulations include specific requirements as well as incorporating the Board of Architectural Review design review requirements. So what I'd like to do is go through the Board of Architectural Review requirements and then, as we're going through that, note how the PRD requirements have been satisfied by the applicant. With your permission, I will come up to the dais and use the drawings on that wall. The project site is accessed via Macadam Road; it comes up to this driveway where a 5 foot median strip is located with trees as required by the PRD. The driveway is located along the east side of the project site and vehicle access to one and two entrances to covered parking spaces are located in the second half of the driveway area. Pedestrian access is shown on the landscape drawing, not the A sheet which shows how the pedestrian path of travel has been separated from vehicular travel by landscaped islands. The project site has been gone through several iterations of review as shown in your staff report where we had an initial set of drawings that were submitted- -that was the basis of the staff report, and that came up with 17 recommendations. Then there was a revised set of drawings which were submitted at the Planning Commission that went further to satisfy the specific criteria for the zoning code. And, then subsequent to the public hearing an additional set of drawings were submitted to better address the design recommendations adopted by the BAR. And what I'd like to do is focus, then, on these revised drawings -not the drawings that were initially submitted or submitted at the public hearing. 3 The project consists of basically two buildings. The front building is 2 to 3 stories high; it's connected with a second 4 to 6 story building by a covered recreation deck. The recreation deck is also an innovative use of space in order to not have, in order to minimize the site coverage requirements so that parking now is totally covered. The required, the maximum impervious surface coverage allowed under the PRD standards is 50 and they have about 49 a little more than that. The development area coverage as calculated under multi family standards is allowed to be a maximum of 60 and they have calculated approximately about 36% in development area coverage. The building number 1 contains 10 units, basically 10 flats, 1 story units. It has a fairly complex wall design and a very complex roof design. Building number 2 has been extensively revised and especially the south elevation. You can see where the south elevation which faces the freeway and Macadam Road has a symmetry basically a symmetrical set of wings on the west and east side with a central tower focus calling attention, or emphasizing the center. You can see where that center has been set back and the tower, central tower is flanked by two symmetrical towers here and another tower in the front building to lend certain design continuity. The central area is the recreation deck, and that recreation deck is shown in the landscape plan, as well as another sheet. You can see where they have two play areas, extensive vegetation, trees, etc. It should be noted that in the secondary revised landscape plan a couple of cedars were taken out by mistake. We recommended that they be reinstated to help provide a certain separation and integration of the site into a wooded hillside. The landscape plan in general follows the Southcenter Condominium's as the condominiums have a row of Cherry trees along Macadam. The project picks up the Cherry tree motif, moves it along the western boundary, and then carries it forward with a set of Red Maples, Cherry trees here, and a row of Evergreen trees, Western Red Cedars along the north edge, flanked by additional deciduous trees, vine maples, red oaks, etc. The setbacks from the adjacent properties are generally 30 feet on the sides, fronts, and that's as required by the multi family standards. So from the north, there's a 30 foot separation, 30, 30, 30, and here is attempt at separation as this elevation is just one story on the east side. Now this compares with the adjacent surrounding buildings where the La Vista on the east is 6 about 10 feet set back from the property line, on the north 10, and Southcenter View Condominiums are set back 10 feet as well. The recreation space requirement has been satisfied. The recreation deck here and the addition of this trail on the east side. The eastern trail is countable as a recreation space even though it is in the landscape perimeter because of its location in the PRD. And as long as it is connected to a City trail system. The applicant has agreed to connect to a trail system by putting in a 6 foot crushed rock path between the driveway eastward across his property, across the La Vista property, on the City utility road to the 57th Ave. stairs and thereby making a connection with a City Trail. Don Williams, the Parks Recreation Director prefers this alternative and supports its incorporation as part of the trail system. The PRD also requires certain screening requirements. The project site has been located again on a hillside, and actually the buildings rest about 30 feet above Macadam Road. There is a large bank on which, which the City owns and has some utility roads on it. This photo montage generally shows what the project looks like as it sits on top of that hillside from across Southcenter Blvd. What's also required is that there be 25% obscuring of the project at construction and 40% after 15 years. What the applicant has provided is a view analysis from a location. The question was where should that location be. We went to the 1994 PRD code which said that you should lieu your view analysis from the closest point downslope of the project, and that was this point right here on the southeast corner of the Southcenter View Condominium site. You can see where -maybe you can't see...This is a 25% view arc on the site plan and a 40% view arc on the site plan. They have also done a section arc this way and the other way looking toward the east and looking toward the west, and what that does is form a cone then of view analysis. Now this does assume that the trees are opaque looking through the branches. You have to assume that that view is opaque, otherwise, there is just absolutely no way you can meet this standard, short of putting up a big wall. So assuming that the trees, that the leaves have branched out and the branches are opaque within that tree area, they have demonstrated that they satisfied the screening requirements. COUNCILMEMBER ROBERTSON: From only that one point? VERNON UMETSU: That is the only point that's required; it is the closest point down stream. Realistically, this project site goes downhill, slopes toward the west and this row of trees planted approximately 25 feet on center, separated by about 25 feet, this row of Cherry trees, plus this row of Evergreen shrubs that can get up to 6 feet high, will provide some pretty good screening from these adjacent properties. The screening from the north is very heavy with extensive Cedar trees, large Cedar trees and red oaks. On the west, there's extensive screening with additional Cedars on the east side of building number 2, the tall building, and building number 1 has Cherry trees to screen even though it's only one story. It seems reasonable that this property has been adequately screened given the amount of space that's in between, the amount of plantings that have been put in the perimeter landscape area. Now to the south they do sit up on a rise. There is a bench, however that bench has been extensively planted with about 10 red oaks, as well as various shrubs, and there is another bench which is the utility road and then it goes down about 4 25 -30 feet. This is a view generally from this point which it is a little more exposed of the project site. We didn't do the view from this point which is because all you'd see is the trees. That's pretty much in general our report. Based on a review of the proposed action, we have recommended approval subject to five conditions, which would be adding the additional cedar trees back into the recreation deck, a maintenance program for the hydroseeded areas on the south end as required by the BAR, at least one in- ground moisture sensor to be installed in the auto irrigation system, the trail linkage being provided in order to count the on -site path, and any design inconsistencies being resolved by the director. I should make note that, just one thing, that this... These colored elevations are correct; this colored elevation is not correct. It was a mistake and it should; the body of this should be this taupe type color. And if you wanted to get a general approximation of how this is all going to look. This little building number 1 fits in front of building number 2. Are there any questions that I can answer at this point. COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE: Yeah, I have one Vern. Now you list the five conditions. Did they agree with the five conditions? VERNON UMETSU: Yes. DUFFIE: They have; is it in writing? UMETSU: It is not in writing, that's why we're making it conditions. DUFFIE: I just wanted to make sure that it is and they understand this is the only way that this will be approved by the Planning with this condition on it. UMETSU: That is our recommendation. That's the recommendation of staff in order to, as needed to implement the Planning Commission's recommendations. DUFFIE: Right. COUNCILMEMBER HERNANDEZ: I have questions. You mentioned that there were some revisions to the plans. Are the revised plans the copies in our particular handout material. UMETSU: The revised plans are the full sets over here. These small plans are dated August 25 and they are the initially submitted plans. So you can see, for instance, how this south elevation of building 2 doesn't look anything like this south elevation. HERNANDEZ: These have been revised then? UMETSU: That's correct. And the revised plans are all dated March 7 and March 9. HERNANDEZ: Could you explain how first of all, the driveway access, would that be a driveway that would be accessing Macadam due south or would it be a driveway that would be going west to Macadam Road. 5 UMETSU: The driveway would Just a moment, let me open up a sheet here. Okay, so Macadam Road at this point runs east -west. The project site is located on the north end and this driveway then would provide full access, both left -ins, left -outs to Macadam. HERNANDEZ: Okay from that drawing could you walk us through the access then to the second level. UMETSU: The second building? Sure. Okay so here you are driving on Macadam, you make a right hand turn through this median divided driveway, and you have a choice. You can turn into the first driveway entry, and there's a double row of parking here or you can go up to this point, just about right underneath the tower, and that's the entry to a second covered parking area. HERNANDEZ: Now the two buildings are not actually joined and there's a space between them? UMETSU: That is correct. There's...let me get out the level 1 plan and you can see that building 1 is located here, there's a wall, there's some exit aisles, and then you go into a double loaded parking area. There's a separating wall with stairs going up and underneath building 2, there's another parking area at another level which is here. And on top of this parking level then is where you find building number 2. HERNANDEZ: Are there garage doors into the parking areas open? Do they have a cover on them? UMETSU: There are no garage doors on the parking area. That was a question asked by the Planning Commission, and the applicants felt that they would be just fully open. HERNANDEZ: Is all of the parking on the site in those 2 garages or is there guest parking available. UMETSU: There are three guest spaces right at the entry just as you get passed the driveway area. HERNANDEZ: And all the other parking is underground in the garage? UMETSU: That's correct. DUFFIE: So, Vern, what I'm hearing now is there will be no parking from the tenants on the street parking. Is that correct? UMETSU: I can't say that. But I can say that each space, each unit has two spaces. DUFFIE: So my question is that we want to make sure that they understand that the street is not for the tenants to be parking on. It's a street, not for private parking for their tenants. 6 t UMETSU: I think you should talk with the applicant, but I think they intend to incorporate all required parking on site. And basically two spaces per unit is what we required. We've required it of everybody else. There's allot of units up there that have one and one and a half spaces per unit, and that has turned out not to be the case. ROBERTSON: Could you go over the impervious surface calculations once more for me please? UMETSU: Sure. Impervious surface calculations are shown on sheet, I believe A -1.2. On the upper right hand corner there's a box called coverage calculation, and the top set of calculations are for development area coverage which per the multi family standards. COUNCILMEMBER MULLET: That would be the units themselves? UMETSU: Development area When we developed the multi family standards, we wanted to do certain things. We wanted to encourage walkways, we wanted to encourage separating parking areas which meant additional access aisles, and we wanted to encourage paved recreation spaces. So in order to encourage that, we didn't think that it was fair to penalize people for providing them so instead of calling it impervious surface, which is everything paved, we called that a development area. What that development area was impervious surface less all those things that we wanted to see like trails, like sidewalks and the access aisles between the broken parking areas, and recreation spaces. MULLET: So this piece in the center is basically excluded from that? UMETSU: That's correct. From the development area calculations. MULLET: And the path around the end? UMETSU: Right. Now impervious surface....they did include certain play areas, and that's that second set of calculations. Impervious surface per the PRD ordinance, and that included then building 1, the walkways, the sidewalks, all the driveway and parking areas, and the children's play area, the active recreation areas. ROBERTSON: Why was the children's play area? Was that going to be paved? UMETSU: Well because, there's no infiltration there. ROBERTSON: This whole recreation center....If I understand the building. This whole thing is the center of the parking, is that correct? This is all going to be executed, underground parking goes in, you pour concrete over the top, put dirt down on top, is that right? Or am I missing something? 7 G UMETSU: Well put it this way, let me restate that and see if I'm saying it right. You're going to regrade, you're going to put in parking and then you're going to build up some walls, and on top of that, then, put a roof, and then you're going to bring in some dirt, and create some recreation space. But that's still impervious surface because there's no infiltration going down into the ground. ROBERTSON: So this whole area is excluded from the impervious.... VERNON UMETSU: No it is included in the impervious surface. ROBERTSON: So this area between here is only 1250 square feet....It looks to be almost as big as one of the buildings to me. VERNON UMETSU: And it is....Oh you know what they did. I believe, it's because they said driveway and parking, so stuff underneath is where the parking...But we can ask the architect to clarify that. I believe that's how it worked. MULLET: If you count the parking underneath, you don't have to count the play are on top because it's one. ROBERTSON: The lot is 26,000 square feet, and the only thing that is impervious is the area around it that's not paved, is that correct? Everywhere thing else is basically impervious. UMETSU: I believe so. I'd have to go and take a look at how you defined impervious again. ROBERTSON: Same way you did actually. This center section here is considered impervious because it's no longer natural...and that's what it says here. I was just curious...Visually it doesn't add up right. That seems to me, certainly, more than half the site. But I guess I'd like to see the calculations again. We can talk to the architect. UMETSU: Are there any other questions? MULLET: Speaking of impervious surfaces, what was done to take care of the runoff water on this site? UMETSU: We haven't done the engineering yet, but what will happen is that we will detain to predevelopment rates pursuant to the King County Storm Drainage Manual as we implement it in Tukwila. MULLET: I know they didn't leave allot of room to do that here. UMETSU: Well, you know that's what underground detention systems are for. ROBERTSON: Parking comes all the way here, correct? g In UMETSU: That's correct. ROBERTSON: Yours and my definition doesn't fit with what they did because impervious surface -I don't believe because they talk about children's play area, active recreation area, walkways. So if this is the active recreation area, I'm assuming they're going to put a walkway there. UMETSU: No, no, there's a recreation sheet. ROBERTSON: This is the active recreation space here. (Inaudible comments from a woman, in the audience, did not come to the microphone) UMETSU: I can probably better explain it using that air photo. (lots of shuffling of papers, maps design plans) UMETSU: This is the project and currently there is a City utility road that goes from Macadam Road up, all the way over to, essentially, to the stairs next to Denny's. There is another set of stairs at the end of 57th Avenue which is on the east side of the LaVista Apartments. What we would like to do and what the Parks and Recreation Director supports is putting in a 6 -foot gravel trail, which is our standard trail width, from this point (pointing at the drawings) across the project, across La Vista, to match up with this stairway here. This will allow us later on to come back and pave it and make it a real trail. HERNANDEZ: Will it parallel, then, that utility service road there? UMETSU: Yes, it will actually go right on to the utility surface road. Actually that road is very, very rocky. I mean it's suitable for trucks that we send up there for ditchings and everything. It's not suitable for strollers so what is really acceptable at this point on an interim basis is a crush rock surface which will pack down to a hard, flat surface suitable for ....strollers with large wheels to use on an interim basis. Parks and Rec feels that either this year or late next year, we would likely pave that and preferably complete paving all the remaining strip. ROBERTSON: Vern, is that in the budget, in the plan, as far as you know? UMETSU: That is not in any budget plans at this point. That's why I said 1996 (next year). MULLET: Vern, why you're standing there, would you, on that map, show me where their main entrance is? UMETSU: Right where the existing utility road comes out. CARTER: How does this connection to the City trail connect to their trail. 9 i 0 UMETSU: Their trail, on site, comes along the eastern half of the north cross boundary, around the buildings on the east, comes straight down the stairs to the utility road. When the utility road is improved with crushed rocks, that's where the trail connection will be. CARTER: OK. CARTER: Could you also explain about the two for one credits for the sauna, weight UMETSU: In the Multi- Family Standards, we want to encourage a provision of high quality interior recreation spaces, recognizing that those are the spaces that really get used according to the Focus Group Developers that assisted us in developing these standards in the first place. We also wanted to recognize the increased cost of putting in these recreation spaces and recruiting them. So what we said was there would be a two for one credit, a maximum two for one credit. If the Board of Architectural Review agrees with the high quality interior recreational space, they can do a less than two for one credit or they can give as much as two for one. CARTER: OK. So that's in the PRD? UMETSU: That is in the Recreation Space Standards, a different section, a different chapter. DUFFIE: Vern, I'd like to ask you one question. I'm thinking about the stability of that hill, once they start, what are they going to do to hold that hill up there to make sure it doesn't wash away. We had that problem once before when we had the last development up there. My concern is that once it start sliding are they going to come up with the idea that it's the nature of God and they didn't have anything to do with it and they try to wipe out of this. Now what are we going to do about that? UMETSU: We are going to do as much as we can before we approve the construction and that means making sure that the survey is right. For instance, in that North Hill Project, next to the Arco Station, where the foundations were washed away, etc., the survey was so wrong that we couldn't believe it. Now, what we will be doing is first of all recognizing that this is a lot easier site to survey than that North Hill Project was. This is actually not that bad. But what gets a little scary is that the construction is going to be the excavations will be within 20 feet of the building foundations of the LaVista Projects. What we have done then is require additional geotech borings before they start construction as part of the building permit process to make sure that the soil conditions are really tagged down and we have required that survey monitoring be continued through construction to see that the project is not damaging the LaVista development and that's why it was not moving where it shouldn't be moved. DUFFIE: OK, my other question is that I know the City does a good job on inspection like that unit did the last time because we don't work on Saturday and Sunday, they went out and did a lot of their work on Saturday and Sunday when we didn't have any inspectors. What are we going to do about that? UMETSU: We can't tell people not to work on weekends, but we can require that there be sufficient borings, sufficient monitoring and they know that before foundations are poured, etc., special inspections are required. That's just part of the building permit review process. A lot of us who are here today were here when the North Hill Project went south, as well as a couple of other projects. And so, we've learned. And I believe the Public Works Department will do a good job. DUFFIE: OK. HERNANDEZ: Vern, were any traffic studies done to see how it would impact the traffic on Macadam. I'm especially concerned about the left hand turn lane onto Macadam exiting from these apartments. UMETSU: The City Engineer reviewed the project and basically we had some pretty good numbers about what the peak hour traffic is from a Multi Family Project. I don't believe any special studies were done. He looked at it and determined that no mitigation was required. This is, after all, just a 28 -unit project. And so peak hour traffic we expect 28 vehicles in an hour. MULLET: Is that what we've got total here, 28- units? UMETSU: That is correct. MULLET: You mentioned when this was vested in early `92, or in `92. UMETSU: Prior to the `94 adoption to the `94 it was vested in `94. They submitted in August of `94, we adopted new PRD Standards after that anyway. MULLET: But it is in compliance with the Multi- Family Standards we adopted. UMETSU: That's correct. MULLET: So this may be a little off the PRD subject but I thought we had some staggering built into the Multi Family Standards so we didn't end up with tall boxes. I see some breaking it up this way, but I don't see any breaking it back UMETSU: Actually, if I could come up here to the dais again MULLET: You can go anywhere you want to (laughter). UMETSU: Looking at another sheet toward the end of your set of full size sheets, you can see how the project has been set up and that is on sheet A -12, which is 3 from the end. Now I agree that this is not a classic stepped project. A classic stepped project would have building #1 right up against building #2 and the rec deck in front of that. But I believe that this is a better presentation, or better design because in that classic project, you just see this one building mass. You might see some relief. But in this case, you still get that stepping effect and between the building you get large evergreen trees and in front you have more space for landscaping instead of having that large rec deck. I think it's a much better not only design for relief, but provides a much better common area where it's subject to extensive casual surveillance from both sides of the deck from both the north and south. The building could be from anywhere from 4 to 6 stories depending on how you want to look at it. But our code requires us to measure building height from average so that the building, which is on a slope, gets to measure itself from the middle of that slope and that's how it sets up here as an acceptable height or satisfying the minimum heights. The question is does it provide sufficient design quality given its scale based on the Multi- Family Standards and staff feels that at this point it does. The question is does it have a central focus, yes. Does it have an architectural element and building massing, which provide relief and break up that would otherwise be a continuous building wall, I believe so. Now this final determination is yours under the PRD ordinance. But staff has looked at it and feels that it is consistent with the Multi- Family Standards. HERNANDEZ: I Have another questions. I'm concerned about the security and lighting in the parking garage. Is there adequate lighting and what is the access from the garage to the units? Is it by stairs or is there an elevator from the parking garage? UMETSU: There are stairs. And actually, I take that back. There are stairs. I don't know if the elevator go all the way down. Yes, it does go all the way down from the building #2. And building #1 is at grade. The light levels have not been specified. I can tell you that standard lighting for surface parking is two lumens. 1 /100th of a lumen is the amount of light that's provided by a full moon onto a newspaper that you can read. HERNANDEZ: That sound like pretty minimum lighting. UMETSU: They haven't specified it. Five lumens is the minimum required for a truck loading area. So if you'd like to specify light levels, you can do that. Recognize that there are energy requirements, energy code requirements. MULLET: One more. Under 18.46.90, I think we have some language as far as compatibility to the surrounding area and one of the things mentioned is view. This is quite a tall building. Is it obscuring the other buildings. What is the impact in regards to the other buildings? UMETSU: On the north perimeter of the project, 10 -feet north of the property line is a three story LaVista Apartment building. Now MULLET: That end up higher or shorter than this building? UMETSU: It's shorter than this building or it's the same height at the very least. MULLET: Does this building completely obscures the view of that building? UMETSU: That is correct. MULLET: In that direction. UMETSU: That is correct. I might note that as we don't have any regulations to protect views and the applicant is providing extensive landscaping to buffer his project from the other project and vise versa. So, you are exchanging a territorial for a regional view across this person's property for a enclosed view formed by these evergreen trees. 13 MULLET: I was thinking in terms of another project we had where we had some difficulty with one of the people who lived there. I don't want to mention any particular name because we can't. Are we going to get sued because we let this building go in and be that tall? UMETSU: Absolutely not. At least, not being an attorney, I would give you my Planner's answer as saying no. You can always be sued. The question is can you be sued successfully. I don't think that this MULLET: I have another question that I'd like to ask about the when we did the Multi Family Housing Standard, we put in this photo montage and some computer- enhanced things that we start getting there and it was my understanding that the reason for doing that was to answer the question that I just asked you as to how this building looks in relations to the other buildings and the other trees and the hillside and everything else. So I see there was an attempt made but it really didn't do it for me. I'm just stating in general view that that really didn't solve anything. So I'm just wondering, do we need to re- address that in the Multi Family Standards or do we just need to work harder at the montage at the computer? UMETSU: Well, I think, if you would like a better job on this, you should let us know. But I guess the questions here are: 1) Does this provide you with a reasonable or sufficient understanding of how the project relates to the other buildings in the area? 2) Would additional information change your decision? Make a difference? And, I guess the other thing is, what else can we do? And, how can we do it better? Certainly, we want to support you as best we can. MULLET: Which is probably a different subject matter than tonight. So I'll take your thoughts into consideration and give you an answer back at a later time. ROBERTSON: Talking about the trail on the east side, could you show it to me? UMETSU: Sure. ROBERTSON: How about these pictures right here, these ones I' ve been looking at trying to visualize it. UMETSU: Can I borrow your highlighter? ROBERTSON: Be my guest. UMETSU: Thank you. ROBERTSON: I understand that part; let's see it from the next to top two pictures. Is it on the right? UMETSU: Yeah, it's right here and then right on top. ROBERTSON: Is there gonna be a bench along that trail. It looks to me like the trail is on top of a steeply sloped surface. UMETSU: There are handrails called out in the landscape plans. This was the view analysis plans that were done along time ago. But because the building masses were the same, we didn't change it. ROBERTSON: So it doesn't look like this anymore? UMETSU: This does, yes. And in fact, here they've called out a handrail. ROBERTSON: So this trail is sitting up on a steeply sloped area. If I gather this picture right, this is higher than the trail? UMETSU: Right, right, that's actually a deck about the same level down to this point and in actually down to this point. And then it goes down; you can see where the retaining wall is located, and they've put in a handrail over here. ROBERTSON: Okay, so the trail is at the same height as that? UMETSU: Um, hmm. ROBERTSON: Is there going to be a fence between the trail and the recreation area there, a wall? UMETSU: I think it's just the planters that are going to be, that are... MALE VOICE: (sneaking from the front row in audience, did not identify himself) Look at the development, not the old ones. UMETSU: Okay, just a second. ROBERTSON: Are these the new ones? UMETSU: The elevation, you can see looks like there's a handrail going along there, along the rec deck. ROBERTSON: So the deck itself is above the trail? UMETSU: Just slightly. I mean this is a one eighth scale, so that's about two feet. ROBERTSON: Okay. Geo- technical several places in the report, such as Attachment A, Page 8, for instance. It talks...this is an awful lot of soil here. I got a little confused as to whether, what's been done in the way of a study. Was an environmental impact statement done? UMETSU: An environmental checklist was done and geo- technical studies were provided, including about 4 borings. ROBERTSON: Those studies weren't provided to us were they? UMETSU: Not as part of...No, we did not include the SEPA studies. ROBERTSON: Okay. UMETSU: They were very technical. I didn't think they were useful. If you'd like we could send them to you. ROBERTSON: We're gonna vote before then. The next question I'm going to want is a complete calculation of the impervious surfaces and an estimation of that. Would it be better to have it from you or somebody from the architect. UMETSU: I think we should ask the architects. He could probably call it out, show you where the impervious surface areas. ROBERTSON: Okay, in Section E, Page 8, it says here, conditions include additional geo technical analysis to supplement the already submitted trail. UMETSU: Yes. ROBERTSON: Has that analysis been done? UMETSU: The geo technical analysis has been provided, however, the borings provided did not get close enough to the perimeter for us to feel. We felt they were in the ballpark, but we wanted to be sure that they had nailed it down, so we called for additional geo- technical analysis along the perimeters to ensure that the extrapolations were correct. ROBERTSON: And those haven't been completed yet? UMETSU: The additional borings have not been completed, but they will be a requirement of the building permit per SEPA. ROBERTSON: Per SEPA. UMETSU: As an environmental requirement. 15 9 °r ROBERTSON: But I thought there was a decision of non significance and just a checklist. UMETSU: SEPA is just the State Environmental Protection Act, so it's just the Act. ROBERTSON: So the EIS was not done? UMETSU: There's no EIS, that's correct. ROBERTSON: So, I'm still lost. When you said the borings were required per SEPA, I don't see the relationship. UMETSU: You can require conditions, you can condition a checklist approval. The approval of a checklist can be conditioned with various things. I mean, one of the conditions might be traffic mitigation payments to be paid prior to a final checklist. In a similar matter then, we can require that additional geo -tech work be done to confirm the borings and analyses that had been submitted. Now any additional new information which, for instance, might come up with heavy organic soils along the eastern boundary, which would cause a very unstable condition would be new information that could cause a reopening of the SEPA checklist, and possibly even trigger and EIS. Now, that's an extreme example, but that type of new information allows us to go ahead and do that. ROBERTSON: That checklist and everything I guess I'm a little puzzled as to what we would vote on tonight. It seems to me there's several open issues, so I'm not sure how we would deal with that as a council. UMETSU: Okay, I guess I'm not understanding what the open ROBERTSON: Let me think about it more and let's go on. UMETSU: Thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT CRAFT: Thank you, Vernon. (In audible comments) CRAFT: Next, we'll hear from the proponents. KEITH MOXSON: Thank you members of the Council, my name is Keith Moxson with the law firm of Buck and Gordan. I'm representing RSA. With me tonight is the project architect, Lyle Kussman, and the owner representative, Mr. Mark Goldberg. Vern has covered all of the design related issues. I guess I would just summarize those by saying we have been through 3 redesigns of this project. We are here to attest that the city's new multi family design guidelines do work. They're difficult and they require allot of work on the part of the applicant and the city, but we're here to say that they do work. And we think as a result of these many months of .6 0 iterations going back and forth on design issues, we've achieved what the city was looking for in terms of the very high quality multi family development that the city and the applicant will both be proud of. The key features really were modulation, and I think probably the step, the cutout sort of drawing that's against the wall under the flag probably emphasizes the degree to which this development is staggered and offset. It's difficult to present that in one dimensional plan drawings, but as you look closely of the way the footprints of the buildings have not been offset in significantly greater stagger than they were through original submissions, I think you'll see that point made, as well as the way the stagger follows the natural terrain of the hillside. This is a project in which, probably unique to Tukwila, all of the project on -site parking will be enclosed underground, enclosed protected parking. You asked about the lighting, and that's an important issue. The reason the project, first of all is not enclosed or the garage is not enclosed is a fire access safety issue. The fire trucks need turn around access, and they don't want a closed off door at that entrance because they need to be able to maneuver emergency vehicles. There will be interior type level lighting in those enclosed garage spaces so it will be not a dim or dark lighting. It will be what you'd expect to see in interior spaces and hallways and things like that for safety. It's important that the city's achieve not only a very high quality design on this project, but it's done so in a way that's allowed a very affordable project to go forward. This is a mix of housing units, 28 units that range from about 100 to about 125,000 for two bedroom units, two bath, in the range of 110 to 1350 square feet. So we've met the goal of being able to meet the city's design requirements for high quality development and done it in a way, despite having gone through 3 redesigns. I'm sure the architect dreams about this project in his sleep, we've done it in a way that has not sacrificed what goal the city is looking for also. And that's affordable housing product. There's an issue that's come up a couple time on the geo- technical stability. And I guess I would describe the process as, the project has received a mitigated determination of non significance because based on the level of geo technical examination that would be required at that stage of the project review, it didn't rise to the level of suggesting there would be a probable adverse significant impact. The next level is because of the possible importance of the possible problem with geo technical stability. At the project development stage, there will be a very intense detailed review, an on -going monitoring of the geo technical stability issues, and that's the normal phased way in which those types of issues are dealt with. It isn't reasonable or fair to have applicants doing very detailed on -site examinations of geo technical issues or other similar issues until they have worked through and have seen that there is recommendations for approval and, in fact, the PRD approval. Then, they go forward to meet the tests and the level of detail required with the building permit stage, which are much more detailed. And I think, knowing what we know as engineers and technical regulatory agencies now, that ensures the maximum possible protection to ensure that the slope stability issues will be dealt with. We aren't resting in any extent on the fact that the city's preliminary determination was that there weren't probable adverse consequences for building on this site. There will be very detailed requirements, not only during construction, but long -term monitoring with respect to the stability of this site. The other thing I would remark on to reflect, not only did the applicant receive a comment...the staff report prior to the Planning Commission and Board of Architectural Review very shortly 17 18 prior to the December meeting, the city and the applicant, mostly the applicant at that stage worked very intensively to address each and every comment that the city staff had come up with, and presented to the credit of the Planning Commission and the Board of Architectural Review presented an extensive series of explanations, clarifications, and revisions to this project to meet each and everyone of those design issues. And you're Planning Commission and your Board of Architectural Review, to their credit, they took those on the run, and they dealt with those as they came in. And they said to the architect's credit, normally we don't really like to see things moving that quickly, but in this case, they very much appreciated the direct responsiveness, the fact that everyone was met squarely and directly in response to city's concerns. So it was a process, I just wanted to emphasize that worked very effectively. Had that information not been presented clearly by the project architect, there would have been probably a loss of opportunity to have a meeting of the minds and present that information clearly and to go forward. And the city staff has been working very diligently in the last 3 months with the project architect trying to go through the last confirmations to make sure all these ideas that were packaged into the third, or the second set of revisions could be successfully integrated and achieved and that they would all work in an integrated way on the final proposal which is here before you tonight. To rest Mr. Duffie's concerns, we on the record agree without any conditions to the final conditions that have been imposed upon the project for approval, including the construction of a path not only along our project frontage but along, I think even larger project frontage, extending past La Vista project. And we do that because we see that there is a need there and an interest in the city to have that accomplished, and we're there to meet that need and to see that problem be solved. And if it leads ultimately to that being the base for a paved city trail system, and we were able to contribute that, we're happy to do so. So the bottom line and I don't think I've missed any of the questions, I'll be happy to take those or ask the project architect to. The bottom line is that we believe we have successfully, and in a relatively short time frame, with hard work on both sides of the table met each and every recommendation for further enhancement of this quality project that the city had. And if you have any questions in general, or I'd be glad to have Mr. Kussman, the project architect, answer any more detailed questions. And I know there's a question about the impervious surface calculations. I know Mr. Kussman wants to address that one. Is there any other issue besides yes... HERNANDEZ: Could you describe where the fire turn lanes are. Are they inside the garage or outside of the garage? MOXSON: It would require the use of that garage space. And I believe the height of the garage entrances are such that fire vehicles have the ability to use that space as a turn around. HERNANDEZ: So what would you do in the event that the garage was full? MOXSON: It can use the space in the driveway corridors within the driveway. I mean if a parking garage is full, there is always the access down the middle of the driveway, between the parking stalls. And it's my understanding the fire department vehicle would simply drive into that space between the two rows or more rows of parking and just use the main access into the garage. It's never full so that there is no maneuvering space in the garage. Yes X1 ROBERTSON: What would happen if the fire was in the garage? MOXSON: Well, this is for purposes actually leaving the site and having the ability to get in close. There are two garage entrances. Presume the fire can be fought if there's a fire in the garage without having to bring the vehicle in there. It's more of a matter of getting the fire truck in and turning it around and getting it off the site. HERNANDEZ: Maybe you can clarify this for me then. Are the two the garages are on two separate levels but are they connected inside? MOXSON: I believe they are not connected; they are separate structures. And they happen to be on two levels, but they are not stagged; they are just two different grades, so they are separated that way. Did I answer your question about the maneuvering that HERNANDEZ: Well you answered it; I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with it. I'm still having a hard time visualizing a fire truck having enough room to turn around when the parking garage is full. MOXSON: If we imagine there's an entrance to a parking garage and perhaps it's something in the order this width, and there are cars parked facing that wall and there are cars parked facing this wall, that would leave a main access corridor in the garage down the middle of those cars and a car could go in there and see that it was full and maneuver its way back out and a fire truck wouldn't be able I'm not suggesting it turns around in the garage and that's my point of confusion, I'm sorry I think it's called a hammer -head in the traffic trade. It means you can back or drive a vehicle into a space and make a T -turn back out. And that's a hammer -head maneuver. It isn't a I didn't mean to suggest you could circle in the garage. You certainly can't do that. But that's an acceptable means of access in an emergency situation like that. I'm sorry I missed that -the point of confusion. You have a question before the architects? EKBERG: Does the garage require a sprinkler system? MOXSON: I'd like you to ask the architect oh he says, yes. EKBERG: Thank you. CARTER: What about security, You've explained that there isn't the garages aren't gated because of the fire truck access. But are the entrances secured. Is it a secured facility so that people can't wander in. MOXSON: If you would allow me, I'm going to ask the architect to respond to that question, because I don't want to get into his area of the detailed design issues and I consider that to be one of those. And you can call me back up if he doesn't answer your question. I'll take a run at it. Anybody else have anything other than architectural design questions? CRAFT: I had one question that I want to clarify and that is Vernon mentioned five additional requirements from the Planning Division are you aware of those five? MOXSON: Yes, those were the points I meant to emphasize for Mr. Duffie's benefit, because, I think, those are the ones he was concerned do we have them in writing and I will put them in writing, happily, but I'm here to put them on the record orally that we are agreeable to each and every of the five conditions. And I think we've discussed most of them, or he went through them individually. So the answer is yes. CARTER: I noticed in the discussion at the Planning Commission there was talk about owner /occupancy of these units and it was mentioned that we can't really require that. But I know a number of years ago that it use to be that it was difficult to get a mortgage to purchase a condo unit if the majority of the project wasn't owner occupied or it was higher interest rates or something. Is that still the way things work? MOXSON: I don't know the details of everything that the requirements are with respect to mortgage requirements but I think the minutes of the Planning Commission reflected that there was a significant expectation that there would be majority- owner occupancy. And some of those issues actually end up getting resolved by the condominium owners themselves. There's a 70% lending requirement. CARTER: That's what I was thinking we don't require that as a City, but the financing requirements were such that MOXSON: You're right. And that was a discussion at the Planning Commission. It was the lending community that drove that 70% requirement. ROBERTSON: How deep are the excavations I haven't seen anything in looking at the plans or I didn't know how to read them that showed me what the site excavations will be? How deep are you really digging into that hillside? MOXSON: I'm going to plead ignorance on that and I'm going to allow the project architect if Vern has information on that I think Mr. Kussman's prepared to answer that question about that. And I expect, with respect to slope stability issues, that depending on certain types of materials that are encountered, and the findings of these geotechnical investigations, that the need to export and import different types of materials may change depending on what on site investigations reveal. That's typically the case. And I can ask Mr. Kussman to address the question of the balance of import and fill or export and fill. Any other questions for the architect. If there are, I will be happy to come back. LYLE KUSSMAN: My turn, I'm Wyle Kussman, the Architect. Let's take the last question first. Excavation: 1 ft, maximum 18ft. Total yardage hasn't been calculated. That's true. One foot of excavation for the parking garage and the lower parking garage because the site is a very peculiar, bold -shape thing. If you'd look at the site plan and follow the contours you can begin to see what I'm talking about. But it's a very, very peculiar site from the stand point of topography. 20 1 iaL ROBERTSON: OK, Thank you. KUSSMAN: Alright, let's go backwards on the questions and I don't remember them all so fire away. Hammer -head turnaround. Do you understand it now. HERNANDEZ: Yes, I understand it a little better, but I have another question that doesn't have anything to do with that. I wondered if you could describe the children's play equipment. KUSSMAN: The children play equipment? HERNANDEZ: Play equipment, that's incorporated into the design. KUSSMAN: No specific design other than large toys that are called typically large toys -a swing, and a slide, monkey bars, that type of thing. There is also a sand box about 35 or 40 ft. in diameter. It's taken a new configuration since we modulated the building. It use to be round. It's now oblong in shape. HERNANDEZ: I noticed in the design there was a separate children's play area and a separate recreation area. KUSSMAN: Yes, that's required by your code. HERNANDEZ: OK. And what do you plan for the separate recreation area. KUSSMAN: Passive recreation and a sport court, which will accommodate badminton and things of that nature. HERNANDEZ: And the children's play area will be separate and safe from that area? KUSSMAN: Yes, that's what's showing on the landscape plan. Basically, the children's rec area is the western part of the rec deck and the adult section, if you will, is the eastern part. HERNANDEZ: And, since the two buildings are separate, is there a safety railing that would prevent children from falling off. KUSSMAN: Yes, there's a 42- inch -high hand rail on all areas that is more than 18 inches above the adjacent grade. You did have one other question, which was not answered correctly before: Are the two parking garages inter connected? The answer is yes, they are. HERNANDEZ: They are inter connected? KUSSMAN: Yes. HERNANDEZ: So you can go in one level and come out.... 21 KUSSMAN: You cannot drive between the two levels, but you can walk between the two levels. DUFFIE: You will have backles on those apartments, right? KUSSMAN: We'll have what, please. DUFFIE: What you call them, backles? Anyway porch, outdoors porch, in otherwise.... HERNANDEZ: Balconies? KUSSMAN: Oh, balconies, ok, yes. DUFFIE: Now, what is the space between those. I understand that kids crawl between those. Now will you have safety wire or something in- between there? KUSSMAN: No, Uniform Building Code requires that a sphere of not more than 5 inches diameter cannot not pass through the balusters in the railing. That's the Uniform Building Code requirement. ROBERTSON: I'd like to see the calculations explained for the impervious surfaces. KUSSMAN: If you'd turn to sheet A -16 or A -17 that's all laid out for you including the areas. ROBERTSON: A -12, actually. KUSSMAN: No, it's 16 or 17. That there is just a recap. DUFFIE: I didn't see it on A -12, myself. (Lots of shuffling of maps and papers Mr. Kussman's reference of A -12). All Councilmembers confirmed that they were unable to locate Mr. Kussman's reference. DUFFIE: You want to go to 13. KUSSMAN: It was part of the original submission package to the BAR and the Planning Commission and all the calculations were run out on that sheet. Vernon asked for us to recap those on sheet 1.2 which was done for your benefit. ROBERTSON: The problems I have with the calculations is, what the calculations show is the impervious area and the only impervious area in which you called the rec deck that's mentioned is the children's play area of 1254 sq. ft. in the active rec area walk way, I'm not sure what that is, but that's 623 sq. ft. Yet, visually, looking at that rec deck, it's gotta be pushing 7,000 sq. ft. KUSSMAN: Actually, if you are trying to count the parking garage, it's larger than that. The calculations are correct. What you are trying to do is interpolate what you're seeing vs. what you 22 1 I i think is below that. And that is indeed true. There's dirt placed over the concrete cover, if you will, of the parking deck and that is not called impervious surface. That is a pervious surface. We checked with the City staff and specifically I can't remember the person's name in Public Works about that. Anyway, we were allowed to count that under the impervious /pervious calculation. ROBERTSON: How deep is the dirt? KUSSMAN: It ranges anywhere from 6 inches to 2 ft. Planter areas are 3.5 to 4 ft. deep. We're not talking about a recharge here, we're talking about an impervious surface. Of course, all of the parking deck is sloped and it will be picked up in drains and ran through the drainage control system. ROBERTSON: That's true with almost any impervious surface in the City. I'm gonna be real blunt, I think you're in real trouble. Because the Code 18.063.85 is fairly specific in its detail and that whole rec deck through the center there is going to be considered impervious surface by this definition. KUSSMAN: If you check the definitions, and that's why we brought the question to the City staff attention, it can be interpreted that when you put the dirt over the concrete, it becomes a pervious surface. ROBERTSON: Could you tell me which staff person interpreted that and the calculations. KUSSMAN: Unfortunately, I did not bring my file with me tonight. It's quite an voluminous file and I didn't bring it with me. ROBERTSON: The problem I run into is Now, impervious surface means those hard surfaces which prevent or retard entering water into the soil in the matter that such water enter the soil under natural conditions pre- existence to development, grading or alteration of the land. KUSSMAN: Now is that the `94 edition or the `92 edition. ROBERTSON: `91. KUSSMAN: '91? ROBERTSON: Such surface should include but are not limited to roof tops, asphalt or concrete paving, driveways, parking lots, walkways, patio areas, storage areas, compacted surfaces or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or run -off existing prior to development. In both halfs of that definition, this rec area does not fit in the definition of a pervious surface, it is clearly impervious. And I'm going to put a wild guess in there -that puts you about 6,000 sq. ft. shy. KUSSMAN: Probably even more than that, if we take your interpretation, yes. 23 /f ROBERTSON: Yea, a lot more. When we wrote this we were not thinking about a parking lot with dirt on top of it such as you've done here. KUSSMAN: No, when the code was written, obviously, you weren't thinking of that. You were also weren't thinking about building on a hillside conditioned by incorporating recreational deck, maximum slope at 4%. We've solved that problem and the only way we can do it is to build concrete retaining walls and create the grade level. ROBERTSON: What we were thinking of is trying to leave enough of the hillside as a green area or in a pervious surface such that we maintain some of it. That's the problem. I'm not sure where to go from here. Can I ask well, I'll come back and ask staff for a way to show us, in the PRD, wording that would allow us to ignore the requirements in the definitions. KUSSMAN: I'll yield the podium at this point, if you wish. ROBERTSON: No, I'm through with my questions. KUSSMAN: Anyone else? CARTER: I asked earlier if it was a limited access, you know, that it was secured. KUSSMAN: The parking garages are not secured as we talked about earlier because of the emergency vehicle turn- around requirements that the fire department placed upon us in the pre app. There is an entrance gate which is accessible by the tenants with a card -T type thing before you enter the compound and ultimately get to your front door. So yes, there is a form of security. It's the kind of security that will keep out the honest people, but not keep out the dishonest people. CARTER: Well, you can't keep everybody out. But I just We've been talking about neighborhood revitalization and in some discussions talking with other people I realized some of the Multi- Family complexes that appeared to have less trouble in them were often ones that were gated; that had limited access, and so others didn't sorta roam through it and I was curious to whether this was a secure building. KUSSMAN: It's gonna be almost impossible to secure the compound because of the requirement for the trail and now we are trying to face another set of circumstances. It's not easily inconvenient for people to roam the compound, but there is no way to prevent them from doing so. CARTER: I had another question, then. The handicapped access to the recreation areas, how wheelchair accessible, how do someone in a wheelchair get there? KUSSMAN: Under ADA requirements -the two Type A accessible units are located in the front building. Their parking stalls are dead level from the parking stalls to their entrance. For those 24 I r people to gain access to the recreation deck will require that they leave their unit, traverse the garage, the walkway, take the elevator, which is in the second building and re- emerge on the deck. Unless, of course, they are ambulatory. If they are in a wheel chair, there is no other way because we are dealing with little over 40 ft of elevation change from corner to corner on the property. The entire site actually could be deemed exempt from ADA requirements because of its topography. CARTER: OK. So they can, by going to the other building, use the elevator and get up not only to the children's play area and the adult rec area, but also the weight room, sauna that's all accessible KUSSMAN: The weight room, sauna and children's and a part of the adult recreation area is all at the same level as the weight room and sauna area. CARTER: Because I had difficulty looking at these it's a difficult project to visualize in 3 -D from the plan. KUSSMAN: It's a very complex design for 28 units and it's also complexed because it's sitting on a hillside condition and still trying to factor in all of the requirements of your Multi- Family and your PRD Codes. CRAFT: Thank you Mr. Kussman. SPEAKER DID NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF: May I respond to the impervious surface issue. I wasn't involved at the time this staff determination was made by the City, but I looked at this definition carefully and I see that it really is not an ambiguous definition for several reasons: 1) It's defined to mean those hard surfaces so the class of surfaces covered are hard surfaces and that excludes grassy areas, soil areas and it gives examples of hard surfaces that are considered an impervious surface. These are not impervious below ground structures because reading the definition another way, you could have a situation where some hard pan or some bed rock formation under 6 inches or 2 inches of soil can be construed to mean that the water doesn't drain down. This doesn't have anything to do with the ground water flows. If this was construed to mean that the natural drainage conditions had to be maintained, it wouldn't say preventing a retarding entry of water into the soil. It would say into the ground water table or something. So for me it has been properly interpreted by the City to mean only a paved surface and doesn't limit this particular proposal because the hard surface is effectively just a structure below or a feature below soil, there is no prevention or retarding of entry of water in the soil in that children's play area. The fact that there is below ground anywhere from 6 to 3.5 ft structural elements of the parking garage doesn't prevent this from being hard surface. And I think that somebody addressed that the reason, I think even Mr. Robertson suggested that the reason the City wanted this impervious surface so they would end up with pavement in areas where they wanted to preserve greenery and open space and trees. And this is an area where you'd have plantings and grass and a flow of water. It won't be a standing water situation or hard surface drainage of water like you have in parking lots or other types of impervious surface conditions. It seems to me this is a very reasonable application of that requirement and a proper interpretation and 25 01 1 26 simply put, there really isn't a way to achieve the types of high quality, structured parking development and have requirements on a site like this that the City has designated for 30 units an acre and this could go 31 units and it's close to that, it's 29. That means you have very highly intelligent, very creative and very effective means of achieving these goals. And Mr. Kussman was talking about the conflict that are inherent in that. You want to have pedestrian access through a project, then you want to maximize security. I'm not troubled as Mr. Robertson is by the definition and I think the sense of this project and the goals and the way we've been able to achieve that recreational feature between these buildings, it doesn't in any way to me ring as an impervious surface except those pavement, those trails and the hard structure surfaces. I think that interpretation would find support not only with City staff but presumably the City Attorney would agree with that application. Thank you. CRAFT: Is there a list in the back of citizens who've signed up? And also, while Celia is doing that, there was a letter that came in from Jay and Rachell Sardeson. Are they here tonight? (Someone responded affirmatively). OK. Did you sign up to speak? So the first person is R.C. Crowl. Would you please step forward? Did you want to speak tonight? MR. CROWL, MR. ED COTTENGAIM. MR. TOM GARD, MR. SYL CADITZ all signed in as being present but did not wish to speak. .TAY SARDESON: Good evening, Council. My name is Jay Sardeson and I reside at 15280 Macadam Road South, in Unit E -301. This is the property that due west of the applicant's proposed project. And in my letter there were three items that I brought up that concern my wife and I and I hope some of the other owners and tenants at the property. And there is a fourth one that I'd like to bring up at the end of this. The first one is that when I was at the Planning and architectural meeting back in December, I believe I heard that the staff was informed that there are no windows on the east side of either one of the Southcenter View Condominium project. Well there are windows on the east end. I have two bedroom windows and a bathroom window that look to the east. I get to see the LaVista Apartments out of my bedroom windows and that is on all three floors of the building in both buildings. My first two comments in the letter #1 is that I believe I heard at the Planning Commission meeting was that the staff had asked the architect to turn around and add windows into the west facade of this building, which were originally not there. I may be wrong. I'm not sure. That's what I thought I heard and I don't want to be mis- quoting anybody but that's what I though I heard. So that means that when I get up in the morning I'm gonna be looking into somebody's (I believe I heard) kitchen. I could be wrong. In not knowing where the placements in the buildings are, I may be very wrong. I may be looking at the recreation area just do to the fact that where the placements of the building are. I don't know where the placements will be. The second issue is that they will exiting their parking garages heading west, so that will mean that as they are coming out of their parking garage, most cars in the 90s now are equipped with their headlights going on automatically when the car is turned on with bedroom windows and bathroom windows on the west side or on the east side of Southcenter View, that mean that unless there is a I don't think bushes are gonna be sufficient enough to block the those headlights going into those bedrooms and bathrooms windows. The third thing on my letter was the fact that I personally feel we personally feel that these 59 parking stalls in the unit or in the complex will not be enough to take care o the needs of all of the possible visitors parking that may take place at the project. There are only 12 1 parking stalls or street parking spaces between 152nd and Southcenter Blvd. And my understanding is that Southcenter View Board of Directors at some point and time fought tooth and nails to get those 12 stalls even put onto the street. And I think that I come home on a Saturday night from work and 90% of those stalls or if not all of them are full when I drive up the street at 8:00 or 9:00 on a Saturday night and I see this project will add to that congestion on that street and take away some more of that street parking and I'm wondering if the City will turn around and increase any of the street parking. The third thing I have is that I would like to know how does the applicant plan on where does sewer line run on the property. Where does it run into the main sewer system, Tukwila sewer system? And that's all I've got. Thank you. COHEN: Can we have the letter marked as Exhibit #1 so it can be made part of the record. CRAFT: Did you wish to speak now? SLY CADITZ: Yes. CRAFT: Would you please come up to the mic and state your name and address, please. SLY CADITZ: My name is Sylvan Caditz. I'm a partner in the project. My address is 22710 S. E. 23rd Place, Issaquah, WA. I would like to present to the Council the situation I'm inasmuch as over 20 years ago my father (now deceased) and I purchase this property as a building site. And at that time, as I recall, the zoning was R -3, which, as far as I remember, allowed us to build high -rise with no height limits and relatively few restriction, especially compared to the situation these days and the requirements that have developed over the years. During this time of well over 20 years, I've been involved in maintaining the property, paying the taxes and so forth and have always understood it to be a building site and I believe that it should be considered one and recognized as one not only the.... and apparently it has been, but also by the neighbors, because originally when the land was purchase there were no buildings to the north and presumably the owners and the subsequent residents that lived there now must certainly have been aware that this was a viable site which could have been built upon presumable at anytime, at least potentially. And so I can't help but believe that with all do respect and understanding that the requirements and a need to be recognized and addressed based upon current conditions and current rules and regulations, I nevertheless feel that the ownership and rights and investment in such a property for all these years need to be respected to and presumably that there are ways that the rules and regulations of the City can be met and giving regards to the neighbors, of course, but generally I would like to think that reasonable ways that this sight can be used to the purposes that it was meant to be used at the very beginning. Thank you CRAFT: Thank you, Mr. Caditz. Is there anyone else who did not sign up on this sheet who would like to speak now. HERNANDEZ: Can we ask the applicant to address the concerns of Mr. Sardeson? CRAFT: Yes. 27 r KEITH MOXSON: Keith MOXSON for the applicant. We were informed of this letter when we showed up at the hearing tonight and with respect to the window issues, I guess we're looking at achieving the goals that the City had for avoiding building massing and breaking up any large surfaces of what would be the end walls of these units. They have been asked to achieve that by using placement of windows. I understand at a personal level the concerns of being able to see neighbors' windows. I happen to believe that when we live in urban places, we don't have the same kinds of expectations of not being able to see other people's homes out of our windows and I like what I can see out of my windows. I can see my neighbors' properties. But I understand Lao that that means I don't live out in the woods somewhere and when I look out of my window I see my neighbors' home and windows and there just happens to be a certain amount of proximity you have in an urban environment. I think it's a fact of life and I wish we could do something to separate our project so that people didn't see each others windows and I think there's really sadly nothing we can do to meet each of these concerns in a way that perhaps the neighbors would like. I don't know about misunderstandings with respect to placement of windows. I do, however, think we should accept some responsibility to deal with the headlights glare issue because I think that's a legitimate concern that has to do with the way we've oriented our project and I had a chance to talk to Vernon about this one briefly before the meeting and I believe we would accept I haven't had a chance to talk to my client fully about this yet but we can accept some screening using some trellises or trellises and vegetation to accomplish that. Now, it's back to the same thing, we live in an urban area and we see in reflection on our walls or whatever and inside spaces we see cars passing by and there are it's our obligation to reduce that as much as possible and I think it's a very simply thing to be able to construct a visual screening at the City Planning Department's direction. We can work with them to mitigate that impact. And I understand that concern and that's one I think we can do something about. I don't fully understand the issue on parking because it's not my understanding that City designates parking at all on City streets. And it's not our expectation to ask the City to designate any parking. It probably is the case that some spill -over parking happens on City streets in this area. I expect that once we've met City Codes plus we've added a few more spaces onsite, that the incidences in which we would have a few cars having to park on Macadam would be minimal and at least as infrequent as those neighboring projects and hopefully less frequent than neighboring projects. For the record, we do not anticipate asking the City for any permission or formalizing of any right to park on the street. We have met the City's requirements on parking and we intend to make those available to the residents. The last issue was, I believe, not something that was in the letter but it had to do with sewer. And I was not involved in this but I understand, historically, there was a request by my client to work out a sewer with the project that Mr. Sardeson lives in and that Association, I believe, declined an opportunity to coordinate on a sewer extension that would have resulted, I guess, in an upgrade for their benefit. But for whatever reason, they declined and so we have not pursued that option that would have made sense we think for all parties and have at our expense extend the sewer down to Macadam Road and towards Southcenter, so it doesn't cross any of the neighboring properties and I think that was probably the point of the question so we had pursued some discussions to cooperate on sewer and we terminated those because they declined that offer. Any questions on those issues? CARTER: This isn't for you but perhaps one of the other Councilmembers would have some idea of the parking spaces provided in the complex that the residents lives in. 28 Df ROBERTSON: Those perhaps were built at a time when the codes were somewhat different than they are now, I'm not certain. CARTER: That's what I was wondering, because I know that there is quite a bit of parking along the road there. But I've noticed that some of the other complexes appear to have very few parking spaces per unit, it looks like. MOXSON: M'am, to answer your question, there are 99 parking stalls at Southcenter View, which equates out to about a space and a half per unit. And I think that the attorney misunderstood my comment in regard to the parking that was on the street. It is not designated for Southcenter View. The Board of Directors, sometime ago, had gone to the City to request that they do put parking stalls or put street parking on Macadam between the applicant's driveway and the driveway to 15280 Macadam. And the City did oblige to do that. They gave the City an additional 12 parking places on the street. It did not give the condominium complex 12 additional spaces. And my concern just gets down to that even if they add in parking places, I still see those 12 places that are going to be very congested at many times of the day and many times of the week. CRAFT: Are there an more questions while we have the public hearing open? ROBERTSON: I would like to ask the City Attorney if we close the public hearing, we go through this almost every time, I have some significant questions of both you and staff- technical-- dealing with the issue of impervious surfaces -if we close the public hearing, are we then left with the only significant discussion being taken place on the Council table? COHEN: You can ask for information; you can ask for staff to come back; you can ask for staff to come back with clarification points; you can do that with a public hearing closed as well. Or, you can continue the public hearing, whichever you choose. ROBERTSON: Joyce, the difficulty I have, with all due respect (static from mic making lots of noise). Is that my microphone? I don't think it's me. Anyway, with all due respect to the developers' attorney, I do not agree with his interpretation of the definition at all. And I'm very concerned. What I would like to do is, I think, keep the public hearing open and ask both City staff, including the City Attorney and Public Works Department, to come back with a written definition and explanation and I would like to see something in writing from the developer on this issue. I was here when we wrote that part of the ordinance and quite honestly, we didn't envision the parking under a grassy play area. We envisioned in the drawings of the parking under the buildings themselves and wrote the ordinance and all the things around that. This is a variation of that and I would like some material presented to me and the rest of the council to consider on that and time to reflect on that since it is the very first time we've used this ordinance. It's the first time somebody's come up with this particular interpretation. I think written responses to a question like that would be helpful, and if ordered to do that, we have to continue the public hearing then I would want to continue it. I would like to treat this proposal with as much consideration as possible. 29 );,I CRAFT: Are there other requests? MULLET: I would second Dennis' ROBERTSON: What I'm referring to is TMC 18.46.060, paragraph "d" is the part that deals with impervious surface, and the definition of impervious surface is in the TMC 18.06.385. CRAFT: Anyone else? ROBERTSON: I guess I would make a Motion then to continue the public hearing and request of both the applicant and City staff, that the City Attorney and Public Works, Department of Planning, a written position paper on the issue of impervious surface and the definition from both sides. CRAFT: OK. So we will continue the public hearing til next week's meeting. COHEN: We're going to need at least enough time for everything to be transcribed, and review that before we can start an interpretation. And I assume it's gonna take CRAFT: Do we have a date? COHEN: I don't know how long it's gonna take to transcribe, but DEPUTY CITY CLERK CELIA SOUARE: We will be short staffed next week due attendance at a conferences and vacation schedules. MOXSON: The project has really stretched to its last lengths in endurance context here and we have some very sensitive and complicated and serious timeliness issues with respect to final approvals. We has originally expected that this would be for the City Council in January and we've been working with the City throughout the last couple of month. If there would be a way to condition approval subject to confirmation that the interpretation on the impervious play area, the issue that I'm hearing is one that, although in all respects it's usable as an impervious surface and doesn't have the characteristics of concrete and block and asphalt and other materials that somehow that's what's below it, which is inevitably going to happen on a project of this scale that has the structured parking and has the density that it does, there are some very basic and serious inherent tension here between trying to do affordable housing on a site like this. The alternative is the City is effectively is saying we are certainly willing to work with the City and confirm our interpretation of that ordinance because I don't see that it's ambiguous. But it's opening the possibility of delays that this project seriously might not be able to endure and that means 28 affordable housing units that we would like to be able to work with the City to provide. CRAFT: Wally, did you have something? 30 1 MAYOR JOHN WALLY RANTS: I was going to make a suggestion for process here. I understand where the Clerk's office is. We could contract this out for transcription. The City Attorney feels it's very important to have this transcript to look at; to work with so that the attorneys can deal with it. We could put this out and have it transcribed outside the City and we'd probably have it back. So I think that if we were to schedule for two weeks, that would give us the time to have the transcription back and staff looking at it being able to make these recommendations. CRAFT: So, with that then, I will close the public hearing ROBERTSON: No, continue for two weeks. DUFFIE: Before you do that, I'd like to ask one question: are two weeks going to be too much because we are here for you all. Can we get fined for anything for delaying this project? COHEN: I'm sorry, I didn't MOXSON: I didn't mean to imply any liability because that isn't the direction I'm coming from at all. It wouldn't be any liability for the City. It would be just an unfortunate result if this happen to be a concern that couldn't get resolved, it might cost the project. I mean the efforts that have been put in through the last year if this happens to be just a dilemma in the way the ordinance gets interpreted. DUFFIE: I don't think this would be a problem, I just want to make sure that by us delaying this for another two weeks it we just got a technicality that need to be resolved. We should resolve that MOXSON: Thanks. CRAFT: OK. So we will continue the public hearing to March 27. CITY ADMINISTRATOR JOHN MCFARLAND: You have a Motion on the floor. ROBERTSON: I guess it's "Call for the Question." CRAFT: There's a Motion on the table to continue the public hearing for two weeks. DUFFIE: I Second the Motion. CRAFT: It's already been Seconded. DUFFIE: Call for the Question. CRAFT: That's what I'm doing. All in favor, say Aye; all opposed? (the Motion Carried unanimously to continue the public hearing for two weeks.) THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:50 P.M. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY THE COUNCIL ROBERTSON: Now in addition, I would request of staff that they provide the Council and any other interested party copies of the SEPA Checklist and the Environmental Studies that have been to date. And also I believe the Checklist includes the there's something in there where the Fire Department looks at the turn around in the route and buys off on it. I would like to see that also MCFARLAND: That's been done. Would you like to see that check -off? ROBERTSON: Yea, I think that's part of it since that is a concern. DCD DIRECTOR STEVE LANCASTER: Excuse me, If I might, I'm glad you're raising those issues as well and if there are any others that we can help to clarify between now and the next meeting, we'd like to be able to address those as well. HERNANDEZ: I'd like you to come back with a proposal for some additional visual screening on the east side of the parking garage. CRAFT: I'd like to see the five recommendations from the Planning Department written down. LANCASTER: Those are on the last sheet of your staff report. And for the record, I would like to state that this is Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development for the City. ROBERTSON: I would also like to see there's been discussion of affordable housing both in the Planning Commission minutes and tonight and I guess I would like to see a definition of affordable housing and some reference to the TMC or something. I'm lost as to where that continue here. So, if it's material, I'd like to see the reference and the definition. RANTS: Evelyn's here. I think she can probably give that to you right now. HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATOR EVELYN BOYKAN: I don't have that information. I'm sorry. ROBERTSON: I'd like to see it I guess in writing in the reference, in a report. The affordable housing reference is in Attachment C, Page 11, that I was referring to tonight and again in the testimony. DUFFIE: Madam Chair, at this moment, since the public hearing is closed, I move that we take a five minute break. END OF VERBATIM 32 /21-[