HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 89-10-DR - PAC TECH ENGINEERING - BECKER TRUCKING CONDITIONAL USE AND DESIGN REVIEW89-10-dr
12677 east marginal way south
epic-24-89
89-03-cu
becker trucking
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.
Molly A. Headley
Assistant Planner
April 16, 1990
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 planted 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 Permit 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 Plannin
Commission deleted or changed significant portions of staffs
recommendations, substantially ch.anging the use and impact of this
proposal." Because the staff recommendations 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 part, targeted truck parking as a central issue for residents of
the neighborhood Concerns include: 1) Will the limit of working
hours apply to the terminal on the Northwest corner, 2) Is the site still
for employee parking and if so, will em loyee parking take
nce in the future as more employees are 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 parking on the Becker site does not indicate a
willingness for the Riverton 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 facility for employees' automobiles and semi -
truck trailers is a crucially different 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 primacy
business site, thus expanding the business. The Planning Commission
has referred to the area as a neighborhood "in transition". Mr.
Robinson asks, if this is true, where are the zoning changes that give
substance 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.
April 2, 1990
7:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER C .., ,
R OLL CALL
OFFICIALS
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ordinance No. 1558
Ordinance No. 1559
TUIKWILA CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
MMUS
Mayor Pro Tem Joan Hernandez called the Regular Meeting of the
Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in
the Pledge of Allegiance. (Mayor VanDusen was ill.)
JOE H. DUFFIE; DENNIS ROBERTSON, JOAN HERNANDEZ,
Council President; CLARENCE MORIWAKI; ALLAN EKBERG,
STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN RANTS.
JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; RICK BEELER, Director,
Department of Community Development; MOLLY HEADLEY,
, Assistant Planner, JOHN McFARLAND, City Administrator:
Historical Society members, Wendy Morgan, and Roger Biker
reported on a church in the Duwamish area, believed tObe the oldest
building in the City, established in 1867. It is pasaib the oldest church
in King County. The society is attempting to hay e structure put on
the historical register. The church was built by e residents of the
area and has been in continuous use since s • time. It was used as a
schoolhouse in the early 1900'x. Due to a t. ' ' ' _ , ' : congregation, it
is likely the building could be torn d • • . s r sold. The Historical
Society e�State of Ince W �� to that lacifhe building on the historic are p g
landmarks register. The procesi4x very involved; however, the society
members feel that because it's.iuch an old building and in good
condition, there Is a good ce that it could be accepted. Council is
being asked to su . , t a 1 r acknowledging that you are aware of the
Historical Society's t and that you support the application.
C
General Fund
City Street
Arterial Street
LLand Building, Dev.
Wate Fund
Seaver Fund
Water/Sewer Construction
Foster Golf Course
Surface Water (412)
Equipment Rental
Firemen's Pension
TOTAL
Tukwila City Hall
Council Chambers
MOVED BY MO : • ` AKI, SECONDED BY RANTS THAT
COUNCIL SEND"A LEFITER IN SUPPORT OF PLACING THE
CHURCH ON MT SOON THE HISTORICAL
REGISTER./MOTION
Amend Agenda Mayor Pre Tem Hernandez mended the agenda to add Item 812,
Appoin ttnent of Jane Cantu Acting City Clerk.
CONSENT
&i OM Approval of Minutes: 3 /1g Regular Meetings
/ b. Approval of Vouchers
$102,227.82
10,467.56
59.3
23,873.21
1,943.28
33,886.23
5,644.74
2,656.48
54,371.30
3,589.40
$285,450.67
An ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington, rezoning
certain real located at 16813 Southcenter Blvd. from
R -1 -7.2 to providing for an effective date.
(Miami Rezone)
d. An ordinance of the City of Tukwila, Washington vacating that
portion of public right -of -way within the City of Tukwila,
generally described as unopened 168th lying westerly of
Southcenter Parkway.
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
emp loyment and tax revenue for Tukwila. Mr. Hemenway does not
feel e xpansion 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. Scheffier feels a fence and a gate are appropriate to
the site as children are attracted to the equipment. He would also like
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
the fencing, the gate, the hours, the landscaping and parking were
changed to what Mr. 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 origina applied for a Design Review permit after which
he was informed he would have to apply for a Conditional 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 talcum 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 do not want the requirement for
the four foot on center trees as required on the two sides that abut the
single family zoning. Finally, regarding the transition area, Mr. Mann
stated that the Planning Commission's comment was made to reflect
the fact that the City did adopt CM zoning for this property. Becker
Transfer accepts the 12 conditions; 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 (can't)
Staff Report
Citizen Comments
Rebuttal
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 recommending 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 modify. 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.
Becker's request.
Mr. Mann stated that Mr. Becker has worked with the City throughout
this entire process. He is malting 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 Schefler 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 Marginal Way
to buffer the existing single family 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 closed 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 all as 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 DUFFLE, 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
•
''ng the Planning Commission decision. We could do that
to i rh t. All we need to do is put in the fencing and the planting that
our r Department s ted. He is opposed to denying Mr.
Becker's t to start off 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
shows that areas that the CM areas that have those kind of trucks
don't butt up next 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 1-5. The reason other appeals are not
scrutinized so closely is because there are no residences next to the
businesses. Regarding the on the street issue, Councilman
Moriwaki commented 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 property and
security and amity to the community. He concluded by sta '
e would vote against the motion; however, he would like 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 apinst 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 sitting in for the Planning Commission. with a
few moments study and a little testimony. He doesn't feel that's
Council's role.
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 6
Public Hearing (con't)
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:E:INT; 6) FENCING OF THE
PROPERTY.
For clarification Councilman Moriwaki stated that this motion is to
follow the Planning staffs 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 Headley 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 February 12,1990 which addresses the issues that
resulted in these conditions. On page three of the re . s 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 Moriwaki, 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 lockinn gates at entry to site. Councilman
Moriwaki noted the word "fence did 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)
OLD BUSINESS
Ord. #1560, Recreating the
Tukwila Planting 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 parking, 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 employee parking from being used
for truck parkin& Mr. Beeler responded that it could be brought back
to the Plann�'ng Commission 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.
Emu Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez called a brief recess.
9:10 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:20 p.m. with
Counciknembers 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, recrea I' the Tukwila Planning Commission, prescnbing
its duties, authority procedwe, and repealing Ordinance No. 1112
and Ordinance No. 1550.
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 wont bring any particular benefit to the issue
other than to cloud the issue fu
Regular Meeting Minutes
April 2, 1990
Page 8
Old Business (con't)
Citizen Comment
MOVED BY LAWRENCE, SECONDED BY DUFFIE, THAT THE
ISSUE OF RECREATING THE PLANNING COMMISSION BE
CONTINUED UNTIL THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING IN
SEPTEMBER.*
Councilman Rants commented he is not in favor of postponing the
issue. Councilman Moriwaki agreed and added that change in
organizations causes pain and controversy and to wait until a later time
won't make it any less painful. The intent of the ordinance is very
clear in the "Whereas" statements—that we want to increase residential
representation on the commission That is the intent and purpose.
In response Councilman Lawrence stated by delaying our decision, we
can prove that our intent has nothing to do with individuals coming up
for appointment immediately and has nothing to do with issues facing
us in the next few months.
In favor of the motion, Mayor Pro Tem Hernandez commented that
she doesn't mind changing the six year term to four years, and she
doesn't mind requiring residency; however, she feels it is important to
designate the two busmess representatives whether they are business
or citizens. Mrs. Hernandez added that in the three years she has sat
on the Council she has never heard anyone address the Council under
Citizen Comments complaining about the Planning Commission. We
have also approved several appointments to the Commission during
the same time period and no one has come forward to speak against
any of the a . • • intments. The complaints have never been publicly
expressed • . en requesting agenda items for the Council retreat in
January the topic of the re- composition of the Planning Commission
was never suggested for discussion. If people have a problem with the
Planning Commission it's Council's responsibility to enact the
legislation to give them the guidelines to act by. We must give them
the proper zoning code ordinances, the proper design code standards,
and all the proper guidelines that they need to base their decisions on.
Mrs. Hernandez believes that the proper checks and balances are in
p lace. The Council confirms every appointment to the Planning
Comm ission. We can deny the applications if we wish. Regarding the
of terms of office, Mrs. Hernandez feels the current terms should be
allowed to expire in due course. She is not sure that a
Commission member should be removed for anything but negligence
or malfeasance. If we allow the proper course to continue, there will
be automatic vacancies occurring that some of the new applicants
could be considered for. With the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, the
Clearing and Gradingg Ordinance and iibly the Multi-Family Study
all ready to go to the Planning Commission, it's not a good time to
break the continuity in a team that's working well together. Mrs.
Hernandez is concerned whether this ordinance in the best interest of
the City or not. She regrets that the volunteers who have given their
time have been made to feel unappreciated. She offered her
apologies to the volunteers. In conclusion, Mrs. Hernandez stated she
hoped that those of the Council who favored the ordinance would
reconsider taking action at this time and allow some of these feelings
to be considered • Jerry Hamilton, 5624 So. 147th Street, PIann Commission member,
stated he does not take issue with the Council. The Council has a legal
right to do what they care to do with those terms as long as there are
objective reasons for changing the terms. If they are personal reasons,
they should be cast aside and objective reasons applied to changing the
terms. The other issue is the makeup of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Hamilton noted that when he was first on the commission he
wondered what the business persons were doing on the Planning
Commission, they don't really have a right to be on the Planning
Commission. For three years he worked with three different non-
resident business people. He found them to be bright, intelligent
people. Two business people out of a total of seven commissioners
will not hurt the City. There are five other resident commissioners
who will keep them in check if necessary; however, in three years he
2 April 1990
Mayor Gary Van Dusen
Tukwila City Council
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Becker Transfer CUP
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
On December 14, 1989 the Planning Commission initially heard
testimony and granted the CUP for Becker Transfer. This decision
was appealed on December 20, 1989 due to inadequate posting and
notice.
On January 9, 1990, city staff arranged a meeting between Becker
representatives and members of the community in an attempt to come
to some kind of compromise on this proposal. During the course of
this meeting, many issues were discussed, including landscaping,
access, fencing and other items. At that meeting Mr. Becker stated
that he would "do whatever it takes to get approval" when asked
specifically about our request to fence the perimeter of the
property.
Out of that January 9 meeting, the city staff prepared the Staff
Report which was presented to the Planning Commission on February
22, 1990. We substantially agreed with the Staff's
recommendations, and testified as to our support at the February
22nd meeting.
The Planning Commission, in spite of public testimony, deleted or
changed significant portions of staff's recommendations,
substantially changing the use and impact of this proposal.
Inasmuch as the staff's conditions arose out of a meeting with the
applicant and members of the residential community and were,
therefore, a "joint effort" at compromise, we feel that at the very
least the original recommendations should be imposed on this site.
These were for 89 -3 -CUP:
1. Useof site will be confined to parking of employee automobiles
and truck trailers.
2. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm.
3. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six
months of approval date.
Mayor Van Dusen
Tukwila City Council Members
Page 2
4. Site /distance traffic engineering study will be submitted for
approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permit.
Mitigated improvements will be made at the same time the lot
improvements occur.
and for 89- 10 -DR:
1. All landscaping will be irrigated as required by code.
2. Revised drainage system plan must be approved by the Public
Works Department prior to issuance of Building Permit.
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.
5. Revise landscape plan in Southwest corner to decrease erosion
that is currently occurring by 1) retaining original landscape
L4 / plan with the addition of erosion - resistant planting on slope,
or 2) provide a retaining wall along the property line and
planting erosion resistant plants on slope above wall.
Provide a curb to protect wall /edge of hillside from damage
by automobiles.
As testified in the February 22, 1990 meeting, many residents who
were contacted expressed their desire to see the entire lot fenced
with locking gates. This area, if paved, unlighted, and left
unsecured, would represent an attractive nuisance to children (lots
of interesting trucks, trailers, and other equipment to explore)
and also be a tempting place to conduct other unsavory business (of
a criminal nature).
We are not opposed, per se, to Becker using this property. In
fact, it would be an improvement to have the lot paved, the
landscaping improved, and codes enforced as to storage and other
use of the site. We do, however, wish to emphasize that the zoning
and comprehensive plan designations of this site and the
surrounding properties are very different in use - CM vs. SR -7200.
During the pre- annexation zoning process this area was targeted as
an area of concern, and we worked hard to come to compromises and
mitigations which we could all live with.
Mayor Van Dusen
Tukwila City Council Members
Page 3
Members of the Planning Commission during the public hearing on
Becker stated that this was "an area in transition ". We vigorously
dispute this characterization. This is an area in transition ONLY
insofar as the Planning Commission is unwilling to protect the
residents from further encroachment and other adverse impacts
during the course of their decision making.
It is within their power (and yours) to protect, enhance, and
encourage the vitality of the single- family neighborhood known as
Riverton. Please listen to those who have elected you and impose
those conditions which would mitigate the adverse impacts to our
community. Thank you.
Sincerely,
V aft-hA, G .Asir-oow
Kathryn A. Stetson
28 February 1990
Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Ms. Anderson:
•
kidP - 2 441
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 ".
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 only 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.
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
Kcwwiy,' Ct .emu
/ /,
ett
./
6
Address
/ 3 .5_ 4C" ( . JJD.
1 fc33 S lab 51
t 3 y p tie T Ave
/�•f io I-)ve. '`gyp.
�?, ?_ 1 Q. �
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.
Molly A. Headley
Assistant Planner
February 23, 1990
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.
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 automaticallyirrigated.
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.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Mr. Flesher was excused.
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2 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.
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
proposal 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 felt 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 #1:
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 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 APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION STATED
THAT THE APPLICANT MUST MAKE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF
APPROVAL DATE (AUGUST 22, 1990). IF THE CONDITION IS NOT COM-
PLIED WITH, THE PERMIT WILL BE RESCINDED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
CONDITION #4:
HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION THAT A SITE
DISTANCE TRAFFIC STUDY WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE WHAT IS
REQUIRED TO RESOLVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ENTERING AND EXITING THE
FACILITY AT EAST MARGINAL WAY AND SOUTH S. 128TH STREET INTERSEC-
TION. IF THE STUDY INDICATES THAT A RESTRICTION OF PARKING IN
THAT AREA WOULD PRODUCE AN IMPROVEMENT IN SAFETY, THEN THIS
RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DESIGN REVIEW
CONDITION #1:
KIRSOP MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE AP-
PLICANT BE REQUIRED BY CODE TO PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR
ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS OR A MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS
WHICH WILL ENSURE A GOOD START FOR THE VEGETATION. IN ADDITION,
THE TMC STATES THAT ALL 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 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.
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.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
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.
COOPERATIVE PARKING AGREEMENT:
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.
3-5-qo
BpcKez IRAPac-R CUP,
re.. Fve4e-AA 2-22 - Id
Plief-J444/..0-tA 3- - 9a
SOCKeg - rtZANsFEK. Cy?, DK
Pre,644(41thilu 2- 10
CC Pre6eAkkalitm 3 - - '70
3-3-90
n% iODR
rhE `69--lb -PR
•
rn 2)1- 10 -1>IZ
= UNITED
TPUD. 5ALLIJ
•
,
•
‘•
• • : :••• • . • . „
..•
•,.....4—'e.' '''''' ..' 4 n .. -.-'''''• ' -
• '.• '!...„=, .1 ...,,,.; , -..... . .
•
'' .• •-•••••••
-
"t ••■• • '
• - . '
•••■•,....i.•••••ick X i f. 6,2.1.7.. . , ,',... • • F,...4 . 1. ; .„ . : . , ,::,4 ,
k."-' ii
..
, '^"..":::.
' - 47: " .. 17 ' .. S': '''''''''''" ...rb.i ' .,,Y-8 17 ....,,,, .,410.
• ,,,,, ,!..,
, ..., ea,4,, • . , ....... ....„
.:..../......1.••• - -
f DR
YnE j to- CSR
Yf 'Vt -10-flic
4 59 5 1- 10 - 0Fk
hel F "39-4t0-1:)R-
- - - • - - - - • - -
..:41,7:177
relF
•
7 l 1 •_4. :. 'Y r"*... '.4.'{: k i S Yfw T.' { H , ,, 1 � t S - �,
a. ... 'f ' k y+ •". \ - - L^ "'Lrs.• S, r
� . . 1 ,,r,,, Y>Vt7 �r✓� .. C1 w•∎• ∎� -'.4• ty.,- ✓ ~{.Y ~
t Z
Y. /,�y YM4t"... M1. ..r. ; '7"¢. �f ". •
-..i...,, a. ,- .. .�'+7 ` a ,,L�.1 ' '•
+. "'" ..v'' .i,t4ti.r•WI . '.w . . C. . ,r..• • ... j r 0:J' .1:i15', yy y
VV\P Sot- c o opz
''' ... . =.4 ;'-' , 1 3.71;4 47 1.1 .1 .
4
•..
•
• • -.a. •
';; ;
• ' • "
' • ••••:Ts - • 1 ...I.'
• z`z..0
• " - • - ' • .`"` "
" • " e-17.
•*":"'"' - ""--" , 40,174.,.
_ , •
•
_ •
YY1 15ct.- 10 -Pik
•
^ . '
- • • ••
4"d • • Z;
4-1 • !••••••.
- • - • -•=-: •
• , •
1119 tglo. t0-1
Imp S9 - i 0 DR
PAC-TECH
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors
City of Tukwila
622 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
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. I 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 any questions with regard to this request.
Jeffrey D. Mann
Planning Director
King County Office
JDM /pc
6100 Southcenter Blvd. - Suite 100 / Seattle, 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
January 24, 1990
Job #50322
20 December 1989
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Sincerely,
Kai G.
Kathryn A. Stetson
/ .2 - r,
Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
KATHRYN A. STETSON
13258 40th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
(206) 243 -7504
C
1 1/1 .
1 Ull
7 P7 1 "
DEC 261989 16
9 CITY OF TIYAV I .A
CITY CLERK A O
I hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at the
December 14, 1989 meeting regarding Becker Transfer Conditional Use
Permit 89 -3 -CU and 89- 10 -DR, Design Review for the same property.
Inadequate notice of the public hearing was given to area
residents. The property was not posted, and misinformation
appeared in the staff report indicating that the request must
obtain the approval of the City Council. This misinformation may
have led some residents to believe that there would be an
additional opportunity to testify on this issue.
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: 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.
MEMORANDUM to: r ;
Planning Commission Members
DESIGN REVIEW RELATED CONCERNS
BECKER
°:ANSFER TRUCKING
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.
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.
MEMORANDUNC a: BE _:ER TRANSFER TRUCKING
Planning Commission 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.
MEMORANDUM to: r ;. •
Planning Commission Members
BECKER LANSFER TRUCKING
Page 4
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
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: Design Review /Conditional Use Permit to build a parking
facility for employee and semi -truck trailer parking.
LOCATION: Southwest corner of South 128th St. and East Marginal
Way
ACREAGE: 1.5 Acres
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT:
C -M Industrial Park
SEPA
DETERMINATION: A determination of n n- significance was issued
November 3, 1989.
ATTACHMENTS: A. Site /Landscape Plan
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT A
STAFF REPORT
to the B.A.R.
FINDINGS
VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION
10-DR: ' Becker Transfer
. Page 2
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%.
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.
STAFF REPORT \,-
to the B.A.R.
DISCUSSION
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
DESIGN REVIEW
89- 10-DR: Becker Transfer
Page 3
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.
STAFF REPORT10 -DR: Becker Transfer
to the B.A.R.
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.
b. Grades of walks, parking 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.
L 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 paving, 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.
.
STAFF REPORT
to the B.A.R.
Miscellaneous Structures
No structures are proposed.
89- 10-DR: Becker Transfer
Page 5
CONCLUSIONS
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 breakup the interior asphalt parking surface with landscape
islands.
STAFF REPORT ,:.
to the H.A.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
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.
9- 10-DR: Becker Transfer
Page 6
STAFF REPOR(
to the B.A.R. '
C ! 89-10-DR: 'Becker Transfer
Page 7
II CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
TMC 18.38.040 requires truck trailer storage facility uses to obtain a Conditional Use
permit in the CM 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 drculation, 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.
MO-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. 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.
L Nnr.c.&rr. KEN.
I�
i . 20
55 I S I Pm-TINIA I NAGSTLI
MSTN11 I IUIMII• I■I.1X •,AITIcA
A.: M l n)ll M.1 I (111.04 WOO( nut cn
51L I I: 1 C12 1 0uF A71 LR
a7PIISM W¢
nAI.TIc IVY
N/A
s clnml
LSANF3
uo ♦ •tit awram •s dt••••D ✓.M•J
t ••• •• cm tool
0
_Z — �S oO
o
0
0
0
0
0
- 19
E
0 '
0
0
0
13
\
0
\ o
'OA!:
0
\ \ o�
O
S. 128th STREET
O I +N
\.• nr i 111 !a l
i= - �o�ovxemusZt2S•o'od0000 •
ofN
0
BECKER TRANSFER
PARKING LOT SITE PLAN
MALPR DALTTCA
1NI.T7c rvY
2 112 POPS. 12 11G
TRWADULAI D
•
00000000. 000
1400 0 I
"RAM,
Cauteetontrs ev•••••• - ••ItA• ••• tADaa
CEDAR •Atli KILO/
L
fH am."
a
ca ti
e0
ills.
OWl
r rrr
4x1: : C-1
ACREAGE: 1 9 ACRES
PA•IZi. PO. l 238420-005 -03
TRAILERS SPACER: l!
R: 17
1
TRAILER EI
LANDSCAPE AREA: )V Yi rr .9•
EI Ig1ING TRIES.
VIQNiIY M►
2540•
0
U
0
z
0
0
2
S
n V �
1 •,
■
•
i
•
54
J !i
J
SHEET Oct
+ol ■o SOW--
\
OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
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
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's preliminary:
Division's final:
Examiner:
August 1Q, 1978
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.
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) .
PRELIMINZ.RY REPORT: The Building and Land Development preliminary
report on Item 261 -78 -R was received by the
Examiner on July 20, 1978.
PUBLIC HEARING:
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 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:
Ms.
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.
Powers offered the following exhibits:
Exhibit No. 1 - Preliminary report dated July 27, 1978.
•
BECKER TRANSFER
'- ATTACHMENT B
MASTER COPY
r
'
Exhibit No. 2 - Application dated March 23, 1978.
Exhibit No. 3 - Environmental Checklist dated March 23, 1978.
261 -78 -R Page 2
Exhibit No. 4 - Declaration of Non - significance dated June 16,
1978.
Exhibit No. 5 - Assessor map of the NW4 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;
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.
•
FINDINGS:
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:
Sharon Burnhardt
3418 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Halasz
12633 - 35th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98168
261 -78 -R Page 3
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 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 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 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 EXAMINER
30
31
-
January 11, 1979 Introduced by: _
Proposed OrdinanVA .. - 8
2
3
4
5 ORDINANCE NO. 40/ 16
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 File 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 -.
23 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-
29 fying that property described and shown in Section 3, Appendices A
OVERALL LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The east 264 feet± of the following described:
(
FILE NO. 261 -78 -R
APPENDIX A
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
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.
February 1985 INTTOUCED BY: GARYGliAil(
PROP'SED ORDINANCE NO. 79 -240
ORDINANCE NO. •
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
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT C
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
are incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein.
INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time this 20A,
1971.
PASSED this day 9t4k44.44Ale 1985.
KING COUNTY COUNCIL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
of a ouncil
APPROVED this 25 day of lec) 4 ✓ 1985.
t1ve
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's
Division's
Examiner:
PRELIMINARY REPORT.:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Exhibit No.
Exhibit
Exhibit
Ms. Powers, Building and
Exhibit No. 4:
EDWIN J. BECKER
ML (PUD) to ML -P
May 18, 1979
OFFICE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Building and Land Development File No. 228 -79 -R
Proposed Ordinance No. 79 -240
2.1 acres lying at the
Marginal Way South and
preliminary: Approve ML -P, in lieu
tions.
final: Approve ML -P, in lieu
tions (modified).
Approve ML -P, in lieu
tions•(modified).
southwest corner of East
South 128th Street.
of ML,
of ML,
of ML,
subject
subject
subject
to
to
to
The Building and Land Development preliminary
report on Item 228 -79 -R was received by the
Examiner on March 15, and May 1, 1979.
condi-
condi -
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.
No. 2: Environmental Checklist dated January 23, 1979.
No. 3: Declaration of Non - Significance dated February 21,
1979.
Building and Land Development's preliminary repor
dated March 22, 1979.
Exhibit No. 5: Assessor map of the SW4 of Section 10 -23 -4
showing subject property outlined in red.
Exhibit No. 6: Two Land Use Sheets marked:
6 -1: 315W
6 -2: 324W
(to be retained in the Division's permanent worki
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 ".
rIASTER
.
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. Barnhard
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
228 -79 -R Page 2
•
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
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.
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:
Exhibit No. 11:
Mr. Marbett, Building
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 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 3
Addendum Building and Land Development report dated
May 8, 1979.
Site plan submitted April 9, 1979 by the applicant.
and Land Development, summarized the background of
Condition No. 5:
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:
"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 iianager 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� _ (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.
/5. The property to the south (File No. 261 -78 -R /Ray 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.
-6. 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 semi-
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 restriction
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 residence:
and industrial expansion in the area.
10. The Building and Land Development Division proposed specific limits
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 goods
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 beyond
typical industrial property requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve ML -P in of ML subject to the following conditions:
Pre - ordinance condition:
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
/..,,i,ditions of File No. _261 -78 -R are satisfied within six (6)
n Chs of the approval__of this case (File No. 228- 79 -R).
Poet- 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
JAN 1 U 2i
P
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
ATTACHMENT 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,
Signature Address
•
C4.
6 -
'- ? =374; Cs 7Z
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
42s Q. I S
f��JC'en I �/ C.44.,44_
1 1931 O !'y8 (PA)
/37V2.--92
/ 7 / q3/ Sc) lVe'- I r
405 Si), /89
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
le •
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
(J) -
`'�� - ) 1 7, J *
Address
/
/ , 2 6 3 0 - 3V (Z ,9_
/2 V 0 / - 35 e.
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
/. V /, .' S j 14 5 ; , 7, . r (Y/C.
3 h'
/a5 3575 A,./
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Signature
7
Address
/39‘7?
Ems
// (Xaiti‘LY
.
_ 4 • riv
NC4k.oj VsLeNAA
C1 C 14 IL
�
L�
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
k
14410. 1.-ded,e
/ ?.: .S i L ;cC .
z _S'"e: ` Cam. S .
I 5') yatit ,-h' .,5l%
\,)11 1i _co
I C.:3 Avg .
/5J /y - (4.4 reel (e :/
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
/, •
I t
/•
Address
1
/J��
3/ 2 7 e L /LtN �!` r G L G ' ?J /
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
Q, )1444.4„,
-daeA 4-x
/,32 7 s8 .4uc s c
/3a1 ?- 3gt Ave So .
d.0.11/6-10
3v° v J►44 /30-
430/ 7 - ,J 7 '-' �. � � � 4 : r
?,0/7 //) ,1 - Le 'j 2A'/' f-- ke/ - %'g/
30 / s 3"3 64,
(i4A. .
/360 7 3- 7 ' ' /4 ..fro
3 Z 5o i3 C. s r
/ S /A; �� q," 6
13613 39 40E
/30' 37 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 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 ind - trial 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
Z *935 37 41 ' 5
1Z40 Ed N11,1 L1
--
/ 2f
,37 ` t • 410 /3 & "
3 717 S la‘
Ilccol 3714 5.
1213,-5 32 Ltd-4- So•
130i 7 y/ A/c S.
/Soo git 4 S.
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Address
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
DATE: December 20, 1989
TO: Parties of Record
RE:
Becker Transfer Trucking
89 -10 -DR
89 -3 -CUP
PHONE N (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Due to a procedural omission in the notification process, this
project will be heard again by the Planning Commission on
Thursday, January 25, 1989, at 8:00 p.m. Notice of the hearing
will also be posted on the property. We apologize for any
inconvenience this may have caused you.
Questions concerning these applications should be addressed to
Jack Pace, Senior Planner, 433 -1849.
C
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 14, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Jim
Haggerton. Members present were Messrs. Haggerton, Hamilton,
Cagle, Flesher, Kirsop, Knudson and Gomez.
Representing the staff were Moira Bradshaw, Molly Headley, Darren
Wilson and Joanne Johnson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. CAGLE SECONDED A
MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 9 & 16, 1989 MINUTES AS PRESENTED.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
89 -2 -CA - SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY ZONE - Planning Commission
deliberation on adoption of an ordinance for a Sensitive Areas
Overlay Zone within the Zoning Code.
Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner, reviewed the status of the
Sensitive Area Ordinance, thus far. She reported that the
Council approved the moratorium ordinance and the establishment
of a Citizen Advisory Committee for review of the SAO.
Discussion ensued on the merits of a Citizen Advisory Committee
at this stage of the SAO review and the role of the Planning
Commission in this process.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPOINT
JACK FLESHER AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Discussion ensued as to role of the Planning Commission in the
SAO review process and the best way to communicate the concerns
of Commission to the City Council.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND MR. FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION THAT THE
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN BE AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND EXPRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
CONCERNS TO THE COUNCIL, AS DISCUSSED AT TONIGHT'S MEETING.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Bradshaw introduced Bob Benedicto, DCD Plans Checker, to
explain the use of consultants in the plans review process.
Planning Commission
December 14, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Benedicto explained the plans review process and when a
consultant's expertise is required.
Ms. Bradshaw explained another alternative which is a three party
contract. She discussed the merits of this approach.
More discussion ensued on the Sensitive Area Ordinance and how
much time and effort the Commission should spend on it in its
present form. Also discussed was the role of the SAO Citizen
Advisory Committee and Commission's role. The Commission felt
that a new SAO ordinance needs to be drafted using the Planning
Staff and input from the SAO Citizen Advisory Committee, they
would then forward this information on to the City Council.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED MR. GOMEZ SECONDED A MOTION TO REJECT THE
PROPOSED SAO IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE HE FELT THE ORDINANCE WAS
DRAFTED HASTILY, AND NOT A LOT OF THOUGHT WAS PUT INTO IT AT THE
TIME OF ITS DRAFTING, HE FELT THAT THE IMPACTS THAT IT IS GOING
TO HAVE ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUKWILA ARE
GREAT, AND AS BROUGHT UP AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO HAVE PURCHASED PROPERTY YEARS AGO AND WHO HAVE COUNTED ON THE
VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY TO BE THERE- -THEIR RETIREMENT STAKE, SO TO
SPEAK, THEREFORE, HE FELT THEY DESERVE CONSIDERATION; HE FELT THE
AMERICAN WAY IS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP
HIS PROPERTY AND THIS IS NOT COVERED IN THE ORDINANCE ADEQUATELY;
HE FELT ALSO THAT THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT COVER THAT IF THE CITY
WANTS THE PROPERTY TO BE A SENSITIVE AREA IN TERMS OF FOLIAGE OR
IN TERMS OF WETLAND, THEY HAVE GOT TO BE PREPARED, IN HIS JUDGE-
MENT, TO COME FORWARD WITH A PLAN FOR THE PEOPLE AS TO HOW THAT
IS GOING TO BE HANDLED SPECIFICALLY, SO PEOPLE ARE NOT LEFT
HANGING; HE FELT, AS ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC HEARING,
THAT EACH AREA THAT WOULD BE DESIGNATED THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE A
SENSITIVE AREA WOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT ON ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL
MERIT, AND HE FELT THE SAO SHOULD STATE THAT - -YOU CAN'T COME UP
WITH A PANACEA AND SAY THAT ITS GOING TO COVER ALL WETLANDS AND
ALL GREENBELTS AND ALL HILLSIDES - -IT'S GOT TO BE A SPECIFIC SITE
BY SITE EVALUATION; AND, AS ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC HEAR-
ING, HE FIRMLY BELIEVED THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN APPEALS PROCESS,
FOR THOSE WHOSE LAND IS DESIGNATED AS A SENSITIVE AREA, AS THEY
OUGHT TO HAVE A RIGHT AND PROCESS WHEREBY THEY CAN COME TO THE
GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA AND HAVE THEIR PSEUDO DAY
IN COURT WITHOUT HAVING TO ACTUALLY HIRE LAWYERS AND GO TO COURT.
FOR THOSE REASONS, HE WOULD AGAIN MOVE THAT WE REJECT THE PRO-
POSED ORDINANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SEND IT INTO THE HANDS OF THE
COMMITTEE - -OF WHICH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL HAVE A MEMBER;
AND WHEN THIS COMMITTEE HAS GOTTEN THROUGH WITH THEIR EVALUATION
AND IS PREPARED TO MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND OFFER THEIR
PROPOSAL, THAT PROPOSAL WOULD BE OFFERED TO THE PLANNING COMMIS-
SION FIRST, BEFORE IT IS GIVEN TO THE COUNCIL IN A FASHION THAT
AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE NORMAL WAY OF DOING BUSINESS.
Planning Commission
December 14, 1989
Page 3
THE MOTION PASSED WITH CAGLE, GOMEZ, KIRSOP, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON
AND KNUDSON VOTED YES; AND MR. FLESHER VOTING NO.
It was determined after further discussion that the Planning
Commission will next evaluate the SAO when the SAO Citizen
Advisory Committee comes to them with a report. It was the
consensus of the Commission to meet two nights per month to meet
the work program needs of 1990.
89 - 8 - DR - CRYSTAL SPRINGS PARK - PHASE II A request for a
determination on parking requirements for Phase II of Crystal
Springs Park.
Molly Headley, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report,
recommending approval of the proposal without requiring addi-
tional parking spaces.
Don Williams, Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department Director,
further explained the project, pointing out that the existing
parking for Phase I is not fully utilized, therefore he does not
see a need for additional parking for Phase II.
Carl Stixrud, architect for the project, discussed the elevations
in the area of the project.
John Barnes, 15828 51st Avenue S. has a difficult time getting
home due to the congestion on the street next to the basketball
court due to the narrow width of the street at that point. He was
concerned with parking in front of his property which would be
created as a result of the addition of Phase II.
Discussion ensued on the proposal.
MR. HAMILTON MOVED AND KNUDSON SECONDED A MOTION TO REJECT THE
APPLICATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE PARKING PLAN IS INADEQUATE
AND FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT A PLAN BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMIS-
SION THAT REFLECTS ADEQUATE PARKING FOR FIVE OR TEN YEARS IN THE
FUTURE, BASED ON REASONABLE GROWTH (USAGE) FOR THE PARK.
MOTION PASSED WITH GOMEZ, KIRSOP, FLESHER, HAGGERTON, HAMILTON
AND KNUDSON VOTING YES. MR. CAGLE VOTED NO.
89 -10 -DR & 89 -3 -CUP - BECKER TRANSFER - Request for permission to
build a parking facility for employee parking and semi -truck
trailer parking.
Planning Commission
December 14, 1989
Page 4
Ms. Molly Headley, staff representative, reviewed the design
review portion of the request, recommending approval with two
conditions which include deletion of the site's entry point off
East Marginal Way and the placement of wheel stops in parking
spaces adjacent to landscape areas.
Mr. Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering, Inc. represented the ap-
plicant, reviewed the history of the operation. He pointed out
on a site plan the relocation of the driveway which will reflect
a distance of 80 -foot from the neighbor's house to the south.
This site plan was entered into the record as Exhibit "A ". He
asked that the Commission approve the entry on East Marginal Way.
He further described a catch basin and street improvements
planned for the site.
Mr. Edwin Becker, owner of the operation also asked that access
onto East Marginal Way be approved.
Ms. Shirley Robinson, 13422 - 40th Avenue S. explained that King
County allowed for spot zoning for this operation to go in. She
asked the Commission to postpone the hearing on this proposal so
other neighbors in the area would have an opportunity to testify.
She also felt that his operation was an eyesore. She further
stated that King County's requirements for his operation have
been ignored and no amount of landscaping would improve the
situation because it is lower than surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Bill Scheffler, 4033 S. 128th spoke in opposition to the
proposal. He felt that insufficient public notification was
given which resulted in only a few given the opportunity to voice
their objections to this request. He felt that this request
would result in the expansion of this business to a truck leasing
and sale business. He read from a report, entered into the
record as Exhibit "B ", of prior King County action, and reported
that the conditions of approval were never met. A letter in
opposition to the request from Beverly A. Nicholson was entered
into the record as Exhibit "C ". He also read into the record a
letter of objection from Paul and Betty Gully, entered as Exhibit
"D ". A letter from Janice Scheffler was entered as Exhibit "E"
with an attached photo as Exhibit "F ".
Allan Ekberg, 4123 S. 130th also wanted the hearing postponed so
others could speak, as there was lack of proper notification of
the hearing. He felt the proposed landscaping was not adequate
due to the 13.5 foot height of the truck /trailers. He suggested
landscaping be placed on a berm to increase the height of the
landscaping and screening effect. He mentioned the noise and
traffic impacts this operation would have.
Planning Commission
December 14, 1989
Page 5
Barbara Davidsion, 4020 S. 128th, felt Mr. Becker kept his
operation up and felt the neighbors were being unfair in their
criticism of Mr. Becker.
Mr. Gary Evans, 4020 S. 128th felt the noise of the Becker
operation did not compare to the airplane noise. He also felt
that there are not that many trucks parked there.
Kathy Stetson, 13258 - 40th Avenue S. felt that this request
constituted an expansion of his operation. She further stated
that storm drainage was not adequately addressed, and expressed
concern with traffic impacts on East Marginal Way. She felt
there was not much confidence in him to abide by the Commissions
wishes due to his past record in ignoring King County's condi-
tions.
Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering explained that the request would
not result in expansion to a truck sales and leasing. It was for
his business only that trucks needed to be purchased and sold.
The sign, he stated, is located on the original location - -not the
property currently in the review process for design review and
conditional use permit. He assured the Commission that Mr.
Becker would comply with all City standards.
Mr. Pat Becker, Becker Trucking, stated that people top their
trees used for landscaping for Christmas trees. Regarding noise,
he felt their trucks made less noise the Detroit Diesels trucks.
Mr. Mann reiterated the landscaping buffer will be adequate and
tractors on the property will only be used to take trailers off
the property.
The Public Hearing was closed on the design review portion of the
request.
Molly Headley reviewed the request for a Conditional Use Permit
and the criteria used in granting the permit and how this ap-
plication addresses these criteria. She stated staff recommends
approval for the Conditional Use Permit with the condition that
the applicant agree to a Cash Assignment of 150% of the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance, to be
installed per the BAR plan, and to be installed in six months.
Jeff Mann, Pac -Tech Engineering, explained the street improve-
ments and storm water drainage facility planned for East Marginal
Way. He felt this request is a lower density use compared to
other allowed uses. He stated the applicant concurs with all
conditions imposed by the City.
Planning Commission
December 14, 1989
Page 6
Allan Ekberg, stated that no permit was obtained for the sign for
truck leasing and sales, and if they are allowed to park trucks
on the proposed property, it will free up room to park more
trucks on the original site - -thus potentially increasing their
operation. It will provide a more intense use of their
operation. He felt conditions should be placed by the City to
prohibit expansion of his operation, truck leasing and sales
should not be allowed. Wants the City to establish a baseline
for the amount of trucks in their operation to ensure compliance.
Jeff Mann assured the Commission Mr. Becker will accept whatever
conditions the City wishes to place on their operation.
The public hearing was closed and a short recess was called. The
meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m.
Discussion on the proposal ensued.
MR. CAGLE MOVED AND KIRSOP SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE
BECKER TRANSFER AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. CAGLE AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDED THE BUYING AND
OF VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
89 -3 -CUP
SELLING
MR. CAGLE AMENDED THE MOTION TO ALSO INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT
THE APPLICANT AGREE TO A CASH ASSIGNMENT OF 150% OF THE COST OF
LANDSCAPING TO INCLUDE MATERIALS, LABOR AND MAINTENANCE, TO BE
INSTALLED PER THE BAR PLAN, AND TO BE INSTALLED IN SIX MONTHS.
AMENDMENT SECONDED BY KIRSOP AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
KIRSOP MOVED AND FLESHER SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DESIGN
REVIEW 89 -10 -DR - BECKER TRANSFER SUBJECT TO STAFF CONDITIONS.
Conditions read as follows:
1. Prior to issuance of Building Permit, the applicant shall
submit for review a revised site plan indicating the follow-
ing:
a. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal
Way.
b. Placement of wheel stops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
KIRSOP AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT OF THE
LANDSCAPING SCREENING WILL BE AT LEAST 10 FEET, TO BE ACHIEVED BY
INCREASED TREE HEIGHT OR BERMING. FLESHER SECONDED THE AMENDMENT.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Planning Commission
December 14, 1989
Page 7
89 - - SPE - MEYER SIGN CO - Request for special permission for a
permanent wall sign of 20 square feet for A House of Clocks.
Darren Wilson, Assistant Planner, reviewed the staff report for
this request, recommending approval.
Paul Ramquist, Meyer Sign Co. further described details of the
sign.
MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND CAGLE SECONDED A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 89-
6-SPE MEYER SIGN CO FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR A PERMANENT WALL
SIGN OF 20 SQUARE FEET, BASED UPON STAFF'S FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS - MR. KNUDSON MOVED AND MR. HAMILTON
SECONDED A MOTION TO RE -ELECT FOR 1990 THE SAME SLATE OF OFFICERS
AS THIS YEAR (MR. HAGGERTON AS CHAIRMAN AND MR. CAGLE AS VICE -
CHAIRMAN). MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ms. Bradshaw advised that the Council is considering amending the
moratorium ordinance to allow continuation of some of the exist-
ing applications. The next Planning Commission meeting is
scheduled for January 25, 1990.
ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at. 11:10 p.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joanne Johnson, Secretary
City of Tukwil
6200 Southcenter Boulev
Tukwila Washington 9818
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
a
and
8
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
AND VARIANCE
89- 7 -SMP: BOEING ADVANCE SYSTEMS 1409 BUILDING
Notice is hereby given that Boeing Advanced Systems, who is the owner of the
plication for a Substantial Development
quare foot manufacturing facility, sixty -six
n addition to the existing 1401 building.
Way South, will also be improved with
khead. Subject site is within the S.W.
hip 24 N. Range 4 W.M., in Tukwila, King
below- described property, has filed an a
Permit * for the development of a 314,030
feet eight inches in height, which will be
Subject site, located at 8701 East Margin
storm drains, parking, landscaping and b
and N.W. quarters of Section 33 of Town
County, Washington.
Said development is within 200 feet of t
to express his or her views or to be notifi
should notify Moira Carr Bradshaw, Ass
Development, City of Tukwila, 6200 Sou
in writing of his interest within thirty da
notice which is December 3, 1988. Writt
January 4, 1989.
*AND VARIANCE
e Duwamish River. Any person desiring
d of the action taken on this application
ciate Planner, Department of Community
hcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188,
s of the final date of publication of this
n comments must be received by Tuesday,
Published in the Valley Daily News: N • vember 26 & December 3, 1989
Distribution: City Clerk, Mayor, Depart ent of Ecology, File, Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of Fisheries, Adjacent Property Owners,
Property Owner
WAC 197 -11 -970
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
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.
fig 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 Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director
Address , 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, 'f. TWA 98 88
j 77c '7 Signature
Date
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.
FM.DNS
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
24 -89
Phone 433 -1846
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
parking.
Quarter: NW
Signature:
C
DESIGN REVIEW.APPLICATION
Phone:
Section: 15 Township: 23
(This information may be found on your tax statement.)
3. APPLICANT :* Name: PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
4. PROPERTY Name:
OWNER
Address: /6 9e F
Phone: 7416 a 99 7
50322
1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: Parking Lot for employees and trailer
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
Range: 4
Address: 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Seattle 98188
Date: q-(;,- c �
* Th pplicant i 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 /WE,[signature(s)] EdVi•-. 3ea6
swear that I /we are the owner(s) or contract putchaser(s) of tha
property involved in this application 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: / / 9 P
{
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 2
The following criteria will be used by the ,BAR in its decision - making on your
proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each cri-
terion (if appropriate), and describe. how your plans and elevations meet the
criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space
on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form.
5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE
A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with
the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian
movement.
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 it site.
RESPONSE: The site plan provides for landscapingfrom 10' to 15' wide nn all
perimeters. Douglas Fir planted 15 feet on center will provide the founda-
tion vegetation for a screening buffer from Fast Marginal Way and from the
residential zoned areas 'to the south and west.
6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA
A. Harmony in 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 the estab-
lished neighborhood character.
0. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading
facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be
encouraged.
E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation
should be encouraged.
RESPONSE: Three access driveways are located on South 128. No access is
provided to South 128th Street to avoid traffic conflicts. Traffic activity
would be consistant with activity to the north and on the main transfer site.
The site plan provides for thru circulation and no dead -ends.
7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT
approximately 25 feet.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 3
A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of
a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced.
B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should
promote safety and provide an inviting and 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 un-
sightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or
combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and
summer.
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.
RESPONSE: See Item 5 for description of landaraping.T.ightir.g Standardc will
be located to provide for safety and security. Light Standards would he
shielded to protect adjacent properties. Light Standards would be •
8. BUILDING DESIGN
RESPONSE: Not applicable,
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 4
A. Architectural style, is not restricted, evaluation of a project should
be based on quality of its design relationship to surroundings.
B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with per-
manent neighboring developments.
C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets -
should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building
components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated
life of the structure.
D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only
for accent.
E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or
buildings should be screened from view.
F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fix-
tures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with
building design.
G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be
avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide
visual interest.
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 5
9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE ,
A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be
part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials
should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate,
colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and pro-
portions should be to scale.
B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni-
ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and
buildings.
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT
The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area
in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appear-
ance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize
on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and
nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people- oriented
use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth.
Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this
District. Use additional response space, if necessary.
10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities
of the area.
The proposal includes landscaping treatment that meets or exceeds City
Standards 'rovidin: ad'acent buffers to sin le famil areas and the East
Marginal Way corridor.
11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and
enjoyment of, public recreational areas'and facilities.
The proposed use will not conflict with any public recreational area or
facility.
C
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION
Page 6
12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site
pedestrian circulation.
Sidewalks will be extended from East Marginal Way to the westerly boundary
along the S. 128th Street frontage.
13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and
complementary to the district in which it is located.
The site is zone Cl along with other properties along East Marginal Way
south of 128th Street South The .ro•osed use i oc . e. on
and south of an existing transfer operation. The site will provide parking
for employees and trailers. No active loading will take place on site. The
use will provide a transition to the R -1 areas to the east.
14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse
environmental impacts.
As noted in 13, this site will be a parking lot, active loading or unloading
will not occur on -site. Landscape buffering will provide visual screening
of the site. Traffic will use East Marginal Way for access to the site by
way of S. 128th Street. Site engineering will provide for adequate drainage
and dust control during construction.
15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant
historical features in the area.
Not applicable.
(29 /DSGN.APP1 -3)
1
&
\
light industry becker transfer plan
parking site paln
.