Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-14 Special MinutesMarch 14, 1994 6:45 p.m. EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURN TO SPECIAL MEETING. 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT COUNCILMEMBER EXCUSED. OFFICIALS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS *King County Councilmembers. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES *REVISED 4/8/94 Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers The Council met in Executive Session from 6:45 7:00 p m. to discuss a litigation matter. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO ADJOURN TO THE SPECIAL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. STEVE MULT FT, Council President; JOAN HERNANDEZ, DENNIS ROBERTSON, ALLAN EKBERG, JOYCE CRAFT, DOROTHY De RODAS. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER DUFFIE DUE TO HIS MILITARY COMMITMENT. MOTION CARRIED. JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; RHONDA BERRY, ASSISTANT; LINDA COHEN, City Attorney; LUCY LAUTERBACH, Council Analyst; ROSS EARNST/RON CAMERON/DOUG MICHEAU, Public Works; RICK BEELER/DENNI SHEFRIN, DCD. Greg Nickels and Chris Vance were scheduled to speak to the Council tonight. However, due to his child's illness, Vance was unable to attend. Nickels was present though and presented information relating to the Duwamish Industrial Corridor Coalition, Metropolitan King County Committees and of utmost importance, the Metro Comprehensive Plan -the Six -Year plan for how transit service will be provided to communities in South King County; and, East King County in particular; also, how to incorporate this plan with the Regional Plan. In response to councilmembers questions, Nickels explained that the plan will be before the voters probably next spring and will have three (3) parts to it. The first level will be the regional connection (light/heavy rail -large capital project). The second level will focus on the community connection (South King County/East King County). The third level will focus on the local system getting around within the community Nickles continued that in regards to a rerouting plan through the Duwamish corridor, he is hopeful that a discussion will take place. He said he voted against the alignment along Special Meeting Minutes March 14, 1994 Page 2 *King County Council members (Cont'd). Puget Sound Regional Council. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Rainier Avenue (Southeast Seattle) in favor of East Marginal Way, serving that industrial area. He said he continues to believe the East Marginal Way alignment makes more sense for the region as a whole. The City of Seattle believes very strongly in the Rainier Valley corridor. Therefore, a long, hard discussion will need to take place, as a region, over that point. One of the issues that caused the Joint Regional Planning Committee (JRPC) to go with Rainier was not only Seattle's preference, but a report that came to the JRPC indicating that the Boeing Company had problems with a light rail line coming along East Marginal Way because at some point in the future, as in the past, they might manufacture aircraft on the west side of the road and need to bring those aircrafts across to Boeing Field. Thus, it was assumed that the an underground system would have to run the whole length in that area which would add about $500 million dollars to the cost. However, they would not have a problem with something that was at grade of below grade. Nickels concluded that he feels there are some very distinct advantages to having the rail system on East Marginal Way and that the debate is worth revisiting. Jerry Dinndorf, Puget Sound Regional Council, Vision 2020, explained that the Regional Council was formed by an Interlocal Agreement among the jurisdictions in the four County region in October 1991. Its purpose is to address regional and multi county issues of growth and transportation. He showed a video to enhance his presentation. Dave Swedelius, 14429 56th Avenue South, commented that his son had been admitted to the hospital for being attacked by a dog. He said there is a leash law in the City but it's not being enforced. He urged the Council to address this problem. George Hill, 5618 South 147th Street, also urged the City to address the leash law problem before someone is seriously injured and the City ends up paying liability claims with citizen's Tax dollars. McFarland stated that the ordinance will be reviewed again to see what latitude we have in making changes that might result in making the ordinance more effective. However, he stated the City has no authority to enter upon private property to seize an animal that was on the street an hour ago. Rhonda Berry, McFarland's Assistant, commented that immediately after Mr. Hill's last appearance at the Council, she contacted Animal Control and talked to a Sargeant Morris. He gave her a direct number to reach him; thus, bypassing the recordings and voice mail equipment. Berry stated that the Tukwila Police Patrol Officers had also been alerted as to the procedures to follow should they spot loose dogs during their patrol. Special Meeting Minutes March 14, 1994 Page 3 Citizen's Comments (Cont'd) Amend Agenda Robertson commented that he believes that the City's ordinance should be the governing mechanism that King County should use to enforce animal control. The Mayor responded he will pursue this issue. >J Hernandez commented that she doesn't wish to ignore this issue any longer. It has been ongoing for six (6) years and it just not satisfactory contracting with King County for animal control. She suggested this issue be forwarded to the Finance and Safety Committee for discussion and resolution. Jackie Dempere, 4033 South 128th, commented that an opportunity was not provided for citizen's comments following Greg Nickels presentation. Therefore, she shared the comments she made to him privately: "We have a problem with the planes that are leaving Boeing Field. I will refer to UPS. they are very noisy. UPS is growing and they are buying passenger planes that are noisy because the new regulations don't allow them to be noisy in SeaTac. And there is no law right now available that will keep from other companies to do the same. And I think that unless we change that law. we should not encourage expansion of Boeing Airport for larger planes. ...I told Greg Nickles that if he doesn't consider that, that he gonna have a fight on his hand and I don't really need another fight...." Dempere also requested that Becker Trucking hearing be delayed a few minutes so as to allow her time to take her daughter home. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF ITEM #5a #5b TO ALLOW DEMPERE ENOUGH TIME TO TAKE HER YOUNG DAUGHTER HOME.* City Attorney Cohen suggested the question be posed to the audience for their consideration to recess in order for one person to take her child home. Robertson stated that due to the lateness of the hour, he'd rather request a recess. *MOTION WITHDRAWN WITH MULLET WITHDRAWING HIS SECOND. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Special Meeting Minutes March 14, 1994 Page 4 Recess 8:45 9:00 p.m. Amend Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS Quasijudicial: Request for waiver to Ord. #1685 (Blue Star Motel). Quasijudicial: Becker Trucking Hearing. Councilmember excused himself. Mayor Rants Called the meeting back to order with those present as noted above. Robertson stated that he would like to proceed with amending the agenda after all. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO REVERSE ITEM #5a #5b. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Rants opened the public hearing on request for waiver to Ordinance #1685 (moratorium) Blue Star Motel. Rick Beeler, Department of Community Development Director, requested a continuance of the hearing for two weeks in order for staff to fully discuss the matter with the applicant. He stated he had received a letter dated February 28, 1994 (not included in the packet) from Goldco Development which is the representative for the applicant agreeing to the continuance. MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY HERNANDEZ, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO REQUEST FOR WAIVER TO ORDINANCE #1685 (MORATORIUM)- -BLUE STAR MOTEL- -FOR TWO WEEKS (MARCH 28). MOTION CARRIED. Continuation of Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit with conditions to Becker Trucking for construction of a truck terminal /parking lot located at the southwest corner of East Marginal Way South South 128th Street (Continued from 3/7/94). Councilmember Ekberg excused himself from the Becker Trucking Hearing because he had not been a part of previous discussions. THE COUNCIL APPROVED (WITH CONDITIONS) THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BECKER TRUCKING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TRUCK TERMINAL/PARKING LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH SOUTH 128TH STREET, WITH ROBERTSON VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION. (The attached Verbatim transcript was distributed to Council and other pertinent individuals on March 18, 1994.) Special Meeting Minutes March 14, 1994 Page 5 MISCELLANEOUS ADJOURN TO COW 10:36 P.M. None. MOVED BY HERNANDEZ, SECONDED BY MULLET, TO ADJOURN TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. MOTION CARRIED. \,tpL a) di W. Rant,, Mayor Celia Squarepeputy City Clerk Verbatim Transcript Conditional Use Permit Becker Trucking Tukwila City Council Special Meeting March 14, 1994 Revisions made to original transcript (Pages 1, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 26, 27 28) Mayor John Rants: Next issue, continuation of the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision. That public hearing has not been closed, it is still open for this evening. We have had testimony, on all of the material that has been presented. And it is now time for the Council's discussion, conclusions. Ekberg: I will excuse myself because since I haven't been a part of the discussions.' Rants: Yes you do, excuse me. You are excused. Councilmember Dennis Robertson Wally, prior to starting discussion, I asked the City Attorney two questions about safety and traffic and the risk to the City. I'd like to repeat those questions and have her explain to the whole Council at the same time her response. The first questions is, for the proposed parking lot, the entrances onto East Marginal Way, let's assume that sometime that we approve this and sometime in the future there's a truck either entering or leaving that and that there is an accident by a car coming say from the north where there is a sight limitation. Involved in an accident with the vehicle leaving the parking lot on that new access. The question there is, is how liable is the City for approving this conditional use knowing that this entrance way has some sight limitation problems associated with it? Linda Cohen: Do you have a second question that's related? Robertson: The second question is exactly the same. Let's assume we don't have the entrance way on East Marginal Way but a truck leaves the new parking lot, turns right or east onto the intersection of 128th and East Marginal Way and is involved in an accident there. That's a more complicated question, I'd rather have asked that second after you've answered the first. Cohen: Well the answer is pretty much the same so that's why, that's why it was easier to get both questions out. Robertson: It is basically the same question, the difference there is that instead of a specific entrance /exit way, the truck is really entering onto 128th. But knowing that the traffic will then go out onto the intersection of 128th East Marginal Way where there is a sight limitation problem. Cohen: The answer is that it is it's situational. If the sight distances aren't adequate and there is an accident that will be one factor in the many factors of the accident that will be considered. Of course the speed that the vehicles are traveling, whether or not the vehicles were traveling in a negligent manner, there could be a number of different factors involved, such as what the weather conditions were like. So sight distance would be one factor in that. I'd believe that there would be a number of ways you'd be able o mitigate that and that would be -I can think of a few off the top of my head, I'm sure that Ron ameron could think of many more than I can as far as reducing speed or putting up a sign as to limited sight distance, having some sort of parking- -some conditions with restrictions on parking. There are a number of different ways to remedy that. Like I say that is just one factor in many. He'll be able to recall t.iiaL uiay W Ill tU use, tnat tramc choice could be all at the intersection at 128th or it could be distributed 128th and their new driveway. If you pull traffic to the driveway out of the intersection with the, again with the short sight distance, and if you looked across to the east, that corner that's staggered, if you 3 were out there you say that, they come down the hill, the property out there's going to develop some day. There's going to be a lot more traffic there so you're going to have not only a staggered intersection, but a staggered five legged intersection on a curve. So any traffic that we can pull out of that will make the intersection of 128th have a lower exposure in terms of total vehicles entering it. Regardless of the sight distance. So if you add all those factors in, it says that driveway has some advantage. We did not ask them to say put the driveway in or put the driveway out. I did not say that. I asked them, stop and rethink considering what's across the street, what the sight distance is, what the volumes are, and what the changes would be and then you choose. It's your engineering opinion as to what you write down there. And they called back the next day and said, reconsidering they basically agreed with the same thought that I had is that by pulling them over ifs a better situation. Rants: Does that answer the question for you? Cameron: If I had drawings I could do better then here in the clouds. Hernandez: I understand the reasoning behind it, yes, but I also want to add something to this in the fact that one of the considerations that Jeff Mann also offered was that they could accept a condition with regards to the traffic driveway, that it be conditioned to a north bound left only trucks. Cameron: That does need some clarification, because we mentioned earlier and you should find in that record, that either in the minutes of our work or at the Planning Commission, that there is no restriction on turns at the driveway for trucks or passenger cars. Again, because if they're turning off of 128th or out of the driveway, ifs better that they do it out of the driveway because the traffic speed is slower there on East Marginal Way and they have better sight distance. What I was concerned about in the previous hearing was the comment that the yard vehicle would be pulling trailers out, around and back down into 128th. So we did not want that, that was not part of the application. That was not a part of our consideration. Remember the talk about the tote goat, that would pull trailers for operations. That operation stays on site or goes directly across 128th but not out the driveway on East Marginal Way and into 128th. Robertson: I have a real confusion. We've been told that since this is a separate legal lot of record and that's in the Staff report on page two, that we are to deal with this conditional use permit for this parcel, for this what we call a parking lot, is really a conditional use permit for it to be a trucking facility. And that we cannot consider it an enlargement, extension anything of the existing facility. It is separate and independent of that because of it's a separate legal lot of record. So on one hand they are two separate entities and we have to deal with the parking lot. Yet on the other hand, almost all of the discussion talks about using this in conjunction with the first one and how we hear arguments that it's a mitigation for the first one and everything else. I get really confused. And that's not the city engineer's problem, but I can understand by our laws how its not an enlargement of a non conforming use. Rants: Steve has a question. Councilmember Steve Mullet: While were on this parking problem and this entrance and exit, it would seem to me that probably the majority of the loaded trailers that are going to leave Becker Transfer are going to leave out of the main terminal entrance and exit and they're not going to leave out of that parking lot. We've been indicated that that's mostly for empty trailers and maybe some partially loaded trailers which I would suspect would be inbound trailers coming in with a partial load waiting for a chance to get to the dock. Now that was my interpretation listening to the record. When we went J I down and visited the site, we saw only -we didn't see any trailers going out of 128th, everybody was turning in on 128th going in the back of the terminal. I assume, going to the terminal itself to load or unload. So I'm not so sure that this driveway on East Marginal Way out of the parking lot is really as pertinent as we're making it. I'm not even sure that it's, my concern with it is more that it's, by having it there it lends itself as an attractive nuisance to kids that might decide to cut through that parking lot rather than go down to the corner and stay on the sidewalk. I have more concern with that than rather or not the parking lot can exist, with or without that driveway. The other consideration is that you have cars parked all through this parking lot and other trucks and other trailers parked in this parking lot and you don't wheel 40 footers through a parking lot like you do a MG. So it's going to be I think by necessity used more as a parking lot, as an interim parking facility and not used so much as supplementing the dock activity. That's my concerns about the East Marginal Way thing. I don't have any more on that, I'd just assume eliminate that entrance myself or make it -well I can't figure any way to remove the fact that if it's there it means that the pedestrians are going to make an attempt to cut the corner. And that bothers me more than the sight distance on and off East Marginal Way. If there's kids wandering around in that parking lot for any reason at all. Rants: Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Cameron. Joan? Hernandez: I did want to verify something that's in our documents that we're reading. That's on page 33 of our report. Under the Planning Commission minutes for November 18th there's testimony that says that nobody has brought up the fact that this document is not identical to the previous one, the matter of the entrance on East Marginal Way is different, there was no entrance on East Marginal Way when it was approved in 1990. And I just need a clarification if that was true. Rants: That is correct. When we approved it in 1990 there was no entrance on East Marginal Way. Any other comments from the Council? Mullet: To move on, I have some concerns that I'd like to hear the rest of the Council on the planting on the berm and basically on the site visitation and also on the plans, this seems to be very minimal attention on the west side. That is the residential area, I would say more a permanent record. We have some question that we might have some residential- -we have some now commercial lots on East Marginal Way that may or may not become residential lots as we go through a rezoning. On the west side we definitely have a residential area. And immediately next to it is residential zoning. I would like to see some more effort put into that berm. Rants: Let me offer a way to go forward. You're now speaking of the kinds of conditions you might want to talk about. We need to put a motion on the table either to disapprove the conditional use permit or approve it with conditions. If we put it on there and we begin talking of conditions that you wish to put into it, then you can move forward without just discussion going on and on and on. Robertson: I want to offer a counter. I think it's just -well first off the public hearings still open so we should probably close the public hearing if we have no more questions and then start the Rants: That's true I should have closed the public hearing. Cohen: We should make sure that there are not no further questions before so you don't have to reopen. r +v+ v vaua 1.1 GL limit for example a conditional use permit could be valid for four years as an example. If you recall the 4 Robertson: Could I carry onto that point? I looked up under TMC 918.020 to definition of a minor arterial. I wanted to read that to you, "Definition of Minor Arterials: (this area is listed as a minor arterial) the primary function of a minor arterial is to serve intercommunity traffic traveling between neighborhoods, traveling between principle and collector arterials. Minor arterials serve smaller geographic areas than principle arterials. Minor arterials speed limits are usually 30 to 35 mph. Traffic generally served by minor arterials include high schools, junior high schools, hospitals, community business centers, neighborhood shopping centers and athletic fields. Minor arterials volumes range from 1,500 to 15,000 per week day. Minor arterials are normally 44 feet wide with at least 6 feet." Then it goes on to talk about which ones are classified. East Marginal Way is classified as a minor arterial. But I didn't see anything in that definition that talks about the intended use. Rants: Steve? I've been trying to see Hernandez: I could say a few more things that I'd like to just create some discussion. Rants: Joyce did you have something that you wanted to say on this? Councilmember Joyce Craft: I feel that the -I was very disappointed with the traffic on 128th. This seems to improve a bad situation here. I don't see that it would adversely effect the neighborhood any more than it is already. I don't think it will show any increase. I think that that area is changing just like Joan said, and I think that we might see more change in the future. I would be very much in favor of approving this but I would want to think about the length of time. I would like to have it reconsidered in maybe -I don't know if you can do that -but maybe in five years or for a certain period of time. Then we can see Rants: These are all conditions that you can apply to this once we put a motion on the table so that we know are we going forward or are we all through. That's Robertson: We've heard you. Rants: Good. I'm not sure you have yet but..... Mullet: I think the character of the neighborhood is something that could go either way. If you have this area then further down you have the second hand store on the other side, then another building which is been a little work, one that's torn down but another one that's had some work on it. That seems to be where the zoning kind of goes there. Somewhere you have to merge a commercial zone and a residential zone. You can't -we'd like to put maybe a green belt for two blocks between them all but we don't have that kind of room. At some point in time you have to merge the two. I think this is an example of where the two are merging and a parking lot that basically does not create any more noise than what parking lots do which is things moving in and out of them, does not seem to me to be a terrible buffer for this type of a thing. Rants: Council's pleasure? Dorothy. I cJ7 9 Councilmember Dorothy DeRodas: I'd just like to say that we have to look at some of the history that's involved. Now I believe the enterprise Becker moved to this site in '77. In looking around when we were on our inspection tour, you could see some houses which probably pre -dated it and a good many others which have come along after this period of time. The business, well, a parking lot is 10 certainly indicated. The conditions there for parking of their vehicles that is I'm thinking of that straggly line of in the mud there of the employees vehicles is definitely, it's bad for the whole area. I can see where a parking lot is needed. My sympathy's have been resounding in what Dennis has to say. And that is that you mitigate, you take part of the problem out of the main industry, forbidding perhaps the industry itself that has is relieved of some of the burden of this extra parking to enlarge its facilities, this worries me. I don't know, do I make myself clear on this? Robertson: What Mr. Becker said in the testimony was that he was going to make his operation more efficient. Because he has to park the trailers and trucks in a fairly small area, that he's constantly moving them and that's part of the noise. If he had a larger area a new parking lot then the other, the old area would be more -he would use it more efficiently which I presume he would be moving things around less there. DeRodas: Yes, that would be a plus. Cohen: I have to repeat myself, again I believe that's an improper consideration and I must say that again. DeRodas: I'm sorry, then I'll withdraw these comments. I must -the parking lot with good conditions I'll go for. Rants: That's what we need, to put in the conditions when we get a motion on the table. Robertson: OK, let me -one is the hours of use. At one point Craft: Are we getting into conditions? Robertson: Nope, I'm just talking about things that -hours of use was in the MDNS, not MDS, the SEPA things was six days a week. What we have here is seven days a week. I'm not sure though that using a parking lot on Sunday constitutes a very big issue. Rants: Seems to me we're talking about a condition there Dennis. Does somebody wish to apply it? Craft: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the conditional use permit for Becker Trucking with conditions. Mullet: I'll second. Rants: Moved and seconded. Discussion. Denni? Shefrin: I apologize for interrupting but I do want to point out that this is an appeal. It's not that the Council is approving the conditional use permit. So it's a matter of upholding or denying the appeal or adding conditions on your decision. Robertson: I'm sorry- -finish the rest of the sentence -I didn't hear.... Shefrin: Or adding conditions to your decision. So if you elect to uphold the Planning Commissions decision you do have the opportunity also to add conditions to their decision. Robertson: So the proper then.... Mullet: The proper wording is- -would you like to reword? Craft: Yes, I make a motion that we uphold the appeal, excuse me deny the appeal the Planning Commissions decision to approve a conditional use permit for Becker Trucking. Is that it? Mullet: I second. Rants: Discussion? Craft: Do we have to accept all the conditions with it that the Planning Commission Cohen: No. Craft: We don't. Cohen: You can accept some, you can accept all, you can accept none, you could make up your own. Rants: If we wish to deny the appeal then we're through with that issue of it. Then do we come back to.... Cohen: You can vote on the various conditions. Rants: And vote on the various conditions that we wish to have to the conditional use permit. Cohen: You can certainly do it that way, yes. Craft: That's clean. Rants: That's clean. Craft: I would change it then to make a motion that we deny the appeal to approve the conditional use permit for Becker Trucking. That didn't come out right Hernandez: You want to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions decision with conditions. Isn't that what you want to do? Craft: Right. Rants: Motion should be. We deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions decision with conditions. Craft: That's what I want to say but 11 l 0 Rants: OK. And your seconding that? Mullet: I second. Rants: OK, now discussion. Robertson: Well prior to voting on it my vote would be effected by the conditions so I would like to discuss the conditions and add those to this prior to voting on the motion on the table. Hernandez: I would agree to that. Rants: A question of process here. Can we talk about conditions to the appeal or to the conditional use permit before we have taken the appeal away? Rick? Rick Beeler: (2144) could not hear comments Mullet: What does that mean? 12 Robertson: That means that we have it now, so prior, before we vote on the motion that's on the table we make amendments to it. The amendments, could be, the appeal could be a series of amendments. That's what I understood Rick to say. Beeler:(2161) ....that was to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions. And the amendments that you would be adding would be those conditions. Is that correct? Robertson: Yes. Rants: Joan, do you want to start? Hernandez: On page 38 of the February 28th minutes Mullet: Do we have to officially vote on this first? Rants: Any appeal, any condition now will be an amendment to the motion and added to the Planning Commission's conditions. Hernandez: And then would we vote on each one of them separately? Rants: Yes. Hernandez: OK. Rants: My understanding. Hernandez: OK, according to Jeff Mann's testimony, he said we would accept a condition that there be no truck parking in the employee parking area. I would like to propose that as a condition. Rants: Would you put that forward as a motion then? Robertson: Can I make a primly change to that? I would propose that we make a condition that the that all the the location and number of lots and type be as shown in one of the attachments, the site plan so that that would fix the number and the type of parking. So there would not be the ability to change a small a private car spot into another truck spot. 13 Hernandez: All right then that would clarify that it would have to be stripped according to that plan. Robertson: Yes, and the conditions be used as shown. Rants: Am I correct that when the site plan was submitted it became part of the conditional use permit Rick? Beeler: Yes and that would be sited in the findings that would have come back to the Council for adoption. Rants: I'm just trying to find out if we need to have that specified as a motion this way or if that is already part of the condition. Beeler•I think Dennis Councilman Robertson's reference to this is giving us the instruction to make sure that is clear in the record. That the findings, that that is the site plan and that's what's to be built there. Robertson: Yes, so Joan, if I was to make a motion, I'd move that the use of the parking lot be as shown in whatever, the site plan exhibit both the number, the location and the type of parking spots. Hernandez: Why don't you make the motion, I'll second it. That's fine. Robertson: OK. That's the motion, I make the motion. Rants: I think everyone understands the motion. Mullet: I would have an amendment to the motion. This is going to get real difficult if we can't discuss these things first. I would agree that the number and types is important. I would like to give them the opportunity if they have to rearrange that in order to move the vehicles property within that parking lot that they have that opportunity without coming back to this Council. I would like to limit the motion to the quantity of vehicles and type of trucks and quantity of trucks that they have listed, or that they have assumed on the site plan. And that they have the opportunity to juggle those around if they need to to make that site plan work more efficiently for them. Robertson: I'll second your amendment or I'm willing to withdraw my primary motion and remake it. I don't care which we do. Rants: Let's keep it clean and withdraw yours and make a motion here as Robertson: Do you agree Joan? OK then I move that the number and the type of parking that's allowed be as shown on site plan. Rants: Let's keep it clean and withdraw yours and make a motion here as Robertson: Do you agree Joan? OK then I move that the number and the type of parking that's allowed be as shown on site plan. Rants: Second. Mullet: I second. *Craft have a discussion about that. Since we're approving something very specific what if they park trucks in passenger vehicle stalls? I mean we're saying this is a very specific use so we're giving specific instructions. So what if it changes? Robertson: Yea, the number -the way the motion is, if the absolute number, that allows, I'd have to go count them, but a certain number of trailer spots and a certain number of total trailer and truck and private park. If the numbers stay the same where ever they park it doesn't matter. If they change the numbers, that's the intent. Rants: the motion on the table is to allow the number of cars as said, the number of trailers as said but give them the flexibility as to where they put them within that area. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye (unanimous). Those opposed? (no response). That was condition one for the Council. Hernandez: OK, condition number two. The next sentence after that said that they would also Mullet: Excuse me, before we make a motion out of it let's talk about it a little bit. Hernandez: That's what I'm doing. It says that they would also accept the condition with regards to the driveway that it be conditioned to north bound left turn only for trucks. When I was visiting the site and I turned left and went north it took me right to the freeway. And it seems to me that would avoid any congestion and going in towards the residential area or the intersection to the south. That possibly could be involving commuters or residential traffic or pedestrians. It seems to me as though that would be the safest ingress and egress to the site would be to the north. Anybody have any Mullet: Yea, in line with your discussion I'd like to get rid of that driveway all together. So should we do that one first then if the majority says it's OK there then we can discuss which direction it should go? Hernandez: OK. Mullet: Is that more logical? Rants: You can go anyway you'd like to here right now. Robertson: Make your motion, let's see what happens. Rants: Well let's have some dis go ahead. 14 15 Mullet: I would move that we eliminate the entrance on East Marginal off the parking lot. Robertson: I'll second it. Rants: Discussion? Craft I'm not in favor of that because I thought that it actually improved the line of sight over 128th. It was an improvement. And ifs further away from the curve and I would hate to eliminate it. Mullet: I'm not as, as I said before I'm not as concerned about the amount of trucks leaving that parking lot on East Marginal as I am about the visual impacts that a driveway leaves you another hole that you get to look in there on and it also allows pedestrians, mainly kids, to cut that corner. And that's my two concerns. Rants: You put a motion on the table didn't you Steve? To eliminate the driveway. Mullet: Dennis seconded. Rants: Any further discussion? All for question? All in favor say I? Those opposed? Robertson: The conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, where do we have those? Mullet: I have them written down here, do you want me to run through them quickly? Robertson: Are they in this documentation? I know they are but I can't find them. Robertson: My would be that that parking lot in that spot for that access moves it that much closer to the residential and the other uses to the south. If we leave the entrance way as originally proposed on 128th, that basically keeps the traffic on that intersection. Now that, I realize that doesn't give you the advantage of them using East Marginal Way entrance way, but it does keep everything centered there. I'm not a traffic engineer, but I neither access onto East Marginal Way appeared to do very good. By adding a new one onto East Marginal Way, I just think we're adding another bad one. If indeed this parking lot does not increase the business, the number of trucks coming and going, and that's the testimony we had, that it mearly allows for more efficient use of the existing site and a place to park employee cars. So if it does not add more traffic then it cannot make the intersection at 128th and East Marginal Way any worse than it is now. If there's no new traffic added were not creating any new safety risk. They're still there, OK? So if that's not a concern anyways that's why I asked the questions earlier. I would like to minimize the impact to this facility onto the neighboring area. I also think the, Mr. Becker from Becker Trucking was satisfied with the two access onto 128th. So, the conditions seem to me primarily inter -aimed at mitigating the impact for the overall thing. So that's why I seconded the motion. I don't know Mullet: Adequate lighting be provided but kept within project boundaries. Six foot chain link fence with barbed wire on the top inside the landscaping. Landscape plan and architect and irrigation plan. Curb stops to keep the trucks from destroying the landscaping. Performance bond of 150 And improvements completed in six months. I think that was -the drainage was not included there; because as Robertson: OK. Mullet: Do we need to specifically say that or Rants: No, its already there. Hernandez: After your motion, we were going to reconsider the north bound left only Mullet: We don't have an exit now. Hernandez: I mean do you want to do that though from the street, from the intersection? That's I just want to raise the issue if you want to Mullet: From 128th? Hernandez: Right, from 128th. Mullet: I don't think we can if we have pedestrian if we have residential cars coming out there. We'd have to tell them they can't Robertson: Besides, some of the traffic will go north. It will be coming from the south on East Marginal Way anyway off of the -off our trails and stuff. I'm not sure that would be Hernandez: Well it's something you might want to consider as you go through the process and come back to it. Robertson: I'd like to make a condition that I think it probably again strengthening what Staff understands that no transfer materials between trucks and trailers be allowed in this parking lot. It be specifically prohibited. Make the motion. Mullet: I'll second that. Robertson: I realize that the applicant doesn't intend to do that anyway, but I'm also concerned about somebody else who might buy the business. Rants: Moved and seconded to prohibit transfer of material between trailers. Robertson: Or trucks within this facility. Rants: Any discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Any further conditions? c 9 16 Robertson: Yea. I want to talk for a second about hours of use of the parking lot before I make a motion. Can anybody see a reason why -it's limited now by what they applied for I believe isn't it? Seven days a week but from 6 in the morning what was the Mullet: Six to ten. Rants: Any discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Any further conditions? Robertson: Yea. I want to talk for a second about hours of use of the parking lot before I make a motion. Can anybody see a reason why -it's limited now by what they applied for I believe isn't it? Seven days a week but from 6 in the morning what was the Mullet: Six to ten. Robertson: Six to ten. From the testimony that we had, the primary business runs basically seven days a week, 24 hours a day and I think that's the nature of a trucking business, I would guess. They bring things in, they exchange the night and get ready and move the trucks out during the day. I can't see any reason to limit the use of this parking lot anymore than what's proposed before us. Can anyone else? The problem is that the business generates noise and the noise is one of the things, according to the testimony that the citizens in the surrounding neighborhood disagree with, or protest to. However, I can't believe the use of the parking lot the way they're proposing it is going to generate in itself that much noise. Is there something I don't understand about the business? Am I wrong? Mullet: Only picking up and, when you fifth wheel type trailer, when you pick it up and set it back down it does make a clang. Robertson: And if they're running the goat in and out Mullet: Becker in their own testimony indicated that they, that you know by 10:00 they would have moved everything out of there that needs to be at the dock to work it for the night shift. My concern is that they don't for some reason get the employee cars back on that street again. Robertson: I don't have a problem with -OK with yea, that's right, if we locked the gates someone said they couldn't use it. Let's say for instance we say they can't use it from 5:00 Saturday evening until sometime Monday morning, or whatever, what we're doing it forcing the cars out onto the streets. I'm not sure -and all we would benefit from it -all the people around it would be quieter, but I'm not sure in itself it would contribute to the overall noise. So, OK I'm not going to make am motion dealing with that. Let's talk about beepers. 17 *Craft About what? Robertson: Beepers. *Craft Oh, back up beepers? Robertson: Yes. I knew there was something more I was going to -can we open public -can we open the public hearing again, reopen it? I have a technical question to ask Staff. Mullet: On which? Robertson: On beepers. Rants: There was a discussion on beepers. Mullet: There was testimony that they're not required to have them. Rants: They're not required to have them and do not have them. Robertson: Well the question *Jackie Demnere (conversation away from microphone) Mullet: No they're not. Rants: Please, please do not interrupt the Council deliberation. Hernandez: That was in the minutes, it should be in there. Rants: It was a question that was asked of Mr. Becker and they specified that. Robertson: Well the quote is, it has the license and one of the questions that was brought up was about the beepers. This is from Mr. Becker, back -about beepers backup, OK, "we're not required to have those so we don't on our equipment. I know it's good safety but we don't have those on the equipment." So that issue isn't an issue. The question what I'm wondering- -what I would like to ask Staff is, and the attorney is, if they are acquired, let's assume the OSHA or their insurers or somebody requires them to use a beeper on the goat and on the trucks. So now we've moved that noise cause a beeper is by its nature very noisy, that's why it exists, into -that much close to the residential area to the south. So I'm -the reason I'd want to reopen the public hearing is to ask Staff, can we make it conditional. What kind of noise limitations, and the beepers the biggest one, can we make this conditional upon If OSHA says they have to use one or something or their insurance carrier, then where are we at? Can we prohibit it? So I'd like to the rest of Council 18 *Craft: Well, if we make a motion it seems to me we have made motions that have been corrected by Staff without asking a direct question. If we say something that's off speed it does get corrected. You're speaking also that there may be even there are not now, OSHA requirements in the future. Robertson: Yes. Well let me explain. And the reason I'm raising this is that it may effect at least my vote on the primary motion on the table. If beepers were part of the materials right now, the requirements in being used, I would possibly have a different view then what I do right now of this parking lot. The fact that backup beepers are not required, are not used at this point eliminates that noise source. Noise is one of the issues and if we look for the primary goal on the decision criteria, the, one of the thing is "all measures have been taken to minimize a possible adverse impacts which oppose have on the area which is located." First one talks about materially detrimental to the public welfare are injurious to the property improvements in the proposed use or in the property is situated." Mullet: I, Dennis I really share your concern on this but possibly the parking lot is what a 50 yards from the dock. If they have to use beepers they're going to be using them at the dock backing these trailers back and forth the same amount -you know, probably even more times then if we put the trailers in the parking lot. The idea being that there's less picking up and dropping with them being able to park them in the parking lot. So where I would greatly be concerned about beepers having to be used in this o 7 Robertson: Noise loses its energy as with the distance it travels so what Mullet: That's what the berm is around the parking lot for I think. To try and break up that noise. Robertson: That works at street level, anything above it though. It turns out you have hills on either side of the street going above it, it goes up. OK I'll drop that issue. Rants: All right, are there any further? Joan? Hernandez: One of the reasons that its been proposed that we grant the conditional use permit is to alleviate the on- street parking. So I would suggest that that be a condition that we not allow any further any on- street parking on 128th. Is that the street? Rants: You'd have posted by the City no parking on the west side I believe? Hernandez: Yea. Is it the west side or would it be the south? Mullet: The west side of East Marginal? Hernandez: Yes. Would it be west or south? It's south isn't it? Robertson: No, East Marginal would be the west.... Mullet: The west side of East Marginal and 128th in the area of Hernandez: Right. Otherwise we're going to be right back into the same situation that we're in right now with that congested traffic problem on- street parking. Rants: It looks like there's agreement. Do you want to make a motion to do something here? Hernandez: All right, I'll move that one of the conditions be that there be no further on- street parking on the west side of East Marginal Way and on the south side of 128th. Mullet: Does the north side of 128th need to be addressed also? Hernandez: I wasn't going to, do you think it should be? Mullet: The street was wide enough there I think to it could take probably could accommodate parking on one side without disturbing anything, I don't is there any other comment? Hernandez: Yes, on the west side of East Marginal Way and on the south side of 128th. 19 Rants: I want to be sure I have your motion complete. No parking on the west side of West Marginal, of East Marginal. Mullet: I think you're getting too complicated. Just leave it at 6 to 10. Or 20 Rants: Is there any discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Have we covered all the conditions that the Council is comfortable with? Mullet: Not by a long shot. Dennis, what happened to your time hours? Did we drop, did we lose track of that? Robertson: Yep. Mullet: Let's go back to that please. Would you make a motion for Robertson: Well, what was in the proposal was to be used seven days a week from what 6 to 10. That's already on the.... Mullet: That's on the books already? Robertson: Yea. The problem I have with it is I'm not sure that if we put conditions on that they have to have some benefits. They are mitigating something. I'm not sure further conditions that use of that parking lot hours wise would provide any benefit to the people around them. That was the only feeling I had. I think this was one of the reasons that truck depots are a conditional use. They run 24 hours a day and they're not a particular good neighbor. On this case though, we're talking about a parking lot for one, not the actual loading and unloading, we already said they can't do that. The only advantage would be if they did end up using beepers at least they couldn't use them at night. So, maybe, then I would change the hours of use, I would -I'll make a motion that we condition the hours of use of the parking lot to for Monday through Friday be from 6 till 10. On Saturday be from 6 till, no, Saturday 6 till 6 and Sunday be from 8 to 6. I'm assuming that people in the residential area would want some privacy, some quite, some peace. Also there is existing parking on the site now. Now I'm arguing why, so I'll go back. Robertson: No. I would like to make -No I'd like 6 to 10 Monday through Friday. 6 to 6 on Saturday and Sunday. Rants: You've made a motion? Did you make a motion? Robertson: Yes, I made a motion. Rants: Is there a second? All right. Mullet: I'm thinking about it Wally. Rants: You're going to have to think quicker because we're going to start moving here. It dies for lack of a second. Mullet: I can't remember what off hand what the hours, I can't picture what he necessitates as far as being able to get trailers available which may be in that lot. For Monday morning when they start up in the morning. Rants: You're going to have to think quicker because we're going to start moving here. It dies for lack of a second. Mullet: I can't remember what off hand what the hours, I can't picture what he necessitates as far as being able to get trailers available which may be in that lot. For Monday morning when they start up in the morning. Robertson: I would assume there's enough on -site parking on the other place for evenings and night time and that's what Mullet: Is that, yea at most I guess it would necessitate that they would have to plan ahead a little bit on Saturdays and Sundays. Robertson: Quite honestly I don't have much of a concern with anything other than noise. I'm just concern and if laws change and if there's a beeper required, jeez I don't know what happens then, jeez, I'm really.... Mullet: OK, but why don't we leave -redo your amendment to leave it as is and if beepers are required then it would change to your ruling on Saturday and Sunday. Robertson: That's too complicated. That's why I wanted to reopen the public hearing. I'm curious what happens to the whole operation if beepers are required and if noise is generated. *Craft: Can't we require that as a condition? That this is conditional upon beepers not being required. Cohen: If OSHA requires beepers OSHA preempts the City of Tukwila. Rants: Can we move on then? Steve you said not by a long shot, so you've got some more there. Robertson: Can I go back to Linda's question or your statement Linda? That means that if OSHA requires beepers, if we have a noise ordinance that said they couldn't generate above a certain decibel in a certain area, that that noise ordinance and that beeper created, the beepers created a noise louder, does that mean then that our noise ordinance is no longer applicable and they could generate the extra noise? Or would they have to stop the operation all together? Cohen: Probably they'd have to, they'd be able to follow. I mean it's a federal act as opposed to a City ordinance. Rants: Steve? Mullet: The question came up about I think the drainage system was restricted to traffic in and out. We've got a bit of the East Marginal. We've restricted the -they said they would not park any tractors in the lot, do we wish to make that a condition that they don't park any tractors in the lot? Be just trailers and cars? Does it matter? There was concern about the oil from tractors being parked there might be a concern. But they're going to put in a separator and drainage system for there so.... 21 of allowed what's there and not done too much on that spot. I'd like to see more trees put in and for noise buffer, and a visual buffer since we do have a hill that gradually goes up on that side so people will be looking down a little more. Robertson: The trees, we've been through this years ago, if you do down to where to the Southcenter area, there's a parking lot. Southcenter Parkway, way down at the end that's used for that, what's that shopping area called now, it used to be a furniture.... Mullet: Pavilion. Robertson: Pavilion, across 180th I guess. There's a parking lot on the east perimeter of that. There is a very dense strand of trees that provides a -of evergreen trees that you can't see through. You know ifs planted very close and very dense. Provides a real physical barrier. Is that what you're thinking of? Mullet: Well yea, something that will go together and basically -the visual barrier on the front and on the existing terminal as a example is pretty complete. You can only see in there where you come to the driveway. Basically, it pretty well screens that area as you drive by. And you know on the parking lot side I assume there's going to be a few more trees put in and a few changes made there, but I'd like it more dense on the back side which I don't see as being very dense from the drawing. About half as dense as they've got out on East Marginal Way. And I consider that as important, even though there's nothing there at the moment, there's certainly, that is the residential area, that is going to be filled up with residential eventually, I'm assuming. Rants: Is that not addressed at all in the Planning Commission's minutes on the conditions? Landscaping plan had to be submitted. Mullet: That's the landscaping plan as I see it up there, so I don't know how to word that Wally. You know, if it's there already it's there already but I would say that the landscaping on the west side be at least as thick and dense as that on East Marginal side or you know to provide a solid screen. Rants: You'd like to make a motion to increase the density on the west side of the parking lot. Mullet: Yes, right. Robertson: I'll make an amendment to the extent that you can't see that they be evergreens and you can't see through them. 0 Mullet: Eventually. Robertson: Eventually, well within three years? Eventually's a long time. Mullet: Ten years. Five to ten years. Rants: Increase the density of evergreens on the west side with a closure effect within five to ten years. Mullet: Five to ten years. That's when we usually plant things for maturity isn't it? Rants: Um huh. Is there a second? 22 Robertson: Second. Rants: Any further discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Robertson: Linda, I want to come back to the noise. It's not just the beeper issue. And I've thought about Steve, what you said that this is only 50 yards further. But if you look at the drawings and the maps that we have, the exhibits, it really moves us substantially closer to not only a residential area on the south side of 128th, but also to other C -1 areas that for now we'll presume don't have trucking operations in them. A trucking operation that would be running back and forth as many times a day. Ron just said earlier that they imagined 200 vehicles coming in and out of it. Running back and forth with the beeper going is incredibly detrimental. Not just to the residential property that's to the southwest, across the street, but also to the surrounding C -1 properties that might develop. If -the problem I have is we have a noise ordinance but if our noise ordinance is overshadowed Cohen: Apparently TMC has a provision which exempts them. Robertson: TMC has a noise -our noise ordinance exempts them? Could you site the Cohen: Under 822150, sounds exempt at all times. That's in section six. Robertson: That's used for highway maintenance. That says sound Cohen: Try seven. Robertson: It says, "Sounds created by warning devices not operated continuously more than five minutes per incident." OK. So what we have then is the noise -also there's several other things in that. Is that in there because of the federal legislation or Cohen: I have no idea why ifs in there Dennis. Rants: Can we move forward? Mullet: I think this is the last one, so when we get by this one we will probably be.... Rants: Oh, this is the last one? All right. Robertson: The problem I have is if beepers are used there what we've just done is, or required there, and the current user is forced to use backup devices, it would create a incredibly noisy use in a valley. At the bottom of a valley. Rants: Well, Council said it's going to happen. Hernandez: Dennis, we could address this issue by making a certain time limit on the conditional use permit. We were told that we could do that so that if there is a problem with beepers we wouldn't have to renew it. Robertson: So we're going to say this conditional use is only good for five years? 23 Hernandez: Well, I was reading OK in the documents that we have here. It says conditional use permits are typically valid for one year, however the 1980 permit required compliance with all CUP conditions within six months. Robertson: No no, that means they have to develop by that time. Hernandez: Right, but we could set a limitation. Robertson: I think you're misunderstanding that Joan. That implies that the permit is good, they have a permit to develop Hernandez: I understand they have a certain time frame to implement all the conditions, but I think that we also were told earlier that we can set a time frame for the conditional use permit. Robertson: Linda? Hernandez: Before it has to come back for renewal. Cohen: Certainly can't be done arbitrarily, there would have to be some very good reason and rational basis for doing that. Hernandez: One reason is your noise issue. If you're afraid that an imposition of some type of beeper ordinance or code, OSHA or WISHA code or something is going to create noise level unacceptable -or if you wanted it Cohen: That wouldn't be an acceptable reason, that's just a hypothetical situation may or may not occur in the future. Hernandez: If you wanted it to come back for review to see if all the conditions were being met, it seems like that would be logical. Rants: Certainly becomes arbitrary and capricious. Robertson: No, I don't know if it is that. Rants: I like the term. Mullet: Good buzz word Wally. BIZ Robertson: The difficulty I would have is authorizing Mr. Becker to spend a great deal of money and make business plans on something that later might be denied or withdrawn because of something that's outside of his control. That 24 Robertson: The problem I have is that noise is one of the issues in the impact of this facility on its neighbors. Again, not only on the residential areas that are immediately adjoining it but on the C -1 that is across east of it, across East Marginal Way and to the south on the same side of East Marginal Way. Trucking is not allowed- -this is not an acceptable conditional use in the C -1 zone. And this would be a conditional use. The noise is still the single biggest hurdle that I personally have with this one. And its impact on its neighbors. That's what we're supposed to be looking at on those five conditions. Hernandez: Well one of my concerns with the conditional use permit going with the land and with the use. So that's why I had asked the question earlier if we could put a time frame on that or a time limit that would have to come back for renewal. I had understood that we could do that and at that time you could addressed it seems like those impacts if they were creating a problem or a nuisance. Robertson: Then what we're really doing in a sense is creating temporary zoning. Mullet: I think we've got to leave -set the time of hours, leave them the way they are by the Planning Commission or change them the way you wanted to with the Saturday and Sunday conditions imposed. I don't think we can legislate for all the possibilities that might happen to this property over the next 20 or 30 years. You know its conceivable that they could have new improvements and all trucks could float on air in 20 years. We don't have any- -you just can't do that. So its Cohen: There's also a provision under the TMC under revocation of permit that it can be revoked if the use for which the approval was granted was so exercised that as to be detrimental to the public health or safety. It also gives any aggrieved party the opportunity to petition the Planning Commission in writing to initiate revocation or modification proceedings. Robertson: But that's public health and safety. I don't think that we could begin to construe that this is a safety issue anyway. Cohen: It doesn't limit why aggrieved party may petition. Robertson: Linda, on page 18 -30 of the TMC, could you -I'd like a clarification. Section 18.38.0 Cohen: I'm not at 18 -30 and we'll take a look, I don't know if I'll be able to answer it off of a cuff, but I will take a look. Robertson: It's real simple. On the bottom of the page, it says performance standards, .070. This is for the CM district. It's a performance standard. It says use, activity or operation within a structure, it doesn't talk about outside the structure. Cohen: What are you suggesting? 3 25 Robertson: I'm saying that since there's no structure, its mearly a parking lot, would this performance standard still apply? Cohen: Would they still have to abide by State and Federal environmental standards? Robertson: No, would they have to admit no discernible vibration, noise, dust, smoke or gas or odor? Cohen: I'm not going to sit here and give you an answer off the cuff about something like that, I don't Robertson: I'm saying that since there's no structure, its mearly a parking lot, would this performance standard still apply? Cohen: Would they still have to abide by State and Federal environmental standards? Robertson: No, would they have to admit no discernible vibration, noise, dust, smoke or gas or odor? Cohen: I'm not going to sit here and give you an answer off the cuff about something like that, I don't Robertson: Then there's no difference between a structural and open area, you can't answer that one. Whether it would apply. Cohen: That much you can discern yourself, I'm not going to get into a legal debate with you here about what's appropriate. Rants: Council needs to get some direction here instead of this ramming all over the place. And either come up with a sixth condition here or lets move on folks. Let's try and pull our thoughts together. I know what you're trying to do, but let's see if we can't pull it together and move on. There are no further conditions? Mullet: I would move that we leave the hours as stated by the Planning Commission, six to ten. Craft I would second that. Rants: It's been moved and seconded to maintain the hours as set -we don't even need a motion on that because if we don't discuss it that's one of the conditions. Robertson: We'll go ahead and vote on it. Rants: Maintain the hours as set prescribed by the Planning Commission. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Those opposed (one, Robertson). Do we have any further conditions or can we address the main motion at this time? Robertson: I would -are there more? Hernandez: You don't want to discuss any more of a limit? You don't think that.... Hernandez: I guess I just understood that the answer to my question earlier that we could establish a limit on the time frame. Rants: We've discussed that and answered it now so -we did answer that one for you. I know it still bothers you but its been answered some time back. 26 Robertson: If you have more conditions, let's discuss them. That's why we're here. I understand that the Mayor's interested in moving along but if you have more Hernandez: It does, yea it does, it does, it still does. Rants: Are you ready for the main motion? The main motion is to deny the appeal, grant the conditional use with the conditions prescribed by the Planning Commission and the five conditions that you are just amended it with. All in favor say Robertson: Wait, hold on, we get to speak to or against the main motion. Rants: All right, discussion. Robertson: I'm going to vote against the main motion. I believe that the parking lot as proposed given the testimony by Mr. Becker that beepers wouldn't be used would fit the criteria, the five decision criteria we have. The concern I have is that the beepers could be required fairly easy of right -of -ways. I'm not quite certain why they aren't required there and they are in other places. One of the criteria, the second criteria here says, "the proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy." The performance standards for this district basically say that you can't create any noise, odor or anything else that would be outside of the use, of the boundaries. That's to a normal person of normal sensitivity. I think the uses proposed comes close to that without, however if beepers and noise devices such as that are required and our noise ordinance specifically says we can't stop that or consider that in a noise ordinance, those would clearly be used outside. I think the hours of operation that it would be used would be detrimental to the -would fail to meet the performance standards and thus this decision criteria and would be detrimental to both the residential and proposed commercial C -1 areas there. I'm very concerned about the noise. Rants: Any further discussion? Craft I just would ask the question of your concerns are with the parking lot or not the present facility? Robertson: Well we're voting on the parking lot and we can't deal with the present facility. However, if beepers were required or in some way used they would be used no only on the present facility, they would be used crossing- -you wouldn't back up across 128th, but they would be used in the proposed parking lot, proposed facility. Because they would be going backwards there and connecting. Mullet: In speaking to that Dennis, the mitigation would be that if, and this is a big if, operation becomes more efficient through the use of a parking lot there would be less backing up going on. In the total of the combined area which we are not supposed to talk about that that's neither here or there. Rants: Are you ready for the question? All in favor of a motion as stated -do I need to state it again? Everyone understands it? Say *ave. Those opposed? (one, *Robertson.) MISCELLANEOUS Is there a motion to adjourn to COW? Robertson: What are we going to do with, I'm disturbed by our noise ordinance and its inability to control a use. I think it's crazy. Rants: Is there a motion to adjourn to COW? 27 Hernandez: I move we adjourn to the COW. Rants: Is there a second? Mullet: Second. Rants: All in favor say aye (unanimous). Those opposed? The Council approved (with conditions) the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit to Becker Trucking for construction of a truck terminal/parking lot located at the southwest corner of East Marginal Way South South 128th Street. *Robertson voted asainst the motion. END OF VERBATIM 28