Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-02-23 Special Minutes - Valley View Estates Appeal Public Hearing (Continued)February 23, 1987 6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING continued from 2/12/87 ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE PUBLIC HEARINGS Appeals to the BAR decision on the Valley View Estates Proposal. EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:05 7:30 P.M. 3 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL City Hall PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED Council Chambers THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT M I N U T E S Mayor Van Dusen called the Public Hearing, continued from from February 12, 1987 to order at 7:02 P.M. MABEL J. HARRIS, JOE DUFFIE, EDGAR D. BAUCH, WENDY A. MORGAN (COUNCIL PRESIDENT), CHARLES E. SIMPSON, MARILYN G. STOKNES. (COUNCILMEMBER MCKENNA REMOVED HIMSELF FROM THE COUNCIL TABLE DUE TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST). Maxine Anderson (City Clerk), Rick Beeler (Planning Director), Larry Martin (City Attorney), Don Morrison (City Administrator). There is a Court Reporter in attendance to record a verbatim record of the meeting. Larry Martin, City Attorney, requested an Executive Session with Councilmembers. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE COUNCIL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR TWENTY MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. The City Council moved out of Executive Session and the Hearing was called back to order by Mayor Van Dusen. Larry Martin, City Attorney, stated some of the issues that have been raised have included questions about whether the particular zoning classification for the property allowed a child's play area in certain portions of the property. These are issues that have been raised and his advice to the Council is to focus on the actual proceeding which is before them and that is the appeal from the Board of Architectural Review's decision on the project to approve with conditions; because the BAR doesn't have jurisdiction to decide precedence of what is permitted in a particular zone. The Planning Director makes interpretations of the code. His advice was that those issues should not be resolved tonight. What the Council will be doing is hearing the arguments that are put before you as to why the BAR decision was wrong, or why you should uphold the BAR decision. The Council will want to look at the criteria that the BAR directed to use in Tukwila Municipal Code and those are set forth in the material the Council has. The City Council has two options to hear this appeal; either hear this appeal or to set up a public hearing. This has been set up to hear the appeal. New evidence will not be presented tonight; new witnesses will not be presented tonight. Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th South, stated they will present no new witnesses. He asked if they would have to repeat what they had said before. Mr. Martin, City Attorney, said it is not necessary to use the same words. The remarks should be directed to the criteria. Mayor Van Dusen asked if Councilmembers cannot attend all of the hearings can they participate in the decision if they listen to the tapes of missed meetings. City Attorney Martin said an absent Councilmember can review the tapes and then participate in the decision. He stated the Council can approve the decision of the BAR, approve with modifications, or disapprove the decision. Dick Goe, 5112 S. 163rd P1., stated he would be the moderator as a citizen representing the McMicken Heights Improvement group. He stated the citizens in the area are trying to make the point that if this project is going to go in they want the residential single family area protected from the apartment zoning. The proposed development is inappropriate for this site. Mr, Haggard, attorney for the applicant, stated he would take exception to Mr. Goe participating since he was not previously present at the hearing. Mr. Goe stated the BAR and building permit allow the City to mitigate the impacts on the environment and the inhabitants. The residents want to ensure through the City Council and the BAR that these issues are policed. It is their feeling that the BAR has erred, TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED (VALLEY VIEW ESTATES PROPOSAL) February 23, 1987 Page 2 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Appeals on the BAR Dennis Robertson, 16038 48th South, stated he would discuss decision on the Valley heights and scales of buildings on the proposed project. View Estates Proposal The general discussion on the FEIS and BAR findings would be: contd. adopt FEIS, variation B; lower heights of buildings 3 and 18 by 15'; require large evergreens along east boundary; or lower all buildings. Mr. Robertson referred to FEIS, page 4, BAR, page 2. He stated rather than 15.25 per acre it is actually 20 units per acre as the calculation is in error. The buildings are actually four stories plus a loft. Two stories would be visible from Slade Way (referring to BAR Exhibit 19). It ignores the north and south views. Units 3 and 4 will be 35 feet above the road and change the value of the property of the residents in the area. The conclusions are wrong when it says it has no impact on the area. In several places you will only be able to see the broadside of a wall of buildings. Going to the Conclusions and Findings of BAR, Page 2, Item 7, the BAR was in error. They have put in a play area and a retaining wall. That will change the neighborhood. Only 16% of the total site will remain in the wooded state. Council President Morgan asked for an explanation of a natural wooded state. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, stated it means leaving in what exists there. It could include restoration to something that would look like it exists on the site. Council President Morgan said then lawn, trails, shrubbery, ground covering or anything that is different from what previously existed would not be considered natural wooded area. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said trails could be considered natural wooded area. Council President Morgan asked if it is possible a developer could clear the entire site and then replace trees and shrubbery, different plants to simulate the wooded area. 55 >c) J3 Larry Martin, City Attorney, said that would be a condition on a building permit. It would not be natural if they removed and then recreated. A play area would not be considered natural state. Councilmember Harris said a long time ago the Planning Commission discussed what constitutes a story anything above the ground would be a story. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, said the old zoning code said you could have a basement and then floors above it. It is possible to have three stories and then a basement. Dennis Robertson said these are three stories according to the old code. These are 55' above the ground. If you look at the trees in the site plan, the trees shown do not exist. The area will be totally changed. We do not have any buildings that are 55' high such as these. They are out of scale. Something could be done. Two stories could be lopped off or every other one could be high. The photo looks like a solid wall. You may be able to see one break depending on where you are standing when you look. These facts have been submitted to the BAR. Mr. Robertson said in reference to harmony to say it has no impact is not truth. This project will appear gigantic. This project has changed from plans first submitted and it will change when it is built. Something must be done so it will not look like a solid wall. RECESS Mayor Van Dusen announced a 15 minute recess. 9:00 9:15 P.M. Mayor Van Dusen called the Hearing on the Appeal back to order, with Councilmembers present as previously listed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED (VALLEY VIEW ESTATES PROPOSAL) _55/0 February 23, 1987 Page 3 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Appeals on the BAR decision on the Valley View Estates Proposal contd. Dharlene West, audience, spoke on the noise issue. She stated she was cut off in the middle of her presentation before the BAR. Mr. Haggard said he objected to Ms. West's allegation that she was cut off. Dharlene West stated noise has an effect on health and stress. The EIS has made available to the BAR all of the noise effects. Mr. Haggard, attorney for the applicant, stated there are ways to mitigate noise. This information is being provided by someone who is not an expert. It does not show the BAR was in error. The BAR would not have the authority to mitigate changes. That would be the responsibility of the Planning Director. Dennis Robertson, audience, said the BAR did accept information on noise on page 12 of the Conclusions. They erred in how they dealt with it. The site could be changed. The Minutes of the BAR meeting were not verbatim. Larry Martin, City Attorney, stated it is clear the issue was introduced at the BAR meeting. Mr. Martin said the first two pages and fourth page could be admitted at this meeting. The rest should be excluded. Mr. Haggard, attorney for the applicant, stated he would object to the fourth page, he could see no evidence that it was introduced at the BAR meeting. Dennis Robertson, audience, stated he would withdraw the fourth page. The first two pages will be put in evidence. Dharlene West, audience, stated various treatments and their effect on the noise were discussed. Vegetation was mentioned at the BAR meeting but a single row of trees would not be a barrier to cut out noise. A wooded area with leafy trees would have some effect. Dennis Robertson, audience, stated the point was made at the BAR meeting that a solid wall could be used to mitigate the noise. When the fence was mentioned the expert said that was not feas- ible. It would have to be 30 40 feet high. Mr. Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said he objected to this information. It was not before the BAR. Dharlene West, audience, explained the calculations they had used to determine the height of fences to abate the noise factor. The fence would need to be at least 16 feet high. It is possible that 20 feet is about maximum to build a fence, but a 20 foot fence would be great for sound reduction. It would bring noise down to the acceptable level. HUD recognizes noise as a major source of stress in an environment. This site is unacceptable due to noise levels. At the north side it was above 80 dbs. for 8 hours or more. This makes it unacceptable. She stated she felt they have shown that some conditions must be met to protect the residents of this project. It is possible to do something about it. They have mentioned a solid barrier. It is important but it has not been adequately taken care of. The solid barrier has been suggested but guidelines have not been given for a fence. It would have to be 16 feet high at least. It would not look good from the east side. It would block views. The noise problem cannot be ignored. There should be outside lights. The residents of this area would like this project to look like something they can be proud of. Dick Goe, audience, said noise was discussed. It was talked about before the BAR relating to the children's area and the adult area. Statistics on noise were offered. The residents have been coming before the Council for years but it does not make any of them experts on noise, engineering or law. The BAR was given information on noise and the height of a fence was discussed. The BAR did not do anything about it. The noise is severe and it is a health problem. The BAR did not deal with the problem. 557' TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED (VALLEY VIEW ESTATES PROPOSAL) February 23, 1987 Page 4 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Appeals on the BAR Bob Crain, 5105 S. 163rd Pl., stated the location of the play field, decision on the Valley taken from his own conclusions during the BAR meeting, is View Estates Proposal unacceptable. The children will be exposed to high noise levels. contd. Painted cross walks appear to be inadequate. The BAR failed to mitigate this matter. The BAR erred in respect to lighting in the play area. The area is steep and unstable; there could be mud slides. All of these are concerns. The landscape and site treatment is also of concern. RECESS 11:10 P.M. Ann Crain, 5105 S. 163rd P1., referred to the landscaping along the boundary line. A row of evergreens will be provided to provide screening, softened by vines. Alders are seasonal. The trees are suggested to be 6' tall and 40' apart planted at a reasonable time after construction. This will not provide modified screening from the property owners. Attorney Haggard stated this is new information. Mr. Martin, City Attorney, stated if it is new information it is not admissible. Dennis Robertson, audience, stated they wanted to know what density is. Ann Crain, audience, read a definition of dense growth from the staff report. Trees planted 40' apart would not be a screen. When you measure distance it will take years before such small trees would appear well. There is also no sidewalk along Slade Way and 53rd. The evergreens will be approximately 20' with 15' between the trees. They should be 6' apart and staggered. The landscaping plans show the plants to be larger than they will be. Dick Goe, audience, stated the landscaping plan is a misrepresen- tation. The plants are much smaller. There is no transition. What the BAR thinks is dense is not dense; you could run this room between the trees and not touch them. The screening should be opaque. There needs to be large evergreens to break up the monotony. Dick Goe, audience, said in conclusion there are errors in fact in the density calculations, height depictions, percentage in wooded area; there are errors in judgment such as inconsistent landscaping, unsafe recreation area, noise mitigation has been avoided. The fact is it is an inappropriate and nonconforming use. The fact is the proponent objective (Page 48) should include mitigation measures which are responsive to the environment changes and the health, safety and welfare of project residents and neighbors. It is also a fact that the City has the right and legal obligation to mitigate impacts. They have shown that reasonable mitigations do exist. Only you can correct the BAR errors. Dennis Robertson, audience, stated the BAR seemed not concerned with feasibility. Councilmember Duffie stated he would be absent from the meeting the next night, but would review the tapes. MOVED BY BAUCH, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD NOT MAKE A DECISION AT THE NEXT MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Van Dusen declared the Public Hearing in recess until Tuesday, February 24, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Recording Secretary Norma Booher