News

Treemont project faces more delays

 -
— image credit:

FALL CITY — Because of a decision recently handed down by


the King County Council, the proposed 194-lot Treemont development


might not be built until next year, and its size could be pared down to 47 homes.


Neighbors are happy with the decision because the subdivision's


planner, Port Blakely Communities, was ordered to conduct additional


environmental impact studies before the project can move forward.


"We were able to show enough issues in question that they listened,


and along with carefully reading the hearing examiner's original report,


they had many concerns," said Cindy Parks, who lives near the


proposed subdivision. Parks has formed a group called "Friends Against


Excessive Development" to fight the


subdivision, to be located near the Tall Chief


Golf Course in Fall City.


Many residents have said the project and its construction


could flood or otherwise damage their neighboring properties and negatively


impact Patterson Creek. They also feel the subdivision's density would


jeopardize the area's "rural character"


of quiet homes on five to ten acres.


Parks said keeping track of Port Blakely's proposal has left her


exhausted. But this recent turn of events has given her hope that the


development will not be approved as originally planned, and most importantly,


not impact her neighborhood.


Parks' neighbor, Janice Cannon-Kyte, agrees.


"The (decision) gives us hope that the county will do the right thing;


that they'll look at the issues in a broader scope," she said.


During a July King County Council meeting, Councilmember


Louise Miller initiated a motion to remand the decision back to the hearing


examiner so more studies could be done. The move should give the hearing


examiner more information on which to base his recommendation for


the development's size and mitigation requirements.


Councilmember David Irons, who represents the Valley, agreed with


the vote.


"I voted to put it back to the hearing examiner because I was not


convinced that there was adequate protection for Patterson Creek while


they were building," Irons said.


Later in July, a meeting was held to explain the remand decision


and outline the areas needing additional study. The main areas to be


reconsidered are traffic impacts, construction of an access road, stormwater


drainage and impacts to Patterson Creek.


"We're in a different world today, and one of the things we have to do


is address the streams," Miller said.


Many of the plans currently under fire were measures taken by


Port Blakely — with Department of Development and Environmental


Services support — to create as little impact


as possible to neighboring property, Patterson Creek and residential


traffic.


Developers planned to build a new access road to Treemont, and


they have already bought the additional land to support the road. A


quarter-mile-long drainage pipe was created as a solution to protect


Patterson Creek. But now the County Council has decided both the road and


pipe need further study.


Councilmembers have asked for studies that would eliminate the


road and drainage pipe, which could ultimately result in paring down the


number of homes built.


"We have to look for better ways to accommodate the growth and


development, and in this case, to eliminate the new road and modify


the drainage system," Miller said.


She added she has had experience with erosion problems along


nearby Sahalee Way and doesn't want to see those experiences repeated.


"We've lost great chunks of (land). It's very steep and slide-prone, and


on more than one occasion they had to close and repair the road," Miller


said. "There's no way you can fix it once you've done the damage, and


it's highly likely (the Treemont proposal) would damage the creek, and


same with the drainage," she said.


John Adams of Port Blakely said his company has already spent


more than a decade of time, work and money in complying with the county.


"What we hope (additional studies) show is that our original


proposal is the best proposal," Adams said. "Bottom line is we believe we have


a project that does mitigate impacts."


Port Blakely submitted development applications for Treemont


in 1988, when zoning was one house per acre. Legally, the zoning is vested


and cannot be changed.


"Our approach is that we are vested to the one-acre zoning, and


as long as we mitigate the impacts, we don't see any basis for the county


to deny it, " Adams said.


Another issue confronting Treemont is water. The


development's water-availability certification was also acquired under a vesting


policy in 1988. But last month, the Department of Ecology released findings


that suggest the aquifer that supplies the Sammamish Plateau Water and


Sewer District — which provides the Treemont water guarantee — was


severely compromised from overdevelopment and may not be a


sufficient water source.


Irons explained that King County could be open to a lawsuit if the


council were to try and enforce current zoning.


"The (county's) prosecuting attorney, despite all of the


objections brought up, said (the project) is


legally vested. "But we have the right to require that they meet certain


standards," Irons said. "I would rather hold


the builder to the highest environmental standards that we can" than


spend taxpayer's money on lawsuits.


Adams said he and other Port Blakely officials will be


open-minded when considering the new studies' findings, and will seek an


environmentally sound solution.


"It's premature to say if those (new studies) would improve the project


or make it worse," Adams said.


He estimates it could take another four to six months before the


proposal is up for another public hearing, because time is needed to complete


the additional studies and have them reviewed by county staff.


Rich Hudson, the Treemont project's manager at DDES, said


the hearing examiner, Stafford Smith, could recommend one of four


options for the applicant. One might be Port Blakely's option of 194 homes.


Two other alternatives would downsize the development to 83 or even 47 lots,


the latter being consistent with current five-acre zoning policies.


The fourth option could be to deny Port Blakely's application


altogether. But even those who have raised questions about the development


aren't rooting for the fourth alternative.


"The thing that people need to understand is that we're not


saying they shouldn't develop (the property), it's just that they should develop it


with regard to rural character and the environment _ what the land will


tolerate," Cannon-Kyte said.


Hudson said amid the delays, the Treemont approval process has


been hard on everyone.


"I'm sure the public's been frustrated because (the property) has


been sitting there so long. The applicant is frustrated because (it is) trying to


accommodate the impacts, and the hearing examiner is wrestling with


the impacts and listening to public testimony, and he has to bring all of


that information into his decision to the County Council," he said.

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Jul 23 edition online now. Browse the archives.