Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-26 Special MinutesMay 26, 1987 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order at 7:50 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Van Dusen led the audience and the Councilmembers in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE MINUTES TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall SPECIAL MEETING Council Chambers MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE H. DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES, JAMES J. MCKENNA. Councilmember McKenna excused himself from the Council Chambers. Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Moira Bradshaw (Assistant Planner), Jim Haney (City Attorney). PUBLIC HEARING (THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING) Valley View Estates, Jim Haney, City Attorney, reported on the absence of a court Review Approval reporter. Attorney for the applicant, Joel Haggard, agreed to the of alternative bldg. absence of a court reporter if the recorded tapes of the meeting design. were made available to him if so requested. Mayor Van Dusen stated the issue before the Council is the stipulation in Condition 3 in the Findings and Conclusions of the City Council. This will be approach basically by first having the staff open, allowing the applican make their application, then we will ask for support for opposition for the proposal and have time for rebuttal at the end. We will consider a time limit on this. Jim Haney, city attorney, said we are meeting tonight with respect to Condition 3 of the Findings and Conclusions which stipulated that certain building heights were to be reduced, but if the applicant wished to propose alternative to height reductions or building configuration which would achieve a desirable transition, the City Council will retain jurisdiction for a period of six weeks in order to allow the applicant to present that so you are proceeding pursuant to your retained jurisdiction under those Findings and Conclusions and decision which you have already adopted. It is understood the applicant has submitted some alternatives and there is a recommendation from staff regarding them. There will likely be a presentation by some citizens concerning their concerns about the process and the application in the site plan. As we have done throughout the proceed- ings we should continue under oath. It is appropriate that the oath be administered again, even though it was done some time ago. Everyone will then realize they are under oath. City Attorney Haney administered the oath to everyone in the room who might testify. Dick Goe, 5112 South 163rd Place, stated he wished to ask a procedural question before staff makes their presentation. In reading on page 3, Conclusion, we are dealing it says in Item #1, Condition 3 approved by the City Council clearly stipulates the number of building stories. The two proposed options exceed those numbers in exchange for increased building set backs, and it goes on. It seems that...1.I don't find the wording here...nor do I have the set of Findings and Conclusions that were adopted by the City Council. The reason he is speaking at this point is that the Findings and Conclusions that were adopted by the Council were handed out by the City after they were adopted. We did not then have a chance to review and offer input at that time and it occurs that in the motion that was made by the Council it was the intent to reduce the height of the buildings to allow the applicant an opportunity to retain the option for the 108 units which they had originally requested by finding some space in the other part of their property. In three, Decision, on page 18, under paragraph number three, after (b) there is an unnumbered paragraph that says, "If the project proponent desires to propose an alternative to these height reductions or an alternative configuration of buildings on the site which would incorp- orate these height reductions, etc." I am trying to bring to your recollection the motion that was made at the Council table did not include anything about alternative height reductions. It was very specific about height reductions, that is to say a basement and one story. My recollection of the explanation of that is that it would TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. fits- be like a daylight basement and one story. The question is since the Council did not originally move for an alternative to reduction in heights how they could adopt a conclusion or make a decision that included that alternative and how we can have before us tonight this proposal based not on what the motion was but on something that came up later. I would like you to look into your motion and review as to the intent behind the motion and in so doing I think you have no alternative other than reject this proposal before we even get started tonight. Thank you. Mayor Van Dusen said the basic question seems to be is this part of the argument of the proposal or it is something we need to address first. Jim Haney, City Attorney, said he understood what Mr. Goe is saying and he felt he could clarify it and bring to the Council's recollection the process. As you recall, when the Council deliberated regarding this Mr. Bauch made some specific suggestions regarding height reductions on the buildings. The Council reached a consensus and the motion was to direct the City Attorney to draft Findings and Conclusions in accord with the Council's discussion. He said he went ahead and drafted Findings and Conclusions which he brought before the City Council in written form. Conclusion 3 is verbatim what he brought before the City Council. At the time it was brought before the City Council he indicated to the Council that he had made one particular change. As the Council knows, your Findings and Conclusions in a matter are not final until you finally adopt them in writing. At any time up until they are adopted, you may reconsider and redebate, etc. As he understood the original motion it was to bring back Findings and Conclusions that reflected the Council discussion which he attempted to do. The reason that he mentioned to the Council, and he was specific about Condition 3 and the language that is there, was because it was his understanding that there was a possibility from a practical standpoint, a literal reading of Mr. Bauch's conditions in the height reduction might place some of the building roof lines into the dirt, given the layout of the property. There were some smiles on the Council when he mentioned that before. He indicated to the Council they might want to consider leaving themselves some flexibility in considering alternatives. The matter was then discussed. He did not recall whether the Council specifically discussed this particular condition but Mr. Bauch had a number of proposed revisions to the Findings and Conclusions which the Council agreed with and ultimately they were adopted, leaving Condition 3 intact. That is how that matter was adopted to his recollection, that the Council was aware of the way it was worded and adopted it in that form. You have properly before you the alternatives proposed by the applicant, not saying that you have to accept or that you should reject or whatever those alternatives but you are properly here to consider them. Mayor Van Dusen asked Mr. Goe if there was anything else. Mr. Goe said there was not. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said we should establish how we are going to handle Exhibits. We had approximately 78 or 79 Exhibits entered into the record. The question he has for the city attorney is whether or not we should continue that sequence or start anew? Mr. Haney said it did not make a lot of difference but he thought for purposes of keeping the record as clear as possible it might be worthwhile to continue with the same numbers so if this matter ever got further along the line we would not be referring to duplicate Exhibits. Council President Morgan said she would like a point of clarification from the City Attorney. She said she did not understand the City's continuing role in this. It seems the Council in its Findings and Conclusions provided guidance for the applicant to come forward with an opportunity to show some alternative ways of handling those Findings and Conclusions and it was her understanding that it was now between the City Council and the applicant. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. Jim Haney, City Attorney, said the staff is here obviously to assist the Council in making decisions and evaluating alternatives. The staff has come forward with the Staff Report saying this is, looking at these options, what we believe is the correct and proper findings and conclusions regarding them. It is up to you whether you wish to call for your staff's assistance in this matter, but the staff has gone ahead and prepared the report anticipating that you would want their input and their evaluation of these alternatives. Mayor Van Dusen said basically if you read the RCW, staff has an obligation to report. Council President Morgan said the Council is sitting as the BAR now, is that correct? City Attorney Haney said that was correct. Council President Morgan said it seems what has generated this evening is new and different information, is that correct? Mr. Haney, City Attorney, said it is information specifically requested by the Council in its Findings, Conclusions and Decision, saying if the applicant wanted to present something different to meet those height reduction requirements as an alternative to that, the Council would listen to it otherwise that was what was going to have to be done. Council President Morgan said then what the Council is doing in a sense constitues a new hearing. Mr. Haney said that is essentially correct. Council President Morgan said then the role of the City changes to what it has been in the past hearings. Is that correct? Mr. Haney said that the staff in the past has perceived its role as defending the BAR's decision. At this point, since the Council has decided that the BAR is in error, the staff sees its role as in giving you evaluation and responding to the options proposed by the applicant. That is what staff has done with their report. You have told the applicant that they must do certain things with respect to this. If they can show you some alternative you will not require that, you might accept some alternative if you find the alternative acceptable. The applicant is responding to you and saying here is what we would propose to do. This is the court of last resort as far as the City is concerned. There are other courts after that. Mayor Van Dusen said at this point we can allow opponents and proponents to whatever is brought up. Mr. Haney said they can respond and you can allow others to respond to what the applicant brings forth tonight. That is certainly appropriate. Staff is here to give you a recommendation on the new material, just as they would the BAR. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said the role staff has taken and the report submitted is the normal procedure for staff to support the Planning Commission and yourselves on a land use matter. Staff has no problem entering this Exhibit into the record simply because it has already been submitted to you and then whenever you want us in the hearing. Council President Morgan said that will be alright as long as it is known that this is simply the Planning Department recommendation. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said then for the record they would enter Exhibit 80, it has been confirmed that it is the correct number to use, the Staff Report with an attachment A, which includes the larger document entitled "Valley View Estates Transition Studies, date May 1, 1987." That attachment contains some documents: (1) a letter of May 1, 1987 from Mithun, Emrick, Bowman Group; and also some drawings and site plans of what are labeled as Option 1 and Option 2. Moira Bradshaw of the Planning Department is here to present the staff report. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING- Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. 7 Moira Bradshaw, Assistant Planner, stated on April 15 the Council made a verbal decision through a motion to approve the Valley View Estates' proposal under certain conditions. Specifically there was Condition No. 3 that stated that transition was not sufficient as it was proposed on Exhibit 19 and made Condition No. 3 that they reevaluate and reduce the number of stories to the north and to the south and specifically that affected buildings 1, 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18. Staff met with the applicant and their architect to discuss the verbal motion, to look at the alternatives and to consider ways of making up for possible loss of unit count when the number of stories were reduced on those outside buildings. On April 27 you adopted your Findings and Conclusions and the specific wording of Condition 3 was spelled out, that is on page 2 of the Staff Report. It is listed verbatim. Basically the City Council listed their view of appropriate transition, buildings 1, 3 and 18 would be reduced to one story plus the basement; 2, 4 and 17 would be reduced to a height of two stories plus a basement. You also listed in there the flexibility that these height reductions could be looked at in a different way and proposed through alternatives by the applicant and you would review that within the following six weeks should they come forward with an alternate proposal. Those alternatives then are shown for you in Attachment A, they came forward with Option 1 and Option 2 and those were the two options then that the City staff reviewed and as a way of providing transition for the project to the north and the south. Neither of those two options reduces the number of stories to one and a basement. Part of the problem of doing that that Jim Haney mentioned before was that due to the slope of the hillside, in order to have a one story building with a basement would be that the entry level from primarily the west side of those buildings would have to be lowered into the dirt and you would have to have retaining walls and wells to provide entrance and light to that first story. Neither do any of the options come up with alternatives within the interior of the site to make up for the loss of unit count. Option 1 has a 3 unit loss and Option 2 has a 9 unit loss. There is some reference made by the architect that should the applicant or should the City wish to look at those he can provide those but they are not before you tonight. So, again, City staff went with what they had before them, Option 1 and Option 2. On May 18 this staff report was transmitted to the City Council and mailed to the applicant and interested parties who have testified before you, Mr. Goe and Mr. Robertson, and the staff has recommended Option 2 as providing an adequate transition to the south across Slade Way to the single family homes and to the north across the City Light easement to potential single family homes that may be located there. The reasons for the recommendation are (1) the applicant has reduced the first buildings, 1, 3, and 18 to a two story building with a basement. The two story building would provide a single story from the west side and two or three levels from the west. They have considerably altered the location of buildings 1 and 2. They have changed 2 and moved it from an east -west access to a north -south access so the shortest portion of building 2 is then viewed from the south side which was a major concern of the Council. Building 1 is canted so the most mass of the building is no longer directly parallel to the road but it would be seen from an angle and therefore the vision of the mass would be somewhat reduced. In addition, building 1 was increased in setback and #2 was also increased in setback. Down to buildings 3 and 4, they increased the setback from 20'. As I go through these you can follow along. The pages are not numbered. On buildings 3 and 4 they were previously oriented on a east -west access so the major portion of the building was parallel to the street; they realigned 3 and 4 parallel with the other buildings 5, 6, 7 and 8 thereby increasing the setback from 20' to 35'. Again the outside building had a story reduced, effectively it went down from averaging 35' to somewhat less than 30'. Building 4 was split so you have somewhat of a setback reduction in the mass closer to the outside while still maintaining one of the units on the upper story. As far as 3 and 4 go, they increased the setback they showed a larger landscaping area and again reduced it so you still have one story visually seen from the entrance and your two lower stories a basement and a story below. On 17 and 18 they had originally proposed a 35 -36 split setback from the north property line, again 18 would be similar to the mass of TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. 8 1 and 3, with two story and a basement and 17 would be the split level with the outside portion of the building reduced to two stories and a basement and the inner portion of the building would be at its regularly proposed height. Staff saw the intent of providing adequate more appropriate transition around the outside of the project as being provided through Option 2. The relocation of the buildings, the increase in the setback, the reduction of one story and 1/2 story or half of the buildings and the canting so the full effect of the mass of the building from the side parallel to the road was changed by reorientating the outside structures. The setbacks that are being proposed, 36 and 50' minimum on the outsides will exceed typical single family setbacks of 30', the heights of the outside buildings again will be less than the average height of the single family structure permitted which is 30' so for those reasons the staff is recommending Option 2 be considered for compliance with Condition #3 of the City Council's decision for approval of this project. Councilmember Harris said then this Option reduces the unit count by 9, am I right in assuming those units are not scattered somewhere else. Ms. Bradshaw said at this time they have not presented that and as Mr. Haney said and I stated we at City Staff level reviewed what was given to us. In discussions after that the applicant may desire if the unit count is reduced by 9 units, whatever the final decision of the Council is, may wish to come back with perhaps some interior modifications to increase the number of units. Right now we do not have that information. Councilmember Harris said if the Council accepts Option 2 can she then assume that no more units will be visually built? Ms. Bradshaw said this information would have to be supplied by the applicant's information. Mr. Haney, City Attorney, said his understanding is that they understand that if they put additional units in the interior of the site they would go back to the BAR. That would be a redesign of the project. Council President Morgan said if this Council, whichever Option it accepts, and the applicant made the decision then to add some additional units internally to come up to the original 108, could they then change what had been approved at this meeting? Jim Haney, City Attorney, said if they go back before the BAR and start with a revised plan they could do that. Council President Morgan said they could then alter what was approved? Mr. Haney said it would be a redesign of the project and they would be coming back through the BAR and ultimately that could be appealed to the Council again. Council President Morgan said if the Council statement clearly said that we said if the applicant could come up with a redesign internally in the property that could be part of what they presented to us. It is my understanding that that fell within the six -week jurisdiction. Mr. Haney said for the Council, yes. He said if they are going to go back for the BAR, they always have that option and to repropose the project in some other configuration and go back to the BAR with a different site plan. They would have that option regardless of the Council decision in this proceeding. Jim Haney, City Attorney, said he noticed in all of the drawings related to the option there is some landscaping area that is laid out in circles. Is that an increase in the lancscaping? Ms. Bradshaw said staff assumed that they would be intensifying the landscaping in that area and it was included as part of staff recommendation. They do not have specific plants identified nor TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING.- Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. -3 7 do we have numbers. We assumed that their landscape architect would come up with a proposal. We, of course, would stipulate that trees to provide transition and screening would be the appropriate landscape materials for that area. The transition is the intent. Mr. Haney said his question is that it looks from the drawing at least, that by increasing the set back they have increased at least the width of the strip that they are calling landscaping regardless of what is in there and it would be additional landscaping he would assume. Ms. Bradshaw said that was staff's understanding. All of that area would be in grass or trees so that would be additional landscaping. The actual content of the landscaping will have to be determined by the Council for Condition #3. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th South, said will the applicant come back during this 6 -week period with another proposal if this is accepted or rejected can they come back within this 6 -week period? If it is accepted can they come back with one during the 6 -week period showing additional units or some other site plan? Joel Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said that he believed that Mr. Robertson's comments are not only legally incorrect but they are highly speculative and they assume a result by this Council. Mr. Haggard said on page 18 of Council's decision, paragraph 3, you indicated that building masses were to be reduced on the north and south side of the proposed project and you indicated in very specific terms what you desired. In Conclusion #1 it states that the finished grades would be such that the uphill eaves of the perimeter buildings would be at a below -grade elevation. It also indicates that this would force the applicant to build retaining walls,wellsfor windows, doors, etc. One might also speculate and anticipate that there would be the suggestion that if we follow that approach we would have to assure child safety by putting fences on the edges of the roof to prevent people from climbing up. This is probably not what all of us want. On the other hand, Members of the Council, we not only listened to what you said we also through the courtesy of your Clerk's office were able to arrange for a transcript of what you said so we could see it and not just rely on our memory or impression. We took to heart the second portion of Decision Condition #3 which indicated if we wanted to propose height reductions or alternative configura- tions we should do it in a timely fashion and we should come back to the Council and present this information to you. Tonight you have in front of you at least two pieces of information. You have the staff report and the applicant's presentation of two alterna- tives. He pointed out in the staff report in their Conclusions they do talk through Conclusions 1 through 6 basically about Option 2 and then in Conclusion 7 they think Option 2 is more acceptable than Option 1. They don't give you conclusions as to the acceptability or the benefits of Option 1. Tonight we have one witness that will be presenting information to you. It is the architect that you have seen here before. He is with the firm that designed the City Hall. When they first had the building designs for City Hall and showed them to the various people involved there were probably suggestions of changes, etc. In a large measure that is what Fred has been asked here to do tonight, to listen to what you said and try to accomplish you have indicated you want to accomplish. Mr. Haney has offered opinions and advice through this proceeding and I have offered comments not always in agreement. I would like to share one thing that has been troubling me with respect to what the Council has been asked to do. As I reviewed the Findings and Conclusions and look specifically at the BAR criteria I find on page 16 a discussion with respect to the masses of the building there. That is in respect to a criteria about architectural style. A valuation of the project should be based on quality of its design in relationship to its surroundings. In relationship to its surroundings. No specified criteria, it doesn't TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. RECESS 8 :50 9:00 P.M. say what relationship should be met and I would have to infer a degree of reasonableness. I also look at page 6 in the Findings and it says that one of the BAR's criteria is that there should be an accomplishment of a desirable transition to the street scale. So we have the concept of reasonableness that is inferred, we have the concept of desirable and then finally on page 9 we have a comment about harmoney, texture, line and masses. I don't think that really applies. I think it is .050(1a) and I think it is also .050(4a). Why do I bring this up? Because in determining what is an acceptable or desirable or a reasonable transition I believe it is important to find out what standards we are judging it against. The standards we are judging it against is not political acceptability. I understand very well members of the Council have expressed a concern about having this matter over and finished because there is an election coming up and there is a desire to talk with constituents. This is understandable. I also know that in things like the Park Ridge case our court has clearly told us that public opinion, political issues are not relevant and are not determinative of your decision. Probably this is because in a quasi judicial hearing such as this the court is equally concerned about the constitutional rights of the property owners to know what standards are going to be used to judge the proceeding. I have also struggled with this question of standards and what we mean. Is there some kind of an objective criteria? The BAR criteria doesn't give you objective standards. The only objective standards we have is in the zoning code and you have heard staff indicate that we have heights less than and set- backs greater than if we were a single family resident. I think these standards indicate some of the type of things you were concerned about. Move it back farther, drop it down. On the other hand, the BAR criteria are qualitative and that is why I have expressed concern in the past and I have expressed the concern to your attorney because of the Carlson vs. Bosart Village case where the court indicated to allow the town council to deny the application based on "the best interests of the town citizens" would put the Carolsons like the applicants in the predicament of having no basis for determining how they would comply with the law. Consequently, we find that the actions of the town council were arbitrary and capricious. That is why I have been struggling and why we have asked only one witness tonight to talk to you about what is appropriate about relocation, reorientation, building height reductions and stepping and increased landscaping so we can provide you with an adequate basis for making a decision. It is also fair to state as our position that if the Council were to adopt Alternative 1 or Option 1, the one that causes a loss of 3 units we will accept that decision. If, on the other hand, the Council adopts Option 2 and causes a loss of 9 units we will have to go back to the BAR to show additional structures or units interior to recapture some of the units. Staff perhaps feel a little cheated because we did not bring to you an identification as to how we would recover those additional units. You have not made the decision that would require us to consider that yet. If you were to do that then we are going to have to do some engineering and then go back to the BAR. We hope we can present the information to you that will allow you to choose Option 1 as an acceptable and appropriate transition. I will turn the time over to Fred, the architect, and state we will have only one more exhibit, which is Exhibit 81. Mayor Van Dusen called for a five minute recess. Mayor Van Dusen called the Special Meeting back to order, with Councilmembers present as previously listed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING May 26, 1987 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARING Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. RECESS 9:40 9:50 P.M. Fred Brown, architect with firm of Mithun, Bowman, Emrich Group, Bellevue, referred to Exhibit 81 as mainly worksheets. He explained the work sheets and how they would affect the buildings. Building #1 would be reduced 18', Building #2 would be reduced 9'; retains setbacks; reduces unit length to street; creates safety and security problem with roof adjacent to grade; retains landscaping from street to building #1; deletes six units; building #1 living level is 9' below parking and 5' below Slade Way. On page 2 it shows the relationships to buildings #3 and #4. Reduces height of building 3 18', building #4 9'; retains setbacks; reduces unit length to street; creates safety and security problem with roof adjacent to grade (building #3); retains landscaping from street to building #3; deletes 6 units; building #3 living level 9' below parking and 4' below Slade Way. On page 3 it reduces height of building #18 18' and building #17 9'; retains setbacks; reduces unit lengths; creates safety and secur security problem with roof adjacent to grade; retains land- scaping; deletes 6 units; building #18 living level 9' below parking. Page 4 relocates building #1; building #1 setback increased from 20' to 50'; building #2 setback increased from 84' to 120'; landscaping increased between street and building #1. On page 5 it demonstrates what has been done with building #1 by relocating it. Page 6 shows building #1 reduced height; and ridge is 24' above adjacent street elevation (Slade Way). Page 7 shows relocation of buildings #3 and #4. Building #3 setback increased from 20' to 42'; landscaping increased between street and building #3. Page 8 shows relocation of buildings #3 and #4 and reduces length; page 9 shows 1/2 of building #3 is reduced 1 floor (9'); page 10 shows building #1 and reduces height of one -half of building #1 9'; increases setback of building #1 20' to 50'; increases setback of building #2 84' to 120'; reduces unit length; reduces unit height; increases landscaping between street and building; deletes one unit; "breaks -up" roof mass; retains building facade. Page 11 reduces height building #3 9'; increases setback to 42'; reduces unit length and height; increases landscaping; deletes one unit; "breaks -up" roof mass; retains building facade. Page 12 reduces height building #18 9'; retains 36' setback with landscaping; reduces length and height; deletes one unit; "breaks -up" roof mass; retains buildir facade. Page 13 treats building #2 as building #1 except reduces height building #1 9' and reduces height of one -half of building #2 9'; deletes three units. Page 14 treats building #4 as #3 except reduces height 9' of building #3 and reduces height of one -half of building #4 9'; deletes 3 units. Page 15 treats building #17 as building #18 except reduces height of building #18 9'; reduces height building #17 9'; deletes three units. Page 16 is a summary of options, recommending approval to Option 1. Mayor Van Dusen called a five minute recess. The Special Meeting was called back to order by Mayor Van Dusen with Councilmembers present as previously listed. Dennis Robertson, audience, 16038 48th Avenue South, Tukwila, said he would like to go back eight or nine years. He said he was president of McMicken Height Improvement Club and on Military Road and 188th where there is now a condominium with attached housing it was vacant land. On the Comprehensive Land Use Plan it was shown as medium density apartments. We had a freeze that King County had applied to any upzones until the Highland Community Plan was done. The Club had been working with them. A developer came in and wanted to build apartments there. He talked to people in the vicinity. When they applied for a hearing the freeze was noted. They wanted a community meeting. We chaired the meeting. The Council wanted to know whether the community wanted that development because of the freeze. The developer had told the people the issue was where to put ingress and egress to the development. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MAY 26, 1987 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING- Contd. Valley View Estates, Review Approval of alternative bldg. design contd. We had all of the people fighting among themselves as to who would have the entrances and exits in front of their place. The situation was then explained that it was not a matter of entrances and exits. A vote was taken and it was 130 to nothing not to build the development. What has happened here is that the City has had several proposals presented as if you have to accept one of them. On the last page of the exhibit is the summary of options. It talks about reducing height. Reducing height was what this whole thing was about. The idea of lowering the mass of the building was to lower the height of them, the visual height, that is the point that was raised. It doesn't talk about how much it reduces the height in detail, or by which building. The reductions in height are complex. There are lots of places where the heights are not reduced. This table does not show that at all. Item 11 states "requires adding units to interior of site." If you believe the table then it says you have to add units to Option 0 or Option 2. The developer may come back in a few weeks and say he wants to add more to this, which is his right I believe. He can always go back to the BAR with a new building proposal. In the original plan, Exhibit 80, the Staff Report, Option 1 did not meet any condition that was proposed. On the first page of Option 2, the neatest thing was that buildings could be relocated. In Option 0 the fact that building roofs would touch the ground was a matter of concern. There are lots of solutions to that, none of which were explored. The easiest one is to move the building out from the hillside so you cannot step onto the roof. They didn't propose that. In Building #2 they eliminated one -half of the upper level. We pointed out the problem with those buildings was how they would appear visually from the south. Buildings #3 and #4 will cut into the recreation area that was proposed to go there. I have not seen that recreation area supplied elsewhere. There is no indoor recreation area; no cabana, no swimming pool. Mr. Robertson said there are lots of apartments that did not meet the conditions set up. Neither proposal has changed much. He said he though the applicant should give the City a total site plan to make a decision. Dharlene West, 5212 South 164th, said she felt this proposal of Options 1 and 2 is not responsive to the intent of the City Council. It seems that height and scale should be in harmony. Council President Morgan said building #3 and others appeared all angular. Architect Fred Brown said the reason is that they are viewed from the street in a single family residential zone. They are turned to give them more modulation. Council President Morgan said rather than physically reducing the buildings they have been moved so it appears to be less imposing. She said the City Council provided another option which was a major reduction in the number of units to achieve this transition. City Attorney Haney the applicant has offered some alternatives. The Council should make a decision on those proposals. You can reject both Option #1 and #2. Option 2 proposes question would it require additional units to be located on the site? If they did they would have to go back to the BAR. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, asked if it is possible for the Council to choose part of Option 1 and part of Option 2? Mr. Haney said the Council would have the option of 1 or 2 or they could probably pick a portion of 1 and 2. Dennis Robertson, audience, said Exhibit 82 shows the impact of relocation of Units 3 and 4. It shows if the new landscape plan is put in it will not allow the recreation area to exist as required. UKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING gay 26, 1987 age 10 UBLIC HEARING Contd. alley View Estates, eview Approval f alternative bldg. esign contd. DJOURNMENT 1:30 P.M. Mayor Van Dusen stated it was 11:00 p.m. and the rules would have to be suspended to continue the meeting. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY MORGAN, TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND CONTINUE THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated it was the recommendation of staff to accept Option 2. Of the two options, Option #2 fits better. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 11:15 P.M. Councilmembers discussed Options #1 and #2, the deletion of some units and additional landscaping. The original decision of the Council was to create a transition between the multiple high density and the single family residential areas. The Council asked the developer to show them if they want to have 108 units how do they plan to do it? MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINE THAT OPTIONS #1 AND #2 DO NOT SATISFY CONDTION 3 IN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS, MORGAN, SIMPSON, STOKNES VOTING NO. BAUCH AND DUFFIE VOTING YES. MOTION FAILED, FOUR TO TWO. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT OPTION 2 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING STAFF. ROLL CALL VOTE: HARRIS, MORGAN, SIMPSON, STOKNES VOTING YES. BAUCH AND DUFFIE VOTING NO. MOTION CARRIED, FOUR TO TWO. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BRING BACK FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WITH THE DECISION. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. C Mayor Gary L. Van Dusen Norma Booher, Recording Secretary 4