Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-04-15 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 15, 1987 Tukwila City Hall 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers M I N U T E S Public Hearing Council Members Present 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. Council Deliberations Attorney Haney explained that Council will review the conclu- sions of the BAR and will determine whether they made an error on any of the criteria. If Council makes some changes on the project itself based on the evidence that has been presented, they are determining the BAR erred. Conclusion 1. TMC 18.60.050(1): Relationship of structure to site. 1 -A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. Council President Morgan noted that in The City's closing arguments of April 9, they recommended adoption and changes (Exhibit 79). There are two items: (1) Fifteen evergreen cedars 6 feet in height along the perimeter of the R -1 district frontage height of Slade Way (see Exhibit 58); (2) Pedestrian walkway extended from structures 1 and 2 out to right -of -way (see Exhibit 58). She asked Council to consider these changes. Council concurred with this recommendation. 1 -B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate visual impact of large paved areas. Councilman Bauch expressed concern with the dumpster areas. There is no assurance that the dumpsters cannot be seen from the street. From the sidewalk adjacent to Slade Way you will be looking down into the site. Provisions are needed so that, even after one year, review will be made to be sure you cannot see the dumpsters from the street at any time of the year. He suggested natural vegetation high enough and dense enough to hide the dumpsters from off the property. If this is impossible to do, then they may have to be covered. Councilman Duffie felt the dumpsters should be enclosed. People from above should not have to look down on the gar- bage. Council Member Harris agreed that dumpsters need to be screened effectively so they cannot be seen from the street. Attorney Haney clarified that Councilman Bauch's conclusion is that the BAR should have been more specific. Council concurred with this except for Councilman Duffie who felt the dumpsters should be covered. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 2 3 28 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Deliberations 1 -C. The height and scale of each building should be con (cont.) sidered in relation to the site. Councilman Bauch said the Board of Architectural Review erred in this section by not pointing out the hazards that were spelled out in the Environmental Impact Statement as to soils stability. All of the drainage and other requirements that were in the EIS should be mentioned. By failing to recognize this, the BAR erred. Attorney Haney commented that the BAR criteria deals with the architectural features of the buildings versus the actual structural components of the buildings and the stability of the site itself. Councilman Bauch referred to the EIS and said the soils engineer will be on site at all times while they are pre- paring the foundations or digging; if they find anything, the buildings will be moved to satisfy the conditions. Attorney Haney said the soils analysis and those types of conditions will come in at the Building Permit stage. This is more what the buildings will look like. This is what the BAR has jurisdiction to deal with. SEPA provides that the conditioning of the permit by the non elected official is appealable to the City Council. Council President Morgan noted that there was discussion about the need for some additional screening on the east side to offer some variation. The BAR also said the face could be landscaped with additional evergreen conifers. The landscape plan does not show a tremendous number of conifers along this border. Mayor Van Dusen commented that he agreed with Council President Morgan, but would like Council to address the natural vegetation that is there. It is alders and black- berries. It should be augmented with some further plantings. Council President Morgan said the BAR's conclusion was lacking in that it is not specific to the kind of screening that needs to go there. She asked Council to be more speci- fic about this -the easterly border you would see when looking toward the property. Councilman Simpson suggested that an additional amount of evergreens should be placed by buildings 3 through 9 along the east border. Council President Morgan added that the number of trees to be added to the easterly border of 3 through 9 be in propor- tion to that number which is required for buildings 10 through 18. Council concurred with this wording. Councilman Bauch asked Council to go back to 1 -A. He had previously asked the City Attorney if the City could forbid the cutting or thinning of alders if they are put forth as a screen. Attorney Haney said yes, you can require the existing alders to be maintained. He suggested that a condition could be required that would say the alder trees in that area would have to be maintained except to the extent that they are required to be removed for safety. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 3 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Deliberations There was no further discussion at this point. (cont.) Councilman Bauch asked Council to consider Finding No. 9. The BAR erred -they thought the only important thing was the maintenance of the Department of Transportation facilities. That is a minor part of the EIS; this needs to be expanded. Council agreed. Attorney Haney said that he has had discussions with staff concerning this project and the poten- tial conditions for the building permit. The drainage issue and slope stability are definitely to be considered further. RECESS 8:07 8:20 p.m. Mayor Van Dusen declared a 10 minute break. The meeting was called back to order. Conclusion 2. TMC 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. 2 -A. Harmony in texture, lines and masses. Councilman Simpson expressed concern with the height of the buildings 1 and 3 which abut the street. If we lower these by one level, the stair step would be adequate and blend in. Council President Morgan referred to "Feasibility of Variation B," Page 10 of the EIS. Mayor Van Dusen read the paragraph. Councilman Bauch quoted from the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan which as adopted ten years ago. Page 45, Section 1 (which gives instructions to Planning Staff and Commission, the BAR and the Developer) states, "Protect all viable neigh- borhoods from intrusions by incompatible land uses," and "minimize the incompatibilities between different types of residential uses." Policy I, page 47 from the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan reads, "Provide for medium density 'transition areas' between high and low density residential areas." If you didn't set requirements through the Zoning Code, you have to do it on the site. This is the first appeal to a BAR decision. Councilman Bauch continued, a lot of time was spent telling us how these buildings look like single family. They say they are only 2 stories high and only 30 feet wide; they are just a bunch of single family houses. You have to walk pretty slow along 53rd and Slade Way to look between the buildings. If you're not exactly in the center you can't see through; it is a solid row of buildings. The mass is tremendous. When you come around the corner of 54th Avenue and start up Slade Way, you will see a building that is bigger than Frederick Nelson's if you're parked right beside it. Twenty feet from the intersection, you're going to see a building 55 feet tall as shown on Exhibit 74. All you have to do is look at the figure. When you add them up, it says at the top of the building, it is 55 feet tall -20 feet from the sidewalk. To say that this is not going to impact the adjoining neigh- borhood; the Board totally erred. It is inconceivable; where is the transition that the Comprehensive Plan asked for? They never did mention what the buildings would look like from the side. There has to be a transition into the single family, and you are going to have to do it on the site. Variation B of the EIS did not go far enough. It eliminates Buildings 1 and 2 and reduces Buildings 3 and 18 to 1 floor. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 4 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Deliberations Then he thought Buildings 4 and 17 should be reduced to two (cont.) floors. The Comprehensive Plan says there should be triplexes and duplexes before you get into high density adja- cent to single family. This is not the zoning, but it is what developers should be looking at. Councilman Duffie asked Councilman Bauch to repeat his recommendation. Councilman Bauch said the decision of the Board should be to eliminate Buildings 1 and 2, reduce Building 3 to one floor, reduce Building 4 to two floors, reduce Building 17 to two floors and reduce Building 18 to one floor. Buildings 1 and 2 slip up the hill and are in the high slide area. They will have to do massive cutting into the side of the hill to get them in. Building 1 is twenty feet from Slade Way, and you will be looking at the full side view. Attorney Haney reminded Council that this project is vested to have its rights considered in conjunction with the zoning code in affect at the time that the Building Permit Application was filed. Under this, the density that is per- mitted is higher than 108. You didn't receive any evidence that this particular project did not meet the code with the height and masses that are allowed. In order for Council to make the their decision, he suggested, if they are going to alter the buildings somehow they need to be very careful about how the decision is phrased and the reasons given for it. The Comprehensive Plan is carried into affect by the zoning at the time, and the zoning to which this property is vested permits 108 units. Council should look to see if there are other alternatives which would meet what their con- cern is without cutting out units. Screening might be a dif- ferent alternative to soften the masses of the heights of the buildings. Council Member Harris asked Councilman Bauch how many units would be eliminated. He said 24 units. Council Member Harris asked if it was possible to put more structures on the site to make up the additional units without the mass on the edges. Councilman Simpson indicated that if Buildings 1 and 2 are to be eliminated, he would prefer to see a triplex /duplex propo- sal for that section. Attorney Haney reminded Council that under the Code there are certain height regulations. Council has heard testimony about the heights in connection with these buildings. The criteria of the BAR is primarily aesthetic, primarily design in nature versus regulating density and regulating specific zoning code allowances for buildings. He asked Council to consider this. Councilman Bauch said it was not his intention to reduce den- sity. It is his intention to reduce the mass at the tran- sition point. Council is not going to redesign the site so they can get them on there. They proposed this high mass right at the transition point and this is where it has to be reduced. Do we allow them to go back to the drawing board and come back with an internal cluster? Attorney Haney said Council can determine that the buildings might be sited a little differently to reduce the massive effect. Council needs to speak in terms of the criteria and TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 5 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Deliberations deal with reducing the mass; the buildings should be (cont.) clustered more or spread out more versus going with a speci- fic criteria in the zoning code in trying to alter those. Councilman Bauch noted Mr. Beeler said the building heights in the proposal are legal, but the law says you will protect the adjacent higher zone. Council President Morgan said there is no question in her mind that Buildings 1, 3 and 18 do not provide for a tran- sition to the single family houses in the neighboring area. Attorney Haney said Council needs to be fairly specific about what affect you want to achieve; how the applicant achieves that affect is something Council does not have to be as spe- cific about, although they can. Council President Morgan stated that the BAR erred in that they did not adequately look at the visual impact of that kind of mass from the north and south. Councilman Simpson said he has no problem with the 1, 2 step on 3, 4, 17, 18; he does have a problem with eliminating buildings 1 and 2. Council Member Harris said she has a problem eliminating some units. The court gave them 108 units and does not want to see us back in court. If it means moving some of the units together so there is less impact on the neighborhood, it would be the method to use. Councilman Bauch said he is willing to modify his request. He is proposing that Buildings 1 and 3, which are 20 feet from Slade Way, be one story buildings; they will look like a two story house. Attorney Haney clarified it is the basement which doesn't count as a story and then one story. Councilman Bauch agreed. Councilman Bauch continued, Buildings 2 and 4, which are immediately adjacent to those are two story buildings. They would have four units in them. On the other end, 17 would be a two story building and 18 is a one story building. This eliminates 18 units unless they can find some way of putting them on the interior of the site. Council Member Harris had no problem with this proposal if they can find some way of arranging them. I don't want us to go back to court for something we know has already been given to them. I'd like to find some way of taking care of this now and do it legal. Attorney Haney clarified the intention. It is not to reduce the number of units. If they can still build 108 units on the site, then that is fine. The intention is to reduce the size of the buildings on the perimeter. They can make up the units in the interior of the site. Councilman Bauch agreed. If they add any other buildings, they would have to come back to the BAR to see what the affect of the interior buildings are. Mayor Van Dusen asked if everyone agreed; we have consensus. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 6 Council Deliberations Councilman Bauch noted the second paragraph of A, Conclusion (cont.) No. 2 on Page 5. The sentence that reads, "This provides a scale which is comparable to a single family structure." If this statement is left in, you need to add "as viewed from the west." 2 -B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining proper- ties should be provided. Councilman Bauch said the Board of Architectural Review erred in the appropriate landscape transition to adjoining proper- ties. They provided 6 foot evergreens on 40 foot centers, and this is totally inadequate. There is a high density area immediately adjacent to single family. Six foot high evergreens ought to be on 10 foot cen- ters from 58th Street up the hill and down Slade Way to pro- vide for the future demise of the older trees. Council Member Harris said that 10 feet is too close; it only leaves five feet for them to grow. She suggested 15 feet. Mayor Van Dusen suggested having two rows of trees and stagger them. Councilman Bauch stated ten foot on center, staggered. There would be one every ten feet, but every other one would be set back. Attorney Haney restated the intention and clarified the evergreens would be twenty feet on center, two row, staggered. Council concurred. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Councilman Bauch cited the sentence at the top of page 6 which concerned the installing of a maximum number of trees which can be planted without diminishing slope stability and said it should be deleted. Council Member Harris explained why she did not agree. Attorney Haney explained that the reasoning of the BAR was that the slope tended to be steeper in the area of the alders and where the evergreens were going to go in than it was further back where the buildings were going to be. Councilman Bauch said he is talking about the evergreens at the top of the hill; they should be as close to the sidewalk as possible so that when they are full grown, they won't be over the sidewalk. Council Member Harris expressed concern about the stability of the slope. Plantings should not be put in that might disturb it. Councilman Bauch said put a requirement in that if they can't plant the trees because of soils stability, they come back to the BAR with a proposal where they are going to plant them. Council Member Harris agreed. Attorney Haney clarified the change to provide that if the trees do create a problem with slope stability, the matter would have to come back to the BAR for consideration of appropriate screening to take the place of the trees. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 7 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Deliberations Councilman Bauch confirmed it correct. Council agreed. (cont.) 2 -C. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation pat- terns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Issue was not raised by the appellants. 2 -D. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. Issue was not raised by the appellants. Condition 3. TMC 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment. 3 -A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced. Issue was not raised by the appellants. 3 -B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Issue was not raised by the appellants. 3 -C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axes, and provide shade. Council President Morgan referred to Exhibit 79 about noise attenuating fences. She asked Council to discuss materials and variety. Fences should be made of a more durable and lasting material rather than wood. Attorney Haney noted that the applicant proposed the weight and certain characteristics of the fence -3 pounds per square foot, no cracks or halves where noise could get through. They said that plywood would look bad and there should be some design criteria. He suggested that Council specify that a fence (layout the criteria) be built and maintained and that it be of a durable material which will last for the life of the project. Councilman Bauch felt they should accept the criteria spelled out on Exhibit 79 from the Planning Department with the addi- tion that it should be of materials that will last the life of the project with normal maintenance and that the fence should be off -set by a minimum of 2 feet on a minimum of 16 feet. Council President Morgan added, Exhibit 62 and the City's closing argument suggested that landscaping was needed along the acoustical fence. Council agreed with this. RECESS: 9:30 -9:40 p.m. Mayor Van Dusen called the meeting back to order. Refer Back to 3 -A. Council President Morgan said she would accept the applicant's decision to move the play area from the previous site to the modified Recreation A Site. Council agreed. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 8 THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT Council Deliberations 3 -D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury (cont.) by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Issue was not raised by the appellant. 3 -E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. Issue was not raised by the appellant. 3 -F. Screening of service yards and other places which tend to be unsightly should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or a combination of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. Same comments apply here that were made under the discussion of the dumpsters. 3 -G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. Issue was not raised by the appellant. 3 -H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting stan- dards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Issue was not raised by the appellants. The movement of the play area took care of the concerns involving lighting. Councilman Simpson expressed concern about the height of the retaining walls on the south side. They are going to be fairly high and the children will be climbing on them causing a potential danger. Maybe some type of shrub would discourage children from going through the area. Councilman Bauch commented that if the Uniform Building Code does not require it, then the conclusion should say that walls over 40" high should have a restraint at the top. Attorney Haney clarified that any retaining wall over 40" which is accessible from either side should have a railing or restraint at the top, and this should meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code if applicable. This should be included under 3 -B, grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. Council concurred. Conclusion 4. TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design. 4 -A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. Issue was not raised by the appellant. 4 -B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in har- mony with permanent neighboring developments. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 9 Council Deliberations Attorney Haney said the same comments would apply here on the (cont.) elevations and mass of the buildings that were discussed before. Council agreed. 4 -C. Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. Issue was not raised by the appellant. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 -D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Issue was not raised by the appellant. 4 -E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. Issue was not raised by the appellant. 4 -F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards an all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. Issue was not raised by the appellants. 4 -G. Monotony of design in single or multiple building pro- jects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. Councilman Bauch said this needs to be modified to reflect the reduction of mass which also helps break up the monotony. Council President Morgan said the appellants raised the issue of the number of buildings sitting in a row with very little to break up the sense of a solid line when viewed from the east. The trees do this slightly. We should reference that we have required additional landscaping on the east side. Council agreed. Condition 5. TMC 18.60.050(5): Miscellaneous structures and Street Furniture. There was nothing in Condition 5 that was addressed by the appellants. Attorney Haney reviewed the options Council has: a. Approve the decision of the BAR as is. b. Uphold the appeal, deny the project and send it back to the BAR. c. Approve the proposed project subject to certain con- ditions that have been modified. Council Member Harris asked for a consensus from Council on accepting the proposed project subject to modifications discussed at the table. Council all agreed. _`"63.5_ TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON VALLEY VIEW ESTATES APPEAL April 15, 1987 Page 10 Council Deliberations Attorney Haney suggested that in dealing with the masses of (cont.) the buildings by requiring the stepping of the buildings, Council retains jurisdiction and sets a short time frame for them to come back with an alternative plan. Council agreed. ADJOURNMENT 10:18 p.m. THIS IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT All agreed that six weeks is a reasonable time. Councilman Bauch referred back to the Findings: #5 indicates the density is 15.25. The R -1 was not used in the density calculations; either you have to correct the den- sity or correct that statement. #8 indicates you have to qualify the elevations of the roofline by saying the elevation is from Slade Way, from the extreme west part of the property. #12 still has the children's play area in the R -1 zone; it has to be corrected. MOVED BY MORGAN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, TO APPROVE THE PROJECT WITH MODIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS DISCUSSED AT THE TABLE TONIGHT, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND A DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT AND TO ADJOURN TO CONSIDER THAT DECISION MONDAY NIGHT. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY STOKNES, THAT THE MEETING ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED. GaryL. Van Dusen, Mayor Maxine 'Anderson, City Clerk