Audio and City Minutes of CLOSED RECORD HEARING, YORK'S CASCADE BREEZE ESTATES
All files in MP3 format, playable on Windows Mediaplayer or other MP3-compatible digital device.
For more info on meetings and hearings, visit our TRANSCRIPTION page
AUDIO - previous meetings and hearings
Closed Record Hearing - Cascade Breeze:
The Closed record hearing on the Cascade Breeze Cluster Subdivision was
opened by Mayor Tolson. Councilmembers present: Champeaux, Wiediger, Slawson,
Flower, Blair and Boyd. There were no objections to the Council participation
in the hearing. The following disclosures were made by Councilmembers:
Councilmember Blair received an e-mail from Judy and Stan Heydricks outlining
their concerns regarding the Hearing Examiner's opinions and how the council
should proceed.
Councilmember Slawson advised that he received the same e-mail.
Councilmember Flower advised that he is on committees with Mr. York but
has not discussed the projects.
Mayor Tolson advised that he received the e-mail from the Heydricks.
All Councilmembers noted that the information received has not impact
their opinions and they can impartially decide on the matter.
Staff:
Rick Cisar, Community Development Director provided the staff report.
The Hearing Examiner held an Open Record Hearing on April 12, 2006 and
considered a request for the Cascade Breeze Preliminary Custer subdivision,
File Number No. FPCUP05-002. Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions,
the testimony and evidence submitted at the Open Record Hearing, the Hearing
Examiner's site view, the Examiner recommends:
(1) that Cascade Breeze Estates be returned to the applicant for modification
as necessary to
demonstrate compliance with Chapter 16.108 SMC, concurrency management
system, regarding police services and parks, recreation and open space;
and
(2) the examiner would recommend approval of 1) the proposed preliminary
subdivision of Cascade Breeze Estates; and 2) the requested conditional
use permit to allow clustering within Cascade Breeze Estates, both subject
to the attached conditions, if the concurrency problems identified in
the body of the recommendation could be solved.
A request for Reconsideration of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation,
submitted by the City, allowing the Applicant and City to present new
evidence of compliance with Chapter 16.108 SMC, Concurrency Management
System was denied by the Hearing Examiner on May 2, 2006.
The Hearing Examiner Summary, page 12 Number's 17 and 18 read as follows:
17. Police services and parks, recreation, and open space lands are below the LOS standards established within the 2004 Comprehensive Plan as incorporated into Chapter 16.108 SMC. Approval and development of Cascade Breeze Estates will only lower the LOS's even further. The evidence does not demonstrate compliance with either SMC 16.108.060(B) or (C). Therefore, in accordance with the mandate in SMC 16.108.060, Cascade Breeze Estates may not be approved.
18. The City may take one of three actions on a preliminary subdivision application: Approve it with or without conditions; return it to the applicant for modification to correct identified shortcomings; or deny it. [SMC 16.28.330(C)] Since this problem arose unexpectedly during the open record hearing, the fairest solution is to return the application to York for modification.
Applicant:
Garth York advised that he would like to contest the interpretation of
the code as the new annexations provide concurrency for parks. He should
have to take care of the LOS for this development not for the city. The
Hearing Examiner is making his interpretation of the code and the City
needs to make theirs. He is willing to pay impact fees for this development
until property taxes are paid. Requested clarification on the level of
service applies to this project. The Hearing Examiner recommended that
the City address the issue of level of service and they are going to pay
for service on a long range basis.
Public Input:
Josie Fallgatter: Noted that the decision needs to be based on the evidence in the record not on Mr. York's interpretation of the code. Encouraged the council keeps this a livable city and not trade away levels of service. With more people there is more need for police and park services. There are codes that were adopted and they should be enforced.- Garth York: This is an interpretation of the code and he is willing to pay his fair share. Adding officers will provide better protection but it is the city's business to fund the officers, not the developers. The City did not have the required number of officers at the time the comp plan was adopted.
Council Discussion:
Discussed whether the pro-rata share was a part of the hearing and if
the developer agreements address the concurrency issue. Need to decide
what is best for the community and provide long term solutions for increased
needs for services.
On a motion by Councilmember Champeaux, seconded by Councilmember Boyd, the public hearing was closed. All ayes.
On a motion by Councilmember Boyd, seconded by Councilmember Champeaux,
the staff was directed to provide two options for consideration, one with
approval without conditions and the other that accepts and approves the
plat but places a condition on the plat that the necessary public facility
and service be in place with the occurrence of development. All ayes accept
Councilmember Blair who voted nay.