3/27/07, Design flaws from cramming subdivisions

I'm writing out of frustration with the planning department about a short subdivision project called Spiritbrook Manor, near 520 by Marymoor. Though other citizens have many more frustrations, I'll list a few of mine, as follows:

In land use meetings and appeals I've attended, the Planning & Development Dept. often explain their borderline decisions saying "but, the plan DOES meet our city minimum standards"! However, in this case, the Springbrook Manor lots are crammed in so close to each other that certain design STANDARDS don't even exist. For example:

1. An "alley" is needed by the developer so the garages will fit in. Yet, the city has no specific standard for alleys to allow for vehicular movement, including Emergency Medical Services. i.e. a planner wants the alley so "the garages will be just enough apart to allow a vehicle to back out and turn..." What is "just enough apart? What kind of "vehicle will back out and turn"? An auto, emergency vehicle, a garbage truck? The city plan is loosey goosey - not by design.

2. When the development staff were challenged about where the required parking spaces would go, staff stated that 6 parking spaces met standards. After questioning from a citizen, staff then lowered their "standards" to 4 spaces to "make the project work" so that parking on the street wouldn't be required.

3. Code requires 40% of all developments be pervious to water (to manage run-off and water quality). Because so many structures and driveways are crammed onto this small parcel AND a power station will be installed on it, PERVIOUS surfaces are just less than 40%. The Public Works Dept. empirically claims that the gravely ground under the power station qualifies as being totally pervious, yet no specific minimal design standards or code language is in "the books".

During an appeal will the Hearing Examiner require staff to document minimum standards are met? And, if no standards or code can be found will the Examiner call in the Design Review Board to determine if the existing plan can be architecturally made to work?

4. Finally, I've been informed that several answers from staff may have been inadvertantly inaccurate, misleading, or delaying. The persistent citizen challenging this subdivision was given the wrong information on permeable space calculations and parking space requirements. She had to dig up information staff could not answer or had wrong. She had to attend multiple meetings with the Dir. of Planning & Development, made public and private presentations to Council and the Mayor, she had multiple meetings with public works and planning staff. Yes, it's the run-a-round. But, what's different this time is she has proven our design, development and review process for short plats is in serious need of an over-haul.
Unfortunately, this citizen has toiled for months without a city advocate. She had to get all her information about the project from city staff, yet staff will be the party challenging her in an appeal! Do you think this is fair? Could this be why it was so difficult getting a straight answer from the city for this project? What do you think?