Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 77-52-CUP - SELLAND - AUTO FREIGHT TRUCK TERMINAL CONDITIONAL USE77-52-cup south 133rd street south 134th place selland auto freight truck terminal CONDITIONAL USE PLANNING PARKS & RECREATION BUILDING SELLAND AUTO FREIGHT TRUCK TERMINAL CONDITIONAL USE 21 December 1977 Dear Mr. Selland: Very truly yours, KS /ch cc: CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Richard Selland, President Selland Auto Freight 6560 Fifth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 RE: Conditional Use Permit Denial 11 Stoknes, Director ice of Community Development Mayor C ity Clerk Mlle #77 -52 -CUP On November 17, 1977, the Tukwila Planning Commission denied your request for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a truck terminal in the vicinity of South 134th Street west of Inter- urban Avenue in Tukwila. You appealed this denial to the City Council. This letter is to officially inform you that the City Council did, at their regular meeting of December 19, 1977, uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and your Conditional Use Permit application has been denied. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 242 -2277 Mr. Simon: (. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 19 DECEMBER 1977 SELLAND AUTO FREIGHT Inadequacy of roads, children play there, regular trucking route would be there. Artist rendition of proposed development at re- zone showed attractive development. JoAnn Duoyer: David Jensen Inc. original applicants for rezone. P.U.D. concept of commercial /industrial uses. Herb Carlson: Water constantly going accross road. Landscaping of present structures look more like weeds and an attempt to do as little as possible to meet codes and get in buildings. How big will it grow? Robert Borden: Procedural comments. Feels it will be a 24 hour /day operation. Growth? Mary Brommel: 5622 - 1st Ave. So. (1st Ave. So. & Orcas). (3 blocks north of Sears warehouse) Jim Gather: Can now feel truck vibrations at his home. Noise will be loud. Elizabeth Springer: Highline Plan shows area west to be low - density. Truck terminal would not be complementary. Precedence of allowing any truck oriented activity. December 19, 1977 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE AND CALL 0 ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFIC]ALS IN ATTENDANCE MINUTE APPROVAL VOUCHER APPROVAL PUBLIC HEARINGS Rezone Request from Unclassified to C -2, 13453 Interurban Ave. H. Gje de peal Planni for Co Use Pe Sellan Transp decision of g Commission ditional mit to Auto rt TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers Mayor Bauch, presiding, led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the regular meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order. LIONEL C. BOHRER, DWIGHT R. GARDNER, GEORGE D. HILL, Council President PHYLLIS D. PESICKA, DANIEL J. SAUL, DWAYNE D. TRAYNOR, GARY L. VAN DUSE KJELL STOKNES, OCD Director; LAWRENCE HARD, City Attorney; JOHN MCFARLAND, Administrative Assistant; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; MABEL J. HARRIS, City Treasurer. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY PESICKA, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 1977, BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE VOUCHERS BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. * Current Fund Street Fund Fed. Shared Revenue City Hall Construction Water Fund Sewer Fund Vouchers No. 4502 - 4663 4502 - 4698 4609 - 4626 4627 - 4628 4629 - 4632 4633 - 4647 4648 - 4663 $ 34,480.72 7,746.12 2,468.90 61,819.28 3,097.62 10,059.19 $119,671.83 Councilman Traynor noted Voucher No. 4593 and wondered if the glasses purchased were sunglasses as the invoice did not say. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THATVOUCHER NO. 4593 BE EXCLUDED FROM THE BILLS. MOTION CARRIED WITH HILL•VOTING NO. * MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch declared the Public Hearing open on a rezone request made by Mrs. Hazel Gjerde. The request is to change the zoning from unclassified to C -2 on the property located at the Northwest corner of intersection of 52nd Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, explained that the owner annexed the subject parcel to Tukwila in late 1975. Upon annexation, a parcel of land is assumed as R -1 -7200 until specifically classified. The owner has now applied for the C -2 classification. The Planning Commission considered this and recommended approval. Mr. Stanley Erickson, 1613 2 - 10th Street West, Kirkland, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the rezone request. The property lies along Interurban and is Commercial property. There being no further comment on the rezone request, Mayor Bauch declared the Public Hearing closed. This being the time and date advertised for a Public Hearing on the denial of a Conditional Use Permit applied for by Selland Auto Transpc Mayor Bauch declared the Public Hearing open. He explained that each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, explained that the Planning Commission - considered this application on November 17. The property is located west of Interurban Avenue, east of 43rd Avenue and north of 135th. The conflict is over the interpretation of "Truck Terminal." Staff determined that the principal function being overnight storage and daily dispatchment and collection of trucks constitutes a truck termin The Planning Commission agreed and also considered the limitations placed on the property by Ordinance No. 743. They voted to deny the application for the Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, the applicant is appealing this decision to the Council. 1 • . TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGU( . MEETING December 19, 1977 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont. Appeal decision of Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit to Selland Auto Transport i Mayor Bauch asked if anyone wished to speak "for" the request. There being no comment, he asked if anyone wished to speak "against" the request. Mr. Elray Simon, 4625 South 134th, explained that his street would be the access road to the property in question. This is a unique problen The area has narrow roads and there is already one truck terminal ther Adding more trucks certainly does not alleviate the safety problem in the area. In 1972, a detailed drawing of a proposed development was submitted to the City. To date, nothing like this has been started; the only thing proposed has been truck terminals. Ordinance No. 743 was designed to protect the residents in that area. Mrs. Joan Poirier, 13405 42nd Ave. South, commented that there are ove 16 acres in this subdivision. It Has planned as an Industrial Park wit office /warehouse type of development. The plans for this fell through It is zoned Industrial but the plan was Commercial /Industrial. The property has reverted back to the original owners. If a truck termin is allowed then the door is open for more of the same. There would be setbacks, no landscaping, no sound barriers, and would create a proble for the surrounding residents. Mrs. Poirier asked if it is possible t deny the request and rezone the property to Commercial /Industrial. A planned development would mean more revenue to. the City and be more pleasing to the surrounding area. Mr. Herb Karlson, 46nd Avenue, stated that the drainage system in the area is not working properly. There is water constantly across the road. There are constantly trucks from West Coast on the road. This property is zoned Light Industrial but the request does not fit this zoning. Mr. Karlson asked who polices developments once they are started? What assurance do the neighbors have that plans will be followed? There is a real problem with traffic there now during the rush hour. He stated that he did not think it was the proper place fo Mr. Selland's development because It is not zoned for this. Mr. Robert Borden, 4319 South 135th, expressed a more technical point of view, sighting the law governing appeal procedures. Mayor Bauch pointed out that Council is not here to discuss the letter of the law but to give everyone, feeling aggrieved by a city action, a fair hearing. Mr. Robert Storseth, Realtor, and Mr. Richard Selland, applicant, arrived at this point in the meeting. Mr. Storseth introducted Mr. Selland who he felt could best answer the questions. P4r. Selland stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Councilman Pesicka asked if the proposed business will put additional truck traffic on the roads? Mr. Selland stated thatthe additional traffic will be minimal, probably ten trucks a day maximum. Councilman Traynor asked what the proposed business is? Mr. Selland said the basic operation there would be an office facility, maintenanc facility and'also truck parking. Councilman Traynor asked if items are being transfered from one truck to another,and Mr. Selland said maybe two truckloads a week. Councilman Traynor asked if the trucks are being parked in the City now and was told no. Council Saul asked what hours the maintenance shop is open and what type of work does it encompass? P4r. Selland said it would normally be between eight and five. It could vary some evenings up until 10:00 p. but this would be rare. It will be all types of maintenance and repair t the vehicles. - iu drLA CITY COUNCIL REGULAP MEETING December 19, 1977 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Cont. Appeal decision of Planning Commission for Conditional Use Permit to Selland Auto Transport - Cont. Councilman Bohrer asked if the repairs involved major overhauls and was told it did but this is done usually between the hours of eight and six. He asked about the operations done outside the normal work hours. Mr. Selland said this would amount to a night lay -over of trucks. He stated that right now they have twelve trucks on the road and three trucks in the yard. Councilman Van Dusen asked for a brief description of the type of trucks. He was told they are 18- wheel, diesel automobile carriers. Mary Brummel, 4517 South 137th, asked where the business is presently located? Mr. Selland stated 5622 1st Avenue South (Corner of 1st and Orcas) and there are residences all around it. Mrs. Poirier stated that if repair operations are allowed up to 10:00 p.m., it seems like there would be a great deal of noise. Mr. Karlson stated that they have 15 vehicles today but what happens as the business grows? This is why the residents need protection. Mr. Borden talked about the night operation and the possibility of the business developing into 24 -hour service. Mr. James Gayther, 4334 South 133rd, discussed the amount of vibratior caused by the current truck traffic and his great concern over the additional noise the operation will generate. Mr. Storseth stated that the Environmental Review of the proposed project showed a negative impact of noise and traffic on the area. Mrs. Elizabeth Springer, 13325 42nd South, stated that the Highline Community Plan sets this area as low density family housing. There is no way a truck terminal can be compatible with the residential arei She suggested Council deny the truck terminal and wait until some typ( of proposal is submitted that the residents can live with. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Bauch declare( the Public Hearing closed. He stated that Council should take action at this time. MOVED BY MRS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AND DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. * Councilman Traynor stated that he supports the conditions in the original ordinance and supports the decision of the Planning Commissil As long as the present ordinance is valid, the residents have protectil on what will go in there. Councilman Hill stated that a development, as proposed in 1972, would be compatible with the surrounding area. The only way Council can control developments is to.place conditions on rezones. He stated that this is why he favors Contract Zoning. Councilman Bohrer stated that the decision should be based on the typ of business proposed. There are a number of conditions in Ordinance No. 743 and it is the opinion of Staff and Planning Commission that . those conditions are not met by this proposal. Attorney Hard explained that there are priorities to be considered in making this decision. First, the zoning laws must be looked at, then does the proposal meet the conditions . stated in Ordinance No. 743. Second, does the proposal meet the definition of a truck terminal as defined in the Tukwila Municipal Code. The Environmental Assessment only helps you make an informed decision. Mr. Storseth asked if the public is really aware of the true business Mr. Selland is proposing. * MOTION CARRIED - COUNCIL UPHOLDS THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING December 19, 1977 Page 4 RECESS 8:00 P.M. - 8:05 P.M. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch called the meeting back to order. All councilmembers present except Councilman Traynor who was excused for a short perioc PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS, AND SIMILAR MATTERS Claims for Damages: Virginia Hanson Mary Joyce Carder Data Peterson OLD BUSINESS Thorndyke Senior Center John McFarland, Administrative Assistant, reported that the City ha! received three Claims for Damages involving vehicles that were damaged when they struck a hole in the traveled way on Southcenter Parkway at the entrance to the Bon Marche Warehouse. The claims total $235.09. Mr. McFarland stated that investigation shows that the cause of the damage is an excavation by Washington Natural Gas. They were granted a permit to work at this site but the excavation was improperly filled and a hole developed. Mr. McFarland stated that the claims are justified. Since the city is responsible for tt traveled roadway, he suggested the City award the claim and pursue reimbursement from Washington Natural Gas. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE CITY PAY THE CLAIMS AND PURSUE REIMBURSEMENT FROM WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS. * Councilman Hill stated that any restoration should be done accordinc to specifications and then approved by the City. * MOTION CARRIED. Letter dated December 13, 1977, from Peter Shepherd, Coordinator, Housing and Community Development, was read for the record. Mr. Shepherd states that he is writing in response to the Mayor's letter of December 7, 1977, informing Mr. Spellman of the City Council's motion limiting its commitment to staff the Thorndyke Senior Center for only two years. The letter continues, "while we understand your need to make budget decisions next week, we will not be able to respond officially prior to December 19. The City's action raises a major policy issue which will have to be considered in light of the County's obligations to existing community centers. We will need to discuss this issue with the County Council before letting you know whether the County is still willing to fund the project." READING OF ORDINANCES Ordinance No. 1044 - MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCI Accepting a donation BE READ. MOTION CARRIED. for the Fire Department Aid Car. Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila accepting a donation for Fire Department Aid Car. Attorney Hard stated that all Third Class Cities must accept donations by Ordinance and he felt that OMC Cities are also bound by this state statute. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1044 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 1045 - MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MRS. PESICKA, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANC Adopting the annual BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. budget for the fiscal year 1978. Deputy City Attorney Hard read an ordinance of the City of Tukwila adopting the annual budget of the City of Tukwila for the fiscal year 1978 and declaring an emergency. Mayor Bauch reviewed the major changes made in the proposed budget. .4 K 3 ell n'okes Office of Community Planning City Of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila , Wa. 98188 Dear Mr. Stokes : RECOMMENDATION SELLAN D :0 TRANSPORT ( Appeal )( ( Committee Opposed ) Dec 12, 1977 Respectfully , RECEIVED O.C.D. CITY Of TUKWILA kre 1 2 1977 Enclosed you will see a copy of our comments upon the legality of the so called appeal filed by Selland Auto Transport . We have provided the City Counsel with this input and the Council of Tukwila . Of course your office is aware of the material filed by Selland as their appeal It is the reasoning of the Committee that the so called appeal is an unwarranted attack upon the Tukwila Office of Community Developement , de your staff as well as the Planning Commission itself . The appeal voices no valid complaint based upon fact or law but instead simply assiils Mr. Crutchfield and the Commission . The Committee feels that the Office of Community Planning is compelled to defend its findings as contained in the Staff Report on this matter As a matter of fact your office had difficulty eliciting any sensible information from Selland as witnessed by their answers to your Environmental Checklist of October 20, 1977 . For Selland now to say to the Councilk that the planning commission acted arbitrarily and capriciousl in their methods ( based upon your fact finding ) is to impugn the integrity and professionalism of your Office and Staff. . The Committee respectfully suggests that the Office of Community Planning appear at the Public Hearing upon the so called appeal on Dec 19, 1977 and defend its position upon the proposal . It is one thing to allow the separate arms of the democratic procedure ( 1. e. the Planning Commission vis a vis the City Council ) to function independently of one another as is proper , but it is another thing to stand Idmagx4 idley by while the facts of your role are presented to the Coulicil in a derogatory and untruthful manner . Mr. Crutchfield acted in an honorable and responsible manner in strict accordance with his duties . Selland received a full hearing as per the mandate of the controlling statutes . We do hope that you will appear and make these facts known to the City Council . ( Committee Opposed to Any Truck Terminal ) C SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT ( Appeal ) Dec 10, 1977 LeSourd Patten Fleming & Hartung ( Committee Opposed ) Attorneys at Law Seattle, Wa. out Gentlemen : The Committee wishes to point to Counsel for the City of Tukwila that the so called appeal filed by Selland is not legally suficient to be entertained by the Council . Title 18 ( Zoning Code ) TMC expressly preconditions a " grbvance n as grounds for appeal . A grierance is it an injury , injustice or wrong which gives grounds for complaint because it is unjust and oppre Lve ( Black's Law Dictionary , 4th Ed . p. 831 . • What Selland says in their letter of Nov. 22, 1977 to the Coun "is that the City afforded them full opportunity to appeal the Planning Commission's characterization of their proposed use as a truck terminal . Selland failed to so appeal thereby waiving any right to appeal the same issue to the Council . Point 2 of Selland' s Statement merely voices an opinion that Ordinance No. 743 infers no restrictions upon the use of the proposed site . So that the Council be not mislead , it is suggested that Counsel for the City correct this impression.. Ordinance # 743 contains 17 development restrictions which any use proposed thereunder must fulfil and complement . And Chapter 18.40. 010 ( 41) expressly enunciates the imperitive that r the Planning Commission shall find that the use will not affect adversely the present character or future developement of the surrounding community ". Selland merely makes claims in points 3, 4, & 5 but offers.no proofs . Selland's entire n appeal r was as a matter of fact fully investigated • by the Commission's Staff . The Staff's recommendation was to deny the application . And the Commission voted unamiously for denial . Nothing is offered in this so called appeal . There is no claim of injury either in fact or law , no injustice is claimed nor is any wrong cited . That Selland does voice is mere disgruntlement over their • disappointment in a disgraceful manner we might add i. e. as witness the personal attacks upon Mr. Crutchfield and the unsupported characterization of the Planning Commission as arbitrary and capricious. RECOMMENDATION The Committee feels that the above legal situations should be made clear to the Council by the City Attorney at the beginning of the meeting scheduled for Dec 19, 1977. This procedure will insure that the Public meeting will be conducted properly and without misunder - standing as to law and fact . Respectfully submitted ( Committee Opposed to Any Trucking Terminal(Composed of Those Attending the Dec 19th Public Meeting and of the other Public Hearings and all the signers of petitions opposing a truck terminal and those filing written objections ) Nnv.17iT 1 9 7 7 C.LL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES DISCUSSION Claim for Damages - Larry B. Feinstein, trustee for Sleep World, Inc. T'J ';iI':a CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEET M I N U T E S City Ha1 t Council i nam�civ: Council President Hill called the Tukwila City Council Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. TRAYNOR, HILL, SAUL, PESICKA, VAN DUSEN, BOHRER.7 MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY PESICKA, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 14, 1977 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. John McFarland, Administrative Assistant, said the claim for damages alleges that officers of the Tukwila Police Department participated in the liquidation of the bankrupt's Sleep World, Incorporated inven- tory on July 9 and 10, 1977. That such involvement was contrary to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and that the officers were infor med of these circumstances. Mr. McFarland said the Staff findings show the claim provides insuffi cient information upon which to form the basis of a complaint. Search of Tukwila Police Department records fail to locate any evi- dence of involvement by Police Department personnel on the dates indicated or in the alleged capacity of participants in the liquida- tion sale. Both the on -duty logs and case report files, as well as the record of off -duty employment, were reviwed. Mr. McFarland said it was the recommendation of the City Attorney's office that the claim be denied in full. MOVED BY PESICKA, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES BY LARRY B. FEINSTEIN, TRUSTEE FOR SLEEP WORLD, INCORPORATED, BE ON THE DECEMBER 5, 1977 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED, t/ Appeal of Decision - Mayor Bauch said the purpose of this item on the agenda was so a Tukwila Planning Comm.public hearing date could be set. He recommended the Public Hearing on denying an applica -be held at 7:00 P.M. on December 19, 1977. tion for a conditional use permit. Gusa MOVED BY PESICKA, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT A PUBLIC HEARING ON property (Fostoria THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF DECISION BY TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION Garden Tracts) ON DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON THE GUSA /Selland Auto Trans. PROPERTY (FOSTORIA GARDEN TRACTS) /SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT, INC. BE HELD ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1977 AT 7:00 P.M. CARRIED. . Elizabeth Springer, 13325.42nd South, said she had just written a letter to the City Council asking for the date of the public hearing Herb Carlton, audience, said he hoped all people in the area would b notified. Council President Hill said a notice will be published in the newspaper at least ten days in advance of the hearing. He said all people within 300 feet of the property in question would be noti fied. Mr. Carlton said petitions had been signed protesting the . application and he asked if they would be entered as part of the pub hearing. Council President Hill said those concerned should be in attendance at the public hearing. James McKenna, audience, asked if you have to be a resident of Tukwi to argue pro or con on this subject. Council President Hill said th Council would listen to everyone on the night of the hearing. Mary Brummell, 4517 South 137th, asked about an environmental state- ment and if one had been filed? If so, what were the findings? Councilman Traynor answered that the Council does not have backgroun information on this subject, the purpose of consideration at this time is to set a public hearing. Before the Public Hearing is held the Council will have an opportunity to study the matter and obtain additional information. TU; 'VILA CITY COUNCIL CO:-,;" OF THE WHOLE MEETING �� �...1. .. •'111 /�- NoMi,u�(' 2o, 1977 Page 2 DISCUSSION - Contd. Appeal of Decision Tukwila Planning Comm. on denying an application for a conditional use permit. Gusa property (Fostoria Garden Tracts) /Selland Auto Tran- sport, Inc. - contd Rezone Request - Unclassified to C -2 by Hazel Gjerde, 13453 Interurban Ave. City Hall Land- scaping Meeting with USTME - Wages ADJOURNMENT 7:45 P.M. Mary Dussault, audience, asked if any action will be taken before the public hearing is held. Mayor Bauch replied that no action will be taken before December 19, 1977. The purpose of having it on the agenda at this time is to set a date for the public hearing. Elray Simon, audience, stated he would like to know the property was not going to be rezoned so the property owners in the vicinity would not have to keep coning back to the Council Meeting to defend the use of the property in their area. Councilman Traynor said everyone had a right to speak or come before the Council regarding a rezone, but the council could not take any action at this time. Robert Borden, 4319 South 135th Street, said he would like to make a formal motion to the effect that the decision of the Tukwila Plannin! Commission to deny application for a conditional use permit on the Gusa property not be appealed. He said he had prepared a statement on behalf of his wife who owned property in the vicinity. Council President Hill reminded Mr. Borden that all of the information presented at this meeting would have to be repeated at the Public Hearing. He repeated no action would be taken this night. Chris Crumbaugh, audience, said it was his opinion the Council shoul' not listen to discussion on the subject when the appeal applicar.r::1 were not present to submit their information. Mayor Bauch stated Selland Auto Transport, Inc. were not represe:- at this meeting because he had told them it was not necessary fo. to be present as the purpose of this item on the agenda was to set a public hearing. All information presented at this meeting will ha to be repeated at the Public Hearing. MOVED BY PESICKA, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE REZONE REQUEST FROM UNCLASSIFIED TO C -2 BY HAZEL GJERDE, 13453 INTERURBAN AVENUE (NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF 52ND AVENUE SOTUH AND INTERURBA! BE HEARD AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 19, 1977 AT 7:00 P.M. CARRIED. Councilman Pesicka said the Council had been talking about doing the landscaping for the new City'Hall in- house. She said she thought a date should be set to discuss this matter with Staff. Council President Hill set the date of December 7, 1977. Councilman Saul said he and Councilman Bohrer would meet with the • representatives of USTME'bn Friday, December 2, 1977 at 4:00 P.M.. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. 2&oher, Recording Secretary 5E117flB 811,0 r#ansane City Council of Tukwila Tukwila City Hall 14475 59th Ave. South Tukwila, Washington re: Gusa property, Fostoria Garden Tracts /Selland Auto Transport, Inca Honorable Council Members: November 22, 1977•;, -_ 6560 FIFTH AVENUE SO. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98108 PHONE (2061 767 -5960 TELEX 32.0141 - The undersigned hereby wishes to appeal a decision recently made by the Tukwila Planning Commission denying an application for a conditional use permit. The use permit was applied for by Selland Auto Transport, Inc. to construct maintenance and office buildings on a piece of property located in Tukwila and zoned M -1 for industrial uses. The history of this situation is as follows: Earlier this year, July 1977, we began looking for a property to expand our operation from its present location at 5622 1st Ave. South. After inspecting a number of properties we determined the above referenced property to be the most favorable because (1) of its close location to freeway access and exit ramps; (2) the size of the parcel very closely fits or present and future requirements; and (3) the property is zoned to include our uses. For these reasons we optioned the property and began making plans to relocate our business. After a determination of how our need could best be met on the site we inquired with the City of Tukwila as; to what documentation and /or approvals were necessary to obtain a building permit. We were referred at that time to a Mr. Gary Crutchfield who instructed us to draft a letter explaining our business operations. We complied with this request and issued a letter dated September 16, 1977 which we attach as an exhibit to this letter. After receiving this letter Mr. Crutchfield subsequently responded on September 23, 1977, which is also attached. In his response Mr. Crutchfield determined (1) our operation is a "truck terminal" and (2) because of this we must have planning commission approval to locate on the property in the form of a conditional use permit.. C City Council of Tukwila Page Two We were given the choice at that time of either applying for a conditional use permit or disagreeing with Mr. Crutchfield's interpretation of our business and appealing this interpretation to the Tukwila City Council. Because of time constraints in the form of season of the year and a limited option period on the property we elected to apply for a conditional use permit. We thought at that time a co- operative effort would solicit some support from the public appointed officials. This was not a correct assumption on our part. After filing our initial application and environmental review we were scheduled on the October 27, 1977, Planning Commission agenda. Unfortunately the time constraints were too tight to complete the environmental review which forced the delay of our appearance at the hearing until November 17, 1977. During this period of evaluation Mr. Crutchfield published a public notice of our planned appearance before the Planning Commisssion. This notice stated our proposed use to be that of a "truck terminal ", which because of previous proposals in the area drew a considerable amount public controversy. It would be appropriate to mention at this time that the connotation given by this term "truck terminal" is negative to many of the nearby owners because of a concentration of "truck terminals" on East Marginal Way near the Rainier Bank Computer Center. Needless to say, these so called property owners and concerned citizens attended the planning commission hearing to voice their disapproval of our proposed facility. It is very interesting to make some observation with regard the most vocal of the opposition. The individual who made the loudest and lengthiest complaint against the proposal was a Mr. Robert Borden, who resides at 4319 So. 135th, approximately 350 feet from the proposed development. Mr. Borden does not own the property and a cursory examination of this property shows one that has beem severly neglected and needing extensive repair. The attached tax statement illustrates the assessor's opinion of value of the property in which objector resides. Also attached is a letter hand out which Mr. Borden distributed to the Planning Commission members at the hearing. Needles to say, this useless piece of prose is based on very little or no research on his part which is evidenced by his erroneous conclusions. City Council of Tukwila Page Three A Mrs. Poyer, whom also voiced loud complaints, resides more than 1,000 feet from the site. The comments and complaints of increased traffic, which she so vehemently voiced were not based on fact but only supposition. Our operation is one of long haul transport which confine ours movement totally to the freeway in the immediate area because of the absence of any freight or cargo on our site. This location, close to freeway on and off ramps, was one of the major reasons for our selection of this property. Another stifling event was the reccommendation by Mr. Crutchfield to deny the application based on the comments received from surrounding owners. These comments from property owners were solicited without a definitive explanation of our operation by neither Mr. Crutchfied or any other members of the planning commission staff. Because of this the opponents were describing many problems to occur that are not even present in our business. Therefore, we feel the decision made by the Planning Commission was pre - determined, regardless of our arguments to the contrary. In viewing the process of decision making by the planning commission, we feel they were arbitrary and capricious in their methods and their fact finding was incomplete as reflected by their report. We suggest the Council consider the following points: (1) It is not clear that our plan constitutes a "truck terminal" as is commonly understood. See Tukwila Municipal Code- 18.40.010 (41) (2) Ordinance No. 743 does not creat a inference as to how the zoned area ought to be restricted. (3) Our plan conforms to the ordinance in form and content. (4) Mere public opposition "without substance" is not enough of a reason to deny the permit. (5) The proposal has a minimum effect on surrounding resisdential because of a) distance from surrounding resisdential b) confinement of our operation to Freeway movement c) allowance of sufficient buffer between surrounding residents d) our business conforms to the already established uses in the area. City Council of Tukwila Page Four For the above reasons I feel we were denied proper consideration of our proposal and that it does conform to both zoning and neighboring community standards and shoud be approved. We would appreciate your immediate consideration of this appeal and a ruling in favor of our proposal. Enclosed with this letter are exhibits as aforementioned and a plot plan outlining our proposed development. Thank you for your consideration. ROS:mu Encl. Sincerely,• Richard 0. Selland. President PARKS t RECREATION PLANNING BUILDING 21 November 1977 Dear Mr. Selland: GC /ch Gary Crutch ield Assistant Planner Mr. Richard 0. Selland Selland Auto Transport 6560 Fifth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION The Tukwila Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of 17 November 1977, conducted a public hearing to consider your application for Conditional. Use Permit for approval of location of truck terminal. The Commission, after due consideration of the Staff Report and all testimony received during the public hearing, unanimously voted to deny the application. The Commission based their action on the Findings and Conclusions contained in the Staff Report and the opposition expressed by the surrounding residential neighborhood. You, as applicant, maintain right of appeal to the City Council if filed. in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days from date of receipt of this letter. cc: Dir; OCD 6414:10146 SENT CERTIFIED MAIL CITY of TUKW1LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6230 Southcenter Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98188 c (206) 242 -2177 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL -30, (plus postage) SENT TO Trans. Richard 0. Selland - Selland Auto 9 21 November. 1977x0 a y9 MX' STREET AND NO. 6560 Fifth Ave. South P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE Seattle, WA 98108 OPTIONAL SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FEES RETURN 1. Shows to whom and date delivered 15d RECEIPT With delivery to addressee only 650 2. Shows to whom, date and where delivered 350 SERVICES With delivery to addressee only 850 DELIVER TO ADDRESSEE ONLY 50d SPECIAL DELIVERY (extra fee required) PS Farm .;enn - NO INSURANCE COVERAGE .PROVIDED_ ." re._ _,L__ _:_,_, Z Apr. 1971 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL * CPO :1971 0. 460 -949 Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes • 17 November 1977 • Mr. Simons, 15460 - 65th Avenue South, asked if street improvement would be accomplished by LID. Commission discussed nature of improvements intended by applicant. Mr. Simons questioned the survey location of the subject lot in relation to Bluff Street, asserting it may be off as much as ten (10) feet. Chairman Kirsop noted the information would be passed on to the Public Works Department. Mr. Bowen asked if any roof - mounted equipment is included? Mr. Schneider stated the mansard roof facilitates screening of all roof - mounted equipment. Motion by Mr. Bowen, seconded by Mr. Sowinski and carried to approve the site, elevation and landscape plans with the following stipulations: 1. Move the entrance curb cut to at least twenty (20) feet from the property line and reduce to twenty -four (24) feet in width. 2. Provision of deciduous street trees along 65th Avenue South planted at a maximum of thirty (30) feet on center. 3. Provision of automatic irrigation in major landscape areas. 4. Building materials conform to those described in Staff Report Exhibit C. 5. Installation of appropriate safety curb along Bluff Street at the expense of this property owner. NEW BUSINESS: A. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE Unclassified to C -2 (Gjerde) Chairman Kirsop opened the public hearing and Mr. Crutchfield read the. Staff Report and explained the conflict of left turn movements. Mr. Stanley Erickson, 16131/2 - 10th Avenue, Kirkland, representing applicant, explained some degree of access on Interurban Avenue is necessary to function as commercial property. This would be only parcel between I -5 and I -405 freeways fronting Interurban Avenue without access to Interurban Avenue. Explained slope in rear of property inhibits access on 52nd Avenue. Mr. Hartong stated he had visited the site and agrees that the slope in the rear of the property was too severe to allow appropriate ingress /egress on 52nd Avenue if more than 100 feet from Interurban. Stated 52nd Avenue is too narrow for the traffic on it now and questioned where access to Interurban Avenue is precluded on another parcel. Mr. Erickson reiterated Mr. Hartong's statements, noting that left -turn conflicts indeed may be a problem but resolution should be determined at time of construc- tion not now. Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes 17 November 1977 There being no further public comments, Chairman Kirsop closed the public hearing. Motion by Mr. Hartong to recommend the City Council classify the property C -2 with the following stipulations: 1. Any new development, including structures and parking areas, shall pro- vide a minimum landscape setback of ten (10) feet from the property line adjacent to Interurban Avenue. 2. Ingress /egress on Interurban Avenue be authorized. Motion died for lack of second. Mr. Satterstrom suggested the issue of ingress /egress on Interurban Avenue be handled under Board of Architectural Review as a condition of rezone. Motion by Mrs. Avery, seconded by Mr. Bowen and carried to recommend the City Council classify the property C -2 with the following stipulations: 1. Any new development, including structures and parking areas, shall pro- vide a minimum landscape setback of ten (10) feet from the property lines adjacent to Interurban Avenue and 52nd Avenue South. 2. Site and elevation plans for new construction be reviewed by the Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Architectural Review as described in Chapter 18.32 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Chairman Kirsop declared a five - minute recess. Chairman Kirsop reconvened the meeting with Commissioners and Staff present as previously noted. B. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Selland) Chairman Kirsop opened the public hearing and Mr. Crutchfield read the Staff Report and explained drawings of the proposed development. Mr. Satterstrom displayed and explained slides. Mr. Bob Storseth, 1200 Westlake North, representing the applicant, noted the narrow rear portion of the site has been sold to a different developer and therefore is no longer a part of the application. Hence, the site has been reduced from 3.75 acres to 2.5 acres. Stated Selland Auto Freight is not affiliated with Yellow Freight Systems in any fashion. Neither is the Selland operation similar to Yellow Freight. Selland is a "long -haul" operation and consequently won't use local streets but rather will use South 134th Street to get to the freeway interchange. Topography and distance adequately separate the proposed use from the residential neighbor- hood. Summarized his presentation as follows: 1. The proposed use is not a truck terminal as such are commonly described; 2. There is no inference in Ordinance #743 which restricts the use of properties zoned thereunder; CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 17 November 1977 8:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM6' PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (Selland) REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to authorize location of a truck terminal. APPLICANT: Selland Auto Transport, 5622 First Avenue South, Seattle LOCATION: Generally located near the intersection of South 133rd Street and South 134th Street SIZE: 3.74 acres ZONE: M -1 (with 17 development restrictions assigned under Ordinance #743) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial The public hearing for this application was originally scheduled for the regular October meeting. However, the hearing was postponed by motion of the Commission until this evening to allow completion of environmental review as required by the State Environmental Policy Act and Tukwila Ordi- nance #986. Environmental Review has been completed and the Staff Report follows. FINDINGS: 1. Selland Auto Transport, determined by Staff to constitute a Truck Terminal as used in Section 18.40.010 (41), has applied for Conditional Use Permit to authorize location of their terminal facility on the parcel of land depicted in Exhibit A. 2. A description of the use is continued in Exhibit B. 3. Section 18.40.010 (41) requires Planning Commission consideration of all the following criteria: a. Traffic requirements of the streets such terminals would have access. b. Location and width of entrances and exits to such terminals. c. Provision of sufficient space, and open, enclosed and covered docks to allow the trucks when loading, unloading, meaneuvering and parking to be entirely on private property. ., -'^ Planning Commission Staff Report ' _��. Page 2 17 November 1977 d. Additional fire hazards. e. Possibilities of additional traffic hazards or congestion. f. Effect of the proposed use on the present character or future devel- opment of the surrounding community. 4. The subject parcel was zoned M -1 as a part of a larger land area in 1972 by Ordinance #743 which assigned 17 development restrictions. (SEE, Exhi- bit C) 5. The recently adopted Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map promotes industrial use of the subject parcel and low- density residential use of the surrounding neighborhood. (Please refer to Land Use Map, Comprehensive Plan.) 6. King County's Highline Communities Plan Land Use Map promotes low- density residential use of all King County land surrounding the land area designated for industrial use by Tukwila. 7. In May 1977, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing in consider- ation of a Conditional use Permit application by Yellow Freight Systems to locate a truck terminal on the same parcel of land for which Selland Auto Transport has applied. That application was denied by unanimous vote of the Commission "...due to the strong opposition expressed by the surrounding residential neighborhood." 8. Since original public notice of this application, Staff has received several written objections from property owners or residents, all of which are within 1000 feet of the subject parcel. (SEE, Public Comments, enclosed with this Staff Report.) 9. Environmental Review of this application has been completed and a Declara- tion of Non - Significance issued. This determination was generally reached in view of the scale of the proposed development and its relative pollutional aspects. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The criteria set forth under Section 18.40.010 (41) are addressed and conclusions offered individually as follows: a. The Public Works Department, in previous applications, has indicated South 134th Street, which is the principal access to Interurban Avenue and the freeway interchange, as satisfactory to support truck terminal use. South 135th Street and 42nd Avenue South, both being residential . in scale, character and use, is generally unsatisfactory for truck terminal use. b. The applicant proposes only one (1) driveway for the site. It is adja- cent to South 134th Street and is forty (40) feet wide with a large turninc radius. As such, the single entrance /exit for the facility is sufficient. Planning Commission Staff Report c. The site plan submitted indicates ample space for truck maneuvering to take place entirely within the site. Since loading /unloading activities generally are not a function of this facility, docks for such activities are not included. d. Appropriate fire protection measures are applicable under the Uniform Fire Code and enforced through Building Permit review by the Fire Department. e. Increased industrial use in this vicinity will certainly add to traffic volumes on South 134th Street, Interurban Avenue and the freeway inter- changes but to a non - significant degree. Use of South 135th Street and 42nd Avenue South by industrial vehicles would, however, create addi- tional and unwarranted traffic hazards on those streets. f. The immediate vicinity of the subject parcel can best be described as "an industrial pocket situated near a freeway interchange and surrounded by a static residential neighborhood." The surrounding community can best be described as "a static residential community with a pocket of low -lying land which is classified industrial due to its proximity to a freeway interchange." In short, the surrounding residential community is not growing but stable while the industrially - classified portion is realizing the economic - growth pressure of its location. Location of this use will tacitly encourage similar uses which cumulatively diminish the viability of the existing residential community as well as its future maintenance. 2. Although not explicit, Ordinance #743 is inferred to restrict use of this M -1 zone in an industrial park -like atmosphere and by industrial uses most compatible with the surrounding residential community. 3. Both the Highline Communities Plan and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan promote maintenance of the residential community surrounding this industrially classi- fied land. Plan policies promote protection and maintenance'of established residential neighborhoods and discourage intrusions by incompatible land uses. 4. The degree of opposition expressed by the surrounding neighborhood both at the public hearing for the previous Yellow Freight application as well as this application indicate the residents' consternation. SUMMARY: While zoned M -1, this particular land area must be used in a manner which will least affect the surrounding residential neighborhood in light of Ordinance #743, the Highline Communities Plan and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. In considera- tion of all factors in relation to Section 18.40.010 (41), the location of the proposed facility will detract from the ability of both King County and Tukwila to preserve the residential neighborhood and ultimately diminish the quality of the neighborhood. � «' Page 3 . 17 November 1977 Planning Commission Staff Report ' ." • , , . • • • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission, based on the Findings, Conclusion and Summary of this Staff Report, deny the application. .. • • Page 4 17 November 1977. FIGUFc 2 ' EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT ..1f,.. !� Dear Mr. Crutchfield: • Mr. Gary Crutchfield Asst Planner, City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa 98188 re: Gusa property, Fostoria Interchange .1I •f'� d�j ,•' �H 17 = l r i '71 I' W r,�•`_ fir' l' f - '. � � `' . � • September 16, 1977 6560 FIFTH AVENUE 50. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98108 PHONE (206) 767.5960 TELEX 32.0141 Pursuant to our discussions on the above referenced property my company would like to pursue a building permit on the site. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with sufficient background information so as to enable your department to advise us in the pursuit of the aforementioned. After reviewing the zoning requirements and the recommendations by your department on the last application, i.e. Yellow Freight Lines, Inc., I feel my operation complies with the basic stipulations under the code of the City of Tukwila. Therefore, I will try to address the specific complaints against a "terminal" type operation as outlined in the Planning Cormission•Staff Report, 26 May 1977. Selland Auto Transport, Inc. has been in business for eleven years operating in most of the western states.• Contrary•to the method of operation of other auto transport companies, i.e. Convoy Co. and Transport Storage & Distributing Co., we do not have the vehicles delivered to our site to be stored, loaded and distributed. We dispatch our trucks to the vehicles point of origin where they are picked up and transported to thier appointed destination. This method of operation precludes all loading, storage and traffic flow which. would be indigenous to any other typical "Transport or Freight" terminal operation. The word terminal is very key in describing our operation because our terminals are the various port districts that receive our cargo. EXHIBIT B CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT ... Page Two Mr. Gary Crutchfield Enclosed with this letter are a site and floor plan which show basically the structures we propose for the As you can see the site is intended to be used as a maintenance and administrative facility with additional parking for unused trailers and trucks. The site will be surrounded by chain -link fence for security reasons and yard lighting will be minimal and placed for security. At the close of business hours every day the gates will be locked and secured until opening the following day. The site will be landscaped as per requirements of building code. We will have business hours of 7:00 AM until 6:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Only an emergency or exception would preclude these hours of operation being modified. The possible movement of truck traffic in or out of the property outside of daily business hours would occur only an average of three times per day, taking into consideration annual incidence. It is appropriate to mention this movement on to or off of the site during non - business hours does not invlove any extended idling and loading activities as evidenced in a terminal type operation. Giving special consideration to environmental factors, the concern over noise pollution created by a "terminal" operation is not necessary because of the insignificant amount of loading activity and truck movement on out site. In addition, the majority of all activity will occur on the most northeasterly portion of the property. This gives more buffer consideration to the surrounding residential than most of present commercial- industrial development in the area. In conclusion, we feel we cannot be defined as a typical terminal - trucking operation and that our use will conform to the stipulations and intent of the present zoning. We would appreciate your immediate consideration.of this letter and advise us haw most effectively proceed with our plan. Thank you for your consideration. Enclosures cc: Ted Gusa ROS :ros Sincerely, )Richard 0. Selland President • • 23 September 1977 Mr. Richard 0. Selland, President Selland Auto Transport, Inc. 6560 Fifth Avenue South Seattle, Washington 93108 RE: Determination of Use Gary Crutc'rfi el d Assistant Planner GC /ch Attachment cc: Dir, OCD �� . � f e--r 1:{1.717 OFFICE of COMMUNITY CEVELOPMENT Dear Mr. Selland: This correspondence is in response to your letter of 16 September 1977 in which you explained the functions and characteristics of the use which you desire to establish on Mr. Gusa's property near the Fostoria - Interchange in Tukwila. As you are already aware, Section 18.40.010 (41) of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires conditional approval by the Planning Commission of any truck terminal proposed within the t.I -1 (Light Industrial) classification. Inasmuch as this office has duly considered all of the information contained in your letter of - 16 September and has concluded the use you have proposed to be, in fact, a.truck terminal, your proposed development must receive approval in the form of a Con- ditional Use Permit prior to application for Building Permit. (Please refer to the attached interpretation.) Should you disagree with our interpretation of the proposed use as it relates to Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Tukwila Municipal Code, you may, at any time you desire, file written appeal of our interpretation to the Tukwila Board of .. Adjustment. Should you have any questions or desire to discuss this matter further, please contact me at your convenience. 6230 South•: ":r Bout. : cd a Tuk:r:la, N3_,hir.tor$ 98.159 n (20 5) 242-2177 ..I r - 2 £ o i ?-r. r1 CrPiL of COMMUNITY C= 2LCT- ENT • 23 September 1977 TO: FILE ,/ a FROM: Gary Crutchfielc' . Planner SUBJECT: Interpretation of Use: Truck Terminal M DRAND'UM In response to a written determination request from Selland Auto Transport dated 16 September 1977, Fred Satterstrom and myself reviewed Title 18 and the letter and arrived at the following determination: FINDINGS: 1. The word " terina1" is defined as (A) "either end of .a tr.ns: or-- tation line, esp. a railroad, including yards, servicing facilities, etc. " (8) "a station at any important point or' junction of a transportation line." Olebster's New World Dictionary, 1970, pages 1467 and 1468.) 2. The proposed use principally involves the daily dispatchment and collection of truck - trailer combinations and nightly storage of same. GC /ch cc: 'Dir, OCO Ping Supv wel:2 =-',cam _ CONCLUSION: The principal function being overnight storage and daily dispatchment and collection or trucks constitutes a truck terminal as used in Title 18 (TMC). This is true regardless or the absence of actual loading /unloading of freight from those trucks. • • �� WASHINGTON the following conditions: V:: ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE RE-CLASSIFYING CERTAIN 'PROPERTY FROM R -1 ZONING TO Ii -1 ZONING WITHIN THE CITY OF TU:;WILA. J, 1 �4_.. '"; ;...- .c -`•' ; , — .ti _'- • ' i ..:..i.L.• • r f n F _ i •` F WHEREAS, The owners of the following described grope: t_I have petitioned the Planning Commission_ requesting re- classification of said property from R -1 zoning to n - 1 zoning in conformity with the comprehensive plan, and WHEREAS, Public hearings on said petition were held before the Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila, and the City Council having received a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission with respect to the aforementioned petition; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds the requested classi- fication to be in furtherance of the public health, safety and general welfare, NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, do ordain as follows: That the following described real property is hereby classified as M-1 in accordance with Ordinance No. 251 of the City of Tukwila, as amended, and the City Council hereby adopts the attached map showing said classification for the real property described as set forth in Exhbit A attached hereto, subject to 1. Processes and equipment employed and goods processed or sold shall be limited to those which are not objectionable beyond the boundaries of the < r0 district by reason of offensive odors, dust, smoked 1N or gas. F�. 2. Waste disposal shall be by a method or methods approved by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, or any other governmental body having jurisdiction thereover. 3. No use shall be permitted if it results in industrial noise above five sones as measured at the cuter boundary of this district. EXHrC:I T C . CONL T f 1 ONAL USE PENi T i- ;._ i i _ _.� .IU O tt_ �O 4. r:ecessav public rights -of -way shall be dedicated to the public either as a portion of a plat or upon acceptance of street dedication - by the City Council. 5. To protect the abutting contiguous uses," a protective strip of land bordering the external boundaries and along any frontage on public rights - of -way and devoted to the planting, cultivation, growing, and maintenance of sight- obscuring trees, shrubs and plant life shall be established and maintained. The maintenance guarantee of such protective strips and the planned landscaping of the site may be bonded to the city in a reasonable amount if required by the City Council. In lieu • of such protective strip, under appropriate circum- stances, there may be substituted a use classifica- tion of the outer margin of this district consistent with or not objectionable to the use classification of the peripheral area. 6. Outdoor storage facilities shall be obscured by an approved architectural screen or buildings specified on the plat plan and approved by the Planning Commission. 7. A plot and building plan showing compliance with the provisions herein stated and consistent with the amenities of the land use shall be filed with the Planning Department and the building per- mit application shall comply with this approved plot plan. 8. Structures shall not exceed thirty -five feet in height and/or three stories except that when the site exceeds five acres, the height may be raised one additional story for each additional two and one -half acres within the site area bound- aries when specifically approved by the Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. 9. Outdoor storage shall not exceed twenty feet in height, and shall be screened from abutting public streets and from adjacent properties. Such screens shall be a minimum of eight feet high, and not less than sixty percent of the height of the material stored. 10. The minimum setback from all publicly used rights-of-way shall be adequate to provide a park -like atmosphere, and at least fifty feet. The same to be clearly set out in the plot and building plan and upon the building permit applica- tion when filed. 11. Off_ -stret parking shall be provided as stipu- lated in Chapter 18.56, Tukwila Municipal Code. 12. A solid screen planting r+ and /or de Pliv:PRIni v! obscuring fence six feet high shall be provided FILE IN VAUE along the boundaries of the use district, except at streets, where landscape or treatment shall be as described in #15 hereunder. 13.. A setback of fifteen feet, landscaped, shall be provided on the street or public way frontages; this setback to be measured from the minimum build- ing setback line, where no front yard is otherwise 14. Outside storage shall comply with .0 -.t - requirements except that screening shall consist of a decorative obscuring fence and /or • a solid screen planting of evergreens. In areas ad- jacent to residential uses, no outside storage • shall be permitted. 15. Utility easements and areas between property lines and curbing shall be landscaped and /or treated with dust and erosion control planting or surfacing such as low growing evergreens, ground cover, shrubs, washed stream rocks, or a combing- . CD tion of similar materials. 16. Detailed plans for landscaping and screening shall be submitted with plans for building and C\, site improvements and the certificate of occupancy • shall not be issued prior to installation of land- scaping and screening. 17. - The use will not be unduly detrimental to adjacent and/or surrounding properties. The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of this Ordinance and map with the County Auditor. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL and approved by the Mayor this AO4h day of November, 1972. Approved as to Form: City Attorney Published: 1/17. f/nrs 0A/71, tiLVE9F,'Lli 0 . 4 F1L IN PLANNING PARKS & RECREATION BUILDING 2 November 1977 CITY of TUKW1LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Selland Auto Transport, Inc. ATTN: Mr. Richard Selland 5622 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit Dear Mr. Selland: Sincerely, Gary Cru hfield Assistant Planner GC /ch The Tukwila Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of 27 October 1977, postponed the public hearing required for your application for Conditional Use Permit. Postponement of the hearing was necessary to allow completion of environmental review as required by the State Environmental Policy Act prior to conduct of a public hearing. The hearing was postponed to 8:00 P.M. Thursday, 17 November 1977 at the City Hall Council Chambers. 6230 Southcenter Boulevard r Tukwila, Washington 98188 ■ (206) 242 -2177 David Sacket 13429 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Carl Lee 4233 South 146th Seattle, WA 98168 ST. Clair 13407 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Albert Poirier 13405 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Joseph 0. Menard 13425 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Elizabeth & William Springer 13325 - 41nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Louise Stein Rt. 3, Box 3407 Selah, WA 98942 Kenneth D. Nozum 4420 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 W. E. Pritchett 4521 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Leslie Burnett 4357 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Clayton Betting 4425 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 (Attcent for Affidavit - 5/13/77) 8NR43444kt'E Stanley R. Hill 13645 - 46th So. Seattle, WA 98168 Allan Merkle 4426 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Stephen Smiley Box 8 Brownsmead, Oregon V. Dilonardo 4512 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Gordon Hunter 4345 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Ear Shell 45th South & 137th Seattle, WA 98168 Janene Pugh 4508 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Mr. Frank Todd 14446 - 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Edith Borden 4319 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 James W. Gayther 4334 South 133rd Seattle, WA 98168 Mabel and Frank Johnson 13136 42nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98168 John J. Romero 13308 - 42nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98168 • Ted Gusa 1009 Shelton Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Key Properties 975 John Street Seattle, WA 98109 W. L. Neuroth 10001 West Roosevelt Road 97012 Westchester, I11. 60153 E. I. Simon 4625 South 134th Seattle, WA" 98168 Alfred Unzeitig 4534 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Ramon Bradley So. P.O. Box 998 Mt. Vernon, Oregon 97865 Warren Wilson Star Route 1 Box 79 Grayland, WA 98547 F. R. Lindell Associates 8425 - 1st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 E. R. Dauenhauer 4526 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 J. Frost 4522 South 133rd Seattle, WA 98168 Harold Ralph Corp. P.O. Box 13206 Spokane, WA 99123 1 'COMMITTEE OPPOSING TRUCK TEt M1NAL REQUEST ( Selland ) at So. 134th St. To : Kjell Stokes , Office of Community Planning , Tukwila , Wa. Subject : Tukwila's 11 Comprehensive' Land Use Policy Plan " , the effect of the proposed Selland installation to the m Plan " , the subject matter delineated in the memorandum to the Public Works Dept ( attached hereto as Exhibit "Q" which speaks for itself ) and the mandate implicit in Ordinance # 743 l T ) . BACKGROUND Mr. Crutchfield informs us that the Public Hearing scheduled for Oct 27, 1977 has been postponed until Nov 17th . And that the Environmental Checklist will not be available until Nov 3rd . The Staff Report will follow on the llth of Nov. A similar proposal ( Yellow Freight ) was unamiously rejected by the Planning Commission on May 26th , 1977. Mr. Crutchfield states that the Selland Proposal is basically that of Yellow Freight with certain variations i. e. the facility will not operate at night except under certain conditions . The Committee views such so called exceptions with profound skepticism . The Proponent merely claims a course of conduct ( with presumably self serving data in support , here we anticipate the Environmental Checklist which is not yet published ) but the request for exceitions infers a reality of 24 hr operation , 7 days a week , with all the attendant insufferable noise volumes , dirt , pollution , glancing lights , truck maneuvering , the starting and stopping of engines, vehicle emissions , the pounding of steel upon steel as the vehicles are loaded and unloaded , stored , moved about etc etc not to mention the poisonous vehicle emissions . On the facts , Seattle, is the main port of entry and the main distribution point for myriad foreign autos and Selland is the primary transporter of the said vehicles for the entire region and beyond . The City of Tukwila , it is rePpectfully submitted would be extremely naive to allow themselves to be beguiled by SellandS protestations of minimal operation at this proposed installation . Once this installation is built the excce do s will become the rule . The operation will go on night and bay as o the operations of every auto distribution center in the country . Even if the City did exact an express contract incorporating the proponent's protestation claims of only occasional night time and weekend operation the questions of breaches of that agreement would hinge only upon the complaints of the property owners affected . The City would have no occasion to police the activity and no apparatus to enforce other than embroilment in a lawsuit . And the city would expose itself to a multiplicity of lawsuits emanating from the adversely affected nearby property owners which are sure to follow . Furthermore , the Proposal is completely obnoxious , even on a 5 day week , no night operation for the reasons noted in the Attached Exhibit "A ". In this connection Mr. Stokes , would you graciously peruse the enclosed copy of the " Property Owner's Comments " ( ExhibittB " )? These remarks were addressed to the Planning Commission at the Yellow Freight Public Hearing and in general they sum up the salient points upon which the Commission unamiously rejected the said proposal . The arguments contained therein are eminently appropriate to the Selland proposal • THE EFFECT OF TILE SELLAND PROPOSAL UPON TUKWILA'S " COMPREHENSIVE RECEIVED la .1 ! p O.C.D. _ _ CITY IN nIaOu LAND USE _POLICY PLAN n : The Selland proposal onp.ts face corrupts the basic predicates of the n Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan f+. Planning for industrial uses in the area of S. 134th St., envisions , of course , those activities concomitant to light industrial uses including certain trucking activities . However , those activities intend mere support for light manufacturing or warehousing facilities such as deliveries of the product or the receipt of materials . Certainly , no heavy trucking activity as an end unto itself is the aim of the Plan . And this mandate is implicit in : ()PLUNGE GE # 743 (TMC ) which spells out rigorous standards , none of which the proposal of Selland can conceivably meet , to ensure that light industrial uses developed at S. 134thSt. will not be injurious to the established residential neighborhoods adjacent to the site both in the County and the city . LEGAL MEMORANDUM It should be noted that the legality of the proposal itself is highly suspect in the Bence that the statute relied upon as the grounds for presenting the request for the conditional use permit did not intend any heavy trucking terminal activities at this site . The framers of the statute did intend a use,under extbemely restrictive conditions, of truck terminals in conjunction with light manufacturing activities at the site within regular business hours . And this intent is articulated in the statute when viewed together with the zoning assigned the site n Light Industrial a defined on the Tukwila Plan Map Degend ( The Comprehensive Land Use Policy Map ) as n Industrial areas characterized by distr but ve and light manufacturing uses r... It is the considered opinion of competent legal counsel that any judicial test of the legality of the proposal on the premises of the principles discussed supra must inevitably result in invalidation of the proposition . The City and the proponents , under the applicable statutes do not have the legal right to issue the requested use permit or to build the facility . PURPOSE : The aim of this presentation to the Office of Community Planning is to submit our input in conjunction with the application of the proponent as evidenced by his n Environmental Checklist n . We strongly urge that the staff of the Planning Commission in their Staff Report unequivocally recommend to the Commission that they totally reject and refuse the proponent's request for the conditional use permit . Submitted for the record - -- Oct. 21, 1977 ( The Committee : composed of all those presenting the petition opposing the Selland proposal at the Nov 17th Public Hearing ) . CC: The Commission Chairman for all Commission members . Exhibit "An COMMITTEE OPPOSING TRUCK TERMIIVALREQUEST ( Selland ) at So. 134th St. To : Dick Williams , Office Engineer , Public Works Dept. Tukwila Subject : Traffic Hazards, congestion , manuuvering , fire hazards , pedestrian safety , noise , lights , ingress , egress & related matters. BACKGROUND A similar proposal was unanimously rejected by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977 ( Yellow Freight ) on the grounds that the plan was deleterious to the present character & future developement of the surrounding community . The present plan ( Selland) merely comp;unds the objectional features of the Yellow Freight proposal . And added to this situation now are tha additional factors.of the increased traffic use of So. 133rd St. and So. 134th St. by the new installations on Marginal Way S. i. e. the Rainier Bank Computer Center with its hundreds of cars and the Metro Bus Complex , plus the Fisheries Building on S. 134th . Place this additional traffic into that engendered by the Enco Truck Terminal , the Kent - Renton Auburn Truck Terminal , the Car Auction Center , the White Truck Center and the other businesses located along the route to the cloverleaf freeway entrance at S. 133rd St and S. 134th st and a question must arise as to the ability of these streets to safely handle this added traffic . Now if 'you permit Selland Auto Freight to establish a truck and repair complex in the very center of these new and multifarious traffic activities , the City of Tukwila must be confronted with a serious problem of congestion , safety , noise , lights,maneuvering and parking The identical criteria applys also to ingress and egress on the proposed site itself . The auto-transport trucks themselves are huge double rigs with double platforms upon Which the cars are stacked . Topheavy and difficult of maneuver t Interjecting these monsters into the narrow confines of S. 134th St., already heavily traveled as noted above,will inevitably result in serious hazard to property and life . South 134th St. is extensively used by children of the surrounding neighbcood going to and from the nearby'schools . And South 133rd St. upon which the school borders,already is an hazardous route for all pedestrians . It is respectfully submitted as a conclusion that both S. 133rd St . and S. 134th St. are too narrow to permit any added traffic such as the location of a truck terminal at any situs in the vicinity . It is a still to be detirnined question whether or not these streets can handle the projected bus terminal and computer center traffic not to mention the location oia huge truck..terminal right in the midst of this to be solved problem_. Excessive Noise , glaring lights , additional fire"hazxards and crime are the necessary concommitants of such a congestion as is presented by the proposal of Selland Auto Transport . The Public Works Department of the City of Tukwila is urged to recommend rejection of the Selland proposal to the Tukwila Planning Commission . Respectfully , ( The Committee , composed of all those presenting the petition opposing at the Public Meeting to be held on November 17, 1977 ) ( Presented October 20, 1977 ) I BACKGROUND PROPERTY C lii I' RS CM `.$ NTS . Conditiena1' Use I �°3E;a1 to authorize construction and operation of a 'Tr F :k Terminal near Scuth 133rd St and South 134th Place . 1, Thn preposed f ei l ' i1 4e set back 200-250 feet from the front .pertien of the atto T.nls arrangement places the loading docks D the asphal. t is avemen.t ehe vehicles being loaded directly 'pis a vin the resIdeati., l arean o. S. I35th St. The truck and trailer parking area again is des ga d to front directly upon. the residential areas of SK,' 133rd St. Contra to C apt 4. Sec 4. - 30 # 51. ( Use regulations rguraota+, : The pre p on ent places his buildings , trucks , parking ar a , etc ,t close proximity t;, the long established residential areas. KO leap es the areas whieh font upon Industrial areas empty so that the result i melee , vehicle ez tsslaaas ,� glaring lights visited upon the human eie.,r e at 24 hou re a Jay . The site plan is blatantly .invalid when eviewed frcm the ,etsadpoint of the people who will be affected ted . 2. The to at.l.o: , of the site borders directly upon King County in fir. area eomec strictly residential . Argument : Many of tee older homes in the area are situated upon. tracts of 2 , 3 5 acr^r ; . Within t ie,ccnncept of ideal developemant 8 thew oLtee can be deeeleped as cOndominiums , high rise apartments ,, single family res .denceo 6uplexes etc . As the proponent note.; : " she residential area consists j irnari.1y of older homes , may of which were established p."ior to the r.J nstruetion of the freeway T le ''acts are that any e ` these homes have been occupied by the sale families foe the legit 20 to 00 year • The people have paid taxes , kept w t,he:Lr homes . impeoved t; ,eir property and have geaei ally engaged in family life {.. e. eahoole , church 9 vota g , pub7 tc improvement etc . Under the Imperltivee of the Tukwila Zoning Ordinance : Chapter 4- Land .Jse T: etricte Section 4 - II : District, l- 1 Light Industry , Use Re, elation; 41 . lasts eerie co pf the para#raph , then Planning Co m:Lc ,aloe, shall find that the me will not effect adversely the present aeraeter or future deeeiepeitsent of the surrounding community r This quotation Fop olfica1 l.y ee iAr,. 7:ef"er ence to Truck Terminals . In the words rrf Jena Sts Ned ;.^ forcer c'eveueeln of the Planning Commission , The Renton Ch,:eaxa ;, Feb 2' lc A2 r etze. adoption ef the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. � uppo; e a developer gip -:: l.:leaP nor a permit $o construct homes in an area we knee is eotng to tern. :3-.k.o an l duatrial.' spot . We would tell him ... ,o ahead eee he wo::tlsi earned that t he residential property values will drop , Ti c n' .inEJ :1 nee!.T::rstic ns would knor this too and act accordingly . ". 1 N. is s:;bmie t +. ;hat a greetInE of 'aids use permit to build a truck terminal to t: ? p ro ;:o::r:t , ,071 - ‹e a et'eanger ±''r i ?Ceases , and who has no o-t .seeefir of ._eee�� W;�, ne e e ���ceem r .ty life in the Tuc' wi .a area 9 on only e der "; Cs p�ep:i a,ehhc� bee, ix vea fed and. paid taxes ,, paupers their < :;.Y3 ve s tr►atr U Le t`:r:e • 'r.`t, m ee (lad land . Their en j oy rent of the fruits f ehetr labor and d t`'h el lzae estm, t i their lead and any profits to be c ?eeeeed t'bere.frem are :.i.Y:ocj. eat Who will develops lope Asa apartment building or other le ir°ovement oe :tad totdering upon erin the vicinity of a dirty p noisy , 24 4r 7 day t. 'i t.'? ,e t. u terminal . 0r who can live in health eteettx!1 aeJ pl:y :; C".0 r�.a r., s e:n conditions ? Tie answer is that all the a ;rope: ty eeuee will 'ea eeiled a the co xt .ity iv disrupted and impoverished t Exhibit. "Br Conclusion :. . As::tIhInT thy scophts•ticatiou, og thy' Members of, they': .. Planning Commission and e4 e p afc ssion j.smoof its taaff a theft' can be only one ukirdict herein -� ;_._.__ - -- Ab . oo t3te Den ow the erg s ets $ Nt fit 5E3�ASt Bj • t 11 EN V1RO2� `k TA.ia ii; PA_t T 8• 1. Noise The px c per t; owners herein involved. 71.eW with rynIcisrz the prorumotl s data n' expressed in their attached sheet te their r'_ avirouleantel Checkl st .Foem ( 11 Environmental Impacts ) 6 , N oiae ) ----- - The gobble C gook vernacular talcs . of - e the long term average sound level for .: giveu.reoording period which measure n will.. not exclude vem _ ]' ,,, Y not o level of short durations For example , the acc:cptab.r,e no�;„ lev of from : oa p. m throe: am . shall be reduced from a the , >reeti ea11e el of 60 dba by 10 d A. or must be ima.1.ntained at 50 ci:BA , xlUT over a 24 hour period this 50 dB.A level v' uld include peak. sound levels of 110 dB which exceed the State of Washington regulait.leas of the maximum permissible noise levels by double plus .he + � level . They: rationalize this outrageous eacce a by talking. . average noise level trap, fated .into figures over the 24 hour . : ' . perio . t is respect tally R.y • sub :u, teed. that tae ' r peak sound level ." ©d. 110 sBA admitted be they pr openeto s =s tie 'molter occ mce between `' . 10:,�m. thro 7: Am • >t regular intervals wus4° •ineetsab y s Bartle tho • , sleeping huian bei•,2g into heart pounding wakefulness for long periods Of.. time during the ni ht hours t and the f'a ling',back to sleep will only.' ' be crueiy interruped by that same inevitable nerve shatter.:.ng . t peak sound w adru.tted as the regular practice by the proponents eee 24 hors a day ---- 7 days a ;peek .$ 365 days a year . The property emers here:La suggeet that the me abers' of the planning commission in their wakeful roments,during the dead of night in the saactorum of their quiet and p:roteoted beds , contemplate the situation Which the pr•opeenei:.ts ietend to inflict upon their neighbors o the good eeople who live within thG purl ler:of the 3" . horrendous proposal 'tbeeeeeeesal :.:howl! li Wed. if o 9 they ,lie, , th =. that �} a ile eleeency'' a �„x o as ..__ .�. ._ We Quid mike e �: n :.'� the c a a r `'� east i d .. �:.�.: �.._ci:l ,]i 1's.�� . G.�%X�.�; talk o E.2�., �; �H� Id Noise Levels 01 . as tAated in thi: pr•opone :,ts Checklist . The proponents dam4 do *Mance to ',:he good sen.ce and :Lratelli Renee of the members of the Planing Coradssion resit .1 of makalmaxmaulalltaXkx mumbs jumbo t3 talk such as " aim . K` apps rent tnat anticipated long term average sound levels ge_ierated from the proposed fa oi1ity Should not sjgniticantly alter the existJng oharecter of , the' noise .vironmezat, and will . be masked by other a %ies in the `; area . .:�- ��- �....�._ .-�.. Pure unadu1erated nonsense The propoounts .could have rational hurtian..beings believe that. sound $. eamor outcry , laud s 'strident , outrageous , injurious noise superimeased ueen already existent Loisy racket is' sublimated by its own charar:ter . ?i.bs'ut / is the characterization for this dishonest r :e..:oni.ag The propertyo rners invite the Flaming Co missiani to 4 ti tempta.te 'L:is ridic .a? c n, talk . ThAnk it over and relate it 'to ' the ,?�? i e t and pewee of you 3 . home �i•< you h< l l iev S e C ? � a �` � � � h claims .She ' t oponen';.s s :k to , ,^o you & The attempt is ilasuitir r t ' xo t cannot :, •Soer irien.d:; and :ta ipDors. to s ",zcaa vile. treatmenT'"'"' ie s • • 2.. ALE �n �' ' , " r, �: f ee :lj st the j rop Jnent:, ,ate tthat ' or det .�l �,,�r use ;,¢' �.. � ,1 ';.:,���:i win . ;.. � is X'?t'S�'�� � X,. �:,]' e��.J.`s ±'.LlA.J 'J�'ctio � of e ;. :,r t :a.. quzzl y t. " ? : :,1 creation of jN Oc.tiona1 o ©rs will zeleu:a '5;1e artia pure n.wsxse:ace t The a .;;em t is tp a: At �'t „� «?1: , LnxcaYa 7- 5 and S. R..599 are nearby that the_movenent of the largo volume of tAaOks Contemplated at the propoCad - . . . truok termioaq. rill 11 not eomstitte a significant oource of enissio.ns ia the area n. The sence of this claim is entirely lost upon the ' property owners . On what rational predicate aan you introduce ' a large volume of trucks ;,, buratng CI:let diesel oil and gasoline into what amounts to Oulvert surrounded by freeways and aness roads without appreciably increasing the vapors and,emmissions emanating from the said vehicles ! The reasoning in this claim boggles the imagination t As a matte r of fact no actual reasoning 0 if you will observe advanced in the elaim bald faced statement is simply made to th Planning • Commission on P. 3 of the Checklist with 0 we prestro.e reliance upon the creeulity of the members . The so called II explanJ:ion " is without factual support . Common sence tells all of us that the entire area will be polluted twenty fold by the proposed track temmtmwax terminal s This dieaoteroeis situation teMee superimoceed upon the s. already dreadful pollution of the freeway A the parallel highways, the of ram , the ou ramos , tha:airport 3,1:he industrial southend of Seattle, ti pulp mills of Toopza 0 and ale notorious copier moisoions of the rmelter . Mention here Should also. 'be made of the horrific exaggeration of emmieAons as each truCk 1U:iads up the on ramp , directly . opposite the proposed terminal p the shift the driver into '.ow and the - entire noisy , dirty combination of the gears as the truck struggles up the grade , picko up speedo and miles later down the freeway picks up enough momootom to move into drive withite0.essening of strident clamor . We are Gsked to ada a new massi.of trucks owaing :V, hourc a Gay , to those of the already e4istent fleets i.'e. .-------- the West Coast', Vae Eilver Eagle -- the Tukwila - Kent ---' the huge D. C complex , etc . There are alreaey ei22o71 of these truck 'lines and terminals in the Area ---- the nonage Is excbssive as La What with the new Bus Rerair and Term.L.al coming Into,Rivertom t; ant the heliocopter terminal th in Rivertyn e3oo e ireThastrial 'compexes of' nterurtan Avenue . The aim of the Tukwila Comprehenspo Zonninf, Plat is=51n " id balance not , PoRaig - 4 TUE PROP00AL TO PriRaIT A TRUCK TERMINAL SHOULD or.. sozelIbD LIGHT and CLARE The Proponent afL.1rms the generation-or new light end glare as a cooeommitant of the contemplated facility . However , he lightly b.euellee over the deletoriouo effects of this poisorous eitoction by ggain eotionalizing inoalidily in reverve reasoning that loecause the freeway is lit by weal spueedlights f4ot somehow justifieis the conc.'atrLtion of hiolyowered"doodlights in4Zhe oroposed terminal the effv.lt of whiele cornot but inv&de the living rooms and bedrooms of . the surrounding residantial homes both in Tukwile.and the County ( which lat ier le noned entirely reeldantial ) facts are that the freeway itself le located at let; three 415eo? more from the site of proposed Installation . 'The onlY,lights existent 'are minimium in numbed and are confined to the raip and road which:lead frcm the area on to the 1 x%.ad which eventually places the traffic onto the highway rroper The it*.roductieft of glarinc, lights to the rrea by way of he terminal installation would be an additional pollution to the obnoxious po1llta4ts of the noise and fume problems created by the said tv t: . If the Plex.ning Commission lell; visit :Ind observe the situ s the trtste reasoninz z.if the proponents argument in hts explanation . reo. th.t, le5ot rill 1 Qbvityds . ITTLAND '38E r2:01:ClIGnt in hi F:17T1mation 01 point merely makes the.. , self serviieg ' date ! vain: that ' e. free t ter .teal is co.zsi•Stp 1t . with the industil.al wh.'gc. `•.1 s' oecured on adjaac nt:.1 &ts .. . " If the Pl.a'ixning l.o missjoh'' 11 observe the prop one it/ a o'er . f bit Figure 4 . ; le n:eni,f ,at.• thet he hap failed . 3.n that do6uinent to.lereelet c the enti.rey rer{.cdentia.L character. of ,the surroimding'County Areas , at'e .y of tlee map. wi1] ..hrw thatKing'Contyllebidentiale areas abpst directly upon tk.c.''» J,te.' ! tscl.t°' Thetalke adrntt e of . . no 'buffer zone between. ' �oua ty. res;ide nti al. •land and the propoted huge dirty t-;ruak terminal .ea,n :i..ex 6 )T t .anus• •he 'a .e:menth i.ed :. za the statute decree:: that " The Pl&nlineCoMiiisiionmUst fine d that , the use wL 1 nest affect adsereely . th.e •p'ees,ea t' chaxacter .or tuture: :'eveiopement of the .:•uraoc:ndir.t-, a mmux.1ty m it is respectfully submitted that tae ime ereti : e of this s caxtut.. i ''by ttaa, langua3ge .exter .eo the " suxa•cawlding co3anuuf.ty " and' is .rio:i' t o 14 interpreted as confinred only to the City of Tukwilz . Grated tat his area of Tukwila. is in transition from residerti : to•industriaj s "it does ncit follow that .•• •• such change must take p i Vic` C}' in snail tatUratl:bxi Plat k,, a present residential character or ftiture •c?evelc:pen xa :. ( into •says aitment::.. ett' in PinE CR.�unty ) need be sacrificed simply because• a foreign aorporm'`:Lon wishes to es k,a`' 1.ish. a• cenveaaier.ae f or themselves t?hich will,wipe out the family life and development of the turrounclina community , The •obvious e»nel.usion is that,contrary to vthat the freig?.t tervir.a1 claims s the land use 'of the surrounJ:ir.g community ( and not «a.;t the peri:'heral strectel. e. — S 105th St„ and S. 132 or 42nd Ave S. ) will be adveaely affected Iv. HOu6JN4+ The areposal will surely affect ex'_sting housing advi rse? y ebviyl..s1y , h.o.aeo tiers are hardly' about to Invest monies in upkeep ..knd rua ,atainanee when located in juxtapasi tt an with a 24 hour p , :3 CZ'at @:: .�ioh'' glaring p dirty y noisy ai1C.i..os' f'rc ±'' ¢'E?7P',;;:.a..al , 'Z.'h:?sQ• who are rentthz their eropertLes out rill have diff? eulty find in tenants , Those who do live in immeditate proximity will be ferzect to abandon their property . The result will be an area of dil : r_datee hovels 1. f.t to rot where they stand V, TP,AN i POR1:AT!`? 0 / Circulation . The proponents analysis s of the . :.'.f f ec; t. of the uaovemen t of its trucks upon the volume of vehicular ea•: vicee not it s ! kpaet upon present patterns of circulation or t trot .t of people ar.d•gads and the antieipate2 increase in tra2.ei,c hazzaOs should be viewed with great skepticism The size of the ter a1..eal installation itself ,, the parking areas , the ant cip,r.ted '' futere Cie eloeement " connote a far greater activity • than the ► 5 trucks e r grid. .t.4 the proponents exrla nation . The proof of m3 eleadin ; information e. ;: oun•,.ed to the Planning Commission lies in the aeteaai a.a :? ysis ;:tee? f Th pr°opone .t ='. t a ;mss of " loading " his t' •ueks into 11 tract' ter° _ tr:: aer za•:.aits eta: and. Presents this activity �, eaee . ., truck c w n ho .s:i1d triple that �.� a email s. �.: "i . A ,,.., 7 ..+� 1.2" 1 �.1,: �w Z .a � f •.�'+.�a' . �..'3Irl�Lll. �S� O r estimate on Its face by ces:i.d.eviag the faot that the goods to be • shipped ode': b:.eceesaelly be deli irered . eo the ',`.ornizz•aa in trucks ¢ those true trueke muet r . ti rn to wherever r th e ea me fr r.i y and the to '°minal1i trudkat4" muse return eo the terminal . Furthermore that " future developement " indicates as far larger leem ber° of trucks than the 15 claimed by the proponents The propene r owner simply doe:, not bel t e': r and the Commission can in Food sense arc :i y buy the story that a national fri tight line such. as Eel aua Yellow E going to build a whole eight depot to handle 15 tie e o treeke A better e ti ate would be that a h adred or so Lr.aee.e ei be lecr a.1.1 g oat U f `Whiz terminal .. • T . Traffic H az,ards aalnd additional vehicular movester,t will 1):: increased a lamdred 'old and tilts it a a area heavily pepulatse, . 71 • PUBLIC lSE,RVICES. T c:I;1ed It hard to believe a;s the proponent clams that the insta1laU : . of trt.c1cing terms .a1 coup :le -c in the. alter boundaries of the City .. . �,- Tckirwin will not ( av the ' proponent .stares ) drastiatV affect .. YiztO ?refection , Folios P w.t cet :ot3. a3 and t o. t ai to of pubita • a Including Boards t This statement doles v1olanac to credulity . VII. HURAi HEALTH The proponent charactc lses this tlyoutiOn ' in the Tuktril a 'checklist as' .g ? applicable .. On the contrary the matter is of over ririvg importance . The ;area iE already saturated with carbon! dioxidp elumlf.niori cv ( 5 already xisiting truck terminals , the main freeway Interurban Ave, , auxiliary roads,, Empire Way.„ the Railroad , the Seattle, Tacoma Highway y the 1 Airport , and the air traffic attafth ri 'raeretc , shopping centers and the traffic thArein involved $ ) plus the irLdustiia1 area of SouthatemSerttle, Boeing: , the Renton Industrial y Trucking sad urban areas and the no: :'_.oa:: in ustrial areas of ` acoala with its foul pulp mills and the filthy *Xemiimmx Tacoma ; 0m6lt :r Ad.c' to this .n.on;:trosity , a , carbon monwNide emitting truck terminal filled with noxious diesel vapors as well ,, located in chose proximity to . a heavily populated residential area rind in the l.;. of health h hazards or potential health ha.z ; :ards , the pro_ omier.t , cart,al , t'aas ipporte r j. +,prim,. ;: that tLe propose' a...c,,: terminal vriii not cre te further 3ml-in.z^= 1 ._ uror, the health a3 r 1 \e11 r -rY' of the citze s affe ed ::,r r:- . + L b' ^:f l `, . lJ e P :1 �a��' t.4Ylh1fl :r:�ic.21 invited t,, co '.a:d -°.;..c ' the West Coast Truck T ernlnal '. re,7 •r a y ur, a_ated .�.�'c (l ". :T i,:'.ti. �..:�~ edf- emin6, land.a ring y 'u l y► tJ the ' t i1 r w%• j l e 'hh err) z L7 -11.ee at the ravehotse 'L ocat +•- r :11TAr t'_ aitf,. ,.aa L i _ . -. - . a 1`13r1'3:c '. . o,. e h ne gc a e,1 .'•o calrea-.1ar:f.%c4riag gone to word a The.. act; ;:x c. that th•' r1G in:4-al .i3.t .on, C.a.xri t . escape its ,nt±rs1e character th rc: hec, f':1 truck Fad io: tl'uck t,e"c:.iiai by i t . nature and use Is ark 'thing other tuhm. 7,; ' '° ' the cumIrsl rtrve ;'suet' cann‘::t ': . ir:Z''t__: nt: •tb2h bei,rrther d .formic: tc, the eye c,ad d4 ebi ,i t t 1i , to the iii. There 1. P`ri : '''.'.':S '�S":'1 a cho�.21d. be gr.u^�t^ The nd r {ca ;1 y} i C: 'ut��1�..:F�i for $ � y r':use /Lore staid: v� '7 t a W .t� ' J JVFM�d ©q�G� � f` q4 . .1 �•��•• r. .' yw j • �.�F`es..... der.tlal cht l:Cr f 4hV zurr( a d• .'n�' , ��uM.S!!1i �1.G (? -`.re U�.1C ^.ent a thdu! ne. �� ; obnol =It: are a' �'iiable Tnc "'':"::i'i..• f' Yzt .coi!'I t? i a,t :i: P td ar,,ru lle Fr . j.-.t System Inc. should . b • Resp ct:u , Stjtvment PropezIty f.Y•xner ..”.: .. ... ..• '. l'ind.tIr i# 1.f the ftest he:11(117.1g in. the main .body 'Of the property owners • coltwnts. .„! ho ha.s discussed the actual location of the proponnen.ts • ., .. , proposed truck terminal on the site itself.. We sFita to make clear • ••• . to the Plwaning Cowission f.hat the said discussin is not intended to ....,., . encompass an accentance in any 111/113.2Zr of defle actual placing of the .. ... on ti pro3%erty : TG Propertf Owner is unequivocally 1, I,; opposed to the construelion of any truck te)minal at this site --The .. on the plal.,s of the pl.,pon„nent fp:Kb the location. of Ilia . • .• ., prq:Iposed tru..:k terminal r. t' pVsopert7 toel% t' the 7a1id1ty of the • . .•! .ae.tual proposal . The 1. orther contanas that the proposal itself • ‘.**•....on' its l'..a:e ".k.;$ violative or the iritastioa c't the legislators as exrressed • the Tukril:._ Zoning )r i'(!. e.?9,,,:( . ,, t Thu i4.= of the framers of- the wilinsno..e 7,sts to enaot etothuihNih.liehsive Dian. •for the deve3.opemmt of • tk0••• eity . The rord (. connotes gle1 and this direction .• .... ;.,•:. 4.1! tale framers is translated intq !zmpress wokedis nd we quote " the Planning _: !Ci..14:e.d..w3io3.2 'shall find tttiv" t ua1 vrill not Affect adversely the -.• !.91.7pits,entharacter o. .ft,ttul.ra dove.U. -of.•ghe.) surroundikg colmazity g • • ... 'Sop . 4- , 11 District M-;"1,„ L44_,• 1,14d1 0 Use Regulations # 41 a . ,, .. las'it se.ntence of the paragr411. . "'the prOporinftl`ts proposal is on its ' -• face .contrary to .thiv3 imperitIve• al,' this clau ko! in the Ordinance since it - •• ,, en.trely misle.adial.!.g 4. The rter0 peritetor'bcimidaries•- of the immediate ••'• :.:::••., eets crte in.dioated and Vac, erg!W •in the .county, residential area are . .• • -..!-!:...,. ., lahel0 I'l %,-;.oant " 'h'e- in faCt the areas • ar et p. sassaasy, .2111,..;z: for .... .r..(-,Isi;lak,Sda..1. purpe:$ses.„, Pol::: c • tap 7.;14p:art'S...1.ipposits tRe TiroPoseq.•! ! .:• - ;.as.t.I1!;:•.tt.i..c.2 on. 135th 1.t.,. '( 1 A ) is r6sidentia1 and comp14telr:!!!'-- .. ...•••;..,•.. ' pi .d T.he 'legend al.,:rs3.. thq PilaniNt cOmmisston by, s‘howing-,,,...•; .:: on37 the houeo ma ti.t,c pro,74 - -;;....;- fv",r4ez !pre fullypaid ott this. property „ there 1.ilarco : ;:,;i:$7, , e , m 0 there art recreation areas • there': - ..... 1 4.--„,.% ....-. are , tn(--.-f•? .I. l',...— t. v,..t. 0.4%a . 1 , there.iti. a.rec crook . !The ✓ tia1 occurants own .U. tte.propezty rzid, it ••s not vacaat as. ttl:ie proponent wok..16. La.•,re the ptanners be10.4.!t, EL Elii;:i f-,1 110 te •that the eamo•.: :::••:!::....;.,:,,!...!• . . .. ,..•• !.:• • 1:61 Chili Cr;.1. e h as 1: e egt ara in th*: en r igui -4. There are no !.„-- , sl -Irscart I/ areas- at ail v:here the lOg I' stattis .1 vacant " . The ••!4.10'icv --:- •,.: ,;-• facts:. 'are tt v.?.t. the areas Iabled " varant ifrte 1:el..mty and atigaikeepig.- ! -.■,' .. the prorgnod. site ill Tivi:I.:1!.&...rire an. J, illly :41! tt c up 1"1: •.. The .Planning Commission 1,;- invited to condimt an. or, %/Av. inspection so that they... •. th 4', shold 1...'kat qortfine its inpectibit- !:',!. to sitar.2.y - th.r: - ., perimeter voi.'!d.. o..f ,S' 125th• St., 111 4.8:th Ave .0. & S. 133rd St : rle136) - hPif:-." .Ln, .21.1.:ad the intqaticia-• of. the ordinance. !-.),- - '......! • . irtivez tants at-D1.11; the q'' ...mE•rf.. commit... "•--- Inspect Oa° 4 Alre'• • '° ' . . • , ... ..SP above '.135 Bt. S. ----- — hev.v3.1.7 :y9ipul ate& part of the ' . . . ..., •!..%ommunii.4 ----. directly in l'.,:b.i.e : c eki.4' adverse effects to be crated by tt e • no :taus proposed. fere.$ght ;its ai . Follow • 42nd S. toward lat:erut:an eve and s ee foe• yo seelve , the valtiabl e: homes •..4 the density of the poptaatien. to ie6 advc sel.y affeeted. by the 'proposal,,. • Ti . " Cor31xrur.'ity 4t no 'just Pre art tes R ; r feet away* 'from. .- the site but rather is 'the .£orrmxnity , th.ea 'edy of persont having COmmer. rights interests a:�d . prt Defies fise(• TheF. Ides!.. adversities '.' ste;rl Lie.t:doxiar . , , . i da Niorxaliy • r the Fiet;nexte Commietsiera , r should' view the Noise ,jading Vocation Marts' zaitvt7ncedbyethe ?wopoxaenat • anti. the reports b isect 'thereon .by.Viise,, ° Ham: �, :1i6 mpioye:'�of the Proponent , t►3.ih , • great skepticism The documents and the Pepert are entirely ; The P s & rpty •• Owner e sift ly delete - lot 'bale sire the report en reaso.cable men. must appl jr 1 gic and good • sexi a to the situation rather that;. blind accopta aeeff at•is said b •the 'so called expert, o :is. the mere faotmteee of the • 's e .'p�'ixion.ent • The way to' , . act3;al who test this Noiee Deport is to' go t similar . installation • during the laaeling hours of the night and to see for yourselves just • heeremuch noise is created a And commission is reminded that so called' ti expert ur coinion i - not •conclu ive said must be weighed only in juxtaposition. to all ,.� .t$,. vk dr e . The Property Omer takes issue with the decision of the • Planing • Co j ssioz; T s Staff rat erei� i t •,ey.. have filed. With the Commission a ilk' 7.11Y.F' D CLARAT • as to the neoosaity 6f an Environmental : - Ire.Ps ct• $tateinen.t Mr4 Crutchfiek infer s us the staff based' it 'declaration on the unsubstantiated statem. is of the proponents ( other thae. his hired n e.cperts ) _.o....a.. The ritaff conducted no stud„1.es th :.:helves at the site '.n• relation to SDI8E .. _., LIGHTS OpOab * Emis etc e but izeeteted retied for their coutribut on Upon, a study conducted 111: aes1 rsonthes ago in an area miles ; e oved .tro:a this `pvroposed site ( The Oak Harbour Truck Terminal ) The t onditiot s at that site were radi sily • different from the conditions in. the ins•tant';siwteatict . It is respectfully submitted that the Ccaz ssio :a a as fei e mieeffed r reasonable men end. omen can not „ any excuse , accept 'th. ti Negative Declaration tic That recommendation is. legally invalid . I t opens up the entire situation to ultimate legal review in.. the appropriate sou its ” And finally in 4 eirel s tereekeele geca.era1 ztatt (4m;ent. s the Comxtissionis urged,. : : , to fuil•y consider th .fact that this propesa1 involves a poor locatio 'impinging as • it does-upon. the • riglats of the'surtounding community There are myriad other locations within the •indust.a11y zoned areas of Tukwila wh ech would bee good. locations. -- For. a ample what i a •wrong withhthe 36 acres nearby th. Time A, C. Ter n.al ;L___ -- there is no cotermi.ty there hence no adverse effects on the populace or on the land 4fsI 7. We the undersigned are opposed to the REQUEST FOR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AUTHORIZE CONSTRUU,TION AND OPERATION OF C `PPUCK TERMINAL on P. parcel generally located near the INTERSECTION OF SOUTH 133RD ST. AND SOUTH 134TH STREET, MACADAM ROAD AND EAST MA T GINAL WAY. We are a RESIDENTAL NEIGHBORHOOD and wish to remain a RESIDENTAL NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT AN AREA OF FACTORIES, ASPHALT, AND TRUCK TEFTh INALS. 2 /. " 17 J/ 3 3 7 --1j 3 3 7/ - Wflti2L---, -4417 e c y - -Sete ` '' , � 45 5 b � s 10. \3 - g I So / 3 ' 2o 11. /2j&_ — t ,C % So / �1 i c 5O`9. ,124 t4- g c 12. 1 3. 14. 15. 16. 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 October 2 4, 1977 ' /, r -1c; eic2 - Nov - 10,..1977 The 1 classification = (• light :industry:) given to the y situs-' proposed gas a:. truck: terminal by. Selland' Auto: transport was • Tukwila_ on the understanding it was to be used for an Industrial Park not for (..,heavy, industry ) such as a truck terminal . Such a heaVir industry does not belong in a residential neighborhood • Such a use would be a taking of our property without due process of law - who could hive in the •area aloiide a noisy , dirty truck terminal ? Throw the proposal out t Sincerely 13435 and St. So . • Seattle, Wa. 98168 City of Tukwila Planning Commission 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila , Wa. Gentlemen : Our family lives within a block of the site upon which Selland Auto Transport proposes to build a truck terminal . We don't see how we can live withthat type of activity night or day not to mention weekends . Furthermore , we dons , t believe claims that weekend and nite work will be only minimal .Selland is huge , it moves thousands of autos . The Truck Terminal will work nites,days weekends and after it is built what is to prevent such usuage ? As a. storage facility , it is hardly to be believed that the trucks and autos will just sit there . What will happen is noisy activity , us nite and day , gasoline fumes , oil fumes , traffic congestion , . crime and criminals in the area ( pilferage and hi jacking are common in these type facilities ) This kind of installation does not belong in this residential neighborhood . Refuse the use. permit L . November 9, 1977 Mr. & Mrs Davies Sackett 13429 42nd So. Seattle, Wa. 1)ECEIVE Ng NOV 1 01977 CITY OF TUKWILA �� -5a C iF 13325 - 42nd South Seattle, WA 98168 October 27, 1977 Tukwila Planning Commission: Thank you for the notice of the hearing with respect to the application of Selland for a truck terminal conditional use permit in the same area as that vetoed for use by Yellow Freight. Your patience in hearing those of us who live nearby is to be commended even though those who spoke were unaware of the . necessary processes required. Somehow it didn't occur to any of those protesting that the request of extra time by the planning staff could be time needed to collate and present the material to support the former denial of a permit to Yellow Freight and thus also Selland. It is Abvious to nee that unless the statement is properly prepared and documented Yellow Freight may havea firm basis to appeal to the Tukwila Council. As a King County resident, 1 am most impressed with your fairness nnd your patient willingness to listen. 1 am opposed to the new proposal for the same reasons 1 was opposed to that of Yellow Freight with the addition of the newly presented Highline Community Plan which in its northly sector borders Tukwila where this permit is requested. The land, here is designated "problem area - S 2.' The intention to have the - land designated Single Family Residence - Two to the acre:.. As for zoning change, I think the M-1 .should be retained and each request should be examined on its merit. This may be . time consuming but I have no doubt that a suitable manufacturer can be found. Thank you for your patience, see you No 17. •ELIZ ETH SPRI 12 October 1977 Dear Ms. Stein: Sincerely, CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Louise Stein- Rt . 3, Box 340'�- Selah WA 98942 Z Please find attached a copy of Public notice intended to inform you of the pending action of the Tukwila Planning Commission. You, as a nearby property owner, may attend the meeting and /or present written comments to either the Planning Commission or this office for entry into the official record. Should you desire additional information, please contact me at 242-2177. Gary rut fhf i el cl Assistant Planner Attachment /e !`(/f (/rier),wtj (':tt) C�-� - Z J ;de s2 ' '� fl-cf-f >eitE- A-E2-e4r7t ;5&71-; Commissions Chairman Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwi la , Washington Dear Mr. Chairman, . October 24, 1977 We are opposed to the Tukwila Planning Commission giving :a USE PERMIT to construct a truck terminal on apiece of property located at S. 133rd St., S. 134th Place, Macadam Road, and East Marginal Way in the East Riverton area We have +one truck terminal in the area now and it is truly a mess and-'.:an: ugly Sight to look. at. We in this area of King County are trying t© remain a residential area but are being over —run with truck terminals. The noise and confusion from them is becoming unbearable. Does Tukwila want to be known as the Truck Terminal Capilal of King County? Please vote NO on the USE PERMIT for a truck terminal. Thank you for considering our :point of view. Vey truly Yours, Jane B. and Allan E. Merkle 4426 South 136th & 4635S.: 135th Sts. Seattle, Wash. Cittc of Tukwila Planning Commission 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukhila , Wa. To the Members: The proposal should be rejected t Nov . 8, 1977 Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit - Truck Terminal - So. 133rd & So. 134P1. As a nearby property owner , 1 am unequivocally opposed to the construction of a truck terminal at the site proposed above . One can hardly conceive any peaceful enjoyment of their property by any of the occupants if such a use is allowed in the middle of the community . The resultant noise , increased traffic , safety hazzards , noxious emissions , health hazzards , fire and crime factors pose an intolerable threat to the long established residential community not only bordering the site but in depth surrounding the proposed installation . Very sincerely , Edith Borden 4319 So. 135th St. Seattle, Wa. 98168 Edith Borden 4319 So. 135th St. Seattle, Wa. 98168 fi . 52/c FCIEIV( NOV 0 9 1977 CITY OF TUKWILA COMMITTEE OPPOSING TRUCK TERMINAL REQUEST ( Selland ) at So. 134th St. The enclosed comments Oct 31, 1977 To : Richard Kirsop . Chairman of The Tukwila Planning Commission SUI3JECT The Committee wishes the Commission to have its input.concerrning the Selland Request The reference to Exhibit B in the memosandum to Mr. Stokes is ,to the written comments which the Committee submitted Upon, . the Yellow Freight•proposal on May 26th , ..•These comments are in the Commission'.s'. files on the Yellow Freight proposal and the Committee feels that they are generally pertinent to the Selland• proposal . Respectfully , ( The Committee :. composed of all those presenting the petition opposing the Selland proposal at the Nov . 17, hearing CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Selland Auto Transport has applied for Conditional Use Permit to authorize location of a truck terminal on a parcel of property generally located near the intersection of South 133rd Street and South 134th Street. It is the same parcel of property for which Yellow Freight Systems applied fora Con- ditional Use Permit about six months ago. Inasmuch as appropriate review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was not able to be completed in sufficient time to allow preparation of a Staff Report containing the SEPA decision, Staff requests the Planning Commission formally postpone the scheduled public hearing to the next regular meeting which, due to the Thanksgiving holiday, should be conducted at 8:00 P.M. Thursday, 17 November 1977. 8:00 P.M. • PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -Truck Terminal (Selland) ' ... Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes 27 October 1977 Mr. Robert Patrick, 4319 South 135th, asked the Planning Commission to dismiss the application as invalid due to the nature of the use in relation to the surrounding residential area. B. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE Unclassified to C -2 ( Gjerde) Ms. Hazel Gjerde, applicant, stated she received the Staff Report Wednesday afternoon and was unable to prepare rebuttal to the Staff recommendation. Requested postponement to 17 November 1977. Motion by Mr. Hartong, seconded by Mr. Bowen and carried to postpone the public hearing until 8:00 P.M. Thursday, 17 November 1977. Mr. Crutchfield noted the only remaining audience was the proponent of Southcenter Corporate Square. Suggested they be heard prior to the hearing for H &CD Program. Motion by Mrs. Avery, seconded by Mr. Richards and carried to hear Southcenter Corporate Square. Southcenter Corporate Square: Mr. Crutchfield explained the applicant proposes a fabric cover for the pedestrian bridge rather than the glass, metal or wood required by the Planning Commission in July 1977. Commission discussed the color of the proposed fabric as well as the intent of the Planning Commission requirement in July. Motion by Mrs. Avery to accept the fabric proposed by the applicant in lieu of the glass, metal or wood requirement in July. Motion died for lack of second. Motion by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. Richards to deny the proposed fabric and reaffirm the previous glass, metal or wood restriction.* Commission discussed different colors and rationale for consideration. Mr. Richards noted that color, as a part of exterior treatment of buildings, is certainly a part of architectural review, a primary function of the Planning Commission when sitting as the Board of Architectural Review. When questioned as to why the fabric in lieu of glass, metal or wood, the applicant stated principal factor is economics — the fabric is much cheaper. Commission again discussed color vs. material and intent of the restriction. *Motion carried with Mrs. Avery voting NO. Chairman Kirsop declared a 5- minutes recess. • 19 - 77. I, Gary Crutchfield , being duly sworn, hereby declare that all legal notice requirements of. Title. 18 have been ful- filled and a notice has been mailed to each of the following addresses. Subscribed and sworn to before me this J/3 Y� day of AFFIDAVIT (SEE, Attached) Notary Public in and for the Stjte of. Washington, residing at / • David Sacket 13429 - 42nd Ave Seattle, WA 98168 Carl Lee - 4233 Sol► Lh 146th Seattle, WA 93168 ST. Clair 132.07 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Albert Poirier 13405 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 93168 Joseph 0. Menard 13425 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98163 Elizabeth & William Springer 13325 - 41nd Ave. Seattle, WA .98168 Louise. Stein Rt. 3, Box 3407 Selah, WA 98942 Kenneth D. Nozum 4420 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 W. E. Pritchett 4521 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Leslie Burnett 4357 South 135th Seattle, t'!A 98168 Clayton Betting 4425 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Stanley R. Hill 13645 - 46th So. Seattle, WA 98168. Allan Merkle 4426 South 136th - Seattl e, WA 98168 Stephen Smiley Box 8 Brownsmead, Oregon 97012 V. Dilonardo. 4512 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Gordon Hunter 4345 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Ear Shell 45th South & 137th So. Seattle, WA 98168 Janene Pugh 4508 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Mr. Frank Todd . 14446 - 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Edith Borden 4319 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 James W. Gayther 4334 South 133rd Seattle, WA 98168 John J. Romero 13308 - 42nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98168 (Att Mabel and Frank Johnson 13136 42nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98168 nment for Affidavit - 12J77) Ted Gusa 1009 Shelton Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Key Properties 975 John Street Seattle, WA 93109 W. L. Neuroth 10001 West Roosevelt Road Westchester, Ill. 60153 E. I. Simon 4625 South 134th Seattle, WA - 98168 Alfred Unzeitig 4534 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Ramon Bradley P.O. Box 993 Mt. Vernon, Oregon 97865 Warren Wilson Star Route 1 Box 79 Grayland, WA 98547 F. R. Lindell Associates 8425 - 1st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 E. R. Dauenhauer 4526 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 J. Frost 4522 South 133rd Seattle, WA 98168 Harold Ralph Corp. P.O. Box 13206 Spokane, WA 99123 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Affidavit of Publication SS. pr " ?Rret vrbr r h being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that n h e is the Chief C a t, r1t of THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a rT L !; C C t? . Public ?eerinL as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period 1 of consecutive issues, commencing on the 2 dayof Decei ?1b,iJI' ,1 9 77 , and ending the dayof ,19 , both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ , which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Chic Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day of December ,197 Notary Pub i in . nd for the ate of Washingto , residing at Kent, King Cou — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bit 281, effective June 9th, 1955. -- Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. V.P.C. Form No. 87 AFFIDAVIT Gary Crutchfield , being duly sworn, hereby declare that all legal notice requirements of Title 18 have been ful- filled and a notice has been mailed to each of the following addresses. Ail' Subscribed and sworn to before me this /3 day of CC. ^ 1977. (SEE ATTACHMENT) Notary Public in and for the S,� tg • of Washington, residing at GLu. .414,, Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. :+•= ?' •' erct being first duly sworn on rt oath, deposes and says that `- ( i s the +• ' { f' f ( r1-7 of THE RENTON RECORD- CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a ? cc C f ;11:_ r •T_ i n . as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of consecutive issues, commencing on the day of f _ ' ?. P 2` ,19 , and ending the 19 day of �GOhr ,19 both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ , which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9 day of C c t c: r 1977 residing at Kent, Kin V.P.C. Form No. 87 Notary Publi on, unty. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. V.P.C. Form No. 07 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING Notary Publi ss. oath, deposes and says that f' ' f is the ` � f (� ` 1` 1 of THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a C t �. C f' of itl. -l. ; C' r tl :: as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of 2 consecutive issues, commencing on the ? day of " ,19 ,and ending the Ca day of ,19 , both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ ' which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. being first duly sworn on C Subscribed and sworn to before me this / day of CcLCter ,19 nd for the State of Washington, unty. residing at Kent, Kin — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. 1 (date) 27 October 1977 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION will conduct a PUBLIC HEARING on the above date at City Hall, 14475 - 59th Avenue South, to consider REQUEST for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION and OPERATION of a TRUCK TERMINAL on a parcel generally located near the INTERSECTION of SOUTH 133RD STREET and SOUTH 134TH PLACE. All interested persons are encouraged to appear and be heard. CITY OF TUKWILA 8:00 P.M. (time) Hans West, Secretary Tukwila Planning Commission For further information please contact Gary Crutchfield, Assistant Planner, at 242 -2177, Published in the Renton Record - Chronicle on 12 & 19 October 1977 David Sacket 13429 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Carl Lee 4233 South 146th Seattle, WA 98168 ST. Clair 13407 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Albert Poirier 13405 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 93168 Joseph 0. Menard 13425 - 42nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Elizabeth & William Springer 13325 - 41nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98168 Louise Stein Rt. 3, Box 3407 Selah, WA 98942 Kenneth D. Nozum 4420 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 W. E. Pritchett 4521 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Leslie Burnett 4357 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Clayton Betting 4425 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Stanley R. Hill 13645 - 46th So. Seattle, WA 98168 Allan Merkle 4426 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Stephen Smiley Box 8 Brownsmead, Oregon 97012 V. Dilonardo 4512 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Gordon Hunter 4345 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Ear Shell 45th South & 137th So. Seattle, WA 98168 • Janene Pugh 4508 South 136th Seattle, WA 98168 Mr. Frank Todd 14446 - 59th Ave. So. Tukwila, WA 98168 Edith Borden 4319 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 James W. Gayther 4334 South 133rd Seattle, WA 98168 Mabel and Frank Johnson 13136 42nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98168 John J. Romero 13308 - 42nd Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98168 (Att� ^tment for Affidavit - 10/77) 1 Ted Gusa 1009 Shelton Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Key Properties 975 John Street Seattle, WA 98109 W. L. Neuroth 10001 West Roosevelt Road Westchester, 111. 60153 E. 1. Simon 4625 South 134th Seattle, WA 98168 Alfred Unzeitig 4534 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 Ramon Bradley P.O. Box 998 Mt. Vernon, Oregon 97865 Warren Wilson Star Route 1 Box 79 Grayland, WA 98547 F. R. Lindell Associates 8425 - 1st Ave. So. Seattle, WA 98108 E. R. Dauenhauer 4526 South 135th Seattle, WA 98168 J. Frost 4522 South 133rd Seattle, WA 98168 Harold Ralph Corp. P.O. Box 13206 Spokane, WA 99123 12 October 1977 Sincerely, Gary Crutchfield Assistant Planner GC /ch Attachment Please find attached a copy of Public notice intended to inform you of the pending action of the Tukwila Planning. Commission. You, as a nearby property owner, may attend the meeting and/or written comments to either the Planning Commission or this office for entry into the official record. Should you desire additional information, please contact me a 242 -2177. twepa aadh�rni • \ j >• I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF TUKWILA ,_ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL I ST FORM This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT, INC. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 5622 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington, 98108 (206) 767 -5960 October 4, 1977 Planning Commission, City of Tukwila 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): General office and maintenance facility for the above 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to dive an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): Property is partially improved with minimal clearing_and site work. See attached site plan for details of proposal. 8. Estimated [)ate for Completion of the Proposal: February - March of 1978 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, stale and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES x NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YESx NO (c) Building permit YESX NO C (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES X NO (e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO (f) Sign permit YES X (g) Water hook up permit YES X_ NO (h) Storm water system permit YES X NO (i) Curb cut permit YES X NO (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES X NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES X NO (1) Other: 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or father activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: "To be built facilit n 111 • - n - . subject parcel 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: Parcel contiguous to the south. to .be developed in near future with warehrus and storage. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: _ Attached is application for conditional use permits. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (h) (c) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? YES MAYBE NO (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, • either on or off the site? (f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: 3. plater. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface grater in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface grater quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of around waters? (g) Chance in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? -3- YES I•tAYDE IO x x x x x x x x Explanation: (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground graters? x (1) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? x Any work to be completed is already in progress by the present owner of the property. 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: No significant impact 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? x (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? x (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation: No significant impact -4- YES MAYBE NO x x x 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: No significant impact 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: No significant impact 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: No'significant impact (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of U sett. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: No significant impact Explanation: No significant impact YES MAYBE NO x 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? x Explanation: Explanation: No significant impact 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?. Explanation: A minimal addition of truck traffic will be generated by the proposed use, however, it will be confined to South 133rd which already is improved and designed for the increase. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parl :s or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including YES MAYBE HO (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: No significant impact 15. Energy. • Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: No significant impact 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: No significant impact 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: No significant impact YES MAYBE NO x. x x 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his - torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: No significant impact Explanation: No significant impact Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: No significant impact I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and'complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on niy part. Signature and Title Date -8- YES MAYBE NO x • O (Legal Description of Property) Legal Description: That portion of Tract 16, Fostoria Garden Tracts, according to mats, Page 95, in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the most Westerly corner of said Tract 16 and running thence S 47° 12' E 175.31 Feet; thence S 67 E 20 feet to the true point of beginning; thence N 30° CO E 378 Feet; thence N 5 58' W 174.4 Feet to the Westerly boundry of said Tract 16; thence N 40° 17' E along said Westerly boundary 359.99 Feet, more or less, to the most Northerly corner of said Tract 16; then S 49 43' E along the Northeasterly boundary of said Tract 272.25 Feet to the Southeasterly boundary of said Tract 16; then S 40 17' W along said Scutt boundary827.73 Feet to the most Southerly corner of said Tract 16; then N 67 43' W 82.11 Feet to the true point of beginning. Subscribed and sworn before me this 4th day of October otary Publi residing at AFFIDAVIT Form C I, RICHARD 0. SELLAND , being del sworn, declare that I am the contract purchaser or owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. l d for the State of Washington, .05,i`z44_. (c4. Signature of Contract Purchaser or owner 5622 First Avenue South Seattle Washington 98108 City (206) 767 -5960 (Telephone) ,197 Tailing Address) State FOR O= i :CC_r' USE ORLY Appl. No_ Receipt No. Fi1irg Date }rearing Date APPLICANT TO ANSWat ALL TiE FOLIATING QUESTIONS NEATLY AND ACCURATELY: N Proper y Petitioned for rezoning is located on , SW corner at South 133 Street • & S. 134 Street between and • %bta7. square footage in property 162,915 or 3.74 acres ! AL DESCRIPTION' OF PROPEaTY Attached • Existing Zoning M -1 • Zoning requested that are the uses you propose to develop on this property ?. General office and • maintenance facility • Nuinbr of pe_rmane.ht off — street parking spaces that will be provided on property? Parking in excess of code requirement - Number requir NOTICE ',Its APPLICAP: The following factors are considered in reclassifying property or modifying regulations. Evidence or additional inform. you desire to sulmit to substantiate . • your request may be attached to this sheet. '.(See Application Procedure sheet Item No. 2 for specific miniirra requirements.) 1. What provisions will be grade to screen adjacent 'and surrounIin7 property from any .inct.,,,.patible effects which may arise as a result of the proposed land use classification? Screening and landscaping will surround the total facility as 'pet code and approved plan. SELLAND AUTO TRANSPORT, INC. Address .5622 First Avenue South : ; • SPatt1e Wanhingrnn 9R1QR ' � ' 9 iT1oj�z 0 to- r4ri Lr APPLICATION FOR . • , _ ,... : 1.;: l f. i r: :� : • •.• :lid THE '' CI1 i OF 131- 'EL,:L Planning Corrmission Action City Council Action Ordin .nce No. & Date •Telephone No. (206) 767 -5960 • Form D • 2. 1•::.:at: prc;.risioris t•i.11 he mac?c to provide for necessary street widening to City niblimra ::tlanflards? Existing street improvements are of sufficient size to serve all of the existing present uses. 3. for z:::• \ ;'.laLe :i !:; r Etn . 1•.i Existing utilities_ _sufficient . size . to. _serve the_total property.___v`_1�� CITY OF TUKWILA 14475 • 59th AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 98067 STATEMENT r 6)4124 . t A» To446rcri - 1 DETACH AND MAIL WITH YOUR CHECK. YOUR CANCELLED CHECK 15 YOUR RECEIPT. avi m ail ucs a ) !8 , �cs g iofi y . V, ply i& 8o /5. ru TrAI'L—. 4 P° PAID 8Y CHECK NO. t r tS CNAIN L■+R e' NI CHtkre.i LINT. Fua+CN. AK Prcor. Ls mix �' A� •1 '5 TC•Rg41 . 11 Ater. ItP C.. on R.griove. D•.s SHI ► OI.II.T 5 \CURITY L14.w71ru{. 0 THIS An N.R. TYDINOS 111; 65 INC. OE81ON - BUILD CONTRACTORS • 0 N 17'E 359.99 S 40.17' W 527.73' PLAN I' * JO '. O " Stfof• bLOG lo'e */T Tnute. • r &f( 14 ru44a4f.N 't' / +rte` Tat � J _]r�/J e7 ,1\,. l , �M ( p r • G .L N M 4w / • Li (v 0 N.T. r ' r v. w r .a szi t "..-i • • • N.� . rj m . ^ =,, r '. ` VJ 1 f r 1 �"! w It' ` r_ !'O M"c'. 15 ;........._ . Q M , 1 ! , 1 -''' i.1 Yet+ d'i 3+ 66 Oar F[rlca GATE'S- . Rt.oloCoNTRoL.= ELEcTsic GirEluTot . LEGAL DESCRIPTION That portion of tract lo, f ostarta Garden Tracts according to eet nnurd to'oelw 9 H plats. page 5h. to King County, Oath. assert!** as follows Aolinalfl at Me sett ■*steely ' comer of said tract I6 and running U.ence south 47 It' *as( 1. 3.11 rti them scvtl 61 . ' 1 77 east Al ft. to tha trim polot of beginning; Kent* north 1T' Nit.3J3 It., to..co earth t mins...est 174.4 ft. to the n+usterly boundary of said tract %; thence soya .7 17' j east slung sold westarly twmdary ft.. tore or lass. to tr. Post northern groat of said tract lb; thence south 4Y 43' east along the norNvastrrlr boundary of sal. tract 274.15 ft. to the soutn.1tterll boundary of said tract.los thonct tooth 443° 17' wt tl along, 1410 soueatte ly boundary 6:1,13 6:7.13 ft. to tie nett stuthorty corner of said tract 11; thence north 67 43 vast G1.T1_ft. to ire true point of foalMln. Sltwt*a 11 ks. H ' T 23 It" 11. 4t 5. 4.M,• King Cowry. _ Oslo 9 - N.;7 : JOS N0,87744 • h 1 R.R. TYDtNGS Ili h7 0.11Deett. ^ 5Toh►.c.4 E INC. DESIGN - BUILD CONTRACTORS • T &tic 14 .ILA. 0111111.: 14 Joe No;11177.4+0, 1 - - ■ asap - _ . -anva - iia INC. DESIGN - /UILD CONTRACTORS r . 1 �1, ► { l i • ; i I L.IL If 11..14. PLAN -- SHOP nimaingl 1 imilampag9 u. DNS SOS No;677.4.pi` L , 11 -52 -cup IIJSK50•1n oI 5 1 ST 4 3 I4PL OFD' 1 •igniizaAN SaL-MD Aum re*r 'CIZUf,K rWmi JA L r ,C01. 10•' N. IG1,72G.6f L642,304.99 .OVERLAP SCC. r r l I _ III `_- C 4.:tIb I: , � ,., Inf"'I ` axi.:tns+i : a+ma> �' f .. _ ° • : , ` _ ..' •, . I 1 -- , ._ !' r -� V`-:C I 'oIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII2IIIIIII � (ITIIIIIIIIIINl IIII5IIIIIIIIIIIIIII6IUIIIIiIIIIIIIlloolIIIIIIitip , F. LEX IDLE 11ULEI1 -302 Awanra:r= 1 0C G6 D. L7 9i 9Z VZ CZ 2Z l6 Oz GI UI AI 91 9I 91 'CI al II OL' . 1IIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ;CLEAR 'THE QUALITY T OF S THE T ORIG I ORIGINAL DOCUMENT