Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-07 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 April 7, 1987 Tukwila City Hall 7:45 p.m. Council Chambers M I N U T E S Public Hearing Council Members Present Rebuttal City /Applicant Mayor Van Dusen reopened the Public Hearing on the Valley View Estates Appeal of the Board or Architectural Review decision. 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. Moira Bradshaw, Planning Department, presented the City's rebuttal. She reviewed and discussed points made by the appellants. The first point was the relationship of the structure and site to adjoining areas and the building design. The BAR considered the density of the development at approximately 15.25 units per acre. The appellants consider this to be an error because that figure utilizes the total acreage of the site which is 7.08 acres. They contend that only the acreage of the R -4 and RMH should be used. The BAR did realize that the development of the site using the R -4 and RMH portions came out to 20 units per acre. The second item was height. The average height of a building is 35 feet; actually on the west side it will be much higher but the BAR did not consider that. Page 5 of the BAR adopted Findings and Conclusions says "Exhibit 20 was submitted with a cross section of elevations east of the site. They show average difference in elevation of approximately 70 feet." The proposed vegetation proposed by the applicant would only screen 20 feet; 45 feet of elevation would remain open. The BAR conditioned the project to request additional evergreens along the east side of the building. Another point brought up by the appellants has been the per- centage of development on the site. In the Findings and Conclusions of the staff report, the BAR received infor- mation that 32% of the site was to remain with existing vegetation, 27% planted, 20% was asphalt paving, 13% building foundations, and the concrete walk was 5% The BAR had reviewed Exhibit 19 which gives a good indication of the amount of vegetation, buildings and paving. Under landscaping and site treatment, the appellants feel the BAR erred when they considered the transition condition and pro- posed to add evergreens 40 feet on center around the R -1 por- tion of the site to provide dense landscape transition. The BAR adopted Findings and Conclusions, Page 5, specifically says the trees should be a minimum of six feet tall at the time of planting and should be planted an average distance apart of 40 feet on center to provide a year around screen of moderate density, and they did this because of the screening ability of the existing alders shown on Exhibit 58 in the R -1 site. The landscape architect has proposed other landscaping tran- sition on site. In addition to screening shrubs and evergreens, there will be a topography change of approxi- mately 10 feet. Along the majority of the site, there is approximately a 100 foot setback from the right -of -way. These three things in combination were considered by the BAR to be dense landscaping transition. The point raised recently by the appellants was that the BAR didn't have the visual information to distinguish the actual height of the TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 7, 1987 Page 2 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Rebuttal structures on the site as they related off the site. The BAR City /Applicant used the best they could get. They had video presentations of (cont.) the site, elevations which showed twenty or more cross sec- tions through the site that used actual floor, roof and street elevations. Exhibit 15 shows a broad side view of Buildings 1 and 3 as you come around Slade Way, and the broad side view has an approximate width of 64 feet at the deepest point. Also, there will be screening, as shown before, by proposed shrubs and existing alders. A typical family home that could be built across the street could be over 30 feet. The final point that the appellants have declared to be ina- dequate by the BAR has been the consideration of noise attenuation on the site. The BAR extensively considered the noise attenuation. The BAR conditioned the project to pro- vide noise attenuation barriers around the recreation areas and did not try and design the fences themselves. They requested that the applicants get their noise expert to look at the studies and do some site analysis and come back with a barrier that could provide noise attenuation on the site. This has been brought forward to Council for review. The BAR took a lot of time considering this. The adopted Findings and Conclusions adequately address the BAR's criteria. Councilman Duffie announced that he took time to listen to the tape at the section of the meeting he missed. Council Member Harris stated, for the record, that she did also. Council Member Morgan asked, again, for a list of those improvements which were suggested by the applicant and are not part of the Findings and Conclusions. She has not seen it yet and would like it before they start their deliberations. Joel Haggard, attorney for the applicant, said they will con- fine their testimony to the scope of the issues raised in the direct cases and will have presentations by the architect, landscape architect, and the noise consultant. He introduced two exhibits for the record: (1) Question and answer outline which Mr. Brown will be using in making his presentation; (2) Sketch of Building No. 3, south elevation. Exhibit 73 is titled "Valley View Question and Answer" and Exhibit 74 is the South Elevation of Building No. 3. Fred Brown, representing Mithun, Bowman, Enrich Architects of Bellevue, reviewed each of the questions and answers on Exhibit 73. He said the use of site is appropriate for this particular property. The way the buildings are sited on the property is appropriate. The building design and landscaping design are also appropriate. All of these combine into a responses that is specifically for the unique characteristics of this site. There are no known requirements involving zoning, building, fire, safety or any others associated with this project that they have not met. The project will not dominate or overwhelm its neighbors. They have demonstrated their building heights in relation to adjacent property. This relationship was submitted to the BAR and has not changed. These are not single family buildings, but we have tried to make the scale of them compatible with the housing that will develop around the project. Mr. Brown commented on exhibits 63 -68, photographs taken by the appellants. After a trip to the site, he determined that the photographs with overlay are an inaccurate representation of what the buildings would be in regard to scale and perspective. The project accomplishes the design objectives of the City and the owner. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 7, 1987 Page 3 Rebuttal It does not make the highest use of the site. The design is City /Applicant compatible with the property. They have utilized existing (cont.) contours and provided attractive landscaping. The project complies with the BAR guidelines and conditions. The BAR considered all testimony put before them and responded with reasonable conditions and decisions. RECESS 9:30 p.m. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Councilman Bauch asked how far building 3 is from the edge of the right -of -way. Mr. Brown responded, 20 feet from the pro- perty line. Attorney Haggard introduced Exhibit 75, a four page document containing Questions and Answers by Mr. Van De Vanter, landscape architect for the project. Mr. Van De Vanter, responding to Councilman Bauch's question on the dumpsters, said they are enclosed by a concrete wall, 4'6" high on three sides and screened by shrubs. In most cases, there is a large deciduous tree near the dumpster. He read from Exhibit 75 on the addition of BAR's supplemental conditions. They are: (1) Add 30 evergreens between buildings 10 -18 and the east property line; (2) Add row of 6' cedars 40' on center along R -1 boundary; (3) Extend pedestrian walk to right -of -way from buildings 1 and 2; (4) Add wood fencing for noise attenuation in recreation areas; (5) 58% of the total property is vegetation, not 61 Attorney Haggard asked Mr. Van De Vanter if these require- ments that came from the BAR have been reflected upon the exhibits that have been presented to Council. He responded that it is true. Mr. Van De Vanter read and discussed, for the record, the questions and answers on Exhibit 75. Council President Morgan expressed concern that the vegeta- tion on the east border, which is the existing trees, will remain on the site. Attorney Haggard said this is usually done as part of the building permit process, but that they have no objection to the kind of measures being specified as a condition of the building permit to obtain the objective you have identified. Council President Morgan expressed concern that the fact that the landscaping includes a number of trees which lose their leaves each year, and the site is drainage sensitive. Mayor Van Dusen declared a recess until 9:30 p.m. The meeting was called back to order. Mr. Van De Vanter continued to review his question and answer sheet. He called Council's attention to the last paragraph on page 4 concerning requirements for landscape transition between adjoining properties. The BAR's Findings and Conclusions added 6' cedar trees 40' on center; with the existing alder trees and the change in elevation of the site, it would provide sufficient landscape transition. Attorney Haggard asked Mr. Van De Vanter if he has considered relocation of the children's play area into Recreation Area A and, if so, have all the requirements been satisfied. Mr. Van De Vanter said this was correct per the old zoning code. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 7, 1987 Page 4 Rebuttal City /Applicant (cont.) Attorney Haggard presented Exhibit 76 which is an overlay over Exhibit 58. Mr. Van De Vanter explained that the overlay shows that Recreation Area A has been increased in size to include the Children's Play Area. Dennis Robertson questioned the presenting of new information in the rebuttal period without allowing them opportunity to look at it; this doesn't seem appropriate. This is an appeal of the BAR decision. There is nothing in the Findings and Conclusions of the BAR that said the applicant was to come back with a change in location of the play area. Attorney Haggard noted the appellants made a very large issue regarding the destruction or removal of vegetation in the R -1 area to accommodate the play area. They said it should be moved. We are responding to their demand. If they don't want it moved -fine. Council has a choice. Dennis Robertson said this may be a great decision, but they are saying it appears to be inappropriate at this time for them to present a site plan that was not before the BAR at the time they made their decision. Mayor Van Dusen ruled that he would allow it as relevant unless Council overrules. Dennis Robertson formally protested this action. It appears that this is totally new information. The issue is, did the BAR make a correct decision. It appears that if a site modification is proposed at this point, Council is admitting at the start that the BAR did err. If you accept this, you're admitting it. Mayor Van Dusen said he did not believe so. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Attorney Haggard, admitted for the record, Exhibit 77, the "area calculation of site" for the revised recreation area. Councilman Bauch asked if what they propose meets the code. He suggested that any further action on this matter be delayed until the Planning Department has a chance to look at it. Mr. Beeler explained that the old Recreation Area A conforms to the code. If this is just a matter of extending the size, it is very likely that it would meet the requirements. They would just need to double check the figures. Attorney Haggard explained that if Council feels it appropriate to retain all of the existing vegetation in the R -1 area, here is an alternative that can accomplish that particular objective. Attorney Haggard presented a three page document entitled "questions and answers for the BAR Appeal Rebuttal," dated April 6, 1987, prepared by Mr. Roy Richards. For the record it was made Exhibit 78. Mr. Roy Richards, with Town, Richards Chaudiere, Acoustical Consultants, read the questions and answers in Exhibit 78 into the record. He discussed the question raised as to the acoustical effectiveness and structural integrity of a wood barrier and said there is no reason a wood barrier will not work if it is properly designed and constructed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 7, 1987 Page 5 Rebuttal Attorney Haggard asked Mr. Richards if his noise information City /Applicant is fair and representative in accordance with general scien- (cont.) tific principles and methodology in the industry. Mr. Richards said, yes. And it is not designed to misrepresent or mislead the Council. Mr. Richards said, absolutely not. Attorney Haggard again asked Mr. Richards if he had had a chance to evaluate what the noise differences might be by relocating the Children's Play Area down into Recreation Area A as modified. Mr. Richards said the area height which was 11 feet would remain the same. The barrier would have to be extended in length an additional fifty feet to accommodate the increased area. The noise level would be decreased by one decibel by moving the play area. 10:30 p.m. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT This concluded the rebuttal by the City and the applicant. Mayor Van Dusen disclosed, for the record, that he had an occasion to contact the firm of Towne, Richards Chaudiere while employed by the M. A. Segale Company. His contact was Mr. Chaudiere. Mayor Van Dusen reported that the closing statements would be heard Thursday, April 9, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was recessed until April 9, -1987. Gary L. Van Dusen, Mayor 'Maxine Anderson, City Clerk y 3'