Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-17 Special Minutes - Valley View Estates Appeal Public Hearing (Continued)TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT March 17, 1987 Tukwila City Hall 8:30 p.m. Council Chambers M I N U T E S COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY PRESENTATION Cont. MABEL J. HARRIS; JOE H. DUFFIE; WENDY A. MORGAN, Council President; EDGAR D. BAUCH; CHARLES E. SIMPSON; MARILYN G. STOKNES. Councilman McKenna is not in attendance to comply with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. Roy Richards, Noise Consultant, is present to testify on the noise issues. (Attorney Haney issued the oath to Mr. Richards) He responded to a paragraph in the Findings and Conclusions, Page 12, Item 3, having to do with "wood fencing to act as noise barrier and a landscape transition between the subject site and I -5 to attenuate noise in identified recreation areas. The design of fence and landscaping shall be brought back to the BAR for final approval." The barrier attenuation calculations were based on methods developed by Maekawa. The source of the noise is I -5. The height of the source is assumed to be eight feet above the pavement. The receiver is five feet above the middle of the recreation area, except for the children's play area. In order for a barrier to be effective, it must meet three requirements: (1) Of sufficient height; (2) Weigh at least three pounds per square foot (11" plywood will meet this requirement); (3) There can be no holes or cracks, no space underneath or be- tween sections. In the recreation areas, concern was for day time hours, and the primary concern is for speech inter- ference. The freeway noise at this site is very steady. Adjustment was made for differences in distance. Recreation Area A (middle of the site) is 570 feet from I -5; the total barrier height recommended is 11 feet and the length a total of 165 feet. The eq without the barrier is 63; the barrier brings it down to 54. At 54 eq, a raised voice can be understood at 25 feet. Recreation Area B (north end of site) is a distance of 502 feet from I -5 anclL would require a barrier of 16 feet to achieve the same 54 eq, and the total barrier would have to be 260 feet. Recreation Area C is 230 feet from I -5 and would require a barrier L of 13 feet high by a total of 130 feet long. The daytime eq is 71 and the attenuation brings it down 61. Crystal Springs Park has wide open exposure and the eq measurement was 63. The barriers for their project will bring the decibels down about 10 points. In terms of loudness, it is about half as loud. The children's play area is further away and the distance factor adjustment is 6 decibels. The buildings pro- vide a fair amount of shielding. Mr. Richards offered Exhibit 61, Plot Plan, for the record. He suggested that Buildings 8 and 9 could be moved in a northerly direction to cut down the exposure of noise from the freeway. Putting up a barrier between the children's play area and the buildings would be a mistake because surveillance would be lost. Attorney Haney again explained that Council can accept the document as is, deny the document which would remand it back to the BAR, or Council can change the conditions. He suggested that Council review the BAR Findings and Conclusions on the specific appeal issues and adopt their own based on all of the evidence if there is any significant change. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL March 17, 1987 Page 2 CITY'S PRESENTATION Cont. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Member Harris asked what age children the play area is designed for. James Van De Vanter, landscape architect on the project, explained there would be a sand box area, tire swing, slide, climbing structures, post maze and platform. It is designed for children very young to elementary age. Referring to recreation areas A, B, and C, Mr. Van De Vanter explained that shrubs would be planted in front (interior of the site) of the walls to soften the harshness of the height of the walls. Mr. Richards commented on a five minute measurement taken at the Southcenter View Condominiums located at the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Dennis Robertson protested this testimony as being irrele- vant. A short time measurement at a location off -site is questionable as to accuracy. This is new information, and there are no means to clarify either point. Council President Morgan recalled that at an earlier meeting Council voted not to receive certain information because it is based on information from a different site and different circumstances. Attorney Haggard explained that the information is being offered because the appellants have indicated that this site is unacceptable for multi family use due to the ambient noise in the area thereby suggesting it should be restricted to single family. The relevance of the information is to establish comparable noise levels of existing residential condo environments in the Tukwila area. Mr. Richards explained, as far as accuracy, there are so many vehicles traveling on I -5 that the noise level is very steady so a short measurement is good indication of what will be received over a much longer period of time. Dennis Robertson pointed out that this whole procedure, and the appeal to the BAR were not based on whether or not this site is appropriate for single- family or multi family. His second point is that this is the exact similar case as the discussion on the reservoir site. There is a great deal of difference in sites. If the appellants are now allowed to deal with one issue because it is different; the same thing is true here. Mayor Van Dusen ruled that the material is not relevant. Attorney Haggard took an exception to the Mayor's ruling. The testimony would have established that the ambient noise level in a comparable location and facility is at least as high as the ambient on this site, if not higher, and apparently the people in the units are surviving. Councilman Bauch referred to exhibits on record and asked who owns the adjacent properties. He asked if the vegetation existing on the adjoining properties, shown on the exhibits, is likely to remain there. Mr. Beeler referred to Exhibit 55 and said that the property in question is part of the I -5 right -of -way. Councilman Bauch expressed his concern that some value has been assigned to visual screening and noise attenuation from this, and it is an area they have no control over. The pro- bability of it staying there is speculation. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL March 17, 1987 Page 3 CITY'S PRESENTATION Cont. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT RECESS 9:45 9:55 p.m. Mayor Van Dusen called the hearing back to order. Mr. Beeler, responding to Councilman Bauch's concern, said the record indicates that along the east property line of the subject site is the limited access line of the State Highway Department. Fred Brown, architect, 2000 112th N.E., Bellevue, said he is appearing for the project manager, Vince Ferrese, who is un- available. Mr. Brown reviewed his professional qualifica- tions. One of his responsibilities with the firm is to review all projects prior to them leaving the office for technical quality and code compliance. His impression of this project is that it does comply with the BAR guidelines. It is a well designed project. The project represents com- patibility and response to context that is based on the pro- perty and the neighborhood in which it is located. It is a multi family project that relates to the site. He has reviewed the numbers given by Mr. Van De Vanter, the landscape architect, which indicate that the actual footprint of the buildings is 13 the remainder is in landscaping, parking, walkways and recreation areas. The landscaping design shows a lot of thought and is a credit to Mr. Van De Vanter's work. said Mr. Brown reviewed the site access and /the attempt was made to limit the amount and locations to areas within the site that were complimentary and compatible with the neighborhood. All of the necessary material was furnished to the BAR to enable them to render a reasonable and just decision. He reviewed the sections Council looked at in relation to the views from east to west and from the single- family property across the subject property to determine if there really was an attempt to minimize the impacts on the neighbors. He concluded that this development will be a good neighbor. He studied the building size and character. There is not much difference in the footprint of these buildings and in a 1600 square foot single- family home with a two car garage. There was an attempt to keep the footprint of the buildings small. There has also been an attempt to modulate, terrace, slope and use materials that are compatible with the neighborhood. The project is convenient and safe, with a circulation pat- tern for both automobiles and pedestrians that responds to the natural determinates of the site. All of this infor- mation was given to the BAR. The four guidelines have been met with this project. We have responded and complied to the conditions that were established at the time of the BAR approval. Mr. Brown said he reviewed code compliance. It is possible to place 400 units on this property; 108 are pro- posed. It is possible to place 56.4 units per acre on this property; 15.5 units per acre are proposed. This development meets all of the requirements of a three story building. The height of these buildings is 32 feet. It was pointed out that views would be blocked by buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4. This was studied. Units 1 and 3 are placed 20 feet away from the property, and this only takes up 20% of the 632 foot property line length. If this was developed in single family, you would easily put 8 units there which would take up about 90% of the property line. Our solution is less of a blockage. Council President Morgan asked Mr. Brown to comment on the shadows cast by these buildings. He said that Unit 18 would throw a shadow on the Seattle Pipe Line easement, but none of TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL March 17, 1987 Page 4 CITY'S PRESENTATION Cont. CONTINUED 11:00 p.m. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT the other units would cast a shadow off of the property. There was a comment made earlier that the layout of the buildings on the site represent an 800 foot wall. The total length of the site is 1080 feet of which 650 feet are buildings -60% solid building, 40% open. No more than two units are at the same elevation, and there is a total variation in the height of the units of 16 feet. He is enthusiastic about the project and thinks it is a good one. Council Member Harris asked how far apart the buildings are. Mr. Brown said 20 feet minimum. Rick Beeler said staff is in the position of defending the BAR decision. The applicant is also defending their posi- tion. The testimony given tonight is directed at the review guidelines for the Board of Architectural Review. They have also tried to respond to the points made in the appellant's testimony. In regard to the relationship of the structure to the site, they have pointed out that the buildings have been broken up in terms of mass. This project approaches what you could see in a single family development depending on the density. 58% of the site will be landscaping; this is more than normal. The building design has been described by the architect. They feel that the proposal the BAR reviewed; the decision that was made and all of the testimony that has been brought before Council indicates that the BAR did not err. This project conforms to the criteria of the Municipal Code. Attorney Haney asked Attorney Haggard if the applicant has finished their presentation. Attorney Haggard said they are finished at this time and will be back later with rebuttals and final argument. Mayor Van Dusen continued the meeting to March 24, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. Councilman Duffie will be a Gar,'f V ari Dusen, Mayor" 'M Anderson, City Clerk