1989/12/20 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

535 December 20,1989 V CityCouncilCouncil held two public ty council remanded on the proposal August 2 a negotiate with thee proponents and theopponents. the project to staff to Gnegotiation sessions with .applicant ponents. Staff held five • proposal wasrevised,however h the send n neighborhood,.eeiborh Tdo not agree on the proposal. The revisionsainclude: the neighborhood • . 1. A reduction in densito B2 2. A reduction in buildingtheightD its(allounits9ts are nowper e, ii reduction in the size of the buildings adjacent to the single I 1A family houses to the north. i Greeter setbacks from property to the north(single family Properties). ' 5. Provision of additional recreation facilities. 6. Revised wetland mitigation plan. 2. A conceptual landscapings and buffer plan. a. Building.elevations and floor plans re now proposed. P She then presented copies of letters she had received including on e 1 from Schoolvid Walt.District stating opposed the would rezone. A letter from the Muktlteo t growth impacts of $215.00 accept voluntary mitigation of assistance In obtaining lend from ther eaapplictment in Shea P land or i also a tract recommendation from staff to applicant. the hawording id Sin was the their lette[garding tis letter from Mukilteo ol District as Wildlifepacified in %ttates what Is being done adequately addresses the enironmental which P c s they have. The next letter is from the Dept. of Ecology pppfff e fallowing up a letter that was included in the packet. Three e letters were sent to DOE but this is the first reply received and r they say there should be changes. In the fourth entente states While it seems to us that the paragraph rof project Swill lthe uaus pp 3 av idable adverse impacts an m the wetlands it perhaps s be f unfair, and potentially illegal, to impose our belated on behalf of the the applicant." The last letter is a notice from Jim Allendoerfer to Mitigated Determination Dof Non-Significanwn as ce appealing Do the Addendum proposal. It is ataff.e position that the it n the ordinance does not provide for appealing an addendum, c y�8 SEPq xd3nance Es Hansen, second representing applicant,said he soirees with Mr.Iles and staff that env ironmental review is t necessary mentley quoted Prom the Court of ppetatfor an that hen)rhea'odificatlons.have less impact than thea original t proposal,no review 1s necessary. t He quoted from the Dept. of Wildlife letter stating that proposed mitigation measures for wetland creation, buffers and etormwater treatment adequately address the environmental concerns s they have for wildlife end quality an the site. Proposedbuffers and te supplemental plantings o°native plant species will provide feeding, fleeting and breeding habitat for wildlife using the wetland. SStormwater treatment of grass-lined wales and the detention pond should take iproblems anstandpoint the s degradation of Glenwood Creek. From potential for need for any further environmental review,legal Di ran v there is t , and complete record that will satisfy any legal requirements,adequate Darien Bera oP TM1e Axeliotl Company, future ov oP the protect i showed a ew site plan Poi the protect antl ncanmentetl that the .