Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-16 Regular MinutesMarch 16, 1987 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER and PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OFFICIALS REPORTS Mayor's reappointment of C. Moriwaki to Park Commission Committee of the Whole Fire District #1 Contract Levee Heights CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Boy Scout Troop 350 Library Board TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting M I N U T E S Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Van Dusen called the Regular Meeting of the Tukwila City 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; JAMES J. MCKENNA. JAMES HANEY, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk. BYRON SNEVA, Public Works Director; RICK BEELER, Planning Director; DON MORRISON, City Administrator; MOIRA BRADSHAW, Associate Planner; JAMES HOEL, Assistant Fire Chief. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR'S REAPPOINTMENT OF CLARENCE MORIWAKI TO POSITION #3 ON THE PARK COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Morgan announced that the Committee of the Whole Meetings will be held in Conference Room #3. The pur- pose is to create a work session atmosphere. The subject for the next meeting will be a Community Center in Tukwila's future. At the following Committee of the Whole the Fire District #1 EIS and annexation issues will be discussed. Don Morrison, City Administrator, announced that the Civil Service Commission voted to blanket in all the Fire District #1 Firefighters into the City's Civil Service System. This clears one of the last problems with the Fire District #1 contract. Byron Sneva, Public Works Director, reported that the Green River Technical Committee met and discussed the preliminary FEMA study in regard to the heighth of levees. It points out that all of the Southcenter area south of Strander Boulevard to the south City Limits will be included in the next flood hazard zone. This means that developers will need a Flood Control Permit to build anywhere in that area. Until the levees have two feet of free board it will be difficult to get a permit. Regional Transportation Rick Beeler, Planning Director, reported that they met with Plan members of the Council of Governments staff to draw some wording on an EIS for the Regional Transportation Plan. The wording Tukwila wanted included was to ensure that when the alignment through Tukwila is chosen, it is through an EIS process. Mark Larson, 4022 So. 160th, is a Unit Commissioner respon- sible for two units in the Tukwila /South Central School District area. At the end of last year Troop 350 ceased to exist. This Scout Troop has a history of continuous service for 60 years. This is the second oldest troop in the area. They have until April 1 to register 5 boys to continue the history of this Scout Troop. He encouraged anyone interested to attend a meeting and see if they can't keep this Troop going. Tony Aragon, 14204 55th Ave. So., said he is interested in the library and volunteered to serve on the Board. He saw the request for volunteers in the Hazelnut. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING March 16, 1987 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA OLD BUSINESS Resolution #1036 Expressing the in- tention of the City Council to consider annexation of the area commonly known as King County Fire Protection District #1 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Valley View Estates 7:45 p.m. Excuse Councilman McKenna City's Presentation a. Approval of Minutes: March 2, 1987 b. Approval of Vouchers Claims Fund Vouchers #29422 #29613 Current Fund City Street Arterial Street Fire Equip. Cum. Reserve Land Acq., Bldg., Dev. Water Fund Sewer Fund Water /Sewer Construction Foster Golf Course Equipment Rental Firemen's Pension 108,942.47 10,581.24 33,391.90 11,501.42 888.44 8,727.05 51,871.24 34,722.31 23,287.76 13,120.90 611.64 $297,942.47 MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MCKENNA, THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Haney read a resolution of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Wash., expressing the intention of the City Council to consider the annexation of the area commonly known as King County Fire Protection District No. 1 and authorizing the Mayor to file a notice of intent to annex with the King County Boundary Review Board. MOVED BY SIMPSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 1036 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman McKenna was excused from the meeting in accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Mayor Van Dusen reopened the Public Hearing. At the last meeting the appellants finished their presentation. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, explained that their position is defending the Board of Architectural Review decision ren- dered on this proposal. It has been five years since the building permit application was submitted to the City on this project. The court system rendered the decision that this project was vested, and the City is constrained by the codes in place at that time. The project was reviewed by the BAR under the existing code procedures because under the old code there really wasn't the criteria we have before us now. It was mutually agreed to use this criteria process. The Board relied on all the information they received. It took four nights for them to hear all of the testimony. They had to make a vested use fit into an existing neighborhood that did not care for the project. Not only this, some of the neigh- borhood wasn't developed. They reached their decision after weighing all of the codes they could. They had the same 34 exhibits to look at that Council has before them. During the four evenings of testimony, the Board realized the impor- tance, the controversy, the concerns and the significance of 67 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING March 16, 1987 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Valley View Estates 7:45 p.m. this project in the neighborhood. Three of the Board Members live there. In making their decision they took into con- sideration the EIS, the exhibits and the testimony. The BAR review isn't the end of the review. The Building Permit still lies ahead. The BAR review decision on the overall design landscaping, building design; this goes into the building permit process. It also includes other codes and ordinances that will impact this proposal. The final result will be a long list of conditions. Tonight Council is looking at what the BAR did. Did they err; if so, how do you correct that. Mr. Beeler referred Council to the Decision Form in their work packet. It contains the four criteria being appealed: 1. The relationship of the structure to the site. 2. The relationship of the structure and the site to the adjoining area. 3. The landscaping and site treatment. 4. The building design. The BAR left one item to come back to them. That is the landscaping around the recreation areas for acoustical pur- poses. Any significant changes in the site plan could also come back to the BAR. Council can make the final approval on these issues because they were appealed or they can be remanded back to the BAR. The City Attorney has advised that the issue of the children's play area located in the R -1 will not be considered. It is a technical code issue that rests with the Planning Director and is not a subject of this appeal. It will be looked at during the Building Permit stage. Councilman Bauch asked if the BAR can consider a design that may be in violation of the code? Attorney Haney indicated this issue was not brought to the BAR's attention. They can consider a site. They placed an indication in the findings that nothing in their approval is going to relieve the applicant from satisfying zoning code requirements. They did not specifically consider the R -1 issue. The assumption of the BAR is that an application that does not comply with the use restrictions is not going to be put before them. The BAR is a design review board to review the architectural features. In this case staff had already made the decision on the zoning. The staff decision is now being challenged. This issue now must be considered by staff. Council can consider the evidence from the SEPA appeal hearing to the extend that it is relevant to the issues in this hearing. Mayor Van Dusen asked for clarification on this issue; why was the decision made to not have Council address the R -1 issue. Attorney Haney explained that the decision was made the night he was not in attendance, but he understands that the zoning issue was discussed in Executive Session. After the session Mr. Martin announced that the zoning issue had to be determined by the Planning Director and by the staff when deciding on the Building Permit issue. Mayor Van Dusen said Council could have delayed these pro- ceedings until the issue was addressed by staff. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING March 16, 1987 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Valley View Estates 7:45 p.m. Attorney Haney agreed that Council could have done that. Council still has to decide this hearing on the basis of its merits. The question on the zoning has been raised for the first time during this appeal. It will be dealt with, but not by Council. Councilman Bauch again asked if the BAR decision is valid if the project is not designed per the zoning regulations. Attorney Haney explained that the BAR decision, as far as the design of the project, is an independent decision from whether or not it meets the zoning code in terms of use restrictions. If it meets the code in terms of the BAR cri- teria, the BAR can approve it. The City cannot approve the building permit if it doesn't meet the zoning code. The BAR decision is not approval of the building permit; it is appro- val of the aesthetic and architectural design of the project. The approval of the building permit is made by the Building Official with input from the Planning Director as to whether the project meets the building and zoning codes. Dennis Robertson, appellant, addressed the R -1 issue. When he first wrote his letter, it was not part of the BAR or the EIS appeal, it was written to the City staff commenting on a zoning interpretation. It is not a part of this procedure. They asked their attorney, Mr. Kresovich, and his opinion was that if staff sustained the R -1 appeal they raised, it would have to go back to the BAR. They feel Council should review the BAR approval. If Council sends this back to the BAR without reviewing it first, what will happen is there will be new building plans put together; BAR will go through a new process. It is quite possible they will rule as they did before, and the citizens will appeal again and be back to Council again. This would be a waste of time and money. Rick Beeler commented that the R -1 zoning is a significant issue. He continued with the City's presentation. He intro- duced the following people who will testify: Moira Bradshaw BAR decision James Van De Vanter Landscape Architect Fred Brown Architect Roy Richard Noise Consultant Basically, they are going to show that the BAR did not err. Moira Bradshaw discussed why the BAR decided what they did and what they decided. She referred to Exhibit 15 and discussed the elevations. Exhibit 17 shows the elevations of the roof tops and of the cross street. On Exhibit 18 you get an idea of the zoning lines so you get an idea of the den- sities and permitted uses. Exhibit 19 is the landscape plan reviewed by the BAR. The buildings being proposed are 35 feet in width, 64 feet at the widest point and have an average elevation of 35 feet. The single family homes that surround the site have an average permitted elevation of 30 feet. A typical house would have about the same dimensions of 35 feet in width. One of the questions raised is on the overall density of the project. The BAR considered 15.25 units per acre figured on the overall acreage -7.08 acres. It has been argued that the BAR should have looked at the density of the project for the R -4 and the RMH; this is approximately 5+ acres. It works out to 20 units per acre. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING March 16, 1987 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Valley View Estates 7:45 p.m. RECESS 8:55 9:10 p.m. For the R -4 portion, 82 units would be permitted and 60 are provided, and in the RMH zone 312 units are permitted and 48 units are provided. There is an overall density permitted for the site of 56.4 units and 15.25 are being proposed. The other issue that has been raised is the open space calcula- tions. The initial site plan submitted to the City showed the children's play area at the northwest corner. The loca- tion was identified as a high noise area so was moved to the R -1 area. This did not change the 32% of existing vegeta- tion. The existing vegetation is older trees with blackberry vines. The first appeal issue is "inadequate consideration of structures to site." The site is a steeply sloping site with the individual structures arranged along the eastern most portion of the site so that the majority of the building elevations are not visible from the street. Perhaps some of the residents to the west will be able to see the roofs when the leaves are off the trees. The location of the structures is to take advantage of the existing topography and to mini- mize the cut and fill. The BAR felt the location of the structures provides adequate pedestrian linkage and landscape transition to the adjacent properties. The second appeal issue is "inadequate consideration of structures to adjoining areas." The BAR spent considerable time studying the exhi- bits and taking testimony. This shows that adequate con- sideration was made both substantially and procedurally. Exhibits 16 and 17 show that the height of the structures from the adjacent residential rights -of -way do not have a significant impact. The impact is mitigated by the landscape transition, the topography of the site and the type of struc- ture proposed -a narrow, pitched roof structure with approxi- mately 20 feet between structures. Mrs. Bradshaw talked about the landscape plan and explained the screening tech- niques being used. The southwest corner is the R -1 area. It will not be developed with structures, but will have a recreation area for children. Thirteen percent of that area is alders and the BAR felt they do not provide seasonal tran- sition or screening, therefore, they required 15 additional conifers. Mayor Van Dusen called the hearing back to order and turned the floor back to Mrs. Bradshaw to continue her presentation. She continued to discuss the building elevations and topography. The exhibits, along with the testimony that was given are the things the BAR considered in their delibera- tions and eventually led to their conclusion about the ade- quate transition of the structures to the surrounding neighborhood. Safety factors were considered; fencing around the children's play area was discussed. The concern with putting up a fence on the east side of the children's play area for noise attenuation was that it would make an enclo- sure rather than open space. The BAR decided that this would not make good design sense. The other issue that was raised for the children was the location of a crosswalk. You would have to cross the driveway to get to the recreation play area. The applicant agreed to speed bumps as well as paint at the crosswalks. In the BAR's opinion this was a reason- able address of the safety concerns for children going to the play area. The BAR looked at the topography changes, the elevation changes and the landscape transition as well as the type of structures that were being proposed. The appellant raised the issue of landscape and site treatment. The BAR TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING March 16, 1987 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Valley View Estates 7:45 p.m. reviewed Exhibit 19 and considered that 58% of the site would be in vegetation, 21% in asphalt paving, 13% in building foundations, 6% in concrete walkways, and 2% in the children's play area. This is the plan the BAR reviewed and approved and considered to be appropriate. The last item Mrs. Bradshaw discussed was noise attenuation. The BAR requested Mr. Roy Richards, noise consultant, to look at the recreation areas. I -5 was viewed as a permanent neighboring development that created noise on the site. It was deemed appropriate to provide noise attenuation for the recreation areas. They did not ignore the issue. They requested that a new design come back to them for final review and approval. The overall approval of the project is done but there are some minor details they will be reviewing. Attorney Haney noted that Mr. Beeler and Mrs. Bradshaw were both previously sworn in. James Van De Vanter, landscape architect, (previously sworn in) distributed Exhibit 55 to Council. The exhibit is new material and contains qualifications of James Van De Vanter, reduced landscape and cross section plans. Mr. Goe asked for time to review the material before they comment on it. Attorney Haggard commented that the appellants presented information without any advanced notice to the applicant or the City staff. They did not object. He suggested that if Council decides to postpone the hearing to let the appellants review the information that the hearing be continued at this time. Mayor Van Dusen said he would not do this. Attorney Haggard introduced Exhibits 56 (3 photos) and 57 (2 photos) -color photographs. Ann Crain, appellant, objected because she wasn't allowed to present any information that didn't pertain to the site plan. The pictures are of other areas, not the site. Attorney Haggard explained that the pictures are presented for the purpose of establishing the validity of the infor- mation presented by Mr. Van De Vanter as to the growth and width of various type of tree species which was brought into issue by Mrs. Crain. It is relevant material. Dennis Robertson, appellant, explained that they weren't allowed to present screening information on the North Hill Reservoir project because it wasn't on the site. Attorney Haggard explained that the issue here is that the appellants have said the trees will not grow to the dimen- sions schematically represented. Mr. Van De Vanter is pre- senting information in response to those allocations which they suggest are not factually born out. This evidence is being presented to assist Council in making that conclusion. Mayor Van Dusen ruled that the material is relevant. James Van De Vanter, landscape architect, 612 Bellevue Way, presented the following exhibits: Exhibit 58 Site plan with color photos dated 03/16/87 Exhibit 59 Cross sections with color photos attached Exhibit 60 3 cross sections with color photos 9/ TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING March 16, 1987 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING Cont. Valley View Estates 7:45 p.m. CONTINUED 10:50 p.m. He explained that he did the landscape plan for the draft EIS. His intent is to supplement Mrs. Bradshaw's testimony and to explain the landscape plan from a designers view. Mr. Van De Vanter explained the materials he works with and how different varieties of plants and trees are used to create different atmospheres, large deciduous trees planted close together can form a canopy. The list of plants used for this project are broken down into several different functional uses of plant materials. Small deciduous trees are used in front of the buildings at the entrances; they grow to be 8' to 10' in height. Large deciduous trees, 3" caliber, border the parking areas and are used to soften the asphalt. Council President Morgan asked if it had been taken into account that the leaves will fall and that regular main- tenance will be necessary to keep the drains clear. Mr. Van De Vanter explained that the material needs to be a deciduous tree this close to the driving lanes. The leaves were not considered. He indicated evergreen conifers are used at the parameter of the site as required by the BAR. They are also interspersed between the buildings to create a variety of treatments. These trees are planted very young so the roots adapt to the existing soil conditions and adapt to the wind conditions. Interesting plantings and low evergreens will border the entrance on 53rd Ave. So. and on Slade Way. The R -1 area has an existing stand of trees that will remain. No existing vegetation will be retained along 53rd Ave. So. The old zoning code was the initial parameter for design of the landscape plan. The only sections that pertained were 18.56.40, 18.56.050 and 18.56.070. They have gone way beyond the requirements of the old zoning code. Their landscape plan is suitable for the site. It reflects the soil conditions, plant materials are sized adequately, 160 8' to 10' evergreen trees will be planted. After the BAR reviewed the landscape plan, they required them to do more. 58% of the site is covered by vegetation. Existing vegetation to be retained on 13% of the site and new plantings will cover 45 The purpose of the landscaping is to enhance, not isolate the area. We have more than complied with the BAR. The BAR was correct in their decision. Meeting will be continued to Tuesday ni at 8:30 p.m. Van Dusen, ayor Yezi-e/i-c.e./ Th .-(1-e- (A-.0-0<— 'Maxine Anderson, City Clerk