Sultan Council Closed Record Hearing - York's Steen Park Audio

Audio and City Minutes of CLOSED RECORD HEARING, YORK'S STEEN PARK

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

Steen Park Council Closed Record Hearing - May 11, 2006

Closed Record Hearing - Steen Park: The Closed record hearing on the Steen Park 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 impacted their opinions and they can impartially decide on the matter.

Staff: Rick Cisar, Community Development Director, advised that the Hearing Examiner held an Open Record Hearing on April 12, 2006 and considered a request for the Steen Park Preliminary Custer subdivision, File Number No. FPCUP05-003. 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 Steen Park subdivision 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 Steen Park; 2) the plat modification for cul-de-sac length; and

(3) the requested conditional use permit to allow clustering within Steen park, all 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.

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 Steen Park 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, Steen Park 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.

Read Order denying reconsideration paragraph 3 into the record.

Discussion was held on the Level of Service for police and park services and how long the city has been below the required level. Other applications were approved under the prior Comp Plan which had a different level of service requirement. Further discussion was held regarding developer agreements, concurrency, the need for residential development to encourage business, funding issues and how the level of service was determined. Thom Graafstra, City Attorney, advised the Council that they must make their decision based on the record from the hearing.

Applicant: Garth York advised that he was disappointed that Hearing Examiner did not accept the reconsideration request. The Hearing Examiner did discuss a developer agreement for another project for police services and the parks issue has been addressed by the recent annexation. The code addresses facilities, not services and the exemptions include anything that does not require a SEPA. Was not aware that the level of service was an issue because it was not addressed in any prior projects. Is willing to pay his pro-rata share of the cost for service until taxes are collected as the code does allow for developer agreements.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Josie Fallgatter: The level of service exists because the council adopted the comp plan and the concurrency exists because council adopted the ordinance. Mr. York was impacted by this decision but he was given erroneous information about the LOS when he submitted his application. Code is what it is and it does have a concurrency section.
Garth York: He believed that the Level of service was addressed in the 1994 comp plan. In regards to the park issue, with the addition of the annexed property, that issue goes away.

Discussion:
Brief discussion was held on the annexation of the park property. Josie Fallgatter challenged the discussion on the matter as it was not part of the public record as the annexation occurred after the hearing. Staff advised that the information could be entered into the record if the matter was referred back to the Hearing Examiner.
Discussion was held on the level of service and concurrency requirements. Thom Graafstra, City Attorney, advised that if the application was returned to the Hearing Examiner, then additional information could be entered into the record to show concurrency. Other hearings that have been held in the past two weeks have demonstrated that concurrency can be met. All other conditions of the plat have been met and the Council can accept and grant plat approval, deny, recommend changes or refer the matter back to the Hearing Examiner.
Further discussion was held on developer agreements and the fact that the City can not require them and the need to proceed with caution. The issue of concurrency and who is responsible for providing for the services needs to be resolved by the Council.

On a motion by Councilmember Boyd, seconded by Councilmember Champeaux, 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.