03/24/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Allen said this request was approved by the Planning Commission on February 18, 1980. Allen introduced Greg Byrne who would make the staff presentation. Mr. Byrne said the property is 73.7 acres which was recently partitioned from a larger tax lot which extends south into the county. The elevation varies from 700 to over 1,000 feet, and three prominent hills are on the property. The slopes vary from 10 to 50 percent. The site is currently undeveloped with the exception of BPA power lines. The site would be used for a planned unit development. Mr. Lieuallen said he had several questions regarding available services. He said the staff notes stated on page 4 that a minimum level of services could be made available. He said he assumed the justification for the project is a shortage of buildable lots and affordable housing. Mr. Lieuallen said that they are not talking about affordable housing but fairly expensive hillside lots. It stated that the service provision includes school capacity and that a task force has been formed earlier by the school district. Now the task force has been disbanded. He wanted to know the impact of the development on the schools. Mr. Lieuallen noted the County Sanitarian stated this is a critical area for water and individual sewage disposal. The annexation would be recommended only if city water and sanitation were available. EWEB has requested a reservoir site. Mr. Lieuallen asked if that was correct. Mr. Byrne said, as a part of the PUD process, the Hearings Official would determine that services were available before development would occur. EWEB has stated water services would be available if they had access to one acre for a reservoir. Mr. Lieuallen said it seemed as if a lot of hopes were being based upon the determination of the Hearings Official. Ms. Miller asked which staff notes, January 22 or February 18, should be accepted since there seems to be a contradiction. Mr. Byrne responded that the staff notes of Janaury 22 were the initial staff report to the Planning Commission, but the adopted findings were those being presented at the public hearing. Ms. Miller asked if the notes from Janaury 22 were from the Planning Department and the notes from February 18 were from' the Planning Commission, and Mr. Byrne responded that that was correct. Mr. Haws asked if adequate fire protection was available. Mr. Byrne said a second level of review would be given before any development could occur, and approval would probably hinge upon a satellite fire station. Mr. Haws asked if this development would be subject to PUD procedures. Mr. Byrne responded that this was correct if the PUD suffix is attached. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: David B. Williams, 975 Oak #600, representing Goldington Associates, stated this request is for a phased development. He said that a summary of the Planning 3/24/80--9