Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-02 Regular MinutesROLL CALL November 2, 1987 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers Regular Meeting OFFICIALS 7:03 p.m. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1988 Budget TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL M I N U T E S 67/_3 CALL TO ORDER Since Mayor Van Dusen had not arrived, Wendy Morgan, Council and President, called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. MABEL J. HARRIS; JOE H. DUFFIE; WENDY A. MORGAN, Council President; EDGAR D. BAUCH; CHARLES E. SIMPSON; MARILYN G. STOKNES; JOHN MCFARLAND. LAWRENCE MARTIN, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; RICK BEELER, Planning Director; ALAN DOERSCHEL, Finance Director; BYRON SNEVA, Public Works Director. MAYOR VAN DUSEN ARRIVED AT THE MEETING. Mayor Van Dusen briefly reviewed his budget message. He pointed out that the budget this year has been prepared in a new format. It contains more information than previous budgets. To better understand this budget you need to read the budget narratives. The biggest item that needs to be discussed is the Capital Improvement Plan. Once the review is completed, the final document should be informational, policy setting, and responsible. He is recommending a 3% cost of living increase for the non represented employees. Employee benefits medical, insurance, and social security- are increasing this year. He has proposed an increase in full time equivalent personnel positions of 1.25. If Council approves the management of Fort Dent Park, 2 full time main- tenance employees are proposed. Thirty -three projects are included in the Capital Improvement Plan for Preliminary Engineering ranging from $5,000 to $100,000. Twenty -three construction projects are included ranging in cost from $10,000 to $1.4 million. There is an increase in the Current Fund of approximately $1,123,000. A great deal of this is the new positions and the salary and benefit increases, the micro computer program, Fort Dent expenses, and the increase in costs for the City Attorney. Alan Doerschel, Finance Director, also reviewed the increase in the Current Fund. Labor amounts to well over half of the increase. Council President Morgan stated that Council has talked about its priorities for the coming year. If they do not show up in this budget, they should take time to see that they are made a part of their policy statement. This will take a careful review of each program area. Some of the money may have to be rechannelled into other funds. She challenged Council to work hard at this. By the time the review is finished, she would like the budget to reflect the Council's policy statements. This budget is a good first attempt at a program budget. Councilman Bauch reminded Council that one of the respon- sibilities of the Personnel Officer was that they would also handle Risk Management. Mr. Doerschel reviewed the 1988 revenue proposal. The current revenue is up 12% over the 1987 budget and this is being used as the estimate for 1988. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 2 SPECIAL PRESENTATION Cont. 1988 Budget (cont.) CONSENT AGENDA Ordinance #1446 Discussed on p.3 Councilman McFarland asked if there had been any factor put into the revenue estimate based on questions about the economic health of the country. Mr. Doerschel explained that he has reviewed actual revenues for the past 15 years and Tukwila has never had a year when we have received less money from sales tax than the pre- ceding year. If we only receive that amount, we will feel the effect at the end of 1988, and the 1989 budget would really feel the effect of the low year in sales tax. During the budget review process, we may have to revise the property tax estimate down a little bit. At this time, they are not expecting to raise the rates for water and sewer except for the Metro. The beginning fund balance accounts for 42% of all of the City's money that will be available for 1988. This is the result of large projects being carried over. Council President Morgan said at next Monday's meeting, they will set the schedule for discussion of the budget and to talk about Council's priorities and policies. This meeting will be held in the Board Room at N.C. Machinery. a. Approval of Minutes: October 5, 1987, Regular Meeting October 19, 1987, Regular Meeting b. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #32234 #32377 Current Fund City Street Land Acq.,Bldg. Dev. Water Fund Sewer Fund Foster Golf Course Equipment Rental Firemen's Pension *MOTION CARRIED. 60,426.02 8,919.06 4,113.63 1,290.11 1,055.13 1,801.20 3,338.60 149.11 81,092.86 c. An ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, amending Ordinance #1234 and setting testing fees for filing Civil Service applications. d. Accept Bicentennial Park Parking /Restroom and Golf Course Restroom Construction Project built by S. L. Larsen Construction and release retainage in the amount of $5,907. e. An ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, amending Section 18.60.030(2) to require BAR review of proposed commercial development plans in excess of 10,000 square feet in the C -P zone and to delete the requirement for the BAR to separately review landscape plans in the C -P zone. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.* Councilman Bauch asked to have Item 6E removed for con- sideration later. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS Ordinance #1447- This item was removed from the Consent Agenda as it has not To require BAR review been to a Council Committee. of proposed commercial development plans in MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE PROPOSED excess of 10,000 ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. sq.ft. in the C -P Zone City Attorney Martin read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Wash., amending Section 18.60.030(2) to require BAR review of proposed commercial development plans in excess of 10,000 square feet in the C -P Zone and to delete the require- ment for the BAR to separately review landscape plans in the C -P Zone. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1447 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Appeal to the Board On September 24, 1987, the Board of Architectural Review of Architectural Review (BAR) approved, with conditions, the plans for a 54 unit approval of the 54 apartment complex proposed by Gencor. On September 28, 1987, unit apartment complex the Sunwood Condominium Association appealed the BAR decision proposed by Gencor and the SEPA determination of non significance by the (Located north of Responsible Official. The BAR formally adopted, on October Dennys on Southcenter 22, 1987, written findings, conclusions and conditions of Blvd.) approval which were verbally adopted on September 24, 1987. The Gencor property lies behind the Denny's Restaurant on Southcenter Boulevard (5700 block) There are three par- ticipants in the appeal: the appellants, the Sunwood Association; the applicants, Azaria Rousso, Architect (Gencor); and the City. Larry Martin, City Attorney, recommended that the appellant, the Sunwood Association, be allowed to go first and tell Council why they should overturn the Planning Director's decision that the applicant doesn't need an EIS. Next, the City should respond and then the Developer should be given a chance to argue his position. Mr. Martin said he would like to help Council identify criteria and standards that apply to help Council make their decision. The SEPA Responsible Official, the City's Planning Director, made the decision that is being appealed. The City's action is being challenged and the Council sits as the deciding body. Council President Morgan asked if Council wanted to establish procedures so that no one goes away feeling as if they did not have an opportunity to address the issue. Councilman Duffie said he wants to make sure everyone has their say. Councilman Bauch said this type of action is one of the most important things that comes before the City Council. He is willing to listen as long as it is not repetitious information. Attorney Martin discussed the hearing and explained that denovo means that Council is hearing evidence a -new or making a new decision and, therefore, Council can hear anything that is relevant to the decision, it does not have to be something that was presented before. The State Statute directs you to give substantial weight to the decision of the Responsible Official. If you can't decide that it is very clear on one side or the other, then you are supposed to go with the decision of the Responsible Official. If after hearing all of the testimony tonight, you decide that an error has been made, reverse the decision, and decide an EIS is needed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Cont. RECESS 8:10 p.m. Amend Agenda Bid Award for Macadam Road Street Project to J. E. Work, Inc. PUBLIC HEARING, Continued s7V6 MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The Regular Meeting of the City Council was called back to order by Mayor Van Dusen with all members present. There has been a request to amend the agenda to include a bid award. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY MCFARLAND, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE BID OF J.E. WORK, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $390,776.20 FOR THE MACADAM ROAD STREET PROJECT.* Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, explained that the contractor will attempt to keep the street open at all times. This is primarily a resurfacing project. The project is for roadway and storm drain construction. *MOTION CARRIED WITH DUFFIE VOTING NO. Public Hearing continues on the Appeal. Mayor Van Dusen declared the Public Hearing open. Attorney martin asked all those who wish to speak during the Public Hearing to stand and be sworn in. Five men from the audience and Mr. Beeler took the oath. Mr. Ryan S. Thrower, 15232 Sunwood Blvd., is on the Board of of the Condominium Association. His concern is not necessarily about this particular development, but to talk about the whole process. There are two more developments, in some state of planning, that adjoin their property line. He is concerned about what is happening in Tukwila. Their appeal was based upon the fact that they thought there had been some changes and that new information was available. The changes are that the access to the property is now from Southcenter Boulevard. What is the additional traffic going to do to an already congested and dangerous situation that exists around Dennys and the Arco station. Homeowners who live in the white stucco buildings adjacent to and higher on the hill are very concerning about cuts on the hill and guarantees that there won't be any soil movements. What hap- pens when development starts down the hill. The change that has taken place from the time the plans were reviewed with the Planning Department and the Declaration of Non- Signifi- cance was issued was that a retaining wall between the Sunwood property and the adjacent property has been removed so there is no retaining wall. This is causing a great con- cern to some of the homeowners. The last point is that we think there has been inadequate attention paid to the compre- hensive planning process. They think the hillside has been designated environmentally sensitive and there is no evidence that adequate attention was paid to this. Council Member Harris asked where the access to the property is. She was told it is on the east side of the Arco Station. Mr. Thrower said he hadn't been able to obtain a copy of tonight's packet until this evening and feels it is a disad- vantage. With all of the material, it is hard to just hit the high points. Mayor Van Dusen offered that he has the right to ask for a recess to study the packet. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Cont. Appeal (cont.) 3 Mr. Thrower explained that he is looking at the bigger pic- ture. His intent is to talk about what is going on in Tukwila, how the process is working and the relation between the Comprehensive Land Use Planning Map and Zoning. Maybe it is not specifics we want to talk about tonight. I have lived here for seven years, and I have watched what is happening to our hillsides. Mr. Thrower explained that, at the Board of Architectural Review comments were made by the developer that they had done some test boring in that area, and they found water in some of the holes. There is surface water and there appears to be a lot of cutting and removing of materials very close to our property line, and our buildings are close to the property line. The applicant asked us for an easement to go on our property to reslope down to their property line so they would not have to build the retaining wall. The homeowners and Board looked at this and did not like it so they said, no. They apparently got the necessary slopes they were looking for so they did not have to build the retaining wall. This does not necessarily make our homeowners feel much better. Mr. Phillip Berhalen, 15255 Sunwood Blvd., is a homeowner in Sunwood and he supports the testimony of Mr. Thrower. First, there have been the changes Mr. Thrower referred to which caused an emotional reaction on the part of the homeowners in the A and B Buildings adjacent to the property under discussion. The development would involve cutting into the land 20 feet away from one of the patios. These are buildings with about 25 units in one and 75 in the others. The proposal is for 54 apartments. The sloping to take place has the adverse effect on their buildings. The issue is that we have high density residential zoning here. He appealed to the City Council to review and consider what this means, how are we going to protect the slopes in that area, how are we going to make sure that we keep a viewpoint of Tukwila for the part that is residential. He asked Council to reconsider how they would apply zoning in high density areas shown on the map. Could we use Council's authority in the future to put the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan into action in some concrete ways that would take care of this 20% sloping, take care of the amenities and take care of the beauty of the hill. How much more can you build on this hill. How much can you crowd this space when it is high density zoning. What restrictions are we willing to put into the future to guarantee that some of the beauty is going to be retained. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, reviewed how he made the Determination of Non Significance on this project. He entered into the record the following exhibits: Exhibit 1 Council Agenda Synopsis with Appendices A through F. This exhibit contains the Environmental Checklist as well as the Determination of Non Significance. The procedure is that the applicant submits the Environmental checklist. It is reviewed by the Planning Department with the help of other City staff and various documents that are available. The soils investigation generated some conditions on the phy- sical development of the buildings and parking areas such that the impacts could be mitigated. They looked at the impacts, the development, the slope of the property, the adjacent development, the access, the traffic along Southcenter and concluded that there was not a significant environmental impact. The conditions reported by the Soils Engineer were normal for the building permit process. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS Cont. Appeal (cont.) Exhibit No. 5 is a site plan showing the recreation space. Exhibit No. 2 was entered for the record letter of October 1, 1987, to Mr. Leon Grundstein, the applicant, from Mr. James Eaton, the GeoTechnical Engineer. This letter is in response to some of the changes that were made in the de- velopment plan pursuant to the Board of Architectural Review. Exhibits No. 3 and 4 are two drawings of the South elevation showing that the Sunwood property line is near the top of the buildings. Exhibit No. 6 shows the traffic counts taken this year by the Public Works Department. They indicate the average 24 hour volume in thousands. There is a figure of 33.9 at the access point of this property onto Southcenter Blvd. This means there are 33.9 thousand vehicle trips per day at that point. (There was considerable discussion on the traffic count report). Council President Morgan, after discussion with Mr Beeler and Attorney martin, clarified that the State Environmental Protection Act and the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan both provide that the basis on which SEPA is applied is indi- vidual parcels of property. She asked Mr. Beeler, referring to Appendix F, to review the process used when an Environmental Checklist is received to determine that an Environmental Impact Statement may or may not be necessary. Mr. Beeler explained that, upon receipt of the Environmental Checklist, it is routed to all City Departments who are involved in the permitting process. Once the information is back, Planning reviews and clarifies the checklist which is the beginning point, not the end. Based on all of the infor- mation collected, they evaluate whether or not there is more than a moderate adverse impact on the environment and whether they want to issue a determination of significance. If they find a significant impact, such as traffic, they contact the applicant, explain the situation and give the applicant a chance to revise the proposal to include mitigating to lessen the impacts. In this case, they issued a Determination of Non Significance. This, then, is followed by an appeal period. Councilman Simpson asked if mitigating measures are placed on one site, are they followed through on the development of other sites. Mr. Beeler said, not necessarily, it depends on specific circumstances of the site. Mr. Simpson asked if noise level is part of SEPA. Mr. Beeler said, yes, but the building permit process is where you catch a lot of these things. In this case, they did not see any particular noise impacts, from the information they had, that would lead them to say it was a significant impact. Mr. Simpson asked if noise is not addressed here, can requirements be placed on the development at the building permit stage. Mr. Beeler said, yes, if they find significant new noise information. Mr. Simpson wondered how this would be covered if there is no EIS required. Councilman Bauch questioned the impact of the traffic from this development being significant on Southcenter Boulevard. Mr. Beeler said, that as the Responsible Official, he deter- mined that it was not a significant environmental impact. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARINGS Cont. Appeal (cont.) Applicants Presentation: Mr. Steve M. Friedman, 11801 N.E. 160th, Bothel, said he is the applicant representing Gencor, a development company. He received his information packet on Saturday morning. He explained that there is a 20 foot wide landscape barrier on the 170 most easterly feet of their lot. Sunwood is to the northeast of their project. Their first building is set back 140 feet from their property line. Sunwood then has a 20 foot setback to their first building. This is 160 feet. The hillside is designated residential RMH, high density housing. This project is for 54 units. With this amount of acreage, they could build 101 total units. The soils engineer has advised against building this project during the winter and has advised that a certified soils engineer be present when the cuts and fills are being made. This is a spring time project. The retaining walls have been eliminated because they raised the parking lot to mitigate the impact of this project on their neighbors and to reduce the amount of view blockage. With the 33,000 vehicle trips per day on Southcenter Blvd., their 300 trips are not going to make a very big impact on traffic. Mr. Friedman referred to a drawing in Appendix C and explained that the floors of the first units in Sunwood are six feet above the height limit of their buildings. The building have been designed to have a minimal impact on its neighbors. After they met with the officials of the City of Tukwila, they designed to their com- ments. Despite all of their good intentions, they appeared before the Board of Architectural Review and were rejected. They were told that the project had too much view impact, the buildings were a bit bland and a few other things. They told us they didn't like out project and that we should try again, which we did. They came back a month later with a rede- signed project. It conforms with zoning code; the buildings are as low as they can possibly be on this site, it is 54 units when they could have 101, they have designed a slope that is easy for fire trucks to get up, they have extended the sidewalk at their expense, they have designed a trail system into their landscape plan which hooks to the City's trail system, they have made a real effort. The appellant brought the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to bear as a reason to deny this project. The project conforms to the zoning and is less dense. They have planned the slopes to conform with the codes. 60% of their designated recreation area is on a less than 4 to 1 slope. The requirement is 50%. They have 10,900 square feet of recreation area -this is more than what is required. In conclusion, the only thing that will satisfy the appellant is to have the property rezoned and declared a greenbelt. We have applied under the current zoning. We have a vested interest. If you require us to have an EIS, it is a very, very expensive thing to provide. This is a less intense development. We have made a very serious effort to provide a project that is compatible with the land use code, compatible with the zoning and will be a good neighbor for the surroundings. This completed the presentations. Rebuttals Mr. Ryan S. Thrower commented that it isn't that Southcenter Blvd. could not absorb the traffic, but can we be sure the Boulevard is built to take the turning. From driving past the AM /PM and Dennys every day, I know what a risky situation TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS Cont. Appeal (cont.) it is to try to merge into Southcenter Blvd. or to turn into the AM /PM. There is a lot of congestion there. This is a new issue. There is a change to the plan that happened through the BAR process that was not a part of the original plan. We make a big deal about view. When we bought those condominiums, a lot of the homeowners were delighted with the valley floor -it is a spectacular view in the evening with the twinkling lights. Mr. Beeler (for the City) explained that the turning move- ments of this particular spot on Southcenter Boulevard were analyzed during the North Hill rezone environmental review. He said he has never seen a spot on a road that has as intri- cate of easements as this particular situation has. It was amazing it was ever done this way. During the North Hill rezone, this point of access was discussed and the Public Works Department recommended that all of the accesses be joined. It is possible that this could be done; it is also possible to require right -in, right -out. He understands that Public Works does not feel the Boulevard is congested now. The issue of view has been addressed progressively over the years in reviewing specific development proposals, but it is not one that has been addressed in a more concrete way. This concluded Mr. Beeler's rebuttal. Councilman Duffie expressed concern about traffic access and egress and asked how it could be straightened out. Mr. Beeler said this was a concern of staff during the discussion on the North Hill rezone. An access study by a professional traffic engineer was required. The traffic engineer recommended that the turning movements occur at this access point. Sometime in the future the City is going to have to close one of the access roads to the Arco Station. Mr. Steve Friedman (for the applicant) said that the traffic and signal issue has been discussed clearly. The traffic engineer told them there would be synchronization between the new signal at Macadam Road and the signal at the S -Line Bridge. This would mitigate the problem that exists there now. He would support anything that would make the access easier. The BAR, when they approved the project, approved it with conditions. Condition le of the staff report says revise the north landscape area to provide view corridors. He had no further comments. Attorney Martin reviewed the parameters around Council's decision making process. In determining whether or not the Threshold Determination was made properly and whether or not there is a likelihood of adverse environmental impacts from the project, Council is to give substantial weight to the determination of the Responsible Official. Council should take into account normal regulations that will apply to the development. Also, take into consideration the testimony of the applicant, look at the net results and decide whether or not the evidence is so strong that you have proof that Mr. Beeler made an error. There being no further comment, Mayor Van Dusen closed the Public Hearing. Council Deliberation Councilman Bauch believes this development will cause signi- ficant impact. From now on any multi- housing development causes an impact and should have an EIS. We cannot look at TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1987 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARINGS Cont. Appeal (cont.) 11:05 p.m. just one project, we need to look at the impact of all of the projects being discussed. The impacts that are there need to be looked at. We should reuqire an EIS. This is the second appeal we have had. We set policy during our first appeal and we can't run away from it now just because this is a small project. Councilman Simpson agreed with Mr. Bauch. To stay consistent with what was discussed several months ago, an EIS is needed The same kind of impacts are created on this pro- ject as well as the other one. Council Member Harris said everything that happens in Tukwila has an impact on the City. The last one we debated was multi dwellings in a single family neighborhood. This one is surrounded by multi family and business. I don't know what they would put in an EIS that has not already been addressed. Councilman McFarland said the problem here is one of timing. We have not given staff the direction that we are seeing here starting to emerge tonight in regard to looking at the overall impact of a development vis -a -vis the issue of traf- fic three blocks down the road. This seems to be a new direction we are taking, and he encouraged Concil to continue in that direction. The problem here is equity, is this an equitable thing to do with this particular development. To make a major policy decision at this point is questionable. The appellant did not raise issues that would require an EIS at this point. They require some consideration and that has been given. The traffic issue is not completely resolved, maybe it will take resolution in the permit process. The developer has agreed to participate in resolving this issue if necessary. It is in their best interest if they do because, if they don't, theycould have 54 empty units and this is not in their best interest. Council President Morgan commented the issue of traffic really is an unresolved issue for a number of properties along that area. I am having trouble seeing how an EIS would help provide anything Council would find useful as a standard of judgment. However, we do need more information on traffic impact. Council Member Harris said the City has never passed a road adequacy ordinance. This document would tell us what we need. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THIS HEARING BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. .MOTION CARRIED WITH BAUCH, SIMPSON, AND MCFARLAND_VOTIN-a N4: Gar,1 L: Van Dusen, Mayor Maxine'Anderson, `City Clerk