Council MIN 05-17-1990 Special
May 17, 1990
Thursday, 7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
COUNCIL PRESENT
CORRECTED. BEFER TO
MINUTESOF fø/19/90
STAFF PRESENT
PRESS PRESENT
MEETING OPENED
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUNDVIEW MANOR
STAFF REPORT
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
City Hall
Council Chambers
M I NUT E S
Debra Ertel, Mayor, called the public hearing
meeting to order.
Debra Ertel, Mayor, Mary Gates, Deputy Mayor,
and Councilmembers, Jim Handmacher, Joel Marks,
Lynn Templeton and Jim Webster. Councilmember
Bob Stead absent.
J. Brent McFall, City Manager, John Wallace,
City Attorney, Maureen Swaney, City Clerk,
Greg Moore, Acting Community Development
Director/Acting Public Works Director, Stephen
Clifton, Senior Planner, and Chris Green,
Assistant to City Clerk.
Kurt Herzog, Federal Way News, Joe Turner, Morning
News Tribune, and Leon Espinoza, Seattle Times.
The Mayor announced that the public
hearing on the Campus Park plat has been
rescheduled for June 5, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., so
anyone in attendance tonight for specifically that
plat may want to come back on the 5th.
The Mayor opened the public hearing on Soundview
Manor at 7:00 p.m. Soundview Manor Plat File No.
S89PO030. The Mayor asked for any exparte contact
by councilmembers regarding this plat. After some
discussion, no exparte contact was affirmed. The
Mayor then asked the councilmembers and audience
if there are any appearance of fairness conflicts,
of which there were none identified.
By way of explanation to the audience, Stephen
Clifton, Senior Planner, explained that the reason
for these hearings is because of the incorporation
and due to the fact that these applications were
in the King County process at the time of
incorporation, therefore, not being a totally
completed process--that is why it is here instead
of in King County. The first presentation will be
Soundview Manor.
He stated that a Mr. Harold Ransom came to the
cOpy
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
HAY 17, 1990
PAGE 2
QUESTIONS BY
COUNCILMEMBERS
counter and discussed this pr~ject with him. ~is
address is 4254 s. W. 3l4th Street, Federal Way,
and his concern was the drainage and
3l4th Street, and the fact that he did not want
that street to connect into Twin Lakes Subdivision
6, and asked that Stephen express his support for
the conditions that were stated in the hearing
examiner's report requiring that 3l4th not connect
to the adjacent subdivision. On page 5 of the
staff report, regarding condition #28--in
discussion with Mr. Clifton's supervisor and the
city attorney, the report should be changed to
read: "to maintain the private portion of the
drainage system and open space." On page 6, first
paragraph, last sentence, should be changed to
read: "If Soundvie~.¡ Manor Homeowners Association
and/or property owners fails to pay, the City is
authorized to place a lien on the lots included
within the plat". On page 7, VI. Schools--Mr.
Clifton spoke to Mr. Rich Hamlin of the School
District and faxed him the information included in
the staff report--Mr. Hamlin reviewed the
information, called Mr. Clifton back and reported
that the information set forth in the staff report
is correct and accurate and the school district
concurs with it.
COUNCILMEMBER MARKS asked Stephen Clifton about
required maintenance of the plat by the
homeowners, as well as the fee in lieu of.
COUNCILMEMBER WEBSTER also questioned those
subjects. Mr. Clifton explained that the
homeowners would be given adequate notice to
correct the maintenance problem prior to the City
actually going out to correct the problem and
charging the homeowners for the maintenance fee.
Per Stephen Clifton, regarding the fee in lieu, it
is based on the assessed value at the time of
approva1--that would be a May 1990 fee.
COUNCILMEMBER WEBSTER also questioned if the
school district had looked at the route of travel
for students in the area, i.e., bused, walk along
Dash Point Road and 47th? Mr. Clifton explained
when the project is completed the school district
feels there will be direct routes to the schools
in the area and really didn't have any objection
regarding this subject. The junior high students
in the area would be bused to Lakota Jr Hi.
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER asked about fire
access--specifically Tract A, which is a private
driveway access. Per Stephen Clifton, that will
be paved to 26 feet in width and our fire official
didn't have any problem with that, nor did he have
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
HAY 17, 1990
PAGE 3
APPLICANT
PRESENTATION
any problem with the dead end on Lots 10 and 11.
Also, on intersection of 44th Avenue--Handmachcr
wondered about the potential for straightening
that intersection and bringing it to a "T" at the
corner and connecting it with the road on the
other side of the street--has anyone checked on
the feasibility of that? Mr. Clifton did discuss
that with the City's consultants and they
suggested with the existing situation, that that
is the best location. MAYOR ERTEL asked about a
bike trail being set aside in the area. Stephen
Clifton said he did discuss that WSDOT has the
power to veto or override the City's requests.
MAYOR ERTEL also asked about there not being an
onsight detention system. Mr. Clifton said he
would have the applicant's engineers address that
subject. COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER asked about the
interpretive sign along the edge of the
NGPE--since Tract B isn't going to be a part of
that, it would appear that the best place to put
it would be on 3l4th at the northend of Tract C
instead of Dash Point Road--and staff might want
to amend page 6, paragraph 3. STEPHEN CLIFTON
STATED THAT STAFF HEREBY RECO~fMENDS THAT THE SIGN
BE POSTED ON SW 3l4th STREET DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF
TRACT C.
Joel Haggard, attorney for applicant, Rodger
Overson, introduced the engineer, Bob Scholes,
who can answer any detailed questions. Attorney
Haggard read and explained the five conditions set
out by the staff report: condition 1, page 8, has
been reworded and they concur with condition 1 as
reworded; condition 2 has been recommended with a
slight revision of the language--they concur;
condition 3 recommends that Tracts F, G and H be
made part of Tract C--they concur; condition 4 on
the fee in lieu of--he would like to offer as an
exhibit with one explanation--the fee in lieu of
calculation; they have used the King County form
that they go through and since they are less than
ten acres, and, as a result of that, the ordinance
would not require them to provide recreation or
pay the fee--nonetheless, the hearing examiner
went one step beyond and said, in this case, they
would require it even though King County
recognizes that there is a large potential play
area associated with the development and the
school to the south. They did not appeal that
even though, as a matter of law, they weren't
subject to it. Going through the calculation--and
this is based on 1988 assessed values (he is not
sure, but thinks 1990 values would be much
higher)--in 1988 the result would be a payment of
FEDER~L WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 4:
approximately S14,800--they don't care who they
pay it to--it's up to the council. With respect
to condition 5, they also concur with that. One
of the Councilmembers asked about the access
across Tract E to 3l4th for children walking
through that area--as shown by the map there is a
very short distance from that end of the
cul-de-sac to where 3l4th ends now--they have
absolutely no objection of putting in an 8-foot
paved walkway connecting the end of the cul-de-sac
across Tract E to the terminus of 314th--he thinks
that would be totally appropriate and they would
have no objection--they will volunteer to do that
whether it is recorded as a condition or not. As
far as the utilization of Tract D for active play
area--the topography and the record indicate that
that is a steep slope, a type of swale area, and
he is not sure how many kids would want to play
there, but he doesn't think they would want to
actively encourage people to play in that
particular area. With respect to the access
location on Dash Point Road or State Route from
43rd Avenue, the record indicated that based upon
sight distance spacing and other matters this was
the optimum location where it is proposed, subject
to perhaps a slight variation of a few feet either
way. The staff report provided tonight indicated
that as well. With respect to 44th Avenue S. W.,
the City may wish to do something about that in
the future, he would concur with the inference
from the City Attorney that that isn't something
the developer is causing or that it is a direct
result of the developer. He thinks it is clear in
the record that Tax Lot 16, which is in the
corner, has just had a new house built on it, plus
two other existing houses, and he doesn't think
they will take too kindly to having a road run
through the middle of their houses--it is maybe
something to be alerted to and be concerned about
and they would recommend that, but as far as their
plat is concerned, he doesn't think they will
concur and he doesn't think the neighbors will.
Also, there was a question about whether there is
retention/detention--lIyes", retention/detention is
definitely required on this site--the condition
from the hearing examiner even specifies the
release rate--you don't have release rates unless
you have retention/detention. It will be provided
on Tract C just south of S. W. 3l4th, so the
retention/detention drainage requirements are all
integral to not only the specific conditions here,
but also the general SWM requirement.
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 5
QUESTIONS BY
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER: Asked what Tract D is
being used for. Attorney Haggard referred the
answer to Engineer Scholes. Per Scholes, he
referred Councilmembers to Attachment 1 of staff
report to the hearing examiner, which is part of
the original drainage plan submitted (right after
page 13 of the staff report). There are three
drainage basins that affect this plat; Tract D, in
looking at the topography, is a swale that comes
down, where they will be picking up some drainage
coming off the school and provide some
biofiltration. MAYOR ERTEL asked what is the
width of Tract D? Scholes estimated it is
approximately thirty to forty feet wide. Tract C
is part of the drainage that comes out of the
school and used to come down in back of some lots
in Twin Lakes. Again, Tract C is a swale, and
there is the very same soil in this area, but
there is no stream per se. Based on that, they
have proposed for S. W. 3l4th Street to construct
a dam in Tract C to back the water up into that
Tract against the road section and release it back
to Tract D and biofiltrate down through that
area. THE MAYOR also asked where it goes after it
crosses Dash Point Road? Scholes referred the
Council back to Attachment l--there is a culvert
that crosses to the right of Tract B and goes down
north and then turns and goes easterly down
through the houses we talked about before.
Scholes called the Council's attention to the
examiner's report dated February 14th on page 5,
conditions 15 and 16--it talks about detention and
release rates; you will note that they are allowed
to discharge 50% of the two year, 24 hour storm,
so they are not even releasing 50% of what is
going down. On the ten year, 24 hour storm, they
are allowed to release the two year rate; and in a
100 year storm, they are allowed to release the
ten year rate, so they have very severe
restrictions on the amount of water they will be
releasing. JOEL MARKS: Asked about the 4th
condition--what changes does the developer want to
make since their plat is 9.7 acres and doesn't
fall into a ten-acre situation. Attorney Haggard
responded that they are not disagreeing with what
the examiner is requiring and that they are
willing to go with the current fee in lieu of rate
when that is determined. LYNN TEMPLETON: In
layman's terms, Tract C is basically a fairly
steep ditch, is that right? Engineer Scholes
asked the Council to go back and look at
Attachment 1 again--you will note on the westerly
side that this is a swale carved out for logging
years and years ago--if you walk the area, you
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17. 1990
PAGE 6
will see the steep area where cats ran up and down
and as a result of that steep west side there is a
shaded area which is a 40% slope. COUNCILMEMBER
TEMPLETON asked about in the event of a severe
storm couldn't that area be full of water.
Scholes responded that it is a very small basin
and it will get some water in it down by the road,
but back up further, in the area of Lot 26, it
won't. COUNCILMEMBER TEMPLETON also asked about
fencing to keep young children out of the area.
Per Scholes, under King County requirements if it
will be over eighteen inches deep in a storm.
TEMPLETON said he would like to have it safe for
children eight years of age and older. Scholes
explained that during a storm and right after
there would be some water in the basin, but most
facilities don't have water the majority of time.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Mayor opened the meeting for public comment
and invited anyone interested in commenting on
this particular plat to please come up to the
podium, giving name and address, spelling last
name for the record, and limiting comments to
three minutes, if possible.
Ron Zaffino, 4332 S. W. Dash Point Road, Federal
Way. He lives directly across Dash Point Road
from where the proposed access area is scheduled.
He has several concerns, one is the location of
the access road because of the extremely blind
corner at Hoyt Road and Dash Point Road. Another
concern is the run-off from Tract C--it might wash
his house away. Also, there is a bird sanctury
and other wildlife in the area and he is concerned
about causing problems with them.
Mark Davis, 3l204-44th Avenue S. W., Federal Way.
He accesses his property off 44th Avenue S. W. and
he owns all the right to the corner--straightening
out 44th would go across his property. It is not
good for anything else--there is drainage that
runs from that corner down between Ron Zaffino's
property and his property. Allowing him to access
from the left side would be to his advantage--he
doesn't know what the grade is on the proposed
43rd from 3l4th, but it looks steep and if so
there would be nothing to keep cars on icy roads
from going into Ron's house. He feels it would be
best to put the road in an area that would not be
detrimental to property owners, as well as being
safe for vehicle travel.
Harold Ransom, 4254 S. W. 3l4th Street, Federal
Way. As he understands it, this plat is going to
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 7
be referred back to the County. His question is,
who has the responsibility to meet all the
conditions--is it the County or the City? And, if
the conditions aren't being met, who will they
complain to? Per Greg Moore, this plat is on the
liB" list, so it is the County's responsibility.
Per City Attorney Wallace and City Manager McFall,
they encourage anyone who has a problem with
compliance to contact the City first. Attorney
Haggard also invited anyone having any problems
with the plat, to contact the developer, Rodger
Overson. He feels that it is the fastest and best
way to handle any problems.
Brian Lair, 4326 Dash Point Road, Federal Way. He
lives just north of Ron Zaffino. His major
concern other than those of Ron's and Mark's is
the fact that there is no greenbelt proposed
between Dash Point Road and the houses that align
Dash Point Road. He feels the natural beauty of
the area should be retained. He feels there
should be a buffer between the road and the
houses. Attorney Haggard responded that King
County requirements do not require buffering
between single family residences.
Leah Kruger, 4220 S. W. 3l4th Place, Federal Way.
She lives due east of the bottom corner of
Soundview. When they moved in two years ago they
were told
that that area would remain a greenbelt and never
be built on. Below Dash Point Road is a bird
sanctuary and is reserved by the State--is that
correct? Per COUNCILMEMBER WEBSTER that is a
County owned park. What can the residents do as
citizens to stop building in this beautiful area
and save it for our children, birds and animals?
MAYOR ERTEL responded saying that the Council
shares her concern and in the code written by them
addresses that considerably, unfortunately, this
is under King County code and that is one of the
things the Council is addressing now. At this
point there is nothing that can be done to stop
this development--the point of the hearing tonight
is to address the concerns of the citizens.
PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED
Mayor Ertel closed the public hearing.
STAFF RESPONSE
Stephen Clifton reported that city staff
concurs with the applicant's recommendation to
provide an a-foot access between S. W. 314th
Street on subject
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 8
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
CORRECTED. REFER TO
MINUTES OF (¡; I/<¡/e¡ ()
CORRECTED. REFER TO
MINUTES OF ~/J9./9ð
7-8 MINUTE RECESS
MEETING
RECONVENED
property and S. W. 314th Street on Twin Lakes
subdivision 6.
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER: Now that the Council
has heard that the potential is there for
straightening out the problem at the intersection
of 44th and possibly forming a true intersection
to this subdivision--knowing that that leg of it
is a possibility--in terms of traffic flow, has
our traffic enginneer had any opportunity to
consider whether or not that would be a more
desirable traffic flow--to have a cross
intersection at 44th? Mr. Clifton responded
saying that would definitely be a desirable
traffic flow, the only thing is, whether or not it
can be done and should it paved by the
applicant--can it legally be done. City Attorney
Wallace addressed the issue, stating mitigation
needs to address the impacts of the development it
is creating. COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER further
asked Mr. Clifton if this should be referred back
to the staff to consult with the traffic engineer
about the feasibility of connecting that up and
some appropriate conditions into the plat approval
to accommodate doing that. Mr. Clifton directed
the question to City Attorney Wallace for
response--he responded the staff has the ability
to remand back for further investigation regarding
the relocation of the entrance roadway or you can
hold it up here and request that information be
brought back to the Council at a continuance of
the hearing. COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER stated that
he has no problem doing it as a continuance, so
that they don't have to schedule another hearing,
but it seems that the Council has received new
information tonight and is sure it is also new to
the staff in terms of the availability of that
connection, which wasn't available before. City
Attorney Wallace requested a few minutes to confer
with applicant's legal advisor.
Mayor Ertel called a 7-8 minute recess and
announced the Council would reconvene at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor Ertel reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
City Attorney Wallace said the Council could come
up with a condition that would require the
relocation of the entrance to the west with the
proposed realignment of 44th Avenue S. W.,
requiring 44th Avenue S. W. to access Dash Point
Road at a 90 degree angle. There needs to be a
timeline as to when the determination is made, and
whether or not they are going with those
alignments. Upon discussions with staff, they
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17. 1990
PAGE 9
felt that August 15th would be a reasonable period
of time to make that determination--if the
relocation or realignment cannot occur, then the
proposal would be allowed to go forward with the
access point as indicated. To determine whether
or not realignment can occur would require a
commitment from the property owner across whose
property the realignment would have to go for the
acquisition of the property and would require
WSDOT concurrence for those realignments, and
funding for the realignment on the north side of
Dash Point Road would have to be identified and
available, and the intersections of the roadways
would have to be constructed concurrently, so that
we wouldn't end up with one in place before the
other. If that proposal is acceptable to the
Council, he can put that into a worded condition
because, in any event, we would have to bring it
back in the form of a resolution at the next
meeting. COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER asked if it
would be worded similar to what is already there
for WSDOT approval for the bicycle path--if WSDOT
approves it, its in, if for some reason they do
not, it goes back to the 43rd. City Attorney
Wallace explained that if WSDOT approves it, plus
the commitment for the acquisition of the
property, plus determination, availability and
funding. Per COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER: and it
would not come back before the Council? City
Attorney Wallace responded "yes", the Council
would make the ultimate determination that it is a
go or no go on those conditions--you will decide
the funding--the plat would not have to come back
before the Council. COUNCILMEMBER TEMPLETON: he
is concerned that the Council is not addressing
the point made by the resident, Mr. Zaffino, in
terms of the run-off, he indicated that the
washing out of his house was a concern, and he is
also concerned about that and would like to see
that addressed. Per Stephen Clifton, he responded
that the staff did run this concern by the
consultants, Wilsey & Ham, and they did state that
the conditions which were applied in the hearing
examiner's report and recommendation were adequate
to handle the drainage and run-off. The
conditions which were applied were pretty thorough
and strict, and he felt comfortable with those.
COUNCILMEMBER GATES asked City Attorney Wallace if
there is some possibility of having a bond posted,
so if the house is gone there is some way of
making amends for that type of thing
happening--she doesn't want another resident to
look at a house being washed out. Per
Wallace, if it is the responsibility of that plat
FEDEPAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
Pù~LIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 10
which causes the washout to occur. there is
liability that goes back to the owner or
owners--that is a natural drainage swale near
there and he thinks what the City has to do is to
make sure that there is adequate retention and a
sufficiently reduced outflow drain to prevent an
accelerated or greater run-off than would have
occurred if the property had not been developed.
MAYOR ERTEL said maybe the question is what's in
here is adequate to meet King County standards,
but does the Council and does Wilsey & Ham feel it
is adquate to actually prevent any future
problems--there is a difference between the two of
them? Per Stephen Clifton, the consultant was
comfortable with the conditions which were applied
and the fact that they had met or addressed
Federal Way's concerns. Per COUNCILMEMBER
HANDMACHER: in reviewing the examiner's decision,
it is a pretty stringent release rate that they
are requiring--much more than you see in most--it
is a laO-year storm drain, which is far beyond
alot of these projects. COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER
also brought up the issue of the greenbelt that
was addressed--he is very sensitive also and is
tired of seeing all these plats built that strip
out the trees, put up a fence and say that that
buffers both the neighbors and the passing
public. He is wondering if the Council can do
some type of a natural vegetation, and maybe the
applicant can volunteer, some sort of natural
vegetation buffer even if it isn't required by
King County code, along the north boundary line of
the property, understanding that the property
owner at some point may want to fence their
property, but he doesn't think it should be done
by the developer as a part of the
development--they are Federal Way's buffer along
major highways, and he is wondering about imposing
a condition to that effect. City Attorney Wallace
responded that under State law the Council has the
ability to see that there is adequate provisions
made for open spaces; with respect to the
northend, you need to know if there is essential
grading that has to be done there, that it
obviously is not going to make provision for
leaving existing native growth.
HEARING REOPENED
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER requested the public
portion of the input be reopened to address
additional questions to the applicant.
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER said he would like to ask
the applicant about the feasibility of doing that
and why that can or cannot be done. Per
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 11
applicant's attorney, "no", they won't
volunteer--they have already volunteered to accept
the $14,000 or x number of dollars for a fee in
lieu of even though their facility is less than
ten acres in size. There have been no findings in
the record that established that an appropriate
provision is required as a matter of law with
respect to that. There is a grading and widening
requirement with respect to the road, but he
doesn't think they would have any objections with
that part of the plat including 15-20 feet of
trees along the northern boundary, but they can't
control the property owners on that, so they
wouldn't be able to accept that as a plat
condition. They would voluntarily withhold taking
out of any specimen trees within 15 feet, except
as needed for grading, or otherwise, and the
installation of infrastructure. COUNCILMEMBER
HANDMACHER: you would not agree to doing it as a
condition, but the applicant would agree to do
this? Per Attorney Haggard, they would agree,
except for necessary grading and for installation
of infrastructure to retain specimen trees within
15 feet of the northern property boundary.
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER asked why they won't
agree to that as a condition--what is the
distinction they are trying to draw? Attorney
Haggard responded that what they are trying to
suggest is that the record for this particular
proceeding doesn't establish the authority to
impose that type of condition--they are sensitive
to the Council's concerns and they are willing to
volunteer that as part of their proposal.
COUNCILMEMBER GATES asked about the area on Tract
E that leads to 314th, upon which the applicant
offered as a path, as it has some significant
trees on it and she would be very uncomfortable if
such a path caused some significant trees to be
lost, and is wondering if they can ask the
applicant to have that path meander to avoid that
problem. Attorney Haggard said the developer
totally agrees, and what he suggests since there
has already been a condition suggested that they
have agreed with, that the Council simply add
language to read, in a location and manner
acceptable to Federal Way staff.
HEARING RECLOSED
The Mayor reclosed the public hearing on Soundview
Manor, and asked the Council if they are ready
for a motion at this time.
MOTION TO APPROVE
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATION, WHICH, AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, INCLUDES
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 12
THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY TH£ EXAMINER, STAFF
RECOHMENDATIONS AS AMENDED BY STAFF TONIGHT, AND WITH
THREE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS: (I) MEANDERING PAVED
WALKWAY CONNECTING TO 3l4TH; (2) CONNECTION OF THE
PROPERTY TO DASH POINT ROAD ACROSS FROM 44TH, WITH THE
GENERAL LANGUAGE RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND;
(3) A FIFTEEN FOOT NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT
ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARD PROPERTY, SOUTH OF THE
DEVELOPED PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF THE ACCESS ROAD. MOTION SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER TEMPLETON.
DISCUSSION
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER explained that when he
said south of the developed portion of the
right-of-way, that means to the extent that they
are putting in curb, gutter and sidewalk, etc.--it
would start from there. CITY MANAGER McFALL
explained that there may be installation of
utilities and other items in the right-of-way that
would require removal--he is only speculating at
this point because he doesn't know, but that is
conceivable. COUNCILMEMBER R~MACHER stated that
there have been good reasons stated here tonight
for that IS-foot native growth easement because of
concerns expressed by the neighbors and since the
impacts of this type of development along this
road are environmental impacts, this would further
serve to mitigate those. COUNCILMEMBER TEMPLETON:
he is still not real comfortable with Mr.
Zaffino's concerns on the run-off, and he is not
sure how to address those other than to indicate
to him that there are probably some people here or
at the County that could put his mind to rest--he
is not sure how to address those needs and he
feels they are significant. There being no
further comment or discussion, MAYOR ERTEL called
for the vote. ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
RESOLUTION
The resolution for adoption will be brought back
to the Council for approval on June 19, 1990.
5-MINUTE
The Mayor announced that there would as-minute
recess before commencing the public hearing on the
Campus Ridge plat.
PUBLIC HEARING
CAMPUS RIDGE
The Mayor opened the public hearing on Campus
Ridge at 9:15 p.m., and asked that the record
reflect that Councilmember Stead has arrived.
Campus Ridge Plat File No. S89POOl6. Mayor asked
for any exparte contact by councilmembers
regarding this plat. After some discussion, no
exparte contact was affirmed. The Mayor asked the
councilmembers and audience if there are any
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING HEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 13
STAFF REPORT
QUESTIONS BY
COUNCILMEMBERS
appearance of fairness conflicts, of which there
were none identified.
Stephen Clifton, Senior Planner, reviewed
his written staff report dated May 17, 1990. He
pointed out that the developer cannot exceed 24
maximum lots. Page 4, paràgraph 1, Condition #17,
has been amended to read as follows: "The
Homeowners Association and/or property owners of
Campus Ridge shall have an ongoing obligation to
maintain (cross out entire and replace it with)
private portion of the drainage system and the
open space. The last word of the same paragraph
(property, shall be crossed out and replaced with)
lien on the lots included within the plat. With
regard to schools and overcrowding--once again Mr.
Clifton had a discussion with Mr. Rich Hamlin,
Assistant Superintendent of Federal Way Schools,
and he addressed the issue in regard to
overcrowding the same way he addressed that issue
in the Soundview area, in that their top priority
right now is the redefining of boundaries and
basing it on current student densities. So, at
this time Federal Way School District is not
saying they cannot handle the students generated
by this plat. The City of Federal Way Department
of Community Development staff recommends the
subject subdivision be granted preliminary plat
approval, subject to conditions as listed in the
Hearing Exaiminer's Report and Recommendation to
the County Council on 2/28/90, and in addition
recommends the further conditions as stated in the
City of Federal Way staff report dated 5/17/90.
JOEL MARKS: Asked about which school children in
area would attend since Silverlake is already
overcrowded even though Mr. Hamlin has indicated
that there would be no overcrowding problem.
JIM HANDMACHER: In looking at the lot sizes--at
least half of them are under 7,000 sq ft in
size--how is that possible? Mr. Clifton responded
saying that he has questioned King County
representatives about the same thing and according
to them, and due to the fact that under King
County regulations they are allowed to use areas
dedicated to the road as part of the lot sizes.
Under Federal Way codes we do not allow that to
take place. Councilmemher Handmacher would like
confirmation that, in deed, that regulation is
true. Councilmember Handmacher would also like to
ask City Attorney Wallace if the City has the
authority to deny a plat due to an identified
impact on schools, i.e., overcrowding. John
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 14
Wallace responded "yes", however, there must be
evidence in the record that indicates that there
is not adequate room.
JOEL MARKS: He asked if, in deed, there was
overcrowding, would the children be bused to
another area and where that school would be, and
if there would have to be additional funding
through a bond to institute adequate busing.
City Attorney Wallace explained that he has
cautioned councilmembers about testifying as
witnesess--you cannot be a witness to overcrowding
or not in schools. You can only go by what is in
the record, not what you feel or what you have
heard--only what is in the record.
LYNN TEMPLETON: He does not see any dedication to
active recreation or open space, is that correct?
Mr. Clifton responded that that is correct--they
are paying an in lieu of fee--once again, that was
their option under King County regulations. Mr.
Templeton asked if we know what that fee is?
JIM WEBSTER: Asked if the City has any authority
to change that in lieu of fee?
City Attorney Wallace advised that the city does
not have to accept the in lieu of fee--the
developer can opt to attempt to take that route,
but if the city or county would rather have the
space, they do not have to accept the in lieu of
fee.
JIM HANDMACHER: Is the wetland area considered
open space? Attorney Wallace responded 'no", as
it is not useable and does not satisfy that
requirement.
MARY GATES: Can the city ask the developer to
dedicate one lot to at least function as a pocket
park for the West Campus area? City Attorney
Wallace responded that under the zoning code there
is a limit of 5.5%. Councilmember Gates then
asked Mr. Clifton had identified the public parks
available to the West Campus area. City Manager
McFall warned that at this stage to require a lot
to be dedicated as a park when we don't know the
implications for maintenance and operation and
cost to the city, so he would caution about
imposing that type of requirement--and that the in
lieu of fee is designed to allow the city to
develop a park system that is in compliance with
the city's comprehensive plan that takes into
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 15
APPLICANT COMMENT
account the maintenance and operation costs--that
isn't saying that you can't do it, but just need
to be aware of all areas. Mr. Clifton explained
that the Hearing Examiner felt that he or she did
not have the authority to impose that requirement,
however, he does not know if the council has that
authority.
JIM WEBSTER: He has some questions in that same
area, but will hold those questions until the
applicant makes its presentation.
MAYOR ERTEL: Asked Mr. Clifton where the 600
lineal feet of biofiltration will be provided.
Mr. Clifton responded: it is along the rear
eastern property line. She asked about the gentle
grass line swale, which Mr. Clifton explained.
Attorney Jerry Lutz of Perkins, Coie, is
representing Graecean Construction, the
applicant. He would first like to address the
school issue--as the council knows, this used to
be a school site and the school district itself
has indicated no objection or problem that would
be caused by the project. As to open space, the
King County code provides an election to pay a fee
in lieu, which the developer has made. Under the
King County code the wetland area does not count
as their open space, but it does significantly
impact the developability of the remainder of the
property and as the developers' ability to use the
property was limited by its desire and need to
protect the wetland--they took advantage of the
opportunity presented by the King County code to
elect a fee in lieu of in dedication of open
space. King County code also provides for lot
averaging, which is the question that
Counci1member Handmacher asked
about--interestingly, the Federal Way code
provides an alternative method of lot averaging,
which is its cluster subdivision ordinance. Under
Federal Way's code as he reads it, the wetland
would count as their open space and would give
them the ability to lot average, so that these
lots would also meet the Federal Way code under
Section 16.240. The remainder of the issues will
be addressed by their consultants present. They
have no objections to the proposed conditions in
the City of Federal Way's staff report, except as
to the language of suggested Condition #3 amending
Condition #17 in the Hearing Examiner's report.
This is the proposed condition that has to do with
maintenance of the private drainage facilities and
open space. The requirement that they maintain
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 16
the open space here is a little confusing only
because of the interplay between King County and
Federal Way codes and what they think of as open
space under the King County code and what has been
referred to by Mr. Clifton as open space in his
presentation. They feel it would be improper and
unfair to the homeowners association on this plat
to impose an obligation that they maintain the
wetland area, in that it serves as a drainage
facility for a number of roads in the area and the
plat to the east, and since the wetlands are
suppose to be left untouched there shouldn't be
much maintenance involved. The only problem could
be trash dumped in from the street or a severe
storm causing excessive water., Their suggestion
is that Condition #17 be amended as to this plat
to adopt the language Mr. Clifton suggested, but
delete the reference to open space. One point
that should be clarified--Mr. Clifton read the
conditions that were imposed by the King County
Hearing Examiner with respect to drainage--in
particular, on page 3, section b, regarding
Condition #8 of the PSR requires full compliance
with drainage provisions set forth in King County
Code 9.04 and current storm drainage requirements
and guidelines. That issue was specifically
addressed in front of the hearing examiner and
staff noted that when the word "current" was used
in that report it meant the 1979 standards as
opposed to the 1990 standards because when the
application was made, the 1990 standards were not
in effect. So, to avoid any confusion when the
council is making its decision, they want to point
out the difference in those standards.
Jeff Mann, Pac Tech Engineering, 6100 Southcenter
Blvd., Tukwila. His company designed the
preliminary plat. They have created a 100'
setback, which is a native growth protection
easement. They have exceeded the Federal Way
standard with a 15' setback. Their lots range
from 70' to 75 '--again very similar to the lot
sizes in the neighborhood, so the streetscape
remains pretty much the same in the area. The
homes in the area range from 7,700 to 8,300 sq
ft--70' x 110' or 70' x 115'. The frontage and
depth of these lots would be equivalent to others
in the area. The lots in the plat range from
6,200 to 10,000 sq ft. A fence will be provided
along the protection easement. With regard to lot
averaging, he has Ordinance No. 8642, which was
adopted by King County and is the lot averaging
ordinance. It states that for RS7200 sq ft lots,
that in multiple lot subdivisions and short
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 17
subdivisions approved subsequent to the effective
date of title, which is February 17, 1988, the
minimum lot areas shall be deemed to have been met
if the area in the lots, plus the area designated
for permanment open space or recreational uses and
all onsite areas to be utilized for streets,
divided by the total number of lots is not less
than the minimum lot area required in the zoning,
etc. He stated that they are consistent with
those requirements. Jeff Mann furnished the
council with handouts regarding roads and lot
averaging for tax purposes. He also pointed out
that they are giving 5.5 acres of open space, and
reviewing the allowance for clustering in Federal
Way's subdivision ordinance, this would seem to be
an appropriate use of that cluster to have some
lots that are under 7,200 sq ft to offset the
large open space area provided. Regarding the
issues of wetland preservation and storm drainage,
they are providing at 600 ft long biofiltration
swale along the boundary, as well as a fence along
that area, which none of the other plats in their
area have provided. They are being very careful
about protecting the wetland area during
construction.
JIM HANDMACHER. Regarding the biofiltration swale
that runs along the eastside of the
properties--which side of the fence is this on?
Per Mr. Mann, it is on the residential side of the
fence.
MARY GATES. Are you basically using the wetland
for your retention and detention, just like the
other parts of West Campus? Per Mr. Mann, they
have done some studies on the wetland and also
design on the system that will improve the water
quality of the area.
Tina Miller, wetland biologist, of Shapiro &
Associates, 1400 Smith Tower, Seattle. They were
hired to do the wetland delineation for this
site. They did their field visit in April 1989,
at which time they flagged the appropriate wetland
boundary and assessed the conditions of the
existing wetlands. They have reviewed their
findings with King County. They have identified
three different vegetation classes within the
area. The recommendations of a 100' buffer and
fence is to protect the wetland.
JOEL MARKS. If there is another storm like we had
in January 1990, which was a 100 year storm, how
would that impact this area? Per Ms. Miller, if
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 18
there is another 100 year storm event, there would
be a rise in elevation of water level because the
only way it is getting out of the system is
through evaporation. There is no surface water
exit. First, the biofiltration will treat the
water in the system and then having retention area
holding the water and also designing a dispersion
method, so that it is closer to an infiltration
process. The dispersion mechanism is such that it
is put into the ground and spred it out, so it
would sheet flow over the top and have a chance to
infiltrate into the ground and enter more as a
ground water supply than a surface water supply.
That is helpful for not disrupting the water
changes in the system.
MARY GATES. Is this dispersion within the swale
set up? Per Ms. Miller, after the water quality
treatments--first you have 600 feet of
biofiltration--King County studies show that they
request 200 feet, so an additional 400 feet over
the studies is being allowed. Then the retention
area is designed to sheet flow the water instead
of exiting it into culvert, so the retention water
is being spred out providing it some chance to
infiltrate the soil.
Brian Herron, Director of Engineering for Pac
Tee. One of the guidelines King County asked them
to do since they are adjacent to a 100 year
wetland area is to determine the impact of their
development in 100 year storm event on the pond.
They took a look at county records back 10 years
when surrounding subdivisions were developed and
looked at their storm water generation. They
found some errors in their calculations on the
approved plans that they actually underestimated
the storm water that would go into area. They
corrected those errors and increased the amount of
volume that was generated by the associated plats
and also their plat under a 100 year storm event
and found its impact on the wetland area. They
found that under the 1979 guidelines that they
could qualify for direct discharge just as
everyone else has plats going into the detention
area because their impact was not significant to
the open space. The pond area varies--some being
about 8" to l'2"--or in that neighborhood. They
and the adjacent properties are sitting about 15'
above that. Based upon the county regulations,
they qualify for direct discharge, and then their
only direction under code standards would be the
quality of water. They have justification under
the code standards of both the county and the city
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 19
PUBLIC COMMENT
to release them from such storm retention and t~rn
that into other areas. All the systems they have
proposed are all developed to current King County
standards and will be dedicated to the public for
long-term maintenance, including the storm
retention facilities.
JIM HANDMACHER. If these grassland swales are on
either side of the fence, what is to keep the
property owners from landscaping or in other ways
degradating the area? Per Mr. Herron, the
applicant, as directed by the county, has put
covenants on the land to assure for the
maintenance and it is the responsibilities of the
homeowners to maintain that drainage swale. In
addition, the Federal Way staff has recommended
that if this does not happen, then the city has
the authority to go back in and maintain the area
and charge the homeowners. The county has a whole
chapter dedicated to swales that provides them
guidelines and specific requirements on how to
develop swales, and they have maintained those
requirements.
Bob Curtis, 32628-7th Avenue S. W., Federal Way.
He represents West Campus Division III Homeowners
Association, whichbounds the plat on three sides,
north, south and west. Their concerns are as
follows: (1) losing large area of open
space--want larger area designated as open space,
i.e., the use of the retention area and lots 23
and 24, to allow for parks, etc.; (2) want plat
approval to be consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood lot sizes; (3) want a natural growth
buffer easement along west and south sides of
plat, as it adjoins lots in their plat; (4) would
like final plat amended to reflect that there
would be a mandatory homeowners association for
the plat for maintenance of pond area and fence to
make sure it is policed properly and be included
as a condition in the final plat itself; (5)
concerned about drainage, especially with respect
to the southend of the plat--specifically the area
immediately south of lot 14, they have a number of
houses (especially lot 84) which is across the "L"
shaped open space is definitely going to be
impacted by water run-off; and (6) concerned about
the pond area itself during construction--would
any problems be discovered during the contruction
period or would it be discovered at a later date,
which would present both the neighborhood and the
city with a much more difficult problem. They are
also concerned about adequate sidewalks in the
plat. He did ask city staff if this plat is on
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 20
the "A" list which would mean that their future
concerns would be directed to the city? Per
Stephen Clifton, yes, unless it is routed back to
the county for their review for further conditions
to be applied. They would also like to preserve
as many trees as possible. Theyare concerned
about grading in area--do not want clear cutting
allowed.
JIM WEBSTER. Asked about homeowners association
in West Campus Div. III. Mr. Curtis explained
that they have approximately 50 members in their
voluntary association, but they feel this plat
should have a mandatory requirement because of the
open space areas and the fence. Councilmember
Webster asked about lot 84, which Mr. Curtis
explained is a "big pit", and then goes back up to
lot 14.
Larry Brown, 32213-7th Avenue S. W., Federal Way.
His concerns are: (1) would like clarification
about maintenance of the area in that it should be
shared by not only the homeowners in the proposed
plat, but also other neighbors in the area; (2)
having worked 22 years as a teacher and watching
the overturn of superintendents in various school
districts, he thinks they are not always very
competent in making decisions regarding certain
figures about what is happening in their
schools--he suggests that figures should be
obtained through other sources.
Grant Thompson, 32227-8th Avenue S. W., Federal
Way. Has grown up in this area, has attended
schools in Federal Way and knows first-hand of the
overcrowding and knows that it is definitely a
problem. He is concerned about open spaces being
destroyed--he has spent lots of time in the
wetland and pond area and wants other children to
have that opportunity in the future. He knows if
they begin construction, there will be no birds or
animals left in the area--there won't be any
nature areas for people to enjoy.
Mark Best, 701 S. W. 323rd Street, Federal Way.
His property is lot 15 that is adjacent to the
plat being proposed. His lot measures about 1/3
of an acre and he can subdivide into two lots. He
is annoyed by the fact that his development and
the development directly east of him were
builtunder one set of guidelines--9,600 sq ft
lots--that means you have a lot 9,600 sq ft. This
one is alittle different--you get some concrete
here and alittle bit of swamp there and that is
FEDEP~L WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 21
your lot. He feels that this plat should at least
meet the minimum size and same conditions of the
adjacent properties. He is also concerned about
the overcrowding in schools.
Ted Reimer, 32610-7th Avenue S. W., Federal Way.
His property is on the southern border of the
proposed plat. He wants to retain the green trees
and wishes the lot sizes were consistent with
others in the area. Even though the excess water
in this area is suppose to drain into the pond,
following our past winter storm, the Cowan
property (corner property off 7th Avenue S. W.)
had over a foot of water in their back yard and
required a pump for at least 24 hours.
Pat Finch, 609 S. W. 321st, Federal Way. She
lives just north of proposed plat. She is fairly
new to area and would like to know what is the
original boundary of the wetland and what animals
are in area. She is concerned about additional
traffic and wants to know how they have come up
with their figures for the traffic problems in the
area.
Don VanNote, 215 S. W. 327th, Federal Way. He
walks area alot and is concerned about
developments. He is concerned about lot
averaging--if he understood it correctly, a 6,200
sq ft lot can actually be taxed as a 7,200 sq ft
lot--or did he miss something. If that is the
case, if people buy those five lots he hopes that
they will be told that they are paying for the
street and sidewalk under their taxes. He asked
that the council and developer be more sensitive
as to buffer zones and trees. He also urged the
council to get more complete information from the
school district. Is also concerned about how many
more plats of this type are grandfathered in
because of King County. He feels we need more
parks in area and is also concerned about added
traffic from new developments.
Eileen Stauss, 32636-7th Avenue S. W., Federal
Way. She is speaking for herself, as well as
representing Mr. Hinkley. She has been reviewing
plat map and many of the lots are under 6,900 sq
ft. Everyone else in area have 9,600 sq ft. She
asked the council to do the following: (1) stick
to the lot sizes; (2) resurvey wetland areas for
protection; (3) personally view area; (4) listen
people about schools; and (5) review fee in lieu
of open space.
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HE&~ING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 22
Barbara Gardner, 309 S. W. 321st, Federal Way.
Lives in West Campus Div I. She and some of the
her neighbors have discussed the following: (1)
want native growth protected; (2) biofiltration
system required; (3) lot sizes not being
compatible with those in area; (4) who will
maintain buffer zones; (5) schools in area are
overcrowded--optimum number of students for
elementary schools is between 550 and 600
students--Silverlake is built to accomodate a
maximum of 600 students and when she testified in
November, they already had 550 students. She
works at an overcrowded elementary school with 750
students and she knows there is an adverse impact
on those kids, the structure, the staff and
facilities.
Chuck McCaslin, 324l3-6th Avenue S. W., Federal
Way. He and his daughter are concerned about the
trees that are being destroyedin Federal Way. He
has been a resident of Federal Way for
approximately 14 1/2 years--this area for 9
years. They are concerned about the wildlife,
schools, busing and traffic.
APPLICANT
RESPONSE
Tina Miller explained about wetland boundary and
the existing conditions. Mayor Ertel asked that
she give any interested persons her business card,
so that she might explain in more detail about the
wetland classifications. Also, that staff could
answer any questions that might go unanswered.
Attorney Lutz explained that lots in area are
7,200 sq ft and they used the lot averaging under
King County code, and they are smaller than the
surrounding 9,600 sq ft lots. Their lots do
comply with code despite the fact that everyone
seems to be focusing on the fact that these lots
are smaller. In the context of the entire
property that is proposed to be developed there is
alot of open space. The point of allowing
clustering and lot averaging is so that you can
protect, as a city, significant environmental
features, such as a wetland, and still not condemn
the property and take the entire thing--you are
trying to strike a balance between development and
protection of these natural amenities. He wants
to make the point that they do comply with the
code and are doing their best to protect the
wetland. As to schools, this has been addressed
both during the SEPA appeal and the hearing before
the hearing examiner, and there is simply no
evidence that this plat is going to impact any of
FEDERAL WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 23
the schools, as the schools themselves have said
they have space available for the students--in
fact, they surplused this property and sold it for
development. As far as the traffic issue, it was
addressed in both the SEPA appeals and the
preliminary plat hearing and it was not identified
as a problem. The drainage meets the code and 100
year/24 hour storm with or without that detention
pipe that they are planning to install in the
retention area. And, to address the tree issue,
which was very significant to people--he thinks
Councilmember Handmacher brought up that question
earlier as well--during preliminary plat hearing
the staff at King County had been concerned that
there was going to be mass grading as a part of
this development and the spot grading where
utilities and streets are placed during initial
grading, but the lot clearing for individual homes
is left to a later time and was specifically
designed to prevent clear cutting and was designed
to allow each of those lots to figure out how to
configure the houses and to protect trees rather
than just going in with one mass grading plan to
figure things out.
COUNCILMEMBER STEAD. Is it correct that there are
sidewalks only on one side? Per attorney Lutz,
that is correct--on the side away from the
wetlands because those lots are smaller in size.
Councilmember Stead's other question was what
about the swales. Mr. Herron responded that they
have been directed to put together a scheduled
construction and one of the first items is the
concentration of swales and the erosion controls.
Attorney Lutz also mentioned that one final point
that they do have a restriction on the initial
clearing that is imposed as an additional
provision to protect the wetland, which they
should do the initial clearing and grading only
during the months of April thru September, which
is a restriction imposed on the development of the
plat.
MARY GATES. She is very knowledgeable about the
wetlands and a long time ago when she first
started working with them-- and she appreciates
the fact that the developer is very specific about
the wetland description--it helps to have a few
surveys of wetland edges, especially when you are
dealing with a unique #1 wetland, which this one
happens to be. What she is concerned about, is
the fact that they have one delineation of wetland
edge and she is real uncomfortable about it. Not
because she doubts their expertise, but because it
FEDER~L WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING
HAY 17, 1990
PAGE 24
PUBLIC HEARING
CLOSED
STAFF RESPONSE
COUNCIL QUESTIONS
was an entire team that mapped the Hylebos wetland
edge, which was made up of many more people--here
is another #1 wetland area and we are taking the
word of one person, qualified as she may be,
hired by the developer, which doesn't make her
very comfortable.
Mayor Ertel closed the public hearing.
Stephen Clifton reported that the city staff
maintains it original recommendations as reflected
in the staff report, and that does include the
maintenance of open space and the drainage system.
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER. Asked about the 5.5%
open space, which applicant proposes to contribute
by virtue of fee in lieu--do we have the
discretion to require that as actual on-site open
space and refuse to accept it as fee in lieu? Per
City Attorney Wallace, under state law, it
requires city to look and see that adequate
provisions are made for open space and that would
be your first choice--in lieu of fee is simply an
alternative. Councilmember Handmacher asked if
the 5.5% a figure set by King County code as to
the amount of open space, not fee in lieu--if they
provide open space on-site, is it required to be
5.5% of the site? Attorney Wallace said he would
have to check on that. Councilmember Handmacher
asked City Attorney--in King County staff report,
as well as the county examiner's decision, a
statement that it is anticipated that the
elementary school (meaning Silverlake Elementary)
will be at capacity and new students may have to
be bused to another location or other measures
taken to alleviate overcrowding--is that a
sufficient factual basis for the council to deny
the plat on the basis of the impact on the
schools? Attorney Wallace advised it is his
opinion that they do not have sufficient evidence
on the record at this point to sustain based on
the testimony received at this time.
Councilmember Handmacher referred to a letter
received from the school district and asked staff
if they have anything else from the district. Mr.
Clifton responded that that is the only response
received from the district other than a telephone
conversation he had recently.
COUNCILMEMBER WEBSTER. Asked if the council has
the ability to continue this hearing and ask the
school district to come in and provide updated
FEDERÞ.L WAY CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HSARING MEETING
MAY 17, 1990
PAGE 25
MOTION TO
CONTINUE HEARING
DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
information for the record? He also has concerns
about the open space and potential play area.
COUNCILMEMBER WEBSTER MADE THE MOTION to continue
this hearing to May 29, 1990, to obtain a report
from an official representative of the school
district to address the problems brought out, as
well as having city staff look at the property to
see whether or not there may be an adequate area
that could be set aside for adequate public
recreation opportunities. SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER.
COUNCILMEMBER GATES AMENDED THE MOTION to include
an update on the traffic analysis and would like
some wording on a tree preservation stipulation
for the area; COUNCILMEMBER MARKS SECONDED THE
AMENDMENT.
COUNCILMEMBER HANDMACHER asked about the tree
preservation. COUNCILMEMBER GATES explained that
she would like to have spot grading defined in
terms of preserving the trees--also buffer zone on
the south side, which could be a tree preservation
issue. She would like the staff to review and
report back to the council on this issue.
Staffmember Clifton asked councilmembers
to clarify whether or not they want an actual
recommendation from the school district as to
whether to approve or deny the application, since
the person he talked with earlier stated that the
school district is not in a position to recommend
approval or denial of a project--he can bring that
up to the district personnel, but not sure if they
can respond to that question.
VOTE ON AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED.
ALL AYES.
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION.
ALL AYES.
MOTION CARRIED.
There being no further business to come before the
council, Mayor Ertel adjourned the meeting at
11:25 p.m., noting that the public hearing on
Campus Ridge is continued to June 19, 1990, at
7:00 p.m., coun~e:, City Hall.
~~
N. Christine Green
Assistant to City Clerk