Minutes - DRAFT
Four Creeks Unincorporated Area Council
Special Meeting Minutes – May 3, 2006 at
Submitted by Dellanie Fragnoli.
Attending:
|
D1: Rick Spence |
X |
|
D2: |
X |
|
D3: Bob Davis |
|
|
D4: OPEN |
|
|
D5: Tom Carpenter |
X |
|
D6: Dellanie Fragnoli |
|
|
D7: Marshall Brenden |
X |
|
D8: Dick Fackenthall |
X |
|
D9: Sharon Schimke |
|
|
D10: Grant Smith |
|
|
D11: John Vukov |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
X |
|
|
|
|
AAL:
Bette Filley |
X |
Call to Order:
The meeting was called to order by Rick
S. at 7:07 p.m.
Main Topic –
Working session to discuss plans
This was a special
meeting of the Council to discuss the plans by
Rick S. delayed the
start of the meeting to accommodate late arriving invitees. He reported that he had received a note from
Connie Fletcher, one of the School Board members, telling Rick she would not be attending the Council meeting. No other invitees attended either.
Rick S. began the
meeting by discussing the plans the School District had for buying the
Winterbrook property mentioning concerns that the Council might have with
impacts to the Rural Area caused by having the two schools located in the
pristine
Tom C reported that
the specific land is the 80-acre
Winterbrook Farm, currently zoned RA-5, which lies south of
Rick S. expressed
concern about why the District would be allowed to construct on the land while
we (the valley residents) have not been permitted to do work that had far less
impact. He cited the effort on the part
of Winterbrook Farms to build a riding arena with 16,000 square feet of
impervious surface (the roof). The schools,
even without the parking lots and roads would have impervious surface far in
excess of that square footage. Members
of the council question whether an actual permit request had been made by
Winterbrook but no one seemed to know.
Rick S. was asked to get with the consultant that had worked the effort
to determine the facts about the riding arena situation.
Rick S. mentioned
that this questioned the “doctrine of fairness”. Edie J. clarified that the proper terminology
is the “Consistency of Application of Adopted Laws, Rules, and Procedures.”
The discussion began
to focus on the major areas where the Council might have concerns. Tom C. proposed a listing of those major
areas throughout the meeting to aid in getting agreement from the Council.
Tom C. suggested that
one area was in the subject of concurrency specifically regarding traffic and
wastewater. It was clarified that
concurrency might not be the best word since it would come down to a settlement
between King County and the District which could defer dealing with impacts to
the region in the areas usually addressed by concurrency for quite some
years. With the pending work on SR 900
and the Cascade Water Alliance’s plan for constructing a pipeline through the
area, just such a deferral would be likely.
The question that could be asked is “What is the key negotiated settlement
between the County and the District?” including a listing of Impact Fees.
Tom C. suggested that
the District may pump out wastewater and have it removed from the area in a
fashion similar to
There was a brief
discussion on whether fresh water would be available. The assumption was that it would be since it
was expected that the developments that bounded the property already were being
provided fresh water by Water District 90.
Tom C. agreed to follow up with WD 90 to confirm.
Much of the remaining
discussion was focused on the impacts to the character of the area by placing
the two schools on the Winterbrook property.
Dick F. mentioned that truck traffic on
Rick S. wondered what
the bicycle clubs might think if they knew that the District planned to add
more large vehicles to the road in the form of school busses. This created a discussion about who the
school would serve which led to a clarification of the current boundaries of
the District. To the west, the
Dick F. clarified
that McDonald Creek, which runs through the property, is an intermittent
waterway fed by
The summary provided
by Tom C. was that the major areas of concern that had been discussed were 1)
the impacts to the area mostly in terms of noise and traffic, 2) how schools
servicing residents principally in the urban areas was inappropriate to the
character of the valley, and 3) that the specific property because of it’s
water carrying characteristics was not suited to the type of construction,
particularly of impervious surfaces, needed by the schools.
Edie J. pointed out
that the special session was not authorized to make decisions on the topic but
could make recommendations to the regular Council meetings. Tom C. offered to provide an overall summary
for that purpose at the May Council meeting with the addition of an agenda item
to consider adopting a position regarding the Districts plans.
Meeting was
adjourned.
Submitted by:
Dellanie
Fragnoli, Secretary based on notes taken by Tom Carpenter
Dated: May 10, 2006