Audio
and Summary - HEARING (Closed record council) Aug. 10, 2006 - A. J.'s
Place
(Agenda
Packet for this meeting)
NOTES:
- Although this audio is accurate and complete, for final "official" copies of all agenda, minutes, ordinances, resolutions or other actions, contac the city directly: 360-792-2231.)
- 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
MINUTES - Sultan Council Closed Record Hearing on AJ's Place - August 10, 2006
[Audio
File A, 14:09 min., 2.5 mb] The Closed Record Hearing and Appeal
on the AJ's Place Plat was called to order in the Sultan Community Center
by Mayor Tolson. Councilmembers present: Champeaux, Wiediger, Slawson,
Seehuus, Flower, Blair and Boyd.
Mayor Tolson reviewed the procedures for the hearing. There were no objections
to the Council participation and there were no conflicts of interest disclosed.
Staff:
Rick Cisar,
Community Development Director, provided the staff report. The following
Exhibits were presented for the record:
1. April 17, 2006 Staff Report and Recommendations
2. May 2, 2006 Hearing Examiner's Recommendations
3. May 25, 2006 Applicants Appeal of Hearing Examiners Decision Denying
Motion for Reconsideration
4. April 10, 2006 Preliminary Plans Skoglund Estates
5. Notice of meeting.
The Hearing Examiner held an Open Record Hearing on May 8, 2006, and a Remand Hearing on July 10, 2006 for the AJ's Place Binding Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit BSP05-001. Based on the Findings of Fact, Principles of Law, Discusson and Conclusions the testimony and evidence submitted at the Hearings, the Hearing Examiner's site visit the Hearing Examiner RECOMMENDS that the AJ's Place Binding Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit Development be Approved subject to the 25 Conditions as outlined on pages 27 through 30 of the Hearing Examiner's July 12, 2006 Recommendation - Revised on Remand. The Examiner's Recommendation on page 25 also request City Council to Rule that either (1) A 60 foot wide commercial driveway and median Standard or (2) City Council will grant a modification to the Design Standards and allow a 24 foot wide driveway for the main entrance into the development. The variation in the driveway design to 24 feet will allow for an additional unit to be constructed on the site. The 60 foot wide driveway , as required by code, could potentially create a traffic hazard at the intersection with First Street due to the median requirement to seperate the ingress and egress movements.
The Applicant on, July 20, 2006 submitted an Appeal Request to the Hearing Examiner Condition of Approval #25 (LOS Police Services) on page 30 of the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation. As noted in the appeal, this Condition is inconsistent with prior determination made by the City Council in Resolutions Nos. 06-06, 06-07 and 6-07,and 06-09A.
The City Council, in considering the Development and Appeal request, has the option to follow (1) the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation, (2) the Applicants request (page 2 of Appeal) (3) to Approve or Deny the request based on the Council's own set of Findings and Conclusions. To assist City Council in their evaluation of this project and the Recommendations, Staff has attached the April 15, 2006 Staff Report that provides a project overview.
Applicant:
Dennis Jordan; The applicant would propose using Alternate B for the road design with a 24 foot driveway. This would allow 40 units instead of 39. The ordinance is confusing regarding the process to file an appeal. The appeal was filed on the basis of protesting condition #25 of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. The problem with the level of service for police is not a condition they created, however, they are willing to enter into a developer agreement to provide funding for police services. They are asking to be treated the same as the other plats and under the current conditions, they don't know if they would be allowed to occupy the buildings once they are completed.
Public Input [Audio File B, 2:36 min., 461 kb]
Josie Fallgatter: Thinks the project is great as it provides in fill. Procedurally, the process was not correct. There was an open record hearing and then it went to Design Review and then it went back to the Hearing Examiner. The retention pond is the buffer area of the wetland. The lighting is proposed on the buildings and not streets and this will make it difficult for police patrol. Lighting that is directed downward instead of outward is better. The issue of the fence around the pond has not been addressed adequately . How will wildlife access the buffer if there is a chain link fence around the area? If the wetland is dedicated to the city, it will need to be maintained. Can they afford the maintenance cost of the critical areas? Misleading to say there is greater level of protection. [These last comments can be heard at the end of File C-3 and the beginning of C-4]
Councilmembers:
[Audio File C-1, 11:56 min., 2.1 mb]
Boyd: Asked why the driveway was reduced down to 24 feet.
[G.R.I.T. NOTE: Slawson comment re road width, not recorded in these minutes, is contained within the C-1 audio file. The council comments and discussion as written, are not consistent from a time-flow standpoint; thus, the comments below may not follow our audio precisely.]
Blair: Asked about trash pickup. Expressed concern about the parking and
the dedication of critical areas to the city. The level of service issue
has not been clarified to the Hearing Examiner. Asked if the storm water
will be pretreated before it goes into the retention pond.
[Audio File C-2, 8:05 min., 1.4 mb]
Flower: Agrees
that there should be street lighting. The revisions to the street design
appears to be safer for those accessing the plat.
Slawson: Asked why they did provide additional parking instead of including
an additional unit. Who is responsible for the pond?
Champeaux: The lighting and parking issues need to be addressed.
[Audio File C-3, 9:28 min., 1.7 mb] & [Audio File C-4, 10:46 min., 1.9 mb]
Mayor Tolson: Asked how high the fence around the pond will be since it
is so close to the playground. Who is responsible for maintenance of the
wetlands and streets?
Staff: Rick Cisar advised the street was redesigned for safety reasons. The lighting plan is a condition of the plat however, there will be street lights included. There are 17 additional parking spaces in the plat. The homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance of the wetlands and the streets. The drainage system will have filters and bio-swale system and must meet DOE standards.
Dennis Jordon: Parking is always an issue and the plat is designed to meet code and to have the maximum extra spaces. This is different from other projects the Council have reviewed lately as it is an in-fill project. The Hearing Examiner has modified his position based on the council prior decision with some modification. There are no objections to language in the homeowner covenants regarding maintenance of the open space.
Councilmember Boyd moved to direct staff to prepare all three resolutions with all options for the next agenda, seconded by Councilmember Flower. All ayes.
The hearing was closed.