Loading...
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