Big Picture: 2. Setback:

Transcription

1 Hi Scott, Unfortunately, I will likely not be able to attend the Wednesday evening Planning Commission meeting. I m taking care of my 10 month old grandson (who doesn t do well with new faces and whose bedtime routine coincides with the meeting s schedule) for the week and my husband is chairing a volunteer board meeting Wednesday night. Please consider my input below. Is there any way my information can be forwarded to members of the Planning Commission? If submitted to them in written form on the night of the meeting, they will not be aware of my input prior to any decision making at the meeting. Having lived next to Island Park for 30+ years and potentially being greatly impacted by the specifics of the proposed zoning change, I think it important to have Planning Commission members aware of my input. Thank you very much for your help. Thank you, Scott, and the Planning Department for giving consideration to input of nearby residents regarding specifics of P Zoning. We very much appreciate your continuing work. Here is my further comment after reviewing the online packet for Wednesday s Planning Commission meeting: 1. Big Picture: My contention remains that we can build excellent schools and respect integrity of residential character at the same time with careful planning. Let s continue to work for an outcome that will do both! This is particularly important in a community such as Mercer Island where residents value our residential character and that character is integral to our comprehensive plan s the spirit and language. 2. Setback: a. As of Tuesday morning, setbacks for most impacted homes in the Lakes are not stated. I hope substantial increases are made to setbacks for Lakeridge neighbors as well as neighbors of other schools. The proposed height limits have increased greatly, the setbacks should as well. b. Setbacks could be implemented at the Island Park site to place the highest portions of the rebuilt structures further away from the northern boundary the only boundary from which homes can currently view the school. To the degree possible, this could help mitigate excessive height and mass, and resultant potential loss of light. Brad Fowler (also of SE 52 nd Pl) noted in his letter following the last Planning Commission meeting that there is a large piece of land at the SW quadrant of the Island Park property surrounded by treed border. I believe (you ll want to confirm) that these tall trees on the west perimeter are on IP property and if left in place could provide buffer to the houses in the Lansdowne Lane loop. Island Crest Park on the south. Brad noted this SW corner of lower field is wet ground not great for play field use in many seasons of the year, and would be a low impact screened location (if existing trees remain in place) for taller structures out of view of surrounding properties and below grade level of Island Crest Way. Focusing building on this lower southwest area would create least impact for homes to the north and provide a lovely wooded view from classrooms. - In order to mitigate height/mass and blocking light, this placement could be implemented with a 150 (or greater) setback from north bordering ROW (50 ROW setback = 200 from property line of the residents to the north to building) in conjunction with other setbacks on the west, south and east perimeters that would place the building and particularly tallest sections in the SW corner. Preferred choice.

2 - Alternatively, a 100 setback from north ROW with a 1.5 multiplier for height above 30 would likewise accomplish this. - Setbacks may need to be even greater to deal with shadow cast by tall buildings in the north-south lineup of any tall buildings in relation to the neighbors to the north. c. Regarding leaving a 45 setback for up to 2/3 of the area behind my home (about 65 of my 95 south perimeter line) in the updated proposal found online: In the process the multiplier for buildings taller than 30 was removed. Without that multiplier, the result: Depending on how tall the building is, one or the other formula will bring us closer/farther. In the case of the tallest building, we will be closer. Current & prior proposal allow: For easterly 350 : - 53 building, 45 setback from ROW = 95 setback* ( ROW) (Latest proposal) - 53 building, 30 setback + 1.5X 23 = 115 setback ( ROW (23). (Prior proposal) West of that: (For 1/3 of our south perimeter property line and for neighbors to the west) - 53 building, 30 setback from ROW ( ROW = 80 setback)* - *No multiplier for buildings taller than 30 in latest proposal. - In any case, these setback are inadequate to mitigate heights and shadows. (2b) is a better solution. d. Conversely to (2b) above, Dean Mack told me that the future Island Park rebuild will be in the location of the recently installed north side portable. This is immediately south of my home and on the only perimeter of IP from which homes currently view the school. 3. Height: a. 53 remains very tall; schools could be very large buildings. This mass/scale, likely of institutional proportions, remains out of character within our residential communities. Can we not do 2 stories and/or a gym without having to go up 53? b. I continue to believe helium balloons on 53 cords placed at setbacks (corners and where homes are impacted or where buildings would be sited, if known) would be tremendously helpful to the Planning Commission, the Planning Department and the residents in visualizing what the proposed setback and height limits mean. 4. Landscape: I continue to be concerned about screening, as was my neighbor, Brad Fowler, in his letter after the last Planning Commission meeting. a. We are talking about a whole new scale of height/mass in residential areas, so we need to think about screening in a whole new and more meaningful way. (Actually the heights/setbacks are the real problem, the resultant screening challenges are the unintended consequence.) It s very important to do this right. b. If I understand correctly.. I believe full screening is required for adjacent property owners and partial screening is required when part of the setback is ROW. Both will likely have marginal effect when screening such tall buildings. Furthermore, there is a substantial difference in those full/partial definitions. In our case we cannot see the ROW because the road dips

3 down, but the portable/school property is clearly visible from foundation up (because it is uphill from us). I believe partial screening is defined as: 1 tree (of unknown height/width) every 20 (but can be clustered instead, so wider gaps possible) at pedestrian level (not sure what that means, particularly when screening a building up to 53?) after 3 years of growth and not sure if it is required to be an evergreen? I can t see how this will mitigate the impact of a 53 building. Please consider a higher level of screening. As Brad requested in his letter, full screening would be appropriate. Full and partial screening likely need redefinition to provide expanded/more meaningful screening for buildings of this potential height/mass/scale. c. Special screening consideration is given to parking lots/driveways adjacent to the Lakes. Those should also apply to Island Park. d. Impacted neighbors should have approval rights regarding buffering landscape to verify light is not being blocked and screening is effective. 5. Shadows: Because of the north/south orientation of the Island Park property in relation to the neighbors to the north, special attention needs to be paid to impact on light/shadows and code needs to provide sufficient setbacks. 6. Portables: When the portable was placed south of our home last summer, it was subject to Design Commission review. The proposal indicates that will no longer be the case (Administrative Review instead), but doesn t show that as a change. Last summer s project left something to be desired from a management standpoint (see variance description of impact to vegetation/neighbors vs outcome). I believe inclusion of Design Commission review can only be a positive. 7. Site Visit: I know it is difficult to envision these heights/masses and their relationship to residential character. I again BEG Planning Commission members and City Planners to visit our home for a real life visual. View Island Park from our back deck or any south facing window of our home toward the portable. That portable is 10 from ROW (by variance to MISD) and high. Envision to a further setback (to approved code change + assuming not another variance) and add 38 additional height or for a total of 3+ times higher than current portable. Balloon floats on the lower field in the SW corner area and along the west perimeter could also provide helpful visualization on the difference that could make. Having added the balloon float to the visual will help to easier envision how the zoning changes would translate to practical application. My neighbors are aware that folks may drop by my backyard when we are not home, so they won t be concerned. These changes could forever change residential character. Working under the presumption that with creative thinking and thoughtful planning the goals of creating great schools and preserving residential character can happen together, might bring some surprisingly satisfactory results to all involved. Thank you very much for your consideration and your continued work on this project. Kathy Erickson 8731 SE 52 nd PL Home: , Cell:

4 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Anne Carden Scott Greenberg MISD Residential rezone Tuesday, April 15, :00:05 PM MI PC MTG docx Dear Scott, I am writing to let you know that Jim and I are in full agreement with Kathy Erickson s letter that was sent to you today (attached here.) The City is currently working on a Re-zone of all school properties. Since we live directly across from Island Park School, the placement and size of the new structure will directly impact our property, as the newest Island Park portable has already done. As you know, that portable was placed such that it required a variance of the setback requirements to do so. (just last summer). Jim and I were involved with the community input phase of that project and were frankly disappointed in the way it was handled by the city. Now the School District/City plans to change the zoning for all schools. My understanding is that their plans call for the new building to be built as far north on the lot as possible and also be as tall as 47 or more. This plan would have a huge impact on our property. Our neighbors Kathy Erickson and Brad Fowler, as well as Jim and I have been following this issue, attending the meetings, writing letters and sharing info with a fairly large contingent of folks from Lakeridge and IMS. It is very time -consuming to stay updated on what is happening behind the scenes and all are very busy. It is a daunting process I would be so grateful if you could make note of our continued concerns regarding the details of this rezone. Thanks so much! Sincerely, Anne Carden anne.carden@comcast.net

5 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Brandy Fox Scott Greenberg Dean Mack 4/16/17 Planning Commission - Supplemental Information from MISD Wednesday, April 16, :35:33 PM Shadow Studies.pdf MIHS Zoning.pdf Elem 4 Zoning.pdf Island Park.pdf West Mercer.pdf Islander Middle School.pdf Lakeridge_Revised.pdf Scott, For this evenings Planning Commission meeting, we offer the following additional information: Site Specific Conditions Lakeridge: 200' setback along school's west property line with the four properties located at: 8121 and 8125 SE 79th Street, and 7870 and st Place SE. 48 /53 height allowed at 200 setback. 135 setback along school's west property line with parcel # /53' height allowed at 135' setback. Island Park: 45' setback for the easternmost 350' of the north property line, 30' height allowed at 45', added 2-1/2' (setback) : 1' (height) for a maximum height of 53' at 102-1/2' setback. Remainder of north property line adjacent to ROW, 30' setback at 48'/53'. Google Earth Graphics: The site specific setbacks and building heights have been drafted onto each plan. These are included for all six sites: Lakeridge, Island Park, West Mercer, New Elementary No. 4, Islander Middle School, and Mercer Island High School. Sun and Shadow study for structures on Mercer Island. Although I do not intend to use these graphics for my presentation, it would be helpful if the Google Earth Graphics and the Sun/Shadow study were available on the computer/projector in the event members of the Commission have questions. We ll see you tonight. Brandy Fox CPM Construction Planning & Management PO Box Seattle, Washington CPMSeattle.com

6

7 Sun and Shadow study for structures on Mercer Island, WA For 30 Structures For 40 Structures For 50 Structures shadows cast on the summer solstice at 10am shadows cast on the summer solstice at 10am shadows cast on the summer solstice at 10am 30 ft. tall 30 ft. tall Approx. 6 ft. 40 ft. tall 40 ft. tall Approx. 9 ft. 50 ft. tall 50 ft. tall Approx. 13 ft. Approx. 18 ft. Approx. 24 ft. Approx. 30 ft. shadows cast on the fall & spring equinox at 10am shadows cast on the fall & spring equinox at 10am shadows cast on the fall & spring equinox at 10am 30 ft. tall 30 ft. tall Approx. 15 ft. 40 ft. tall 40 ft. tall Approx. 26 ft. 50 ft. tall 50 ft. tall Approx. 37 ft. Approx. 29 ft. Approx. 40 ft. Approx. 50 ft. shadows cast on the winter solstice at 10am shadows cast on the winter solstice at 10am shadows cast on the winter solstice at 10am 30 ft. tall 30 ft. tall Approx. 85 ft. 40 ft. tall 40 ft. tall Approx. 121 ft. 50 ft. tall 50 ft. tall Approx. 157 ft. Approx. 62 ft. Approx. 84 ft. Approx. 104 ft.

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22