HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-03-CUP - PAC TECH ENGINEERING - BECKER TRUCKING CONDITIONAL USE89-03-cup
12677 east marginal way south
24-89-epic
89-10-dr
becker transfer
August 31, 1990
�1
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200SOUTNCENTERBOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
TO: JOHN MCFARLAND
FROM: DARREN WILSON492
RE: DECKER TRANSFER 89 -3 -CUP & 89 =10 -DR
The deadline for Becker Transfer is Tuesday, October 2, 1990.
I have attached the revised conditions by the City Council on
April 2, 1990. Becker Transfer has six months from April 2, 1990
to October 2, 1990 for compliance.
As of August 31, 1990, Becker Transfer has not attempted to
comply to the conditions as described in the attachments. I last
contacted Mr. Ed Becker on August 17, 1990. His response was if
he does not comply to these conditions by October 2, 1990, then
his company can not park their personal /commercial . vehicles nor
store wood pallets on the property. Failure to comply will result
in either a $500.00 fine or one year imprisonment. I have sent a
follow -up letter to Mr. Becker describing the above.
This will probably result in citing Becker Transfer, for non-
conformance to the Conditional Use Permit approval, dated April
2, 1990.
CONDITIONAL USE Molly A. Headley
Assistant Planner
April 16, 1990
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
NOTICE OF DECISION
File Number: 89 -3 -CUP BECKER TRANSFER
89 -10 -DR
Applicant: Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc.
Request: Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Design
Review to improve a parking facility for employee
automobile and semi- tractor trailer truck parking.
Location: Southwest corner of South 128th Street and East
Marginal Way
The City Council reviewed an appeal of the Planning Commission
decision reached at the February 22, 1990 meeting concerning file
# 89 -3 -CUP and 89- 10 -DR, Becker Transfer.
The attached conditions reflect changes based on the motions and
discussion of the City Council April 2, 1990.
Please call if you have questions.
Attach: City Council Minutes
Revised Conditions
REVISED CONDITIONS
BY THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 2, 1990
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
File 89 -3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee
automobiles, trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six
months of approval date. (October 2, 1990)
5. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will
provide a safe intersection for automobiles. If a
restriction of parking along East Marginal Way is deemed
necessary, then an ordinance will be passed to provide for
such restriction.
Design Review Conditions
File 89 -10 -DR
Prior to issuance of Building Permit revise plan to include:
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
2. Placement of wheelstops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
3. Increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will
be a minimum of 10 feet high at installation.
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated.
Landscaping along the East Marginal Way property line will
be enhanced to provide the same level of screening required
along the south and west property lines. This requires the
addition of shrubs and trees with the trees plafited at 4
feet on center. The species will be identical. to those
planted on the adjacent property lines.
5. Provide a drainage system plant that will eliminate the
flooding problem on South 128th Street. Plan will be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
6. Applicant will be required to install a security fence
around the property with locking gates at entries. An eight
foot high cyclone fence will be located inside the planting
buffer and will include an additional two feet of barbed -
wire at the top.
7. Revise landscape plan in the Southwest corner to decrease
erosion that is currently occurring by retaining original
landscape plan with the addition of erosion - resistant
planting on slope and provide a curb to protect wall /edge of
hillside from damage by automobiles.
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 2
Consent Agenda (con't)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Appeal of the Decision of
the Planning Commission
Regarding a Request for a
Conditional Use by
Becker Transfer for
Property Located at
12677 E. Marginal Wy So.
Appellants
MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY MORIWAKI, THAT THE
CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
MOTION CARRIED.
The Public Hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Councilman Ekberg
asked to be excused from the hearing stating that in December, as a
private citizen, he had spoken at the Planning Commission regarding
Becker Trucking. Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez stated that she, also,
had attended the December Planning Commission meeting; however,
she attended as a spectator, did not speak at the meeting, and does not
believe it would affect her decision this evening in any way. There
were no objections to Mrs. Hernandez continuing with the hearing.
Mr. Ekberg was excused.
Kathy Stetson, 13258 - 40th Ave. So., distributed a prepared letter to
• the Council which detailed the reasons for the appeal. Members of
the community are appealing the February 22,1990 decision of the
Planning Commission. The appellants claim'The:Planni
Commission deleted or changed significant portions of s taffs
recommendations, substantially c the use and impact of this
proposal." Because the staff recommendation.; arose from a joint
meeting of the applicant and members of the residential community
on January 9, and were supported by both parties, the appellants want
to see the original recommendations imposed. Ms. Stetson added that
the group is not opposed to Becker using the property. They feel it
would be an improvement to have the lot paved, the landscaping
improved, and the codes enforced as to storage and other use of the
site; however, they are concerned with protecting their single - family
neighborhood. They ask Council to impose those conditions which
would mitigate the adverse impacts to the community.
Janice Scheffler, 4033 So. 128th Street, read from a prepared letter
which, in loam targeted truck parking as a central issue for residents of
the neighborhood. Concerns include: 1) Will the limit of working
horn apply to the terminal on the Northwest corner, 2) Is the site still
for employee parking and if so, will employee parking take
ace in the future as more employees are hired or will it
more of an expansion of the terminal; 3) Truck traffic on
residential streets. Ms. Scheffler noted that conceding to truck,
tractor, and trailer p king on the Becker site does not indicate a
willingness for the R verton area to "go industrial". Residents want to
see the property brought up to current standards. Ms. Scheffler
concluded by requesting that Council deny a Condition Use Permit if it
considers it as an act contributing to the conversion of Riverton's
remaining residential area.
Curtis Robinson, 13422 - 40th Ave. So., distributed a letter to ,Council,
written by his wife, which contained their prepared statement. Mr.
and Mrs. Robinson protest the approval of the Design Review and
Conditional Use Permit of Becker Transfer. It is their opinion that the
Planning Commission authorized the expansion of Mr. Becker's
business without any affirmative input from citizens. Further, they feel
an improved parking fatality for employees' automobiles and semi-
truck trailers is a crucially d matter from the parking of truck
tractors along with truck trailers. This decision permits as much
movement of trucks and trailers in the parking lot as on the primary►
business site, thus expanding the business. The PlafAingCommission
hob icm d to the area as a neighborhood In transition ' . Mr.
Robinson ash, if this is true, where are the zoning changes that give
subsanc a to that statement? In summary, Mr. Robinson stated that
the Planning Commission has ignored the request of 70 residents that
Becker Transfer remain contained in its spot zone and be restricted
from further expansion. He suggests that other suitably zoned
'business property is available elsewhere if Mr. Becker's business has
outgrown the current site.
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 3
Public Hearing (con't)
Becker Transfer
Phil Hemenway, 4036 So. 128th Street, stated that he lives
approximately 300 feet from Mr. Becker's business. In his opinion,
Becker Transfer is harmonious with the neighborhood, provides
employment and tax revenue for Tukwila. Mr. Hemenway does not
feel expansion should be discouraged.
Donna Meagher, 13242 - 40th Ave. So., commented that not all
residents in Riverton want the area to remain residential. Several
people on her street would be more than willing to sell to a developer.
The neighborhood has been encroached upon by industrial businesses
for several years. Ms. Meagher feels Mr. Becker should be granted a
CUP for his trucks. She would hie to see the area fenced.
Bill Scheffler, 4033 So. 128th St., commented that he had been a
member of the advisory board that helped put together the pre -
annexation zoning. Some of the residents who are protesting Mr.
Becker's business in a residential neighborhood were also asked and
encouraged to join the board but elected not to at that time. He
commended the staff for the written recommendations that were
presented to the Planning Commission at their second meeting on
February 22. Mr. Scheffler feels a fence and a gate are appropriate to
the site as children are attracted to the equipment. He would also hie
to see increased landscaping along East Marginal Way as a way of
buffering the residential community from the effects of expansion.
Employee parking has already become a problem on the side street
across East Marginal Way on So. 128th. Parking should be restricted
to the parking lot with access to the lot from So. 133rd and East
Marginal Way.
Beverly Nicholson, 3810 So. 130th Street, objects that the Planning
Commission did not follow the recommendations of their staff when
they met on February 22nd. The recommendations from the staff on
ncing, gate, the hours, the landscaping g and
the fe the �,a par king were
changed to what Becker wanted on each one of those points. Ms.
Nicholson requests that those points be gone over again and do what
the staff recommended.
Jeff Mann, PacTech Engineering, 6100 Southcenter Blvd., reported
that Mr. Becker's application has been through considerable review.
Mr. Becker originally- applied for a Design Review permit after which
he was informed he would have to apply for a Co Use Permit
He recognized that through the annexation process the property was
zoned for industrial use, provided that conditions be put in place on
this site. Consistent with the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit,
twelve conditions have been placed on this _application. Mr. Mann
reviewed the conditions with the Council. Of the 12 conditions, there
are three conditions and one issue that are the focus of Mr. Becker's
appeal. In regard to Item #1, Condition #2, the Planning Commission
added trucks, tractors and trailers because they realized that trucks
would be taking the trailers onto this site and may sit there
temporarily. The main transfer operations are still out of the area to
the north. Regarding Item #2, Condition #6 - Fencing: Mr. Becker
would be willing to install a solid fence around the site if there would
be some relief on the closeness and number of trees required in the
landscaping. With regard to East Marginal Way, Item #3, Condition
#4, three additional trees will be located in certain gaps where trees
have been removed in the•past. We ado not want the ' reA ernent for
the four foot on center trees as required on the two sides that abut the
stated that the ' g Commission's ro � omment was made to reflect
the fact that the City did ' • . CM zoning for this property. Becker
Transfer accepts the 12 cone • ns; they are significant and will screen
the site.
Councilman Rants asked if there was enough parking on the site for
employees. Mr. Mann replied that parking is adequate for now.
There is no ordinance that prevents parking on the street.
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 4
Public Hearing (con'tl
Staff Report
Citizen Comments
Councilman Robertson asked the difference between a parking lot
and a transfer terminal. Mr. Becker responded that at a transfer
terminal a trailer is unloaded from one trailer to another. On the
parking lot tractors, trucks and trailers would be parked.
Councilman Lawrence inquired if the Planning staff had worked with
Becker Transfer in consideration of the citizens concerns. Molly
Headley, Assistant Planner, responded that they had worked together
and Becker Transfer had indicated they would be cooperative in
providing whatever was required to gain approval for the Conditional
Use Permit. Councilman Lawrence commented that it appeared staff
was recommendins Council to do what they did not recommend the
Planning Commission do. Rick Beeler responded that staff forwarded
their recommendation to the Planning Commission on the basis of the
staff review. The Planning Commission then acts upon staff's
recommendation. They can agree, disagree of mo Councilman
Lawrence clarified that once the Planning Commission has made a
decision, even if it overrides staff's position, staff will defend the
decision made.
Phil Hemenway stated that even though he was a member of the
task force he did not feel they had an opportunity to have
meaningful data on single family residential.
Beverly Nicholson suggests fencing the property to avoid children
playing on the grounds.
Gary Evans, 4020 So. 128th St., lives above Mr. Becker's property. He
has not seen children playing on the property as suggested. There are
many large trucks that travel through the area, but there does not
appear to be complaints about them. He sees no reason to deny Mr.
Secker's request.
Mr. Mann stated that Mr. Becker has worked with the City throughout
this entire p. He is making substantial improvements to the site
and has accepted many of the conditions imposed. A fence at this
time is not needed for operational purposes. The 12 conditions that
are imposed will provide the City with studies on intersections and
drainage. The site will be improved and visually protected. He
concluded by asking for Council's approval.
Rick Beeler commented that the issue is not if there should be a
deviation of the plans. The issue is whether or not the preponderance
of evidence has proven that Council should reach a different
conclusion than the Planning Commission. The presence of trucks,
trailers or tractors on the property for a temporary period of time is a
very difficult thing for the City to enforce.
Bill Scheffier stated that if the use of the property is going to be
increased, the citizens want a higher degree of landscaping with the
exception of increased density of vegetation along East Mares Way
to buffer the existing single homes across the street. With the
added vegetation that is going around the property and no lighting, a
paved site is inviting to various types of criminal activity.
Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez dosed the public hearing at 8:38 p.m.
Councilman Robertson read from the Tukwila Zoning Code and •
commented that driving trucks in and out constantly contributes to a
high pollution source. It's a very heavy use of roads, provides danger
and a lot of traffic. The buffer of trees does very little to prevent
noise. If the CM district was intended to be transition zoning, that
transition is to be a transition between the commercial use and the
heavy industrial use. Trucking is considered by the Tukwila Zoning
Code to be one of the worst sources of pollution. Regarding the two
sites, loading and unloading . a truck will produce some amount of
noise, but not as much as driving the tractors back and forth, hooking
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 5
Public Hearing (con't)
up the trucks to trailers and moving them. This site is used for moving
trailers in and out. It is doubtful the site would be used as much as the
site across the street, but that's still the intended purpose and that is
why the addition of tractors was added to it. The intended use of the
site is contradictory to the intended purpose of this property which is a
park -like transition between residential use and industrial use. Mr.
Robertson stated he does not want to sit in the Planning Commission's
role and second guess whether the three items that were appealed
were right or wrong. However, he is convinced there was not an
acceptable compromise reached between the residential community
and the property owner. In conclusion, Councilman Robertson
recommended that Council uphold the appeal and deny the
application and send them back to find a compromise. The intended
use of this property is not allowed except as a conditional use in any of
Tukwila's zones. It is not allowed at alias a conditional use in the four
lighter commercial uses. If the property owner intends to use it to
drive the trucks back and forth, which is the highest polluting source,
then it's necessary for the property owner to find an acceptable
compromise.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, TO
UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND DENY THE APPLICATION.*
Councilman Rants commented that the staff and citizens and Becker
came to a good compromise. He is in favor of upholding the appeal
and the Planting Commission decision. We could do that
to . ' l we need to do is put in the fencing and the planting that
our ' : • ' Department suug�ggeesated He is opposed to denying Mr.
Becker's t to start off with his property, however, he feels the
Council is upholding the appeal the way the citizens wanted it done.
Councilman Moriwaki stated that there is another specific reason for
scrutinizing the situation which has not been discussed. The map
showi that areas that the CM areas that have those kind of trucks
don't butt up nut to single - family residences. That's why it is
extremely important that we take the time and energy to make sure
the impacts of what this operation does on the surrounding
community. All the other CM goes along the river south of I-405 to
south of Southcenter along I -S. The reason other appeals are not
scrutinized so close is because there are no residences next to the
businesses. . t • the parki issue, pulling on the street ise, Councilman
Moriwaki commen -. that_ once the parking lot is paved and unlit and
dark, it's a nice place to hide out. That's another serious concern. The
fencing issue is one of . security for Mr. Becker's propertrtyy and
and ;urity to the community. He concluded by its
e would vote port the motion; however, he would lilte to have e
second motion to hold up the appeal and go through the Commission
points.
Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez asked counsel if she would be allowed to
vote on this issue even though she was chairing the meeting. Attorney
clarified that she would.
Hernandez stated that she would vote against the motion because she
feels Council should uphold the appeal but revise the decision. She
would rather see planned parking in a parking area than require
people to park on the street.
Councilman Robertson commented that he feels in this case it is
necessary for a solid compromise to be reached and not a decision
levied by the Council sittmg in for the Planning Commission. with a
few moments study and a little testimony. He doesn't feel that's
Council's role.
f
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 6
Public Hearing (con's)
Councilman Lawrence also opposed the motion stating that in light of
what the Planning Commission had done, he did not feel Council could
reach a compromise that would work out.
*MOTION FAILS 4-2.
MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY RANTS, THAT
COUNCIL UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND REVISE THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION BASED ON THREE
STATED CONDITIONS: 2)) TRUCKS AND TRACTORS; 4)
PLANTING ENHANC MENT; 6) FENCING OF THE
PROPERTY.
For clarification Councilman Moriwaki stated that this motion is to
follow the Plannin4 staff's recommendations and to appeal the
Planning Commissions new impositions and definitions. Councilman
Robertson asked Office of Community Development (OCD) Director
Rick Beeler, and Assistant Planner Molly Hea if they understood
what they would do with this based on the information.
Ms. Headley replied she understood that they would look at the staff
memorandum dated Februari 12,1990 which addresses the issues that
resulted in these conditions. On page three of the re • • rt under
Recommendation, number 1) Use of site will be co . ' ed to parking of
employee automobiles and truck trailers, was the original
recommendation of the Planning Commission. We would change that
recommendation to include tractors, truck tractors and trailers.
Councilman Robertson inquired what would stop this site from
becoming another transfer station. Mr. Beeler responded that the
applicant would have to go through another Conditional Use Permit
process. The CUP is attached to the site. If another owner came in,
he would have to live with the same conditions unless they came back
to the Planning Commission and the CUP process to change those
conditions.
Councilman Moriwako, noted on page two of the same staff report
under Design Review Related Concerns, Citizen Concern #3 listed
the concern that the lot would be used for inappropriate activities
after hours. Staff response listed a gate and/or fence could address
this concern. Ms. Headley responded that the concern would be
handled through Recommendation #3 on page three: Applicant will
revise site plan to provide locldn1 tes at entry to site. Councilman
Moriwaki noted the word' fence ., . not appear in the
recommendation. The motion he put forward was to follow with
Condition #6 and fence the property when required.
MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY DUFFLE, THAT THE
MOTION BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE APPLICANT TO
REVISE SITE PLAN TO PROVIDE LOCKING GATES AT
ENTRY AS A CONDITION OF THE APPLICATION.**
Councilman Robertson commented that "fencing' had not been
defined as to type and height Mr. Beeler responded that security
fences are normally eight foot cyclone fences with another two feet of
barbed wire at the top. He added that Council could further define
the issue if they wished.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE,
THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE THAT A
SECURITY FENCE BE PLACED INSIDE OF THE PLANTING
BUFFER.***
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 7
Public Hearing ( con't)
Rama
9:10 p.m. - 9:20 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
Ord. #1560, Recreating the
Tukwila Planning Commission
Councilman Moriwaki stated that he amended the motion to be more
specific. The recommendation on page three under Recommendation
simply states: 'The applicant will revise site plan to provide locking
gates at entry to site.' The intent for a fence is there, but it is not
stated in a recommendation.
** *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez commented she would vote against the
original amendment because she did not want to require locking gates.
She feels it would create more of a danger to have people leave their
cars running while they unlock a gate.
* *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
On the issue of the truck/tractor/trailer parking, Councilman Rants
remarked that you can't expect to haul trucks in there without having a
tractor on them. Councilman Lawrence commented that if we are
requiring the fence for security then as long as the pn use is for
tractor and employee parkin& he sees no reason to not allow the
incidental parking of trucks and tractors. Councilman Robertson
added that if one of the concerns was the noise pollution and air
pollution from the use, forcing the applicant, to put the trucks
somewhere else is going to increase the noise and air pollution, not
decrease it.
MOVED BY ROBERTSON, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE TO
AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL TO
CONDITION #2. **
Councilman Moriwaki stated that he will vote for the motion;
however, he the intent of the applicant is to use the area for
parking * *MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Robertson asked Mr. Beeler what would prevent the use
of the area which is intended to be em loyee parking from being used
for truck parlm& Mr. Beeler that it could be brought back
to the plannim C..mum who could revise or deny (revoke) the
Conditional Use Permit as one of the conditions of the CUP is the site
plan.
*MOTION CARRIED. ORIGINAL MOTION IS APPROVED AS
AMENDED.
meeting resumed ca � recess.
The Councilmembers in attendance as listed above.
MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY.
MOTION CARRIED.
Attorney Colgrove read an Ordinance of the City of Tukwila,
Washington, recreating :.e Tukwila Planning Commission, prescribing
its duties, authority and and repealing Ordinance No. 1112
and Ordinance No. 15
Councilman Lawrence commented that he is in favor of the ordinance;
however, because of the timing, a portion of the community has
interpreted the ordinance as being aimed at specific individuals rather
than the principle. In his opinion, passing the ordinance today rather
that in the near future won't b ng any particular benefit to the issue
other than to cloud the iuue r.
Appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission at their
February 22, 1990, meeting regarding request for a
Conditional Use Permit by Becker Transfer for property at
12677 East Marginal Way So.
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE
TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Published Valley Daily News - March 16, 1990
CITY OF TUKWILA
Maxine Anderson
City Clerk
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City . Council will continua the Public
Hearing at the request of Becker Transfer to the 2nd day of April, 1990. at 7:00 p.m. In
the Council Chambers of Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Blvd.. Tukwila, to consider
the following:
Any and all Interested persons are invited to be present to voice approval, disapproval,
or opinions on same.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. vanDusen, Mayor
■
To: Mayor /City Council
From: Planning Division
Date: March 29, 1990
Subject: Becker Transfer Trucking Appeal (89- 3- CUP;89- 10 -DR).
On Febrary 22, 1990 the Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit and design for Becker Transfer.Trucking's
parking lot.
An appeal of those decisions was recieved;on March .'2,.1990 In
the letter of appeal. (appendix B) four reasons were cited for the
appeal. The following is a brief review of those issues:
1. Condition � #2: "Use ' of site will be confined to parking
of employee automobiles, trucks. tractors ant trailer."
The appeallants object to the addition of 'trucks and
tractors to condition #2 for the conditional use. The
Planning Commission members added this language, after
discussion regarding the fact that, in order to move
trailers on and off the site, tractors were necessary.
The applicant indicated that it was not his'intentto
park tractor /trailer rigs on the site for an extended
time.
2. Condition #6: Fencing of the property when required.
The appeallants believe the site should be fenced now
due to safety for the community. The Planning
Commission acknowledged that safety might be an issue
.but without evidence it was difficult to determine the
extent of the problem. They requested that citeaens
contact the City in the event that unsafe acts occur on
the site and, at that time, steps would be to
provent reoccurrences.
3. Condition #4: Deletion entirely of staff's
recommendation to enhance planting along East Marginal
Way to provide a dense screen.
BECKER TRANSFER APPEAL
APPENDIX A
pg. 2
The appealant, submitted photographs at the public
showing the "extent of current landscaping
along East Marginal Way to be sparse and incapable of
providing any visual relief for the single family
houses socated directly across the street form the
subject property. This property is surrounded on three
sides by single family uses."
The Planning Commission determined that the existing
amount of trees in combination with additional shrubs.
as indicated on the plan would provide an appropriate
level of screening.
4. Transition Area
The appeallants objects to this area being viewed as a
transitional area by the Planning Commission. The .
difference is one of attitude as to how this area
should'be viewed in making land use decision.
The appealants letter(appendix B)` and Planning Commission minutes
(appendix C) provide addition detailed information.
co
4,
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
TO: RICK BEELER, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: Maxine Anderson, City Clerk (∎
DATE: March 8, 1990
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON BECKER TRANSFER'S REQUEST FOR C.U.P.
At the request of the applicant, the Public Hearing originally set for March 19, 1990 on
the request for a Conditional Use Permit will be rescheduled to April 2, 1990.
cc: Mayor Van Dusen
John McFarland, City Admin.
Molly Headley, Assistant Planner
MEMORANDUM
= ^,
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Cary 1. VanDusen, Mayor
File Number: 89 -3 -CUP
89 -10 -DR
Applicant: ' Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc.
Request:
NOTICE OF .DECIS
'BECKER TRANSFER
Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Design
Review to improve a parking facility for employee
automobile and semi- tractor trailer truck parking.
Location: Southwest corner of South 128th. Street and East
Marginal May
The Planning Commission conducted a review of the above request
on February 22, 1990, and approved file 89 -3 -CUP and 89 -10 -DR
with the attached conditions.
The Commission adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in
the Memorandum dated February 12, 1990 which was attached to the
Staff Report dated November 10, 1989.
Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision to
the City Council by filing an appeal in writing with the City
Clerk within ten (10) days of the above data and shall.. state the
reasons for the appeal.
Molly A. Headley
Assistant Planner
February 23, 1990
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
File 89 -3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance,for - =the cost'of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee automobiles,
trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
between 6 :00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six .
months of approval date. (August 22, 1990)
5. A traffic studyy will be conducted: to determine what will provide
a safe intersection for. automobiles. If a restriction of parking
along East Marginal Way, then an ordinance will be passed to
provide for such restriction.
Design Review. Conditions
Prior to issuance of Building Permit: .
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
2. Placement of wheelstops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape
areas . .
3. increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will be a
minimum of 10 feet high at installation.
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated.
5. Provide a drainage system plan that will eliminate the flooding
problem on S. 128th St. Plan will be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of Building Permit.
6. Applicant will be required to install fence around property if
crime statistics provide evidence of.a problem. Planning
Department will review statistics within one‘year to determine if
installation is warranted.
7. Revise landscape : plan in the Southwest. corner to decrease erosion
that is currently occurring by .retaining original landscape plan
with the addition of erosion- resistant planting on'slope,and.
provide a curb to protect wall /edge of hillside from'damage by
automobiles.
PACTECH ENGINEERING, INC
IgWaa Il....n I Iwv./N.
y-1 1.
TITLE
CLIENT
is
!1
I
I
I
I
I
0
f
i
E
111110A. 1106600116
.IIOMII .Im.i1 W
1II
P .O. S$4
660ITI1✓1. VA.. MLM
x:'71 KE3 ►'lr:74 t _ ZI
Try •
/11r„,r 1/ 7. J
-- xtrIva \ Bilw ;ow
nn same kiln
N . N
11111111111011 01{CAI'TIOM
N.. ST
... 16 I. 61664
641
n .p
y
PN CO
tvi
M
CO Or
H
I. y
Nu PO
memos _✓M
*sawn .,N•
Co 44444
SIC t
INII 1I — Iwo C
»1 ,
28 February 1990
Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Ms. Anderson:
We the undersigned hereby appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission at the February 22, 1990 meeting regarding Becker
Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CUP and 89- 10 -DR, Design
Review for the same property for the following reasons:
1. 89 - - CUP Condition #2: "Use of site will be confined to .
parking of employee automobiles, trucks. tractors and
trailers."
Staff report recommended condition was "...employee
automobiles and truck trailers."
This language was added after the close of the public hearing
dated February 22, 1990. This changes the proposed use from
a parking lot (which was the request) to a working yard. An
expansion of this nature seriously impacts the surrounding
single family neighborhood.
2. 89 -10 -DR Condition 6 re: fencing of the property.
TMC 18.60.050(3) lists criteria for Landscaping and Site
treatment, including (b) "...promote safety... ".
TIIC 18.64.050 lists criteria for granting a conditional use
permit, including (a) "...will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use..."; and,
(e) "All measures have been taken to minimize the possible
adverse impacts ... on the area ".
Arrests have been made in the immediate area. Because of its
proximity to established crime centers , we are concerned about
providing an even more attractive location for .criminal
activity . -- nicely paved, totally screened from view from
adjacent streets, unlighted, and unsecured.
In spite of public . testimony in which several residents
expressed concern over the safety of children who play there
and the safety of the community if yet another unsecured
secluded spot were added to the neighborhood, the Planning
Commission would not require a fence and locking gate,
although it was within their realm to do so
BECKER TRANSFER APPEAL
APPENDIX .B
rf, f
MAP - 2*C+
Ms. Maxine Anderson
20 December 1989
Page 3
We respectfully request that this issue be further reviewed by the
City Council prior to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit to
Becker Transfer.
sincerely,
Name
Kcitku a . otaatryv /3258 40 11t1 Cc .
1 5 /06 51 •
e5
U
,2: T
--ielf - r
••■• 51
Address-
3 r sgv1 .
/g y „v 4/6 Ave
/0G , e. ..
,`.7 1 111
0-
n
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(ZOS) 433.1500
Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor
CITY OF Tu WILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 22, 1990
The meeting was called to order at 8 :05 p.m. by Chairman`Jim
Haggerton. Members present were Messrs..Haggerton, Hamilton,
Cagle, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez
Mr. Flasher was excused.
Representing the staff were Vernon Umetsu
Joanne Johnson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES TES MR. HAMILTON MOVED
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 25, 1990
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Molly Headley an
AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED
MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
89 -3 -DR i 89 -10 -DR (Second Hearing, due to .
procedural error.) Request for approval of design review applica-
tion and conditional use permit to develop an improved parking
facility for employees' automobiles and semi -truck trailers.
Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, r viewsd request noting .
that, due to a procedural error, this request is being heard
again by the Planning Commission. She stated that staff is
recommending approval with conditions as stated in the staff
report.
Mr. Jeffrey Mann, PacTech Engineering, 6100 .Southcenter Blvd,
represented the applicant. He entered into the record as. Exhibit
I, a letter dated February 22, 1990, modifying staff's condi-
tions. He reviewed the proposed' landscaping, entering the
landscape plan as Exhibit II. Exhibit III, .. a photograph of trees
depicting a buffer along East Marginal May, was also entered into
the record. He concluded by requesting approval of design review
and conditional use applications with modified conditions.
A letter from Donna Meagher in support of the request, was read
into the record. It was subsequently entered into the record as
Exhibit IV.
Kathy Stetson, 13258 - 40th Avenue 8., presented a photograph
board to the Commission in clarification of concerns posed by
this proposal. It was subsequently entered into the record as
BECKER TRANSFER APPEAL
APPENDIX C
.Planning Commission
• February 22, 1990 •
Page 2
.Exhibit V. She expressedconcern .with traffic:impacts the
proposal may have on•.E..Narginal:Way as,.well land -
scaping,: be.:,provided • and that ` :: they : be. required: to provide wheel
..stops. the operation.sho be entirely fenced, no on-
street parking be permitted and a bond be required to ensure
improvements are completed.' • Forthe record :: she. :requested that"
no, on -.site storage of'materials or debris. be.permitted,'as well
as no fuel storage be permitted. •
Beverly Nicholson, 3810 S. 130th St.,'concurred with comments
made by Ns.. Stetson. She favored a decision by. the.`Board'to
implement all the conditions presented by staff, with no dele-
tions.-
Shirley Robinson,- 13422 40th Avenue S.,, also concurred with
;previous citizen testimony. She expressed concern with traffic
'impacts, as well as Impaired site distance which contributes to
potential traffic accidents.. She felt the.fence`is:an important
• issue as children are attracted 'to the: site::: She . felt. 'the site
also poses a ` problem for . potential for drug ,use activity in
response - to.a question <posed to staff,'" it . thatthe
conditions would follow the business rather than ownership of the
property.
Robert Bernhards, 3418 S.,.. 126th, expressed a,concern with surface
water probleis; this'site ;has had in the past:.:; He: also expressed
a; 'concern with: the drainage ; of : a white substance onto a: nearby
creek; which now: does have any fish-in it.. ".Re' felt sieasures
should be..taken to filter the stora from the pavement
proposed . for. the site.
Phil Hestsnway,.4036 S.;128th,:.spoke . in support of the.: Becker
operation. He. supported the expansion of the facility and ' felt
they are an asset to the community.
Ed Becker responded to citizens concerns by stating that,: he would
be. supportive of using lighting to.discourage vandalism :or
potential drug activity. Me " further . stated" that :, pipes " have " been
cleaned out so storm water flooding should :not be a:probliiiii now.
Donna Meagher, 13242 , 40th" Avenue S., felt.the' "City discourages
businesses in the City. Further ..she pointed out'that the City
should be as concerned with the drug activity that takes place in
a local park as they are with the Becker sit..
Sharon Bernhard, 3418 $.126th, :felt that proper landscape Green -
• ing should be . implemented , •to , reduce noise impacts and lighting
should be 'aimed in such a way.: as to reduce tho "impact on the
surrounding •neighborhood. "::.She felt that flooding -is a serious
problem on 128th. She expressed a concern with the potential
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 3
liability issue that may occur with children playing on the
Becker property, and f.lt that fencing the property was'the
answer. She felt everyone' should work together for the common
good.
The public hearing was closed at 9 :15 P.M. and discussion ensued .
on the proposal.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CONDITION 91:
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE USE OF
THE SITE WILL BE CONFINED TO PARKING_ OF EMPLOYEE -AUTOMOBILES,
TRUCKS, TRACTORS AND TRAILERS. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #2:
MR.. KIRSOP MOVED AND HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE HOURS OF
OPERATION ON THE SITE SHOULD BE6 :00.A.M. TO 10 :00 P.M. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION 63:
MR. .. KNUDSON . MOVED 'AND. MR.: • CAGLE SECONDED A `-NOTION ' THAT •• • AS�` A •
PREVIOUS: CONDITION APPROVED BY THE PLANNING'COMIIISSIOM::STATED
• THAT . THE APPLICANT' HOST • MAKE •• IMPROVEMENTS.. 'WITHIN: 'SIX MONTHS OF .
.• APPROVAL DATE • (AUGUST. • 22 1990).: IF THE .CONDITION IS `NOT'' COM-
.0. PLIED WITH, THE • ° WILL • BE RESCINDED:.: . NOTION" UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED..
,CONDITION #4:
HAMILTON MOVED AND • lift.: KNUDSON 'SECONDED A' MOTION THAT . A . SITE
DISTANCE .TRAFFIC STUDY .. WILL BR CONDUCTED , TO: DETERMINE WHAT IS' •
._ REQUIRED ::•TO RESOLVE TRAFFIC PROBL110 ENTERING' •AND EXITING `,THE
FACILITY AT...EAST liARGIMAL ,WAY..AND °.SOUTH S. = ::128TH STRiET INTERSEC•
TION. '.IF • STUDY• INDICATES :_THAT A RESTRICTION 0? PARKING IN
• THAT ..AREA WOULD •PRODUCE AM IMPR0VEHEIIT IM SAFETY, . THEN 'THIS . ,
RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.. NOTION.' UNAMI11bUSLY APPROVED.
DESIGN AEVIEW
CONDITION #1
KIRSOP MOVED AND MR 'HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION.: -THAT .THE AP
PLIGHT BE REQUIRED - BY CODE TO PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION AN • IRRIGATIOL SYSTEM. FOR
ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS 'OR: A' MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THREE TEARS
WHICH WILL ENSURE A GOOD START FOR.TBi.VEGETATIOM.: •
THE TMC STATES THAT' ALL' LANDSCAPE. MATERIALS MOST BE MAINTAINED.
Planning Commission
February 22,1990
Page 4
MR KIRSOP WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH MR. HAMILTON APPROVAL AS THE
SECOND.
FOR THE LIFE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS ORIGINALLY. INSTALLED.
MR KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION. THAT ALL
LANDSCAPING AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED AS REQUIRED BY CODE.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #2t
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT 'PUBLIC
WORKS WILL APPROVE THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS
PROVIDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #3t
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THIS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW ONE YEAR ,:APTER
ESSENTIAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT SO THAT A. DETERMINATION CAN
BE MADE WHETHER GATES OR FENCING OR BOTH NAY BE NEEDED TO CONTROL
ILLEGAL ENTRY TO THE SITE.
MOTION PASSED WITH KIRSOP;: DOMES, : HAGGERTON, HAMILTON.'. AND KNUDSON
VOTING YES;' MR. CAGLE VOTED NO.
• CONDITION #4t
14R.. .KIRSOP MOVED AND '.MR.: HAMILTON •SECONDED A•MOTION TO DELETE
CONDITION " #4' — STAFF RESPONSE-- AS STATED. IN THE. STAFF. REPORT,
AS LONG. AS THE LANDSCAPING MEETS TEE;'' MINIMUM. CODE • • REQUIREMENTS
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #3:
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. GO�MEEE SECONDED.: k MOTION: THAT; THE - LAND —. •
SCAPE PLAN SHOULD. Et REVISED IN THE:, SOUTHWEST' CORNER' TO DECREASE.
EROSION THAT IN CURRENTLY: OCCURRING, BY, RETAINING,. ORIGINAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH THE ADDITION OF: EROSIOL.RESISTANT PLANTING ON
SLOPE AND PUT • IN A CURB. TO • PROTECT THE WALL AT. : THE EDGE :OP.:.:THE
HILLSIDE : PROM DAMAGE FROM AUTOMOBILES
: MOTION UNANIMOUSLY: ' APPROVED
.
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVED
THE CONDITIONS ON. THE' ' SUPPLEMENTAL :MEMO .' THE" CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT INCLUDING ' ITEMS A. AND : B; • AND A,. 'H, 'AND ' C'; (AS AMENDED )
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW TO READ AS FOLLOWS
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
B. Applicant will install improvements within six months of
approval date.
DESIGN REVIEW
A. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
3. Placement of .wheel stops: in parking Spaces adjacent.to•
landscape areas.
C. Increase effective height of new; landscaping /screening so.
that it will be a. minimum of 10 -feet high at installation.
NOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. •
MR. HAMILTON MOVED : AND EL CAGLE 'SECONDED 11 MOTION TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3- CUP AND DESIWREVIEW 89 -10 =0R WITH
CONDITIONS AS JUST.' :PREVIOUSLY ' DETERMINED BY THE • HOARD` • OP ARCH-
.ITECTURAL REVIEW. !MOTION UNANIMOUSLY' APPROVED.
89 -13 -DR - HDIQMOOD SUITES Request for approval of a.design
review application and•cooperative parking - agreement for a'106-
unit extended stay: hotel.
COOPERATIVE PARKING' AGREEMENT:.
Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report
recommending approval with conditions.
Mark Hanson, Diaension Development, x.. applicant
for the, project,:` further described: this proposal for: the'•Board.
'Discussion ensued on the proposal
:MR.' ' CAGZE MOVED AND MR..GOJQS • SECONDED A- NOTION. TO •APPROVE::,THE
• COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT REQUEST, WITH TBi' IOLLONING CONDI-
TIONS
1. Applicant agrees to provide a total :of; parking spaces.
This number constitutes ` a maximum: 8 4% .reduction in the
required amount of parking for this *itS and it intended
uses.
2. Applicant agrees to restrict use of meeting areas to regist -
ered guests only after 5100 p.a.
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 6
3. Applicant agrees to restrict use of facilities to registered
guest only at all times if documented congestion occurs on
the site.
4. Applicant agrees to restrict signage advertising the meeting
areas to inside: the building.
5. Applicant agrees to restrict the distribution of promotional
material for the subject hotel in which the meeting areas
are also promoted to targeted.potential demand generators
and not the general public.
6. Applicant agrees to provide a parking study if need arises
in the future.
7. Conditions shall travel with the facility, shall be recorded
with the Xing County Department of Records and Elections,
and may be modified only with the .written ` "permission of the
City of Tukwila.
MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEE,'KNUDSON, HAGGERTON, CAGLE AND KIRSOP
VOTING YES AND MR. HAMILTON VOTING NO.
Mr. Knudson asked to be excused.
A 10- minute recess was called. The meeting resumed at 10:30 pm.
DESIGN REVIEW
Molly Headley reviewed the design review portion of the request
recommending approval with conditions. She asked that the record
show a correction in the staff report from 114 units to tho
correct amount of 106 units. She distributed an addendum to the
staff report which reflected additional conditions, based on
shoreline requirements.
Mr. Mark Hanson, applicant, further clarified the proposal adding
that Condition 1(a) be corrected to reflect the inclusion of
trees along the north not west) property line.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED -AND MR. EIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION. TO . APPROVE
THE DESIGN REVIEW PORTION OF THE APPLICATION "89_12..DR' SUBJECT TO
THE RECOMOMENIDATIONS . . MADE BY STAFF, INCLUDING `:'1!BE ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS IN THE ADDENDUM TO TAE STAFF REPORT, DATED FEBRUARY
16, 1990. THE CONDITIONS READ AS FOLLOWSs
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, ; THE APPLICANT ° WILL SUBMIT
THE FOLLOWING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR APPROVALS
•
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 7
1. A revised landscape /site plan' indicating:
c.
The inclusion of trees along the north property line.
The addition of trees to the landscape area on the east
side. of Building E -5.
Stamped approval of landscape plan by a Washington
State Landscape Architect:
Lighting plan for site to include placement. and level of
intensity produced by. lights.
Prior to submittal of application for State Shoreline Permit
the applicant will provide : ._""
a. , A cross- section for every 75 feet';' of development along
the shoreline showing:
Existing ground elevation
Proposid ground'•levations
Height` of proposed structur s
Elevations.of, trail /access road and dike
configurationn which clearly indicate eleva -
tion.of ground ,at end of,
development (i.e., trail /acceis
parking area).'
. •
•b. • Elevation prints,.of. Buildings which •ahoy hoight of 35'
as required by the Shoreline Progras and dimensions'of
buildings and indicates-: scale of drawing.
Statement of .cosposition:and volve.of any
materials end .•proposed disposal' area
MOTION UNANIIIDUSLT APPROVED. .
:88- 7- Ct NWE BOIL - .R.qu.at for, approval of an amendment to •
the .it plan to •liainat• 2.5 -story garage.and'.Oplace:.with
expanded surface parking on, 1.9 acres • to the past.
Molly Headley, associate planner, reviewed the staff report for
the proposal, recommending approvalwith'conditions.
John Sloan, architect for the project, represented:tho applicant,
further described the proposal. He stated that thsy,gnerally
agreed with staff's recommendations.
Tim Lavin, represented owners of the parcel, described the
history of obtaining the site.
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 8
Mr. Mike O'Donin, 1517 S.W. 16th Street, requested that permis-
sion be granted for a shared. directional sign(with, : Longacres). .
He was instructed to submit a sign application directly to
Tukwila Department of Community Development. •
Robert Losey, owner of the adjacent property, Renton. Auction,
expressed a concern with the delay he is experiencing in obtain-
ing a date of sale from the purchaser.
Mr. O'Danin explained the purchase process and.tho legal "process
they must go through to obtain Mr. Losey's property and the time
elements involved.
MR:HAMILTON MOVED AND CAGLE SECONDED A.MOTION'TO ACCEPT 88 -7 -DR
EMBASSY" SUITES, SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS.-FOLLOWS:
.1. Prior to:issuance.of Building Permit:
A. Provide a revised site plan _, to. be approved by: Planning
Director which will' provide;.pedestrian access,
1. Between the new SE parking area and the tower
structure. •
• Between both parking areas and .L�ngacrei Way and
West Valley Highway.
. . Building tilework to be installed as a previously. approved.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
89 -18 -DR - -TIMPULII1 HOILDIHg Request for approval of
design review application to construct an 85,000 square foot
retail /industrial building with 136 parking spaces on three acres
of land.
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the application,
recommending approval with conditions.
Al Croonquist, One Union Square Building, Seattle, WA 98101,
architect for the project, represented the applicant. He further
clarified the project.
: Discussion ensued on the proposal
MR. XIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED . A NOTION TO APPROVE
APPLICATION 89 -18 -DR - HARTUNG-TIMPERLINE, BASED ON THE STAFF'S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; THE BLUE COLOR SELECTED FOR THE GLASS
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 9
USED IN THE DESIGN NOT BE A DARK BLUE; THE RECONVENE FOR AN
ON -SITE SELECTION OF BE USED IN' THE DESIGN AND SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Large stature evergreen trees shall be placed at the western
corners of each building which form the center truck loading
and parking corridor along the eouth.rn boundary; with dense
shrubs to approximately 4 -feet in height substituting for
trees at the interior islands in this area.
2. A statement that autoinatic irrigation for all landscape
areas shall be clearly printed on the landscape .plan.
3. Glare diagrams to demonstrate no light spillover shall be .
provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. All roof -top equipment must be screened with architectural
materials which are visually harmonious with building walls
and proportions.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. Umetsu stated that Mark Henshaw would be giving a slide
presentation at the March 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
It was noted. that Joanne Johnson, Secretary, would be leaving the
City of Tukwila on February 28, 1990. She has accepted a position
with the City of Federal Way.
The meeting was adjourned. at 12105 a.a.
Respectfully` Submitted, .
Joanne Johnson, Secretary
•
`908
*ILA
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen,.Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO:. Planning Commission Members
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: FEBRUARY /2, 1990
SUBJECT: Becker Transfer Trucking
Supplement to Staff Report dated December 7,1989
This project was originally presented to the Planning Commission December. 14,
1989 (Attachment A). The Commission was asked to approve a Conditional Use
Permit for the use of the stated property as a parking lot for employee automobiles
and truck trailers. In conjunction with the above request, a design review approval
was also required due to the proximity of the site to residential development. Staff
recommended approval with conditions as stated in the Staff Report. The Planning
Commission did approve the applications with conditions; however, due to a
procedural error in posting notice, it was necessary to reschedule the hearing.
During the public hearing, many .issues of concern were voiced by dtizens in the
neighborhood. Based on additional research at King County (Attachment B and C)
and comments received as a result of a meeting with the applicant and citizens on
January 9,1990, staff believes that the major issues have been identified. This memo
will outline those issues and propose conditions of approval which will mitigate
their concerns.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATED CONCERNS
1. Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the use of the site will not be restricted to parking only.
Staff Response:
The Conditional Use Permit states that the applicant is requesting use of
the site for parking only and that would be the only use approved by the
Planning Commission. If applicant does not comply, the Permit would be
rescinded.
BECKER TRANSFER APPEAL
APPENDIX D
.. ....n .• ua� �.N a. u• .L.hMUII 1VLk.'�I�U�Pb
2. Citizen Concern:
The hours of operation on the si
hours.
Staff Response:
Staff recommends a condition be placed on this property which will
restrict work hours.
3. Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the approv - • improvements will be in place
expeditiously.
Staff Response:
A previous condition approved • the Planning Commission stated that
applicant must make improveme is within six months of approval date.
DESIGN REVIEW RELATED, CONCERNS
1. Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the landscap
all.
Staff Response:
The applicant is required by code
landscaped areas or a maintenanc
good start for the vegetation. In a
materials must be maintained for
installed.
. Citizen Concern:
The storm drainage system at, the
drainage system needs to be imp
flooding during rain storms of S.
intersection.
Staff Response:
Public works department has req
drainage plan for their approval
Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the lot will be
hours.
Staff Response:
A gate and /or fence could addres
Citizen Concern:
Landscaping along East Marginal
plant layer through the addition
Staff Response:
Staff recommends enhancement
berating and the addition of gro
Page 2
should be restricted to normal working
g will be incorrectly irrigated or not at
to provide an irrigation system for all
contract for 3 years which will ensure a
dition, the code states that all landscape
the life of the development as originally
current time is inadequate. The storm
ved to ensure that there will not be
28th' Stand the East Marginal Way
ested that applicant provide a storm
rior to construction:
used for inappropriate activities after
this concern.
f trees .and shrubs.
ay should be enhanced with 'a denser
y increasing the number of plants, .
d cover.
d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading
facilities in terms of safety, effldency and convenience should be
encouraged.
Since there are no buildings, a: and c. do not apply in this instance. Applicant has
provided a dense evergreen screening along property lines which are adjacent to
single family residences. Based on the disparity of uses involved, the amount and
type of landscape materials indicated will be appropriate for the site.
The applicant has shown on the plan two vehicle access points to the lot on S: 128th
St. and one point off East Marginal Way. Applicant stated that the East Marginal
Way entrance is necessary for enhancement of egress /ingress requirements of
trucks.
4. Building Design
No buildings are proposed.
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment
a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a
development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced.
*b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should
promote safety and provide an inviting, stable appearance. •
Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen
vistas and important axis, and, provide shade.
d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or
motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken.
Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in
paved areas is encouraged.
Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly,
'should be accomplished by the use of walls, fencing, planting, or
combination.
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.
h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the
adjoining landscape. Lighting standards 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 •
colon should be avoided.
The applicants proposal has provided a plan which will provide a dense screening
of the asphalt paved area from adjacent single family lots. The side adjacent to East
Marginal Way will be enhanced with additional landscape materials. There is no
lighting proposed for the parking lot which will eliminate potential impact on
adjacent properties.
to we MICK.
DISCUSSION
18.60.050; GENERAL ROLIESMCKMERIA
DESIGN REVIEW
Page.3
This project is required to process through the Board of 'Architectural ' review :
because it is a development within 300 feet of residential districts and it involves an
upgrade of non - conforming landscape areas (TMC 1860430).
The Design Review guidelines are printed in bold followed by pertinent findings of
fact.
1. Relationship of Structure to Site
a. The site should be planned to 'accomplish a desirable transition with
streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian
movements.
b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to
moderate the visual impact of large paved areas.
The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to
the site.
Applicant has provided enhancement of existing landscape buffer through ' the
addition of a 15 foot wide landscape buffer and by increasing the density and layering
of plant materials. There will be a tree, shrub and ground cover level for each
landscaped area which will provide screening at three levels.
South 128th Street will be improved `with a sidewalk on the south side of the street .
that will connect with an existing sidewalk on East Marginal Way.
The interior of the lot consists of an asphalt area of approximately 44,850 sq. ft. (74%
of site)' which will be used for parking. It is unbroken'by landscape islands. The
amount of paved area as presented in the plan will be smaller in size than the
present cleared area'of the site as a result of the applicants compliance with
landscape requirements.
2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area •
• a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged. •
b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should
provided.
c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established
neighborhood character.
•
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
rage 1
1. Project Description: Development of paved surface parking facility for
employee use and for storage of semi -truck trailers.
2. Existing Development: Area is currently utilized as an undeveloped parking
facility consisting of a gravel /dirt surface. Frontage along East Marginal is
currently landscaped.
Surrounding Land Uses:
West - Single family residences
North - Becker Transfer offices and operations center
East - Businesses and Single family residences
South Single family residences
Terrain: The site gently rises from north to south at a slope not exceeding 2%.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
The site is located in an area recently annexed to the City of Tukwila. According to
King Co. records, the site has historically been used as an undeveloped parking
facility for Becker Transfer Trucking Company. After the recent annexation, the City
was requested to investigate whether the use of the site was in compliance with the
zoning code.
It was determined that the use required a Conditional Use Permit according to TMC
18.38.040(2) and the site improvements would require Design Review since they
involve an upgrade of non - conforming landscape areas.
The staff.report is divided into two sections: 1) Design Review and 2) Conditional
Use Permit.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
AND
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared November 10,1989
HEARING DATE November 16, 1989
FILE NUMBERS: 89-3 CU: Becker Transfer
89 -10-DR
APPLICANT: ; Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc.
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE
1.5. Acres
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial
ZONING DISTRICT: C -M Industrial Park
SEPA
DETERMINATION:. A determination of non - significance was issued
November 3, 1989.
ATTACHMENTS: A. Site /Landscape Plan
•
Design Review /Conditional Use Permit to build a parking
facility for employee and semi -truck trailer parking.
Southwest corner of South 128th St and East Marginal
Way
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT A
:. ang L i1i.aidssion lvielnbers
•
5. Revise landscape plan to relocate approximately 15 trees from Southwest
corner of lot to East Marginal Way street frontage. Shrub Sc eening will remain
the same.
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Report dated December 7,1989
B. Hearing Examiners Minutes for Case #261- 78- R(King Co. Records)
C. Hearing Examiners minutes for File # 228.79 -R
D. Citizen Petition 01/18/90
,L►.uuitt, Luuu.usswi► memders
- 04 '3
Applicant. Concern:
Amount of landscaping area that is located in the Southwest corner will be
ineffective due to topography of site in that location (steep, heavily
vegetated slope).
Staff Response:
The landscape in the Southwest corner area extending approximately 20
feet to the east could be reduced without a negative impact on the project.
This would result in the reduction of 15 trees which could be added to East
Marginal Way.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the information from King County and the meeting with the applicants
and concerned citizens, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
Application with the following conditions:
1. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee automobiles and truck
trailers.
2. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to normal working hours (7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
3; Site improvements will be completed within six months of approval date. (July
25,1990)
Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application with . the following
conditions:
1. The landscaped area shall be irrigated or there shall be a three -year ,
maintenance agreement with a landscape maintenance firm for watering the
landscaping.
2. Drainage system for the site will be upgraded per Tukwila Public Works
approval to correct flooding of South 128th Street from surface runoff of the
site.
Applicant will revise site plan to provide locking gates at entry to site.
4. Revise landscape plan to enhance planting along East Marginal Way to provide
a dense screen similar to other property lines. •
5. Miscellaneous Structures
No structures are proposed.
The conclusions are grouped under the applicable design review guidelines.
L Relationship of Structure to Site
The impact of a large paved area has a similar visual' effect on neighboring
properties as a structure. The primary concern is to develop a visual
congruence between the proposed development and adjacent uses. The
applicants proposal includes substantial amounts of landscape buffering on all
sides of the lot as a means of mitigating the visual impact of the proposed
development and use.
The proposed entry point located on East Marginal Way is within 25 feet of a
single family residence on the adjacent lot. Staff concludes that the noise from
the truck engines as they are accelerating into traffic will provide an
unacceptable level of noise for the occupants of the residence therefore we are
recommending that the entry point off East Marginal Way be disallowed.
Condition A addresses this point.
The southeast corner of the site where the entry point is currently shown on
the plan should be landscaped in accordance with adjacent landscape areas.
2. Relationship of Structure to Site
The applicants intent is to screen rather than integrate this proposal with
neighboring properties and the proposed buffering will adequately fulfill this
intent.
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment
Applicant has proposed a plant palette which is primarily evergreen. The
initial planting size and spacing is intended to provide significant screening
from the initial planting and dense screening within 3 years. Based on the
density of the screening that will be provided staff does not feel it is necessary
in this case to break up the interior asphalt parking surface with landscape
islands.
Page 6
The proposal does not include the placement of wheel stops for parking spaces
adjacent to landscape areas. Staff feels that applicant should include wheel stops
to prevent damage to landscape materials. As a result, Condition B has been
recommended.
The Planning staff recommends approval of the Design Review: application subject
to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit for review a
revised site plan indicating the following:
Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas.
II CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FINDINGS
1
INTRODUCTION
TMC 18.38.040 requires truck trailer storage fadlity uses to obtain a Conditional Use
permit in the C-M zone. The request must process through the public review
process and obtain approval of the City Council.
This staff report differs from previous ones because it is a combined review for a
condidonal use permit and design review. The two reviews involve many
common issues and the result is that most of the staff discussion is found in the
design review section.
•
DECISION CRITERIA
tj...6,4..;
The following criteria in bold are from Section 18.64.050 of the TMC and shall be
used by the Planning Commission in granting a Conditional Use Permit
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use
or in the dthtrict in which the property is situated,
.Applicant states that "operations on the site will occur primarily during
normal business hours. The site will be heavily screened by landscaping on
boundaries abutting residential areas. The site is adjacent to East Marginal Way
which serves industrial traffic. No lighting is proposed These features will
mitigate potential detriment to surrounding property."
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards tint are
required ht the district it will occupy.
Applicant states that" the site has provided 15 to 22.5 feet of landscaping as
required by the Tukwila Municipal Code. Trees will be planted an initial 6 feet,
1 foot over the minimum of five feet. Smelling trees will be planted 4 ft. on
center which will provide a total site obscuring buffer."
•
C The proposed development shall be compatible genenlly with the surrounding
land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
Applicant states that "No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be
compatible with the existing industrial uses in the area and will use the same
arterial for ingress and egress."
•
D: The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the
comprehensive land use policy plan.
Applicant states that "Comprehensive planning efforts as part of the
annexation designated this site for commercial /manufacturing'uses. The site
will propose a low intensity use that is well buffered to provide compatibility
and consistency with land use policies."
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which
the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
Applicant states that "screening of the site will mitigate potential aesthetic impacts.
The site will have a relatively low traffic generation which will use East Marginal
Way for access. Storm draining will be provided to handle storm water from the .
parking area. There will be no on -site lighting."
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed development of the site will not change or intensify the current
use
rage 6
The proposed landscape /screening as previously discussed in the design review
process will improve the quality of the development and will mitigate any
negative visual impact on neighboring properties.
The Community Development Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use
Permit application.
PACTECH ENGINEERING. INC
TITLE
CLIENT
becker transfer parking lot site plan
)? L'.'>.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL. •
SUBJECT: Building and Land Development File No. 261 -78 -R
Proposed Ordinance No. 78-568
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's preliminary:
Division's final:
Examiner:
Ms. Powers offered
Exhibit No. 1
OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
August 14, 1978
subject to conditions.
subject to conditions.
subject to conditions
PRELIMINlRY REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
The hearing on
A.M., July 27, 1978.
The Examiner explained procedures for the benefit of the participants.
Ms. Powers, Building and Land Development, made the following changes
to their preliminary report:
Page 1, Item D -4, King County Division of Planning: Memo dated
July 5, 1978 making recommendations.
Page 1,. Item D -1, King County Division of Traffic dated July 6,
1978 requesting additional right -of -way.
Page 2, add Item D -15: Washington State Department of Transportation
dated July 10, 1978 indicating no interest.
Page 2, add Item U -16: Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Barnhardt
dated July 21, 1978.
The Building and Land Development pielim'inary
report on Item 261 -78 -R was received by the
Examiner on July 20, 1978.
After reviewing the Building and Land Development
report, examining available information on file
with the application and visiting the property
and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the subject as follows:
Item 261 -78 -R was opened by the Deputy Examiner at 10:10
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT B
MASTER COPY
Exhibit No. 2 Application dated March 23, 1978.
Exhibit No. 3 - Environmental Checklist dated March 23, 1978.
Exhibit No. 4 - Declaration of Non - significance dated June 16,
1978.
Exhibit No. 5 - Assessor map of the NWT of Section 15 -23 -4
showing subject property outlined in red.
Exhibit No. 6 - Land Use Sheet 324 W (to be retained in the
Diyision's permanent working files).
Exhibit No. 7 - Two sheets of plans;
Exhibit No. 8 - Large copy of the Highline Community Plan Map
(to be retained in the Division's permanent
working files).
Mr. Marbett, Building and Land Development, made the following .
modification to the Division's preliminary report:
Page 4, Item K -1 should read: "The Highline Community Plan Map which
was adopted as part of the Highline Community Plan under
Ordinance No. 3530 on December 19, 1977, has the easterly 370'
of the subject property shown as general commercial area and
the remainder as single family. The area north of South 126th
Street and east of East Marginal Way is the area proposed
for expansion of the light manufacturing zone."
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Marbett.
Speaking in support were:
J. Ray Catron, applicant
3717 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Edwin J. Becker
Becker Transfer Company
16828 S.E. 28th
Bellevue, Washington 98008
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Becker. Mr. Marbett also
responded.
•
Also speaking in support was:
Phil Hemmingway
4036 South 128th Street
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Becker made additional comments.
Speaking in opposition were:
Ruth Burnhardt
3704 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
7 -1: Site plan;
7 -2: Drainage plan.
•
261 -78 -R . Page 2
,
Beverly Nicholson
3810 South 130th Street
Seattle, Washington
Ms. Nicholson offered the following exhibit:
Exhibit No. 9 - Set of 35 letters in opposition.
The hearing on this matter was recessed at 10:53 A.M.,
at 11:05 A.M., July 27, 1978.
Also speaking in opposition were:
•
Mr. Ualasz
12633 - 35th Avenue
Seattle, Washington
Sharon Burnhardt
3418 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
South
98168
261 -78 -R Page 3
and reconvened
Ms. Burnhardt offered the following exhibit:
Exhibit No.I10 - Two letters of opposition from Mrs. F. Bernhardt
and Mr. Robert J. Bernhardt respectively.
All proponents and opponents having given their presentation,. the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
Building and Land Development's final recommendation was to approve CG -P
in lieu of M -L for the easterly 264 feet of the subject property
subject to conditions as stated in their preliminary report.
The hearing on Item 261 -78 -R was closed by the Deputy Examiner at 11:38
A.M.', July 27, 1978.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in
this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. General Information:
Location:
Existing Zone:
Requested Zone:
STR:
Size:
Water District:
Sewer District:
Fire District:
School District:
Lying on the southwest corner of South
128th Street and east of Marginal Way South
S -R and S -R (Potential C -G)
M -L
15 -23 -4
3 acres
38
Val Vue
#18
#406
i
261 -78 -R Page 4
2. Approval of this application will constitute a "major action"
under the provisions of R.C.W. 43.21C and W.A.C. 197 -10. The
applicant submitted an environmental checklist with the .
application. After reviewing the environmental checklist, the
Manager of the Building and Land Development Division made a
threshold determination that approval of this application will not
have a significant adverse impact upon the quality of the environment
and that an environmental impact statement is not required. The
Building and Land Development Division transmitted a proposed
declaration of non - significance to other agencies with jurisdiction
on June 16, 1978. After the elapse of fifteen days following the
transmittal and after reviewing comments submitted by agencies with
jurisdiction and by other parties, the Manager of the Building and
Land Development Division adopted the proposed declaration as a final
declaration of non - significance. At the public hearing on this
application a representative of the Building and Land Development
Division reported that having considered the comments and testimony
by agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, having visited
the subject property, and having evaluated the natural, physical
and social systems related to this application, the Building and
Land Development Division reaffirms its determination that approval
of this application will not have a significant adverse impact on the
quality of the environment and an environmental impact statement
is not required.
3. The purpose of the request is to allow parking for employees
of the adjacent transfer and storage company in the easterly one -third
of the property and parking for transfer trucks and trailers in the
central portion. The most westerly portion is intended to be leased
or sold for other light manufacturing purposes.
4. The subject property was zoned SR and SR (Potential CG) at the
time of the Highline Area Zoning Study, adopted by Resolution No.
34529 on December 11, 1967. Prior to that time the zoning on the
subject property was R7.2 (Residential Single Family District).
There is no indication in the record that a more intensive zoning
classification than the above was requested or considered during
the 1965 area zoning.
5. The property directly north, across 128th Street from the westerly
400 feet of the property, was reclassified ML subject to screening
conditions in 1977 (249- 74 -P). This property, which is occupied by
the intended lessee or purchaser of portions of the subject property
(the Becker Transfer Co.), has placed about 510 trees and shrubs in the
required peripheral screening of that site. The owner of this firm
advised that the company has experienced considerable growth the past
years and is seeking additional employee and truck parking space. The
present parking area is fully occupied by both, and employees are
parking.on the surrounding streets. ML permits both types of parking,
but CG would limit the expansion to employee parking lots.
6. The applicant asserted that industrial expansion in the immediate
area is inevitable because of the proximity of industry to the north
and the ready access to new freeway and industrial expressway routes.
7. Opponents who filed letters or testified at the hearing are
seeking to preserve an existing residential area to the south and
west of the site. Testimony indicated that many young families with
elementary age children live in the area and attend a nearby school.
They are concerned about the truck traffic and the gradual erosion of
the line of demarcation between residence and industry.
CONCLUSIONS:
261 -78 -R Page 5
8. The Highline Communities Plan indicates general commercial for the
easterly 370 feet more or less of the property and residential for the
westerly 160 feet more or less. This designation corresponds with
the existing potential zoning on the property.
Ordinance 3747 requires, during the interval between Community Plan
adoption and Area Zoning adoption that reclassification requests in
the Highline Area be judged by the Community Plan. The Highline Area
Zoning has not been adopted as yet.
9. The application for ML is opposed by the Cities of Seattle and
Tukwila.
1. Based upon the whole record and according substantial weight
to the determination of environmental significance made by the
Division of Building and Land Development, it is concluded that
approval of the subject action as recommended below, would not
significantly affect the quality of the environment. All
evidence of environmental impact relating to the proposed action
and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been
included in the review and consideration of the subject action.
2. The request for ML is inconsistent with the Highline Communities
Plan and would have an unreasonable impact on an existing residential
community.
3. The reclassification to CG -P with certain limitations and
conditions would carry out the Highline Communities Plan and would
be consistent with the intent of the 1965 area zoning.
4. Screening, landscaping and restoration of graded land outside
of the potential CG property is essential in order to establish a
more definite and defensible line of demarcation between residential
and non - residential uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve CG -P in lieu of ML for the eastern 264' of the subject
property subject to the following post- ordinance conditions:
1. A plot plan to be approved by the Division of Building and
Land Development showing circulation, access and parking layout.
2. A landscape plan showing a minimum landscape strip of 20'
along the west and south property lines and 10' along South 128th Street
as required by•the adopted Highline Plan (page 35)(e).
3. A bond, the amount to be determined at the time of the plat
plan submittal to insure the installation of the approved landscaping.
4. A plan for the restoration of ground cover in the westerly .
third of the subject property and, where feasible, on the cut slopes
of the south and west boundaries of the applicant's ownership.
ORDERED THIS 10th day of August, 1978.
Robert A. Eveleigh
DEPUTY ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINE
4
5
6
7
8
•
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1 I
! January 11, 1979
2
3
ORDINANCE NO.
I P
Proposed Ordinan 8 1
W'e .: -
Introduced by:
4f r116
c>eio1
AN ORDINANCE. amending King County Zoning Resolution
No. 25789, as amended, by amending the Zoning Map
thereof reclassifying certain property thereof at
the request of J. R. Catron, Building and Land
Development Division File No. 261 -78 -R.
9 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
10 SECTION 1. J. R. Catron petitioned on March 23, 1978, that
11 the property described in Section 3 below be reclassified from SR
12 and SR (Potential CG) to ML and this application was assigned
13 Building and Land Development Division File No. 261 -78 -R.
14 SECTION 2. The report and recommendation of the Building and
15 Land Development Division was transmitted to the Zoning and Sub -
16 division Examiner on July 20, 1978, and hearing was held by the
17 Examiner on the matter July 27, 1978. The report of the Examiner
18 was filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on August 25,
19 1978, and the Council approved the reclassification by Motion No.
03796 on October 23, 1978, subject to conditions which will be
satisfied per the "P" suffix.
SECTION 3. The legal description of the property to be re -%
classified is attached as Appendix A and is hereby made a part of
this ordinance. The above described property is shown on the at-
tacked map which is designated Appendix B and is hereby made a part
of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. The King County Council does. hereby amend King
County Zoning Code, Resolution No. 25789, as amended, by reclassi-
fying that property described and shown in Section 3, Appendices A
OVERALL LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
•
FILE NO. 261 -78 -R
APPENDIX A
The east 264 feett of the following described:
Tracts 1 to 10 inclusive, except the west 20 feet of Tracts
3 and 4, and Tracts 14 to 24 inclusive, vacated Essico
Addition to Riverton, according to plat recorded in Volume
33 of Plats, Page 49, in King County, Washington
TOGETHER with the vacated 30 foot street between lots 1 and
22 lying south of the south margin of South 128th Street,
EXCEPT that portion of the south half of. vacated Riverton
Place abutting and adjoining vacated lots 11 and 13 of said
plat. Less County roads.
29
30
31
32
33
February 1985 IN ""ODUCED BY: GANYCAAII(
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 79 -240
ORDINANCE NO. � - y L 1,
AN''ORDINANCE amending King County Title
21, as amended, by amending the Zoning
Map, thereof reclassifying certain
property thereon at the request of Edwin
.J. Becker. Building and Land Development
Division File No. 228 -79 -R
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. Edwin J. Becker petitioned on January 23, 1979,
the the property described in section 3 below be reclassified
from M -L (PUD) to ML -P, and this application was assigned
building and land development division file no. 228 -79 -R.
SECTION 2 The report and recommendation of the building
and land development division was transmitted to the zoning
and subdivision examiner on March 15, 1979 and May 1, 1979,
and hearing was held by the examiner on March 22, 1979 and
May 8, 1979. The report of the examiner was filed with the
clerk of the King County council on June 4, 1979, and the
council approved the reclassification by Motion no. 4301 on
June 11, 1979, subject to conditions which have now been
satisfied.
SECTION 3. The legal description of the property to be
reclassified is attached as Appendix A, and is hereby made a
part of this ordinance. The above described property is shown
on the attached map, which is designated Appendix B, and is
hereby made a part of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. The King County council does hereby amend
King County Council Title 21, as amended,' by reclassifying
that property described and shown in section 3, Appendices A
and B above, to ML -P. and directs the area map W 10 -23 -4 be
modified to so designate.
SECTION 5. This reclassification is granted subject to
conditions adopted. in Motion no. 4301, and said conditions
6ECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT C
33
1
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
1e
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
are incorporated herein as thou'h fully set forth herein,
INTRODUCED AND READ for th first time this 2614k., day
1977.
PASSED this /Mk.. day. 7 • 1985.
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
k of the Council
APPROVED this 2S d
a rman
•
.
c
•
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's
Division's
Examiner:
PRELIMINARY REPORT.:
PUBLIC HEARING:
The hearing on Item
March 22, 1979.
Ms. Powers, Building
Exhibit No. 1:
Exhibit No. 2:
Exhibit No. 3:
Exhibit No. 4:
Exhibit No. 5:
Exhibit No. 6:
Y WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE ZONIN
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
preliminary: Ap
ti
final: A
t
A
t
KING
Buildin• and Land Development File No. 228 -79 -R •
Propose • Ordinance No. 79 -240
2.1 acr s lying at the southwest corner of East
Margina Way South and South 128th Street.
The Bu
report
Examin
After
report
with
Burro
hearin
228 -79 -R w
and Land
Appli
Envir
ED IN J. BECKER
ML (PUD) to ML -P
Decla
1979.
Build
dated
Asse
show
Two
6 -1:
6 -2:
(to
file
KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
May 18, 1979
AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
rove ML -P, in lieu of ML, subject to condi-
ns.
• rove ML -P, in lieu of ML, subject to condi-
Ons (modified) .
prove ML -P, in lieu of ML, subject to condi-
ons. (modified) .
lding and Land Development preliminary
on Item 228 -79 -R was received by the
r on March 15, and May 1, 1979.
eviewing the Building and Land Development
examining available information on file
e application and visiting the property and
ding area, the Examiner conducted a public
on the subject as follows:
s opened by the Deputy Examiner at 2:40 P.M.
velopment, offered the following exhibit:
ation dated January 23, 1979.
nmental Checklist dated January 23, 1979.
ation of Non - Significance dated February 21
ng and Land Development's preliminary repor
March 22, 1979.
sor map of the SWIs of Section 10 -23 -4
ng subject property outlined in red.
and Use Sheets marked:
315W
324W
e retained in the Division's permanent world
) .
Correspondence contained in t e Division's final but not referenced in
their preliminary report was =s follows:
Page 2, Item D -14, Washi State Department of Transportation:
Response dated March 7, 1979 stating "no comment ".
TAR COSY
�
The
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
page 2, Item D -8, City of Tukwila Planning Department: Response
dated March 8, 1979.
Page 1, Item D -1, King County Division of Traffic and Planning:
Response dated March 13, 1979 stating "no comment ".
Page 1, Item
March 14,
EDWIN J. BECKER, applicant
12677 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98168
228 -79 -R Page 2
D -7, King County Division of Planning: Response dated
1979.
March 10, 1979 from Mrs. Donald Nicholson stating opposi-
Letter dated
tion.
Letter dated March 17, 1979 from G. S. Delihunt stating opposition.
Letter dated March 19, 1979 from Mrs. Douglas Perrine stating
opposition.
Letter dated March 20, 1979 from Mr. and Mrs. Richard B. Bernhard
stating opposition.
The Examiner made comments for the benefit of the participants.
All parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Speaking in support was:
Examiner directed questions to Mr. Becker.
Marbett, Building and Land Development, made comments at this time.
Becker continued with his presentation.
Becker offered the'following exhibit:
Exhibit No. 7:
Discussion took place among Mr. Becker, the
Also speaking in support were:
PHILLIP HEMENWAY
4036 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
RAY CATRON
3717 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
BEVERLY NICHOLSON
3810 South 130th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Set of building plans proposed for subject propert:
Examiner and Mr.
Marbett..
Speaking in opposition was:
SHARON BERNHARDT
3418 South 126th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Ms. Bernhardt offered the following exhibits:
Exhibit No. 8: Set of five photographs.
Exhibit No. 9: Set of 24 letters of opposition from residents of
subject property.
Ms. Bernhardt continued with her presentation.
Also speaking in opposition were
BRIAN KENNEDY
12802 - 37th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98168
SHARON MANN
3404 South 126th
Seattle, Washington 98168
RUTH BERNHARDT
12527 - 35th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98168
All proponents and opponents having given their presentations, the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
A continuance date was discussed by the participants.
Cross - examination and rebuttal continued.
228 -79 -R Page 3
At 4:20 P.M., March 22, 1979 this matter was continued by the Deputy
Examiner to 9:00 A.M., May 8, 1979 in Room 854 of the King County
Administration Buidling.
The hearing on Item 228 -79 -R was reopened by the Deputy Examiner at 9:15 A.M
May 8, 1979.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Ms. Powers, Building and Land Development, offered the following exhibits:
Exhibit No. 10: Addendum Building and Land Development report dated
May 8, 1979.
Exhibit No. 11: Site plan submitted April 9, 1979 by the applicant.
Mr. Marbett, Building'and Land Development, summarized the background of
this application.
Speaking in support was:
EDWIN J. BECKER, applicant
12677 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98168
Mr. Marbett and Mr. Becker held discussion at this time.
Mr. Becker continued.
Speaking in opposition were:
SHARON BERNHARDT
RUTH BERNHARDT
Mr. Marbett and the Examiner addressed questions to Mrs. Ruth Bernhardt.
All proponents and opponents having given their presentations, the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
Discussion continued among the participants.
Mr. Marbett modified the addendum Building and Land Development report dated
May 8, 1979 (Exhibit No. 10) as follows:
Pre - ordinance Condition on Page 3 to read as follows:
"The applicant shall:fulfill the necessary requirements to receive
site plan approval on the property to the south (File No. 261 -78 -R)
or submit a cash bond of $5000 with the stipulation that the post
ordinance condition be satisfied within'six months of Council approval
of File No. 228- 79 -R.."
228 -79 -R Page 4
jr. Marbett stated that his final recommendation was to approve as stated
in their addendum preliminary report dated May 8, 1979 with the
following additional conditions and the modifications stated above:
Condition No. 5:
"The truck fleet shall be limited• to a combination of 96 vehicles
that would include vans or trucks, tractors and trailers."
Condition No. 6:
"Repair of any vehicles on the premises not to be after 10:00 P.M.
or to be contained within an entirely enclosed building."
The hearing on Item 228 -79 -R was closed by the Deputy Examiner at 10:25 A.M.,
May 8, 1979.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in
this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. General Information:
Location:
Existing Zone:
Requested Zone:
STR:
Size:
Water District:
Sewer District:
Fire District:
School District:
Lying on the northwest corner of East
Marginal Way South & South 128th Street.
ML (PUD)
ML -P
W10 -23 -4
2.1 acres
#125
Val Vue
#18
South Central
2. Approval of this application will constitute a "major action"
under the provisions of R.C.W. 43.21C and W.A.C. 197 -10. The
applicant submitted an environmental checklist with the
application. After reviewing the environmental checklist, the .
Manager of the Building and Land Development Division made a
threshold determination that approval of this application will
not have a significant adverse impact upon the quality of the
environment and that an environmental impact statement is not
required. The Building and Land Development Division transmitted
a proposed declaration of non - significance to other agencies with
jurisdiction on February 21, 1979. After the elapse of
fifteen days following the transmittal and after reviewing
comments submitted by agencies with jurisdiction and by other
parties, the !tanager of the Building and Land Development
Division adopted the proposed declaration as a final declaration
of non - significance. At the public hearing on this application
a representative of the Building and Land Development Division
reported that having considered the comments and testimony by
agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, having visited
the subject property, and having evaluated the natural, physical
and social systems related to this application, the Building and
Land Development Division reaffirms its determination that
approval of this application will not have a significant adverse
impact on the quality of the environment and an environmental
impact statement is not required.
3. The subject property was zoned ML subject to a planned unit
development (File No. 200 -74 -R) in 1974. Final planned unit
development approvat was g iven in (File No. 249 -74 -P) and
later revised in 1977.
This request would change the zone classification of 'the subject
property from ML (PUD) to ML -P in order to expand a building
beyond the limitations placed on the subject property through
the Planned Unit Development procedure.
229 -79 -R Page 5
4. The Highline Community Plan, adopted by the King County Council
in December 1977 shows the subject property as "industry" and
prescribes specific landscaping standards for industrial property.
The property to the south (File No. 261- 78 -R /Ra Catron) was
approved to CG -P subject to site plan approval. T Tie applicant
is currently using this property for employee parking but has
not yet received site plan approval.
The public hearing on this matter had been continued in order to
allow time for the applicant to prepare a site plan and for the
Traffic Division' to complete a traffic study relating to the
capacity of East Marginal Way in the vicinity of the site.
7. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows the proposed
building expansion (40'X69.6') and parking for 34 vans and 31 sem
trailers. The plan also shows a new entrance near the southwest
corner to accommodate the addition to the building.
8. The Traffic Division concluded that: "...the subject route is
capable of handling the existing traffic and any future traffic
volumes using this arterial. We recommend against any restrictio
to use of'this route going south from the light industrial area.
A restriction of this type could cause undue congestion at the
intersection of East Marginal Way and Interurban Avenue South."
9. Representatives of the Riverton community attended the hearings
and requested that the County place conditions on the site plan
and operation of the facility that will protect existing
residential areas and provide a workable, boundary between residenc
and industrial expansion in the area..
10. The Building and Land Development Division proposed specific limi
tions on the number of vehicles to be utilized at the site and
the hours of outdoor maintenance and repair work.
The applicant advised that his present business operation depends
on all -night truck maintenance work on the site. The additional
facility is designed to support off - loading and transfer of good:
from long -haul to short -haul vehicles.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Based upon the whole record, and according substantial weight
to the determination of environmental significance made by the
Division of Building and Land Development, it is concluded that
approval of the subject action as recommended below, would not
constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality
of the environment. All evidence of environmental impact
relating to the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to
the proposed action have been included in the review and
consideration of the subject action.
2. Industrial use of the property is supported by the Highline
Community Plan, which also provides for adequate screening and
landscaping.
3. The location of the property at the boundary of industrial and
residential areas requires conditions of approval which go beyor
typical industrial . property requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve ML -P in lieu of ML subject to the following conditions:
Pre - ordinance condition:
C 9 The applicant shall fulfill the necessary requirements to receive
site plan approval on the property to the south (File No. 261 -78 -R)
or shall submit a cash bond of $5000 to insure that post - ordinance
228 -79 -R Page 6
.)ndit.ions of File No. ,261 -78 -R are satiijied_xithin _si _.(6)
w oche of the approval of this case File No. 228- 79 -R).
Post- ordinance conditions:
1. The applicant shall supplement the existing landscaping to meet
the requirements of the Highline Plan.
a. Type II landscaping along the south property line as far west
as the proposed entrance.
b. Type III landsacping for the remainder of the south
property line and the north and west property lines.
c. Planting along the east is sufficient but shall not be
decreased.
2. Expansion of the building shall be limited to the proposed
expansion (40'X69.6').
ORDERED THIS 18th day of May, 1979.
Edwin J. Becker
Phillip Hemenway
Ray Catron
Sharon Bernardt
Beverly Nicholson
Brian Kennedy
Sharon Mann
Ruth Bernhardt
Luci Reimann
James L. Stretch
Brudette & Coleen Anderson
Shirley M. Robinson
Bernice Ross
Rhoada E. Cook
Mrs. Harriet Norman
TRANSMITTED this 18th day of May, 1979 by certified mail to the
parties of record:
3. No additional building(s) shall be allowed on the site.
4. A cash bond may be required at the time of the building permit
for insurance of landscaping.
' The truck fleet on the site to be limited to a combination of
96 units - a unit being defined as a van, a tractor or a trailer
(a combination tractor and trailer equals two units).
. The noise levels emanating from maintenance and repair of vehicles
between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. shall be limited as
set forth in Section 12.88 of the King County Code. A violation
of the provisions of that section shall be considered a violation
of the conditions of approval of this application. Exemptions
allowed by Section 12.94 for industrial districts shall not apply
to the subject property while operating under the conditions of
this reclassification approval.
Robert A. Eveleigh
DEPUTY ZONING & SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission
DATE: 17 January 1990
RE: Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review. 89 -10 -DR
In considering the request by Becker Transfer for a conditional use
permit allowing parking of tractors and trailers in addition to the
parking of employee vehicles which is presently allowed, interested
residents respectfully. bring the following areas of concern to your
attention:.
1. Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto E. Marginal Way
from S. 128th, due to the dangerous blind curve which obstructs the
view south of S. 126th St. A 45' -48' truck . pulling out onto E.
Marginal Way from S. 128th St. would not be visible in time for
through traffic to stop. The radius of turn for a large truck
could present an impediment for both south and northbound traffic.
The volume of traffic generated by Metro, Boeing and the Bank
computer Center among others demands further scrutiny.
2. Problems of (surface water management emanating from the
subject property. The problem of the flooding of S. 128th St. was
created when the swamp, which is now the subject property, was
filled and graded to become a parking lot. Waterflow generated
from springs on the subject property has never been properly
channeled. S. 128th St. readily becomes a lake which prevents its
use in the area between Mr. Becker's north and south. properties,
with the lake extending westerly depending on the amount of
rainfall.
3. The landscape design has provided a minimal plan for . screening
of the proposed truck terminal and storage yard. Residents' would
like to see a living wall of vegetation as required in 1979. The
design totally neglects the vital provisions for maintenance of the
landscaping materials to ensure their survival . and optimum growth.
A sprinkler system should be a minimum requirement and the
employment of a qualified, approved, bonded landscape architect
should be mandatory. A bond at maximum % should also be required
of Mr. Becker. Landscape island requirements within the parking
area need to be consistent with City requirements in Southcenter
and elsewhere in Tukwila. An intrusion of this magnitude into a
residential community needs to contribute not detract.
4. Threat to neiahborhood security of an unfenced, visually
screened, accessible parking area needs to be addressed. There is
already a potential for liability from unauthorized use of the
subject property. The subject property needs a security fence with
gates which are locked after work hours (between 10:00 pm and 6:00
am and on weekends). A fence which is placed inside the
landscaping will serve an aesthetic purpose as well as reduce
fencing costs for Mr. Becker.
R2CEIVED
CITY OF TUKWI! 4
JAN 1 8 1990
PERMIT CENTER
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT D
To: Tukwila Planning Commission
DATE: 17 January 1990
RE: Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support . of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
•
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
.'Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
42 tg
i 3`t i 4. 1'2.4.0 S
t � (pie
, ' �e.TY G►
7 ?2I 1V /V A'r l37y r.
9 Sv /54 ?4
/391.
TO:
DATE:
RE:
. Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Address
/39/9 *ii . ¶o ,
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission
DATE: 17 January 1990
RE: Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
,5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
a' hc ;
Address
3v18
74//8 *) J2
/026 3e)- 3 s/ ,o £9
- 35 £ .
• i I
• L
7
X11 rc ter.
• t e '—s
11/ sc' /.2
/asa 3SA ✓E .
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
3.158 4d '- atitt . IOU. •
\`3Z -s4S `-t
/31,w 40tk 6414 S
1.1.25 ya m Avg , stn
9 cif`' ' i1
/))(; et'' Ave..
t
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission •
DATE: 17 January 1990
RE: Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
n
Address
/1 IL 7: ?
/28/) L - IrAe !ay
/j0 j/ 37eI au4
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the .community's .
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
/ ,32 r 7 3P `'.44 St-,
A� e.
ea,die-
/. c-k LIT 1 711/4 , e . .
3i10 .)44.41-4 /3oJ
.s•
)& i3 39%PUE,S.
/33y 371`4.44v
•
1.3o17 - .3 7 <?` i ftefiE , g, Wk g7Q.
fi nI ..31 mitt-'
67.4,4.
/.3G07 ,37 e- .Jo 6
/3 t0 7 3-774 . - (7;M 1 T •
.
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important;
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance' conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of deearcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
43
WW1 g, otuvrall telki
7014 61'.
Me- j
37 Pt k ra g
3 S l ig
tai (11 371k s
11 g3g 37 ill S .
7,5(3,, 3'7 50.
/30/7 It/ /Z,/f S.
/36/7 got 94ve- s,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Address
t)z 41 qtre .
1 c 2 4 � -
.¢
vas- i rr Aijt
I3 4( Ails so,
/ /J: g• /56
1147,o 5 M4-.
28 February 1990
Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Ms. Anderson:
71 1"Q
POP - 2►4Ci
r '"7"
.� ..
We the undersigned hereby appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission at the February 22, 1990 meeting regarding Becker
Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CUP and 89- 10 -DR, Design
Review for the same property for the following reasons:
1. 89 -3 -CUP Condition #2: "Use of site will be confined to
parking of employee automobiles, trucks. tractors and
trailers."
Staff report recommended condition was "...employee
automobiles and truck trailers."
This language was added after the close of the public hearing
dated February 22, 1990. This changes the proposed use from
a parking lot (which was the request) to a working yard. An
expansion of this nature seriously impacts the surrounding
single family neighborhood.
2. 89 -10 -DR Condition 6 re: fencing of the property.
TMC 18.60.050(3) lists criteria for Landscaping and Site
treatment, including (b) "...promote safety... ".
TMC 18.64.050 lists criteria for granting a conditional use
permit, including (a) "...will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use... "; and,
(e) "All measures have been taken to minimize the possible
adverse impacts ... on the area ".
a
Arrests have been made in the immediate area. Because of its
proximity to established crime centers, we are concerned about
providing an even more attractive location for criminal
activity -- nicely paved, totally screened from view from
adjacent streets, unlighted, and unsecured.
In spite of public testimony in which several residents
expressed concern over the safety of children who play there
and the safety of the community if yet another unsecured
secluded spot were added to the neighborhood, the Planning
Commission would not require a fence and locking gate,
although it was within their realm to do so.
Ms. Maxine Anderson
20 December 1989
Page 2
3. 89 -10 -DR Deletion entirely of staff's recommendation #4 to
enhance planting along East Marginal Way to provide a dense
screen similar to other property lines. Photographs submitted
showed the extent of current landscaping along East Marginal
Way to be sparse and incapable of providing any visual relief
for the single family houses located directly across the
street from the subject property. This property is surrounded
on three sides by single family uses.
4. We feel that the Planning Commission has shown bias in their
decision - making, as indicated by statements made by members
of the Planning Commission during the public hearing, such as,
"This is an area in transition..."
This area is in transition pnly insofar as the Planning
Commission is unwilling to protect the residents from further
encroachment and adverse impacts in their decision - making.
The signatures of 70 local residents on a hastily prepared
petition dated January 17, 1990 and submitted to the Planning
Department indicate that there are many residents living in
the immediate area who are interested in continuing to live
here and do not consider this an "area in transition ". The
overwhelming approval of the annexation election by residents
in Riverton also demonstrated their desire to gain better
control over land use decisions made in the surrounding
neighborhood.
Additionally, both the current zoning of the area and the
Comprehensive Plan designations for the area do not support
the Planning Commission's apparent contention that this is a
"transitional area." During the pre- annexation zoning
process, task force members worked diligently to come to
compromises in this particular area, to protect and buffer the
adjacent residential uses from any further erosion and impacts
while not creating any undue hardships on businesses already
located there.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. Vanousen, Mayor
NOTICE OF DECISION
File Number: 89 -3 -CUP BECKER TRANSFER
89 -10 -DR
Applicant: Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc.
Request: Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Design
Review to improve a parking facility for employee
automobile and semi - tractor trailer truck parking.
Location: Southwest corner of South 128th Street and East
Marginal Way
The Planning Commission conducted a review of the above request
on February 22, 1990, and approved file 89 -3 -CUP and 89 -10 -DR
with the attached conditions.
The Commission adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in
the Memorandum dated February 12, 1990 which was attached to the
Staff Report dated November 10, 1989.
Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision to
the City Council by filing an appeal in writing with the City
Clerk within ten (10) days of the above date and shall state the
reasons for the appeal.
Molly A. Headley
Assistant Planner
February 23, 1990
•
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
File 89 -3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee automobiles,
trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six
months of approval date. (August 22, 1990)
5. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will provide
a safe intersection for automobiles. If a restriction of parking
along East Marginal Way, then an ordinance will be passed to
provide for such restriction.
Design Review Conditions
Prior to issuance of Building Permit:
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
2. Placement of wheelstops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape
areas.
3. Increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will be a
minimum of 10 feet high at installation.
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically
5. Provide a drainage system plan that will eliminate the flooding
problem on S. 128th St. Plan will be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of Building Permit.
6. Applicant will be required to install fence around property if
crime statistics provide evidence of a problem. Planning
Department will review statistics within one year to determine if
installation is warranted.
7. Revise landscape plan in the Southwest corner to decrease erosion
that is currently occurring by retaining original landscape plan
with the addition of erosion - resistant planting on slope and
provide a curb to protect wall /edge of hillside from damage by
automobiles.
Mr. Flesher was excused.
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 22, 1990
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
The meeting was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Jim
Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton,
Cagle, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez.
Representing the staff were Vernon Umetsu, Molly Headley and
Joanne Johnson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED
A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 25, 1990 MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
89 -3 -DR & 89 -10 -DR - BECKER TRANSFER - (Second Hearing, due to
procedural error.) Request for approval of design review applica-
tion and conditional use permit to develop an improved parking
facility for employees' automobiles and semi -truck trailers.
Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the request noting
that, due to a procedural error, this request is being heard
again by the Planning Commission. She stated that staff is
recommending approval with conditions as stated in the staff
report.
Mr. Jeffrey Mann, PacTech Engineering, 6100 Southcenter Blvd,
represented the applicant. He entered into the record as Exhibit
I, a letter dated February 22, 1990, modifying staff's condi-
tions. He reviewed the proposed landscaping, entering the
landscape plan as Exhibit II. Exhibit III, a photograph of trees
depicting a buffer along East Marginal Way, was also entered into
the record. He concluded by requesting approval of design review
and conditional use applications with modified conditions.
A letter from Donna Meagher in support of the request, was read
into the record. It was subsequently entered into the record as
Exhibit IV.
Kathy Stetson, 13258 - 40th Avenue S., presented a photograph
board to the Commission in clarification of concerns posed by
this proposal. It was subsequently entered into the record as
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 2
Exhibit V. She expressed concern with traffic impacts the
propo6al may have on E. Marginal Way as well as adequate land-
scaping be provided and that they be required to provide wheel
stops. She felt the operation should be entirely fenced, no on-
street parking be permitted and a bond be required to ensure
improvements are completed. For the record, she requested that
no on -site storage of materials or debris be permitted, as well
as no fuel storage be permitted.
Beverly Nicholson, 3810 S. 130th St., concurred with comments
made by Ms. Stetson. She favored a decision by the Board to
implement all the conditions presented by staff, with no dele-
tions.
Shirley Robinson, 13422 40th Avenue S., also concurred with
previous citizen testimony. She expressed concern with traffic
impacts, as well as impaired site distance which contributes to
potential traffic accidents. She felt the fence is an important
issue as children are attracted to the site. She felt the site
also poses a problem for potential for drug use activity. In
response to a question posed to staff, it was determined that the
conditions would follow the business rather than ownership of the
property.
Robert Bernhards, 3418 S. 126th, expressed a concern with surface
water problems this site has had in the past. He also expressed
a concern with the drainage of a white substance into a nearby
creek which now does not have any fish in it. He felt measures
should be taken to filter the stormwater runoff from the pavement
proposed for the site.
Phil Hemenway, 4036 S. 128th, spoke in support of the Becker
operation. He supported the expansion of the facility and felt
they are an asset to the community.
Ed Becker responded to citizens concerns by stating that he would
be supportive of using lighting to discourage vandalism or
potential drug activity. He further stated that pipes have been
cleaned out so storm water flooding should not be a problem now.
Donna Meagher, 13242 - 40th Avenue S., felt the City discourages
businesses in the City. Further, she pointed out that the City
should be as concerned with the drug activity that takes place in
a local park as they are with the Becker site.
Sharon Bernhard, 3418 S.126th, felt that proper landscape screen-
ing should be implemented to reduce noise impacts and lighting
should be aimed in such a way as to reduce the impact on the
surrounding neighborhood. She felt that flooding is a serious
problem on 128th. She expressed a concern with the potential
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 3
liability issue that may occur with children playing on the
Becker property, and fel that fencing the property was the
answer. She felt everyo e should work together for the common
good.
The public hearing was c osed at 9:15 P.M. and discussion ensued
on the proposal.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CONDITION #1:
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR.
THE SITE WILL BE CONFINE
TRUCKS, TRACTORS AND TRA
CONDITION #2:
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND HAM LTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE HOURS OF
OPERATION ON THE SITE SHOULD BE 6:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #3:
MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT AS A
PREVIOUS CONDITION APPRO D BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION STATED
THAT THE APPLICANT MUST E IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF
APPROVAL DATE (AUGUST 22, 1990). IF THE CONDITION IS NOT COM-
PLIED WITH, THE PERMIT ILL BE RESCINDED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
CONDITION #4:
HAMILTON MOVED AND MR.
DISTANCE TRAFFIC STUDY
REQUIRED TO RESOLVE T
FACILITY AT EAST MARGIN
TION. IF THE STUDY IND
THAT AREA WOULD PRODUCE
RECOMMENDATION SHOULD B
DESIGN REVIEW
CONDITION #1:
KIRSOP MOVED AND MR.
PLICANT BE REQUIRED BY
ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS OR
WHICH WILL ENSURE A GOO
THE TMC STATES THAT ALL
CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE USE OF
TO PARKING OF EMPLOYEE AUTOMOBILES,
LERS. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
NUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT A SITE
ILL BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS
FIC PROBLEMS ENTERING AND EXITING THE
WAY AND SOUTH S. 128TH STREET INTERSEC-
CATES THAT A RESTRICTION OF PARKING IN
AN IMPROVEMENT IN SAFETY, THEN THIS
FOLLOWED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ILTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AP-
ODE TO PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR
A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS
START FOR THE VEGETATION. IN ADDITION,
LANDSCAPE MATERIALS MUST BE MAINTAINED
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 4
FOR THE LIFE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED.
MR KIRSOP WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH MR. HAMILTON APPROVAL AS THE
SECOND.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT ALL
LANDSCAPING AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED AS REQUIRED BY CODE.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #2:
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION THAT PUBLIC
WORKS WILL APPROVE THE DRAINAGE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS
PROVIDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #3:
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THIS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW ONE YEAR AFTER
ESSENTIAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT SO THAT A DETERMINATION CAN
BE MADE WHETHER GATES OR FENCING OR BOTH MAY BE NEEDED TO CONTROL
ILLEGAL ENTRY TO THE SITE.
MOTION PASSED WITH KIRSOP, GOMEZ, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON AND KNUDSON
VOTING YES; MR. CAGLE VOTED NO.
CONDITION #4:
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION TO DELETE
CONDITION #4 -- STAFF RESPONSE -- AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT,
AS LONG AS THE LANDSCAPING MEETS THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
CONDITION #5:
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE LAND-
SCAPE PLAN SHOULD BE REVISED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER TO DECREASE
EROSION THAT IS CURRENTLY OCCURRING, BY RETAINING THE ORIGINAL
LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH THE ADDITION OF EROSION - RESISTANT PLANTING ON
SLOPE AND PUT IN A CURB TO PROTECT THE WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE
HILLSIDE FROM DAMAGE FROM AUTOMOBILES.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
/MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVED
THE CONDITIONS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO REGARDING THE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT INCLUDING ITEMS A. AND B; AND A, B, AND C (AS AMENDED)
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A. Applicant will pr
landscaping to in
B. Applicant will in
approval date.
DESIGN REVIEW
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT:
ovide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
clude materials, labor and maintenance.
stall improvements within six months of
A. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
B. Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
C. Increase effective height of new landscaping /screening so
that it will be a minimum of 10 -feet high at installation.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89 -3 -CUP AND DESIGN REVIEW 89 -10 -DR WITH
CONDITIONS AS JUST PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF ARCH-
ITECTURAL REVIEW. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
89 -13 -DR - HOMEWOOD SUITES - Request for approval of a design
review application and cooperative parking agreement for a 106 -
unit extended stay hotel.
Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report
recommending approval with conditions.
Mark Hanson, Dimension Development, Memphis, TN, the applicant
for the project, further described the proposal for the Board.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDI-
TIONS:
1. Applicant agrees to provide a total of 119 parking spaces.
This number constitutes a maximum 8.4% reduction in the
required amount of parking for this site and its intended
uses.
2. Applicant agrees to restrict use of meeting areas to regist-
ered guests only after 5:00 p.m.
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 6
3. Applicant agrees to restrict use of facilities to registered
guest only at all times if documented congestion occurs on
the site.
4. Applicant agrees to restrict signage advertising the meeting
areas to inside the building.
5. Applicant agrees to restrict the distribution of promotional
material for the subject hotel in which the meeting areas
are also promoted to targeted potential demand generators
and not the general public.
6. Applicant agrees to provide a parking study if need arises
in the future.
7. Conditions shall travel with the facility, shall be recorded
with the King County Department of Records and Elections,
and may be modified only with the written permission of the
City of Tukwila.
MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEZ, KNUDSON, HAGGERTON, CAGLE AND KIRSOP
VOTING YES AND MR. HAMILTON VOTING NO.
Mr. Knudson asked to be excused.
A 10- minute recess was called.. The meeting resumed at 10:30 pm.
DESIGN REVIEW
Molly Headley reviewed the design review portion of the request
recommending approval with conditions. She asked that the record
show a correction in the staff report from 114 units to the
correct amount of 106 units. She distributed an addendum to the
staff report which reflected additional conditions, based on
shoreline requirements.
Mr. Mark Hanson, applicant, further clarified the proposal adding
that Condition 1(a) be corrected to reflect the inclusion of
trees along the north (not west) property line.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
THE DESIGN REVIEW PORTION OF THE APPLICATION 89- 12 -DR, SUBJECT TO
THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY STAFF, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE STAFF REPORT, DATED FEBRUARY
16, 1990. THE CONDITIONS READ AS FOLLOWS:
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT
THE FOLLOWING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR APPROVAL:
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 7
1. A revised landscape /site plan indicating:
a. The inclusion of trees along the north property line.
b. The addition of trees to the landscape area on the east
side of Building E -5.
c. Stamped approval of landscape plan by a Washington
State Landscape Architect.
2. Lighting plan for site to include placement and level of
intensity produced by lights.
3. Prior to submittal of application for State Shoreline Permit
the applicant will provide:
a. A cross - section for every 75 feet of development along
the shoreline showing:
(i) Existing ground elevation
(ii) Proposed ground elevations
(iii) Height of proposed structures
(iv) Elevations of trail /access road and dike
configurations which clearly indicate eleva-
tion of ground at beginning and end of
development (i.e., trail /access road, paved
parking area).
b. Elevation prints of Buildings which show height of 35'
as required by the Shoreline Program and dimensions of
buildings and indicates scale of drawing.
c. Statement of composition and volume of any extracted
materials and proposed disposal area.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
88 -7 -DR EMBASSY SUITES - Request for approval of an amendment to
the site plan to eliminate 2.5 -story garage and replace with
expanded surface parking on 1.9 acres to the east.
Molly Headley, associate planner, reviewed the staff report for
the proposal, recommending approval with conditions.
John Sloan, architect for the project, represented the applicant,
further described the proposal. He stated that they generally
agreed with staff's recommendations.
Tim Lavin, represented owners of the parcel, described the
history of obtaining the site.
f
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 8
Mr. Mike O'Donin, 1517 S.W. 16th Street, requested that permis-
sion be granted for a shared directional sign (with Longacres).
He was instructed to submit a sign application directly to
Tukwila Department of Community Development.
Robert Losey, owner of the adjacent property, Renton Auction,
expressed a concern with the delay he is experiencing in obtain-
ing a date of sale from the purchaser.
Mr. O'Danin explained the purchase process and the legal process
they must go through to obtain Mr. Losey's property and the time
elements involved.
MR HAMILTON MOVED AND CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT 88-7-DR
EMBASSY SUITES, SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Prior to issuance of Building Permit:
A. Provide a revised site plan to be approved by Planning
Director which will provide pedestrian access:
1. Between the new SE parking area and the tower
structure.
2. Between both parking areas and Longacres Way and
West Valley Highway.
2. Building tilework to be installed as a previously approved.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
89 - 18 - DR - HARTUNG TIMPERLINE BUILDING - Request for approval of
design review application to construct an 85,000 square foot
retail /industrial building with 136 parking spaces on three acres
of land.
Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, reviewed the application,
recommending approval with conditions.
Al Croonquist, One Union Square Building, Seattle, WA 98101,
architect for the project, represented the applicant. He further
clarified the project.
Discussion ensued on the proposal
MR. KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
APPLICATION 89 -18 -DR - HARTUNG- TIMPERLINE, BASED ON THE STAFF'S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; THE BLUE COLOR SELECTED FOR THE GLASS
Planning Commission
February 22, 1990
Page 9
USED IN THE DESIGN NOT BE A DARK BLUE; THE BOARD RECONVENE FOR AN
ON -SITE SELECTION OF COLOR TO BE USED IN THE DESIGN AND SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Large stature evergreen trees shall be placed at the western .
corners of each building which form the center truck loading
and parking corridor along the southern boundary; with dense
shrubs to approximately 4 -feet in height substituting for
trees at the interior islands in this area.
2. A statement that automatic irrigation for all landscape
areas shall be clearly printed on the landscape plan.
3. Glare diagrams to demonstrate no light spillover shall be
provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
4. All roof -top equipment must be screened with architectural .
materials which are visually harmonious with building walls
and proportions.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.•
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. Umetsu stated that Mark Henshaw would be giving a slide
presentation at the March 8, 1990 Planning Commission meeting.
It was noted that Joanne Johnson, Secretary, would be leaving the
City of Tukwila on February 28, 1990. She has accepted a position
with the City of Federal Way.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joanne Johnson, Secretary
•
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board
of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on Thursday February 22,
1990, at 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following:
Planning Commission Public Hearing
CASE NUMBER: 89- 3-CUP; 89- 10 -DR: BECKER TRANSFER
APPLICANT: Pac -Tech Engineering, Jeff Mann
REQUEST: Approval of design review, applicational and conditional
use permit for the development of an improved parking
fadlity for employees' automobiles and semi truck trailers.
LOCATION: Southwest corner of South 128th Street and East Marginal
Way.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
City of Tukwila
PUBUC HEARING NOTICE
Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing
89- 12 -DR: HOMEWOOD SUITES
Dimitri Demopulos Architects, Inc.
Approval of design review application and cooperative
parking agreement for a 114-unit extended stay hotel.
Lots 31 and 32 of Interurban Addition to Seattle, on the
Green River north of Southcenter and east of Interurban.
88-7-DR: EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL
John Sloan
Amend site plan to eliminate 2.5 -story garage and replace
with expanded surface parking on 1.9 acres to east.
SE 1/4 of South 158th Street /West Valley Highway
intersection in Sec. 24, Twn. 23N, Rge. 4E, Tukwila, WA
89- 18-DR: HARTUNG- TEMPERLINE BUILDING
Alfred Croonquist, Architect
Construct an 85,000 square foot retail /industrial building
with 136 parking spaces on 3 acres of land.
Immediately north of 17830 West Valley Highway in the
NW 1/4 of Sec. 36, Twn. 23N, Rge. 4E, Tukwila, WA
Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement
or by appearing at the public hearing. The City encourages you to notify your
neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday February 11 and 18,1990
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners, File
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning Commission and Board
of Architectural Review will conduct a public hearing on Thursday January 25,
1990, at 8:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, to consider the following:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
89 -8 -DR: CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE TWO
City of Tukwila Parks Department
Approval of design review and parking requirements for
development of Phase II of an existing City park.
North of 160th Street and west of 51st Avenue South; east
of private roadway, south of Gilmour Street
89- 3-CUP; 89- 10 -DR: BECKER TRANSFER
Pac -Tech Engineering, Jeff Mann
Approval of design review application and conditional
use permit for the development of an improved parking
facility for employees and semi -truck trailers.
Southwest corner of South 128th Street and East Marginal
Way
89 -4 -R: MIAMI REZONE
Robert H. Schofield
Rezone 75,970 square feet of propertyh from R -1 -7.2
(single - family residential) to C -2 (regional commercial)
16813 Southcenter Parkway
88 -1 -SUB: BRIGADOON RIDGE /TUKWILA JUNCTION
EMS, Inc.
Preliminary plat approval of 17 -lot subdivision.
14915 - 57th Avenue South
89- 12 -DR: HOMEWOOD SUITES
Dimitri Demopulos Architects, Inc.
Approval of design review application and cooperative
parking agreement for a 114 -unit extended stay hotel.
Lots 31 and 32 of Interurban addition to Seattle, on the
Green River north of Southcenter and east of Interurban
Persons wishing to comment on the above case may do so by written statement
or by appearing at the public hearing. The City encourages you to notify your
neighbors and other persons you believe would be affected by the above items.
Published: Valley Daily News - Sunday January 14, 1990
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners, File
PAC-TECH
�� —' Engineers / Planners / Surveyors
City of Tukwila
622 Southcenter. Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
January 24, 1990
• Job #50322.
Attention: Molly Headly
Reference: Becker Transfer: Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
Dear. Molly:
As per our telephone conversation I am forwarding this letter to
request a continuance of our. Public Hearing before the City of
Tukwila Planning Commission on January 25, 1990. I find it
necessary to request this continuance due to another Public Hearing
I have scheduled at that time. I feel it would be appropriate for
me to be at the Becker Transfer hearing based on my involvement in
all of the previous meetings and hearings that have been held.
I have also contacted Mr Ed Becker. He is in agreement with the
continuance and is looking forward to a resolution of this
application as soon as possible. T would request that you set this
matter for hearing at the next possible planning commission
hearing.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.. Please give me
a call if there are anv questions with regard to this request.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Mann
Planning Director
King County Office
JDM /Pc
6100 Soulhcenter Blvd. - Suite 100 WA 98188 / 243 -7112
2601 South 35th - Suite 200 / Tacoma, WA 98409 / 473 -4491 / FAX 474 -5871
3721 Kitsap Way - Suite 4 / Bremerton. WA 98312 / 377 -2053
City of 1 ukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: January 18, 1990
SUBJECT: Becker Transfer Trucking
Supplement to Staff Report dated December 7, 1989
This project was originally presented to the Planning Commission December 14,
1989 (Attachment A). The Commission was asked to approve a Conditional Use
Permit for the use of the stated property as a parking lot for employee automobiles
and truck trailers. In conjunction with the above request, a design review approval
was also required due to the proximity of the site to residential development. Staff
recommended approval with conditions as stated in the Staff Report. The Planning
Commission did approve the applications with conditions; however, due to a
procedural error in posting notice, it was necessary to reschedule the hearing.
During the public hearing, many issues of concern were voiced by citizens in the
neighborhood. Based on additional research at King County (Attachment B and C)
and comments received as a result of a meeting with the applicant and citizens on
January 9, 1990, staff believes that the major issues have been identified. This memo
will outline those issues and propose conditions of approval which will mitigate
their concerns.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RELATED CONCERNS
1. Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the use of the site will not be restricted to parking only.
Staff Response:
The Conditional Use Permit states that the applicant is requesting use of
the site for parking only and that would be the only use approved by the
Planning Commission. If applicant does not comply, the Permit would be
rescinded.
Planning CommisS) n Members Page 2
2. Citizen Concern:
The hours of operation on the site should be restricted to normal working
hours.
Staff Response:
Staff recommends a condition be placed on this property which will
restrict work hours.
3. Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the approved improvements will be in place
expeditiously.
Staff Response:
A previous condition approved by the Planning Commission stated that
applicant must make improvements within six months of approval date.
DESIGN REVIEW RELATED, CONCERNS
1. Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the landscaping will be incorrectly irrigated or not at
all.
Staff Response:
The applicant is required by code to provide an irrigation system for all
landscaped areas or a maintenance contract for 3 years which will ensure a
good start for the vegetation. In addition, the code states that all landscape
materials must be maintained for the life of the development as originally
installed.
2. Citizen Concern:
The storm drainage system at the current time is inadequate. The storm
drainage system needs to be improved to ensure that there will not be
flooding during rain storms of S. 128th St and the East Marginal Way
intersection.
Staff Response:
Public works department has requested that applicant provide a storm
drainage plan for their approval prior to construction.
3. Citizen Concern:
The concern is that the lot will be used for inappropriate activities after
hours.
Staff Response:
A gate and /or fence could address this concern.
4. Citizen Concern:
Landscaping along East Marginal Way should be enhanced with a denser
plant layer through the addition of trees and shrubs.
Staff Response:
Staff recommends enhancement by increasing the number of plants,
berming and the addition of ground cover.
Planning Commissi n Members Page 3
5. Applicant Concern:
Amount of landscaping area that is located in the Southwest corner will be
ineffective due to topography of site in that location (steep, heavily
vegetated slope).
Staff Response: •
The landscape in the Southwest corner area extending approximately 20
feet to the east could be reduced without a negative impact on the project.
This would result in the reduction of 15 trees which could be added to East
Marginal Way.
RECOMMENDATION
In light of the information from King County and the meeting with the applicants
and concerned citizens, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit
Application with the following conditions:
1. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee automobiles and truck
trailers.
2. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to normal working hours (7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
3; Site improvements will be completed within six months of approval date. (July
25,1990)
Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application with the following
conditions:
1. The landscaped area shall be irrigated or there shall be a three -year
maintenance agreement with a landscape maintenance firm for watering the
landscaping.
2. Drainage system for the site will be upgraded per Tukwila Public Works
approval to correct flooding of South 128th Street from surface runoff of the
site.
3. Applicant will revise site plan to provide locking gates at entry to site.
4. Revise landscape plan to enhance planting along East Marginal Way to provide
a dense screen similar to other property lines.
Planning Commission Members Page 4
L , :`
5. Revise landscape plan to relocate approximately 15 trees from Southwest
corner of lot to East Marginal Way street frontage. Shrub Screening will remain
the same.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Staff Report dated December 7, 1989
B. Hearing Examiners Minutes for Case #261 -78- R(King Co. Records)
C. Hearing Examiners minutes for File # 228 -79 -R
D. Citizen Petition 01/18/90
SUBJECT:
Page
Page
Page
Page
Exhibit No.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's preliminary:
Division's final:
Examiner:
Ms. Powers offered the
Approve CG -P
Approve CG -P
Approve CG -P
(modified) .
following exhibits:
in
in
in
August 1Q, 1978
OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL. •
Building and Land Development File No.
Proposed Ordinance No. 78 -568
J. R. CATRON
S-R and S -R (Potential C -G) to M -L
Three acres lying on the southwest corner
South 128th Street and East Marginal Way
South. :
part,
part,
part,
subject to
subject to
subject to
PRELIMINLRY REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
The hearing on
A.M., July 27, 1978.
The Examiner explained procedures for the benefit of the participants.
Ms. Powers, Building and Land Development, made the following changes
to their preliminary report:
The Building and Land Development preliminary
report on Item 261 -78 -R was received by the
Examiner on July 20, 1978.
After reviewing the Building and Land Development
report, examining available information on file
with the application and visiting the property
and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the subject as follows:
Item 261 -78 -R was opened by the Deputy Examiner at 10:10
1, Item D -4, King County Division of Planning: Memo dated
July 5, 1978 making recommendations.
1,. Item D -1, King County Division of Traffic dated July 6,
1978 requesting additional right -of -way.
2, add Item D -15: Washington State Department of Transportation
dated July 10, 1978 indicating no interest.
2, add Item D -16: Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Barnhardt
dated July 21, 1978.
1 - Preliminary report dated July 27, 1978.
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT B
MASTER COPY
261 -78 -R
of
conditions.
conditions.
conditions
Exhibit No.' 2 - Application dated March 23, 1978.
Exhibit No. 3 - Environmental Checklist dated March 23, 1978.
Exhibit No. 4 - Declaration of Non - significance dated June 16,
1978.
Exhibit No. 5 - Assessor map of the NW of Section 15 -23 -4
showing subject property outlined in red.
Exhibit No. 6 - Land Use Sheet 324 W (to be retained in the
Division's permanent working files).
Exhibit No. 7 - Two sheets of plans;
7 -1: Site plan;
7 -2: Drainage plan.
Exhibit No. 8 - Large copy of the Highline Community Plan Map
(to be retained in the Division's permanent
working files).
Mr. Marbett, Building and Land Development, made the following
modification to the Division's preliminary report:
Page 4, Item K -1 should read: "The Highline Community Plan Map which
was adopted as part of the Highline Community Plan under
Ordinance No. 3530 on December 19, 1977, has the easterly 370'
of the subject property shown as general commercial area and
the remainder as single family. The area north of South 126th
Street and east of East Marginal Way is the area proposed
for expansion of the light manufacturing zone."
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Marbett.
Speaking in support were:
J. Ray Catron, applicant
3717 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Edwin J. Becker
Becker Transfer Company
16828 S.E. 28th
Bellevue, Washington 98008
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Becker. Mr. Marbett also
• responded.
Also speaking in support was:
Phil Hemmingway
4036 South 128th Street
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Becker made additional comments.
Speaking in opposition were:
Ruth Burnhardt
3704 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
261 -78 -R Page 2
Beverly Nicholson
3810 South 130th Street
Seattle, Washington
Ms. Nicholson offered the following exhibit:
Exhibit No. 9 - Set of 35 letters in opposition.
The hearing on this matter was recessed at 10:53 A.M., and reconvened
at 11:05 A.M., July 27, 1978.
Also speaking in opposition were:
•
FINDINGS:
Mr. Halasz
12633 - 35th Avenue
Seattle, Washington
Sharon Burnhardt
3418 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
South
98168
Ms. Burnhardt offered the following exhibit:
Exhibit No. 10 - Two letters of opposition from Mrs. F. Bernhardt
and Mr. Robert J. Bernhardt respectively.
All proponents and opponents having given their presentation, the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
Building and Land Development's final recommendation was to approve CG -P
in lieu of M -L for the easterly 264 feet of the subject property
subject to conditions as stated in their preliminary report.
The hearing on Item 261 -78 -R was closed by the Deputy Examiner at 11:38
A.M., July 27, 1978.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS : Having reviewed the record in
this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
1. General Information:
Location: Lying on the southwest corner of South
128th Street and east of Marginal Way South
Existing Zone: S -R and S -R (Potential C -G)
Requested Zone: M -L
STR: 15 -23 -4
Size: 3 acres
Water District: 38
Sewer District: Val Vue
Fire District: #18
School District: #406
261 -78 -R Page 3
261 -78 -R Page 4
2. Approval of this application will constitute a "major action"
under the provisions of R.C.W. 43.21C and W.A.C. 197 -10. The
applicant submitted an environmental checklist with the .
application. After reviewing the environmental checklist, the
Manager of the Building and Land Development Division made a
threshold determination that approval of this application will not
have a significant adverse impact upon the quality of the environment
and that an environmental impact statement is not required. The
Building and Land Development Division transmitted a proposed
declaration of non - significance to other agencies with jurisdiction
on June 16, 1978. After the elapse of fifteen days following the
transmittal and after reviewing comments submitted by agencies with
jurisdiction and by other parties, the Manager of the Building and
Land Development Division adopted the proposed declaration as a final
declaration of non - significance. At the public hearing on this
application a representative of the Building and Land Development
Division reported that having considered the comments and testimony
by agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, having visited
the subject property, and having evaluated the natural, physical
and social systems related to this application, the Building and
Land Development Division reaffirms its determination that approval
of this application will not have a significant adverse impact on the
quality of the environment and an environmental impact statement
is not required.
3. The purpose of the request is to allow parking for employees
of the adjacent transfer and storage company in the easterly one -third
of the property and parking for transfer trucks and trailers in the
central portion. The most westerly portion is intended to be leased
or sold for other light manufacturing purposes.
4. The subject property was zoned SR and SR (Potential CG) at the
time of the Highline Area Zoning Study, adopted by Resolution No.
34529 on December 11, 1967. Prior to that time the zoning on the
subject property was R7.2 (Residential Single Family District).
There is no indication in the record that a more intensive zoning
classification than the above was requested or considered during
the 1965 area zoning.
5. The property directly north, across 128th Street from the westerly
400 feet of the property, was reclassified ML subject to screening
conditions in 1977 (249- 74 -P). This property, which is occupied by
the intended lessee or purchaser of portions of the subject property
(the Becker Transfer Co.), has placed about 510 trees and shrubs in the
required peripheral screening of that site. The owner of this firm
advised that the company has experienced considerable growth the past
years and is seeking additional employee and truck parking space. The
present parking area is fully occupied by both, and employees are
parking .on the surrounding streets. ML permits both types of parking,
but CG would limit the expansion to employee parking lots.
6. The applicant asserted that industrial expansion in the immediate
area is inevitable because of the proximity of industry to the north
and the ready access to new freeway and industrial expressway routes.
7. Opponents who filed letters or testified at the hearing are
seeking to preserve an existing residential area to the south and
west of the site. Testimony indicated that many young families with
elementary age children live in the area and attend a nearby school.
They are concerned about the truck traffic and the gradual erosion of
the line of demarcation between residence and industry.
CONCLUSIONS:
261 -78 -R Page 5
8. The Highline Communities Plan indicates general commercial for the
easterly 370 feet more or less of the property and residential for the
westerly 160 feet more or less. This designation corresponds with
the existing potential zoning on the property.
Ordinance 3747 requires, during the interval between Community Plan
adoption and Area Zoning adoptiog that reclassification requests in
the Highline Area be judged by the Community Plan. The Highline Area
Zoning has not been adopted as yet.
9. The application for ML is opposed by the Cities of Seattle and
Tukwila.
1. Based upon the whole record and according substantial weight
to the determination of environmental significance made by the
Division of Building and Land Development, it is concluded that
approval of the subject action as recommended below, would not
significantly affect the quality of the environment. All
evidence of environmental impact relating to the proposed action
and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been
included in the review and consideration of the subject action.
2. The request for ML is inconsistent with the Highline Communities
Plan and would have an unreasonable impact on an existing residential
community.
3. The reclassification to CG -P with certain limitations and
conditions would carry out the Highline Communities Plan and would
be consistent with the intent of the 1965 area zoning.
4. Screening, landscaping and restoration of graded land outside
of the potential CG property is essential in order to establish a
more definite and defensible line of demarcation between residential
and non- residential uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve CG -P in lieu of ML for the eastern 264' of the subject
property subject to the following post- ordinance conditions:
1. A plot plan to be approved by the Division of Building and
Land Development showing circulation, access and parking layout.
2. A landscape plan showing a minimum landscape strip of 20'
along the west and south property lines and 10' along South 128th Street
as required by the adopted Highline Plan (page 35)(e).
3. A bond, the amount to be determined at the time of the plat
plan submittal to insure the installation of the approved landscaping.
4. A plan for the restoration of ground cover in the westerly
third of the subject property and, where feasible, on the cut slopes
of the south and west boundaries of the applicant's ownership.
ORDERED TIIIS 10th day of August, 1978.
•
w
Robert A. Eveleigh
DEPUTY ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINE
.
30
31
•
�iJanuary 11, 1979
A.PE( f:3 I96
-1-
061-16
Introduced by:
Proposed OrdinanZ'g .. 8
2
3
4
5 ORDINANCE NO. 4046
6 AN ORDINANCE amending King County Zoning Resolution
No. 25789, as amended, by amending the Zoning Map
7 thereof reclassifying certain property thereof at
the request of J. R. Catron, Building and Land
8 Development Division Pile No. 261 -78 -R.
9 BE IT OFDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
10 SECTION 1. J. R. Catron petitioned on March 23, 1978, that
11 the property described in Section 3 below be reclassified from SR
12 and SR (Potential CG) to ML and this application was assigned
13 Building and Land Development Division File No. 261 -78 -R.
14 SECTION 2. The report and recommendation of the Building and
15 Land Development Division was transmitted to the Zoning and Sub -
16 division Examiner on July 20, 1978, and hearing was held by the
17 Examiner on the matter July 27, 1978. The report of the Examiner
18 was filed with the Clerk of the King County Council on August 25,
19 1978, and the Council approved the reclassification by Motion No.
20 03796 on October 23, 1978, subject to conditions which will be
21 satisfied per the "P" suffix.
22 SECTION 3. The legal description of the property to be re -•.
22 classified is attached as Appendix A and is hereby made a part of
24 this ordinance. The above described property is shown on the at-
25 Cached map which is designated Appendix B and is hereby made a part
26 of this ordinance.
27 SECTION 4. The King County Council does hereby amend King
28 County Zoning Code, Resolution No. 25789, as amended, by reclassi-
28 fying that property described and shown in Section 3, Appendices A
OVERALL LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
FILE NO. 261 -78 -R
APPENDIX -A
The east 264 feet± of the following described:
Tracts 1 to 10 inclusive, except the west 20 feet of Tracts
3 and 4, and Tracts 14 to 24 inclusive, vacated Essico
Addition to Riverton, according to plat recorded in Volume
33 of Plats, Page 49, in King County, Washington; •
TOGETHER with the vacated 30 foot street between lots 1 and
22 lying south of the south margin of South 128th Street,
EXCEPT that portion of the south half of vacated Riverton
Place abutting and adjoining vacated lots 11 and 13 of said
plat. Less County roads.
* TRACY J. OWEN, Dust. No. 1
ROBERT B. DUNN, Dust. No. 2
BILL REAMS, Dist. No. 3
BERNICE STERN, Dist. No. 4
RUBY CHOW, Dist. No. 5
MIKE LOWRY, Dist. No. 6
PAUL BARDEN, Dist. No. 7
BOB GREIVE, Dist. No. 8
DAVE MOONEY, Dist. No. 9
King Couiity Council
Bruce C. Laing Zoning & Subdivision Exarniner
Room 403, K%ny County Courthouse
Seattle, Washington 98104
344-3460 .
October 27, 1978
NOTICE OF ACTION 13Y THE KING COUNTY
COUNCIL ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF TEIE
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
RE: Building and Land Development File No. 261 -78 -R
Proposed Ordinance No. 78 -568
J. R. CATRON; SR & SR (Potential CG) to MI*i
On October 23 , 1978 the Council passed
approving the above - referenced application.
EJ On , 19 the Council passed
Motion No. 3796
Motion No.
denying the above - referenced application.
On , 19 the Council passed Motion No.
concurring in the recommendations of the Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner on the above- referenced item. The Council will not
take final action on the ordinance until the applicant has
presented to the Building and Land Development Division, Room 450
King County Administration Building, evidence showing satisfaction
of the conditions contained in the Examiner's report, which was
previously transmitted to parties of record. If the conditions have
not been satisfied by , 19 , the Building and
Land Development Division will take action to close the file on the
application.
BCL /jk
Bice C: `Laing
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EX NER
cc: Parties of Record
Building and Land Development Division
he Council concurred with the Examiner's_ recommendation to a rove
G -P for a portion of the aroptrrty,,,,, sub,J,ect to _conditions.
February ( 985 INT "ODUCED BY: GARY Wirt
PROPED ORDINANCE NO. 79 -240
ORDINANCE NO. . L 1
AN " amending King County Title
. 21,. as amended, by amending the Zoning
Map, thereof reclassifying certain
property thereon at the request of Edwin
J. Becker. Building and Land Development
Division File No. 228 -79 -R
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. Edwin J. Becker petitioned on January 23, 1979,
the the property described in section 3 below be reclassified
from M -L (PUD) to ML -P, and this application was assigned
building and land development division file no. 228 -79 -R.
SECTION 2 The report and recommendation of the building
and land development division was transmitted to the zoning
and subdivision examiner on March 15, 1979 and May 1, 1979,
and hearing was held by the examiner on March 22, 1979 and
May 8, 1979. The report of the examiner was filed with the
clerk of the King County council on June 4, 1979, and the
council approved the reclassification by Motion no. 4301 on
June 11, 1979, subject to conditions which have now been
satisfied.
SECTION 3. The legal description of the property to be
reclassified is attached as Appendix A, and is hereby made a
part of this ordinance. The above described property is shown
on the attached map, which is designated Appendix B. and is
hereby made a part of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. The King County council does hereby amend
King County Council Title 21, as amended,' by reclassifying
that property described and shown in section 3. Appendices A
and B above, to ML -P, and directs the area map W 10 -23 -4 be
modified to so designate.
SECTION 5. This reclassification is granted subject to
conditions adopted in Motion no. 4301, and said conditions
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
ATTEST:
PASSED this
•
day
rk of t e ounc i I
are incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein.
INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 20 day
1979
9tka.A4
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
APPROVED this 2S" day of fr 1985.
SUBJECT:
Division's
Division's
Examiner:
PRELIMINARY REPORT.:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Exhibit No.
Exhibit No.
Exhibit No.
Exhibit No. 4:
Exhibit No. 5:
Exhibit No. 6:
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Ms. Powers, Building and
EDWIN J. BECKER
ML (PUD) to ML -P
preliminary: Approve ML -P, in lieu
tions.
final: Approve ML -P, in lieu
tions (modified) .
Approve ML -P, in lieu
tions.(modified).
Rte
May 18, 1979
OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Building and Land Development File No.
Proposed Ordinance No. 79 -240
of ML,
of ML,
of ML,
subject
subject
subject
Assessor map of the SW1/4 of Section 10 -23 -4
showing subject property outlined in red.
228 -79 -R
2.1 acres lying at the southwest corner of East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street.
The Building and Land Development preliminary
report on Item 228 -79 -R was received by the
Examiner on March 15, and May 1, 1979.
to condi-
to condi-
to condi-
After reviewing the Building and Land Development
report, examining available information on file
with the application and visiting the property and
surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public
hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing on Item 228 -79 -R was opened by the Deputy Examiner at 2:40 P.M.
March 22, 1979.
Land Development, offered the following exhibit:
1: Application dated January 23, 1979.
2: Environmental Checklist dated January 23, 1979.
3: Declaration of Non - Significance dated February 21
1979.
Building and Land Development's preliminary repor
dated March 22, 1979.
Two Land Use Sheets marked:
6 -1: 315W
6 -2: 324W
(to be retained in the Division's permanent works
files).
Correspondence contained in the Division's final but not referenced in
their preliminary report was as follows:
Page 2, Item D -14, Washington State Department of Transportation:
Response dated March 7, 1979 stating no comment ".
page 2, Item D -8, City of Tukwila Planning Department: Response
dated March 8, 1979.
Page 1, Item D -1, King County Division of Traffic and Planning:
Response dated March 13, 1979 stating "no comment ".
Page 1, Item D -7, King County Division of Planning: Response dated
March 14, 1979.
Letter dated March 10, 1979 from Mrs. Donald Nicholson stating opposi-
tion.
Letter dated March 17, 1979 from G. S. Delihunt stating opposition.
Letter dated March 19, 1979 from Mrs. Douglas Perrine stating
opposition.
Letter dated March 20, 1979 from Mr. and Mrs. Richard B. Bernhard
stating opposition.
The Examiner made comments for the benefit of the participants.
All parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner.
Speaking in support was:
EDWIN J. BECKER, applicant
12677 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98168
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Becker.
Mr. Marbett, Building and Land Development, made comments at this time.
Mr. Becker continued with his presentation.
Mr. Becker offered the following exhibit:
Exhibit No. 7: Set of building plans proposed for subject propert;
Discussion took place among Mr. Becker, the Examiner and Mr. Marbett.
Also speaking in support were:
PHILLIP HEMENWAY
4036 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
RAY CATRON
3717 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Speaking in opposition was:
SHARON BERNHARDT
3418 South 126th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Ms. Bernhardt offered the following exhibits:
Exhibit No. 8: Set of five photographs.
Exhibit No. 9: Set of 24 letters of opposition from residents of
subject property.
Ms. Bernhardt continued with her presentation.
Also speaking in opposition were:
BEVERLY NICHOLSON
3810 South 130th
Seattle, Washington 98168
228 -79 -R Page 2
BRIAN KENNEDY
12802 - 37th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98168
SHARON MANN
3404 South 126th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Cross - examination and rebuttal continued.
EDWIN J. BECKER, applicant
12677 East Marginal Way South
Seattle, Washington 98168
RUTH BERNHARDT
12527 - 35th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98168
All proponents and opponents having given their presentations, the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
A continuance date was discussed by the participants.
228 -79 -R Page 3
At 4:20 P.M., March 22, 1979 this matter was continued by the Deputy
Examiner to 9:00 A.M., May 8, 1979 in Room 854 of the King County
Administration Buidling.
* * * * * * * * * * *
The hearing on Item 228 -79 -R was reopened by the Deputy Examiner at 9:15 A.M
May 8, 1979.
Ms. Powers, Building and Land Development, offered the following exhibits:
Exhibit No. 10: Addendum Building and Land Development report dated
May 8, 1979.
Exhibit No. 11: Site plan submitted April 9, 1979 by the applicant.
Mr. Marbett, Building and Land Development, summarized the background of
this application.
Speaking in support was:
Mr. Marbett and Mr. Becker held discussion at this time.
Mr. Becker continued.
Speaking in opposition were:
SHARON BERNHARDT
RUTH BERNHARDT
Mr. Marbett and the Examiner addressed questions to Mrs. Ruth Bernhardt.
All proponents and opponents having given their presentations, the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
Discussion continued among the participants.
Mr. Marbett modified the addendum Building and Land Development report dated
May 8, 1979 (Exhibit No. 10) as follows:
Pre - ordinance Condition on Page 3 to read as follows:
"The applicant shall fulfill the necessary requirements to receive
site plan approval on the property to the south (File No. 261 -78 -R)
or submit a cash bond of $5000 with the stipulation that the post
ordinance condition be satisfied within'six months of Council approval
of File No. 228- 79 -R."
228 -79 -R Page 4
Mr. Marbett stated that his final recommendation was to approve as stated
in their addendum preliminary report dated May 8, 1979 with the
following additional conditions and the modifications stated above:
Condition No. 5:
"The truck fleet shall be limited•to a combination of 96 vehicles
that would include vans or trucks, tractors and trailers."
Condition No. 6:
"Repair of any vehicles on the premises not to be after 10:00 P.M.
or to be contained within an entirely enclosed building."
The hearing on Item 228 -79 -R was closed by the Deputy Examiner at 10:25 A.M.,
May 8, 1979.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed the record in
this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. General Information:
Location: Lying on the northwest corner of East
Marginal Way South & South 128th Street.
Existing Zone: ML (PUD)
Requested Zone: ML -P
STR: W10 -23 -4
Size: 2.1 acres
Water District: #125
Sewer District: Val Vue
Fire District: #18
School District: South Central
2. Approval of this application will constitute a "major action"
under the provisions of R.C.W. 43.21C and W.A.C. 197 -10. The
applicant submitted an environmental checklist with the
application. After reviewing the environmental checklist, the
Manager of the Building and Land Development Division made a
threshold determination that approval of this application will
not have a significant adverse impact upon the quality of the
environment and that an environmental impact statement is not
required. The Building and Land Development Division transmitted
a proposed declaration of non - significance to other agencies with
jurisdiction on February 21, 1979. After the elapse of
fifteen days following the transmittal and after reviewing
comments submitted by agencies with jurisdiction and by other
parties, the Manager of the Building and Land Development
Division adopted the proposed declaration as a final declaration
of non - significance. At the public hearing on this application
a representative of the Building and Land Development Division
reported that having considered the comments and testimony by
agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, having visited
the subject property, and having evaluated the natural, physical
and social systems related to this application, the Building and
Land Development Division reaffirms its determination that
approval of this application will not have a significant adverse
impact on the quality of the environment and an environmental
impact statement is not required.
3. The subject property was zoned ML subject to a planned unit
development (File No. 200 -74 -R) in 1974. Final planned unit
development approval was given in 3375 (File No. 249 -74 -P) and
later revised in 1977.
This request would change the zone classification of the subject
property from ML (PUD) to ML -P in order to expand a building
beyond the limitations placed on the subject property through
the Planned Unit Development procedure.
228 -79 -R Page 5
4. The Highline Community Plan, adopted by the King County Council
in December 1977 shows the subject property as "industry" and
prescribes specific landscaping standards for industrial property.
The property to the south (File No. 261- 78- R /Ra�Catron) was
approved to CG -P subject to site plan approval. The applicant
is currently using this property for employee parking but has
not yet received site plan approval.
The public hearing on this matter had been continued in order to
allow time for the applicant to prepare a site plan and for the
Traffic Division' to complete a traffic study relating to the
capacity of East Marginal Way in the vicinity of the site.
7. The site plan submitted by the applicant shows the proposed
building expansion (40'X69.6') and parking for 34 vans and 31 sem:
trailers. The plan also shows a new entrance near the southwest
corner to accommodate the addition to the building.
8. The Traffic Division concluded that: "...the subject route is
capable of handling the existing traffic and any future traffic
volumes using this arterial. We recommend against any restrictio
to use of'this route going south from the light industrial area.
A restriction of this type could cause undue congestion at the
intersection of East Marginal Way and Interurban Avenue South."
9. Representatives of the Riverton community attended the hearings
and requested that the County place conditions on the site plan
and operation of the facility that will protect existing
residential areas and provide a workable boundary between residenc
and industrial expansion in the area.
10. The Building and Land Development Division proposed specific lima
tions on the number of vehicles to be utilized at the site and
the hours of outdoor maintenance and repair work.
The applicant advised that his present business operation depend:
on all -night truck maintenance work on the site. The additional
facility is designed to support off - loading and transfer of good:
from long -haul to short -haul vehicles.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Based upon the whole record, and according substantial weight
to the determination of environmental significance made by the
Division of Building and Land Development, it is concluded that
approval of the subject action as recommended below, would not
constitute a major action significantly affecting the quality
of the environment. All evidence of environmental impact
relating to the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to
the proposed action have been included in the review and
consideration of the subject action.
2. Industrial use of the property is supported by the Highline
Community Plan, which also provides for adequate screening and
landscaping.
3. The location of the property at the boundary of industrial and
residential areas requires conditions of approval which go beyor
typical industrial property requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve ML -P in lieu of ML subject to the following conditions:
Pre- ordinance condition:
0 / . ) The applicant shall fulfill the necessary requirements to receive
site plan approval on the property to the south (File No. 261 -78 -R)
or shall submit a cash bond of $5000 to insu4e that post - ordinance
0 ;o ndition 3 of File No. 261 -78 -R are sati fied within sitl_(6)
ntof the approval of this case (File No._ 228- :79 -R) J
Post- ordinance conditions:
1. The applicant shall supplement the existing landscaping to meet
the requirements of the Highline Plan.
a. Type II landscaping along the south property line as far west
as the proposed entrance.
b. Type III landsacping for the remainder of the south
property line and the north and west property lines.
c. Planting along the east is sufficient but shall not be
decreased.
2. Expansion of the building shall be limited to the proposed
expansion (40'X69.6').
3. No additional building(s) shall be allowed on the site.
4. A cash bond may be required at the time of the building permit
for insurance of landscaping.
'`5. The truck fleet on the site to be limited to a combination of
96 units - a unit being defined as a van, a tractor or a trailer
(a combination tractor and trailer equals two units).
6. The noise levels emanating from maintenance and repair of vehicles
between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. shall be limited as
set forth in Section 12.88 of the King County Code. A violation
of the provisions of that section shall be considered a violation
of the conditions of approval of this application. Exemptions
allowed by Section 12.94 for industrial districts shall not apply
to the subject property while operating under the conditions of
this reclassification approval.
ORDERED THIS 18th day of May, 1979.
Edwin J. Becker
Phillip Hemenway
Ray Catron
Sharon Bernardt
Beverly Nicholson
Brian Kennedy
Sharon Mann
Ruth Bernhardt
Luci Reimann
James L. Stretch
Brudette & Coleen Anderson
Shirley M. Robinson
Bernice Ross
Rhoada E. Cook
Mrs. Harriet Norman
228 -79 -R Page 6
Robert A. Eveleigh
DEPUTY ZONING & SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED this 18th day of May, 1979 by certified mail to the
parties of record:
To:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990 .
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUI:WILA
JAN 1 8 1990
PERMIT CENTER
In considering the request by Becker Transfer for a conditional use
permit allowing parking of tractors and trailers in addition to the
parking of employee vehicles which is presently allowed, interested
residents respectfully bring the following areas of concern to your
attention:
1. Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto E. Marginal Way
from S. 128th, due to the dangerous blind curve which obstructs the
view south of S. 126th St. A 45' -48' truck pulling out onto E.
Marginal Way from S. 128th St. would not be visible in time for
through traffic to stop. The radius of turn for a large truck
could present an impediment for both south and northbound traffic.
The volume of traffic generated by Metro, Boeing and the Bank
Computer Center among others demands further scrutiny.
2. Problems of surface water management emanating from the
subject property. The problem of the flooding of S. .128th St. was
created when the swamp, which is now the subject property, was
filled and graded to become a parking lot. Waterflow generated
from springs on the subject property has never been properly
channeled. S. 128th St. readily becomes a lake which prevents its
use in the area between Mr. Becker's north and south properties,
with the lake extending westerly depending on the amount of
rainfall.
3. The landscape design has provided a minimal plan for screening
of the proposed truck terminal and storage yard. Residents would
like to see a living wall of vegetation as required in 1979. The
design totally neglects the vital provisions for maintenance of the
landscaping materials to ensure their survival and optimum growth.
A sprinkler system should be a minimum requirement and the
employment of a qualified, approved, bonded landscape architect
should be mandatory. A bond at maximum % should also be required
of Mr. Becker. Landscape island requirements within the parking
area need to be consistent with City requirements in Southcenter
and elsewhere in Tukwila. An intrusion of this magnitude into a
residential community needs to contribute not detract.
4. Threat to neighborhoo4 security of an unfenced, visually
screened, accessible parking area needs to be addressed. There is
already a potential for liability from unauthorized use of the
subject property. The subject property needs a security fence with
gates which are locked after work hours (between 10 :00 pm and 6:00
am and on weekends). A fence which is placed inside the
landscaping will serve an aesthetic purpose as well as reduce
fencing costs for Mr. Becker.
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT D
6
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
o no
Address
1 / 7 53 5 A:20-72-7-/--kg-71
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Respectfully submitted,
/2•;.„) �1 A
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quali of pavinq of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line oL demarcation between ipdustrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Signature Address
V.. , .d't /19
425 IS9 St
L4.ZvP emtE
9x/31 , ) %Y�3 (PA,
r . I379 z -yZ
'/ Se) /ven4 /1
Vr /s" s; , 89
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Signature Address
/rli2?�, X /1 2 ) ,/3979 / /o?,r10' /WE- 5C
TO:
DATE:
RE:
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89-3-CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
C i • )e*A-
(:
0) ./ 1t,‘-,, -c h a-ft*
&/)
74f/8 I2
/0?630- 3V (ZO <9
y1/ fr `r.. IJZ;
1 1 1
ti
/V ,/ 2 V 77 Of'
9 -T/g
/asp 7 A ✓ ,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
5. The quality of pavinq of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
� . , t / t L_ •
• m . C4 a iz.,Z1-
`' qM3 k (' ,n4s •
fir) ` \A Lt L i( .
u- curkk_ 131J.Lifuit .l°MJ'
1325g 41",? - ,VJC .
LA/CV - 6-12y, 5�
5'7 ed,,
1.3t,?5 7 `r a , sn
CI (1 ra,lr= -
Yh
l
TO:
DATE:
RE:
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89-3-CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Address
y,„2a Cam,' at-e .S . FP(bc u
/2V) t: YA4 (. Lt-)2>i
�'
/3O 3/ .3 • �u�� 074:
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
ei ,
‘ 411/
/3.71 7 3s S c, .4ue.
/3a17- 3gt 11yti°- so .
giehke_So
acv .. /3v/
/.3OI 7 i `7 < /9-‘,4F ,` , ''wick CAO W6?
3 0 1 .,d. U,p
/3 7- ,6`` a/7)J.
- -7 74 . ( 11 Az
7j�Z1 r5 1 5 %
,552R / 5 /30 01
)&D;3 3'l vr. r
To:
DATE:
RE:
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
9b3 1e.2g
1 x `61 yV16 GliN 1-4) ._50
12eka E, Nte � te 5.
X 1 0 94- Io- /c9
37 / 1L-
371 5 lager
IIco 3 7th 5,
) Z 3 S' 37 42 ' 5
1319/7 '1r 1✓f 5.
1 v.? 44.5,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Dear.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor
January 4, 1990
I would like to invite you to attend a meeting to discuss the
Becker Transfer Trucking proposal in which you previously
expressed interest. Staff has done further research concerning
the Becker Company with King County and would like to discuss
this additional information.
I have scheduled Tuesday January 9, 7:00 P.M., Conference Room
#3, Tukwila City Hall for the meeting. I would appreciate it if .
you could attend but if you find you are unable to attend due to
personal conflicts please call my office with your comments. I
look forward to seeing or hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
ack Pace
Senior Planner
cc: File
w1
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Thursday, December 14, 1989
7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers in City Hall
AGENDA
I CALL TO ORDER
II ATTENDANCE
III APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NOVEMBER 9, 1989 AND NOVEMBER 16, 1989
IV OLD BUSINESS
Public Meeting
CASE NUMBER: 89 -2 -CA: SENSITIVE AREA ORDINANCE
• Public Hearing Testimony
• Elect Planning Commission representative to
Citizens' Advisory Committee (see attached
resolution)
• Discuss SAO schedule and work tasks
V NEW BUSINESS
Public Hearing
CASE NUMBER: 89 -8 -DR: CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK PHASE II
• Determine parking requirement for Phase II of
Crystal Springs Park
CASE NUMBER: 89- 10- DR/89 -3 -CUP: BECKER TRANSFER
• Obtain approval for Conditional Use Permit and
design review of an employee auto and truck
parking facility.
Public Meeting
CASE NUMBER: 89- 6 -SPE: MEYER SIGN COMPANY, INC.
• Special permission for a permanent wall sign of 20
VI ELECTION OF OFFIC eet:
VII DIRECTOR'S REPORT
VII! ADJOURNMENT
Attachments
October 31, 1978
Dear Neighbor:
After receiving several phone calla regarding the obviously confusing
form letter bent to several of um from the King County Toning and Sub -
Division Examiner's office regarding Mr. Ca tron'a appeal decision, I
made a trip today to the Subdivision gainer's Office at the King
County Courthouse in an attempt to clarify the final deciaiom of the
King County Council to our eatisfaotios.
I spoke with the hearing examiner, Mr. Lightfoot (who was 'the hearing
examiner who presided over Mr. Catron's case), and he carefully explained
to me that the King County Council upheld Mr. Robert Eveliegk's decision
and recommendation and this decision was "CO-P" zoning for 261 ft. and
single family zoning for the rest of the three acres. The "CG-P" is a
zoning classification in which Mr. Becker or whoever buys or leases the
261 Ft. must comply with the conditions set forth by the Zoning and Sub-
Division Manager. The conditions can be found on Page 5 of the packet
attached to this letter. This does not allow for Mr. Becker's trucks
to park on the south side of South 128th St. Only him employees cars!
Mr. Lightfoot also said if trucks park on the 261E ft. they are in zoning
violation. As you can see on the bottom of the form letter I received,
I have had the Zoning and Subdivision Examiner's Office initial and date
alongside the decision the King County Council actually made. So the
present zoning is now OG -P only!
If anyone of us see Mr. Becker's trucks parked an that lot on the south
Bide of South 128th St., it would be a courtesy to inform Mr. Becker of
the King County Council's decision. It could be very possible that
Mr. Becker or Mr. Catron were as confused as we were by the fora letter,
so please give Mr. Becker and Mr. Catron the benefit of a doubt by inform-
ing them and showing then the initialed for letter before calling the
Zoning Code Enforcement Office.
I sincerely hope this matter is now clarified to your satisfaction. If
you have any question, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sharon.Bernhardt
CH. 6 -2630
December 13,1989 .
City of Tukwila Planning Commission
Board of Architectural Review
RE: Becker Transfer Company
89 -3 -CUP
89 -10 -DR
Dear Sirs:
In view of the fact that under the original plan and approval of
Mr. Becker's business it was understood that the lot in question
would be used for parking of employees only. No trucks or trailers
would be permitted on this lot.
Over the past few months it has been noted that the truck trailers
had been parked on this lot. This was clearly a violation
of the agreement.
As a resident of the Tukwila (Riverton) area I would urge you to
deny the Becker Transfer Company their request.
Keep the Riverton area as a residential area.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Beverly A. Nicholson
3810 South 130th Street
Seattle, WA 98168
244 -6195
Tukwila Planning Commission
Committee for Design Review December 11, 1989
Re: # 89 -10 -DR
# 89 -3 -CUP
We wish to register our concern . regarding the conditional use permit
application for the above mentioned property. The parking lot in question has
been the subject of review by King County on several occasions and the owner seems
to have failed to live up to conditions placed on his adjusted use acceptance.
Community members who have been actively informed about this property ( Sharon
Barnhardt and Shirley Robinson) have shared the King County documents with us.
We are concerned that after lengthy hearings the recommendations listed in:
OFFICE OF ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL ... file // 261 -78 -R
Proposed Ordinance No. 78 -568 were never met. These recommendations were
to approve subject to the following post- ordinance conditions: (page #5)
1. a plot plan to be approved by the Division of Building & Land
development showing circulation, access and parking layout.
2. a landscape plan showing a minimum landscape strip of 20' along
the west and south property lines and 10' along South 128th St. as required by the
adopted Highline Plan (page 35) (e).
3. A bond, the amount to be determined at the time of the plat plan
submittal to insure the insatllation of the approved landscaping.
4. a plan for the restoration of ground cover in the westerly third
of the subject property and, where feasible, on the cut slopes of the south and
west boundaries of the applicant's ownership.
ORDERED THIS 10th day of August 1978 signed by Robert A Eveleigh,
Deputy Zoning and Subdivision Examiner.
It was our understanding that Employees cars were to utilize this lot, in the
original King County application, trucks were specifically ruled out. This has
also not been lived up to.
Therefore we question whether valid King County permitts were approved. Also
It was our understanding that noncompliance businesses in KC would not be allowed
to enlarge their opperations and we contend that this parking lot request is a
way to enlarge the trucking operation without physically enlarging the structures.
Thank you for your attention to our concern.
Paul & Bet Gul y
1301 - 42nd A e So, Tukwila WA 98168
1 n
u.4 -� v
To the Members of the Tukwila Planning Commision/
Board of Architectural Review
re: 89- 1O- DR/89 -3-CUP: Becker Transfer
According to the zoning files' King County, Mr. Becker had
the opportunity to upgrade, pave and landscape, the property on
the SW corner of E. Marginal Way and S. 128th St. to use as an
employee parking lot in 1978, similar to what he is asking now 11
years later. Why has the community lived with an unpaved, muddy
lot for the last 11 years?
The significant difference between the site plan before you
and what King County would have allowed is the parking space for
trucks. The neighborhood has never wanted trucks parked there
and have reported them as being out of compliance over the year's
to King County and to Tukwila since the annexation.
In 1978, BALL? for King County was considering the SW corner
for parking trucks for Becker Transfer Company: and a year later
they were considering a zoning change. This time to expand the
business on the NW corner. Why are the two properties being
separated? I understand that since Mr. Becker has only asked for
a conditional use permit for the SW corner that we are only to
comment on the parking without addressing his business, the truck
terminal on the NW corner. We feel that the parking may
represent a change in the status of his business;'without a fair
public hearing, by not including the NW corner of East Marginal
Way where his terminal is located.
Locating a truck terminal in an area still residential is a
touchy business. This site plan shows an unlit area screened
from the view of residents across the street and next door.
Without lockable gates and fencing it could present a security
problem for neighbors, particularly after hours, since access
would not be limited.
We would also have to question the impact of this parking
lot on future business as the rest of the block is zoned for
community retail business. If more truck traffic were generated?
In the past and in recent weeks 128th Street has been
subject to water over the road and the sidewalk' due to heavy
rains. Adequate measures must be taken to control run -off which
may be coming from both the NW and 5W corners.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We stress that
the parking of trucks had been disallowed on the SW corner with
King County and we oppose truck parking being included now.
Janice Scheffler
4OC3 S. 128 St. ukwila
�-
,BA [.Q - 75' —
A- ,HALO FILE r 2-V -79 - k'
+ Ph -c or 14 C- &
12/13/89
errttchti Es'
City of Tukwila
*ILA �,
G � 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
▪ Tukwila Washington 98188
• (206) 433 -1800
• Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
• 1906
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Planning
Commission and Board of Architectural Review will conduct a
public hearing on November 16, 1989, at 8:00 P.M. in the
City Council Chambers at Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, to consider the following:
Planning Commission and
Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing
1. Case Number and Name: Becker Transfer Company
89 -3 -CUP
89 -10 -DR
Applicant: Pac -Tech Engineering, Inca
Request: Approval of design review
application and Conditional Use
Permit for the Development of an
improved parking facility for
employees and semi -truck trailers
Location: Southwest corner of South 128th St.
and East Marginal Way
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by
written statement or by appearing at the public hearing.
Information on the above cases may be obtained at the
Tukwila Planning Department. The City encourages you to
notify your neighbors and other persons you believe would be
affected by the above items.
Published: Valley Daily News - November 26, 1989
December 3, 1989
Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property /Owners /Applicants,
Adjacent Property Owners, File. Members of
Riverton Task Force.
ut u r
6 .. Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433-1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
STAFF REPORT
TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
AND
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared November 10, 1989
HEARING DATE: November 16, 1989
FILE NUMBERS: 89 -3 CU: Becker Transfer
89- 10 -DR:
APPLICANT: Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc.
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE
1.5 Acres
Design Review /Conditional Use Permit to build a parking
facility for employee and semi - truck trailer parking.
Southwest corner of South 128th St. and East Marginal
Way
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT: C -M Industrial Park
SEPA
DETERMINATION: A determination of non - significance was issued
November 3, 1989.
ATTACHMENTS: A. Site /Landscape Plan
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT A
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
GENERAL BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
1
1. Project Description: Development of paved surface parking facility for
employee use and for storage of semi -truck trailers.
2. Existing Development: Area is currently utilized as an undeveloped parking
facility consisting of a gravel /dirt surface. Frontage along East Marginal is
currently landscaped.
3. Surrounding Land Uses:
West - Single family residences
North - Becker Transfer offices and operations center
East - Businesses and Single family residences
South - Single family residences
4. Terrain: The site gently rises from north to south at a slope not exceeding 2%.
The site is located in an area recently annexed to the City of Tukwila. According to
King Co. records, the site has historically been used as an undeveloped parking
facility for Becker Transfer Trucking Company. After the recent annexation, the City
was requested to investigate whether the use of the site was in compliance with the
zoning code.
It was determined that the use required a Conditional Use Permit according to TMC
18.38.040(2) and the site improvements would require Design Review since they
involve an upgrade of non - conforming landscape areas.
The staff report is divided into two sections: 1) Design Review and 2) Conditional
Use Permit.
to the B.A.R.
Page 3
DISCUSSION
I DESIGN REVIEW
1
FINDINGS
1
This project is required to process through the Board of Architectural review
because it is a development within 300 feet of residential districts and it involves an
upgrade of non - conforming landscape areas (TMC 18.60.030).
The Design Review guidelines are printed in bold followed by pertinent findings of
fact.
18.60.050; GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA
1. Relationship of Structure to Site
a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with
streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian
movements.
b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to
moderate the visual impact of large paved areas.
c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to
the site.
Applicant has provided enhancement of existing landscape buffer through the
addition of a 15 foot wide landscape buffer and by increasing the density and layering
of plant materials. There will be a tree, shrub and ground cover level for each
landscaped area which will provide screening at three levels.
South 128th Street will be improved with a sidewalk on the south side of the street
that will connect with an existing sidewalk on East Marginal Way.
The interior of the lot consists of an asphalt area of approximately 44,850 sq. ft. (74%
of site) which will be used for parking. It is unbroken by landscape islands. The
amount of paved area as presented in the plan will be smaller in size than the
present cleared area of the site as a result of the applicants compliance with
landscape requirements.
2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged.
b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be
provided.
c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established
neighborhood character.
to the B.A.R.
(j
Page 4
d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading
facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be
encouraged.
Since there are no buildings, a. and c. do not apply in this instance. Applicant has
provided a dense evergreen screening along property lines which are adjacent to
single family residences. Based on the disparity of uses involved, the amount and
type of landscape materials indicated will be appropriate for the site.
The applicant has shown on the plan two vehicle access points to the lot on S. 128th
St. and one point off East Marginal Way. Applicant stated that the East Marginal
Way entrance is necessary for enhancement of egress /ingress requirements of
trucks.
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment
a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a
development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced.
h Grades of walks, parlcing spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should
promote safety and provide an inviting, stable appearance. •
c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen
vistas and important axis, and provide shade.
d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or
motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken.
e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in
paved areas is encouraged.
f. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly,
should be accomplished by the use of walls, fencing, planting, or
combination.
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.
h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the
adjoining landscape. Lighting standards 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.
The applicants proposal has provided a plan which will provide a dense screening
of the asphalt paved area from adjacent single family lots. The side adjacent to East
Marginal Way will be enhanced with additional landscape materials. There is no
lighting proposed for the parking lot which will eliminate potential impact on
adjacent properties.
4. Building Design
No buildings are proposed.
to ttne U.A.K.
5. Miscellaneous Structures
No structures are proposed.
Page 5
CONCLUSIONS
1
The conclusions are grouped under the applicable design review guidelines.
1. Relationship of Structure to Site
The impact of a large paved area has a similar visual effect on neighboring
properties as a structure. The primary concern is to develop a visual
congruence between the proposed development and adjacent uses. The
applicants proposal includes substantial amounts of landscape buffering on all
sides of the lot as a means of mitigating the visual impact of the proposed
development and use.
The proposed entry point located on East Marginal Way is within 25 feet of a
single family residence on the adjacent lot. Staff concludes that the noise from
the truck engines as they are accelerating into traffic will provide an
unacceptable level of noise for the occupants of the residence therefore we are
recommending that the entry point off East Marginal Way be disallowed.
Condition A addresses this point.
The southeast corner of the site where the entry point is currently shown on
the plan should be landscaped in accordance with adjacent landscape areas.
2. Relationship of Structure to Site
The applicants intent is to screen rather than integrate this proposal with
neighboring properties and the proposed buffering will adequately fulfill this
intent.
3. Landscaping and Site Treatment
Applicant has proposed a plant palette which is primarily evergreen. The
initial planting size and spacing is intended to provide significant screening
from the initial planting and dense screening within 3 years. Based on the
density of the screening that will be provided staff does not feel it is necessary
in this case to break up the interior asphalt parking surface with landscape
islands.
r
The proposal does not include the placement of wheel stops for parking spaces
adjacent to landscape areas. Staff feels that applicant should include wheel stops
to prevent damage to landscape materials. As a result, Condition B has been
recommended.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1
The Planning staff recommends approval of the Design Review application subject
to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall submit for review a
revised site plan indicating the following:
a. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
b. Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas.
•
Page 6
II CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Page 7
1
FINDINGS
1
INTRODUCTION
TMC 18.38.040 requires truck trailer storage facility uses to obtain a Conditional Use
permit in the C -M zone. The request must process through the public review
process and obtain approval of the City Council.
This staff report differs from previous ones because it is a combined review for a
conditional use permit and design review. The two reviews involve many
common issues and the result is that most of the staff discussion is found in the
design review section.
DECISION CRITERIA
The following criteria in bold are from Section 18.64.050 of the TMC and shall be
used by the Planning Commission in granting a Conditional Use Permit.
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use
or in the district in which the property is situated.
Applicant states that "operations on the site will occur primarily during
normal business hours. The site will be heavily screened by landscaping on
boundaries abutting residential areas. The site is adjacent to East Marginal Way
which serves industrial traffic. No lighting is proposed. These features will
mitigate potential detriment to surrounding property."
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are
required in the district it will occupy.
Applicant states that" the site has provided 15 to 22.5 feet of landscaping as
required by the Tukwila Municipal Code. Trees will be planted an initial 6 feet,
1 foot over the minimum of five feet. Screening trees will be planted 4 ft. on
center which will provide a total site obscuring buffer."
C. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding
land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
Applicant states that "No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be
compatible with the existing industrial uses in the area and will use the same
arterial for ingress and egress."
STAFF REPORT
to the B.A.R.
8/40 -DR: Becker Transfer
Page 8
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the
comprehensive land use policy plan.
Applicant states that "Comprehensive planning efforts as part of the
annexation designated this site for commercial /manufacturing uses. The site
will propose a low intensity use that is well buffered to provide compatibility
and consistency with land use policies."
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which
the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
Applicant states that "screening of the site will mitigate potential aesthetic impacts.
The site will have a relatively low traffic generation which will use East Marginal
Way for access. Storm draining will be provided to handle storm water from the
parking area. There will be no on -site lighting."
CONCLUSIONS
1
1. The proposed development of the site will not change or intensify the current
use.
2. The proposed landscape /screening as previously discussed in the design review
process will improve the quality of the development and will mitigate any
negative visual impact on neighboring properties.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use
Permit application.
WAC 197 -11 -970
Proponent PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
Address
Date f ez 1
FM.DNS
Seattle, WA. 98188
128th St. and East Marginal Way.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director
C
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal Development of an improved parking facility for employee
parking and semi -truck trailers.
Jeffrey D. Mann 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Southwest corner of South
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC
24 -89
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS
This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, T wii
�tc.c..f `/ Signature
Phone 433 -1846
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL :. Parking Lot for employees and truck trailer
parking.
2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s),
block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access
street, and nearest intersection)
S.W. corner of the intersection of S. 128th Street and East Marginal Way.
Quarter: NW Section: 15 Township: 29 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT :* Name: PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
Signature:
OWNER
Address : 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98188
Phone: (206) 243 -7112
Date:
* The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding
the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent,
unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. I, Ip1) 1
•
4. PROPERTY Name:
Edwin Becker
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
1
OCT 2'7 1989
tv
Address: 16R2R S . 7Rth, RP11 Pv11P, WA 98008
Phone: (206) 746 -1998
I /WE,Esignature(s)] ( .
swear that I /we are t e owner(s r con ract purchaser(s) of the
property involved in this appli tion and that the foregoing
statements and answers contained in this application are true and
correct to the best of my /our
knowledge and belief. Date: A, ,c- 1R, 19R9
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Employee Parking, truck trailer parking (unimproved
lot)
6. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020): (15)
Conditional uses ; .listed in the specified use district
7. ADJACENT LAND USES:
Yes
NORTH: Becker Transfer Company — truck terminal
SOUTH: Residential single familyyhome
EAST: Vacant property
WEST:
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
Page 2
8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale /retail /warehouse functions, outside storage of
goods or equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding
of the activities you proposed to develop on this site):
Provide employee parking for Becker Transfer employees. Provide parking for
truck trailers.
9. Will the conditional use be in operation and /or a building to house the use
be started within a year of issuance of the permit?
10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a
Conditional Use Permit will satisfy each of the following criteria
as specified in TMC 18.64 030 (attach additional sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity
of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property
is situated.
RESPONSE: Operations on the site will primarily occur during normal business
hours. The site will be heavily sreened by landscaping on boundaries
abutting residential areas. The site is adjacent to East Marginal Way
which serves industrialctraffic. No lighting is proposed. These features
will mitigate potential detriment to surrounding property.
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
Page 3
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that
are required in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE: The site has provided 15 to 22.5 feet of landscaping as required
by the Tukwila Municipal Code. Trees will be planted at an initial 6
feet, 1 foot over the minimum of five feet. Screening trees will be
planted4' on center which will provide a total site obscurring buffer.
C. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the sur-
rounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation,
building and site design.
RESPONSE: No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be compatible
with the existing industrial uses in the area and will use the same
arterials for ingress and egress.
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
RESPONSE: Comprehensive planning efforts as part of the annexation designated
this site for Commercial /Manufacturing uses. The site will propose a low
intensity use that is well buffered to provide compatibility and
consistancy with land use policies.
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts
which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located.
RESPONSE: Screening of the site will mitigate potential aesthetic impacts.
The site will have a reletively low traffic generation which will use
East Marginal Way for access. Storm draining will be provided to handle
storm water from the parking area, There will be no on -site lighting.
to prevent light and glare.
(29 /COND.APP1,2)
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose
of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal. (and to
reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is
required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe sane basic information about your proposal. Governmental
agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant,
requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give
the best description you can.
You roust answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should
be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If
you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does
not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Sane questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time
or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its
environmental effects. `I91e agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide
additional information reasonably related to determine if there may be significant adverse impact.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project., if applicable:
Becker Transfer Parking Lot
2. Name of applicant:
PAC -TECH Engineering
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Contact Person: Jeffrey D. Mann
PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Seattle, WA 98188
Phone No. (206) 243 -7112
4. Date checklist. prepared:
September. 4, 1989
5. Agency requesting checklist:
City of Tukwila
Environmental Checklist
1
1. Earth
6. Proposed tuning or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Spring 1990
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain.
No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related
to this proposal.
None to our knowledge
9. Do you brow whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting
the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Design Review and Conditional Use Permits, Engineering Plans.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and
site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your
proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include
additional specific information on project description).
Conditional Use Permit for employee and truck trailer parking.
12. I.,ocation of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your
proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s) . Provide a legal description, site
plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
to this checklist.
Southwest corner of East Marginal Way and 128th Street.
TO BE CORPLE ED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL EIFI Efl'S
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
Gently rising site from north to south.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
2% slopes
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
The site is urban land with gravelly sandy lames which
have not been used for agriculture purposes.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
No
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any:
A temporary erosion control measures will be
implemented as part of construction in order to
prevent off -site erosion and also control dust and mud
on adjacent streets.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
This site will be graded in order to prepare a surface
for paving. The general topography of the site will
remain intact in order to provide for drainage which
will take surface waters to a drainage facilities in
South 128th.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
Yes, however minimal. Temporary erosion control plans
will be implemented as part of construction as
required by the City.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
73%
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,
dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities
if .mown.
Emissions from construction equipment during grading
and paving of site. Emissions from asphalt concrete
mix during paving operations. Long term emissions
from the site will result from employee vehicles
entering and exiting the site. Emissions from trucks
moving trailer onto the site will also occur.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any:
None proposed
3
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it. flows into.
There are no surface water bodies located immediately
on or adjacent to the subject site. The Duwammish
River is located approximately one quarter mile to
the northeast of the site.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)
the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location
on the site plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
Oils and greases from pavement surfaces resulting from
vehicular use of the site will be washed away and
surface waters during periods of rain. Storm water
from the site will be controlled and contained and
conducted to City of Tukwila storm drainage
facilities.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater?
Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the grotmd from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chenticals...agricultural; etc.). Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served
(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected
to serve.
No
4
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this
water. flow? Will. this water flow into other water? If so, describe.
Runoff will occur as a result of rain water collecting
on the paved parking lot surface. Catch basins will
be utilized to collect storm water which will be piped
to a retention pond on the northerly boundary of the
site which will meter and control off-site volumes
which will be collected in the City of Tukwila storm
drainage system and eventually conduct it to the
Duwammish River.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.
See 31 6
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
See item 3C 1.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, mi.lfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Existing vegetation in areas which are proposed for
paving will be cleared and vegetation removed.
Existing Douglas Firs and deciduous trees located
around the perimeter of the site will be retained and
enhanced by landscaping as shown on the site plan.
Approximately three existing trees will be removed
from areas which are proposed for paving.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Preservation of existing Douglas Fir and deciduous
trees along the perimeter of the site and enhancement
of the vegetative buffer by the placement of Douglas
Fir and other shrubs and ground cover in order to
enhance the landscaping and vegetation on the site.
5
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
Small field mammals
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None proposed
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be
used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Fossil fuels will be utilized by vehicles during
construction and also by employee vehicles and trucks
bringing trailers to the parking lot.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
None proposed
7. Envirorunmtal Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
No
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
None proposed
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Any noise from East Marginal Way or existing transfer
operations to the north would not affect the operation
of this parking lot.
6
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would cane from the site.
Short term: Noise from construction vehicles during
grading and paving operations.
Long term: Noise from employee vehicles and from
trucks bringing trailers onto the site for
parking.
Noise would occur between 7:OOam and 10:OOpm Monday
thru Saturday.
c
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Proposed landscape buffer will provide some noise
mitigation. Restriction of on —site traffic from
between 6:OOam to 10:00pm.
8. land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is presently undeveloped with some employee
parking occurring in the northeast corner of the site.
Some trailers are located on the site and some storage
of miscellaneous equipment. The north is existing
Becker Transfer offices and operations center. To the
south are single family homes. To the west are single
family homes, and to the east are existing businesses
and single family homes in the CM zone.
h. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
No structures proposed.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Not applicable
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
CM
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Commercial
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
Does not apply
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
None
7
9. Housing
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None proposed
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
The development of the site will include the
maintenance of existing trees and the addition of
supplemental landscaping in order to provide a
significant landscape buffer for screening between the
proposed parking lot and single family areas to the
west and south. Access is to South 128th and East
Marginal Way. Traffic from the site will enter and
exit from East Marginal Way in order to reduce impacts
on residential areas to the west. The site will not
include active loading or unloading in order to reduce
the amount of activity and potential noise on the site
and it's impact on surrounding areas.
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low - income housing.
None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None proposed
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No structures are included as part of the project.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None to our knowledge.
c. Proposed measures to reduce to control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Proposed landscaping as described in the land use
section.
8
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
Light and glare impacts may occur from vehicles
utilizing the site during earlier morning and late
evening hours and from security lighting on the site.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
The proposed landscaping the light and glare impacts
should be mitigated and have minimal impact on
surrounding properties.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Proposed landscaping should mitigate any potential
light and glare impacts on surrounding properties.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
Southgate Park located at South 1344th Street and 40th
Avenue. Rainier Golf and Country Club located to the
northwest at Glendale Way South and Des Moines Way
South.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None proposed
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state,
or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None proposed
9
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street. system. Show on site plans, if any.
Access to the site would be provided from South 128th
Street and East Marginal Way. See site plan.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes, East Marginal Way at South 130th Street.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
48 employee parking, 17 trailer space parking spots.
None would be eliminated.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
No
e. Will the project use (or occur in the 'mediate vicinity of) water, rail, or
air transportation? If so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the cunpleted project?
If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Approximately 70 -80 vehicle trips per day.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Restriction of access to South 128th to reduce
Potential impacts on East Marginal Way. Access path
will be restricted to East Marginal Way and 128th.
Traffic by employees or trucks will not go westbound
on 128th into residential areas.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if
any.
None proposed
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
The site will require electrical and storm drainage
service.
10
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility
providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Electrical service will be provided by Seattle City
Light to provide electricity for on -site security
lighting. Surface water will be collected on -site and
conducted to City of Tukwila Storm Drainage facilities
by way of a on -site control /retention facility.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
11
Becker Transfer - Trip Generation
The proposed parking lot site is presently used for parking employee
vehicles, truck trailers and some miscellaneous equipment. The Cond-
tional Use permit proposes the improvement of the parking lot to in-
clude pavement, landscaping, storm drainage, and striping for the
parking layout. The site presently has access from South 128th Street.
Presently 15 to 20 employee cars are parked on the site, Four to five
times a day trailers are either removed or returned to the site. The
current trip generation would be approximately 20 to 25 trips per day.
Employees would most likely arrive or depart during the a.m. or p.m.
peak hours, The trailer movements would occur sporadically throughout
the day. It is estimated that approximately 50% of the traffic from the
site would go northbound on East Marginal Way to 1 -5 while the remainder
would go southbound to I -405 and I -5 freeway access.
Full use of the site with 17 trailer spaces and 43 employee parking
spaces would increase total trips from the site to approximately
56 total daily trips, This assumes 44 trips form the employee parking
and 12 from the trailer spaces based on 75% of the trailers being moved
in any one day. This would be an increase of 21 to 25 trips over exist-
ing use. Peak hour trips would be approximately 44 trips with 22 trips
going northbound and 22 trips going southbound on East Marginal Way.
The site as relatively low trip generation because it does not have the
truck traffic associated with the truck terminal to the north,
+
becker transfer parking lot site plan
vicinity map
pactech
BECKER TRUCKING
89.3 -CUP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE COUNCIL, CITY OF TUKWILA
IN RE: )
Appeal of the Planning )
Commission's decision to ) Case No.L93 -0058
approve a Conditional Use ) •
Permit to Becker Trucking ) Appellants's Memorandum
In Support of notice Of
Appeal
by ) RECEIVED
Jackie L. Dempere, et al, ) 'FEB 2 81994 ,
Appellants )
DEVELOPMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila has
granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the Becker
Trucking Company. This CUP will allow Becker Trucking
to pave an one and a half acre lot which exhibits
sensitive features e.g., steep slope, surface water,
and wetland vegetation. This action will allow Becker
Tucking to expand its scope of operations above present
levels, generating 70 -80 vehicle trips per day Sea
exhibit # 11 Environmental Checklist page 11, g. This
is a very conservative figure, examination of the truck
dispatches for the existing site, and the interim site
Becker Trucking has leased at 131st and 44th Ave will
confirm this claim.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 1
EXHIBIT - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In a primarily residential neighborhood, activity
of this type and volume would be an obvious detriment
to the quality of life and to the environment.
Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) a
threshold determination is required for all non - exempt
actions. Accordingly, the applicant (PAC -TECH
Engineering, Inc.) completed an environmental checklist
in support of its first application for a CUP in 1989.
Subsequently, the responsible official (Rick Beeler)
issued a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for
the subject proposal dated November 3, 1989, there was
not a comment period for this DNS. See exhibit # 5,
Determination of Nonsignificant. The CUP was
authorized, and after an appeal by many residents to
the Tukwila City Council, the CUP was permitted with
several key conditions. This first CUP expired because
conditions were not met.
Becker Trucking applied for a zad CUP in August of
1993. The Planning Commission, relying on the DNS
issued in 1989, authorized the 2nd CUP- the subject of
this appeal. See exhibit # 8
II. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
A. New Information
Either through misrepresentation or
because of simple ignorance the applicant
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
failed to disclose that the project area
contains Environmentally Sensitive Areas as
defined in the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
Chapter 21.04.300. Tukwila has yet to map
wetlands in this newly annexed area, but this
omission does not, absolve the applicant of
his duty to address the sensitive nature of
the proposed project site:
(c)Certain exemptions do not apply on
lands covered by water, and this remains
true regardless of whether or not lands
covered by water are mapped.(emphasis
added)
TMC21.04.300(c)
The residential character of the neighborhood has
also ben severely understated. These omissions and
misrepresentations render the Environmental Checklist
void and unreliable and requires the lead agency (City
of Tukwila) to withdraw the DNS issued in 1989:
The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if:
(ii) There is significant new
information indicating, or on, a
proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts; or (iii) The DNS
was procured by misrepresentation or
lack of material disclosure
WAC197 -11 -340 (30)(a)
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WAC 197-11-600(3) (b) (ii) reinforces this concept
by requiring the preparation of a new threshold
determination if there is, "New information indicating
a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental
impacts ". Obviously, grading, filling, and paving a
wetland is far different than doing the same to a
"vacant lot ".
Other new information includes recently enacted
federal law designed to protect waterways. Increased
knowledge of the need to preserve and restore life in
wetland and waterway habitats have prompted the Feds,
to require a permit to discharge water into the river
(the Duwamish is less than a quarter mile distant).
The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit that Becker obtained in 1992, requires.
minimum cleaning of the water before any run -off leaves
the lot This laws are not even enough to protect our
Duwamish, is up to Tukwila and other cities to act now.
The 1989 DNS does not (could not) reference this
information and the current CUP fails to address these
issues in its conditions. A new threshold determination
must be made utilizing current information. See
exhibit # 11.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
New OSHA rules that require lighted workplaces and
backing safety features for loading equipment make
mitigation impossible in a residential neighborhood.
No light was permitted on the 1990 CUP.
We are also uninformed regarding the type of cargo
these trucks are carrying and storing on next to our
homes, another new federal regulation
Tukwila Tomorrow recommendation zoning for this
site is neighborhood commercial a use that allows fair
use and protects the quality of life of its residents.
This area is another Gateway to Tukwila and worthy
of the same attention.
Conditions which cannot be monitored properly
because of changes in enforcement responsibilities of
previous noise and other Tukwila's Ordinances for
budgetary reasons.
B. Public Notice
A major goal of SEPA is to, "encourage public
involvement in decisions that significantly affect
environmental quality" (WAC 197- 11- 030(2)(F). But
before the public can become involved in the decision -
making process, it must be aware that a decision is
being contemplated.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 5
SEPA requires the lead agency to utilize
"reasonable methods" to inform the public of proposed
actions that may affect it. There are 70 signatures on
file on the original CUP, the administration chooses to
ignore this persons of "interest" claiming it is a (new
permit) clean slate! See exhibit # 6.
A lynch -pin of SEPA is liberal construction -
complying with both the letter and the spirit of the
law is required. There are residents living within 200
feet of the project area who are still unaware of
Becker Trucking's expansion plans. These "most
affected citizens" should have been notified directly
by mail of Becker's proposal at the earliest possible
time to allow them time to prepare reasoned, informed
comments. Apparently, the only method used to inform.
the public was publication of a notice in local
newspapers and The Hazelnut. Obviously, this was not a
"reasonable method" as evidenced by the lack of public
knowledge concerning the subject CUP. Original
signatories on the earlier expired CUP should also have
been directly notified.
TMC 18.92.020 requirements for this
new CUP is written notification to every
resident and owner within 300 feet of
the periphery of a Conditional &
Unclassified Use Permit, ten days before
each and every public hearing. This
requirement was not met.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Posted announcements required by law (when
complied with) have been nullified by a large "For
Sale" sign on the project site for the last several
years. Sale sign size a 30/1 compared to posted public
notice.
It is understandably difficult for the council to make
an appropriate decision with inadequate information.
The quality of a decision depends on getting a full
story. Planning commission minutes must reflect fully
& accurately what was presented. Who makes the
decision about what the council will know about
citizens comments during the only unlimited Public
Hearing? See exhibit # 10
Minutes of the planning commission minutes were
provided late beyond reasonable time to main appellant.
Providing minutes within a reasonable time to
appellants is a reasonable expectation which has not
been met. See exhibit # 12. Letter from appellant "no
mentioning name applicant" to the council.
III. GROUNDS FOR REVOKING CUP
A. TMC 18.64.050 sets forth the criteria to be
used by the Planning Commission in granting a CUP.
criterion (1) states in full:
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The proposed use will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity of the
proposed use or in the district in which
the subject property is situated.
Becker Trucking's proposed use is totally contrary to
this criterion:
* Increased traffic and air pollution will escalate
the health hazards in an already non - attainment area
for air pollutants.
* Gross vehicle weight is limited to 5 tons in the
subject neighborhood. Many of Becker's trucks have a
gross weight of 40 tons and have caused considerable
wear and damage to city roads and bridges.
* Recommended zoning for this area is neighborhood
commercial. Expansion of heavy trucking not only poses
a safety hazard but also significantly degrade the
quality of life of area residents as well as reducing
residential property values. The hours of operation of
7 days a week from 6 to 10 p.m. are not compatible with
a residential neighborhood. See exhibit #2.
The legislature recognizes that each
person has a fundamental and inalienable
right to a healthful environment and
that each person has a responsibility to
contribute to the preservation of the
environment. [1971 ex.s. c 109 2.]
Title 43 RCW: 43.21C.029
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. The CUP was approved beyond what was described
and requested in the application: See exhibit #10
* Trailer parking has increased from 17 to 50.
* The Becker Transfer Traffic Study (page 5) or see
exhibit #5 specifically rules out the possibility of
providing access to the site via E. Marginal Way South
to safety concerns. Incredibly, the CUP was approved
WITH AN E. MARGINAL WAY ENTRANCE. See exhibit # 9
* The CUP requires Becker to limit its operations to
the hours of 6 am to 10 PM. However, Becker Trucking
has a long history of operating well into the early
morning and continues to do so despite complaints by
neighbors. Normal residential permitted noise hours
are already different for this site. See exhibit # 3.
* The lightning requested for the site together with'
equipment noise that were prohibited but now change
will give a factory environment to the area and
disturbed peaceful and undisturbed sleep on a
residential neighborhood. See exhibit# 7
* Tukwila's Tree Ordinance and buffer required for
surrounding zoning and uses. Existing trees will die
by the addition of proposed burn around 4' of their
trunks. Trees are not mature to be a buffer for
several years, are citizens going to be the buffers?
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -9
* Original zoning request for the site to King
county in talks about 512 trees planted on the existing
site either they died or were never planted. See
exhibit # 4, pg.4, dated October, 1978.
SAFETY
* Ten feet fencing has been reduced to 6' with a 4'
birth (supposedly landscaped,) will created mud on
sidewalks, kill existing trees and became an eyesore
and unsafe place to walk by at night
* Attractive nuisance. Children are attracted to
equipment on the site and to the short -cut created by
the opening into East Marginal Way, while on their way
to and from School or other neighborly activities. The
city of Tukwila does not have a safe route for children
coming from the Schools from 42th Ave. S. in their way
home or to the Community Center, as well as regular
pedestrians.
* The width of East Marginal Way South combined with
the over size trucks makes hazard driving conditions
for every driver facing every arrival or departure of
truck from the existing site.
* The failure to protect city property that you are
intrust to by it's Citizens. We have two known
instances of Becker'.s trucks getting stuck on the
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
bridge located on the approved route. To avoid this
trucks are driving over the opposing traffic road space
at this point, creating a major safety hazard for
regular traffic under and over the bridge The speed
on this location is 30 MPH. 5 miles more of what
Becker's Traffic Study considers unsafe stopping
distance for the weight of these trucks. An entrance
into the Community Center's Playground is located at
this point and no safety features are in place!
* The speed, lack of sidewalks, safe crossings and
visibility of the routes from this site are such, that
the question is not if but when a death will occur.
IV. SUMMARY
Heavy trucking, with its attendant noise,
pollution and safety impacts, will never be a
"compatible use" in a residential area. The existing
site will increase its already Unconditional Use.
Allowing Becker to expand its operation and the change
of conditions despite its history as a "violator
amounts to tacit approval to operate around the clock.
Failure to live up to CUP conditions have been
demonstrated twice.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2g
To allow an expansion of such use is not only
unconscionable, but is in violation of state and local
law.
At the minimum more thorough study of the issues
is needed before issuing a CUP that affects so many
people.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
Based on the foregoing, the Appellants hereby
request the following relief:
A. That the subject CUP issued to the Becker
Trucking Company be revoked immediately.
B. That a new threshold determination be required
in conjunction with any future application for a CUP
for the subject.
C. That this aforementioned CUP be the last one
accepted on this kind of use so that residents can have
some stability in their lives and property values.
D. Such other relief as is deemed just and proper.
Dated this 25th day of February, 1994.
Jackie L. Dempere
For the appellants
TICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 12
Title 43 RCW: State Government — Executive
Washington, in cooperation with federal and local govern-
ments, and other concerned public and private organizations,
to use all practicable means and measures, including finan-
cial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to: (a)
Foster and promote the general welfare; (b) to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony; and (c) fulfill the social, economic, and
other requirements of present and future generations of
Washington citizens. •
(2) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this
chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of
Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practica-
ble means, consistent with other essential considerations of
state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions,
programs, and resources to the end that the state and its
citizens may:
(a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as
trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
(b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surround-
ings;
(c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(d) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural
aspects of our national heritage;
(e) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which
supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
(f) Achieve a balance between population and resource
use which will permit high standards of living and a wide
sharing of life's amenities; and
(g) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and
approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable
resources.
(3) The legislature recognizes that each person has a
fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment
and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the
preservation and enhancement of the environment. [ 1971
ex.s. c 109 § 2.]
43.21C.030 Guidelines for state agencies, local
governments— Statements — Reports— Advice-
Information. The legislature authorizes and directs that, to
the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regulations, and
laws of the state of Washington shall be interpreted and
administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this
chapter, and (2) all branches of government of this state,
including state agencies, municipal and public corporations,
and counties shall:
(a) Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and
in decision making which may have an impact on man's
environment;
(b) Identify and develop methods and 'procedures, in
consultation with the department of ecology and the ecologi-
cal commission, which will insure that presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate
consideration in decision making along with economic and
technical considerations;
11992 t d.)
43.21C. i
(c) Include in every recommendation or report
proposals for legislation and other major actions significar
affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statem
by the responsible official on:
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action:
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;
(iv) the relationship between local short -term uses
man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement
long -term productivity; and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments
resources which would be involved in the proposed acti
should it be implemented;
(d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the respon
ble official shall consult with and obtain the comments
any public agency which has jurisdiction by law or spec
expertise with respect to any environmental impact involve.
Copies of such statement and the comments and views of :
appropriate federal, province, state, and local agencies, wh:
are authorized to develop and enforce environmental sta
dards, shall 'be made available to the governor, the depa:
ment of ecology, the ecological commission, and the pubi
and shall accompany the proposal through the existi:
agency review processes;
(e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternati'.
to recommended courses of action in any proposal wh:.
involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses
available resources;
(f) Recognize the world -wide and long -range charac:
of environmental problems and, where consistent with siz
policy, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolution
and programs designed to maximize international cooperati;
in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality
mankind's world environment;
(g) Make available to the federal government, oth.-
states, provinces of Canada, municipalities, institutions, ar
individuals, advice and information useful in restorin_
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environme:-.
(h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in ti-
planning and development of natural resource - oriente
projects. [ 1971 ex.s. c 109 § 3.]
43.21C.031 Significant impacts. An environment:.
impact statement (the detailed statement required by RC':
43.2IC.030(2)(c)) shall be prepared on proposals for legisi�
tion and other major actions having a probable significant:
adverse environmental impact. Actions categorically exern
under RCW 43.21C.1 10(1)(a) do not require environment:.
review or the preparation of an environmental impac
statement under this chapter.
An environmental impact statement is required tt_
analyze only those probable adverse environmental impact:
which are significant. Beneficial environmental impacts ma'
be discussed. The responsible official shall consult wit -
agencies and the public to identify such impacts and limi:
the scope of an environmental impact statement. The
subjects listed in RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) need not be treare:
as separate sections of an environmental impact statement.
Discussions of significant short-term and long -term environ-
mental impacts, significant irrevocable commitments o:
[Title 43 RCW —page 12!
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE.
(33) "Watercraft ";-means any contrivance,
,xcluding aircraft, used or .capable of being used as a
.neans of transportation or. recreation. on water. '
(34) "Weekday ". means. any day Monday
utrough Friday which i;: not: a legal holiday.
(35) "Weekend" means Saturday and Sunday
or any legal holiday. • • - -
(Ord 1363 51(part), 19857
8.22.030 Environmental sound levels — Unlawful sounds.
It is unlawful for any person to cause sound, or for
any person in possession of property to permit sound
originating from such property, to intrude into the real
property of another . person whenever such sound
exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels
established by this chapter.
(Ord 1363 §1(part), 1985)
8.22.040 Maxirxan permissibfe sound levels.
For sound sources located within the City, the
maximum permissible sound levels are as follows:
District of
Sound Source
Residential
Commercial
Industrial.
District of
Receiving Property Within the City
55 dB(A) •57 dB(A) 60 dB(A)
57 dB(A). ._ 60 dB(A) 65 dB(A)
60-d5W.tt nt65,dB(A) --70 dB(A)
(Ord 1363 51(pari, . 1985) ,
R 22.050 Modifications to maximum permissible sound .
• '•.tr r "l:" i.L.•
The maximum permissible sound levels
established by this l chapter:: : shall be. reduced or
increased by the sum of the following:
(a) Between the hours :of: ten .p.m. and seven a.m.
during weekdays, and between the hours of ten -p.m.
and seven a.m. on- weekends, the levels established .
by Section 8.22.040 . are:seduced by 10 dB(A) where =::
the receiving property lies _within a residential district
of the City y ' `�� a� ,_ ;a --• rY
(b) For any source of sound which is periodic,
which has a pure tone component, or which is
impulsive and is not measured with an impulse sound
level meter, the levels established by this chapter shall
be reduced by 5 dB(A); provided, however, that this 5
dB(A) penalty for the emission of sound having a pure
tone component shall not be imposed on any electrical
substation, whether existing or new.
(c) For any source of sound which is of short
duration, the Levels established by this chapter are
increased by:
(1) 5 dB(A) for a total of fifteen minutes in any
-Tie -hour period; or
(2) 10 dB(A) for a total of five minutes in any
.one -hour period; or
(3) 15 dB(A) for a total of 1.5 minutes in any
u.ie•hqur period.
1 (Ord 1363 51(part), 1985)
Page 8-14
•
8.22.060 Motor vehicle sound levels — Created by
It Is unlawful ' for any person to operate upon any
public= highway any motor vehicle or any combination
of motor vehicles' under any conditions of grade, load,
acceleration or deceleration in such manner as to
exceed the following maximum permissible sound
levels for the category of vehicle, as measured at a
distance of fifty feet from the center of the lane of travel
within the speed limits specified by measurement
procedures established by the State Commission on
Equipment in WAC 204 -56:
Vehicle Category or less 35 mph
Motor vehicles over 10,000
pounds GVWR or GCWR 86 dB(A) 90 dB(A)
Motorcycles 80 dB(A) 84 dB(A)
All other motor vehicles 76 dB(A) 80 dB(A)
(Ord 1363 §1(part7, 19857
8.22.070 Muffler requirements.
It Is unlawful for any person to operate, or for any
owner to permit any person to operate, any motor
vehicle upon' the' public highways which is not
equipped with a muffler in good working order and in
constant operation.
�,, :.. (Ord 1363 " 51(para 19857
35 mph Over
8.22.080 Modification of motor vehicles.
It fs unlawful for any person to operate a vehicle
which has been modified 'or' changed in any way or
had installed any device thereon in y manner that
permits sound -to- be emitted by the rotor vehicle in
excess of the limits prescribed by this chapter. It is
unlawful for any person to remove or render
inoperative, or cause to be removed or rendered
inoperative, other than for purposes of maintenance,
repair, or replacement, any muffler or sound
dissipative device. on a motor vehicle :which is
operated on the City's streets. •
(Ord 1363 §1(part), 1985)
8.22.090 Tre noise.
It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor
vehicle in such a manner as to cause or allow to be
emitted squealing, screeching or other such sound
from the tires in contact with the ground because of
rapid acceleration or excessive speed around corners or
other such reason; provided, that sound resulting from
emergency braking to avoid imminent danger shall be
exempt from this section.
(Ord 1363 51(part), 1985)
8.22. 100. Sale of new motor vehicles which eooceed lints.
It is unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale
within the City limits a new motor vehicle, except an
off- highway vehicle, which produces a maximum
sound level exceeding the following maximum
First Edition - Printed August 18, 1993
BILL REAMS, Dist. No. 3
BERNICE STERN, Dist. No. 4
RUBY CHOW, Dist. No. 5
MIKE LOWRY, Dist. No. 6
PAUL BARDEN, Dist. No. 7
BOB GREIVE, Dist. No. 8
DAVE MOONEY. Dist. No. 9
King County Council
Bruce C. Laing, Zor;ing & Subdivision Examiner
Room 403, King County Courthouse
Seattle, Washington 98104
344-3460
October 27, 1978
NOTICE OF ACTION BY THE KING COUNTY
COUNCIL ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
RE: Building and Land Development File No.
Proposed Ordinance No. 78 -568
J. R. CATRON; SR & SR (Potential CG) to M *%
261 -78 -R
On October 23
, 1978 the Council passed
approving the above - referenced application.
On , 19 the Council passed
denying the above - referenced application.
Motion No. 3796
Motion No.
0 On , 19 the Council passed Motion No.
concurring in the recommendations of the Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner on the above- referenced item. The Council will not
take final action on the ordinance until the applicant has
presented to the Building and Land Development Division, Room 450
King County Administration Building, evidence showing satisfaction
of the conditions contained in the Examiner's report, which was
previously transmitted to parties of record. If the conditions have
not been satisfied by , 19 , the Building and
Land Development Division will take action to close the file on the
application.
BCL /jk
Brice C: *Laing L �'
C'
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAP NER
cc: Parties of Record
Building and Land Development Division
he Council concurred with the Examiner's recommendation to approve
Sa P CG - 'for :a portion_ of,the. property,. subject to, conditions, x -_
1\1\//
VI
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
SUBJECT:
Building and Land Development File No. 261 -78 -R
Proposed Ordinance No. 78 -568
J. R. CATRON
S -R and S -R (Potential C -G) to M -L
- Three acres lying on the southwest corner of
• South 128th Street and East Marginal Way
South. :
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's preliminary:
Division's final:
Examiner:
PRELIMINARY REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve CG -P in part, subject to conditions.
Approve CG -P in part, subject to conditions.
Approve CG -P in part, subject to conditions
(modified) .
The Building and Land Development preliminary
report on Item 261 -78 -R was received by the
Examiner on July 20, 1978.
After reviewing the Building and Land Developmen
report, examining available information on file
with the application and visiting the property
and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing on Item 261 -78 -R was opened by the Deputy Examiner at 10:10
A.M., July 27, 1978.
The Examiner explained procedures for the benefit of the participants.
Ms. Powers, Building and Land Development, made the following changes
to their preliminary report:
Page 1, Item D -4, King County Division of Planning: Memo dated
July 5, 1978 making recommendations.
Page 1,. Item D -1, King County Division of Traffic dated July 6,
1978 requesting additional right -of -way.
Page 2, add Item D -15: Washington State Department of Transportation
dated July 10, 1978 indicating no interest.
Page 2, add Item D -16: Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Barnhardt
dated July 21, 1978.
Ms. Powers offered the following exhibits:
Exhibit No. 1 Preliminary report dated July 27, 1978.
If
Exhibit No. 3 - Environmental Checklist dated March 23,31978,.
Exhibit No. 4 - Declaration of Non - significance dated June 16,
1978.
Exhibit No. 5 - Assessor map of the NW; of Section' 15 -23 -4
' showing subject property outlined in red.
Exhibit No. 6 - Land Use Sheet 324 W (to be retained in the
Division's permanent working files).
Exhibit No. 7 - Two sheets of plans;
7 -1: Site plan;
7 -2: Drainage plan.
Exhibit No. 8 - Large copy of the Highline Community Plan Map
(to be retained in the Division's permanent
working files) .
Mr. Marbett, Building and Land Development, made the following
modification to the Division's preliminary report:
Page 4, Item K -1 should read: "The Highline Community Plan Map whic:
was adopted as part of the Highline Community Plan under
Ordinance No. 3530 on December 19, 1977, has the easterly 370'
of the•subject property shown as general commercial•area and
the remainder as single family. The area north of South 126th
Street and east of East Marginal Way is the area proposed
for expansion of the light manufacturing zone."
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Marbett.
Speaking in support were:
J. Ray Catron, applicant
3717 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Edwin J. Becker
Becker Transfer Company
16828 S.E. 28th
Bellevue, Washington 98008
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Becker. Mr. Marbett also
• responded.
Also speaking in support was:
Phil Hemmingway
4036 South 128th Street
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Becker made additional comments.
Speaking in opposition were:
Ruth Burnhardt
3704 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
Beverly Nicholson
`3810 South 130th Street
Seattle, Washington
Ms. Nicholson offered the following exhibit:.
Exhibit No. 9 - Set of 35 letters in opposition.
The hearing on this matter was recessed at 10:53 A.M., and reconvened
' at 11:05 A.M., July 27, 1978.
Also speaking in opposition were:
Mr. Halasz
12633 - 35th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98168
Sharon Burnhardt
3418 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
Ms. Burnhardt offered the following exhibit:
Exhibit No. 10 - Two letters of opposition from Mrs. F. Bernhardt
and Mr. Robert J. Bernhardt respectively.
All proponents and opponents having given their presentation, the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
Building and Land Development's final recommendation was to approve CG -P
in lieu of M -L for the easterly 264 feet of the subject property
subject to conditions as stated in their preliminary report.
The hearing on Item 261 -78 -R was closed by the. Deputy Examiner at 11:38
A.M., July 27, 1978.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in
this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. General Information:
Location: Lying on the southwest corner of South
128th Street and east of Marginal Way South
Existing Zone: S -R and S -R (Potential C -G)
Requested Zone: M -L
S'!'R: 15 -23 -4
Size: 3 acres
Water District: 38
Sewer District: Val Vue
Fire District: #18
School District: #406
under the provisions of R.C.W. 43.21C and W.A.C. 197 -10. The
applicant submitted an environmental ohecklist with.the
application. After reviewing the environmental checklist, the
Manager of the Building and Land Development Division made a
threshold determination that approval of this application will not
have a significant adverse impact upon the quality of the environment
and that an environmental impact statement is not required. The
Building and Land Development Division transmitted a proposed
declaration of non - significance to other agencies with jurisdiction
on June 16, 1978. After theelapse of fifteen days following the
transmittal and after reviewing comments submitted by agencies with
jurisdiction and by other parties, the Manager of the Building and
Land Development division adopted the proposed declaration as a final
declaration of non - significance. At the public hearing on this
application a representative of the Building and Land Development
Division reported that having considered the comments and testimony
by agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, having visited
the subject property, and having evaluated the natural, physical
and social systems related to this application, the Building and
Land Development Division reaffirms its determination that approval
of this application will not have a significant adverse impact on the
quality of the environment and an environmental impact statement
is not required.
3. The purpose of the request is to allow parking for employees
of the adjacent transfer and storage company in the easterly one-third
of the property and parking for transfer trucks and trailers in the
central portion. The most westerly portion is intended to be leased
or sold for other light manufacturing purposes.
4. The subject property was zoned SR and .SR (Potential CG) at the
time of the Highline Area Zoning Study, adopted by Resolution No.
34529 on December 11, 1967. Prior to that time the zoning on the
subject property was R7.2 (Residential Single'Family District).
There is no indication in the record that a more intensive zoning
classification than the above was requested or considered during
the 1965 area zoning.
5. The property directly north, across 128th Street from the wester)
400 feet of the property, was reclassified ML subject to screening
conditions in 1977 (249- 74 -P). This property, which is occupied by
the intended lessee or purchaser of portions of the subject property
(the Becker Transfer Co.), has placed about 510 trees and shrubs in th
required peripheral screening of that site. The owner of this firm
advised that the company has experienced considerable growth the past
years and is seeking additional employee and truck parking space. Th
present parking area is fully occupied by both, and employees are
parking .on the surrounding streets. ML permits both types of parking,
but CG would limit the expansion to employee parking lots.
6. The applicant asserted that industrial expansion in the immediate
area is inevitable because of the proximity of industry to the north
and the ready access to new freeway and industrial expressway routes.
7. Opponents who filed letters or testified at the hearing are
seeking to preserve an existing residential area to the south and
west of the site. Testimony indicated that many young families with
elementary age children live in the area and attend a nearby school.
They are concerned about the truck traffic and the gradual erosion of
the line of demarcation between residence and industry.
`easterly 370 feet more or less of the property and residential for the
westerly 160 feet more or less. This designation corresponds with
the existing potential zoning on the property.
Ordinance 3747 requires, during the interval between Community Plan
adoption and Area Zoning adoptiom that reclassification requests in
the Iighline Area be judged by the Community Plan. The Highline Area
Zoning has not been adopted as yet.
9. The application for ML is opposed by the Cities of Seattle and
Tukwila:
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Based upon the whole record and according substantial weight
to the determination of environmental significance made by the
Division of Building and Land Development, it is concluded that
approval of the subject action as recommended below, would not
significantly affect the quality of the environment. All
evidence of environmental impact relating to the proposed action
.and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been
included in the review and consideration of the subject action..
2. The request for ML is inconsistent with the Highline Communities
Plan and would have an unreasonable impact on an existing residential
community.
3. The reclassification to CG -P with certain limitations and
conditions would carry out the Highline Communities Plan'and would
be consistent with the intent of the 1965 area zoning.
4. Screening, landscaping and restoration of graded land outside
of the potential CG property is essential in order to establish a
more definite and defensible line of demarcation between residential
and non - residential uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve CG -P in lieu of ML for the. eastern 264' of the subject
property subject to the following post- ordinance conditions:
,1. A plot plan to be approved by the Division of Building and
Land Development showing circulation, access and parking layout.
[2. A landscape plan showing a minimum landscape strip of 20'
along the west and south property lines and 10' along South 128th Street
as required by the adopted Highline Plan (page 35)(e).
(3. A bond, the amount to be determined at the time of the plat
plan submittal to insure the installation of the approved landscaping.
4 A plan for the restoration of ground cover in the westerly
third of the subject property and, where feasible, on the cut slopes
of the south and west boundaries of the applicant's ownership.
ORDERED THIS 10th day of August, 1978.
Pnhnr4- 1
{7vn 1 n i r-rh
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal Development of an improved parking facility for employee
parking and semi -truck trailers.
Proponent PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
Jeffrey D. Mann 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Seattle, WA. 98188
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Southwest corner of South
128th St. and East Marginal Way.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC
24 -89
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
RI There is no comment period for this DNS
(� This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.•
Responsible Official
Position /Title
Rick Beeler
Planning Director Phone 433 -1846
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard,
Date /ff z- :—
6,, 3(/7f7 Signature
;- WA 98 88
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
%pies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
lanning Department.
FM.DNS
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
JAN 1 8 1990
PERMIT CENTER
In considering the request by Becker Transfer for a conditional use
permit allowing parking of tractors and trailers in addition to the
parking of employee vehicles which is presently allowed, interested
residents respectfully bring the following areas of concern to your
attention:
1. Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto E. Marginal Way
from S. 128th, due to the dangerous blind curve which obstructs the
view south of S. 126th St. A 45' -48' truck pulling out onto E.
Marginal Way from S. 128th St. would not be visible in time for
through traffic to stop. The radius of turn for a large truck
could present an impediment for both south and northbound traffic.
The volume of traffic generated by Metro, Boeing and the Bank
Computer Center among others demands further scrutiny.
2. Problems of surface water management emanating from the
subject property. The problem of the flooding of S. 128th St. was
created when the swamp, which is now the subject property, was
filled and graded to become a parking lot. Waterflow generated
from springs on the subject property has never been properly
channeled. S. 128th St. readily becomes a lake which prevents its
use in the area between Mr. Becker's north and south properties,
with the lake extending westerly depending on the amount of
rainfall.
3. The landscape design has provided a minimal plan for screening
of the proposed truck terminal and storage yard. Residents would
like to see a living wall of vegetation as required in 1979. The
design totally neglects the vital provisions for maintenance of the
landscaping materials to ensure their survival and optimum growth.
A sprinkler system should be a minimum requirement and the
employment of a qualified, approved, bonded landscape architect
should be mandatory. A bond at maximum % should also be required
of Mr. Becker. Landscape island requirements within the parking
area need to be consistent with City requirements in Southcenter
and elsewhere in Tukwila. An intrusion of this magnitude into a
residential community needs to contribute not detract.
4. Threat to neighborhood security of an unfenced, visually
screened, accessible parking area needs to be addressed. There is
already a potential for liability from unauthorized use of the
subject property. The subject property needs a security fence with
gates which are locked after work hours (between 10:00 pm and 6:00
am and on weekends). A fence which is placed inside the
landscaping will serve an aesthetic purpose as well as reduce
fencing costs for Mr. Becker.
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTl9nUIRAFPIS' D
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between Industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. - The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line oL demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
(.3C 7
A.iE s
CP
rean�2r.r v�
'/93/ /Yf3 /3792 -V:2
gy 3 % 60 /czer it
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Signature
�� e,
/39,, - z?,,a /f v, • S o
Address
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
10, c,(1"4,1,1
ry.zzA__e_to
04a ,,,&/nor
x(t
`I
6!;-7-h4.
Address
3m
/) 6 3 o - 3 (/ a� f9_
/,9,Y - ci,A0_
1
L
/.� G- is- .) ?'.
iasa 7 3s:7 f11:7 -)
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Us.e Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
I
4; Cf . s v:it )
0 f �c Li 't. (Y. a�t.,m_i
} � n � I
'1\;■,(,Li
6:;›,
\ ?,2 _5�;� `-rte. S .
i.5VN - /Cre76 Cozy, •
/3,-25-7 his ?J-
13,,25 -) L/ a Avg .. 5n
(-/OE`1 I= .
-WiaA-. 6 (elar
j J
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission
DATE: 17 January 1990
RE: Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
63'
1 C.L4 4 .'
tom:
Address
i 3 3 / 2 y' aL . `l'y-
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential, uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
a, )rut- ,--
r c/
(/
/a14,/
2,1i &Mr
Address
/,3.717 3,'"Sc,
Ave. ve. S
136917- + Ave. Sa .
3Ycd . /3u-'
/.3r/7 -, -1wiGn £&9-
'',1-e- j -77,1,i
/30Is- 3 &- d .1J
/3 col - 4'e Ku). �� <
/3 eo 7 -5-77' A - (71t1(4);-/A ift-2/1/
35-2 , 5c., 13 li 5 2
-'� ;S. / I% 4/6�
13013 3r f Jz . S,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The guality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
/5 ZOO
/2_51 y06 tJ LL Jf 50.
4),
)&4 /a
/2f
3 7 / `t ATr-
3717 S 128
lac6'o 37 5 ,
}2. t'3,S
1213 ' 37 -S.
1 -3o/ 7 1/ /cif �•
/307 5,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
Address
/34QC" - IhrAVA
4(% AV' S ° �
y /,73 /'�`
Lig2o S M4-.
REVISED CONDITIONS
BY THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 2, 1990
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
File 89 -3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee
automobiles, trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six
months of approval date. (October 2, 1990)
5. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will
provide a safe intersection for automobiles. If a
restriction of parking along East Marginal Way is deemed
necessary, then an ordinance will be passed to provide for
such restriction.
Design Review Conditions
File 89 -10 -DR
Prior to issuance of Building Permit revise plan to include:
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
2. Placement of wheelstops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
3. Increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will
be a minimum of 10 feet high at installation.
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated.
Landscaping along the East Marginal Way property line will
be enhanced to provide the same level of screening required
along the south and west property lines. This requires the
addition of shrubs and trees with the trees plaited at 4
feet on center. The species will be identical•to those
planted on the adjacent property lines.
5. Provide a drainage system plant that will eliminate the
flooding problem on South 128th Street. Plan will be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
6. Applicant will be required to install a security fence
around the property with locking gates at entries. An eight
foot high cyclone fence will be located inside the planting
buffer and will include an additional two feet of barbed -
wire at the top.
7. Revise landscape plan in the Southwest corner to decrease
erosion that is currently occurring by retaining original
landscape plan with the addition of erosion - resistant
planting on slope and provide a curb to protect wall /edge of
hillside from damage by automobiles.
/1/4.01`I611 1 1V11/1L. .I11 1v1•
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY:Employee parking,
. ' - ' -
( 1
truck trailer parking (unimproved lot).
6. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020):
Conditional uses listed in the specified use district.
7. ADJACENT North: Becker Transfer Company -*Truck terminal
LAND South: Residential single family homes
USES East Vacant property
West Residential single family homes.
.8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale /retail /warehouse functions, outside storage of goods or
equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding of the activities you
proposed to develop on this site):
trailers.
9. Will the conditional use be in operation and /or a building to house the use be started
within a year of issuance of the permit?
Yes
10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a Conditional Use Permit
will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030 (attach additional
sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in
which the subject property is situated.
•
RESPONSE:
Operations on the site will primarily occur during normal business hours. The
site will be heavily screened by landscaping on boundaries abutting residential
areas. The site is adjacent to East Marginal Way which serves industrial traffic.
No lighting is proposed. Landscaping will mitigate potential detriment to
surounding properties.
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required
in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE:
The site has provided 15 to 22.5 feet of lanscaping as required by the Tukwila
Municipal Code. Trees will be planted at an initial 6 feet (1 foot over the
minimum of five feet). Screening trees will be planted 4' on center which will
provide a total site obscurring buffer.
CONDITIONAL USE APP' - :AT1ON Page 3
10. (continued)
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
RESPONSE:
No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing
industrial uses in the area and will use the same materials for ingress and egress.
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan.
RESPONSE:
Comprehensive planning efforts as part of the annexation designated this site
for commercial /manufacturing uses. The site will propose a low intensity use
that is well buffered to providr compatibility and consistancy with land use
policies.
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed
use may have on the area in which it is located.
RESPONSE:
Screening of the site will mitigate potential aesthetic impact. The site will
have a relatively low traffic Qeneration_and —will only use East Marginal Way for
access. Storm drainage will be provided to handle storm water from the parking
area_ There. will bp no nn -site lighting.
•
•
•
•
The southern intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street, and the
proposed driveway on East Marginal Way South do not meet the required entering sight
distances for either passenger vehicle or combination trucks. The intersection of East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street has insufficient stopping sight distance in both
directions. Only vehicles traveling north on East Marginal Way South will have adequate
stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway.
Both of the proposed driveways on South 128th Street meet the required entering sight
distances for both passenger vehicles and combination trucks. Stopping sight distances are
also sufficient for both driveways in both directions.
B. Accident History:
Accident information for the intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th
Street was obtained from the City of Tukwila Department of Public Works. Only one
accident has occurred at the intersection during the past three years. This accident occurred
on July 22, 1993, due to driver inattention and there were no injuries, only property damage.
C. Left Turn Lanes:
The need for left -turn lane facilities at the intersection of East Marginal Way and South
128th Street was evaluated according to AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Desiin of
Highways and Streets. According to information provided by Becker Transfer it was
determined that the peak hour would be from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., the time period when
all 45 employees arrived. The employee arrival patterns and volumes were assigned and are
shown in Figure 2. The results of the evaluation indicated that the traffic volumes are too
low to warrant a left turn lane on East Marginal Way South at the South 12 Sth Street
intersection.
W. CONCLUSION /SUMMARY
According to the findings of this report it is recommended that the proposed parking lot be
limited to only the two access locations on South 128th Street. This recommendation is
based upon the following:
1. Entering sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate.
2. Stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate in both directions.
3. The recommendation from the City of Tukwila that the intersection be
restricted to an exit only would not promote a "safe" environment due to the
lack of sight distance.
5
v
November 12, 1993
City of Tukwila, City Council and Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Board of architectural Review Public Hearing
Case Number L93 -0058 Becker's Trucking Expansion
Dear Council Members and Mayor.
I would like to bring to your attention regarding the need to involve the South
Central School District on the decision to issue this Conditional Use Permit.
I have been involved on the reversal of a City of Seattle permit to Waste
Management, in a site by the First Avenue Bridge. During arguments in front of
Hearing Examiner, I became aware that trucks, going to and from industrial
areas; were a major concern. The School District have a responsibility to protect
students that walk to school. The existing Community Center site belongs to the
South Central Schools, there is the strong possibility that it will return to its
former use.
Allentown lost its school site to a Tukwila Park, the new Sports Play -Field was
also a School location. There is a great amount of hope for the increase of
single family homes in Tukwila. The City of Tukwila has a duty to protect the
quality of life and safety of future residents of its allocated SF zones. The hill
north of 128th is zoned SF, this site is a stone throw from Becker's. The approval
of this permit could adversely affect its development.
You may possibly be in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, since the
Community Center is a Public Facility and walking access is unsafe for children
and people. I am referring to the very ackward situation for wheelchairs, bicycles
and pedestrians crossing 133rd or East Marginal Way to East side of 42th
avenue towards the Schools or, Community Center. The speed on the street is
30 miles per hour, but frequently, I have seen police giving tickets to speeders.
The area across Becker's is also a dangerous crossing for vehicles and
pedestrians.
November 12, 1993 - page 2, Becker's.
I would like the City to study the possibility of working with King County
to purchase all of Becker's property at a fair market value. This property could
address the need for senior and other subsidized housing, together with support
services.
I will be very thankful if you could address these possibilities and requests.
Sincerely
Jackie Llinas Dempere
4033 South 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
cc: South Central School Board
v
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
Alb
AI
wl� ��
zi/xLili q,c___Aeoi-f'e
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3-CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
R2CLIVED
CITY OF TUKW'ILA
JAN 1 8 1990
PERMIT CENTER
In considering the request by Becker Transfer for a conditional use
permit allowing parking of tractors and trailers in addition to the
parking of employee vehicles which is presently allowed, interested
residents respectfully bring the following areas of concern to your
attention:
1. Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto E. Marginal Way
from S. 128th, due to the dangerous blind curve which obstructs the
view south of S. 126th St. A 45' -48' truck pulling out onto E.
Marginal Way from S. 128th St. would not be visible in time for
through traffic to stop. The radius of turn for a large truck
could present an impediment for both south and northbound traffic.
The volume of traffic generated by Metro, Boeing and the Bank
Computer Center among others demands further scrutiny.
2. Problems of surface water management emanating from the
subject property. The problem of the flooding of S. 128th St. was
created when the swamp, which is now the subject property, was
filled and graded to become a parking lot. Waterflow generated
from springs on the subject property has never been properly
channeled. S. 128th St. readily becomes a lake which prevents its
use in the area between Mr. Becker's north and south properties,
with the lake extending westerly depending on the amount of
rainfall.
3. The landscape design has provided a minimal plan for screening
of the proposed truck terminal and storage yard. Residents would
like to see a living wall of vegetation as required in 1979. The
design totally neglects the vital provisions for maintenance of the
landscaping materials to ensure their survival and optimum growth.
A sprinkler system should be a minimum requirement and the
employment of a qualified, approved, bonded landscape architect
should be mandatory. A bond at maximum % should also be required
of Mr. Becker. Landscape island requirements within the parking
area need to be consistent with City requirements in Southcenter
and elsewhere in Tukwila. An intrusion of this magnitude into a
residential community needs to contribute not detract.
4. Threat to neighborhood security of an unfenced, visually
screened, accessible parking area needs to be addressed. There is
already a potential for liability from unauthorized use of the
subject property. The subject property needs a security fence with
gates which are locked after.work hours (between 10:00 pm and 6:00
an and on weekends). A fence which is placed inside the
landscaping will serve an aesthetic purpose as well as reduce
fencing costs for Mr. Becker.
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACH M1AENT
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line og demarcation w
beteen industries and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
0) rf\,
c 1,1E7
/B`--64/
-4'zs1
t3`ticc Lt'Z" -° Pmt s
Gi
pea c'� -f
Ly921 v /ye A 13792.-V:.2
--/q3/. Sv /YeP?� r�
`ri'�5 S;
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Signature. Address
/n_t S /39/9 1 /d,r)rtiiv� .50
7r`
TO:
DATE:
RE:
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
•
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
c .44
'fv,(-1})_,70 oeq,"
JtL�:� 1, /•�c `C
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
,
9
47/.
1C / 6
/ 3o- 3 /-r/` ,9
7
1.
/; ��' fp/h04.yf /257 3S fl ✓� Ste,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
(!) (Lt -11) . 1_411D-tit;
m . (i.jJ
c.) ,p)394_17).
0) 1\
LLo&
Address
/ 32.SS �k:, � ou,Q,.
/34/6e7 L /(7 4c re&
/3057 y2$ - d.:..
l
3,25") 7 Avg . , sn
P36.3 is - AVM . e
(eid,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
1
5. The auality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
•
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
' a4. 104,44_ FP/68
/2V) ; :, f147 (, f: >'
• /30 3/ 3%a . t3'�Lf'4�G✓
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
a, Y4 ..._,
(1(die-cr
IfE ,
L
c'✓ink_%
/ �717 v 2?-r-c Au‹. S o
/302/7- 3.(0 Ave_ $a .
3g10 _ eLI /3V,
� 3c�/ 137 /7jitLe j 7 7 / 4 pit-/
�30Is -3"3
6 ' 0 7 - /6. (4.
q ( u
35 2 L: 122 a 5 T'
13013 3,)%i4oz:.. .
l ?r'Y. � �37 /42 S
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
,95g®®
tARce
l ►. ,(L U So .
`6 t �1�4 �! '�
200-2_ E , tc)ki 5,
�.� IV /- p, /5L
f
3 7'` - Jcf-
37jL 5 12S
Address
11c6-0g, 3-itti 5,
EZT3S 3-7 411 3
12I1/43,- 39 A4-4-4-3-0-
1349/ 7 y /jf S•
/3Y7. 1P1"e.
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
Address
tOE -4 r&
/3.uaS' 4/ri- 4e.
J3a- 4(% AU! Sc'
/7
442o
REVISED CONDITIONS
BY THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 2, 1990
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
File 89 -3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee
automobiles, trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six
months of approval date. (October 2, 1990)
5. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will
provide a safe intersection for automobiles. If a
restriction of parking along East Marginal Way is deemed
necessary, then an ordinance will be passed to provide for
such restriction.
Design Review Conditions
File 89 -10 -DR
Prior to issuance of Building Permit revise plan to include:
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
2. Placement of wheelstops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
3. Increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will
be a minimum of 10 feet high at installation.
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated.
Landscaping along the East Marginal Way property line will
be enhanced to provide the same level of screening required
along the south and west property lines. This requires the
addition of shrubs and trees with the trees plaited at 4
feet on center. The species will be identical to those
planted on the adjacent property lines.
5. Provide a drainage system plant that will eliminate the
flooding problem on South 128th Street. Plan will be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
6. Applicant will be required to install a security fence
around the property with locking gates at entries. An eight
foot high cyclone fence will be located inside the planting
buffer and will include an additional two feet of barbed -
wire at the top.
7. Revise landscape plan in the Southwest corner to decrease
erosion that is currently occurring by retaining original
landscape plan with the addition of erosion - resistant
planting on slope and provide a curb to protect wall /edge of
hillside from damage by automobiles.
,ONUI 1 IUNAL UJC Art-, .A 1 IUN
royz,
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY:Employee parking, truck trailer parking (unimproved lot) .
6. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020):
Conditional uses listed in the specified use district.
7. ADJACENT North' Becker Transfer Company —*Truck terminal
LAND South: Residential single family homes
USES East Vacant property
West Residential single family homes
8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale /retail /warehouse functions, outside storage of goods or
equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding of the activities you
proposed to develop on this site):
trailers.
9. Will the conditional use be in operation and /or a building to house the use be started
within a year of issuance of the permit?
Yes
10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a Conditional Use Permit
will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030 (attach additional
sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in
which the subject property is situated.
RESPONSE:
Operations on the site will primarily occur during normal business hours. The
site will be heavily screened by landscaping on boundaries abutting residential
areas. The site is adjacent to East Marginal Way which serves industrial traffic.
No lighting is proposed. Landscaping will mitigate potential detriment to
surounding properties.
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required
in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE:
The site has provided 15 to 22.5 feet of lanscaping as required by the Tukwila
Municipal Code. Trees will'be planted at an initial 6 feet (1 foot over the
minimum of five feet). Screening trees will be planted 4' on center which will
provide a total site obscurring buffer.
CONDITIONAL USE APP' - aATION Page 3
10. (continued)
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
RESPONSE:
No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing
industrial uses in the area and will use the same materials for ingress and egress.
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan.
RESPONSE:
Comprehensive planning efforts as part of the annexation designated this site
for commercial /manufacturing uses. The site will propose a low intensity use
that is well buffered to providr compatibility and consistancy with land use
policies.
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed
use may have on the area in which it is located.
RESPONSE:
Screening of the site will mitigate potential aesthetic impact. The site will
have a relatively low traffic generation and will only use East Marginal Way for
access. Storm drainage will be provided to handle storm water from the parking
area_ There will he no on —Site lighting.
•
•
•
•
The southern intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street, and the
proposed driveway on East Marginal Way South do not meet the required entering sight
distances for either passenger vehicle or combination trucks. The intersection of East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street has insufficient stopping sight distance in both
directions. Only vehicles traveling north on East Marginal Way South will have adequate
stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway.
Both of the proposed driveways on South 128th Street meet the required entering sight
distances for both passenger vehicles and combination trucks. Stopping sight distances are
also sufficient for both driveways in both directions.
B. Accident History:
Accident information for the intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th
Street was obtained from the City of Tukwila Department of Public Works. Only one
accident has occurred at the intersection during the past three years. This accident occurred
on July 22, 1993, due to driver inattention and there were no injuries, only property damage.
C. Left Turn Lanes:
The need for left -turn lane facilities at the intersection of East Marginal Way and South
128th Street was evaluated according to AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets. According to information provided by Becker Transfer it was
determined that the peak hour would be from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., the time period when
all 45 employees arrived. The employee arrival patterns and volumes were assigned and are
shown in Figure 2. The results of the evaluation indicated that the traffic volumes are too
low to warrant a left turn lane on East Marginal Way South at the South 12Sth Street
intersection.
IV. CONCLUSION /SUMMARY
According to the findings of this report it is recommended that the proposed parking lot be
limited to only the two access locations on South 128th Street. This recommendation is
based upon the following:
1. Entering sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate.
2. Stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate in both directions.
3. The recommendation from the City of Tukwila that the intersection be
restricted to an exit only would not promote a "safe" environment due to the
lack of sight distance.
5
November 12, 1993
City of Tukwila, City Council and Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Board of architectural Review Public Hearing
Case Number L93 -0058 Becker's Trucking Expansion
Dear Council Members and Mayor.
I would like to bring to your attention regarding the need to involve the South
Central School District on the decision to issue this Conditional Use Permit.
I have been involved on the reversal of a City of Seattle permit to Waste
Management, in a site by the First Avenue Bridge. During arguments in front of
Hearing Examiner, I became aware that trucks, going to and from .industrial
areas, were a major concern. The School District have a responsibility to protect
students that walk to school. The existing Community Center site belongs to the
South Central Schools, there is the strong possibility that it will return to its
former use.
Allentown lost its school site to a Tukwila Park, the new Sports Play -Field was
also a School location. There is a great amount of hope for the increase of
single family homes in Tukwila. The City of Tukwila has a duty to protect the
quality of life and safety of future residents of its allocated SF zones. The hill
north of 128th is zoned SF, this site is a stone throw from Becker's. The approval
of this permit could adversely affect its development.
You may possibly be in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, since the
Community Center is a Public Facility and walking access is unsafe for children
and people. I am referring to the very ackward situation for wheelchairs, bicycles
and pedestrians crossing 133rd or East Marginal Way to East side of 42th
avenue towards the Schools or, Community Center. The speed on the street is
30 miles per hour, but frequently, I have seen police giving tickets to speeders.
The area across Becker's is also a dangerous crossing for vehicles and
pedestrians.
November 12, 1993 - page 2, Becker's.
I would like the City to study the possibility of working with King County
to purchase all of Becker's property at a fair market value. This property could
address the need for senior and other subsidized housing, together with support
services.
I will be very thankful if you could address these possibilities and requests.
Sincerely
Jackie Llinas Dempere
4033 South 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
cc: South Central School Board
Planning Commission Minutes Page 6
November 18, 1993
residential streets. All of our access to the site would be either North or South on East
Marginal Way, and we would not use residential streets to access this site. There had
been some concern because there had been some construction in the area, and some trucks
had used the residential streets at that time. We're saying that we're going to get to this
site from East Mari inal Way, whether North or South. How we turn into it, we have a
driway on East Marginal Way an o course we can get into it on 128th.
S bA
You'll notice the landscaping on the site, on two of the boundaries, 22.5' in width is fairly
wide landscaping area. That's because of the zoning and relationship to the surrounding
zoning districts and land uses. Those two boundaries require 15' plus 50% of that for a
total of 22.5'. Again, the use is limited to employee parking, trucks, tractors, and trailers.
The surrounding land use consists of Becker Trucking to the North, to the south is one
single family home, and it is sandwiched between this property and some older commercial
property. There has never been any concerns raised by that resident who lives in that
home. To the East is an open space area, undeveloped. The other half of the site across
from East Marginal Way, there are two homes. So really, there is only one home that
abuts the site, and that is the one directly to the North. There are two directly to the east.
To the West, is a vacant piece of property. The closest single family home to the West is
about 300' away.
Mr. Malina - On the two entrances off of 128th, why, in this drawing, does the one access
have a niche out of it - -at the access point? Why does it curve in?
Jeff Mann - The intent there is to have a full width commercial driveway.
Mr. Malina- How many feet are between the other access point?
Jeff Mann- It appears to be about 30' also. Again, because of the significant landscaping
buffer, the parking is considerable into the site. The drive -in is 30' which is significantly
wider than the normal parking lot that you'd find, which is roughly about 25'.
Mr. Malina - The main entrance to this site on East Marginal Way -- How many feet are
in there?
Jeff Mann- It looks to me that it is about 25'.
Mr. Malina - And that is wide enough for your tractor - trailer rigs?
Jeff Mann- Yes. I expect that most of the activity in that driveway will be exiting activity
rather than entering. Most of the entering activity will occur from the main terminal site
to the North. Again, there is sufficient site distance on East Marginal Way so cars and
trucks can enter that driveway.
Mr. Malina- So you're saying that this is going to be the only use - the access off of East
Marginal Way?
1.�.
'4
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
and then Mr. Becker knows what he needs to have there in order to keep people out.
Otherwise, we do concur with your staff report and recommendations, we do concur with
the condition on there for the bonding and the six month time limit, we concur with the
assessment of the compatibility of the comprehensive plan and with zoning, and we would
ask for your approval based on those conditions with the amendment to add the fencing
condition on the site.
Page 9
Mr. Roland Becky_- President of Becker Trucking, 12677 East Marginal Way South.
We would like to put all of our empty trailers here. We're trying to eliminate movement of
trailers. We would like to increase our efficiency as much as possible. What we have
here, on the north side, is some heavy trees and a lot of parking. This turn here, is
somewhat hazardous. For. r P r c.adi,Mr. Mang sai we.have,15.. mile s w e 5�
We would like to put a fence up for safety. We would like to keep kids out. The fence on
the inside would help us maintain security..we could monitor the fence to make sure there
are no holes in the fence.
Mr. Meryhew - How tall is the fence?
Mr. Becker - It is a 6' fence with barbed -wire on top. The total height would probably
then be 6.5'. If the vegetation does what it is supposed to, you probably won't even see
the fence. As far as the irrigation, if it is an issue, then we would like to put it in. It
doesn't make sense to spend that much money on trees and take a chance on losing them.
Mr. Malina- Would you be opposed to a drip- system?
Mr. Becker - No.
Mr. Malina - Would you also be opposed to having a green colored chain link fence to
help provide some better screening? It would better blend with the landscape.
Mr. Becker - I don't know what the difference in cost would be.
Len Horn - I just did a quick mental picture after he agreed to the fence as to what this
scenario is going to look like from all four sides. The way it is going to appear - you are .
going to have a 4' berm and a 3' berm. The mass of the trees are going to compose the
bottom 3', 4', 5' of the 10' to dig those in. You may not see this fence. I don't think the
extra expense of slats, is a necessary expense. Except for the gates, it's just not going to
be a visible fence. Especially on the south and the west - no one lives there to see it
anyway, and on the north side, they have their own facility looking at the fence. It appears
to me that the only place that a fence would be visible would be the one access point off of
East Marginal Way.
Mr. Becker - We want to maximize efficiency and safety, and minimize traffic. The gate
will be a key system. We will open it up at 6:00 a.m. and lock it at 10:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
Page 20
maintained his own equipment. The last issue is the noise level. Our entire fleet is
equipped with Cummins power. It is the most quiet diesel engine on the market today.
We will always be running Cummins power. What is the noise problem? y
is it the brakes, is it the dock plates? p Is it the engine,
Mr. Meryhew - Mr. Kennedy isn't here to make a rebuttal. Maybe he's referring to the
start -up..I don't know.
Mr. Mann - I would like to get back to the lighting issue. In our original application,
was never an issue with the Planning Commission...that's why we're not sure of our site
plan. I think Mr. Becker has indicated that they do have sufficient lighting and was not a
condition previously. I think the Beckers have received a good message about workin
with the neighborhood - -they are trying to be pro- active. g
Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing at 12:00 a.m.
Mr. Meryhew - They're going to have a fence, 6' chain link, barbed wire on the
landscaping- irrigated, wheel stops before you get to the fence... top,
Mr. Malina - I do have a concern regarding the trucks driving either no south
East Marginal Way. I can understand the concerns of the residents of the cormmu on
Unfortunately, we have a small gathering from that area. I do see a future need--we ty
control the truck traffic in the residential neighborhood. I don't see it too far fetched, to
control the traffic going north on Marginal versus south, turning toward the bus barn
versus coming down through the residential.
Mr. Haggerton - I don't see how you can do that though..how are you going to control all
the buses, etc.
Mr. Knudson -In trying to push everybody back to the north - -I see that as more of a traffic
hazard and road jam. Their access is to get to the freeway.
Mr. Haggerton- On the East Marginal entry way
than 128th..128th is a City street..if that's t a safe rpla e for entrance and exits that's safer
Marginal, it should be made safe. It looks like that should be the logical way to a n roach
it, instead of making a new entry/exit way. pP
Mr. Meryhew - I have a hard time understanding why it makes a difference. I think the
City Engineer is the expert on this...if they say that the exit is better, then they must know
what they're talking about. .
Mr. Meryhew - I have a problem with the lighting—as
even car theft. Low level lighting could be provided, while not infringing t and
neighborhood. p
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals...agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or
humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not applicable.
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other water? If so, describe.
Runoff will occur as a result of rain water collecting
on the paved parking lot surface. Catch basins will be
utilized to collect storm water which will be piped .to
a retention pond on the northerly boundary of the
site. The retention pond will meter and control off -
site volumes and will be collected in the City of
Tukwila storm drainage system, which will eventually
conduct it to the Duwammish River.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
See 3A.6
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts,
any:
See Item 3C.1
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
_ pasture
_ crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Existing vegetation in areas which are proposed for
paving will be cleared and vegetation removed.
5
•
12.• Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
)uthgate Park located at South 134th Street and 40th
venue. Rainier Golf and Country Club located to the
northwest at Glendale Way South and Des Moines Way
South.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Not applicable
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site
Not applicable
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not applicable
-4. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to
the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Access to the site would be provided from South 128th
Street and East Marginal Way. See site plan.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
Yes, East Marginal Way at South 130th Street.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
The site would provide 48 employee parking spaces, as
well as 17 trailer space parking spots. No parking
spaces would be eliminated.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads
or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
No
10
Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, roil, or air
ensportation? If so, generally describe.
No
f. T'nw many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
k .i, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Approximately 70 -80 vehicle trips per day. .
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Restriction of access to South 128th will reduce
potential impacts on East Marginal Way. Access path
will be restricted to East Marginal Way and 128th.
Traffic by employees or trucks will not go westbound
on 128th into residential areas.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally.describe.
lvo
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
got applicable
16. Utilities
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
the site will require storm drainage service.
b scribe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
z, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity
vhich might be needed.
Surface water will be collected on -site and conducted
:o City of Tukwila Storm Drainage facilities by way of
in on -site control /retention facility.
:. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:(.ffyc - b
Date Submitted. 00 1 cj3
11
Tukwila's Council & Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Council Members and Mayor,
This letter is to bring
problems that have developed
the main appellant, although
by a number of other Tukwila
4033 S. 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
February 4, 1994
to your attention several
with an appeal on which I am
it is also signed and supported
citizens.
The issues on appeal are important, difficult, and with
far reaching effects on the lives of many residents and
property owners.
Several times, I have requested the transcripts of the
minutes from the public hearing of November 18, 1993. As of
today, I have yet to receive them. I have experienced
stonewalling.
I now learn that subsequent to the November 18th
meeting, another meeting took place and changes were made to
the transcripts. I was not notified of this meeting nor that
one of the subjects was going to be this appeal. As the
appellant, I have a special interest in being informed of
any issues related to this permit. Notice in the newspaper
of a planning commission meeting on an unscheduled or
regularly scheduled date is not enough. I had no way of
knowing that the issue of my appeal would be addressed at
this meeting.
I am formally requesting that the public hearing
scheduled for February 22nd be delayed. I base my request
under the principles of "procedural due process" of the 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
i
As the appellant I am entitled to a fair hearing,
adequate time to prepare, and timely information among other
rights. I need to bring to your attention the problems I
experience as a citizen with English as my second language.
Translation of my verbal comments during your council
meetings are many times in total opposition to what I have.
said. Lack of understanding as to the very serious issues I
have brought before the council is of grave concerns to me.
In order to remedy the aforementioned problems I hereby
formally request:
1. Information which includes written transcripts
of the appeal hearing of November 18, 1993, and
unaltered or unedited audio tapes of all the
meetings with the planning commission that have to
do with my appeal.
2. A new hearing be scheduled six weeks from the
time I am provided with all, the requested
information.
Yours truly,
Jackie Dempere
g
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
February 11, 1994
Jackie Dempere
4033 s. 128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Subject: Becker Trucking - Appeal
Dear Ms. Dempere:
This letter summarizes our phone conversation today.
In your letter received February 4, 1994, you requested transcripts and tapes from previous Planning
Commission hearings related to the Becker Trucking CUP. I had attempted to contact you by phone on
two occasions, February 9th and 10th, to inform you that the appeal hearing date is February 28 and to
inform you that the written minutes have been mailed to you. I stated the applicant was not in agreement
to postponing the hearing to March, but agreed to February 28.
You informed me today that you had received the written minutes of the November 18 and January 27
Planning Commission meetings. As you are aware, it is common that minutes, unless transcribed
verbatim, do not include all information presented at a hearing.
You had also requested copies of the tapes for each of the two Planning Commission meetings. It was
my intention to get a verbal ok to pay for the cost of the tapes prior to sending them to be duplicated.
You provided this ok to me today and agreed to pay a $15 fee for each tape. The tapes should be
available Tuesday afternoon. You will be contacted by the City when they are ready to be picked up.
I have included the Notice of Public Hearing with this letter. This letter and notice has also been mailed
to all appellants as listed in your Notice of Appeal. As the notice states, the February 28 appeal hearing
is a limited public hearing where testimony will be taken only from the appellants, the applicant and City
staff.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. I can be reached at 431-3663.
Sincerely,
Denni Shefrin
Associate Planner
cc: L93 -0058
Robert Bernhardt 2.465440 Curtiss Robinson
Sharon Bemhardt Shirley Robinson 2.4 30 Z
William Cavanaugh Donald Scanlon
Elizabeth Springer
630JSouthcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
MEMORANDUM
TO: DENNI SHCEFRIN, CITY OF TUKWILA.
FR: JEFF MANN, PACTECH ENG-RAMMING
DT: FEBRUARY 7, 104
RE: BECKER TRUCK G DELAY IN APPEAL
I have conferred with Mr. Roland Becalm: of Becker 'Transfer and discussed the phone calls
we received regarding moving the appeel hearing to March 14, 1994. The impression both
he and I were given was that something had occurred internally that required that it be
moved. We were not aware that it was 2. letter from the applicant that requested the delay.
I received the letter today at the City. Mr. Becker would like to retain the February 22nd
date for the appeal hearing. .
Thank you.
-TECH Erigineeong, Inc.
Tukwila's Council & Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Council Members and Mayor,
This letter is to bring
problems that have developed
the main appellant, although
by a number of other Tukwila
4033 S. 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
February 4, 1994
to your attention several
with an appeal on which I am
it is also signed and supported
citizens.
The issues on appeal are important, difficult, and with
far reaching effects on the lives of many residents and
property owners.
WI) P U
\ fvEee .D)esin
Several times, I have'requested the transcripts of theN1
minutes from the public hearing of November 18, 1993. As ofLL►L1 P0116
today, I have yet to receive them. I have experienced Gq'GEDig0 agAimE
stonewalling.
► 1 eA _' o
V
Pia► r r V` NCi,
I now learn that subsequent to the November 18th �■) , .)L \J)p,, cxnP
meeting, another meeting took place and changes were made to.'i -IZ
the transcripts. I was not notified of this meeting nor that \11A.
one of the subjects was going to be this appeal. As the 4'
appellant, I have a special interest in being informed of '`> 1125
any issues related to this permit. Notice in the newspaper
of a planning commission meeting on an unscheduled or
regularly scheduled date is not enough. I had no way of
knowing that the issue of my appeal would be addressed at
this meet ing . _,nD ►
I am formally requesting that the public hearing
scheduled for February 22nd be delayed. I base my request
under the principles of "procedural due process" of the 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Na m., 61204r 51 ‘
AO W �� maw) 1.00 CotIu
if1 l kil ltD CA)E17 • C 1iy D\ D N6r )
�� ���
And V V-1./.11P/VA 11lll(�1C14TG_ ►n�� �Ci1 LI `) 5)-P424,
k, Nei"
kacE
ID -PWW#viur
As the appellant I am entitled to a fair hearing,
adequate time to prepare, and timely information among other
rights. I need to bring to your attention the problems I
experience as a citizen with English as my second language.
Translation of my verbal comments during your council
meetings are many times in total opposition to what I have
said. Lack of understanding as to the very serious issues I
have brought before the council is of grave concerns to me
otW Sw/IC
6P5-4104 A
• NG�
In order to remedy the aforementioned problems I hereby jL� ►1 ,5
formally request:
4
1. Information which includes written transcripts
of the peal hearing f November 18, 1993 and
unaltered or unedited audio tapes of all the
meetings with the planning commission that have
do with my appeal. ---\-401\S.% On5r, P-
poi
1e l� � s� 3 .
the
2. A new hearing be scheduled � six weeks from
time I am provided with all the requested
information.
Yours truly,
Jackie Dempere
•
1 x
/4)
(esex,Pleoepli
om L-
1
F. Facilities EXCLUDED from Coverage Under This Permit
Ecology will not consider coverage for the following facilities:
1. Any facility subject to an existing effluent limitation guideline addressing storm
water or a combination of storm watcr and process water, (Section B of
Appendix #1); these facilities need to obtain a NPDES permit for storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity;
2. Nonpoint source silvicultural activities; such as nursery operations, site
preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning,
prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface
drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural
runoff as excluded in 40 CFR Subpart 122.27;
3. Industrial facilities which only have storm water discharges from office
buildings and /or administrative parking lots which do not have storm water
discharges commingled with storm water discharges from areas associated with
industrial activity;
4. Facilities that are federally owned or operated or arc on Tribal land;
5. Any facility covered under an existing NPDES individual or general permit in
which storm water management or treatment requirements or both are included
for all storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.
S3. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS
A. Discharges to a storm sewer or surface water of process wastewater, domestic
wastewater or non - contact cooling water not covered by a NPDES permit are
prohibited.
B. Discharges of storm water to sanitary or combined sewers shall be limited pursuant to
Chapter 173 -245 WAC. Discharges of storm water to sanitary sewers shall not occur
without the approval of the municipality which owns or operates the sanitary sewer
system.
S4. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
A. This permit does not authorize the violation of ground watcr quality standards
(Chapter 173 -200 WAC), surface water quality standards (Chapter 173 -201 WAC), or
sediment management standards (Chapter 173 -204 WAC) of the state of Washington.
Facilities that are in compliance with these standards must rcmain in compliance.
Facilities that are out of compliance with these standards will he required to come
into compliance through the application of BMPs in accordance with the schedule
established in Special Condition SI. Facilities not in compliance with standards
following the implementation of BMPs will be identified in accordance with Special
Condition S7 and will be considered for a further compliance schedule. Ecology
reserves the right to take appropriate action for the protection of human health or
where standards violations require more immediate action due to obvious and severe
violations.
I()
( ac1 to )
Ye, s kc
(►'l't pJ vvt Ci.
\) eci etak d
\-c✓ Gswak) 3 p c.3e s
Sand � I
C-o,k t 5er
G y vJa6he v" f
Eh
v 0rbdva6(14
a st aYa�or 3 pa3es
oil /v� `P
Coalesct Ply
a ce,t i rEerv-I ctdv 1 P l
wc,■/li no 'D._ c)cLV .
ra,t ocP , Biauc
and a� l
10a5ihS Ct CA�rIec k.A iv `she. a
0-v. o;' sc-paYTAY �-,
I�.Fe, Tints s stem s ve
� a �,�es a� p � � ��,DOo , ��`
y�)rno V ++r1g oi(. `� systems
c cpst mD�c. h
clnect noiJ . Sov+� C,oht`ree0Ys CS�h left a v (
1(�¢ aV�. a o +�.
,ice $ 1,00 -� - �-1��. Vows -4-pi?t5
T04 1 me- 'E- you 1navc °Aril vies■ovi-s.
God c„vishAe.
cozi
BMP
.2.50
Slop. I.2.5% —
IV
VEGETATED BIOFILTER
DESCRIPTION
There are two general types of blethers; vegetated channel and the
vegetated filter strip. The vegetated channel is sloped lice a standard storm
drain channel: the stamwater treated as it
IDOOR length
JIallo, Chow!
Minimum 29 It.
width
Parking tot —
Filar strip
Straws
passes through the charutel. With filter strips the
flow is distributed broadly along the width of
the vegetated area
Which method to use depends upon the
drainage patterns of the site. A vegetated strip
would function well where the water can be
spread along the length of a parking lot. Gaps in
the lot curb provide the entry points. Of course
the grade of the parking lot must be flat parallel
to the strip.
Unless a bypass is included, the biofiitm-
must be sized as both a treatment device and to
pass the peak hydraulic flows specified by the
City drainage utility. But to be effective, the
depth of the stormwater during treatment must
not exceed the height of the grass.
If a peals -rate drainge control facility is
required, the blot-titer can be placed eitehr before
or atter the facility.
DESIGN CRITERIA
Based on limited research it is recommended
that a biofiltar chanrei have a length of 200 feet
(Part VI). The channel width is calculated for
the design flow using the design criteria
presented below:
1. A grass height of 6 inches;
2. Depth of stonnwatcr during the
design storm is 4 inches:
Best Management Practices: Stormwater Treatment 6/89
4.2.5
VEC TAKet \ IC.)F1 L1-02- f
— Grass r tad must bo
proem., mainland
Clteck•dantfor
Soo not Mops s5%
ex¢ephafy
aompaetad
LUnary drain
for dope 42%
3. The channel slope between 2 and 5%;
4. A slope less than 2% can be used if underdrains srz
are placed beneath the channel to prevent ponding;
5. A slope greater than 5% can be used if check dams are
placed in the channel to slow the flows:
6. Biofilter width far effecadve long -term treatment is to be
calculated using s design flow of 0.2 cfs/aa a of area
=awing to the biof ltac The rationale for this
particular flow is provided in Pat VI.
7. Channel width and/or height is added as needed
to pass the peak hydraulic flow, or a bypass is included.
8. The biofilter can be less than 200 feet in length as long
as the width is increased prorpottionaUy to maintain the
treatment surface area. as defined below. However.
minimum length is 25 feet. at which point the channel
has become a filter strip. The minimum biofilter width
shall be 18".'
9. Either preceding or following the biofilter shall be
a SC oil/water separator or an API or CPI seporator
if required for the particular business (BMP 2.10)
SIZING PROCEDURE
Engineers have proposed that the width of vegetated biofilters be deter -
mined using various forms of the Manning's equation. For reasons provided
in Part VI, this methodology has been simplified to the simple rule of thumb
that the biofilter shall have a total surface area of 500 square feet (ft2) per
acrea of catchment surface that is draining to the bioffirez The biofilter may
be of any length or width as long as it is within the constraints previously
identified.
CONSTRUCTION
The subsurface of the biofilter must be carefully constructed to avoid
undue compaction of the soil. Compacted soil reduces the infiltration and
inhibits growth of the grass. Restoration of grass shall not be left to chance.
The soil must be property fertilized and seeded using current City require -
menu for site restoration.
4.26
Best Management Practices: Storrttwater Treatment ti/89
FEdy24- 94.THU 1i�iC
Repair nes at damage
U I I Y (if' SER-1-1Lb uwu
MS NU. CUOOtS4UybJ r. U4
\JCGETKre.p :0F/ LT-0e-
MAINTENANCE
lb be effective the biofilter must be properly maintained. It should be
mowed several times during the growth season and the clippings must be
removed from the channel Mowing encourages growth the cby improving
the removal of soluble pollutants. The final mowing should occur near the
end of the growth season. Failure to remove the growth before the dormant
season will cause 1 loss of pollutants back to the stormwatec
•
•
•:
Beach Community
Adds Sand Fitters
to Storm Drains
Rehoboth Beach, DeL, is installing sand
filters along several streets in the city to
reduce the volume of pollutants that are
discharged along with rainwater from the
city's storm drains. Decomposing street
litter and food waste washed into storm
drains in this commercial reyrrt area con-
tribute to bacteria levels in the stormwater.
The drains currently empty onto the beach.
under the boardwalk, but after the
S402.000 storm drain renovation program,
the drains will be connected to one out -
fall pipe that will run 46 m (150 ft) beyond
the surf line and direct stormwater away
from the swimming area. The project is
expected to be completed by mid-1993.
Sand filters can be used to treat stormwa-
ter runoffin urban settings with impervious
drainage areas where vegetative filters are
not practical. The locally designed sand fil-
ter being used for this project is well suited
for small rites, such as fast food restaurants
or parking areas; for pretreatment ofn noff
before entry into another stormwater man-
agement structure, or, as a retrofit strategy in
an existing urban area.
T E C M II 0 l 0 C t
In heavily developed areas, stormwa-
ter runoff from impervious surfaces con-
tains significant levels of asbestos, copper.
chromium. lead nickel, phosphorus. zinc.
rubber. oil, grease. and hydrocarbons. all
primarily from automobiles. Delawares
stormwater management regulations re-
quire 80% removal of inflow suspended
solids. Previous tests indicate that this sand
filter design should meet these require-
ments.
The sand filter uses a sedimentation
chamber and a filtration chamber.
Stormwater from the gutter pours through
the street -level grating into the sedimen-
tation chamber where sand and gravel are
removed. Then, the water bows over a weir
into the filtration chamber where bacte-
ria, oils, greases, metals, and other pollu-
tants are filtered out as the water seeps
down through the sand and out through a
drain at the bottom (see Figure).
Sand filters are used for water quality
treatment of urban stormwater runoff.
Where they are used independendy ofoth-
er stormwater practices. they should be
designed to handle the runoff from fre-
quent storm events and to accommodate
all surface water runoff. Drainage areas
larger than 2 ha (5 ac) should be broken in-
to smaller areas that drain to- several sand
filters to achieve site control.
Each sand filter is 20 m (67 ft) in length.
In the basic design, each chamber has a
surface area of 33 m'/ha (360 ft- /ac). The
sedimentation chamber's volume is at least
15 m'/ha (540 ft' /ac) draining to the filter
for the entire area draining to the chamber.
The sedimentation chamber's only outlet is
through surface withdrawal over the weir,
so that heavy particles sink to the bottom
of the chamber where they remain until
'cleaned. The sedimentation cumber also
ensures that the flow arrives at the sand
filter as sheet flow, thus preventing con-
centrated flow from scouring out the sand.
Storms with more than 25 mm (1 in.) of
runoff may, depending on their intensity
and duration, overflow the sand filter sys-
tem. In those situations, treatment of
runoff in excess of the first 25 mm (1 in.)
may not receive the same level of water
quality treatment that smaller storms re-
ceive. However. because of the design of
the two chambers in conjunction with the
grate covers, resuspension of particles pre-
viously entrapped is not anticipated_
Standing water in the sedimentation
chamber is not likely to attract mosquitos
because the oil and grease from the runoff
on the waters surface would smother eggs
and larvae. Any eggs or larvae that do sur-
vive on the water's surface would be car-
ried into the filtration chamber during the
next runoff event. As the runofdrains out of
the pipe at the bottom, the filtration cham-
ber's sediments and
Weir flow
Sand Filter Design
Overland 'low
water bevel
Trapped solids
Sand
outfalt pipe
ratraVon chamber
SedimenWtbn
Member
Filler screen
Slorsraier erablfs the sediatentat$oa chamber throes a street-level wanes. Alter diet and other lama
Deakin settle to tLe bolster*, the water flows frets a saed-filiad chamber where finer particles and pollutants
are removed as the water seeps dolre to the eutfail pipe.,
Wihrr E=rw. annani d Taw- L..gllpgy
captured pollutants
dry out. eliminating
the moist environment
needed for breeding.
The filtration
chamber is usually 457
men (18 in.) deep. The
outfall pipe from the
Chamber has a fabric
filter screen to ensure
adequate flow and pre-
vent sand from mi-
grating out of the fil-
tration chamber.
Filter systems are
designed to withstand
vehicle loadings, but
can be modified if this
is not a design re-
quirement.
—Earl Shaver.
Department gf Nahrral
Resources and Environ-
mental Control, lowr
Del
j..0 C.9 w7Y I I Ill 1 J' JJ V 1 1 1 VI 1611.111 1 LL wry,'
The GullywasherTM
Water Pollution Prevention Baskets for Storm Drain and Sewer inlets
from Aqua -Net, Inc.
Aqua -Net, Inc. proudly introduces The Gullywasher"'. The GullywasherTM is a vinyl coated, wire
basket for placement in storm drain and sewer inlets to help stop pollutants from entering our
rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal waters. The basket can be fit with sorbents, screens, and
filters to help trap hazardous liquids, oil, grease, sediment, soil, debris, heavy metals, and other
pollutants which often end up in our surface waters. Applications include industrial facilities,
construction sites, fish processing plants, shipyards, marinas, steam cleaning pads, service
stations, car washes, parking Tots or anywhere there is a potential for contaminated storm water
or spills of hazardous materials entering a drain.
The Gullywasher" has several unique features. The open surface area of the wire allows
significant volumes of water to pass unrestricted. Reliefs are cut into tie sides for additional
overflow and to pass Large objects. The support frame and optional "drip -lip" are designed to
disperse liquid over the entire basket, thereby maximizing filter and sorbent life. Gudywashers^'
are lightweight, come with bars for easy lifting, and can be stacked for efficient transportation
and storage. GullywashersTM are made with durable, non- degradable AQI.JAMESH ®, a high
strength, galvanized steel wire bonded with a thick, tough, plastic coating which resists abrasion.
Support frames and drip -tips are manufactured in both galvanized and stainless steel and all
baskets are assembled with stainless steel rivets and hog rings. Gullywashers"' are
standardized to foundry speCifiCation$. We Ourrently fit 10=4", 20'7(24 ",and 20" to 26"
diameter frames and grates manufactured by local foundries. Orders placed for non- standard
grates and frames will be custom.
In November 1993, certain industries and construction companies must begin implementing
pollution prevention plans to ensure contaminants do not enter our surface waters. Aqua -Net,
Inc. is dedicated to helping those companies plan their pollution prevention with simple, Iow cost
systems. We are currently working with local governments, port districts, and private industry to
approve the Gullywasheew as a "Best Management Practice" to be used in conjunction with their
overall pollution prevention planning. If you would like to know more about how we can help you
comply with the regulatory requirements of a pollution prevention plan, please call us toil free at
1 (800) 208 -5447.
To order your Gollywashor^', mall order form to:
Aqua-Alet, Inc.
18105 36th Ave. W., D104
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
Phone (800) 208 -5447
Fax (208) 7744758
ACUA -NET, INC. WARRANTS THE GULLYWASHER° TO BE FREE FROM DEFECTS IN MATERIAL AND
wORKMPNS)sP. AQUA -NET, INC. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANT}E_S, ErlHER EXPRESS OR
imPuED. WITH RESPECT TO THE GUL.LYWASHERTM, Jt4CIUOING ITS PERFORMANCE. MERCHANTABJUTY, OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE GUU_YWASHERft I3 DESIGNED TO BE USED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE AS THE EXCLUSIVE MEAFis OF
REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS FROM ENTERING DRAINS. PURCHASERS OF THE GULLYWASHER"'
ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICING AND MNNTAIMNG THE GULLYWASHERIW. PURCHASERS SOLE
REL4EDY WILL BE REPLACELIENT OP ODU.YWASHERS'". IN NO EVENT WILL AQUA -NET, INC. BE LIABLE FOR
ANY LOST PROFITS. CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES.
•
E INC
PATENT Pt =NDING
• Reduces P.ol-1 ut ion ••Ru.noff •At•.Th.e •S- o.u:r•:
-1•Q •a...w 1e.'i47.1F-x rx..s7L—; -ash. UgglargafOr
•
•
•
■ Affordable •
• Effective
• Easy To lnsiall
• Easy To Maintain
• Manufactured By
Disabled Work=shops
•
•
FOR USF. IN .. .
Parkiing- Lots ..
c as•Stations
• Golf. Courses .
Streets •
. •Driveways .
. Industrial Facilities
• Municipalities
. •
-
•
•
..,
.
•. Sampling .0 apabilities (NPDES) :. ' - . ;;`;. ' �'• ::
•
'Don't wait for pending legislation, prepare' yourselves to do .your pan to remove surfacswaferrttnoff pollution .
before getting fined up to $25,000 per day for non- compliignce. • ; : • •, .
Call now to receive free estimate. , • •
. . (206)'820 -1953. • .. .. • • .
1 3226 97th Avenue N.E., C208 • Kirkland, WA 98034 ..
•Fax• (2061 820.8364
FEB -24 -94 THU 13:36
CITY OF SEATTLE DWU
ENVIRO.DRILINctrm Specifications
Flow Rare' __ • ...._
• -• •
• ;
• /Ids pad= is so be mailed. Buyer will best re sporoibigry lariequaing such product to EN VIRO- DRAM, IptC. If I� VIRO- DR[►(N.I NC. is viable to effect : •. • ,. • •
sods repalr or repkaoetncnr wkthin 30 days ield f.d de Is *agreed to 6e ielsonattle),•Buyer will have the addition remedy d[retUinIDgme drfixattt Pp/look; , ••,. • .
RIIVtR -O LAIN. INC fix ea 11 reltina of the yatfihase prem. TIdfFSE ItISIKEEKES ARE EXCLUSIVE. ANA nu' ER AGREF.S'FllTS SfA1.L E81112 ; •
• 1 Warr Of *NY atmtL!'Iv ON -viii purr Or arivnRQ-DRAIN. L'C. .
• • 4 • gai.I$rAid.d: luyal ai'suntea an responsibility for me consequanom of use of dm prsiauct."ENWROORAIN. INC. asbumei _ • ; • •'
• • no Iizbility for tonsegueulial medlar incidental d.matesof any kind luictudlrrs wuboln limsnEion injury to the penny WO me circumstances will ENVIRO- - .
r,RAifl. INC. ht: liable foi wen damages. *Wryer agrees me hmitatioe and exclusion in this Caragr2ph is indepenrlcrit of the )imitation otltreedieS contained in '
the precssting paragraph. . .. • - .
BMP
2.10
Sc ..pa/slew
OIL/WATER SEPARATION
DESCRIPTION
There are three general types of separators. The fast type is the spill
control separator (SC). It is a simple underground vault or manhole with a
"T" outlet . The SC- separator is effective at retaining only small spills. The
SC- separator will not remove dilated oil droplets spread through the
uonnwater from oil contaminated pavement. Local jurisdictions already
require these types of separators with peak -rate detention facilities.
The other two separators can remove dispersed gilt -d Am Pe
leum Institute (API) separator and plate interceptor
The API - separator is a Iong vault or basin with bales to improve the
hydraulic conditions for treatment. Large API-separators tray have sophisti-
cated mechanical equipment for removing oil from the surface and sett led
solids from the bottom. However, most applications to commercial and
industrial land uses will use the simple system u illustrated.
The CPI-separator contains a bundle of plates made of fiberglass or
polypropylene. The plates are "closely spaced Depending on the manufac-
turer and/or application the plates may be positioned in the bundle at an
angle of 0 to Gtr from the horizontal.
drasammorrarsariamormaximwrawarassamistar
API .aparator
Tic closely spaced plates improve the hydraulic
conditions in the CPI- separator promoting oil removal.
Removal of fine suspended solids is also unproved. The
primary advantage of the CPI - separator is its ability to
theoretically achieve equal removal efficiencies with one -
fifth to one -half the space needed by the API separator,
when designed to remove the same size drop lets. .
CPI..p+u.ter
TYPE OF SEPARATOR
REQUIRED
Land uses that must use an API oc.CPI-
separator are identified in Part II. The owner
may goose between the API or CPI-
separator using the design criteria outlined
below. All other land uses or businesses
must use the SC- separator even if a peak -rate
drainage control facility is not requited.
Beat Management Practices: Stcrmwater Treatment 6189 4.7
EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
The WDOE requires that stormwater have no visible sheen. average less
than 10 mg/1 daily and at not time exceed a dally maximum of 15 mg/L
DESIGN CRITERIA
Requirements regardless of separator type
1. Appropriate removal coven must be provided that allow
access for observation and malntenancg
2. Stormwater from building rooftops and other impervious
surfaces not likely to be contaminated by oil shall
discharge downstream of the separator, as long as City
drainage requirements are met (R.2 In Part V).
3. Any plump mechanism shall be installed downstream of the
separator to prevent oil emulsification:
Additional requirements for API and CPI - separators
1- The sap suers shall have a farebay to collect flparablca
and the larger settleable solids . Its surface area shall not
be less than 20 square feet (fa) per 10,000 ft2 of the area
draining to the separator.
2. They shall have an afterbay in which absorbent pillows
or similar material are placed. With the SC- separator.
absorbent materials shall be placed in the manhole /vault.
Used absorbent pillows shall be properly disposed.
3. If placed "downstream" of a detention facility. the
separator is sized for the outlet flow of that facility.
4. If the separator is placed "upstream" of a peak -rate
detemtica facility, or without a detention facility, the
inlet to the separator and the separator shall be sized
fora flow of 0.20 cfs/acre of drainage area, See Pan N
for the derivation of this flow rate.
Additional requirements for CPI - separators
1. Plates shall not bt 1;ss than 3/4- apart.
2. The angle of the places shall be from 45' to 60' from
the horizontal.
4A Best Management Practices: Stormwatsr Treatment 6/89
1
CONSTRUCTION
There are no special construction considerations.
MAINTENANCE
Oil/water separator(s) must be cleaned frequently to keep accumulated oil
from wing during an extreme storm. The separator must always be
cleaned by October 15th to remove material that has accumulated during the
dry season and again after the first significant storm. In addition:
1. The facility shall be inspected weekly by the owner;
2. Oil absorbent pads are to be replaced as needed but
shall always be replaced in the fall prior to the wet
season and in the spring;
3. The effluent shutoff valve is to be closed during
cleaning operations;
4. Waste oil and residuals shall be disposed in accordance
with current Seattle -Icing County Health Department
requirements.
5. Any standing water removed during the maintenance
operation must be disposed to a sanitary sewer at an
approved discharge location.
6. Following removal of any standing watee it shall be
replaced with clean water to prevent oil carry-over
the outlet weir or orifice;
INTEGRATION WITH CITY DRAINAGE
CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
If a peak -rate control facility is required the oil/water separator must be
carefully integrated Where only the SC- separator is hid. it weaves for both
oil spill and peak -rate control.
With the API and CPI-separators it is best to locate the facility "down -
stream" as previously indicated. Design flows for either case have been
provided above.
A spacial case is the use cf constructed wetlands and wet- settling basins.
The surface area of these systems are sufficient for effective removal of
dispersed on droplets. Therefore, for either of these systetnns an API or
CPI - separator is not required. Stotmwater with heavy concentrations of oil
(greater than sily 20 mg/I) may cause problems in wetlands, Therefore, prior
roductioe of oil is necessary. If a wet - settling basin is used,* barrier must be
placed hear the outlet to prevent the loss of the accumulated oil.
Bost Management Practices: Stormwatar Treatment 6189 4.11
'rnr -G4 -d4 I nu i.'+ D
UM' Ur JLt1 I I LL UINU
rnn nom. LVUVUYVJVJ
r. IC
The MPal0 coalescing plate
from Facet International.
Have you ever heard of something being so
simple, it's genius? That's the new high-performance
coalescing MPak from Facet International— quite
simply nne of the most innovative =leaner designs
that has com4 along in years.
Not only does it provide superior performance la
real-world environmental cleanup, but the patented
MPak design is also set'deaning. That means you
no longer need to remove the plate pack to clean Id
Here's how It worts: M the oil/water /solids
mixture travels through the plate, oil rises to the top
and solids drop to the bottom through dedicated
surfaces and weep holes. Plate support at the
bottom allow for easy removal of the solids that
collect beneath the plates.
Besides being self-cleaning, the MPak has a mod•
ular construction that makes it easy to install in
existing tanks, pits and mks.
The bottornditte benefits ate higher performance
and lower maintenance costs So no matter how
you look at it, buying the new coalescing MPak
from Facet International is a very
smart thing to do.
•
e4 Facet
tit. International
Because good enough just isti t good enough."'
Facet International, Inc.
P.O. Box 50096
Tulsa. OK 74150 -0096
Talaphone: (918) 272 -8700 •1. 800. 223 -9910
Fax: (918) 272.8187
Designed for performance
Enylronmentel MPak. Thirty years of development have gone into the design and
construction of the new patented MPak from Facet international. The MPak is a simple, well -
mgineered coalescer that addresses real -world applications.
T Y P I C A L
A P P L I C A T
corrwauLn
e
To iTe•r ifl•Ut AAur
Lun;
YA[:AVVKAn°11AL
eoistu°m.
•
•,i�hlry;iGt';;r1';:
L..af L y vT 111...
l• 1
.. v1 V1...11I IL.. v.•■
1 1111 I1v• .....TVVVJ
C. 14
BMP
1.20
VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT
WASHING AND STEAM
CLEANING
Washing of highway vehicles and parts, and equip/neat and parts such as
construction equipment, is to occur in a building or in a designated area as
described below. This requirement refers to all methods of
water is used including low - pressure water. high-pressure washing sz which
h-
cleanin 6 Pressure water and steam
Wash water from the above cleaning activity contains significant quanti-
ties of oil and grease, suspended solids, heavy mew, and orgy as well
as pollutants from the detergents:
M the surfactants in detergents chemically stabilize free and dispersed
oil/water separators are ineffective.
Therefore, wash water from vehicle and equipment cleaning shall be
discharged only to sanitary sewers The business shall conduct washing
operations in one of the following locations:
1. Inside the business owner's building or,
2. At a commercial washing business in which the washing
occurs in an enclosure (see Part II, Car and Truck Wash
Businesses): or,
3. In a designated wash area at the owner's business that meets
the requirements outlined blow.
The use of mobile wash services is not allowed unless the wash water can
be contained and discharged to a sanitary sewer.
If the business owner chooses to conduct washing operations at its
business but outside the main building of the business, tic owner must:
11 Construct a vehicle or equipment washing building, similar to
a commercial car or truck washing business, in which all
internal drains discharge to the sanitary sew= The wash
building shall comply with the same BMP requirements
imposed on a commercial car or truck washing business (see
Part B):
Best Management Practices: Source Control 6/89
33
3A
2. The business may establish s "designated area for all
_ washing operations that need not be enclosed or covered.
However, the "designated area" shall meet the
following requirements:
• The area if left uncovered shall not exceed 200 square
feet of (R.1 In Put V):
• The area shall be paved
• The area rball be so designed as to prevent the ram
stormwaeer from adjaca t arms
• The area shall have a drain to collect all wash water.
• The drain shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. The
discharge shall pass through a SC -type on/water
separator (BMP 2-10 in Part IV) and in all respects
shall comply with Metro requirements (R.1 In Part V).
•. The wash area shall be well marked at gas stations,
multifamily residences and any other business where
vehicles may be washed by non-employee& Included in
the ping will be statement forbidding the changing of
on over the wash -area.
Bast Manw ement Pratticas: Sour*, Ccntroi 8/89