Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-09 Special Minutes - Valley View Estates Appeal Public Hearing (Continued)Public Hearing Council Members Present CLOSING STATEMENTS Appellants TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT April 9, 1987 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers M I N U T E S 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. The meeting was started without the Court Reporter being pre- sent. Any protest to this has been waived by the appellants, the City and the applicants. Mayor Van Dusen stated that each side would be allotted 15 minutes for closing statements. Mr. Beeler presented Exhibit 79 for the record. It is a list of the changes that have been made by the applicant to the site plan after the BAR approved it and also an evaluation of the optional children's recreation area. Moira Bradshaw, Planning Department, reviewed the list from the memorandum dated April 9, 1987, Exhibit 79 and explained, per Councilman Bauch's request, the optional plan for relocating the Children's Play Area to Recreation Area A. Councilman Bauch asked if the relocation of the Children's Play Area to Recreation Area A is acceptable under the zoning ordinance, and Mrs. Bradshaw agreed that it was. It meets the minimum area requirements, outside the setback area and meets the slope requirement. Councilman Bauch asked if the fences are acceptable as pro- posed under the zoning code. Mr. Beeler explained that the zoning code regulates fences as it regulates building heights. Fences six feet and over require a permit and correct setbacks. The acoustical fence would be treated like any other fence. The fence has the same setback requirement as the buildings so there is no conflict with the code. Mr. Beeler, for the record, noted from Exhibit 79 that if the optional Children's Play Area is selected by the Council, the proposed Children's Area under 3A would be deleted from the R -1 zone and, also, the acoustical fence along Recreation Area A would increase in length. Attorney Haggard referred to Page 2 of Exhibit 79 under the matrix. He clarified that the 6,624 square feet under the staff column for the Children's Area is included in the 12,320 for Area A. Mr. Beeler agreed that it is. Dick Goe, speaking for the appellants, said that they have been told that they have the burden of proof in these pro- ceedings. They feel very strongly that they have borne that burden to the "Nth" Degree. They have discussed a number of facts, have shown Council the errors, will now recap them, and ask Council to find that the BAR did err and to correct the errors. During the hearings they feel they have been subjected to distractions and misrepresentations. First, how many units can be built on this site? According to the old TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 9, 1987 Page 2 CLOSING STATEMENTS Appellants (cont.) THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT zoning code, you have been told it is 400 plus. This project was presented to the City at the last minute, prior to the adoption of the new zoning code; therefore, it does come under the old zoning code. At that time, Dr. Allenbach pre- sented plans for 108 units, basically the same as is being considered now. When the City and Dr. Allenbach went to Court, the Court decided that the City should proceed with the building permit application process. This hearing is part of the process. The Court told the City to deal with 108 units. It can never be more; it can be less. This project is 20 units per acre by the calculations using the appropriate zoning code. If any conflicting information has left a question in your (Council's) mind, he encouraged them to talk to the Planning Staff. They can answer them or can get the answers for you. Mr. Goe introduced Mr. Robertson, who will explain why the photographs and overlays are accurate. Attorney Haney cautioned that, at this point, no new evidence can be presented. Closing statements are a chance to sum- marize the evidence previously given. (Recess was called to give the Court Reporter a chance to set up the equipment) Dennis Robertson, appellant, explained that in dealing with the mass and scale of the buildings, they presented a series of photographs. Mr. Robertson discussed Exhibit 18 which shows Building No. 3. He also referenced Exhibit 74 and com- pared heights. The photograph is correct. The scale and mass of these buildings is significantly greater than you would see in a single family housing development. Mr. Goe explained that this point is important because it is a pictorial display of the size and scale of this building; it is immense by comparison with the single family residence across the street. Building sites No. 3 and 4 will overpower the single family home. Buildings 1 and 2 will be well above the roof line of the same home at its foundation. These buildings are not 35 feet tall, as you have been told. They are nearly 50 feet tall at the peak of the roof. They are 60 feet long at the foot and 40 feet wide. They are legal according to the code, but visually they are immense. They stretch out for 1,080 feet along the property line -that is 1 /5th of a mile. They will appear to be a wall of structure a fifth of a mile long. They have called attention to it, and the BAR did not deal with the fact that Buildings 1, 2, 3 and 4 will tower over the existing single family residence on 54th. Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 18 will tower over any single family residence in the undeveloped land north and south of this project. The BAR has accepted erroneous density calcu- lations in Exhibit 14. Both to the north and to the south, it is 20 feet from the property line to the building and on each side of that there is a right -of -way. There is no visual buffer to the north or south to these immense buildings. To the south, a single family home would not come any where near the height of these buildings. Generally, single family residential buildings in Tukwila are not built to the maximum of the zoning code. When they looked at the landscaping, 6 foot conifers on 40 foot centers do not pro- vide a buffer to the project from the east side. The exist- ing alders in the R -1 do not provide a screening of this project. The deciduous trees that are in the landscape plan are not going to offer any year round screening. This propo- sal is a non conforming use without any transitional buffer TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 9, 1987 Page 3 CLOSING STATEMENTS Appellants (cont.) CLOSING STATEMENTS City THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT screening to the north or south, no realistic screening effort to the east. The noise levels on the site exceed the approved living standards of the EPA. The expert says the night time noise levels will interrupt sleep on the interior of the buildings even when the windows are closed. They are going to have to live with closed windows. The solid railings, recommended by the BAR to provide noise attenuation on the exterior decks of these buildings are not nearly high enough to provide any acoustical attenuation for the people on the deck. Everything the experts have presented in terms of the noise levels and the height of the acoustical fences, the ability of the house to withstand the noise level are undervalued and need to be reviewed. Last night the proposal was made to move the playground. The R -1 issue is a separate case. We did not bring that up here; we presented it to staff in a separate letter. The applicant seems intent on misrepresenting facts that we asked for more alders and blackberries to be retained in the R -1 zoning. That is not a fact. We asked for safety in the Child's Play Area. We discussed the need for lighting in the play area. We discussed concerns about the ten foot wall surrounding the area. We talked about the need for children to cross the parking lot and the driveway to get to it. We talked about the safety in terms of reduction of the DBA levels. We did not ask for more alders and blackberries; we asked you to consider moving the play area across the driveway to the west side of the buildings where the buildings could provide the acoustical attenuation, where the lighting around the building would provide the required lighting and where most of the children would not have to cross any traffic patterns. If Council considers the BAR errors of not reducing the height of Buildings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 18 as a transitional buf- fering to the single family residential areas, it will reduce the number of parking spaces required and there will be more than enough room on the west side of the buildings for the play area. They ask Council to correct the BAR error of not requiring landscape screening of conifers for a buffer on the northwest and south. The BAR erred in not requiring a landscape plan for the east side of the acoustical fence. The BAR erred in declaring wood as the material to be used for the acoustical fence when engineering might show some other material would be necessary to last the life of the project. The BAR erred in not protecting the children's play area from the safety hazards by moving it to a site west of the buildings. He asked Council to correct the errors. In all of the information that has been presented, it is clear the BAR erred in its findings. He asked Council to find that the BAR did err, to act as the BAR and rectify the problems. 8:02 8:12 p.m. Council took a five minute break and the hearing was called backed to order by Mayor Van Dusen. Rick Beeler, Planning Director, reviewed the facts. We have a vested multi family use that we are trying to provide tran- sition to an existing single family neighborhood. How do you make this transition happen? The Court instructed the City to review the 108 units. This has been done, and the BAR has rendered a decision. The buildings meet the zoning code cri- teria. They have tried to move the buildings as far as they can from the single family residential neighborhood to the west. The massing of the buildings was considered. Setbacks are basically the same as they would be for single family. The building heights conform to the zoning code. The larger facades on all of the property face to the east. On the south, there are a couple of buildings that provide the TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 9, 1987 Page 4 CLOSING STATEMENTS City (cont.) CLOSING STATEMENTS Applicant THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT larger facades facing the single family development. Once the final grades and landscaping are in, the appearance will be closer to single family than usually found in a multi- family development. With the relocation of the children's play area, the R -1 zoning issue becomes moot. Landscaping for transition can't be considered alone; there is topography to be considered and distance distance of the units from the street and the break in the topography. From the west, in viewing the property, it looks like a single story building as measured by the zoning code. The impact of the noise has been mitigated. The BAR addressed the landscaping on the noise and required some additional conditions. On the whole, they found, for a multi family development adjacent to a single family development, the massing of the buildings, scale of the buildings, density, landscaping provides an ade- quate transition to the single family development there now as well as that to be developed in the future. The BAR did not err. Council can approve this project as stipulated in the BAR criteria. He recommended Council also approve the optional children's recreation area and also that the acoustical fence be made of some interesting material that is not just a flat wall. The modifications to the BAR Findings and Conclusions require some minor changes to support this. There is new information that needs to be integrated into it. Council has enough information here to approve this project as it has been shown. This concludes the City's presentation. Attorney Haggard, for the applicant, pointed out the amount of information furnished at the BAR hearings. The same information has been presented to Council. The important point in reviewing all of this material is found three pages from the end of the Council's packet. It is the decision of the BAR; basically, they approved the proposal subject to five modifications or conditions. The question is, did the BAR act contrary to law or in an arbitrary and capricious manner when they made their decision. It has been suggested that if there is any error, Council must find in favor of the citizens of the City. This is wrong. Any error does not mean that the BAR erred, and it is not resolved in favor the "citizens of the City." Any question is resolved in favor of sustaining the BAR because Council is sitting as a quasi judicial body, and the appellants have the burden of proof. Council has also been told that, despite the BAR criteria, they should act in the public good. The "public good" requirement is not a separate or distinct criteria. Council has also been told that the Comprehensive Plan requires this project to be totally screened from the neighbors; this assertion is not correct. The State Law (RCW 35A.63.080) is quite explicit; it says that the Comprehensive Plan is not to regulate the development of land. It has been suggested the BAR made fundamental errors because they didn't listen to us (to the appellants). The tapes indicate the contrary. In fact, as one member of the BAR said, "there probably is nothing that can be done that would satisfy the opponents." Mr. Brown, the architect, gave a lot of information; the appellants said the density was wrong. The zoning code says the entire property is the lot, and the BAR said the overall density of the project is 15.25 units per acre; this is 108 units for the entire lot as defined in the zoning code. The discussion on the height of the buildings ignored the sof- tening of the landscaping, and there was an uncertainty as to the location of the south wall as to the perspective. Topography wasn't accounted for. The appellants have TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 9, 1987 Page 5 CLOSING STATEMENTS (cont.) THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT continually asserted they want a barrier, a solid dense screen. They don't want to see the units. The BAR criteria says, provide an appropriate landscape transition; tran- sition, not barrier; transition, not screen; transition, not what the appellants want. Websters says transition is a passage from one place to another. The landscape plan has been characterized as nothing more than 6 foot high evergreen cedars set 40 foot on center. This is wrong; condition No. 2 says add another 30 evergreens. We are trying to save some more trees because we want to move the recreation area down to Recreation Area A. We are never going to satisfy them. With respect to noise, the noise expert, Mr. Richards, said the difference of 10 DBA means a difference of a factor of 2 in the loudness. We recommend that Council sustain the basic decision of the BAR and modify condition No. 3 to include the noise fence specifications presented by Mr. Richards. Mr. Richards recommended that the fence should have a mass of 3 lbs. per square foot. He would rather not specify that the fence had to be made of two layers of plywood, but let staff review the actual materials. He also recommended that Council modify the location of the children's play area- required conformance with the site plan with the acetate overlay. He agreed with staff that when Council makes their decision, they should direct the attorney to prepare final Findings and Conclusions in conformance with that decision. This concluded the public hearings except for questions from Council. Councilman Bauch referred to the alder growth in the R -1 area and asked the City Attorney if they could forbid the cutting or thinning of these trees. Attorney Haney said the City can, as a condition of the BAR approval, require that those trees be retained. Councilman Bauch asked if 11 parking spaces per unit were required, and Mr. Beeler verified this. There being no further questions, Mayor Van Dusen closed the public hearing. Council discussed with the City Attorney the format to be used during their deliberations. MOVED BY DUFFIE, SECONDED BY MORGAN, THAT COUNCIL BEGIN THEIR DELIBERATIONS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, AT 7:00 P.M. Gary L Van Dusen, Mayor Maxine'Anderson, City Clerk