Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-27 Committee of the Whole MinutesMarch 27, 1995 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Introduction of new VISTA Volunteer Pacific Hwy Revitalization TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES 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; RHONDA BERRY, Assistant City Administrator; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; ROSS EARNST, Public Works Director; RON CAMERON, City Engineer; DOUG MICHEAU; Public Works Coordinator; STEVE LANCASTER, DCD Director; MOIRA BRADSHAW, Associate Planner; DIANA PAINTER; Associate Planner; KAREN WRIGHT, Human Services Specialist; RON WALDNER, Police Chief. Karen Wright introduced Jennifer Davis as the new VISTA Volunteer, replacing Patty Benjamin whose term ended in February. The Council gave her a warm welcome. Moira Bradshaw, DCD, briefed the Council that the scope of work has not changed from when the City Council initially reviewed the scope of work in June 1994. However, the work has been separated into four (4) phases in order to strategize the extent of the SEPA analysis to include in the overall work plan for the project: Phase #1- Project Refinement; Phase #2- Background and Existing Conditions Analysis; Phase #3- Development of Alternative Land Use/Transportation Scenarios; and, Phase #4- Implementation Strategies and Project Products. John H. Owen, Jr. is the Lead Consultant on this project. He's a Partner with the firm of Makers Architecture and Urban Design. Diana Painter (City Employee) is the Co- Project Manager. The Mayor appointed a Task Force last year and they held several community meetings. As a result, they've adopted a sub -area plan for their portion of Hwy. 99. Owens said this project is primarily a community revitalization plan where they will be looking at ways to improve the Hwy 99 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 2 Update on Pac Hwy Revitalization (Cont'd) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS (General) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Neighborhood Revitalization comments PUBLIC HEARING Continuation of Quasijudicial Hearing: Sunshine Ridge Condominiums PRD (Continued from March 13, 1995) SPECIAL ISSUES Update on work plan for Completion of Comp Plan Update corridor; not only for its own purpose, but also to support and strengthen the neighborhoods of the surrounding areas. A question and answer period followed with councilmembers agreeing to forward this issue back to the Community Affairs and Parks Committee to work out a schedule for Council involvement. The Council also requested that they be provided with a list of all those involved in the project, i.e. Task Force members, Consultant team, etc. None. Councilmember Duffie's comments were directed to citizens, stating that the citizens should not be alarmed at a recent notice they received regarding the removal of junk vehicles from their property. He received the same notice and will respond accordingly. Council President Joyce Craft opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.. A verbatim transcript (attached) was distributed to all Councilmembers and other pertinent individuals on Friday, March 31, 1995. It was the consensus of the Council to forward this issue to the next Regular Council for formal action, with Findings and Conclusions prepared by staff reflecting tonight's Council amendments. Steve Lancaster, DCD Director, gave a presentation of the anticipated schedule for completion and review of the Comprehensive Plan update. Lancaster informed the Council of forthcoming data to look for in keeping with the March 31 schedule. By the end of this week he said the Council will receive, in Notebook #1, copies of the Tukwila tomorrow Phase II Comp Plan Elements; and also a copy of the Tukwila Tomorrow Urban Center Alternatives and Recommendation. Notebook #2 will contain all of Tukwila Tomorrow Minutes. He stated that he will continue updating the Council as appropriate. Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 3 Update on Comp Plan Work Schedule (Cont'd) Recess 9:08 p.m. 9:26 p.m. Neighborhood Revitalization Project Several Planning Commission members were present and suggested that their recommended version of the Comp Plan come before the Council as a "clean rewrite" reflecting the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee's draft (the red book) as amended by the Planning Commission. This method was chosen for its clarity, simplicity, expeditious handling capability and reduced opportunities for controversy. The Council stated that they would prefer having the annotated copy along with the clean copy of the Plan so that they could see what revisions, additions and/or deletions were made. Lancaster stated that having two version of the document can be confusing. However, staff is committed to working out whatever is decided. Council President Craft called the meeting back to order with those present as listed above. Lucy Lauterbach briefed the Council on the Neighborhood Revitalization Progress Chart of problem areas in Tukwila. She also introduced a draft vision statement, and a mission statement resolution, of which the Council reviewed and made several amendments. She stated that the Council should focus on a vision statement, a mission statement, and on what the priority issues and areas will be. The Council also discussed including a survey in the City's Hazelnut Newsletter to obtain citizens input on Neighborhood Revitalization. The Council reviewed a memo that had been submitted by Councilmember Robertson. The memo addressed a process for implementing revitalization strategies in three areas: city -wide; specific places; and, planning infrastructure improvements through the CIP for long term. After a very lengthy discussion, the Council agreed that because of the impending Comp Plan, it's important for the Council to decide how they will implement Neighborhood Revitalization into the Comprehensive Plan. 3-4 Committee of The Whole Meeting Minutes March 27, 1995 Page 4 REPORTS ADJOURNMENT 10:37 p.m. Mayor Rants reported that security concerns in the Court had been brought to his attention and that he has addressed the issue. Beginning next Tuesday an officer will be assigned to be in the Courtroom on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Councilmember Hernandez reported she recently attended the Seniors' luncheon at the Community Center. She attended the Human Services Round Table meeting on Wednesday afternoon. City Administrator McFarland reported he had recently met with Dr. Mike Silver, Superintendent, South Central School District, where Dr. Silver indicated that it is time to host another Council /School Board Retreat. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, TO ADJOURN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Joy'e 6 Council President 1 Celia Square, Deputy(City Clerk VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: SUNSHINE RIDGE CONDOMINIUM PRD Tukwila City Council Committee of The Whole Meeting March 27, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:44 P.M. VERNON UMETSU: Hopefully, a brief one, or, I'll try to keep it brief. This public hearing was continued from the March 17 hearing. Could I get the screen raised, please? (Screen being raised) CELIA SOUARE. DEPUTY CITY CLERK: That's March 13, Vern. CRAFT: Questions? 1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOYCE CRAFT: So at this time I'd like to re -open the public hearing on Sunshine Ridge Condominium PRD. And this is continued from March 13. We have questions that we had asked of staff. How do we want to do this? Do we want to go over the four areas that we requested information one at a time, or Vernon, did you have a presentation for us? UMETSU: March 13, excuse me. And for the record, my name is Vernon Umetsu, Tukwila Planning Division. The proposed project, again, is a 28 -unit condominium project with 59 parking spaces; a one to three story front building facing Macadam Road; and a four to six story rear building adjacent to the LaVista Apartments. The two buildings are separated by a parking area which is covered by a landscaped recreation deck. The Council requested additional information on four areas to be presented tonight. The first area is a SEPA Checklist with associated documentation. That has been presented in Attachment A. We've also taken the liberty of getting further fire review on the project for maneuvering of their fire trucks. That additional memorandum dated March 22 is from Mike Alderson, Assistant Fire Chief, who says that there is sufficient maneuvering room on the project. And that memorandum is located three pages from the back of Attachment A. Additional information was also requested on affordable housing. What constitute affordable housing? The Human Services Coordinator has provided me with some additional information, in general, stating that right now affordable housing price point, which is the affordable purchase price for a family making 80% of the median income in King County, is about $140,000 dollars. That's shown on Attachment B. We haven't received headlights screening designs at this time, but we made a recommendation on how we might resolve that with a condition to the approval. And that condition of approval is shown in the supplemental staff report on page 2. The applicant may have additional submittals tonight, but in the event there wasn't, we were prepared, hopefully, to deal with that. The final item, then, was an evaluation of the landscape recreation decks for consistency with Tukwila's impervious surface standards. The rest of this presentation focuses on whether the landscape decks are impervious surfaces and counted as part of the project's maximum 50% impervious surface area. However, before I go on to that final issue area, are there any questions I can answer on the first three items? I ROBERTSON: On the Fire Department I read the memo I just lost it again (turning pages in the document). Oh, here it is. The memo dated the 22nd of March deals with two issues: One is the fact that all the buildings, all of the units will be sprinkled because of minimal vehicle I guess fire vehicle access to the structure. The second point it deals with is having a security gate on the underground parking area. What it doesn't deal with is the main question I think that we asked and that was dealing with using the underground parking garage as the turn- around from the hammer -head for the fire truck. And we found that to be unusual. And I don't find that this memo deals with that issue. UMETSU: I asked about this and he was very emphatic that there is sufficient clearance for turning using that hammer -head type configuration for his ROBERTSON: And it is acceptable to drive into an underground parking garage as part of the hammer -head. UMETSU: Right. And actually they wouldn't be driving into it; they would be backing into it and coming on out. The reason that it's sprinkler is because there's not an actual road going all the way around the site. ROBERTSON: Yea, that's a separate issue. I understand that. So what you are saying is that they would be backing into the underground parking garage? UMETSU: That's right. I've taken ah ROBERTSON: OK. I just Is the parking garage itself going to be sprinkled? UMETSU: Yes. And so what they do I'm gonna use this little laser pointer. What I'd appreciate you doing is not turning toward me while we're using it, OK. ROBERTSON: On TV shows someone usually gets shot when they're beemed with that UMETSU: OK. So you're gonna come on in through this driveway (pointing to the drawing hanging on the wall), come up to that point and then back in to the hammer -head that way. And the Fire Department has said that that's sufficient turning access to then exit properly back down. ROBERTSON: OK. Then you've asked them that specific question and they said it was OK? UMETSU: That's correct CRAFT: Joe, did you have a question? COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE: No. I'm just happy with the light. UMETSU: It was at the suggestion Councilman Duffie that we get this. COUNCILMEMBER EKBERG: Good suggestion, Joe. UMETSU: OK. So I'll go on then. The definition of impervious surface and the maximum surface area limitation is shown in our supplemental staff report on page 3. And we've noted the impervious surface definition in 18.46.385 and the impervious maximum area of 50% shown in 18.46.060(d). Two options for treating the landscaped areas of the deck have been proposed at this point: Option one was articulated by Councilman Robertson that the landscaped deck area is an impervious surface because the hard surface structure, underneath the landscaping, prevents or retards water from entering the soil in a manner which duplicates predevelopment conditions as defined in sentence one of 18.06.385. Option two was submitted by Keith Moxon, the applicant's attorney, and is shown in Attachment C. Mr. Moxon argues that the landscape recreation deck The landscape areas of the recreation deck are not impervious surfaces because the hard surfaces in sentence one of that definition apply only to ground surfaces such as those listed in sentence two of that definition. And those would be things like roof tops, driveways, walkways, patio areas, compacted surfaces or other surfaces which similarly affect the natural infiltration or run -off patterns existing prior to development, but not subsurface conditions. The City Attorney has reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant and the staff submittal. And she has determined there is a rational basis for both options and sufficient latitude in the language to allow the City Council to support either one. The City Attorney's conclusions have been submitted under separate cover to the Council. The Planning and Public Works Departments have coordinated an independent review of the impervious surface issue as requested by Council. And this review was oriented in three ways: What are the regulatory impacts? What is the legislative history? What is the intent of that impervious surface provision definition and maximum surface coverage? And, what are the estimated fuel implications? In the field, what does it mean? What do we expect to see? If they put in these landscaped recreation areas landscaped areas on the recreation deck. The regulatory implications are shown on page 2. Basically, we're talking about the recreation areas shown on that deck (pointing to the map). You can see the dashed lines on that posted plan are the parking areas. The green areas shown are the landscaped areas above the deck. All other landscaped areas to the east are over bare ground. Those landscaped green landscaped areas comprise about 8.47 of the site total and would mean that the site itself, if counted as impervious surfaces that would mean that the project is about 7.5 (or about 3500 sq. ft.) over the allowed 50% maximum. This area is equal to about 2.5 stacks of building one and since building one is four stacks, you'd basically lose four stacks of units or about 7 units of the 28. If those green areas are counted as pervious surfaces, then the project would go forward as proposed as satisfying the minimum be in compliance with the maximum 50% impervious surface. Those are the regulatory impacts of the project. What is the legislative history? What is the intent? The intent is has been reviewed based on ordinance #1599, which has been attached in portion. We looked at the findings and the technical basis for the proposal and found that the purpose of the impervious surface requirement was to promote natural vegetated hillsides. It was aquifer recharge was specifically eliminated or excluded as a purpose of the ordinance and in our review of the development, we tried to determine whether or not the proposed landscaped deck areas would function as a vegetated hillside and otherwise generally function as ah, meet the standards of the ordinance. The current hillside area is grassed with blackberries covering, oh, I would say about 50% of the area, or actually about 25% of the area and having about three wild cherry trees and one Birch Tree. The proposed landscaped deck area itself would function have about double that number of trees, including two Evergreen Cedars. So would it function as would it help preserve /promote vegetated hillsides, yes, it would. It also would accomplish the Tukwila hillside development design purpose, which was to allow the landscaping to flow through the project, be located significantly within the project. That landscaped area ties 3 IO together the perimeter landscaping so that it allows the tree canopy to flow throughout the project. The hillside development standards also went further than in defining what is a permeable surface. In there definition of and that definition is included in Mr. Moxon's Attachment C. The hillside standards call a permeable surface anything with a sea run -off co- efficient of .4 or less. Now what does that mean? The sea run -off co- efficient is part of the rational storm water calculation formula. And to give you a point of reference, if that project was totally developed, just totally paved, you might expect to see a .9 -a run -off co- efficient of .9. In its current status as a sloped hillside with slopes between 15 and 33% over about 60% of the site area grassed, no significant trees, berries, you might expect a run -off co- efficient similar to a metal pasture, which is .25 to .35. We would anticipate that the landscaped areas would be similar to a park or cemetery because of the former landscaping, the three tiers of landscaping that is the canopy level, the scrub level, and the ground cover level. And that would be a run -off co- efficient of .1 to .25. Now just before the extreme case, a woodland forest would have a co- efficient of .1 to .2. So in all cases, we're talking about areas less than the .4 standards for permeable surfaces in the technical support document, which was used to develop 1599. We are also talking about the proposed estimating that the proposed landscaping area would actually have a lower run -off value than the existing sloped, grassed hillside. Now, there will be drainage pipes going in from those planters areas. Discussions with the City attorney; I checked out the City Engineer; and the storm water engineer indicate that run -off from that area is expected to be pretty minimal and will not significantly affect the sizing of the overall 'storm water detention vault. And that's even though that recreation deck area encompasses about 25% of the total built surface of the project. And this is due to the landscaped area. We think that the legislative history clearly indicates then that the purpose of this was vegetative landscaping and the medium and large statured trees proposed for the deck satisfy that intent that the permeable surface proposed satisfies the permeable standard proposed by used by the consultants that were the technical basis for the ordinance and that the area, in terms of achieving legislative intent should be considered permeable. Now the questions is ok, what about how will this actually work out in the field? Will we see a lot of run -off coming from that area? Will we will this project affect aquifer recharge even though it's not a purpose of the ordinance? We believe that from our previous statements regarding the run -off co- efficient that it will not most of the rain water going down there, based on all our standard ways of regulating storm water would be absorbed by the landscaping and soil and be retained by the soil. The aquifer in Tukwila, in general, on Tukwila hills, usually about 200 ft. deep, separated from the surface by about two levels of impermeable soils and so we don't really think that it would have, in general, an affect on aquifer recharge. In conclusion, staff has made about nine conclusion and would actually like to amend conclusion nine, which is on page 7. Under conclusion nine it seems to indicate that we should consider impervious surfaces. The test for determining whether anything is an impervious surface is whether or not it exceeds the run -off co- efficient of the pre development site. That's got some good and bad things about it, but we think, to be consistent with the Tukwila hillside standards, which was the technical basis for the ordinance, it should read that: "Impervious surfaces should be interpreted to mean those areas which have a sea run -off co- efficient of .4 or less. Whatever decision is made by this Council regarding impervious surfaces, the Planning Division will be writing up a code interpretation that will be applied uniformly in the future as further clarification of the ordinance. Are there any questions I can answer? HERNANDEZ: Vernon, how many feet of soil can be placed on a deck like that? Ya know, ah It's kinda hard for me to visualize, I guess, how that works. 4 UMETSU: The applicant has indicated that there are going to be the planters will be 3 to 4 feet deep and I'm guessing that the sod lawn areas will be somewhere between fact, I'll let the applicant discuss that, how deep those soil planters will be. HERNANDEZ: And da, how is the drainage addressed as far as the water run -off, then of the deck? UMETSU: You mean the surface drainage of the going on to the I'm sure there will be catch basins and drains in the paved areas. The paved areas will have their own drain system. Any surface run -off going on to the paved areas will then be caught and shuttled off into the system. Most of it will be retained is what our engineers anticipate. ROBERTSON: Attachment E, the only question I have is who prepared it? There's no signature or name on it. It merely says Public Works. And I don't the last time I remember, Public Works didn't write things. Some people do. UMETSU: City Engineer Ron Cameron and Storm Water Engineer Phil Fraser wrote it. UMETSU: I think the applicant would be the better person to answer that. ROBERTSON: Last question just out of curiosity, you seem be very well prepared, how much time have you spent in the last two weeks preparing for tonight's presentation? UMETSU: How much time have I spent? You know, I don't know ROBERTSON: Percentage? UMETSU: Whew!!! You know, it all blurs. I've got about three projects going. But ah 20 hours? 30 hours? ROBERTSON: OK. Thank you. UMETSU: It' not any more than we would spend for any other project in responding to your to the Council's requests. ROBERTSON: OK. To the Council, in general, after reading all the material that was presented here, it's clear to me and that's why I asked the question several weeks ago it was clear that at least what I intended and thought of when I participated in the original ordinance and definition, something different was proposed here. I think that the basis in my mind for both interpretations, I'm satisfied with the interpretation that the proponent has come forward with. I think we need to follow through later and work at this so it's not unclear in the future. But I think that what's proposed here is at least a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance and a reasonable thing to do. So I don't personally have anymore difficulty with it. I 5 ROBERTSON: In the future could we have documentation, especially documentation as part of Quasijudicial Hearing, could it all have a name, signature I don't care if it's signed as long as it has an office name. OK. On the you said the average is 3 to 4 feet, what's the minimum depth of the dirt on top of the parking lot? 40 6 do think, though, that we need to clarify the definition in the ordinance. I would definitely like to see a clarification that talked about depth and things. Otherwise, I can see planter /planting boxes being included in impervious surface calculations and that might be a little bit ludicrous. In a sense, that's what this is, is a large planter box and something has to be Also, basically, fundamentally, it bothers me if we were to pave over, dig in, pave everything and then put dirt back on top and then say that it is the same. But that I guess is for future discussions it's not and but I'm satisfied. COUNCILMEMBER STEVE MULLET: I'd like to say also that I appreciate the effort made to clarify this issue. It did seem rather ambiguous last week two weeks ago It wasn't really the time to sit there that night and try to figure out how it was working. So it's much better to have the prepared material and be able to sit down and read it through. It's an interesting concept. I'm going to be very interested to see if it really works or not and what kind of development it makes. Because it is an interesting concept. ROBERTSON: I do have a somewhat related question on storm water run -off. And if Ron Cameron, in Public Works, worked through it, I guess I'd like to ask him a couple specific questions, since I notice he is here tonight. There is no documentation or nothing really presented at this point on storm water management and how it will be handled other than a oil separator. Would that meet the King County design manual standards and especially since there's no biofiltration implied in a well water separator, does that meet our design standards? RON CAMERON. PUBLIC WORKS CITY ENGINEER: For this project, yes. We spent quite a bit of time reviewing that. The larger surface area is inside and under cover. And if you read a little bit further on it will say that that area is to be connected to the sewer system. So that while the driveway itself has a oil water separator, looking at the drawing it's a very small area, the primary area is all under cover and that's connected direct to the sewer, which is a step above and beyond a coalescing plate separator. ROBERTSON: But the run -off from the roof tops and things like that, from the building itself from the roof CAMERON: We don't treat those. ROBERTSON: We don't treat that so that CAMERON: No. MULLET: Where does it go though, Ron? CAMERON: That will go straight to the drain system. We have unending arguments of ah, ah,....you know, like Cascade School right now is one. The location of the coalescing plate separator or the biofiltration swale and running the roof top and the areas that are hard but do not have any basic pollutants -car or whatever -if it's possible we try to run that unpolluted water direct to the system, down stream of the coalescing or the biofiltration so that we get better life out it. The argument on the other side is that it dilutes it but the general science is to take the drainage that does not need treatment down stream of the biofiltration device whatever it is. That's a common standard MULLET: Does this project have this project does not have a biofiltration device, does it? CAMERON: No, there's no it just it's not like a Denny's parking lot or any of the other apartments where there is a large parking lot area. The parking lot area is under cover so the drain system there will go straight to the sewer. MULLET: Does it have a detention at all to slow the water down before it hits the storm? Does it have any kind of a retarding system to slow the water down before it hits the storm drain? CAMERON: Yes, for all the hard surfaces there will be retention in accord with the King County standards. ROBERTSON: Thank you. CRAFT: Are there any other questions? CITY ATTORNEY LINDA COHEN: At this time either the applicant should make their presentation or if they don't feel that's necessary at least be available to answer any questions the Council may have. CRAFT: So would someone like to the applicant, do you have something you would like to say? KEITH MOXON: Keith Moxon of Buck and Gordon, on behalf of the applicant, I have here with me also Mr. Mark Goldberg, the Owner/Representative; Mr. Lyle Kussman, the Architect; Mr. Shupe Holmberg, the Project Engineer; and Mr. Scott Langford, who's the Project's Landscape Architect. The answer to the question about the depth of the soil cover is up to 3 feet. Some of the mounting of the dirt would be up to 3 feet and the planter boxes have some of that depth to support the larger plantings. The key consideration is the viability of that landscaping. It has to function as a natural landscaping soil cover wood. If it were on hard paint or over utilities sewer lines and underground storage detention vault for storm water there's a lot of things that go on underground that landscaping has to cover in many projects. And the Project Landscape Architect has assured us that if we have at least 8 inches to a foot of soil cover that will function naturally and the average depth of soil probably is in the range of a foot, little over a foot to 3 feet in the grass areas, deeper for the larger planting areas. It has to be a viable landscape covering and those soil depths will insure that. HERNANDEZ: That's what I wondered, what kind of root structure it would take to support MOXON: Right. So where that varies it need deeper soils, right. COUNCILMEMBER TOE DUFFIE: What kind of roof top is this? MOXON: It's a concrete structure. DUFFIE: How thick? )42' MOXON: You'd have to ask the Project Architect, I guess. 10 inches? DUFFIE: 10 inches deep? MOXON: 10 inches of concrete. And that would be subject to detailed engineering review to insure the building permit stage that there will be sufficient strength and integrity to that parking structure. And I'm sure the architects have already been through those calculations when he designed the soil cover on top of that structure. DUFFIE: OK, I'd like to ask one other question and that is what type of steel are you using? LYLE KUSSMAN: Full tension slab. (Speaking without coming to the microphone, very hard to hear). Because there is no steel in normal size that's capable (unclear) DUFFIE: What holds the slab up? KUSSMAN: (Unclear) cables DUFFIE: How thick are the cables? KUSSMAN: They range anywhere from the diameter of an inch and a quarter to 3 inches. COHEN: Mr. Kussman, if you just want to identify yourself for the record. KUSSMAN: Yes, I'm Lyle Kussman, Project Architect. CRAFT: So does that answer all of your questions? HERNANDEZ: What is your proposal to add some visual screening on the east side of the project. KUSSMAN: We have had a chance to review very briefly with the Landscape Architect either of the two alternatives are acceptable to us. And we think probably, at this point, I think the Project's Landscape Architect feels that the combination of a lattice screening and evergreen plantings will provide the most complete and effective screening. But either of those two conditions are acceptable so we would accept a condition that requires either of those to be complied with. CRAFT: More? HERNANDEZ: I do have more but I can take my turn if anybody else wants to ask some KUSSMAN: And that's set forth in item 3, on page 2 of the staff report. Those two alternatives are set forth. And we would agree if that being a condition of approval. 8 9 HERNANDEZ: In the police report, the security recommendation express concern that there be sufficient lighting in the covered parking area, and it gave some minimum lighting level recommendations. Have those been adopted into the proposal? KUSSMAN: I believe the driving regulation the overriding regulation is an energy efficiency standard which sets maximum lighting levels, ironically. And this is the Architect's typical dilemma of trying to meet contradicting and sometimes inconsistent standards. But my understanding is the mandatory standard that can't be overlooked is the maximum illumination in that type of area. And it provides lighting but to very specified levels of illumination for purposes of energy conservation. HERNANDEZ: I'm somewhat concerned about the extent of the height of the railings on the recreation deck. They were established at 42 inches, which is about 3.5 feet. To me that is not very high for children that might be playing on the recreation level. Have you addressed the safety issue there, do you think satisfactorily? I'm a little concerned about that not being high enough for a railing. MAYOR JOHN WALLY RANTS: That's code. HERNANDEZ: 3.5 feet is code? RANTS: 42 inches is code. HERNANDEZ: I'm still a little concerned about that RANTS: I know because I made mine too low and the Building Department HERNANDEZ: But is it for that type of height? I mean, we're talking about I don't know a pretty high space MOXON: The railings are also separated by a landscaped area so that the children will not be able to get right up to the railing not to say that they wouldn't wander (unclear, not using microphone) but it's not convenient for them do that (unclear) HERNANDEZ: Good. Thank you. I think that's all the questions I have for right now. CRAFT: Pam. PAM CARTER: I have a couple of things I didn't understand. I thought that the last time we talked about this, we were told that there wasn't a security gate because of the turn around for the Fire Department. But then in this Fire Department,memo, they talk about how a security gate would be acceptable. MOXON: I'll let the Project Architect respond to that one because he was involved at that background level. KUSSMAN: Lyle Kussman, the Project Architect. Instead of shouting from over there I though I'd walk over. It's just another one of the inconsistencies that we've been fighting from the day P14 that we had the pre -app meeting til last week when Vern called me, we were informed that we could not put a door on the garage. The Fire Department has changed it's mind. Now we can put a door on the garage. We don't have a problem with that, but we couldn't foresee that a year ago. It didn't happened until this past week. CARTER: I thought there was something I was totally missing. The other question had to do with the handicapped access. I think I must have misunderstood. Last time when I asked about handicapped tenants -let's say someone in a wheel chair in one of the handicapped units that wants to go to the sauna weight room children's play area -I thought the response was that they would at their own level at their unit with their parking garage and they would wheel from one parking garage to the other parking garage to take the elevator. But looking at the plans, that's not possible. They are on different levels. What did I miss? KUSSMAN: You are correct, you are correct. And you did misunderstand. The only way that the person in unit B -201, the handicapped unit, Type A under the accessibility, located in the extreme southwest corner of the property, can get to the recreation facility is to go out to his garage, garage #1, the lowest one, go out through the entrance way, up the driveway, reenter the next parking garage, get on the elevator, ride it up a level, and then he's at a level plane to get from he elevator to the recreation facility. CARTER: So they have to go out into the driveway? KUSSMAN: That is correct. CARTER: There is no sidewalk there? KUSSMAN: There is no sidewalk there. CARTER: That doesn't sound very safe to me. KUSSMAN: It's the challenge of the code that we live with. We can't put everything on a flat plane because we're on the side of a hill. It is a legal method to get the person from point A to point B. It may not be convenient; it's not what I would desire, but there are restraints and I can only solve so many problems. CARTER: Well, to me it's less than convenient. To me, It's unsafe. I have a problem with that. KUSSMAN: I think it's probably equivalent to providing that certain times wheel chair access would have to maneuver through an area of a parking lot or between an area of a parking lot to a building it's not intended to put wheel chair users in a high traffic area along the street. The key consideration in those ADA requirements is a maximum grade. And so it wouldn't be allowable to put a wheel chair from a parking area to a building area if it exceeds.... and I believe it's 10% grade is usually the rule of thumb so the driveway can't be 15% grade or that wouldn't meet ADA requirements. But otherwise the code recognizes that there has to be means of passage from areas that have vehicles in them building areas. 10 H6.--' MOXON: We've also provided a second thing as a back up. We've provided an additional handicapped parking stall in the upper garage. So that the person, if he really wanted to go to the recreation facility, could get into his vehicle and drive to the next garage and still be able to meet all of the accessibility ramps and slope configurations. Short of putting another elevator in at $80,000 dollars, there's no other solution to the problem. MULLET: Now that they've changed their minds, do you intend to put a security gate back on or do you intend to just leave it off. MOXON: That option was presented to the owner. I'm going to yield the ground at this point. Mark, I don't know what your final considerations were going to be. I mean we're looking at spending additional dollars again. This thing has gone many hundreds of thousands above where we originally started and now we're talking about adding another $5,000 to $6,000 I suppose. KUSSMAN: Another option rather than locking into any one particular security option maybe to provide some kind of gated entry to provide restriction from vehicles actually getting onto the development site. And I think it would be preferable maybe to leave some of those options to be able to work through with staff and the applicant. MULLET: I was just curious. I wasn't trying to force you into doing something KUSSMAN: No, I think the applicant's receptive to those ideas, but not in a position tonight to commit to a specific set of recommendations. CRAFT: Any other questions? HERNANDEZ: Just, have all of the ADA requirements been met then with this proposal the way it is? KUSSMAN: Yes, as a matter of fact as I informed you last time, the site by itself because of its slope the entire project is ADA exempt. But lenders do not necessarily look at it that way. So we have made the project itself ADA accessible. That means that the handicapped person has to drive onto the site before it becomes accessible. Macadam Road will not qualify as an ADA accessible route. Denny's will, but we can't get them up the hill legally. CRAFT: Any other questions? Thanks you very much. KUSSMAN: Thank you. CRAFT: At this time I'd like to close the public hearing. And we'll have Council questions. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 n.m. COUNCIL DISCUSSION COHEN: I would just call Council's attention to the review criteria under 18.46.112 and Vernon may have handouts for the different factors that Council should consider in deciding whether or not to approve the project. CRAFT: Is it something other than what we have already. UMETSU: It is exactly what you have already, except that it is it just focuses in on the criteria that's in your staff report. Should you wish to change any of the findings and conclusions regarding each of the review criteria, you have something to reference. Alternatively you could just adopt the findings and conclusions in the staff reports as amended. CRAFT: So, we can adopt as amended or we can adopt with changes? COHEN: That's correct. Or add your own or reject them all. The options are to accept the recommendation approve the recommendation of the planning commission, to approve with modification or to reject it. And so far as findings and conclusions, you can direct staff to -if you want to adopt them as is, you may do that or you can direct staff to prepare findings that reflect the decisions and the factors that you used to consider tonight if some of the reasons are different than those set out. CRAFT: Joe? DUFFIE: Yea, I have one thing that I'd like to ask Vern. Vern, you know we've been talking about -what about an earthquake? How is this building built for a future earthquakes and stuff like that? UMETSU Earthquake stability is a function of the building code and I'm sure they will meet the building code requirements. DUFFIE: Okay. MULLET: Since we are not in a regular meeting, I don't know if a motion is in order, but I think we can go around the table and I would suggest that we adopt this plan as recommended by the staff. EKBERG: or the Planning Commission recommendations. With the additional screening required for garage entry. MULLET: With the additional screening required for garage entry. CRAFT: Okay, we have a motion. DUFFIE: I'll second. CRAFT: Second? Discussion? 12 ROBERTSON: Okay, I'll second that, and I will add to that that I would suggest that we tentatively have a consensus to adopt it. This is a COW so we request that the staff prepare a final findings and conclusions for formal adoption next week. So I would amend your motion. MULLET: That's exactly what I meant to say, Dennis. Thank you. CRAFT: Discussion? HERNANDEZ: I would like to suggest just a slight amendment, for discussion purposes anyway, on page 11 in the staff report, it was subject to the following five conditions, number 4 was the trail linkage between the on -site path and the City trail system In our discussion it was focused on a linkage to the 57th Ave stairs, and I would just like to reflect that instead of the City trail system because that was never really adopted in the Park and Open Space plan, I don't believe that trail system was really adopted into it. And that's consistent with our testimony and our recommendations in our last public hearing. And just to amend number 4 to say a trail linkage between the on -site path and the 57th Ave stairs. DUFFIE: I thought they had already agreed to that, didn't they? HERNANDEZ: Right, and that's why I'm suggesting that we word it so that that is part of the wording. It's not worded that way. ROBERTSON: I would second that, I think that clarifies... EKBERG: it clarifies intent. CRAFT: Any more discussion? (no response) So, how are we going to do this? We're not going to vote, so we have consensus then to forward this to the next regular council meeting? ROBERTSON: Yes, with findings and conclusions prepared by staff for us to vote on formally next week.. CRAFT: Okay. ROBERTSON: So, is this issue over with? EKBERG: I guess. UMETSU: Thanks. CRAFT: Will staff be able to have that ready for next regular meeting? UMETSU: I'm told we will. CRAFT: You will? Okay. Thank you. CRAFT: Do you want a break now? 0 13 ROBERTSON: No, I would like to add just a little side note, that this one is basically over with. I think two issues need definite further clarification on ordinances. One of course is the issue of impervious surface, and we discussed that. The second one that still bothers me, and I guess I'd like to see the code in discussion, is this hammer -head turnaround, and using an underground building, a parking lot, as part of a turnaround. I guess I'd like to see that going back to Finance and Safety for discussion with the Fire Dept. I'm still -we go to elaborate extremes for fire safety of all kinds, and I'm trying to visualize a burning building, and driving, perhaps a car or multiple car fires in a parking lot which could occur, and visualize driving the fire truck into that, with smoke and everything else boiling out, and flame, in order to turn it around, and I can't. So while I understand that it has been approved by the Fire Dept., I would surely like to see that issue and some more clarification from the Fire Dept. on it, to the Finance and Safety. I don't want to make it an issue for this development, but I used to be a firefighter, and I sure would not want to be on the tail board of a fire truck backing up into a building at the time. Either that requirement for the turnaround is not necessary, or we need to have some kind of statement about what's acceptable. MCFARLAND: Excuse me, Dennis. I've got both those actions down there, we'll bring them both to you, but for the purposes of this development, the hammer -head turnaround is for the fire truck to exit the building after they have saved the parking lot. It's not for them to make a maneuver to fight the fire, it's for the purposes of not having to back down the driveway when they leave. That's the purpose of the hammer -head turnaround, after things are all over and they're ready to go back to the station... ROBERTSON: That assumes they don't want to move the vehicle at all, right, other than backing it? You mean all these requirements are just so they can conveniently turn a truck around when there's no emergency? MCFARLAND:. That's my understanding. MULLET: That's also my understanding. ROBERTSON: Then I've got an even greater problem because, why don't they just put a couple of firemen in the street? Or a police officer, to stop traffic and back this truck down. I mean they are going to have hoses stretched out, and all kinds of things... MCFARLAND: That's part of our development regulations, requiring a fire truck to be able to turn around to exit a street, cul -de -sac, or any type of hammer -head arrangement. ROBERTSON: I'd like to see this back in Finance and Safety as an issue, I'm bothered now for different reasons. MCFARLAND: Okay. CRAFT: Now are we ready to move on to the next issue? Do you want a break, ten minute break. How long do we have to go, another hour? ROBERTSON: At the most, I think another hour and a half. CRAFT: We could do this update on the Comp Plan and then take a break. Is that fine? ROBERTSON: Weren't we going to get a Comp Plan presentation from... CRAFT: That's what we're going to do now. END OF VERBATIM