Resolution 3197 - Laserfiche WebLink

000008 Bay Ridge Development Order May 26, 1989 Page -6- 17. Petitioners inquired as to whether handicapped parking has been made available and reference was made to Conclusion #11 which concludes that a detailed landscaping plan is required for the aesthetic enhancement of the site. The petition for reconsideration does not clearly address the relief sought. 18. The petitioners submitted that the mitigation measures of the E.I.S. are not new and because of the slope and building placements, the sight distance is still questionable at the access to S.R. 527. It is noted that as a condition of approval there are restrictions of sight distances and improvements for turns. 19. The petitioners submitted that the impervious surface areas in the western portion of the property make:_it impossible for waters to go to grassline swales. They also submitted that there is not sufficient open space for their creation (recreation building ten feet from the highway right-of-way). These are engineering issues that will be more fully addressed at the time of development permits. 20. Request #20 has been addressed above. 21. The petitioners submitted that the Army Corps of Engineers "should be contacted to determine if the northeast corner wetland is permitted for the purpose of a trail. This is outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. 22. The petitioners questioned if highway right-of-way dedication is insufficient, will there be room for tapered lanes when the highway is widened. It is presumed that the Washington State Department of Transportation will adequately address this issue and provide the necessary relief. III. Jeanine Oudeans 1. Ms. Oudeans submitted that an Environmental Impact Statement should be done on the project. In her petition she submits arguments to support her contention. The issue for a need for an Environmental Impact Statement is not before the Hearing Examiner and no action is taken on the petitioner's motion. IV. Dorthy Vandeventer 1. Ms. .Vandeventer submitted concurrence with the Silver Lake Action Committee's request for reconsideration that has been addressed above. In addition, she submitted that Finding #26(A) was an incorrect statement of her testimony. She contended that the average daily trips on S.R. 527, 1990, was 20,549 and not 23,054 as set forth in Finding #7. She contended that the 23,054 would be a more realistic figure. The record will stand corrected with these figures. 000042