1

City of Bellevue 1 Planning & Zoning Meeting 2 2-20-18 Full Transcription 3

4

Paul Hopfenbeck: (laughter). 5

Levi Sali: Um, okay [inaudible 00:00:07]. Um, I'm going to call to order the Bellevue 6 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Tuesday February 7

Levi Sali: 20th 2018. Um, notice and hearing compliance per the hearing notice. Still 8 running on the same notice back since we just, okay? Um, let me see what stuff 9 is, is saying, um, we need to vote on the hearing (cough). On this one do we still 10 need to vote on the compliance one? 11

Diane Shay: Um, you guys continued it on the record. 12

Levi Sali: Okay. 13

Diane Shay: Um, you, you can if you want to, it's- 14

Levi Sali: I don't really want to. We've already done it, it's the same hearing. (laughs) Um, 15 old business approval of minutes from the February 5th 2018 meeting. We have 16 a motion to approve minutes for the February 5th 2018 meeting. (clears throat) 17

Richard Boullon: I will make a motion to approve minutes, February 5th 2018. Second? 18

Jil Schmidt: Can I second? 19

Levi Sali: I don't see why not. 20

Jil Schmidt: Okay, then second. 21

Richard Boullon: They were good, they were good. 22

Jil Schmidt: They were good? 23

Richard Boullon: They were good. 24

Diane Shay: Okay. 25

Richard Boullon: Real good. 26

Levi Sali: Um, okay, all in favor say aye. 27

Collective: Aye. 28

2

Levi Sali: All opposed, nay. Okay, uh, new business continued from the January the 2nd 29 and February 5th Strahorn conditional use permit, planned unit developments 30 and preliminary plats. 31

Rick Allington: I have uh, one issue to raise. 32

Levi Sali: Okay. 33

Rick Allington: On, uh, February 16th, um, Diane Shay sent out an email. The purpose of which 34 was to- 35

Diane Shay: Mm-hmm (affirmative) 36

Rick Allington: Figure out, using our forms for meetings down the road to address this 37 application. 38

Levi Sali: Mm-hmm (affirmative) 39

Rick Allington: Um, it's one the commissioner Paul HopefenBeck, in addition saying he wasn't 40 going to be here today, stated that uh, um, uh, he would not vote to approve 41 the CP until there are comprehensive current studies completed on traffic 42 waters, sewer, and a plan for curing liability and plan structure. For the 43 intention of frequency of Bellevue, not just for phase one, but direct impact 44 throughout phases. That was clearly um, a violation of open meeting law and 45 uh, those kind of deliberations. 46

Rick Allington: I think, uh, the applicant would like a chance to respond, give them a chance, or 47 any questions for the commission that was directed to in a similar way, we can 48 not, you know, address the actions in creating that. 49

Levi Sali: Okay. 50

Levi Sali: Um, I guess in light of that, with the key taking evidence of this room, and then 51 Terry's sort of rebuttal and response to that? 52

Kathy Clark: Kay, excuse me just a moment. I really, really need everyone to speak clearly 53 and loudly tonight, 'cause I'm not able to hear real well tonight, so thank you 54 very much. (laughter) 55

Levi Sali: Kay. In light of, uh, council of looking at that email we were advised to, I guess, 56 ask the applicant if there was any sort of response to that, so I guess I'll ask that, 57 um, real quick, is there any sort of response to that, or, I'm assuming applicant 58 saw it because it was on the (pause) CC list. 59

Jeff Pfaffle: Well, unfortunately, Jeff Pfaffle (clears throat), uh, unfortunately Jim is at a 60 meeting in Hailey, but so, I mean, I feel we're not going to go so far that it's 61 going to impact anything at the moment, so if we just sort of duly note that this 62

3

occurred, and perhaps, you know, have Jim weigh in on it in the, uh, the next 63 meeting. 64

Levi Sali: Um, I'm fine with that, as long as it's disclosed. Is there anything that's going to, 65 and for the record, nobody else responded in that email except Mike, Mike told 66 him not to do anything. Nobody else responded to it, so there's no discussion or 67 decision made in the e-mail, but it's, is there anything that stops us from, in light 68 of that, moving forward if everybody decided to? 69

Rick Allington: No, I just think it needs to be brought out, and that remediated some [inaudible 70 00:05:27] 71

Levi Sali: I think if we brought it out and discussed it. 72

Levi Sali: Kay. 73

Levi Sali: Okay, voting on is fine. Jil? Are you okay with proceeding forward, or do you feel 74 that- 75

Jil Schmidt: Yeah, I, I didn't even see the email response from Paul, I just saw yours stating it 76 was in violation. So- 77

Levi Sali: Anybody else have any comments from the commission about what, the email 78 says? 79

Richard Boullon: I don't have any issues with it. [inaudible 00:06:01] 80

Levi Sali: If we're all on the same page moving forward, I guess, with not allowing that to, 81 um, persuade anyone. Okay. So. Uh, if we're all okay with that, we'll pick up 82 where we had left off. Uh, uh, last meeting we had gone through and kind of 83 looked at these, over the whole list for the, uh, (pause) sorry, conditional use 84 permits. Um, there were some of them that we had signed off were okay. 85 There's a couple, maybe that we had some question marks, um, we did get a 86 (pause) response and clarification on some benchmark associates, uh- 87

Diane Shay: If we might maybe, um, if you just want to turn it over, uh, to benchmark, or 88 excuse me, to Jeff when he's talking about the new commission. 89

Levi Sali: Kay. And sooner, let's- 90

Diane Shay: 'Cause there were four findings, that, that you guys didn't fully, you needed 91 more information, and they provided more information. 92

Levi Sali: And this came from them, from wanting to sell us (clears throat). 93

Paul Hopfenbeck: Benchmark is the city engineer. 94

4

Levi Sali: What, yeah, so I guess (laughter), we want to benchmark you guys a copy from, 95 uh, Galina, you guys got a copy of this? 96

Jeff Loomis: We did, yes. 97

Levi Sali: I mean it's bold, this information, and this is from our city engineer, so is all of 98 this sort of. 99

Jeff Loomis: Uh, Jeff, Jeff Loomis, for the record. Um, after the last meeting, there were 100 some additional items requested, particularly with regards to traffic, sewer, 101 water, and, uh, pedestrian activity. So, um, we the applicant did submit some 102 additional information to the city in response to that request. Um, the history of 103 the traffic study that was performed, which I, well, the history of the traffic 104 study was performed, an exhibit that showed pedestrian activity, and then 105 some additional information with regards to sewer and water, I believe. Um, 106 that information was reviewed at a meeting with city staff, and then benchmark 107 issued the letter that you're talking about. 108

Levi Sali: Okay, but that's- 109

Levi Sali: This is information that you guys gave to benchmark, and benchmark came up 110 with this memo we've got tonight. 111

Jeff Loomis: We gave it to benchmark and city staff, so the other thing on the letter, um, that 112 I eventually picked up on, was that there was a statement with regards to safe 113 routes to school. It says the route continues (pause) from the end of the existing 114 multi-use path at 8th Street along Cedar street to connect, connect to existing 115 infrastructure at Cedar and 6th. It says there is no pedestrian infrastructure on 116 Cedar Street between 6th and 8th, but there is a, there is an existing path 117 between 8th and 7th along Cedar Street, just to clarify that, or contradict that 118 statement, I guess. 119

Levi Sali: I'm sorry, but can you say that one more time? 120

Jeff Loomis: So it's the last, it's the last para- yeah, where it says no pedestrian infrastructure 121 on Cedar Street between 6th and 8th. There is an existing path today that 122 connects 8th to 7th along Cedar Street. 123

Levi Sali: Okay. 124

Jeff Loomis: So I feel like that statement is incorrect, and I just wanted to note that. 125

Levi Sali: Okay. I actually drove down that, um, gosh, what would it be, I guess it's 126 Slaughterhouse gulch, Road, and there is an existing pathway, and it looks like 127 it's got a crosswalk that goes across, I believe it's 8th, and it kind of takes a jog 128 onto Cedar Street. 129

5

Jeff Loomis: Yeah, it's on the south side of Cedar from 8th to 7th, and then you connect 130 down the hill. 131

Levi Sali: But there's nothing from, uh, would it be 7th, I guess, making that connection. 132 Now, I know there's a couple barriers. 133

Jeff Loomis: Well, there's the street there. 134

Levi Sali: Yeah, there's a street there that's been blocked off that's open to pedestrian 135 traffic, but not any sort of vehicles. Okay. Yeah, this is. 136

Kathy Clark: Yup, that was the end, but it wasn't printed, sorry. 137

Levi Sali: Um, kay. Thanks. Um. To benchmark, then, is there anything that you needed to 138 add or permits as far as this, I know this seemed to answer some of the 139 questions we had, sort of going on last- 140

Dave Patrie: No, I would just say with regards to that pedestrian infrastructure that the point 141 of that memo was that where the barriers are placed on either side, there's two 142 driveways, and so, the point was is that that really essentially serves, almost as 143 an access for two homes, it serves as a driveway, and that until the city knows 144 what it wants to do with that closed section of the road, that we weren't 145 prepared to make any sort of recommendations for the pedestrian 146 improvements there, but it was to imply it was relatively safe pedestrian access 147 because it's not a through-road. 148

Paul Hopfenbeck: Um, just thinking back into the, and it was a while ago when we did that. When 149 we looked at Cedar Street, is there, or we as a community looked at that and 150 basically said that's no longer going to be a street. I can't remember the exact 151 term for, uh, that. 152

Levi Sali: [crosstalk 00:12:47] 153

Richard Boullon: Yeah, they came in when we did that. That was a while ago. I think that was 154 (pause) I thought we did. 155

Diane Shay: I, I don't know the answer to that. I'll have to look into that, but- 156

Levi Sali: I feel like it was, though. Okay, that might be something we take a look at with 157 the stats so that, I thought I remembered we had that specific meeting about 158 Cedar Street, we could close it and take the barricade off on that. Now this was 159 years ago, in part that was the traffic going down past the school, we decided 160 that that needed to be, I, I can't remember for sure, it was just something. Um, 161 (clears throat), um, in any case, whatever the status of that gives us something 162 we probably want to come look at in light of the safe routes to schools, because 163 if we are, the way that this sidewalk is proposed, it going out through there, I 164 just want to make sure that that's what the status is, just for clarification, 165

6

because if we're going to deem that as a safe route to school. Um, we need to 166 know for sure, so. 167

Levi Sali: Um, kay. Uh, conditionally these permits enter the valuations. Uh, do we need 168 to go back through the ones that we okayed, or are we allowed to move on 169 from those? I'm assuming we just pick up on D, because that was one of them 170 we were looking at. Are you guys good to go with that? Jil? Kay. 171

Levi Sali: Um, standards of valuation, B, uh, will be harmonious and important to general 172 objectives with any specific ordinance or comprehensive plan for this ordinance. 173 Uh, this first one that we kind of got stuck on, um, with the transportation 174 benchmark letter has answered the questions that I had as far as the traffic 175 study and whether or not that was still relevant. We looked at the numbers that 176 we got from benchmark's um, uh, (pause, forced air through teeth), go through 177 here. It seems like the latest, greatest data on it was actually less in 2016 than it 178 was in 2006, so it seems like that (cough). 179

Levi Sali: Jil, did you have anything to? 180

Jil Schmidt: Um, I didn't. 181

Levi Sali: Okay. 182

New Speaker: (Typing on keyboard sounds) 183

New Speaker: (Long silence) 184

Diane Shay: Maybe, um (clears throat) you guys should just recap these findings from A 185 through J, and um, (coughing), make, make some solid comments on your 186 findings. 187

Levi Sali: Um, so I guess we'll just go, go back through this um initial use permit stands at 188 a valuation, uh (pause) uh A for effect, constitute the conditional use of this 189 established zoning district and home. Um, where we had looked at this one last 190 week it seemed like every, or last week, last meeting, um, that everybody gave a 191 nod on it, so the property is zoned GR. Uh, is there any, I feel like we had a lot 192 on that one that gave the thumbs up on it, but it's, um, did in fact constitute a 193 conditional use permit. 194

Levi Sali: (Pause) 195

Levi Sali: So, I think that we're okay with that. Okay. Standard B will be harmonious in 196 accordance with general objectives with any specific objectives with the 197 comprehensive plan and for this ordinance. When we looked at that one for, uh, 198 (pause) well it seemed like we had all given that one a nod. Economic 199 development, uh, makes requisite the lack of housing. Uh, and the 200 comprehensive plan that met that standard subordinate. 201

7

Diane Shay: So you're saying, I'm just trying to make sure I understand it, so that for the 202 findings that I'll be working on with you guys. That you're saying that this will be 203 harmonious with, and in accordance with, the general objectives of the 204 comprehensive plan and/or the ordinance. So, um, are you these sections that 205 are in the staff report, that um talk about uh the different sections from the 206 comprehensive plan, um are you saying then that you feel that item B is met 207 because of, of that, um? 208

Levi Sali: Yes, I believe that item B was met because of this, or it meets those standards. 209 Um, the economic development I think complies with the neighborhood, um 210 (pause) um, the transportation, you know this says general objectives in 211 comprehensive plan in respect to transportation's interpolation. I, I guess I feel 212 like the economic traffic that's in front of us, the address does meet that 213 standard. So, I feel like it does. Richard? 214

Richard Boullon: Uh, (clears throat), yeah I feel better now with the transportation and 215 circulation side of it. Being, and also with the balance and things with housing 216 types, uh, there's some that are six, some that are a little bigger. Um I feel like 217 it's a good mix. It's not all one thing. So I felt like that met both those standards. 218

Diane Shay: I believe there is a duplex lot in there. 219

Jeff Pfaffle: Um there's one that's dedicated to a duplex. 220

Diane Shay: Yes. 221

Richard Boullon: Yeah. 222

Diane Shay: So, then you're, you're more clear on this standard with the, the information 223 that, um, was submitted about the track of study those numbers. 224

Richard Boullon: Yeah, I was already comfortable with the housing things, but the transportation 225 side I felt met the other, the last part of this finding of just- 226

Rick Allington: Just to be clear, there's some other, we can only put everything into these 227 legend, graphic stuff, you know, probably be whatever (clears throat). The 228 hazards are starting to engineer because they disturbed [inaudible 00:21:49] 229

Kathy Clark: Rick, can you speak a little louder please? 230

Richard Boullon: Are you talking about D? 231

Diane Shay: Maybe if you, if you move out of the corner where you're able to hear 232 everybody a little bit better. 233

Kathy Clark: Okay. Okay. 234

8

Levi Sali: I'll trade with you. 235

Kathy Clark: (laughter) You don't want me down there. Trust me (laughter). There. 236

Richard Boullon: Rick, when I'm looking at this [crosstalk 00:22:23] 237

Richard Boullon: Yes, in accordance with general objectives, they specific objectives of the 238 comprehensive plan of this ordinance and then it was about chapter four, 239 chapter nine, chapter ten, it makes a reference on those. Uh, (pause) I guess I 240 feel like that we addressed, um, that we were okay on the chapter for economic 241 development. 242

Rick Allington: Yeah. Yeah I mean I think that's more, seems to me what you guys have left is 243 maybe the pedestrian access, safe routes to school stuff, those line objectives 244 and the comprehensive. And also, some of the economic stuff, the housing, also 245 objective. Then you've got, it seemed to me there's pedestrian access. There's 246 the traffic stuff. Um, both Cassidy and Sterling, the other neighbors then, the 247 Silvies, let's assume the water, we have the system to do it, okay. 248

Levi Sali: Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that also get addressed, um, when we had 249 looked at this, we said that the city water and sewer department, uh, said the 250 applicant will obtain a real search. Is it that part that we addressed? 251

Rick Allington: Yeah. Yeah. I just, it's starting to feel like, and maybe I'm wrong, starting to feel 252 like you're putting too much in category B when some of this stuff might fall 253 under C. 254

Richard Boullon: Sure, I was only referencing some of the staff notes from transportation. I 255 wasn't trying to front load the table. (laughter) 256

Levi Sali: Jil, do you have any comments on B? 257

Jil Schmidt: Um. (pause) What about chapter ten? That's under B, recreation section 10.4 258 objective 2 speaks to the need to address park initiatives. O'Donnell Park along 259 Slaughterhouse Road, so have they been addressed? 260

Levi Sali: Um. 261

Jil Schmidt: I mean if you have all of this traffic going into the subdivision along O'Donnell 262 Park, and when there's tournaments and stuff there, I mean, I mean it's going to 263 be a mess. I, I understand that, you know there's a new park going in further 264 out, but how many years is that? 265

Levi Sali: Okay. 266

9

Jil Schmidt: Something needs to be done with O'Donnell Park and we do have a letter from 267 the Parks and Recreation (pause) people, and I think it's a good letter that 268 brought up some good points. Did you receive this letter? 269

Levi Sali: She gave me, is it on the back? (Rustling of papers) 270

Diane Shay: Can I say something? A lot of those problems at O'Donnell Park are existing 271 problems, and whether or not it's appropriate to have the developer to fix those 272 existing problems is a question, and probably a discussion you guys need to 273 have. 274

Levi Sali: Um, okay, and I think that was a part of the (pause) uh, when we got together a 275 month ago, that was something that um John Kurtz, yeah, you did it (laughter) 276 had addressed that as, remind me of the, you're involved with parks? 277

Levi Sali: Yeah, department of Parks and Recreation committee. And that was something 278 we had looked at in saying there was a pre-existing problem, and I don't know 279 how that, we should look at it. Um but I don't know, uh, (snapping fingers) 280 putting the burden on the developer to fix an existing problem, uh, may or may 281 not be, uh, appropriate. I guess that's, what would you suggest on this, Jil, as far 282 as trying to mitigate that problem because it sounds to me like something of, 283 uh, recreational, the rec department is already looking at regardless of- 284

Jil Schmidt: Okay, no, I understand it's pre-existing. Okay, um, but just this letter, I mean, in 285 the spirit of comprehensive plan, the developer could put pay for an O'Donnell 286 Park conceptual plan to address the best use of park space as well as parking 287 and traffic with any additions. So, (pause) we're not saying, yes, we want you to 288 do this, but it would be really nice if you would help us out to figure out a 289 solution to the O'Donnell Park problem. 290

New Speaker: (Pause, typing of keyboard) 291

Levi Sali: Um. (Pause) Uh. 292

Diane Shay: This is relatively painful. (laughter) 293

Levi Sali: I guess at this point in time, I am not inclined on phase one, um, (pause) um I 294 understand the spirit of the comprehensive plan, um, (pause) but I don't know. I 295 mean, part of the thing that I get stuck on is regardless of whether this moves 296 forward or not, I don't think the O'Donnell Park plan to move forward is 297 something we need to address regardless of the people- 298

Jil Schmidt: No, I understand that, but I think this needs to be brought to light. I mean, I'm 299 not saying no I'm not going to approve it because of this, but I think it needed to 300 be said, and they can respond. 301

Levi Sali: Okay, Boullon, what do you say? 302

10

Richard Boullon: Uh, I've been chewing on this for a while, because I agree that it feels like um, 303 you know, I will choose your words, inappropriate to have the developer bear 304 the burden of the issue that stands whether people trade on this or not kind of 305 thing. Then, it also, that being said, it doesn't necessarily feel like it's fair to, 306 well, it's already your problem, so I can get to add to it, you know, so I've been 307 chewing on this for a while. And at this point, I need (pause) I do like the letter, 308 and I do, um, I do agree with Jil in the sense that something does need to be 309 done. Um, it feels a little opportunistic, I guess, to throw this on the Strahorn 310 project's lap and say this is, you know, it felt like what he said last meeting, what 311 Jeff said, being, you know, willing to be a good neighbor and aid in the burden 312 of what O'Donnell Park is trying to (pause) meet both needs of a softball field 313 and a soccer field. 314

Richard Boullon: That was going to be addressed in his, um, you know his park, in the park that's 315 going in, and to me says that this is not something I'm not considering. I guess I 316 was willing to take that as a, I may not be at complete fault for what is already 317 existing. I really get part of the solution. I don't know that this is that answer. 318

levi: (laughter) Um, would it be appropriate to, um, I mean I don't know what a study 319 like that would cost? Would it be appropriate to look at it and say, okay, if it 320 was, if the study was x amount of dollars, if you, uh, you know allocated some of 321 this? 322

Diane Shay: I think the parks committee is working on some sort of master plan for that 323 field, and the chair of the parks committee is here. I'm sorry, John, I didn't get to 324 view your email this morning. I was working from home, but I think that, I think 325 that that's, uh, a discussion that the parks committee is having, and perhaps the 326 applicant, um, would be willing to, uh, provide some input for um offer. 327

Levi Sali: I guess that's the biggest part of it is asking for participation from the applicant 328 as far as that study moving forward. I don't know how exactly to structure 329 something like that, but it's, you know, the parking situation, I don't know the 330 park's new issue, but the biggest part of it is people are going to be, you know, 331 the residents that go driving past that, and so, being involved and somehow 332 being part of the solution on, I think is reasonable and appropriate. Is that, you 333 know, again I'm looking at this because we need to look at this as phase one, 334 and just phase one, by phase one. 335

Levi Sali: That's the application that's on the table. 336

Levi Sali: That's the application that's on the table, and so is the phase one trigger, then, 337 need to have that study? 338

Levi Sali: (pause) 339

11

Levi Sali: At this point in time? I'm just putting in there some of the findings we asked the 340 applicant for phase one to participate with the parks and rec department, um, 341 paying for the confidence of a long term solution. 342

Diane Shay: I'm wondering, there might be some parking solutions? Because enforcement, I 343 think is something that the city council about a month ago, when they had a 344 discussion in front of them and it seemed to me like enforcement of what was 345 happening at the park was a lot, a lot of the problem, but I know there's a large 346 area in there that, um, you know, there might be an opportunity, I, for the 347 applicant to provide some parking. And uh I don't know what that looks like. Um 348 but um, I think there's an opportunity for the applicant to um participate there. 349

Levi Sali: So, I mean is there a way to kill two birds with one stone, because that was part 350 of the issue we got hung up on before was not just going with parking but also 351 parking for the trail head at the, um, for Slaughterhouse Road. Uh, so potentially 352 that could kill two birds with one stone with um, you know, addressing, asking 353 the applicant to provide some uh, some, you know, parking at the entrance 354 there. Maybe that takes care of two birds with one stone, right? That, we'll say- 355

Diane Shay: So, the birds you're talking about is- 356

Levi Sali: When we went, when we were looking at (cough) and I'm going off of memory 357 here from um last time. Uh (pause) One of the topics of conversation was, in 358 fact, and I don't remember exactly where or how we came up with it, but it was 359 part of the having some parking at the Slaughterhouse Road. The concept was 360 to have something- 361

Diane Shay: Some sort of a trail head? 362

Levi Sali: Well, I mean, just because people use that road in creating some sort of a 363 scenario like they have out Quigley. Um, to have a parking area there that could 364 potentially serve as some overflow parking for O'Donnell Park. You know, that 365 potentially, um, (pause) kills two birds with one stone. 366

New Speaker: [crosstalk 00:37:24] 367

Jil Schmidt: I do remember that discussion, yes. 368

Levi Sali: I don't think that was put in as one of the conditions, was it? 369

Diane Shay: No. 370

Rick Allington: Okay, so, I would at least be a little bit careful. As long as you're putting forth 371 two initiatives, I would want to make sure the conditions you are proposing, on 372 some condition, and um, and I think that's up to the subdivision. There's some 373 connections that the subdivision causing the problem with the park. Just 374 something that needs to be addressed by the applicant whereas, not only there, 375

12

are the people in Strahorn parking alongside the road? Probably in front of 376 their houses. Um, I think that's where, maybe later phases, people are going to 377 run out of the park. I think you guys need to think about this that way as well. Is 378 there a connection between what you want to propose and following the city? 379

Jil Schmidt: Hmm. 380

Levi Sali: Are you thinking that that muddies up the water to put that as a condition, 381 whether you state it as one or the other? 382

Rick Allington: I don't know. I haven't heard anybody say very clearly that this subdivision is 383 causing problems. And they're causing problems, but there's already problems, 384 it sounds like. It's a parking problem, but is the subdivision making that problem 385 worse? Uh, no effect, or better? If it makes it worse, then I think it's unfair to 386 the present condition to mitigate. 387

Levi Sali: Um, the only reason that I guess, here's how I'm connecting the dots is when 388 you have people parking along both sides of the street, and pulling in and out in 389 doing that, and you have people that live in the development through 390 Slaughterhouse Road, that's where it gets connected to a big parking. 391

Diane Shay: And that's an enforcement issue that our city- 392

Levi Sali: Okay. 393

Diane Shay: We're not enforcing this really bad habit that has developed around that park. 394 And that's, that's something that the parks committee has been tasked to try 395 and work on. Um, Greg, did you have something to add to that? 396

Levi Sali: Yeah, I was going to say, you know, looking at enforcement, parking on the 397 north side of the road as you're facing [inaudible 00:40:17] 398

Levi Sali: That parking is taken care of, and really the entire thing. Okay. 399

Richard Boullon: So? 400

Frank Suwanrit: So, we've been trying to figure out solutions to this. Um, I, and one of the 401 things, you know, looking at the parking situation. One softball field there, three 402 soccer fields. Maybe we've got to re-zone that [inaudible 00:41:07] Okay. That 403 has nothing to do with- 404

Levi Sali: No, and I guess that's a good point I hadn't even thought about before is that 405 it's, it becomes part of the, it's an enforcement issue of how much does that 406 park get used? Because you've got three soccer fields there and it, was it ever 407 intended to have, you know, all of that going on at the end of the day? 408

13

Frank Suwanrit: And that, internally, with the staff, it's something we have to look at as a city, 409 you know, not so much as whether [inaudible 00:41:49] 410

Frank Suwanrit: It's already an existing condition. Sorry, Kathy. (laughter) 411

Levi Sali: So, then I, uh, I say that this meets the standards. There's some issues, in the 412 same spirit minded for us. Okay. 413

Diane Shay: I will begin drafting these findings. Yeah, alright, so we're moving on to item C. 414 And you did make, you did make a finding at the last meeting on this. Um. 415

Levi Sali: Correct. Um, C will be design construction operated and maintained in 416 harmonious, and appropriate appearance with existing or intended characters 417 of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the central character of 418 the same area. Um, I think that that one was pretty unique to us to- 419

Diane Shay: Yeah, it was zoned for residential and developed as such. 420

Levi Sali: Okay. Um, D, it can not be hazardous or disturbing to existing future 421 neighboring uses. Uh- 422

Diane Shay: You also made a solid finding on D. You made a finding, uh, that this did support 423 that with condition. 424

Levi Sali: Okay, was this- 425

Diane Shay: That was the one that, uh- 426

Levi Sali: The access road? 427

Diane Shay: The access road with signage on, um, sunrise ranch. 428

Levi Sali: Yes. Okay. Um, this brings us to E. We serve adequately the essential public 429 facilities. It serves as highways, police, fire protection, trade structures, disposal, 430 water, and sewer, and schools. Uh, with persons responsible for the 431 establishment of exposed use should be able to provide adequately any such 432 services. Um. 433

Diane Shay: And I think, uh, this is um. 434

Levi Sali: I think that this got addressed with the will serve letter from uh the water, 435 wastewater departments, that that still, uh- 436

Diane Shay: Frank, do you want to give a little update on why the, where we are with that. 437

Frank Suwanrit: Yeah, so we are on board for council to get that water model and all that 438 information, um, through our engineer, and then as far as [crosstalk 00:45:28] 439

14

Frank Suwanrit: (microphone rustling) 440

Frank Suwanrit: [inaudible 00:45:40] 441

Frank Suwanrit: The person that has solutions to maintain or (fan and keyboard) 442

Diane Shay: Do you think we have that ability, or do we have that already? 443

Paul Hopfenbeck: Does that include that, uh collapsed pipe scenario, then that Kelly had talked 444 about? 445

Frank Suwanrit: Well, I think that's that would be further down the line, then. That'll be, yeah, 446 the water model. The mission is that we will have that will-serve letter. When 447 we actually go to the planning stages of that, that's so much of the design 448 emphasis. 449

Levi Sali: So, we're still waiting on the engineering on a couple of those, but it sounds like 450 all of that gets taken care of in the will-serve letter as far as that goes. Correct? 451

Frank Suwanrit: Right. 452

Frank Suwanrit: There's no sense in spending all that money and going through engineering if 453 they haven't done that. 454

Levi Sali: Okay. So, do you have any other questions on E? Jil? 455

Jil Schmidt: Um, no, but I think we need to, it's not a question, it's just those last sentence... 456 The fire chief has concerns over cell coverage in this area, but that's been 457 satisfied. 458

Levi Sali: That's one of the conditions that we put on, condition number 2. 459

Jil Schmidt: I okay with that, I just want to clarify. 460

Levi Sali: Okay. So, if we're looking at just the snapshots that are both of those, would 461 you say any of the concerns we have are covered by the will-serve letter and 462 number two, number one and number two, sorry. 463

Jil Schmidt: I think. 464

Levi Sali: Those conditions. All good? Okay. I think we agree that we E meets the standard 465 with the two conditions that the applicant will obtain a will serve letter with the 466 city, and the uh radio and cell coverage tower, uh, that condition as well. 467

Diane Shay: Okay. 468

15

Levi Sali: Um. Okay. Um. F. Will not create excessive additional requirements on the 469 public cost of public facilities and services will not be detrimental to the 470 economic welfare to the community. 471

Levi Sali: (pause) 472

Levi Sali: This is one that we had given nod previously on. 473

Diane Shay: You did make a positive finding on item F. 474

Levi Sali: Okay. Um, (pause) alright, I think that there's a condition that goes. 475

Levi Sali: (pause) (cough) 476

Levi Sali: Um, G. Uh, not involve use of activity, process materials of equipment, on the 477 conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or 478 general welfare by reasons of excessive production of traffic and noise, smoke 479 fumes, glare of dust, odors, vibration, lot pollution, or safety hazards. Um, we 480 did not address this one in the last meeting. Um, Richard, do you have any 481 comments on G that meets the standard? 482

Richard Boullon: Uh, (pause) 483

Diane Shay: Did you guys have any discussion of this? 484

Richard Boullon: No, we didn't make a decision. 485

Richard Boullon: We're on new territory here. 486

New Speaker: (pause) (loud cough) 487

New Speaker: (long silence) 488

Diane Shay: Well, it does, it does speak to traffic. (pause) 489

Richard Boullon: Say that again, Rick? I didn't hear you. 490

Rick Allington: Well, there's a traffic study out there that says traffic is not going to be an issue. 491 It's a concern about fixing the standard or not. Some of it does. 492

Levi Sali: So, now what do you say? Are you saying, okay, alright. 493

Jil Schmidt: I have something to say. 494

Levi Sali: Okay. 495

16

Jil Schmidt: During the construction process, I think we need to get some conditions. One of 496 the conditions is that dust control and weed abatement is definitely (pause) one 497 of the things that has to happen. 498

Diane Shay: And that is a condition. 499

Dave Patrie: That's part of it. 500

Diane Shay: That's actually a condition attached to this conditional use permit, um, when I 501 was, when I was, yeah. It's the second number two. 502

Levi Sali: I thought, yeah. 503

Jil Schmidt: Okay, 504

Diane Shay: and that reads as dust and weed abatement shall be done during grading and 505 installation of the infrastructure for the subdivision. And so, I- 506

Levi Sali: It's next page, Jil. On the bottom of twelve. So that's a part of the condition of, 507 uh- 508

Jil Schmidt: Okay, I see. 509

Diane Shay: It's there. 510

Richard Boullon: Uh, well the under view, let's protect. Um, for traffic and weed abatement, as Jil 511 said, those two findings I would, say G is fine. The traffic study that we have 512 now, and just dovetailing Jil's dust and weed abatement, that's already a thing, 513 2.2 514

New Speaker: [crosstalk 00:53:43] 515

Levi Sali: Um, I think that G is met with the requirement of, I guess that'd have to be 516 number three. Diane? 517

Diane Shay: What? 518

Diane Shay: (laughter) 519

Diane Shay: Sorry. 520

Levi Sali: I think we're nodding that, uh, we're okay with G, um, with the- 521

Diane Shay: Because of the information from the traffic study and the condition of- 522

Levi Sali: 2 point- 523

17

Diane Shay: Okay, okay. 524

Levi Sali: Um, okay. Um, H. Um (pause) Um, we'll have, we'll have vehicular approaches 525 to the property which shall be designed so as to not create an interference with 526 traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. 527

New Speaker: (cough) 528

Levi Sali: Jil? 529

New Speaker: 530

Kathy Clark: Sorry. 531

Jil Schmidt: Okay, so this is just a question. 532

Levi Sali: Okay. 533

Jil Schmidt: What is considered surrounding public thoroughfares? What (pause) would you 534 consider a surrounding thorough? 535

Levi Sali: I would say any of the (cough) Isn't it just? 536

Jil Schmidt: The immediate area, or? 537

Levi Sali: No, does it refer back to [crosstalk 00:55:36] 538

Jil Schmidt: I'm just going to refer to the engineer. 539

Dave Patrie: I would, it's not clear as far as I know, but I would suggest that it would include 540 any collector street in the general vicinity. Is that, is that not specific enough? 541

Jil Schmidt: Well what do you mean by the vicinity? That's what I just, the area, or- 542

Diane Shay: It's not defined. 543

Dave Patrie: Well, it's undefined, so if it is, you're probably going to have to determine what 544 you think the limits are, because it doesn't, you know it doesn't say within 300 545 feet of the post boundary, which would be very specific, but this just says the 546 surrounding public thoroughfare, so I would suggest by starting to look at what 547 your collector streets in the area are. 548

Jil Schmidt: Okay. 549

Richard Boullon: So, I asked the question and this was the only thing that I, my thought was, to 550 say now that we've conditioned a couple back with Sunrise, with elm at the 551 collector street for the entirety of the crossroads. Because originally, according 552

18

to our traffic study, no, we switched it to Elm, because Cedar was closed, so just 553 curious if that was- 554

Dave Patrie: So they're designated on the master plan as collector streets? 555

Richard Boullon: Right. 556

Dave Patrie: Um, I would hazard to bet they're not designed as collector streets at this point, 557 but um the traffic study did show that all of, when they look at Cedar and Pine, 558 um it did suggest that all of the, uh, intersections had more than adequate 559 capacity on the interior streets. When you got to Highway 75 is where there 560 some experience in delays for left hand turns, either going onto the highway 561 from the town site, or from the highway taking a left into the, uh, town site 562 area. So anything, you know, anything that's within Bellevue town site that's on 563 this side of Main Street had A level capacity to serve and wasn't even going to 564 be affected, even at full build out. There was enough capacity in those 565 intersections at full build out to help put- 566

Richard Boullon: Right, I just, okay. I'm just thinking that nobody's going to take Pine now, if we 567 gated it at the top of Sunrise. Is that a condition we just put through? Yes. So, 568 that means Elm, there's the entirety of all the traffic. That was my only 569 comment. 570

Frank Suwanrit: I think people might enter once they get down to 8th Street. They might take it 571 on Elm and continue on, just thinking, because there is actually more stop signs 572 on Elm. 573

Richard Boullon: (laughter) 574

Frank Suwanrit: [inaudible 00:59:12] 575

Dave Patrie: Sure. 576

Dave Patrie: (laughter) 577

Dave Patrie: That's the enforcement issue, right there. 578

Levi Sali: (laughter) 579

Dave Patrie: I would add that it would be a very unreasonable assumption to assume that all 580 the traffic generated would use one road. You know, depending on the final 581 destination, people are doing their different routes, choosing their different 582 routes based on the number of stop signs and other factors. So, it would, a 583 traffic study would never assume if there's multiple access roads that all the 584 traffic would just use this one road. 585

19

Richard Boullon: Right. I just wanted to, I didn't feel comfortable not saying it, I guess. So, I would 586 say, yeah. 587

Levi Sali: (laughter) 588

Levi Sali: Um, because the traffic study supports that. The traffic study- 589

Diane Shay: We're talking about this existing traffic study. There has not been a new traffic 590 study done. Our engineers have reviewed the existing traffic study, and um, 591 5.31 that I believe we didn't see the need for a revised traffic study. Okay. 592

Dave Patrie: The numbers, they reviewed the numbers, reasonable, traffic counts are 593 essentially the same today as they were when I started this back in, uh, 2006. 594 Okay. 595

Levi Sali: Um, then, uh, I, uh, will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, 596 scenic, or historic feature of major importance. Um, we looked at this one last 597 time and we all nodded that it meets that standard, it would not do that. Um, J. 598 Uh, will be adequately screened by means of fencing or landscaping from public 599 ways of neighboring properties. Last time, we had a discussion about fence 600 landscape. It was a landscape plan that was, uh, uh (pause) uh, submitted by the 601 applicant. That will be addressed upon final plat approval. I think we landed on 602 that before the landscaping itself. 603

Diane Shay: So you're asking for a condition that there's going to be a landscaping plan? 604 Sorry, I- 605

Levi Sali: Let me explain here. I'm saying this out loud, or I'm, I'm just speaking out loud 606 here. I'm going off of memory of what we had determined on our last meeting 607 that there was a landscaping plan, but it was not a complete landscaping plan. It 608 was close, and that that would be reviewed, I guess, at the final plat. 609

Richard Boullon: It was the uniform landscaping. 610

Diane Shay: I think there's a standard that says they have to do the landscaping. 611

Diane Shay: (pause) 612

Richard Boullon: Um, we can't- 613

Diane Shay: Um, additional condition, uh, that would ask for a revised landscaping plan. I 614 know, um, there is, there is some talk of a full fence, having a question? 615

Jeff Pfaffle: Can I speak? 616

Diane Shay: Yes. 617

20

Jeff Pfaffle: Okay. Um, yes, we were looking along the right way on that. We're looking at 618 putting basically a, uh, three rail fence, but likely you can see over it. And, you 619 know- 620

Diane Shay: So, a finished product of what that looks like would be something that I would 621 be looking for. 622

Jeff Pfaffle: Sure. We can put it on that, I mean it's uh, what's the name of the place across 623 the way? 624

Levi Sali: Sawtooth Wood Products 625

Jeff Pfaffle: If you look at their fence, that's the fence. It's a dowel, little symbolic. 626

Levi Sali: Over here, I think, how we addressed this is before we do a final plat approval, I 627 think it's uh, because we've looked at a couple different versions of this, but 628 once, you know it, it as long as the landscaping plan goes along with the plat 629 approval that we can approve all at one time, I think that the standard will be 630 met with the um, with the landscaping plan. Adequately screened, um, by 631 means of fencing or landscaping, um, it's tough to make a finding on that. I 632 mean (pause) how, how do you answer that? 633

Diane Shay: Well, the (pause) I mean there's conceptual plans that are floating around out 634 there, and there's been talk on record of that, and um, there, um, our expert 635 engineer here just (laughter) reminded me that there is something in our 636 subdivision ordinance, um, that does ask for some, uh, landscaping standards, 637 or landscaping improvements. And so, um, but you know, but, but, I think if you 638 add in a condition here that asks for um a revised landscaping plan to be 639 submitted, um, we could tie that to a time frame of- 640

Dave Patrie: Can I suggest the condition? Of condition number four, submit a revised 641 landscaping plan showing proposed fencing to be reviewed with subdivision 642 plat. Does that work for you? 643

Richard Boullon: Uh. 644

Richard Boullon: It's just essentially what we already have, like with a fence on it? Is that all we're 645 saying? 646

Diane Shay: I don't think it hurts to add this in there. 647

Levi Sali: Yeah, I mean, it's- 648

Richard Boullon: Can I ask a question? So, Jeff, I understand the CUP asking screening and 649 landscaping from uses to another, so what we're talking about here I think, or 650 what you're talking about here is screening the collector road from the 651 residential development, is that right? In the, in the current proposal, it can be 652

21

put on a landscape plan is free rail fencing, so what I think the applicant would 653 like to know is is the free rail fencing appropriate screening between the 654 residential development and the collector road, as opposed to a general 655 landscaping plan associated with the entire site? Is that how, is that a correct 656 interpretation of the standard? 657

Levi Sali: (pause) I guess, when I read through this um, I would not suggest, I wouldn't 658 think that a three rail fence would meet this standard. This says fencing or 659 landscaping for public ways and neighboring properties. Um, I guess in my mind, 660 Slaughterhouse Road is, that is a public road. Correct me if I'm wrong. In the, 661 interior roads are going to remain private. This becomes a public road, so as far 662 as that screening, the way that this reads to me is adequately screened, which 663 means fencing or landscaping, so in my mind I wouldn't think a three rail fence 664 would necessarily achieve the screening part of that, so that still leaves the 665 availability to achieve that with some landscaping? You know, that's kind of the 666 the direction that has going on. 667

Jeff Pfaffle: Um, so the plan you have there actually calls out the type of landscaping. So, 668 not only do you have landscaping, but we're also going to throw fencing in there 669 to kind of dress it up. And, and, so I wrote in there would be the revision of- 670

Jil Schmidt: Well it says fencing or landscaping. 671

Levi Sali: Yeah, and that's part of the reason why I wanted to look at, you know, I think 672 that's part of the reason why it's important to have the landscaping plan with 673 the plat, so we can look at this, we actually- 674

Jeff Pfaeffle: If you look, the corner, it actually calls out all of the stuff. 675

Richard Boullon: And it also gives a description of what, right here. So being able to look at that 676 and giving a thumbs up on it meeting this standard, I think it would be revealed 677 for the final plat to make sure this is what we're looking at there. 678

Jeff Loomis: I want to clarify, I'm pretty sure that standard addresses like screening some 679 land use that you wouldn't want to see from a public roadway. So in other 680 words, you're either going to landscape or fence, some sort of, let's say 681 industrial use next to a, a residential. Otherwise, you've got to screen every 682 residential road in your city from houses, and that's not what this is talking 683 about. This is talking about some use that you do want to screen from public 684 view, so I understand the landscaping plan coming through the, uh, subdivision 685 ordinance and possibly some landscaping and/or fencing that delineates the 686 residential lots from the public highway, but I don't think the screening you're 687 talking about is screening as the standard is written. And I would maybe defer to 688 your staff to see how they interpret that standard. 689

Levi Sali: What's that standard look like? (laughter) 690

22

Diane Shay: I think we're going to, I think we're getting a bit hung up here. There are going 691 to be other places, um, in the subdivision ordinance that are going to speak to 692 this. Um, you know, and I'm not going to complicate it by adding any more in. If 693 you don't think it's adequate, you guys don't have to be unanimous. I mean, you 694 know (pause) if it's. 695

Jeff Loomis: That's fair, I just want to, when you talk about adequate, the adequate 696 screenings. I don't know that you have a standard for screening residential 697 development from a residential road. 698

Jeff Pfaeffle: So it becomes somewhat subjective. 699

Jeff Loomis: Yeah, at that point we're just talking about someone do you like the landscaping 700 plan or not? 701

Levi Sali: And so at that point in time, in the plat review, that's when, in my mind, that's 702 when it would be appropriate to look at the landscaping plan. You know, to say 703 that, to say does it need a landscaping plan, we don't, we're not really looking at 704 the landscaping plan right now. That comes a little bit further down the road in 705 my mind. Um, you know, is it adequate? That's, you know, that will come at an 706 appropriate time. 707

Diane Shay: And I think what, what I stated in the staff report is that, um, I think you guys 708 need to consider how the requirement of screening would be appropriate from 709 public ways when it would be an extension of a residential development. So, um 710 (pause) you know, again there are going to be other areas where this will come 711 up. But you guys need to make a finding that you, that you are comfortable with 712 here on this item J, and um vote on this whole. 713

Levi Sali: Jil? 714

Jil Schmidt: I'm okay with it with the revised landscape screening plan as a condition prior to 715 plat approval. 716

Levi Sali: Okay. Richard? 717

Richard Boullon: Um, I wrote down that I was good with it. So, could we put that as condition, it 718 would be six of just it meets the standard, with the condition of an approved 719 landscaping plan, um, at plat approval. 720

Levi Sali: Is that six or seven, Diane, on the condition? We've got a couple, I think that 721 that's- 722

Diane Shay: I have, I have four conditions. And so does the press. (laughter) 723

Levi Sali: That means it's fake. (laughter) 724

23

Levi Sali: So we've got then, we've got- 725

Diane Shay: You'll get draft findings to look at. I'm going to go through my notes and 726 minutes and make sure that we, that we have captured all of those, and you'll 727 see draft findings at your next meeting, so if we miss something- 728

Levi Sali: Okay. 729

Dave Patrie: That's the revisions, so if we miss, if we miss conditions- 730

Richard Boullon: Okay. 731

Levi Sali: So if we do, and I may, correct me if I'm wrong going off of my, we have the will-732 serve letter from the city, the sewer departments. We have the additional radio 733 tower, cell coverage. This is condition two. Condition three is dust and weed 734 abatement done during grading. Um, condition three the access to existing BLM 735 access road by the 90 degree turn. (pause) Yeah? That's number- 736

Diane Shay: Okay. Keep going. 737

Levi Sali: And then we had, uh, the additional dry well, and I'm assuming when we say dry 738 well, just for clarification, we're talking about- 739

Diane Shay: The catch basin? 740

Levi Sali: The catch basin, but they (cough) put this, uh, that was along Cow Catcher Loop. 741 Okay, that was my misunderstanding. [crosstalk 01:15:09] 742

Dave Patrie: The extension on the interior part about, it was about being captured by one 743 single dry well. I think maybe we made a suggestion of along lot five six, 744 approximately along that lot line. Of potentially adding another one. We've got, 745 I don't think that needs to be a condition of approval, really. That was 746 something that, that was something that the plan we were commenting on. 747

Diane Shay: Yeah. 748

Dave Patrie: And somehow got picked up with the land. It was a pretty minor detail that we 749 had looked at before improving construction lines. That condition, in my 750 opinion, [inaudible 01:15:56] 751

Levi Sali: Okay, so that condition of, I just want to make sure because I, I'm going off of 752 memory here as far as that. That catch basin being a part of the, the conditions 753 that we did address. 754

Dave Patrie: Right, this is the, yeah. We did talk about that, and that is shown on the most 755 recent plan. 756

24

Levi Sali: Okay. 757

Dave Patrie: Um, that the applicant submitted. This, this language that was put in as 758 condition four was unrelated to that. 759

Levi Sali: Okay, and so that's my misunderstanding, but you, would it be appropriate to 760 substitute that language as far as this, I apologize of my misunderstanding, um 761 where it refers to additional dry well on the interior side of the portion of Cow 762 Catcher loop. Um, I guess, I just thought that was the bridge in that, was that- 763

Dave Patrie: I don't know that you need that condition because the latest plan submitted 764 shows that, so they're already proposing it. 765

Levi Sali: And is that something that we just address on the plat when we do the plat 766 review? 767

Dave Patrie: Yes. 768

Levi Sali: Okay. Uh, if that condition doesn't need to be in there, I just, that, that is 769 something that um- 770

Dave Patrie: My suggestion would be to strike what you guys currently have in your packet 771 as number four- 772

Levi Sali: Okay 773

Dave Patrie: And make the condition that we just discussed on J condition number four. 774

Levi Sali: What's that? 775

Dave Patrie: That would be the revised landscape plan. 776

Levi Sali: Okay. So that's condition number four is revised landscape plan. And then 777 condition number five, uh, was the gate at, uh Sunrise Road? Correct? (pause) 778

Diane Shay: Yes. 779

Levi Sali: I'm just trying to make sure that I got all of these as well because if we're 780 (pause) (cough) 781

Diane Shay: And you had a sixth one in there? 782

Levi Sali: No, I think that that, I think that was it. Unless, can you, is there anything else? 783

Diane Shay: Two, four, six. Six, there's six of them. 784

Levi Sali: Oh. 785

25

Diane Shay: I have the will-serve, the radio and cell coverage, the BLM, three, okay. 786

Paul Hopfenbeck: Yeah, there are six. The gate is number six. 787

Levi Sali: (pause) 788

Levi Sali: So, are we good to go on these six conditions? 789

Diane Shay: So you've got six conditions, so do you need any, do (pause) do you want to add 790 anything before they do a vote on- 791

Rick Allington: I would also add that you make this CUP as a condition because on the PUD 792 application subject to application approval by the Common Council. 793

Richard Boullon: A condition to use permit subject to subdivision approval and the [inaudible 794 01:19:23] 795

Levi Sali: What's the purpose or the thought behind that? 796

Rick Allington: Anytime you have a CUP condition that you guys approve, hanging around if 797 they don't approve the subdivision. 798

Diane Shay: It has to be tied. 799

Levi Sali: Okay, okay, it's all tied. I'm with you. So that would be number seven. 800

Levi Sali: So, how did you say that, Rick, that the CUP and the PUD- 801

Diane Shay: It's not- 802

Diane Shay: (pause) 803

Levi Sali: How'd you word that? 804

Levi Sali: The CUP and the PUD are to be- 805

Rick Allington: Um the PUD application and subdivision application are approved by the 806 Bellevue Common Council. 807

Levi Sali: (silence) 808

Levi Sali: Okay. Is there anything else that you need listed as an item or conditions or, do 809 we have adequate notes on it? 810

Diane Shay: Um. Yes, huh, what? 811

Levi Sali: Sound good? 812

26

Diane Shay: Who asked me that again? Sorry. 813

Levi Sali: I'm just double checking that you've got everything you need. 814

Diane Shay: So we've got seven conditions. The will-serve letter, um, radio and cell, uh dust 815 and weed abatement, the BLM road, revised landscape plan, gate at Sunrise 816 Road, and the um contingent upon approval of the PUD and preliminary plat 817 applications. 818

Levi Sali: Correct. 819

Diane Shay: Did I get them all Josh? 820

Josh Murdock: Same thing that I have (laughter) I don't know that it's right. That doesn't mean 821 anything. 822

Diane Shay: Um, so if you guys are comfortable at this point, because there are three 823 applications, and they each have to be approved separately, so what you guys 824 are doing is approving the conditional use permit. You're not recommending 825 because you guys are the decision makers on a conditional use permit. So, 826 you're, the motion, I guess, would be to approve the conditional use permit with 827 the conditions uh, one through seven, as discussed. 828

Levi Sali: Okay. 829

Diane Shay: And, uh, draft findings will be sent to, um, prior to the next meeting. 830

Levi Sali: Okay. 831

Diane Shay: So, you guys, someone will lead a motion. 832

Levi Sali: Yeah, I was just going to double check before I, is there anything else that you 833 need to add or subtract, Jil? Uh, okay, do I have a motion to approve or deny 834 with conditions the conditional use permit that applicant Strahorn Partners LLC, 835 uh, going forward? 836

Richard Boullon: I move to approve with conditions this conditional use permit application by 837 Straight One Partners LLC, finding the application complies with the applicable, 838 applicable criteria set forth in chapter nine of Bellevue zoning ordinance 86-03, 839 subject to the following conditions. Do I need to list all those? 840

Diane Shay: Um, why don't you, just so that we've got it on record? 841

Richard Boullon: The applicant shall obtain a will-serve letter from the city water and sewer 842 departments prior to the plat approval, additional radio and cell coverage shall 843 be provided by the applicant prior to the signing of phase one, final plat, dust 844 and weed abatement shall be done during grading and installation of the 845

27

infrastructure for the subdivision, access to the existing BLM access road has 846 been revised to include 90 degree access with proposed Slaughterhouse gulch 847 Road, revised landscape plan, uh, a gate at Sunrise Ranch Road, contingent on 848 PUD application and subdivision application approved by the common council. 849

Levi Sali: Okay, do we have a second? 850

Jil Schmidt: I second it. 851

Levi Sali: All in favor say aye. 852

Paul Hopfenbeck: Aye. 853

Richard Boullon: Aye. 854

Levi Sali: Opposed? (silence) Now what? 855

Diane Shay: It's, it's up to you guys. Um, you can, uh continue forward and discuss um the uh 856 planned unit development portion. Um, I would suggest that, um because the 857 planned unit development in a subdivision applications are both public hearings 858 that um, if there's additional public hearing, additional public comment, that 859 you wanted to hear specific to the PUD application, um, (pause) you can, you 860 can do that. Um, you can ask the applicant if they would like to make, um, any 861 further presentation on, or you can, um, adjourn the meeting and, um, begin 862 deliberations on those other two applications in the future. Um, I know I did 863 send you an email asking what everyone's availability was like for, um a special 864 meeting at some point. I think we're going to have to do notice, just to be on 865 the safe side anyways. Um, Rick, thoughts? 866

Rick Allington: Um, I would suggest that you, the applicant [inaudible 01:26:40] 867

Rick Allington: I guess I don't know what you're asking. 868

Diane Shay: Yeah, sorry. 869

Levi Sali: Let me ask you a quick question, if I'm right here. Since this is- 870

Diane Shay: We're all struggling tonight. I'm really sorry. 871

Levi Sali: No, it's, you're fine. Since the application for PUD is a separate application, and 872 we're just looking at that one, that one is a public comment, correct, just for 873 that application. So, I guess what I'm inclined to do at this point in time is uh 874 pick this up, did you say that we do or do not need to, um- 875

Diane Shay: Well, this was continued on the record to abate certain of tonight, and um, what 876 you did at the last meeting on that conditional use permit, was you closed, on 877 the record, you closed the public hearing for the conditional use permit, and 878

28

you stated that on the record, and you guys deliberated for well over an hour, 879 so you were already in deliberations, and um, if I, I would suggest that, now that 880 we're revisiting the next piece of this application, um, that uh you would, open 881 that public hearing comment period back up. Because you had already closed- 882

Levi Sali: Yeah. 883

Diane Shay: No, I don't, it was continued on the record, so I think we're fine with notice right 884 now. Um. 885

Levi Sali: Let's do this. Um. Let's say that we pick this up, um, at a later date, and then, if 886 it doesn't keep me in the list. If you look at it in the next couple of days, and you 887 decide that the best need to be reopened just to cover the bases on it- 888

Diane Shay: Well, I, I want to, uh, be safe. I want to stay out of trouble here. And, um, I 889 think, our attorney probably wants us to do that as well. 890

Levi Sali: Okay, um. Are you okay with that? 891

Diane Shay: So then that's going to be continued to uh, a date uncertain. It's not going to be 892 continued. You're just, um. What am I trying to say? 893

Levi Sali: Well, when we look at this new business, we've approved that one, now we 894 need to tackle the PUD, and that's a separate application. 895

Diane Shay: Yeah, I'd like to re-notice the PUD and the preliminary plat to be on the safe 896 side, and I don't have a date yet. We have, um, all of our March meetings are, 897 uh, taken at this point, so um, it may be a date that I shoot you out an email, um 898 requesting what your availability is, and I'll, I'll look at calendar and see 899 applicant-wise what they have um (pause) 900

Diane Shay: Jeff and Jeff? 901

Jeff Pfaeffle: Let's go watch Lindsey Vonn get a gold. My goal is to try to get something this 902 year, so I would hope that, I know you have a lot of other business as well. 903 Maybe we could agree to have another meeting some time in March so we can 904 get this thing going. 905

Diane Shay: And I'll look for, uh, I'll look for a special meeting date. Um, are you guys sticking 906 around for March? Okay. Um, alright, I'll have to look at the notice of 907 requirements and see when I can get something in there for a special meeting, 908 um, and where there's already a portion. 909

Levi Sali: Okay, so you'll get back to us on that. So we just need a motion to adjourn if 910 we're going to pick up on- 911

Diane Shay: And so you did do a motion and a second and voted on the CUP? 912

29

Levi Sali: Yeah. 913

Diane Shay: Okay, yeah, and then I think the other thing on the agenda is to adjourn. 914

Levi Sali: Okay. So do I have a motion to adjourn? 915

Richard Boullon: I make a motion to adjourn. 916

Jil Schmidt: I second it. 917

Levi Sali: All in favor, say aye. 918

Collective: Aye. 919

920

Word Count – 10,662 921

922