HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0018 - SHEFRIN DENNI - BECKER TRUCKING APPEALL94 -0018
BECKER TRUCKING CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL
City of Tukwila.
Department of Community Development
March 21, 1994 •
Mr. Jeff Mann
PAC TECH Engineering, Inc.
6100 Southcenter Blvd., #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: NOTICE OF DECISION for Becker Trucking
Conditional Use Permit - L93 -0058 )
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
As you are aware, the decision of the Planning Commission which approved a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) with conditions was appealed to the City Council. On March 14, 1994, the City Council upheld the
decision of the Planning Commission and modified or added conditions. The conditions imposed on the
CUP for the parking facility are listed below:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
1. That adequate lighting be provided within the parking lot perimeter., Lighting shall not go beyond
the confines of the property.
2. That a 6 -foot high chain -link fence with barbed wire be placed inside landscaped areas around
the site and that a gate be installed at the S. 128th Street entry (access is limited to S. 128th
only).
3. That 43 parking spaces be provided for employee vehicles and 17 parking spaces,be provided
for trucks, trailers and tractors. The parking arrangement shall not be restricted.
4. That curb stops be provided within the parking lot.
5. The transfer of materials between trucks/trailers parked on the subject property is prohibited.
6. That the Iandscape.plan be modified to show more plantings along the west property line in order
to achieve a dense landscape buffer within five to ten years.
The landscape plan must be revised and submitted to the Department of Community
Development prior to the issuance of Utility Permits. Landscaping 'must be installed in
accordance with the revised landscape plan. An irrigation plan must also be submitted and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of Utility Permits.
7. That the performance bond of 150% for landscaping be paid prior to the issuance of the Utility
Permit.
8. Improvements must be completed six (6) months from the issuance of the Utility Permit.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fay (206) 4313665.
Becker Trucking - CUP
Page 2
9. The hours of operation shall be limited from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.
10. On- street parking adjacent to the site and along the west side of East Marginal Way S. and along
the south side of S. 128th St. shall be prohibited.
Please be aware that a CUP automatically expires one year from final approval (by the City Council).
- Because Condition . #6 requires installation of all improvements including landscaping within 'six months
from the date the Utility Permit is issued, optimal planting periods should be considered to best coordinate
permits and the installation of landscaping.
I have included a copy of the DRAFT City Council March 14, 1994 minutes (verbatim) for reference.
Please notify me at once if you have any questions related to the conditions of this proposal as listed
above. I can be reached at 431 -3663:
Sincerely,
Denni Shefrin
Associate Planner
Encl.
cc:. L93 -0058 File
.
Verbatim Transcript - Conditional Use Permit - Becker Trucking
Tukwila City Council - Special Meeting
March 14, 1994
Manor John Rants: Next issue, continuation of the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.
That public hearing has not been closed, it is still open for this evening. We have had testimony, on all of
the material that has been presented. And it is now time for the Council's discussion, conclusions.
Ekberg: I will excuse myself because since I haven't been a part of the discussions.'
Rants: Yes you do, excuse me. You are excused.
Councilmember Dennis Robertson: Wally, prior to starting discussion, I asked the City Attorney
two questions about safety and traffic and the risk to the City. I'd like to repeat those questions and have
her explain to the whole Council at the same time her response. The first questions is, for the proposed
parking lot, the entrances onto East Marginal Way, let's assume that sometime that we approve this and
sometime in the future there's a truck either entering or leaving that and that there is an accident by a car
coming say from the north where there is a sight limitation. Involved in an accident with the vehicle
leaving the parking lot on that new access. The question there is, is how liable is the City for approving
this conditional use knowing that this entrance way has some sight limitation problems associated with it?
Linda Cohen: Do you have a second question that's related?
Robertson: The second question is exactly the same. Let's assume we don't have the entrance way on
East Marginal Way but a truck leaves the new parking lot, turns right or east onto the intersection of
128th and East Marginal Way and is involved in an accident there. That's a more complicated question,
I'd rather have asked that second after you've answered the first.
Cohen: Well the answer is pretty much the same so that's why, that's why it was easier to get both
questions out.
Robertson: It is basically the same question, the difference . there is that instead of a specific
entrance /exit way, the truck is really entering onto 128th. But knowing that the traffic will then go out
onto the intersection of 128th East Marginal Way where there is a sight limitation problem.
Cohen: The answer is that it is it's situational. If the sight distances aren't adequate and there is an
accident that will be one factor in the many factors of the accident that will be considered. Of course the
speed that the vehicles are traveling, whether or not the vehicles were traveling in a negligent manner,
there could be a number of different factors involved, such as what the weather conditions were like. So
sight distance would be one factor in that. I'd believe that there would be a number of ways you'd be able
to mitigate that and that would be - -I can think of a few off the top of my head, I'm sure that Ron
Cameron could think of many more than I can as far as reducing speed or putting up a sign as to limited
sight distance, having some sort of parking- -some conditions with restrictions on parking. There are a
number of different ways to remedy that. Like I say that is just one factor in many. He'll be able to recall
better than I but I believe it was Ron Cameron's testimony that by having the parking in fact it would
improve the sight distances by adding an access it would improve the sight distances that were already
there. He'll be able to address that better than I. If we're actually improving conditions, that will be
2
something that is obviously helpful. No one will know until the accident occurs, but it's just one factor
out of many.
Councilmember Joan Hernandez: Well, after visiting that site I have some real problems with the sight
visibility there that we noted. In reading the traffic engineer's report or recommendation is even more
confusing. I don't have a lot of confidence in that one day it says that "entering sight distance for the
proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is not adequate and stopping sight distance for the proposed
driveway on East Marginal Way is not adequate for both directions." And it says, "only vehicles traveling
north on East Marginal Way will have adequate stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway."
That's on November 4th. Then on November 5th it contradicts that by saying then that the installation of
the driveway access on East Marginal Way south will help to accomplish, promote a safer
environment " and all this. It's very hard to have a lot of confidence in the study when it's very
contradictory.
Rants: Would you like to address these questions to Ron Cameron?
Hernandez: The report was actually written by James Mitchell.
Rants: I know, that's why I asked if you would
Hernandez: I don't know if Ron wants to - -I think we've gone over it but I'm still very confused by it
even after seeing the site. I was a little more astounded at the poor visibility, so, that's kind of a dilemma.
I'm just kind of verbalizing one of the difficult decisions that we have to make. It's like Dennis said, how
safe is the visibility and the access in and of that site.
Rants: That's why I thought possibly that the city engineer said yes no or otherwise, if we had a definition
of it right now, it might relieve that feeling of
Hernandez: Well, if Ron can add something to that that maybe would help me with my decision I'd
appreciate it, but I did listen very carefully to his testimony earlier and I don't think it clarified it much.
I'd be glad to listen again, it's a hard one.
Ron Cameron: I'm Ron Cameron, City Engineer, for the record. As Linda said, if in considering
that situation whether it be an accident or just the day to day operation which is what the issue is tonight,
approval or not approval, there are many factors besides just the sight distance. By having the second
driveway or the driveway on the south side of the parking lot, it does two things. It pulls a lot of the
traffic which is on 128th away from the intersection with the short sight distance and puts them over at
the driveway. OK? So some number I forget exactly, but a couple of hundred or whatever it is a day,
move from the intersection with the very short sight distance to the driveway with the longer sight
distance. So there's two things that happen there. It makes the five legged intersection at 128th less
complicated for all of the traffic there and the traffic that moves has better sight distance. So we have
two gains in doing that and that's why there's memos two days apart have different answers. We asked •
them to relook at the situation besides just the sight distance numbers because they're first response was
purely on what are the numbers. And they were only looking at the driveway, they were not looking at
the driveway as well as looking at the intersection. By opening up the parking lot, the new parking lot
that they want to use, that traffic choice could be all at the intersection at 128th or it could be distributed
128th and their new driveway. If you pull traffic to the driveway out of the intersection with the, again
with the short sight distance, and if you looked across to the east, that corner that's staggered, if you
3
were out there you say that, they come down the hill, the property out there's going to develop some day.
There's going to be a lot more traffic there so you're going to have not only a staggered intersection, but
a staggered five legged intersection on a curve. So any traffic that we can pull out of that will make the
intersection of 128th have a lower exposure in terms of total vehicles entering it. Regardless of the sight
distance. So if you add all those factors in, it says that driveway has some advantage. We did not ask
them to say put the driveway in or put the driveway out. I did not say that. I asked them, stop and
rethink considering what's across the street, what the sight distance is, what the volumes are, and what
the changes would be and then you choose. It's your engineering opinion as to what you write down
there. And they called back the next day and said, reconsidering they basically agreed with the same
thought that I had is that by pulling them over it's a better situation.
Rants: Does that answer the question for you?
Cameron: If I had drawings I could do better then here in the clouds.
Hernandez: I understand the reasoning behind it, yes, but I also want to add something to this in the
fact that one of the considerations that Jeff Mann also offered was that they could accept a condition with
regards to the traffic driveway, that it be conditioned to a north bound left only trucks.
Cameron: That does need some clarification, because we mentioned earlier and you should find in
that record, that either in the minutes of our work or at the Planning Commission, that there is no
restriction on turns at the driveway for trucks or passenger cars. Again, because if they're turning off of
128th or out of the driveway, it's better that they do it out of the driveway because the traffic speed is
slower there on East Marginal Way and they have better sight distance. What I was concerned about in
the previous hearing was the comment that the yard vehicle would be pulling trailers out, around and
back down into 128th. So we did not want that, that was not part of the application. That was not a part
of our consideration. Remember the talk about the tote goat, that would pull trailers for operations.
That operation stays on site or goes directly across 128th but not out the driveway on East Marginal Way
and into 128th.
Robertson: I have a real confusion. We've been told that since this is a separate legal lot of record and
that's in the Staff report on page two, that we are to deal with this conditional use permit for. this parcel, .
for this what we call a parking lot, is really a conditional use permit for it to be a trucking facility. And
that we cannot consider it an enlargement, extension anything of the existing facility. It is separate and
independent of that because of it's a separate legal lot of record. So on one hand they are two separate
entities and we have to deal with the parking lot. Yet on the other hand, almost all of the discussion talks
about using this in conjunction with the first one and how we hear arguments that it's a mitigation for the
first one and everything else. I get really confused. And that's not the city engineer's problem, but I can
understand by our laws how its not an enlargement of a non - conforming use.
Rants: Steve has a question.
Councilmember Steve Mullet: While were on this parking problem and this entrance and exit, it
would seem to me that probably the majority of the loaded. trailers.that are going to leave Becker
Transfer are going to leave out of the main terminal entrance and exit and they're not going to leave out
of that parking lot. We've been indicated that that's mostly for empty trailers and maybe some partially
loaded trailers which I would suspect would be inbound trailers coming in with a partial load waiting for
a chance to get to the dock. Now that was my interpretation listening to the record. When we went
4
down and visited the site, we saw only - -we didn't see any trailers going out of 128th, everybody was
turning in on 128th going in the back of the terminal. I assume, going to the terminal itself to load or
unload. So I'm not so sure that this driveway on East Marginal Way out of the parking lot is really as
pertinent as we're making it. I'm not even sure that it's, my concern with it is more that it's, by having it
there it lends itself as an attractive nuisance to kids that might decide to cut through that parking lot
rather than go down to the corner and stay on the sidewalk. I have more concern with that than rather or
not the parking lot can exist, with or without that driveway. The other consideration is that you have
cars parked all through this parking lot and other trucks and other trailers parked in this parking lot and
you don't wheel 40 footers through a parking lot like you do a MG. So it's going to be I think by
necessity used more as a parking lot, as an interim parking facility and not used so much as
supplementing the dock activity. That's my concerns about the East Marginal Way thing. I don't have
any more on that, I'd just assume eliminate that entrance myself or make it - -well I can't figure any way to
remove the fact that if it's there it means that the pedestrians are going to make an attempt to cut the
corner. And that bothers me more than the sight distance on and off East Marginal Way. If there's kids
wandering around in that parking lot for any reason at all.
Rants: Are there any other questions? Thank you Mr. Cameron. Joan?
Hernandez: I did want to verify something that's in our documents that we're reading. That's on page
33 of our report. Under the Planning Commission minutes for November 18th there's testimony that says
that nobody has brought up the fact that this document is not identical to the previous one, the matter of
the entrance on East Marginal Way is different, there was no entrance on East Marginal Way when it was
approved in 1990. And I just need a clarification if that was true.
Rants: That is correct. When we approved it in 1990 there was no entrance on East Marginal Way. Any
other comments from the Council?
Mullet: To move on, I have some concerns that I'd like to hear the rest of the Council on the
planting on the berm and basically on the site visitation and also on the plans, this seems to be very
minimal attention on the west side. That is the residential area, I would say more a permanent record.
We have some question that we might have some residential - -we have some now commercial lots on East
Marginal Way that may or may not become residential lots as we go through a rezoning. On the west
side we definitely have a residential area. And immediately next to it is residential zoning. I would like to
see some more effort put into that berm.
Rants: Let me offer a way to go forward. You're now speaking of the kinds of conditions you might
want to talk about. We need to put a motion on the table either to disapprove the conditional use permit
or approve it with conditions. If we put it on there and we begin talking of conditions that you wish to
put into it, then you can move forward without just discussion going on and on and on.
Robertson: I want to offer a counter. I think it's just - -well first off the public hearings still open so we
should probably close the public hearing if we have no more questions and then start the
Rants: That's true I should have closed the public hearing.
Cohen: We should make sure that there are not no further questions before so you don't have to
reopen.
5
Rants: Are there any further questions of Council before I close the public hearing?
Hernandez: I have some other things I'd like to discuss. I don't know if a question might arise from
them but
Mullet: Something you have to ask Staff or ask us?
Hernandez: No it's more dialog between us but I'm afraid a question could arise, I don't know.
Robertson: It is possible for us to start our discussion and leave it open so that we can ask Staff if we
have a technical question?
Cohen: No, you need to close it and start deliberations and if you have a question you have to
reopen it.
Rants: Steve did you have a question you wanted to ask?
Mullet: Yea I have some questions on some of the mitigations and how they fit in with the plan. I
know some of them were listed as specific mitigations and some of them like the drainage plan I think
were stated that because public works has a set of rules that they use already for that, that that would
automatically be part of the process and we wouldn't have to list that specifically as a mitigation. And I
guess my question is, I don't know which one of those we would have to list specifically and which ones
would be in there. And that's all I'm concerned about....
Rants: If you list it specifically and just try and do what you do and its already a repetition of what we've .
done it hasn't hurt anything. It just covers it. And it could either be erased in the writing of the document
or kept in if it's not covered by Public Works policies.
Mullet: Then I have no problem closing the public hearing.
Hernandez: I have a Staff question to ask. One thing that makes we reluctant to approve a conditional
use permit is that it would go with the property if it was sold, it was passed with the title. So I guess
what I would need to know from Staff then is, is it possible to grant a conditional use permit that would
expire with the termination...
Mullet: The sale of the property.
Hernandez: Right, the sale of the property.
Mullet: Is that a -- Linda? Linda?
Cohen: Denni or Rick may be able to answer that better than I.
Denni Shefrin: Hi, Denni Shefrin, City of Tukwila planning division. Joan the first question that
comes to mind and perhaps we need to make a distinction is that were talking about two different things.
The sale of the property versus the termination of the use. Perhaps you want to think about how to be,
specific but certainly a conditional use permit can be conditioned with respect to time, there can be `a time
limit for example a conditional use permit could be valid for four years as an example. If you recall the
6
first conditional use permit that was granted, was granted for a period of I believe six months. And if the
conditions were not adhered to in that time frame the permit would be withdrawn. So you do have that
flexibility.
Hernandez: So you can set limitations then on the duration?
Shefrin: Yes you can.
Robertson: Can I ask Denni?
Rants: Sure
Robertson: In approving a conditional use permit for this particular proposal it says here that the site
is to be used as a parking lot only. So it's being conditioned not just to be a trucking facility it's being
conditioned to be a parking lot that will park certain - -will have a certain number of spaces for trailers, a
certain number for private vehicles. And that's it, there's no buildings -- later - -this has not been OK'd for
them for instance for them to build a building there and start loading and unloading everything else. Is
that correct?
Shefrin: That's correct.
Robertson: That would have to come back for another conditional use permit to do that?
Shefrin: They can come back and amend this conditional use permit because now they're modifying
what had been presumably approved.
Rants: If they wish to change the use of that piece of property with a conditional use permit, they must
come back in front of the City Council?
Shefrin: We need to be cautious perhaps with the language. I wouldn't want to suggest that if
they're changing the use, but if they're changing the intended use that was approved with this particular
conditional use permit if there's something that's substantially different in this case like you're speaking of
a building, that would necessitate a need to come back and amend the permit.
Robertson: What kind of change could they make that wouldn't require them to come back? Let's say
that they decide to not park private vehicles there any more but to use it for trailer parking only? Would
that require
Shefrin: That's a good question. I would say that because the way it's been presented to us, we
have a site plan that specifies the number of parking places for employee vehicles and for trucks, there is
predictability and some guarantee in terms of how the site is going to be utilitized. That might become
perhaps a potential condition that you might want to consider in terms of how that facility is going to be
utilitzed. So in essence there's opportunity to be restrictive in that matter.
Robertson: Thank you.
Rants: Thank you Denni. Any further question? . We'll close the public hearing. Now we need to put a
motion on the table.
Robertson: I question that. Before - -I would like to have some discussion on some issues. Up till now
other than asking questions I haven't been allowed to discuss concerns. Do we have to put a motion on
the table first? Or can we have deliberation on the issues raised amongst the Council?
Cohen: You can deliberate.
Rants: It is well up to you, I only offered a way to try and move forward so that we could come to
conclusion.
Mullet: Let me start off then. Dennis is reluctant I guess. I will state in my opinion this should go
forward for a conditional use for a parking lot and we should mitigate it to our satisfaction. I have a lot
of things that are going on down there that we saw and what not, but I do not see where this parking lot
will hurt anything. In the opposite I think it will help the situation, if we do it right. Most of the things
that needed doing were already said. I have a couple more that I'd like to add but at this point I'll
basically pass it on down to anybody else who wants to argue against it I guess.
Robertson: I'm not certain yet what position I would like to take. Let me, I can categorize my
concerns fairly fast. One deals with noise and hours of use. I have some concerns with hazardous
materials, potential on it. I have concerns with traffic although I really believe that Staff and the
engineers have done about everything that's possible there. The biggest concern that I have, because I
tried to understand where everybody's coming from in this and listen to their presentation and reading the
materials. Both the applicant and the appellants and the Planning Commission. I think what we really
have here is, while it is not a legal extension of the current use, by the legal definition, I want to be very
clear and say that I accept and believe that. It is appear to be a operational expansion. The citizen, Kathy
Stetson on page 31 on the transcripts on February 28th, if you go to there, made some fairly- -one of the
appellants made some fairly coherent statements. That's one of the reasons I want to discuss this is talk in
terms of perhaps conditions. Part way down through her statement she says, "I would from the way I
look at it, side with Becker. His current business to the north is probably inadequate for him to conduct
his business in a pattern in which he needs to or wants to. And by permitting a conditional use permit to
use the site for parking, allows his to expand his business essentially although not officially. The net
effect of this is to expand his business." It goes on to say, "I'm concerned about Mr. Mann said that
loaded trucks could be parked on the site overnight. Mr. Becker runs a LTL Trucking company, a Less
Then Load. They pick up parcels, pick up little parcels or packages bring them in and reorganize them
and send them out again. These things can be anything. They can be fruits and vegetables, they can be
hazardous materials." She goes on.
Mullet: Dennis? Let me interrupt on the hazardous materials. Under this zoning hazardous
materials are not allowed to be stored. That's in the TMC under the -- what's this, C2 zoning that we
have? And it specifically says that no hazardous materials will be allowed. So I think that removes the
hazardous materials from the discussion in as much as they can have it illegally anywhere where they
wanted it and it's no reason to think that they would be illegal in this case any more than any other time.
Robertson: OK.
Cohen: I would also like to take this opportunity to remind all decision makers that the decision is
not an expansion or a intensification and that the criteria under 1864050 should be used as a basis in
determining whether or not the CUP should be granted.
8
Robertson: There's actually a method to my madness, so let me continue. In the paragraph Kathy
Stetson goes on to say, "the intent of the CM zoning is to allow uses which are non - nuisance oriented and
which don't produce excessive noise pollution or odor. Trucks are one of the worst sources of pollution.
Landscaping will address the visual impacts only so long as the trucks are parked. Once the trucks begin
to move between the parking lot on the southwest corner and the loading docks on the northwest corner,
the adverse impacts and noise pollution and traffic cannot contain within the borders of the subject
property." She goes on to say, "if the terminal is a reason for including truck, tractor and trailer parking
then more information is needed such as noise levels already generated, traffic circulated between the
sites and East Marginal Way and how this added parking will expand his capacity before the impacts can
be known. The tendency has been to address this site as a parking lot and to overlook the nature of the
operation. I think you need to look at reality and the reality is that I believe that if we constitute
expansion of legal non - conforming use." We've been told we can't look at that, we have to deal with this
as a parking lot. But then on the other hand Mr. Becker says that this is a mitigation for his existing
facility. There are several quotes in there on the transcript from him on that. That's part of the confusion
that I have. In looking at it right now, it's nothing but a muddy piece of bare ground almost. And what's
been proposed seems to me a real improvement over the current situation. But the real issue is, you
know, what does - -what goes with it? So, I wanted to share that, but I'd also like to point out that in our
TMC that we allow trucking sites such as this in three different zones. This is the lowest zone, but all
three zones where they're allowed, they're allowed only as conditional uses. So I think the implication up
front in the zoning code is, that these have to be looked at very carefully because they do have a major
impact. So to talk of this just in terms that this is a plus and a mitigation to the existing site where we
can't - -on the other hand we can't consider an extension. I can sure see where to Kathy and to the citizens
and the rest of us this almost appears to be double talk. I can't imagine Mr. Becker even proposing this
site if he didn't have a trucking business next door. He's developing this parking lot, so, I have some
concerns. But I'll shut up for a minute.
Rants: Is there further comment down there?
Hernandez: I have some more comments. By the way, Steve's motion was never seconded so I don't
know whether
Mullet: I didn't make a motion, I just stated my opinion.
Rants: Just stated his opinion. I was hoping we could get to a motion one way or the other then we
could move forward from that.
Hernandez: I don't know if I'm ready to do that yet either, it just seems like there's a lot of issues to
talk through. I really feel that the neighbors truly feel that this is a nuisance and it's not really compatible
with a residential neighborhood. We have to look at - -I understand we can look at the criteria of what's
changed and what's different then what it was in 1990 when it was previously granted. And one thing
that's been brought up is that the speed limit is slower because of the residential nature of the
neighborhood and there's several newly constructed homes in that area. There are about ten new
residential homes in that area. To me it's really turning more towards a residential neighborhood then it is .
a business or commercial neighborhood. I could drive around that neighborhood and notice about ten
new homes at least within a few blocks of that site. To me that's a change, it's getting more residential in
nature. I think that's something that we really need to consider.
9
Robertson: Could I carry onto that point? I looked up under TMC 918.020 to definition of a minor
arterial. I wanted to read that to you, "Definition of Minor Arterials: (this area is listed as a minor
arterial) the primary function of a minor arterial is to serve intercommunity traffic traveling between
neighborhoods, traveling between principle and collector arterials. Minor arterials serve smaller
geographic areas than principle arterials. Minor arterials speed limits are usually 30 to 35 mph. Traffic
generally served by minor arterials include high schools, junior high schools, hospitals, community
business centers, neighborhood shopping centers and athletic fields. Minor arterials volumes range from
1,500 to 15,000 per week day. Minor arterials are normally 44 feet wide with at least 6 feet." Then it
goes on to talk about which ones are classified. East Marginal Way is classified as a minor arterial. But I
didn't see anything in that definition that talks about the intended use.
Rants: Steve? I've been trying to see
Hernandez: I could say a few more things that I'd like to just create some discussion.
Rants: Joyce did you have something that you wanted to say on this?
Councilmember Joyce Craft: I feel that the - -I was very disappointed with the traffic on 128th.
This seems to improve a bad situation here. I don't see that it would adversely effect the neighborhood
any more than it is already. I don't think it will show any increase. I think that that area is changing just
like Joan said, and I think that we might see more change in the future. I would be very much in favor of
approving this but I would want to think about the length of time. I would like to have it reconsidered in
maybe - -I don't know if you can do that - -but maybe in five years or for a certain period of time. Then we
can see
Rants: These are all conditions that you can apply to this once we put a motion on the table so that we
know are we going forward or are we all through. That's
Robertson: We've heard you.
Rants: Good. I'm not sure you have yet but
Mullet: I think the character of the neighborhood is something that could go either way. If you
have this area then further down you have the second hand store on the other side, then another building
which is been a little work, one that's torn down but another one that's had some work on it. That seems
to be where the zoning kind of goes there. Somewhere you have to merge a commercial zone and a
residential zone. You can't- -we'd like to put maybe a green belt for two blocks between them all but we
don't have that kind of room. At some point in time you have to merge the two. I think this is an
example of where the two are merging and a parking lot that basically does not create any more noise
than what parking lots do which is things moving in and out of them, does not seem to me to be a terrible
buffer for this type of a thing.
Rants: Council's pleasure? Dorothy.
Councilmember Dorothy DeRodas: I'd just like to say that we have to look at some of the
history that's involved. Now I believe the enterprise Becker moved to this site in '77. In looking around
when we were on our inspection tour, you could see some houses which probably pre -dated it and a good
many others which have come along after this period of time. The business, well, a parking lot is
certainly indicated. The conditions there for parking of their vehicles t
line of in the mud there of the employees vehicles is definitely, it's bad
where a parking lot is needed. My sympathy's have been resounding i
is that you mitigate, you take part of the problem out of the main indu
industry itself that has is relieved of some of the burden of this extra p
worries me. I don't know, do I make myself clear on this?
Robertson: What Mr. Becker said in the testimony was that he wa
efficient. Because he has to park the trailers and trucks in a fairly sm
them and that's part of the noise. If he had a larger area a new parkin
would be more - -he would use it more efficiently which I presume he
there.
DeRodas: Yes, that would be a plus.
10
at is I'm thinking of that straggly
or the whole area. I can see
what Dennis has to say. And that
try, forbidding perhaps the
king to enlarge its facilities, this
going to make his operation more
1 area, that he's constantly moving
lot then the other, the old area
ould be moving things around less
Cohen: I have to repeat myself, again I believe that's an impro .er consideration and I must say
that again.
DeRodas: I'm sorry, then I'll withdraw these comments. I must -- he parking lot with good
conditions I'll go for.
Rants: That's what we need, to put in the conditions when we get a otion on the table.
Robertson: OK, let me - -one is the hours of use. At one point
Craft: Are we getting into conditions?
Robertson: Nope, I'm just talking about things that - -hours of use
SEPA things was six days a week. What we have here is seven days
using a parking lot on Sunday constitutes a very big issue.
as in the MDNS, not MDS, the
week. I'm not sure though that
Rants: Seems to me we're talking about a condition there Dennis. D es somebody wish to apply it?
Craft: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the conditional use ' ermit for Becker Trucking with
conditions.
Mullet: I'll second.
Rants: Moved and seconded. Discussion. Denni?
Shefrin: I apologize for interrupting but I do want to point out hat this is an appeal. It's not that
the Council is approving the conditional use permit. So it's a matter •f upholding or denying the appeal
or adding conditions on your decision.
Robertson: I'm sorry- -finish the rest of the sentence - -I didn't hear.
Shefrin: Or adding conditions to your decision. So if you elect to uphold the Planning
Commissions decision you do have the opportunity also to add condi ions to their decision.
11
Robertson: So the proper -- then....
Mullet: The proper wording is- -would you like to reword?
Craft: Yes, I make a motion that we uphold the appeal, excuse me deny the appeal the Planning
Commissions decision to approve a conditional use permit for Becker Trucking. Is that it?
Mullet: I second.
Rants: Discussion?
Craft: Do we have to accept all the conditions with it that the Planning Commission
Cohen: No.
Craft: We don't.
Cohen: You can accept some, you can accept all, you can accept none, you could make up your
own.
Rants: If we wish to deny the appeal then we're through with that issue of it. Then do we come back
to....
Cohen: You can vote on the various conditions.
Rants: And vote on the various conditions that we wish to have to the conditional use permit.
Cohen: You can certainly do it that way, yes.
Craft: That's clean.
Rants: That's clean.
Craft: I would change it then to make a motion that we deny the appeal to approve the conditional use
permit for Becker Trucking. That didn't come out right
Hernandez: You want to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions decision with
conditions. Isn't that what you want to do?
Craft: Right.
Rants: Motion should be. We deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions decision with
conditions.
Craft: That's what I want to say but
12
Rants: OK. And your seconding that?
Mullet: I second.
Rants: OK, now discussion.
Robertson: Well prior to voting on it my vote would be effected by the conditions so I would like to
discuss the conditions and add those to this prior to voting on the motion on the table.
Hernandez: I would agree to that.
Rants: A question of process here. Can we talk about conditions to the appeal or to the conditional use
permit before we have taken the appeal away? Rick?
Rick Beeler: (2144) could not hear comments
Mullet: What does that mean?
Robertson: That means that we have it now, so prior, before we vote on the motion that's on the table
we make amendments to it. The amendments, could be, the appeal could be a series of amendments.
That's what I understood Rick to say.
Beeler:(2161) ....that was to approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions. And the
amendments that you would be adding would be those conditions. Is that correct?
Robertson: Yes.
Rants: Joan, do you want to start?
Hernandez: On page 38 of the February 28th minutes
Mullet: Do we have to officially vote on this first?
Rants: Any appeal, any condition now will be an amendment to the motion and added to the Planning
Commission's conditions.
Hernandez: And then would we vote on each one of them separately?
Rants: Yes.
Hernandez: OK.
Rants: My understanding.
Hernandez: OK, according to Jeff Mann's testimony, he said we would accept a condition that there be
no truck parking in the employee parking area. I would like to propose that as a condition.
13
Rants: Would you put that forward as a motion then?
Robertson: Can I make a primly change to that? I would propose that we make a condition that the
that all the the location and number of lots and type be as shown in one of the attachments, the site plan
so that that would fix the number and the type of parking. So there would not be the ability to change a
small a private car spot into another truck spot.
Hernandez: All right then that would clarify that it would have to be stripped according to that plan.
Robertson: Yes, and the conditions be used as shown.
Rants: Am I correct that when the site plan was submitted it became part of the conditional use permit
Rick?
Beeler: Yes and that would be sited in the findings that would have come back to the Council for
adoption.
Rants: I'm just trying to find out if we need to have that specified as a motion this way or if that is
already part of the condition.
Beeler:I think Dennis -- Councilman Robertson's reference to this is giving us the instruction to make sure
that is clear in the record. That the findings, that that is the site plan and that's what's to be built there.
Robertson: Yes, so Joan, if I was to make a motion, I'd move that the use of the parking lot be as
shown in whatever, the site plan exhibit both the number, the location and the type of parking spots.
Hernandez: Why don't you make the motion, I'll second it. That's fine.
Robertson: OK. That's the motion, I make the motion.
Rants: I think everyone understands the motion.
Mullet: I would have an amendment to the motion. This is going to get real difficult if we can't
discuss these things first. I would agree that the number and types is important. I would like to give
them the opportunity if they have to rearrange that in order to move the vehicles property within that
parking lot that they have that opportunity without coming back to this Council. I would like to limit the
motion to the quantity of vehicles and type of trucks and quantity of trucks that they have listed, or that
they have assumed on the site plan. And that they have the opportunity to juggle those around if they
need to to make that site plan work more efficiently for them,
Robertson: I'll second your amendment or I'm willing to withdraw my primary motion and remake it.
I don't care which we do.
Rants: Let's keep it clean and withdraw yours and make a motion here as
Robertson: Do you agree Joan? OK then I move that the number and the type of parking that's
allowed be as shown on site plan.
14 ..
Rants: Second.
Mullet: I second.
2356 I have a discussion about that. Since we're approving something very specific what if they park
trucks in passenger vehicle stalls? I mean were saying this is a very specific use so we're giving specific
instructions. So what if it changes?
Robertson: Yea, the number - -the way the motion is, if the absolute number, that allows, I'd have to go
count them, but a certain number of trailer spots and a certain number of total trailer and truck and
private park. If the numbers stay the same where ever they park it doesn't matter. If they change the
numbers, that's the intent.
Rants: the motion on the table is to allow the number of cars as said, the number of trailers as said but
give them the flexibility as to where they put them within that area. Any further discussion? All in favor
say I (unanimous). Those opposed? (no response). That was condition one for the Council.
Hernandez: OK, condition number two. The next sentence after that said that they would also
Mullet: Excuse me, before we make a motion out of it let's talk about it a little bit.
Hernandez: That's what I'm doing. It says that they would also accept the condition with regards to
the driveway that it be conditioned to north bound left turn only for trucks. When I was visiting the site
and I turned left and went north it took me right to the freeway. And it seems to me that would avoid
any congestion and going in towards the residential area or ?? the intersection to the south. That possibly
could be involving commuters or residential traffic or pedestrians. It seems to me as though that would
be the safest ingress and egress to the site would be to the north. Anybody have any
Mullet: Yea, in line with your discussion I'd like to get rid of that driveway all together. So should
we do that one first then if the majority says it's OK there then we can discuss which direction it should
go?
Hernandez: OK.
Mullet: Is that more logical?
Rants: You can go anyway you'd like to here right now.
Robertson: Make your motion, let's see what happens.
Rants: Well let's have some dis go ahead.
Mullet: I would move that we eliminate the entrance on East Marginal off the parking lot.
Robertson: I'll second it.
Rants: Discussion?
15
2488 I'm not in favor of that because I thought that it actually improved the line of sight over 128th. It
was an improvement. And it's further away from the curve and I would hate to eliminate it.
Mullet: I'm not as, as I said before I'm not as concerned about the amount of trucks leaving that
parking lot on East Marginal as I am about the visual impacts that a driveway leaves you another hole
that you get to look in there on and it also allows pedestrians, mainly kids, to cut that corner. And that's
my two concerns.
Robertson: My would be that that parking lot in that spot for that access moves it that much closer to
the residential and the other uses to the south. If we leave the entrance way as originally proposed on
128th, that basically keeps the traffic on that intersection. Now that, I realize that doesn't give you the
advantage of them using East Marginal Way entrance way, but it does keep everything centered there.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but I neither access onto East Marginal Way appeared to do very good. By
adding a new one onto East Marginal Way, I just think we're adding another bad one. If indeed this
parking lot does not increase the business, the number of trucks coming and going, and that's the
testimony we had, that it mearly allows for more efficient use of the existing site and a place to park
employee cars. So if it does not add more traffic then it cannot make the intersection at 128th and East
Marginal Way any worse than it is now. If there's no new traffic added we're not creating any new safety
risk. They're still there, OK? So if that's not a concern anyways that's why I asked the questions earlier.
I would like to minimize the impact to this facility onto the neighboring area. I also think the, Mr. Becker
from Becker Trucking was satisfied with the two access onto 128th. So, the conditions seem to me
primarily inter- -aimed at mitigating the impact for the overall thing. So that's why I seconded the motion.
I don't know
Rants: You put a motion on the table didn't you Steve? To eliminate the driveway.
Mullet: Dennis seconded.
Rants: Any further discussion? All for question? All in favor say I? Those opposed?
Robertson: The conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, where do we have those?
Mullet: I have them written down here, do you want me to run through them quickly?
Robertson: Are they in this documentation? I know they are but I can't find them.
Mullet: Adequate lighting be provided but kept within project boundaries. Six foot chain link
fence with barbed wire on the top inside the landscaping. Landscape plan and architect and irrigation
plan. Curb stops to keep the trucks from destroying the landscaping. Performance bond of 150 %. And
improvements completed in six months. I think that was - -the drainage was not included there because as
I mentioned earlier, that was part of our regular activity anyway. I'm assuming the sidewalk plan was all-
- sidewalks were part of the architectural plan that's on there, or
Robertson: It's my understanding that the main motion on the table includes those conditions as part
of the motion in denying the appeal?
Rants: Yes.
16'
Robertson: OK.
Mullet: Do we need to specifically say that or
Rants: No, it's already there.
Hernandez: After your motion, we were going to reconsider the north bound left only
Mullet: We don't have an exit now.
Hernandez: I mean do you want to do that though from the street, from the intersection? That's I just
want to raise the issue if you want to
Mullet: From 128th?
Hernandez: Right, from 128th. •
Mullet: I don't think we can if we have pedestrian if we have residential cars coming out there.
We'd have to tell them they can't
Robertson: Besides, some of the traffic will go north. It will be coming from the south on East
Marginal Way anyway off of the - -off our trails and stuff I'm not sure that would be
Hernandez: Well it's something you might want to consider as you go through the process and come
back to it.
Robertson: I'd like to make a condition that I think it probably again strengthening what Staff
understands that no transfer materials between trucks and trailers be allowed in this parking lot. It be
specifically prohibited. Make the motion.
Mullet: I'll second that.
Robertson: I realize that the applicant doesn't intend to do that anyway, but I'm also concerned about
somebody else who might buy the business.
Rants: Moved and seconded to prohibit transfer of material between trailers.
Robertson: Or trucks within this facility.
Rants: Any discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Any further conditions?
Robertson: Yea. I want to talk for a second about hours of use of the parking lot before I make a
motion. Can anybody see a reason why - -it's limited now by what they applied for I believe isn't it? Seven
days a week but from 6 in the morning what was the
Mullet: Six to ten.
17
Robertson: Six to ten. From the testimony that we had, the primary business runs basically seven days
a week, 24 hours a day and I think that's the nature of a trucking business, I would guess. They bring
things in, they exchange the night and get ready and move the trucks out during the day. I can't see any
reason to limit the use of this parking lot anymore than what's proposed before us. Can anyone else?
The problem is that the business generates noise and the noise is one of the things, according to the
testimony that the citizens in the surrounding neighborhood disagree with, or protest to. However, I
can't believe the use of the parking lot the way they're proposing it is going to generate in itself that much
noise. Is there something I don't understand about the business? Am I wrong?
Mullet: Only picking up and, when you fifth wheel type trailer, when you pick it up and set it back
down it does make a clang.
Robertson: And if they're running the goat in and out
Mullet: Becker in their own testimony indicated that they, that you.know by 10:00 they would
have moved everything out of there that needs to be at the dock to work it for the night shift. My
concern is that they don't for some reason get the employee cars back on that street again.
Robertson: I don't have a problem with - -OK with yea, that's right, if we locked the gates someone
said they couldn't use it. Let's say for instance we say they can't use it from 5:00 Saturday evening until
sometime Monday morning, or whatever, what we're doing it forcing the cars out onto the streets. I'm
not sure - -and all we would benefit from it - -all the people around it would be quieter, but I'm not sure in
itself it would contribute to the overall noise. So, OK I'm not going to make am motion dealing with
that. Let's talk about beepers.
2962: About what?
Robertson: Beepers.
2965: Oh, back up beepers?
Robertson: Yes. I knew there was something more I was going to - -can we open public - -can we open
the public hearing again, reopen it? I have a technical question to ask Staff.
Mullet: On which?
Robertson: On beepers.
Rants: There was a discussion on beepers.
Mullet: There was testimony that they're not required to have them.
Rants: They're not required to have them and do not have them.
Robertson: Well the question
2984 (conversation away from microphone)
18
Mullet: No they're not.
Rants: Please, please do not interrupt the Council deliberation.
Hernandez: That was in the minutes, it should be in there.
Rants: It was a question that was asked of Mr. Becker and they specified that.
Robertson: Well the quote is, it has the license and one of the questions that was brought up was
about the beepers. This is from Mr. Becker, back - -about beepers -- backup, OK, "we're not required to
have those so we don't on our equipment. I know it's good safety but we don't have those on the
equipment." So that issue isn't an issue. The question what I'm wondering- -what I would like to ask
Staff is, and the attorney is, if they are acquired, let's assume the OSHA or their insurers or somebody
requires them to use a beeper on the goat and on the trucks. So now we've moved that noise cause a
beeper is by its nature very noisy, that's why it exists, into - -that much close to the residential area to the
south. So I'm- -the reason I'd want to reopen the public hearing is to ask Staff, can we make it
conditional. What kind of noise limitations, and the beepers the biggest one, can we make this
conditional upon If OSHA says they have to use one or something or their insurance carrier, then
where are we at? Can we prohibit it? So I'd like to the rest of Council
3072: Well, if we make a motion it seems to me we have made motions that have been corrected by
Staff without asking a direct question. If we say something that's off speed it does get corrected. You're
speaking also that there may be even there are not now, OSHA requirements in the future.
Robertson: Yes. Well let me explain. And the reason I'm raising this is that it may effect at least my
vote on the primary motion on the table. If beepers were part of the materials right now, the
requirements in being used, I would possibly have a different view then what I do right now of this
parking lot. The fact that backup beepers are not required, are not used at this point eliminates that noise
source. Noise is one of the issues and if we look for the primary goal on the decision criteria, the, one of
the - - ? ?? thing is "all measures have been taken to minimize a possible adverse impacts which oppose ??
have on the area which is located." First one talks about materially detrimental to the public welfare are
injurious to the property improvements in ?? the proposed use or in ?? the property is situated."
Mullet: I, Dennis I really share your concern on this but possibly the parking lot is what a 50 yards
from the dock. If they have to use beepers they're going to be using them at the dock backing these
trailers back and forth the same amount - -you know, probably even more times then if we put the trailers
in the parking lot. The idea being that there's less picking up and dropping with them being able to park
them in the parking lot. So where I would greatly be concerned about beepers having to be used in this
area, I don't see where the parking lot really changes the noise level. If beepers come in they're going to
be there anyway and I don't think that's something that unfortunately do anything about.
Rants: They would be at the main terminal regardless.
Mullet: Yes, which is only 50 yards away.
Robertson: Noise lose a....
Mullet: I know but I mean that's
19
Robertson: Noise loses its energy as with the distance it travels so what
Mullet: That's what the berm is around the parking lot for I think. To try and break up that noise.
Robertson: That works at street level, anything above it though. It turns out you have hills on either
side of the street going above it, it goes up. OK I'll drop that issue.
Rants: All right, are there any further? Joan?
Hernandez: One of the reasons that its been proposed that we grant the conditional use permit is to
alleviate the on- street parking. So I would suggest that that be a condition that we not allow any further
any on- street parking on 128th. Is that the street?
Rants: You'd have posted by the City no parking on the west side I believe?
Hernandez: Yea. Is it the west side or would it be the south?
Mullet: The west side of East Marginal?
Hernandez: Yes. Would it be west or south? It's south isn't it?
Robertson: No, East Marginal would be the west....
Mullet: The west side of East Marginal and 128th in the area of
Hernandez: Right. Otherwise we're going to be right back into the same situation that we're in right
now with that congested traffic problem on- street parking.
Rants: It looks like there's agreement. Do you want to make a motion to do something here?
Hernandez: All right, I'll move that one of the conditions be that there be no further on- street parking
on the west side of East Marginal Way and on the south side of 128th.
Mullet: Does the north side of 128th need to be addressed also?
Hernandez: I wasn't going to, do you think it should be?
Mullet: The street was wide enough there I think to it could take probably could accommodate
parking on one side without disturbing anything, I don't is there any other comment?
Rants: I want to be sure I have your motion complete. No parking on the west side of West Marginal, of
East Marginal.
Hernandez: Yes, on the west side of East Marginal Way and on the south side of 128th.
20
Rants: Is there any discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed? Have we covered all
the conditions that the Council is comfortable with?
Mullet: Not by a long shot. Dennis, what happened to your time hours? Did we drop, did we lose
track of that?
Robertson: Yep.
Mullet: Let's go back to that please. Would you make a motion for
Robertson: Well, what was in the proposal was to be used seven days a week from what 6 to 10.
That's already on the....
Mullet: That's on the books already?
Robertson: Yea. The problem I have with it is I'm not sure that if we put conditions on that they have
to have some benefits. They are mitigating something. I'm not sure further conditions that use of that
parking lot hours wise would provide any benefit to the people around them. That was the only feeling I
had. I think this was one of the reasons that truck depots are a conditional use. They run 24 hours a day
and they're not a particular good neighbor. On this case though, we're talking about a parking lot for
one, not the actual loading and unloading, we already said they can't do that. The only advantage would
be if they did end up using beepers at least they couldn't use them at night. So, maybe, then I would
change the hours of use, I would - -I'll make a motion that we condition the hours of use of the parking lot
to for Monday through Friday be from 6 till 10. On Saturday be from 6 till, no, Saturday 6 till 6 and
Sunday be from 8 to 6. I'm assuming that people in the residential area would want some privacy, some
quite, some peace. Also there is existing parking on the site now. Now I'm arguing why, so I'll go back.
Mullet: I think you're getting too complicated. Just leave it at 6 to 10. Or
Robertson: No. I would like to make - -No I'd like 6 to 10 Monday through Friday. 6 to 6 on
Saturday and Sunday.
Rants: You've made a motion? Did you make a motion?
Robertson: Yes, I made a motion.
Rants: Is there a second? All right.
Mullet: I'm thinking about it Wally.
Rants: You're going to have to think quicker because we're going to start moving here. It dies for lack
of a second.
Mullet: I can't remember what off hand what the hours, I can't picture what he necessitates as far
as being able to get trailers available which may be in that lot. For Monday morning when they start up in
the morning.
21
Robertson: I would assume there's enough on -site parking on the other place for evenings and night
time and that's what
Mullet: Is that, yea at most I guess it would necessitate that they would have to plan ahead a little
bit on Saturdays and Sundays.
Robertson: Quite honestly I don't have much of a concern with anything other than noise. I'm just
concern and if laws change and if there's a beeper required, jeez I don't know what happens then, jeez, I'm
really....
Mullet: OK, but why don't we leave - -redo your amendment to leave it as is and if beepers are
required then it would change to your ruling on Saturday and Sunday.
Robertson: That's too complicated. That's why I wanted to reopen the public hearing. I'm curious
what happens to the whole operation if beepers are required and if noise is generated.
3627 Can't we require that as a condition? That this is conditional upon beepers not being required.
Cohen: If OSHA requires beepers OSHA preempts the City of Tukwila.
Rants: Can we move on then? Steve you said not by a long shot, so you've got some more there.
Robertson: Can I go back to Linda's question or your statement Linda? That means that if OSHA
requires beepers, if we have a noise ordinance that said they couldn't generate above a certain decibel in a
certain area, that that noise ordinance and that beeper created, the beepers created a noise louder, does
that mean then that our noise ordinance is no longer applicable and they could generate the extra noise?
Or would they have to stop the operation all together?
Cohen: Probably they'd have to, they'd be able to follow. I mean it's a federal act as opposed to a
City ordinance.
Rants: Steve?
Mullet: The question came up about I think the drainage system was restricted to traffic in and
out. We've got a bit of the East Marginal. We've restricted the - -they said they would not park any
tractors in the lot, do we wish to make that a condition that they don't park any tractors in the lot? Be
just trailers and cars? Does it matter? There was concern about the oil from tractors being parked there
might be a concern. But they're going to put in a separator and drainage system for there so....
Rants: Their drainage system has to have oil separators, that's City policy.
Robertson: Besides I can't see it being any different from one side of the street to the other, there's no
material
Mullet: The hazardous materials was addressed through our zoning ordinance, not allowed there
anyway. I do have a problem with the amount of landscaping on the west side of the parking lot which
will abut - -right now buts to an empty lot but that is a residential area back there. And I would like to see
that improved for the drawing. There's pretty much from what I could see, the drawing they've just kind
22
of allowed what's there and not done too much on that spot. I'd like to see more trees put in and for
noise buffer, and a visual buffer since we do have a hill that gradually goes up on that side so people will
be looking down a little more.
Robertson: The trees, we've been through this years ago, if you do down to where to the Southcenter
area, there's a parking lot. Southcenter Parkway, way down at the end that's used for that, what's that
shopping area called now, it used to be a furniture....
Mullet: Pavilion.
Robertson: Pavilion, across 180th I guess. There's a parking lot on the east perimeter of that. There
is a very dense strand of trees that provides a - -of evergreen trees that you can't see through. You know
it's planted very close and very dense. Provides a real physical barrier. Is that what you're thinking of?
Mullet: Well yea, something that will go together and basically- -the visual barrier on the front and
on the existing terminal as a example is pretty complete. You can only see in there where you come to
the driveway. Basically, it pretty well screens that area as you drive by. And you know on the parking
lot side I assume there's going to be a few more trees put in and a few changes made there, but I'd like it
more dense on the back side which I don't see as being very dense from the drawing. About half as dense
as they've got out on East Marginal Way. And I consider that as important, even though there's nothing
there at the moment, there's certainly, that is the residential area, that is going to be filled up with
residential eventually, I'm assuming.
Rants: Is that not addressed at all in the Planning Commission's minutes on the conditions? Landscaping
plan had to be submitted.
Mullet: That's the landscaping plan as I see it up there, so I don't know how to word that
Wally. You know, if it's there already it's there already but I would say that the landscaping on the west
side be at least as thick and dense as that on East Marginal side or you know to provide a solid screen.
Rants: You'd like to make a motion to increase the density on the west side of the parking lot.
Mullet: Yes, right.
Robertson: I'll make an amendment to the extent that you can't see that they be evergreens and you
can't see through them.
Mullet: Eventually.
Robertson: Eventually, well within three years? Eventually's a long time. •
Mullet: Ten years. Five to ten years.
Rants: Increase the density of evergreens on the west side with a closure effect within five to ten years.
Mullet: Five to ten years. That's when we usually plant things for maturity isn't it?
Rants: Um huh. Is there a second?
23
Robertson: Second.
Rants: Any further discussion? All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed?
Robertson: Linda, I want to come back to the noise. It's not just the beeper issue. And I've thought
about Steve, what you said that this is only 50 yards further. But if you look at the drawings and the
maps that we have, the exhibits, it really moves us substantially closer to not only a residential area on the
south side of 128th, but also to other C -1 areas that for now we'll presume don't have trucking operations
in them. A trucking operation that would be running back and forth as many times a day. Ron just said
earlier that they imagined 200 vehicles coming in and out of it. Running back and forth with the beeper
going is incredibly detrimental. Not just to the residential property that's to the southwest, across the
street, but also to the surrounding C -1 properties that might develop. If - -the problem I have is we have a
noise ordinance but if our noise ordinance is overshadowed
Cohen: Apparently TMC has a provision which exempts them.
Robertson: TMC has a noise - -our noise ordinance exempts them? Could you site the
Cohen: Under 822150, sounds exempt at all times. That's in section six.
Robertson: That's used for highway maintenance. That says sound
Cohen: Try seven.
Robertson: It says, "Sounds created by warning devices not operated continuously more than five
minutes per incident." OK. So what we have then is the noise - -also there's several other things in that.
Is that in there because of the federal legislation or
Cohen: I have no idea why it's in there Dennis.
Rants: Can we move forward?
Mullet: I think this is the last one, so when we get by this one we will probably be....
Rants: Oh, this is the last one? All right.
Robertson: The problem I have is if beepers are used there what we've just done is, or required there,
and the current user is forced to use backup devices, it would create a incredibly noisy use in a valley. At
the bottom of a valley.
Rants: Well, Council ? ?? said it's going to happen.
Hernandez: Dennis, we could address this issue by making a certain time limit on the conditional use
permit. We were told that we could do that so that if there is a problem with beepers we wouldn't have
to renew it.
Robertson: So we're going to say this conditional use is only good for five years?
24
Hernandez: Well, I was reading OK in the documents that we have here. It says conditional use
permits are typically valid for one year, however the 1980 permit required compliance with all CUP
conditions within six months.
Robertson: No no, that means they have to develop by that time.
Hernandez: Right, but we could set a limitation.
Robertson: I think you're misunderstanding that Joan. That implies that the permit is good, they have
a permit to develop
Hernandez: I understand they have a certain time frame to implement all the conditions, but I think
that we also were told earlier that we can set a time frame for the conditional use permit.
Robertson: Linda?
Hernandez: Before it has to come back for renewal.
Cohen: Certainly can't be done arbitrarily, there would have to be some very good reason and
rational basis for doing that.
Hernandez: One reason is your noise issue. If you're afraid that an imposition of some type of beeper
ordinance or code, OSHA or WISHA code or something is going to create noise level unacceptable - -or if
you wanted it
Cohen: That wouldn't be an acceptable reason, that's just a hypothetical situation may or may not
occur in the future.
Hernandez: If you wanted it to come back for review to see if all the conditions were being met, it
seems like that would be logical.
Robertson: The difficulty I would have is authorizing Mr. Becker to spend a great deal of money and
make business plans on something that later might be denied or withdrawn because of something that's
outside of his control. That
Rants: Certainly becomes arbitrary and capricious.
Robertson: No, I don't know if it is that.
Rants: I like the term.
Mullet: Good buzz word Wally.
Robertson: The problem I have is that noise is one of the issues in the impact of this facility on its
neighbors. Again, not only on the residential areas that are immediately adjoining it but on the C -1 that is
across east of it, across East Marginal Way and to the south on the same side of East Marginal Way.
Trucking is not allowed- -this is not an acceptable conditional use in the C -1 zone. And this would be a
25
conditional use. The noise is still the single biggest hurdle that I personally have with this one. And its
impact on its neighbors. That's what we're supposed to be looking at on those five conditions.
Hernandez: Well one of my concerns with the conditional use permit going with the land and with the
use. So that's why I had asked the question earlier if we could put a time frame on that or a time limit
that would have to come back for renewal. I had understood that we could do that and at that time you
could addressed it seems like those impacts if they were creating a problem or a nuisance.
Robertson: Then what we're really doing in a sense is creating temporary zoning.
Mullet: I think we've got to leave - -set the time of hours, leave them the way they are by the
Planning Commission or change them the way you wanted to with the Saturday and Sunday conditions
imposed. I don't think we can legislate for all the possibilities that might happen to this property over the
next 20 or 30 years. You know its conceivable that they could have new improvements and all trucks
could float on air in 20 years. We don't have any - -you just can't do that. So its
Cohen: There's also a provision under the TMC under revocation of permit that it can be revoked
if the use for which the approval was granted was so exercised that as to be detrimental to the public
health or safety. It also gives any aggrieved party the opportunity to petition the Planning Commission in
writing to initiate revocation or modification proceedings.
Robertson: But that's public health and safety. I don't think that we could begin to construe that this
is a safety issue anyway.
Cohen: It doesn't limit why aggrieved party may petition.
Robertson: Linda, on page 18 -30 of the TMC, could you - -I'd like a clarification. Section
18.38.0
Cohen: I'm not at 18 -30 and we'll take a look, I don't know if I'll be able to answer it off of a cuff,
but I will take a look.
Robertson: It's real simple. On the bottom of the page, it says performance standards, .070. This is
for the CM district. It's a performance standard. It says use, activity or operation within a structure, it
doesn't talk about outside the structure.
Cohen: What are you suggesting?
Robertson: I'm saying that since there's no structure, its meanly a parking lot, would this performance
standard still apply?
Cohen: Would they still have to abide by State and Federal environmental standards?
Robertson: No, would they have to admit no discernible vibration, noise, dust, smoke or gas or odor?
Cohen: I'm not going to sit here and give you an answer off the cuff about something like that, I
don't
26
Robertson: Then there's no difference between a structural and open area, you can't answer that one.
Whether it would apply.
Cohen: That much you can discern yourself, I'm not going to get into a legal debate with you here
about what's appropriate.
Rants: Council needs to get some direction here instead of this ramming all over the place. And either
come up with a sixth condition here or lets move on folks. Let's try and pull our thoughts together. I
know what you're trying to do, but let's see if we can't pull it together and move on. There are no further
conditions?
Mullet: I would move that we leave the hours as stated by the Planning Commission, six to ten.
0708 I would second that.
Rants: It's been moved and seconded to maintain the hours as set - -we don't even need a motion on that
because if we don't discuss it that's one of the conditions.
Robertson: We'll go ahead and vote on it.
Rants: Maintain the hours as set prescribed by the Planning Commission. Any discussion? All in favor
say I? Those opposed (one). Do we have any further conditions or can we address the main motion at
this time?
Robertson: I would - -are there more?
Hernandez: You don't want to discuss any more of a limit? You don't think that....
Robertson: If you have more conditions, let's discuss them. That's why we're here. I understand that
the Mayor's interested in moving along but if you have more
Hernandez: I guess I just understood that the answer to my question earlier that we could establish a
limit on the time frame.
Rants: We've discussed that and answered it now so - -we did answer that one for you. I know it still
bothers you but its been answered some time back.
Hernandez: It does, yea it does, it does, it still does.
Rants: Are you ready for the main motion? The main motion is to deny the appeal, grant the conditional
use with the conditions prescribed by the Planning Commission and the five conditions that you are just
amended it with. All in favor say
Robertson: Wait, hold on, we get to speak to or against the main motion.
Rants: All right, discussion.
27
Robertson: I'm going to vote against the main motion. I believe that the parking lot as proposed given
the testimony by Mr. Becker that beepers wouldn't be used would fit the criteria, the five decision criteria
we have. The concern I have is that the beepers could be required fairly easy of right -of -ways. I'm not
quite certain why they aren't required there and they are in other places. One of the criteria, the second
criteria here says, "the proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in
the district it will occupy." The performance standards for this district basically say that you can't create
any noise, odor or anything else that would be outside of the use, of the boundaries. That's to a normal
person of normal sensitivity. I think the uses proposed comes close to that without, however if beepers
and noise devices such as that are required and our noise ordinance specifically says we can't stop that or
consider that in a noise ordinance, those would clearly be used outside. I think the hours of operation
that it would be used would be detrimental to the - -would fail to meet the performance standards and thus
this decision criteria and would be detrimental to both the residential and proposed commercial C -1 areas
there. I'm very concerned about the noise.
Rants: Any further discussion?
0833 I just would ask the question of your concerns are with the parking lot or not the present facility?
Robertson: Well we're voting on the parking lot and we can't deal with the present facility. However,
if beepers were required or in some way used they would be used no only on the present facility, they
would be used crossing- -you wouldn't back up across 128th, but they would be used in the proposed
parking lot, proposed facility. Because they would be going backwards there and connecting.
Mullet: In speaking to that Dennis, the mitigation would be that if, and this is a big if, operation
becomes more efficient through the use of a parking lot there would be less backing up going on. In the
total of the combined area which we are not supposed to talk about that that's neither here or there.
Rants: Are you ready for the question? All in favor of a motion as stated - -do I need to state it again?
Everyone understands it? Say I. Those opposed? (one) Miscellaneous, is there a motion to adjourn to
COW?
Robertson: What are we going to do with, I'm disturbed by our noise ordinance and its inability to
control a use. I think it's crazy.
Rants: Is there a motion to adjourn to COW?
Hernandez: I move we adjourn to the COW.
Rants: Is there a second?
Mullet: Second.
Rants: All in favor say I? (unanimous) Those opposed?
The Council approved t (with conditions) the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Conditional
Use Permit to Becker Trucking for construction of a truck terminal/parking lot located at the southwest
corner of East Marginal Way South & South 128th Street.
END OF VERBATIM
c.
A F F I D A V I T
I, Sylvia A. Osby
O Notice of Public Hearing
Li Notice of Public Meeting
Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
flPlanning Commission Agenda
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
Shoreline Management Permit
Determination of Non -
significance
CMitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
C
Determination of Significance
and Scalping Notice.
Notice of Action
Official Notice
TOther INFORMATION' FROM DEPARTMENT'S FILE
FOR CONSIDERATION AT 3/7/94 CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING.
Other
was mailed to each of the following addres
SEE ATTACHED LIST
es on March 10, 1994
Name of Project BECKER TRUCKING CONDITIONAL Signatur
USE PERMIT
File Number L93 -0058
William Cavanaugh
4026 S. 130 Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Ray Funk
3803 South 130 Street.
Tukwila, WA 98168
Tracy Weibel
12855 35th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Kathryn Stetson
13258 40th Avenue South
`Tukwila, WA 98168
Elizabeth Springer
13325 Macadam Road South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Jack & Suzanne Hendricks
3514 South 142 Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Roger Young
3715 South 130th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Curtiss & Shirley Robinson
13422 40th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Robert & Sharon Bernhardt
3418 South 126th'Street
Tukwila, WA 99168. .
David Fox
13023 40th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Danold Scanlon
13410 40th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Jackie Dempere
4033 South 128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Vern Meryhew
4431 South 148th Street
Tukwila, WA 98188
3/)4x4 -
m5, Jnn»(co ddOf
e Peeet
u u iv GIL AGENDA 5'YNOPSIS
ITEM NO.
Initials
Meeting Date .
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
Feb. 28, 1994
2/28/94
rf.
Meeting Date
•
Action
'
B. Letter from PAC -TECH to.Mayor & Council 2/15/94.
•
.2/28/94
CAS Number:
Original Agenda Date:
Agenda Item Title:
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision for a Conditional Use Permit
for Becker Trucking : 193 -0058.
Original Sponsor:, Council
Admin. XX
Timeline:
February 28, 1994
Sponsor's Summary: The City Council to consider the Appeal of the Planning. Commission's
Decision to approve a CUP with conditions for a truck terminal /parking lot.
Recommendations:
Sponsor:
• Committee:
Administration: The Decision of the Planning Commission to be upheld.
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
C:i'•
• >iw5::;':3r ••.
Y. :7SS�' 'I Y.
i� iJ �: �4.: .Y4 tf
:•T
• •
h,,�
:U J,IZ::: >A:CTY.
.0
Attachments
2/28/94
rf.
Meeting Date
•
Action
'
B. Letter from PAC -TECH to.Mayor & Council 2/15/94.
•
.2/28/94
C. Letter of Appeal received 11129/94.
•
1/27/94.
E. Planning Commission Report Prepared 11/10193.
F. Revised Traffic Study Dated 11/5/93.
•
G. Traffic Study Dated 11/4/93. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• >iw5::;':3r ••.
Y. :7SS�' 'I Y.
i� iJ �: �4.: .Y4 tf
:•T
�•:l:• }lei;: ..Y j�.
•�4Y ^:6.�. ;.r•r •R•:�. � . 'I' Ir:.. .�'
} %. .�:, i.. r•L� .kn ..Y•r
2 r�..:t
ny4, r
..
Meeting Date
Attachments
2/28/94
Attachments: •
•
A. Memo from Rick'Beeler to mayor & Council 2/23/94.
'
B. Letter from PAC -TECH to.Mayor & Council 2/15/94.
C. Letter of Appeal received 11129/94.
D. Planning Commission Minutes Dated 11/18/93. Adopted
1/27/94.
E. Planning Commission Report Prepared 11/10193.
F. Revised Traffic Study Dated 11/5/93.
G. Traffic Study Dated 11/4/93. •
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of COmimunity Development Rick Beeler, Director
GENERAL INFORMATION
REQUEST: Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision Which Approved
a Conditional Use Permit with Conditions
APPLICANT: PACH-TECH Engineering, Inc. for Becker Trucking
APPELLANTS: Robert Bernhardt Curtiss Robinson
Sharon Bernhardt Shirley Robinson
Bill Cavanaugh Jackie Dempere
Elizabeth Springer David Fox
Kathryn Stetson Ray Funk
Donald Scanlon Jack Hendricks
Tracy Weibel Suzanne Hendricks
Roger Young
CITY COUNCIL
HEARING DATE: February 28, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Memo from Rick Beeler 1 (Attachment A)
Letter from PAC TECH Engineering, Inc. 9 (Attachment B)
Letter of Appeal 19 (Attachment C)
Planning Commission Minutes of 11/18/93 25 (Attachment D)
Planning Commission Report & Blueprints 45 (Attachment E)
Revised Traffic Study 52 (Attachment F)
Traffic Study 54 (Attachment G)
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 . (206) 41-3670 o Fax (206) 41313665
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR RANTS AND MEMBERS OFT E CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RICK BEELER, DCD DIRECTOR ^
DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 1994 J
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
FILE #L93 -0058 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Action:
On November 18, 1993, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
for a proposed truck terminal /parking lot at the southwest corner of East Marginal Way S. and S. 128th
Street. The following CUP decision criteria was used in granting the permit:
TMC 18.64.050: (1)
The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of
the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is
situated;
(2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards
that are required in the district it will occupy;
(3)
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the
surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation,
building and site design;
(4) The proposed use shall be In keeping with the goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan;
All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse
impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is
located
(5)
Based upon the above five decision criteria, the Planning Commission approved the CUP with six
conditions as listed below. The conditions are specifically set out to ensure that each of the above criteria
are met.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwlia, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fay (206) 431-3665
Becker Trucking Appeal Page 2
R.Beeler 2/23/94
Planning Commission Conditions - L93 -0058:
1. That adequate lighting be provided within the parking perimeter. Lighting shall not go beyond
the confines of the property.*
2. That a 6 -foot height, chain -link fence with barbed wire be placed inside landscaped areas around
the site and that gates be installed at entries onto East Marginal Way South and S. 128th Street.*
3. That landscaping be installed in accordance with the landscape plan received November 4, 1993
by the Department of Community Development, and that an irrigation plan be submitted and
approved by the City prior to the issuance of Utility Permits.
4. That curb stops be provided within the parking lot.*
5. That a performance bond of 150 percent for landscaping be paid prior to the issuance of Utility
Permits.*
6. Improvements must be completed six (6) months from the issuance of the Utility Permit.
* Conditions are similar to those imposed in 1990. See the PROJECT HISTORY discussion below.
PROJECT HISTORY
The Becker property was part of the Riverton Annexation which occurred in 1988. The annexation rezone
changed the King County designations from ML (Light Manufacture on the northwest corner) and CG
(General Commercial on southwest comer) to CM. The Becker trucking facility was already in operation
at the time the property was annexed into Tukwila, and was and is therefore, considered an existing legal
non - conforming use. Based on this status, a CUP is not required for the site on the northwest corner
because the use was grandfathered in at the time of annexation. The subject property however, is a
separate legal lot of record and land use permits are issued to a use on a legal lot. The CUP therefore,
pertains to the 1.5 acre parcel only.
Conditional Use Permit of 1990.
In early 1990, a CUP and Design Review (DR) were both conditionally approved for a proposal identical
to what is currently being requested now: a truck terminal /parking facility. When this project was initially
proposed in late 1989, the site was being used for parking purposes without an approved CUP as noted
above. While the site was being used, no landscaping had been installed which met the TMC landscape
requirements. Design Review was required at that time because the site was being used, but the
landscaping did not conform with current codes. The TMC requires BAR approval for landscaping 'when
a change is proposed for a use; or structure, and associated premises which does not comply with the
landscape requirements of this title...' (TMC 18.70.090).
The CUP and DR approved by the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council in April, 1990.
Minutes of the April 2, 1990 appeal hearing reflect that the reason for the appeal was that 'the Planning
Commission deleted or changed significant portions of staff's recommendations, substantially changing
the use and impact of this proposal'.
After additional citizen input and Council deliberation, the City Council denied the appeal and modified
the Planning Commission conditions to address fencing, Iandscapind and the parking of trucks and
tractors in addition to employee vehicles and trailers. The 1990 DR conditions imposed by the Planning
Commission and CUP conditions as modified by the City Council are listed as follows:
Becker Trucking Appeal Page 3
R.Beeler 2/23/94
89-3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of landscaping to include materials,
labor and maintenance;
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee automobiles, trucks, tractors and trailers;
3; Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six months of approval date (October 2,
1990);
5.. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will provide a safe intersection for automobiles.
If a restriction of parking along East Marginal Way S. is deemed necessary, then an ordinance
will be passed to provide for such restriction.
89 -10 -DR
1. Deletion of entry point shown on E. Marginal Way South;
2. Placement of wheel -stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas;
3. Increase height of new landscaping/screening so that it will be a minimum of 10 feet high at
installation;
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated. Landscaping along the East Marginal
Way S. property line will be enhanced to provide the same level of screening required along the
south and west property lines. This requires the addition of shrubs and trees with the trees
planted at 4 feet on center. The species will be identical to those planted on the adjacent
property lines;
5. Provide a drainage system plan that will eliminate the flooding problem on South 128th St. The
plan will be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Building Permit;*
6. Applicant will be required to install a security fence around the property with locking gates at
entries. An eight foot high cyclone fence will be located inside the planting buffer and will include
an additional two feet of barbed -wire at the top.
7. Revise landscape plan in the southwest corner to decrease erosion that is currently occurring by
retaining original landscape plan with the addition of erosion - resistant planting on slope and
provide a curb to protect wall /edge of hillside from damage by automobiles.*
Conditional Use Permit condition #4 specifies a compliance deadline of six months from the date of
approval. The 6 -month deadline was not met and the CUP permit expired.
Because the permit had expired, the site has not been occupied and is now being treated as a vacant
parcel. With respect to landscaping, the site as vacant, is no longer non - conforming. For this reason,
the current application does not trigger BAR review.
APPEAL
An appeal to the Planning Commission's November 18, 1993 action was timely filed with the City on
November 29, 1993 and within the 10-day appeal period. The 'Notice of Appeal' (Attachment C) was
prepared by Jackie Dempere and included signatures from fourteen other citizens listed as below:
Robert Bernhardt Curtiss Robinson
Becker Trucking Appeal Page 4
R.Beeler 2/23/94
Sharon Bernhardt
William Cavanaugh
Elizabeth Springer
David Fox
Ray Funk
Jack Hendricks
Shirley Robinson
Donald Scanlon
Suzanne Hendricks
Kathryn Stetson
Tracy Weibel
Roger Young
On Page 2 of the appeal, eleven issues (A through K) or Elements of Decision Being Appealed were
identified:
B.
C
D.
E.
The use of a issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance from 1989;
The approval of a Conditional Use Permit, including Design Review;
The failure to require and prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS);
The inadequate disclosure and lack of disclosure of the adverse impacts associated with the
proposal;
The inadequate conditions and lack of conditions imposed upon the project to mitigate
adverse Impacts, Including but not limited to:
1. traffic impacts;
2. air quality and wetland habitat;
3. excessive noise and light;
4. hazardous materials;
5. drainage and water quality;
6. buffers, surrounding zoning and uses;
7. performance history of applicant;
8. pedestrian safety;
9. children security;
10. tree protection;
11. cumulative impacts;
12. disregard for previous citizen input.
F. The limited scope of the traffic study and the misinterpretation of study as provided;
G. The failure to enforce existing Tukwila's Tree Ordinance;
H. The failure to protect city property;
1. Lack of proper public notice regarding the proposal;
J. Approval of a permit which authorizes the expansion of a conditional use beyond what was
described and requested in the original application;
K Approval of a permit that aggravates, intensifies and expands another related site beyond its
original conditional use.
Below, staff has addressed A through K as listed above:
A. The use of a issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance from 1989;
The proposal being appealed is identical to the proposal associated with the SEPA Checklist submitted
in 1989. Per WAC 97 -11 -600, previous SEPA documents can be used as long as the current proposal
does not result in significant adverse environmental impacts not previously identified. No new evidence
has been provided which substantiates significant adverse impacts would result from this proposal.
Therefore, the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) still stands and a new checklist is not required.
.
Becker Trucking Appeal Page 5
R.Beeler 2/23/94
Also, because the appeal period for issuance of the DNS has expired, no legal standing exists to
challenge the environmental determination.
B. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit, including Design Review;
In the 'Notice of Appear, there is no indication why this is an element being appealed. As noted in the
PROJECT HISTORY discussion, Design Review is not required with this application.
C. The failure to require and prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS);
Please refer to response to item A above.
D. The inadequate disclosure and lack of disclosure of the adverse impacts associated with the
proposal;
See response to A above.
E. The inadequate conditions and lack of conditions imposed upon the project to mitigate
adverse impacts, including but not limited to:
1. traffic Impacts;
While the original proposal of 1989/1990 showed access onto E. Marginal Way S., the Planning
Commission approved access onto S. 28th only. The study for the current proposal evaluated conditions
of the roadway system; traffic volumes; sight distances /safety; and accident history. Further analysis
conducted by the City Engineer modified the recommendations to include access onto E. Marginal Way
S. to improve sight distances and safety. Traffic volumes will not increase. The parking facility will enable
Becker Trucking to use the subject property for parking of vehicles now parked on the site to the north
to provide better maneuvering area.
2. air quality and wetland habitat;
Air Quality.
See response to A above.
Wetland.
No wetland has been identified on the 1.5 -acre parcel based upon the City's wetland inventory/Water
Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations prepared as part of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance
regulations.
3. excessive noise and Ilght;
Noise.
Operation hours have:been restricted from 6 am. to 10 p.m. to prevent noise impacts to residents in the
immediate vicinity. Because traffic volumes would not increase, no associated noise impacts are
anticipated.
Liohtinq
Condition No. 1 imposed by the Planning Commission as modified, requires that the parking lot be lit, but
that such lighting cannot extend beyond the confines of the property.
Becker Trucking Appeal
R.Beeler 2/23/94
Page 6
The Planning Commission imposed conditions to reduce or avoid excessive noise and Tight.
4. hazardous materials;
The proposal is for a truck terminal /parking lot only for employee vehicles, trucks, trailers and tractors.
There will be no on -site warehousing or storage of hazardous materials.
5. drainage and water quality;
The Department of Public Works requires that the storm drainage design include normal provisions for
the treatment of oil /grease /fuel contaminants associated with vehicles prior to conveyance off-site. This
is a typical requirement of parking lots city-wide. No unusual conditions have been identified conceming
water quality/treatment to warrant more stringent measures.
6. buffers, surrounding zoning and uses;
The development proposal complies with TMC, Section 18.52.020, and Section 18.52.030 (4). The
landscape plan also includes a landscape berm along E. Marginal Way S. and along a portion of the
south property line to create a strong visual buffer between uses (see Attachments E).
7. performance history of applicant;
The Planning Commission required a performance bond for landscaping (see Condition #5).
The CUP decision criteria does not include performance history of the applicant. Instead, conditions
imposed by the Planning Commission on the applicant are intended to successfully integrate the use into
the neighborhood.
8. pedestrian safety;
Pedestrian safety has been considered in this development proposal in the following ways:
1. Site lighting within the perimeter of the parking,area will improve night visibility for employees and
passersby;
2. Fencing and gates at entries will prevent unauthorized access onto the site;
3. Employee vehicles are now being parked in a haphazard fashion along the south side of S. 128th
St. and interfere with pedestrian movement. The parking lot would provide off- street parking for
employees;
4. Currently, there is no pedestrian walkway on the south. The applicant proposes to construct a
sidewalk along the south side of S. 128th St. from the E. Marginal Way S. intersection to the west
edge of the site, a distance of approximately 265 linear feet.
9. children security;
See response to 8. above.
10 tree protection;
Because the site does not contain sensitive areas, the proposal is exempt from the Interim Tree
Becker Trucking Appeal
R.Beeler 2/23/94
Regulations.
11. cumulative impacts;
Page 7
Cumulative impacts are identified during the environmental review process. Therefore, see response to
item A above.
12. disregard for previous citizen input.
The Planning Commission minutes for the Nov. 18 meeting reflect that testimony was taken on the
proposal and that the Commission deliberated prior to approving the CUP with conditions.
F. The limited scope of the traffic study and the misinterpretation of study as provided;
See response to item E.1. above. The appellant has not provided evidence that proves the scope of the
study was inadequate or how the study was misinterpreted.
G. The failure to enforce existing Tukwila's Tree Ordinance;
See response to item E.10 above.
H. The failure to protect city property;
City-owned property relative to this project includes the S. 128th Street and E. Marginal Way S. rights -of-
way only. The goal of the conditions imposed on the project by the Planning Commission serve to protect
the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City. No evidence has been provided that
substantiates impacts to City-owned property as a result of this project.
L(F) Lack of proper public notice regarding the proposal;
In addition to the response to item E.12 above, notice was provided as legally required under TMC,
Chapter 18.92, Sections 18.92.010 and 18.92.020.
J.(G) Approval of a permit which authorizes the expansion of a conditional use beyond what was
described and requested In the original application;
See Becker Trucking History discussion above.
The subject property is a separate legal lot of record. The CUP did not approve an expansion of an
existing non - conforming use but approved. a CUP for a truck terminal on a parcel to the south as required
by the TMC, Section 18.38.035.
The appellant does not specify which application is being referred to as the 'original' and has not
provided evidence demonstrating that any inconsistency exists between the 'original application' and the
approved permit.
IG(H) Approval of a permit that aggravates, intensifies and expands another related site beyond its
original conditional use.
See response to item A and the Becker Trucking History discussion above.
Becker Trucking Appeal
R.Beeler 2/23/94
r.aair:z',, ±:- •stra-:r:.n.. s..:ta.:. u,rae Y'�TN'�:r:�r . .,.. ,aars,.:d�r
Page 8
The appellant does not identify 'another related site beyond'. The appellant does not provide evidence
related to how the approved CUP aggravates, intensifies and expands the original conditional use.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission considered five CUP decision criteria during the review of the requested CUP:
TMC 18.64.050: (1)
The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of
the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is
situated;
(2) The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards
. that are required in the district it will occupy;
(3)
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the
surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation,
building and site design;
(4) The proposed use shall be In keeping with he goals and policies of
the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan;
(5)
All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse
impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which It is
located.
The Planning Commission carefully considered the five CUP decision criteria and the testimony taken from
residents at the Planning Commission hearing. The site is to be used as a parking lot only. The resultant
project will combine design elements discussed during the 1990 appeal process, and conditions imposed
by the Planning Commission in November, 1993. The amount of landscaping proposed will significantly
mitigate the visual impact of a parking lot. Fencing and entry gates with provide security to the property
owner as well as protection to residents.
South 128th Street will be significantly improved for pedestrians by relocating parked vehicles onto the
new parking lot and by installing a sidewalk along the south side adjacent to the property frontage. By
removing parking vehicles along S. 128th Street, sight distances at the intersection will be greatly
enhanced.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal, and approve L93-0058 with conditions as imposed by the Tukwila Planning Commission.
PA
TECtIEngineering, Inc.
4 Engineers
.
City of Tu
6300 Sout
Suite 100
Tukwila,
Reference
Dear Hon
This lette
Becker Tr
Our positi
approving
has Iimite
to mitigat
Condition
Back
ou
Becker T
automobil
transfer
Commissi
The site
comprehe
Subseque
and it was
on appeal
Becker, a
use permi
Ke Point
We .offer
condition
regulatio
/ Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists
February 15, 1994
Job #50322
"la
center Blvd.
A 98188
Response to Appeal Related to Becker Trucking - L93 -057 & L93 -0058
rable Mayor Rants and City Council:
is written in response to the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the
nsfer Conditional Use Permit for a truck terminal /parking lot in the C -M zone.
n is that the Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila acted appropriately in
the Conditional Use Permit for the Becker Transfer Site based on a land use that
impact and also based on the fact that conditions were placed on the parking lot
the limited impacts of the proposed use. We would request your approval, of the
1 Use Permit and denial of the Appeal request.
d
ucking applied for a conditional use permit for a parking facility for employee
s and truck and tractor parking on a site directly to the south of their existing
peration. This conditional use permit was approved by the City Planning
n on November 18, 1993 and was subsequently appealed on November 30, 1993.
as originally annexed into the City as part of the Riverton Annexation with
sive plan and zoning adopted as part of Ordinance 1508 and Ordinance 1480.
t to the annexation, Becker Transfer applied for a conditional use permit in 1989
subsequently approved by the Planning Commission in 1989 and the City Council
on February 22, 1990. Due to the retirement of the previous owner, Mr. Edwin
d subsequent business decisions, the site was not improved and the conditional
expired.
he following keypoints in response to appellant's contention that the proposed
1 use permit is an expansion of zoning or modification to existing land use
s or land use designations.
RECEIVEE
King Co,un : 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 212 • Seattle, WA 98168 -3333 • (206) 243 -7112 • FAX (206) 22'4��3��710pp9 p'
Pierce Co nty: (206) 473 -4491 • Environmental Services: (206) 473 -4491 • Kitsap County: (206) 377t2�3A 1. 7 1994
I COMMUNITY:.
I DEVELOPMENT
1. When the property was annexed in March 1989, the City adopted a Comprehensive
Plan land use designation of Light Industrial, and a zoning designation of C -M-
Industrial Park. At that time in the recommendations made to the City Council from
the task force it was concluded that these designations "would...provide a better
transition from single family to commercial use." In response the task force .
recommended that the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be amended
to reduce the commercial area and designate an area on the west side of East
Marginal Way as Light Industrial. The area designated as such is the Becker
Transfer property.
Under Section 18.38.040, Item 2 - Conditional Uses Under the C -M Zone, provides
for and allows for truck terminals subject to requirements of Chapter 18.64 which
outlines requirements for conditional use. permits. The proposed parking lot is not
an expansion or a change in zoning or land use designation but a permit filed under
an existing zoning designation.
2. This parking lot is proposed in order to facilitate the existing transfer operation and
reduce some of the existing impacts from this operation. This parking lot will allow
employees that currently are parking on the street to park in an off - street parking
area. The parking of trailers on this site will reduce the amount of movement that
is required during loading operations on the existing site particularly movements of
trailers during night time hours as they are being loaded and prepared for the next
day. The same number of employee vehicles and trucks and trailers will : be used
however they will be able to use this parking lot in order to facilitate the operation.
From a high of 54 drivers in 1974, Becker Transfer has maintained an average of 36
drivers from 1984 until recently. Presently the company maintains a list of 34 drivers
with an average of 28 that are on active status at this time. this again emphasizes
that this parking lot is for the purpose of facilitating the operations and not
expanding it.
PAC-TECH Engineenng. !n�
IO
Comparison of Permits
We provide here a comparison of the conditional use permits approved in 1990 vs. 1993 to
indicate the increase in the conditions and requirements on the proposed development.
Site Plan Requirements
1990
1993
1. Landscaping
Buffers - 5 to 22.5 feet. 123
trees provided. Irrigation
required.
Buffers - 5 to 22.5 feet.
163 trees provided.
Irrigation required.
2. Lighting
•
None required.
Lighting required but
conditioned to be directed
on the site and blocked by
the buffer landscaping.
3. Fencing
Required
Required and specifically
to be located inside the
landscape buffer.
4. Gates
Not required.
Gates required
5. Wheelstops
Required
•
Required
6. Drainage System
Required
Required
7. Access
Access only onto 128th
Street.
Additional driveway on
East Marginal Way to
provide better site
distance and safety for
traffic exiting to East
Marginal Way.
PAC-TECH Engmeennp. 1nc
Response to Elements of Decision Being Appealed - Item 5 of Appellant's Letter
The following responses are made to the elements raised in the appellant's letter identified
as Item 5 and in the same order that is outlined in the letter of November 29, 1993.
Issue
Response
A. Use of 1989
Determination of Non-
Significance •
The determination of non - significance is
adequate in that there has been no change to the
proposed project. There remains no significant
adverse impact from the use of the proposed site
under conditional use permit for a parking lot.
B. The Approval of the
Conditional Use Permit
Including Design Review
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with
appropriate conditions was made pursuant to all
appropriate criteria and land use regulations
provided for by the City of Tukwila Land Use
Regulations.
C. Failure to Require an
Environmental Impact
Statement (E.I.S.)
It was noted in the Determination of Non -
Significance and findings by staff and the
Planning Commission both in 1990 and 1993 that
the proposed use had no significant adverse
impact which would require an environmental
impact statement.
D. Inadequate Disclosure
All pertinent City regulations regarding
disclosure and notification of residents were
followed in connection with the advertising and
Notice for the conditional use permit.
PAC -TECH Engineering. Inc.
E. Inadequate Conditions
or Lack of Conditions
As has been noted the Planning Commission and
the applicant have both increased the number of
conditions on the proposed site in order to
provide further mitigation from the original .
approval in 1990. Many of those conditions were
incorporated into the site plans itself and not
enumerated in the conditions in the staff report.
The site plan itself incorporates all applicable
regulations and requirements of the City and by
definition become conditions on the proposed
project.
F. Limited Scope of Traffic
In 1990, the traffic study for the site was
Study •
placed as a condition on the project. In this
case the City required the traffic study be
prepared as part of the Conditional Use Permit
review. The traffic study was limited to site
distance in that there is no change or increase
proposed in terms of trips or traffic generated
from the existing or proposed transfer
operations. The traffic study recommended the
addition of the driveway on East Marginal Way
in order to enhance site distance for traffic
entering on to East Marginal Way. Traffic exiting
at S. 128th Street is using an existing intersection.
The removal of the proposed driveway would
leave all traffic entering onto East Marginal Way
at S. 128th as it presently does.
G. Failure to Enforce
The proposed development has increased the
Existing Tukwila Tree
number of trees on the site. The landscape plan
Ordinance
required by City staff was prepared prior to the
approval• of the Conditional Use Permit. It was
prepared by a landscape architect. As part of the
approval of permits for construction, final
approval of the landscape plan will need to be
given by the City of Tukwila. All plantings will be
consistent with City regulations.
PAC-TECH IrC/ 1 Engineering.
H. Failure to Protect City
Property
As with all the items above, the appellant in the
letter of November 30 has failed to indicate what
issues or concerns are being raised.
1. Traffic Impacts
As noted previously, no increase traffic trips are
proposed. Site distance being enhanced by
additional access driveway.
2. Air Quality and Wetland
Wetland Habitat
There is no wetland identified on -site. There is
no increase in traffic proposed. Subsequently
there is no resulting impact on air quality.
3. Noise and Light
The proposed parking lot will reduce noise
particularly night time noise due to the reduction
of trailer movements on the existing transfer site.
Lights as required by the City Planning
Commission are to be located in a format to be
below the landscaping and site specific so as not
to effect surrounding properties. These may also
be turned off after business hours to reduce night
time light glare.
4. Hazardous Materials
No issue is identified here and no hazardous
materials are proposed in connection with the
proposed parking lot.
5. Drainage and Water
Quality
All requirements of the City of Tukwila drainage
standards will be met as part of engineering
plans and subsequent construction including
erosion control measures and on -site collection
and detention /retention as required by City
regulations.
PAC -TECH
14-
Engineering +.ic
6. Buffers Surrounding
Zoning Uses
The site plan incorporates all buffer widths as
required by City ordinances. This includes
additional buffer widths adjacent to single family
zoning and land uses as seen on the east and
southerly boundaries wherein a normal 15 foot
buffer normally is required is expanded to 22.5
feet in order to respond to these land uses and
zonings. As noted previously, enhanced
landscaping has been provided in order to
protect surrounding land uses but also provide
aesthetic view of the proposed site.
7. Performance History of
Applicant
•
We have noted that due to ownership change
and business decisions on the previous
conditional use permit, the site was not
developed at that time and the conditional use
permit expired. Becker Transfer will be posting a
bond for the completion of the improvements on
the subject site as per City conditions.
8. Pedestrian Safety
Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be provided
along S. 128th Street providing additional
pedestrian access along this street. A proposed
access on East Marginal Way will be designed
per City standard providing for appropriate
site distance for viewing of traffic but also of
pedestrians on the existing sidewalk on East
Marginal Way.
9. Children Security
The site is provided with gates and fencing
in order to prevent from children cutting
through the site or playing on equipment.
10. Tree Protection
Two existing trees which were planted by Becker
Transfer a number of years ago would be
removed in connection with the proposed across
on East Marginal Way. These trees are more
than replaced by the proposed landscaping which
exceeds City minimum.
PAC -TECH Engineering
11. Cumulative Impacts .
As noted previously, this parking lot will
accommodate existing employee parking and
existing trailers and trucks that are currently
using the existing transfer site. As noted
previously and as presented testimony to the
Planning Commission, the location of tractors
and trailers on the proposed site will actually
reduce the amount of noise and truck movement
during night time hours on the existing truck
transfer site.
12. Disregard for Previous
Citizen Input
•
The City Planning Commission and City Council
in both previous decisions and decisions on
this application have exhibited significant interest
in citizen input and have modified the subject
application in response to citizens' concern
regarding safety which have resulted in .
requirements for fencing, .lighting, gates, and
increased landscape buffering in order to
mitigate potential impacts.
F. Lack of Public Notice
See D above. Appropriate public notice was
given.
G. Approval of Permits .
Which Authorized the
Expansion of a
Conditional Use Permit
Beyond What Was
Described and Requested
in the Original Application
As noted above, the proposed parking lot will be
utilized to accommodate existing employee
parking trucks and trailers. The proposed
application is not an expansion of any zoning. or
other land use designation. The proposed use is
a use allowed and identified as a conditional use
under the C -M zone.
PAC -TECH
1 'Q
Engtneenng, I'i
H. Approval of a Permit
That Aggravates,
Intensifies,
and Expands and Other
Related Site Beyond its
Original Conditional Use
As noted previously, the proposed parking with
conditions in place, will not cause any significant
adverse impact upon the surrounding properties
or the neighborhood. We would note that
surrounding properties across the street to the
south and to the north are zoned for a
commercial and C -M uses. The proposed
conditions will also address impacts to single
family homes in the commercial zone across East
Marginal Way to the east and the single family
home in the C -1 Zone immediately to the south.
As noted again, the proposed use should •
decrease the impact of the existing transfer site
both by removing existing employee parking from
S. 128th Street and East Marginal Way South as
well as reducing truck trailer movements during
the night time by providing this parking area.
Summary
As noted in the staff report to the Planning Commission prepared November 10, 1993, "A
parking facility, is an appropriate use within the C -M Zone provided adequate measures are
taken to ensure the use is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. By requiring
dense landscape buffers, any negative visual impact will be significantly reduced."
We would note that in the Conclusions on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report of November
10, 1993, that the proposed use is consistent with all four decision criteria for Conditional
Use Permits and as noted under criteria A, "A parking facility is not considered an intensive
land use and therefore the issue of compatibility has been addressed from a visual
perspective. Efforts have therefore been made to achieve substantial screening from
adjacent properties."
The appeal has not presented any new evidence or facts which support any of the issues
raised in the November 30, 1993 letter. The letter provides list of issues but no basis for the
issues. We would submit that with the proposed landscaping plan and other improvements
as required by the City of Tukwila that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact
on surrounding land uses and that Becker Transfer has provided and will provide through
the development process a parking lot site which is well buffered and improved to achieve
compatibility with surrounding and adjacent properties.
• PAC -TECH Enquieenno
rw
We would again request your approval of the Conditional Use Permit consistent with the
Planning Commission approval of November 18, 1993, and rejection of the appeal based on
the finding that there is no significant impacts or issues raised by the appeal which have not
been addressed through conditions placed on the Conditional Use Permit.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey D. Mann
Project Manager
JDM /ss
cc: Rolan Becker; Becker Transfer
Denni Shefrin; City Planning
PAC-TECH cr,Ginr?dnnG, i 1p
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
•14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE COUNCIL, CITY OF TUKWILA
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
THE APPEAL OF JACKIE DEMPERE )
AND THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS )
OF THE DECISION OF THE )
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT )
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND )
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
APPLICATION., )
Appellants. )
TO: THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL;
•
I: C :s . �wa,; •
J • . • .... ..� .
Case No.L93 -0058
NOTICE OF APPEAL
AND TO: RICK BEELER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT.
Pursuant to T.M.C. Section 18.90.020, 18.90.010
and Ord. No.1659 , appellant, Jackie Dempere and the
undersigned citizens, hereby appeals the Analysis and
Decision of the Director of the Department of Community'
Development and the Planning Commission Case No. L93-
0058. The decision consists of the issuance of a
Determination of Non - Significance (DNS), approval' of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review approval
by the Planning Commission, for the expansion of a
truck terminal facility located at the Southwest corner
of 128th Street and East Marginal Way South (directly
south of Becker Trucking) Tukwila, Washington.
1. Appella t.. The name, address, and telephone number
of appellant:
-�, Jackie L. Dempere
4033 S.128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Phone:(206) 433 - 8539
NOTICE OF APPEAL -1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The appellant and the undersigned is comprised of
property owners, tenants, business owners and people
who work or use the vicinity of the proposed project.
2. Decision Appealed The Analysis and Decision of
the Director of the Department of Community Development
and Planning Commission involving Case No. L93 -0058
given on November 18,1993.
Applicant's Name: Pac -Tech Engineering
4. Property Addres.,s of Decision Betag_41pealad
Southwest corner of South 128th Street and East
Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA. 98168
5 Fl Pmmnt-s Df Dec.ision Helms Appealed
- A) The use of a issuance of a Determination of
Non - Significance from 1989;
B) The approval of a Conditional •Use Permit,
including Design Review;
C) The failure to require and prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS);
D) The inadequate disclosure and lack of
disclosure of the adverse impacts associated with the
proposal;
E) The inadequate conditions and lack of
conditions imposed upon the project to mitigate adverse
impacts, including but not.limited to:
• F) The limited scope of the traffic study and the
misinterpretation of study as provided.
G) The failure to enforce existing Tukwila's Tree
Ordinance.
H) The failure to protect city property.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
•23
24
25
26
27
28
1) Traffic impacts;
2) Air Quality and Wetland Habitat;
3) Excessive Noise and Light;
4) Hazardous Materials;
• 5). Drainage Water quality;
6) Buffers, surrounding zoning and uses;
7) Performance History of Applicant;
8) Pedestrian Safety;
9) Children Security; .
10) Tree Protection;
11) Cumulative impacts ;.
12) Disregard for previous citizen imput;
F) Lack of proper public notice regarding the.
proposal; • .
G) Approval of a permit which authorizes the_
expansion of a conditional use beyond what was
described and requested in the original application.
H) Approval of a permit that aggravates,
intensifies and expands another related site beyond
it's original conditional use. .
6. G•• -11 , ' T
•. .,•
arm Affected by try Derision The appellant and the
undersigned, live, work or use facilities in the
vicinity of the project. The Director's approval of
this major expansion of a conditional use, without
adequate environmental review and mitigation,
significantly and adversely. affects appellants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL -3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. Qb..j ect -ions t-o the Dec,i si an
A) Failure to require the preparation of an EIS.
The proposed project is a major expansion of a.truck
and truck - trailer terminal facility that has already
grown in intensity beyond its originally permitted use.
The environmental impacts associated with the project
are significant and adverse.
B) The Department of Community Development has
approved an. expansion of the truck and truck - trailer
terminal facility beyond what was described in the
application.
C) The public notice required for this project was
legally and historically insufficient.
D) The conditions imposed upon the project are
inadequate to address the significant adverse .
environmental impacts resulting from the project. The
Director has failed to impose conditions which would
mitigate adverse impacts of the project..
E) The proposal, as conditioned, fails to satisfy
the criteria for approval of conditional use.
.8. P cue`j"e_d. Appellant respectfully requests .
that the Director's DCD decision and Determination of
Non-Significance . be reversed and that the .applicant be
required to prepare an EIS for a clearly defined
proposal. Appellant further request that the
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval be
rescinded.
1993.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of November,
and Undersigned.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4
"�cL 11—x,\
Jackie L. Dempere
Appellant
To whom it may concern:
. NOV 2
We, the undersigned, appeal the decision Of the
Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for
construction of a parking lot to be used for semi-trucks,
trailers and employee parking on the SW corner of South
128th Street and East Marginal Way South.
We respectfully bring. the following areas of concern to
your attention: •
Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto East
Marginal Way S. from the subject property.
Management of surface water emanating from the subject
property.
Safety of children attempting a shortcut through the
subject property.
llama .
zisasi_e_s,-
.
A-30 0( H.Vs).
/3.2 ‘,4o. •
fi
(> 7 Z. • y
Take all signatures to 4033 S.128th St.or call 433 8539
• ■••-•.....
23-
/.
To whom it may concern: \01, 2 -,�,;) C • 7.
We, the undersigned, appeal the decision of the :•� .:, �:;,.;�� `�
Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for
construction of a parking lot to be used for semi - trucks,
trailers and employee parking on the SW corner of'South
128th Street and East Marginal Way South.
We.respectfully bring the following areas of concern to
your attention:
Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto East
Marginal Way S. from the subject•property.
Management of surface water emanating from the subject
property.
Safety of children attempting a shortcut through the
subject property.
Rama
• Address,
3 //8 /.26 —1// 72ie 2d/ •
�G � � �' •4J �! '•-Chi :j .�� 7A, A ion,'/ - • ` ;i 4t/r
vizevn_ 5',17,2 k -f _ 9P /6?
4'2.7
f
��%�c:. /\/2J (.04
f oer LOT i •
i
t . 41 , � i .. - , �� %_ • : / /z. YO 9/
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 1993 ( 1- 27 -94)
? = Inaudible word or people
Vern Meryhew called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. -.
Members present were Messrs. Meryhew, Malina, Flesher, Knudson, Haggerton, and
Clark. Mrs. Craft was excused. Representing the staff were Jack Pace, Diana Painter and
Sylvia Schnug.
I'd like to suggest one change. Back on page 14, about the fourth paragraph from the
bottom, where it says "in addition ". Fourth line up from there, second word in, where it
says "inaudible ". I'd like to replace "inaudible" with "waiving any claims ". I'd like to also
change "deep seeded" to "deep seated" throughout the minutes.
MR. HAGGERTON MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 10 -14 -93 AS
AMENDED, MR. KNUDSON SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
L92 -0084: Blue Star Motel:
Ms. Painter- This project appeared before you in June of this year. One of the major
revisions was that the applicant turn the project over to the registered architect or
engineer, and make some specific design changes and engineer changes to the project.
Some of the specific recommendations that you made, in addition to having draw up plans,
is that the on -site storm water detention system be revised and the underground system
installed. That has been done with a number of revisions to the site plan. One of the
major changes that improves the appearance of the project to a great degree, is the change
in the roof form. The roof was changed to be regular and it's no longer a massive
detailing; it has a much more gradual and graceful appearance. Stepping down toward the
west elevation on Highway 99 and stepping down toward the back of the site. Another
suggestion we had is that additional landscaping be provided around the east end of the
site. This will help screen this area from the multi family neighbors to the backside. The
original handicap elevators have the housing that was apparent from the street. There
were some kind of awkward roof form that we made suggestions on changing. As you
can see, the public view is greatly improved with additions of windows and roof form. We
Z5
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 4313665
Planning Commission Minutes Page 2
November 18, 1993
were very pleased with the amount of original modulation that the architect and applicant
were able to provide in the submittal. Colors were a bit more subtle, there is texture, and
a contrast of materials. That, combined with additional modulation, both on the front and
back side, and some additional detailing has improved the design.
Less discretionary items were provided in a greater level of detail than what was originally
submitted. That was an enclosure for the trash collection and recycling area, which was a
new requirement. In terms of the building design, we asked for more contrasting detailing
on this public side to the building. This is the side facing parking. There is additional
detailing on the back side. They put in some windows, and a greater modulation to the
facade, a greater contrast in materials. This texture will emphasize the base of the
building, and the roof forms add greater interest. The sign that you have in front of you is
preliminary and to give an idea of placement and scale and type style that will be used in
the - final.
In conclusion, we recommend approval of this project as submitted with one condition.
The condition is that this landscape strip be 5' of full landscaping to serve as a buffer.
There is a great difference between the site as the grating is proposed and the property to
the east. Do you want to speak to that in more detail?
Mr. Knudson -My question is that it's not a flow, it's a pump. So you're not going to
change the structure and put in a storage tank and redirect the flow. It's a pump - so the
pressure pumps it.
Scott Miller- That's correct.
Mr. Malina -One of things that was brought up at our last meeting was that the handicap
entrance to the motel.
Ms. Painter- The handicap access has been improved here. There was a ramp into this. In
addition, there is a handicap elevator. When the project comes in for building permit, all
those things will be looked at in far greater detail, although I did pass this by the Plans
Checker to make sure. We've asked for a covered system. So, worse case scenario, if
there is not capacity on 99, they would have to go to an on -site facility and they would
have to revise the site plan.
Scott Miller- My understanding is that they do have the capacity. The only question is
how much capacity. The system will be the same. But how much storage will be into that
system?
Ms. Painter- My feeling is that the potential changes in that level of detail would affect the
overall appearance and intent of the project. When they come in for a building permit, it
comes into Planning, so we automatically see the project again.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
Mr. Meryhew - Do we know any more about the mechanical equipment? Last time; there
was some questions as to whether there was going to be window air conditioners...I still
don't see anything on this.
Page 3
Ms. Painter- On the last submittal, they were going to have air conditioning units that
were under the window. The architect stated those units would handle heating and
cooling.
Mr. Flesher - What is the setback of the street?
Diana Painter- Approximately 30 feet.
Scott Miller, Architect, 10306 NE 10th, Suite 110, Bellevue.
The only thing I would add - -we're trying to tone the building down a little bit. Instead of
going from bring blues, I want to tone down the contrast of the building and have the
signage a little less large. We've gone from three large signs, down to two, a little smaller
signs. Then we worked on the modulation on the back and color and materials to help
break up those surfaces.
Mr. Meryhew - Closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Knudson -This looks like it has improved considerably. It looks better.
Mr. Meryhew - Let's re -open the public hearing in order to get input from the applicant.
Shawn Park, Representing the General Contractor. Address: 31205 Pacific Hwy S,
Federal Way, WA.
The main sign is about 20' high and is illuminated. So there is an electrical light bulb
inside of the sign. My understanding is that the background of the sign will be blue, and
the lettering will be orange.
Mr. Clark said that he saw no linen area shown.
Scott Miller - There is going to be a small scale washer /dryer in the closet and a little bit
more linen storage built in. I do think they're going to have some type of service that will
deal with some of their laundry on the larger loads. It was an error on our part, on the
schematic part, to not include more linen storage, which we would do on the final plan.
Mr. Clark -The recycling bins are at the other end of the building. I'm concerned that
recycling is not being encouraged.
In some of the units, they've actually had a trash bin and a recycle bin. I don't know how
they're going to handle it on this. Whether they're going to handle it on an individual
basis, or on a per - floor basis.
z.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 5
November 18, 1993
installed no later than six months after issuance of the utility permit" -- I'd like to clarify
that a little bit.
Mr. Flesher- I have a question - -who is the landscape architect and who is he required by?
Mr. Pace - The applicant. He's the one who prepared the landscape plan.
Mr. Flesher - Isn't that a bit unusual - for the City to specify an individual architect?
Mr. Pace- We're just making sure that this application is inspected for compliance with the
plan. The reason we're concerned with landscaping -- is that looking back at the appeal to
the Council, there was concern as to the assurances to what would occur. We are trying
to assure that whatever is approved has been met to the standards. In summary, staff is
recommending approval. There are some areas we think should be addressed and would
like to seek public comment. The particular issue is again, dealing with the fencing issue.
We do not intend that this be viewed as a storage yard.
Mr. Flesher- I just wondered if the surface material was gravel, or dirt...
Mr. Pace- Asphalt. It's going to be a regular parking lot..
Jeff Mann- Pac Tech Engineering - 12720 Gateway Drive, Tukwila.
Pm representing Becker Trucking and I also represented the project three years ago when
it was initially approved. Mr. Becker, President of the Company, is also here tonight. The
company itself is a significant company located in the City of Tukwila and has 35 tractors,
15 trailers, 10 Express Trucks, and runs about 90% of it's operation within 75 miles of its
central headquarters here in Tukwila and a good part of Western Washington. The
previous applicant on the project was Mr. Ed Becker, who has since retired from the
company. As you're aware, the site was originally approved with conditions. Since then,
the application was revoked, the site was then chained, and employees are now parking on
the street. We do concur with the six -month condition again in putting all the bonds in
place that would require us to move ahead on this project.
Since the last time, some things have happened. We have prepared the traffic study,
which has addressed the site distance issues. We have also addressed the drainage issue on
the site. There used to be a lot of flooding on 128th Street, and there was some problem
with the drainage system. Becker Trucking System has taken measures to clean outthat
system and make sure its operation is functional so that it does not back up onto 128th.
The site plan proposes 45 employee parking spaces, 17 truck parking spaces. About 4/10
of an acre of landscaping is provided -- about 26% of the site. Again, we have provided
access to East Marginal Way, in order to provide safety and operational benefits to the
site.
I wanted to address the issue of East Marginal Way. That comment in the staff report
was directed to the fact that none of the trucks for this operation would come by way of
Planning Commission Minutes • Page 6
November 18, 1993
residential streets. All of our access to the site would be either North or South on East
Marginal Way, and we would not use residential streets to access this site. There had
been some concern because there had been some construction in the area, and some trucks
had used the residential streets at that time. We're saying that we're going to get to this
site from East Marginal Way, whether North or South. How we turn into it, we have a
driveway on East Marginal Way and of course we can get into it on 128th.
You'll notice the landscaping on the site, on two of the boundaries, 22.5' in width is fairly
wide landscaping area. That's because of the zoning and relationship to the surrounding
zoning districts and land uses. Those two boundaries require 15' plus 50% of that for a
total of 22.5'. Again, the use is limited to employee parking, trucks, tractors, and trailers.
The surrounding land use consists of Becker Trucking to the North, to the south is one
single family home, and it is sandwiched between this property and some older commercial
property. There has never been any concerns raised by that resident who lives in that
home. To the East is an open space area, undeveloped. The other half of the site across
from East Marginal Way, there are two homes. So really, there is only one home that
abuts the site, and that is the one directly to the North. There are two directly to the east.
To the West, is a vacant piece of property. The closest single family home to the West is
about 300' away.
Mr. Malina - On the two entrances off of 128th, why, in this drawing, does the one access
have a niche out of it - -at the access point? Why does it curve in?
Jeff Mann - The intent there is to have a full width commercial driveway.
Mr. Malina- How many feet are between the other access point?
Jeff Mann- It appears to be about 30' also. Again, because of the significant landscaping
buffer, the parking is considerable into the site. The drive -in is 30' which is significantly
wider than the normal parking lot that you'd find, which is roughly about 25'.
Mr. Malina - The main entrance to this site on East Marginal Way -- How many feet are
in there?
Jeff Mann- It looks to me that it is about 25'.
Mr. Malina - And that is wide enough for your tractor - trailer rigs?
Jeff Mann- Yes. I expect that most of the activity in that driveway will be exiting activity
rather than entering. Most of the entering activity will occur from the main terminal site
to the North. Again, there is sufficient site distance on East Marginal Way so cars and
trucks can enter that driveway.
Mr. Malina- So you're saying that this is going to be the only use -. the access off of East
Marginal Way?
Planning Commission Minutes Page 7
November 18, 1993
Jeff Mann- I don't think that is a correct statement. We're going to use all three
driveways.
Jeff Mann- (approaches the exhibit) We have the existing terminal to the North, we have
this parking lot. What we're saying is that all access to this area is by East Marginal Way.
We will always approach this site from here. The intent of the company is that trucks will
not come in from 128th.
Mr. Malina -What you're saying is that we know there could be an impact if we go into the
neighborhood, so we're going to limit it to East Marginal Way, other than that short
distance on 128th. •
Jeff - That's correct.
Scott Clark- I have a question..Is there a concrete curb on the pavement in the parking lot
area to separate the landscaping from the asphalt?
Jeff - I don't think there was an intent to put a curb on there. I think in the previous
application there was a request to put wheel stops. This is not shown on here presently.
An oil water separator in the vault is planned also -- required by the City.
? - You said those exits will be mostly exiting traffic. How do the trucks get there- -
coming from the terminal at the North end of this lot?
Jeff - They would go across the lot (shows him visually).
Scott Clark - The parking spaces to the west side of the property - -those appear to be
intended for trucks. Lacking a wheel stop or a curb of some sort - those truck usually
have a great deal of overhang from the end of the wheel base to the end of the truck...I
could envision those trucks backing up into trees.
Len Horn - My name is Len William Horn and I am a registered landscape architect and
I've been on board to prepare a landscape planting plan. We have a plan that addresses
the retention of the existing plant materials. This photo shows the existing conifer tree
mass that is existing. These are existing pine and cedar trees that are of pretty significant
size - approximately 15' -18'. We are also intending to preserve this juniper plant along the
street. We are going to add new landscape materials throughout the perimeter. We're
using western red cedar and cyprus..both are evergreen plant materials. The estimated
size of the tree will be 10' tall. The spacing between trees is 4'. We will also use red
maple along the street, as a street tree. We're having vine maples placed along East
Marginal Way for a seasonal variety. The other plant material is ground cover planting
that is 50% juniper and 50% English ivy. One of our criteria was to use low -water plants
that, in the long run, are extremely low maintenance, low water requirement, and low -
care.
567
Planning Commission Minutes Page 8
November 18, 1993
Mr. Malina - Of the couple of trees that you're going to eliminate on the driveway on East
Marginal Way, are they of any significant height?
Len - It appears to be 12'.
Mr. Knudson - Are you planning any irrigation on this?
. Len - The first 2 -3 years, all of these plants are going to be watered. We have designed no
irrigation to date. As the years go on, the species will take very little, if any, water. The
first couple of years, it could be someone simply holding a hose - -it's up to the owner how
they would like to do it.. The contractor may choose to do a design for the irrigation
system also.
Mr. Clark - Is there a risk to the existing trees by putting this berm in?
Len - If you look very closely at the location of the berm, it barely cuts into the drip line of
the trees. I don't think you're going to lose those trees.
Mr. Mann - I wanted to highlight a couple of other matters. Presently, the current
terminal site to the north, requires many trailer movements in order to handle their
operations. One of the benefits that this additional parking will add to the terminal site, is
to eliminate the amount of trailer movements. In order to load them, they have to move
them around to get the correct position. We will see a reduction of activity in the night-
time hours, as many of those trailers are parked on this site. Limiting the time to 6:00
a.m..to 10:00 p.m. allows them to load trailers on the terminal site, move them over to the
parking area and leave them there so they don't have to move them again until the next
day.
There was the issue of fencing. We would like to have included in the proposal that we do
put a fence on the interior of the landscaping and also provide gates to the site. It would
be a chain -link fence. The fence on the outside would be difficult to see if someone has
• breached that fence.
END OF TAPE 1, DATED 11 -18 -93
TAPE 2
Mr. Meryhew- How will you water the plant life outside the fence?
Len - Whatever is required by the City to make sure those trees survive. Whether we
include an irrigation system to make that happen, I think it is going to be necessary. I'll
have Mr. Becker respond to that.
Mr. Mann- We're offering that fence for our own security, so we thought if you could
condition it to say "a security fence will be provided on the interior of the landscaping"
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
and then Mr. Becker knows what he needs to have there in order to keep people out.
Otherwise, we do concur with your staff report and recommendations, we do concur with
the condition on there for the bonding and the six month time limit, we concur with the
assessment of the compatibility of the comprehensive plan and with zoning, and we would
ask for your approval based on those conditions with the amendment to add the fencing
condition on the site.
Page 9
Mr. Roland Becker - President of Becker Trucking, 12677 East Marginal Way South.
We would like to put all of our empty trailers here. We're trying to eliminate movement of
trailers. We would like to increase our efficiency as much as possible. What we have
here, on the north side, is some heavy trees and a lot of parking. This turn here, is
somewhat hazardous. For the record, Mr. Mann said we have. 15 trailers, we have 50.
We would like to put a fence up for safety. We would like to keep kids out. The fence on
the inside would help us maintain security..we could monitor the fence to make sure there
are no holes in the fence.
Mr. Meryhew - How tall is the fence?
Mr. Becker - It is a 6' fence with barbed -wire on top. The total height would probably
then be 6.5'. If the vegetation does what it is supposed to, you probably won't even see
the fence. As far as the irrigation, if it is an issue, then we would like to put it in. It
doesn't make sense to spend that much money on trees and take a chance on losing them.
Mr. Malina- Would you be opposed to a drip- system?
Mr. Becker - No.
Mr. Malina - Would you also be opposed to having a green colored chain link fence to
help provide some better screening? It would better blend with the landscape.
Mr. Becker - I don't know what the difference in cost would be.
Len Horn - I just did a quick mental picture after he agreed to the fence as to what this
scenario is, going to look like from all four sides. The way it is going to appear - you are
going to have a 4' berm and a 3' berm. The mass of the trees are going to compose the
bottom 3', 4', 5' of the 10' to dig those in. You may not see this fence. I don't think the
extra expense of slats, is a necessary expense. Except for the gates, it's just not going to
be a visible fence. Especially on the south and the west - no one lives there to see it
anyway, and on the north side, they have their own facility looking at the fence. It appears
to me that the only place that a fence would be visible would be the.one access point off of
East Marginal Way.
Mr. Becker - We want to maximize efficiency and safety, and minimize traffic. The gate
will be a key system. We will open it up at 6:00 a.m. and lock it at 10:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
Mr. Malina -What type of locks are on the gates?
Mr. Becker -Pad locks.
Mr. Clark- How long has your company been in business?
Page 10
Mr. Becker - To make a long story short, my dad sold the corporation in August of 1984,
and we got it back August of 1987. It started in 1925 and was originally in South Seattle.
It came to Tukwila in 1974.
Mr. Clark - I have a premonition that we're going to get some comments about truck
traffic through neighborhoods.
Mr. Becker - It's pretty tough to get around back here. The express vehicles come out on
128th.
Mr. Clark- Is there a company policy stating they are forbidden from driving in the
residential areas?
Mr. Becker - Yes.
Mr. Meryhew called for a five - minute break.
Mr. Meryhew called the meeting back to order.
Curtis Robinson - I live at 13422 40th Avenue South. I've lived there since 1955 and seen
this situation develop over the years. I think we have a prime example of how industrial
zoning creeps into residential neighborhood. Mr. Becker came into our residential
community on a spot zone initially. He bought industrial land for his business. It's good
for his own business, but not necessarily good for the community. Along the way, after
his business had grown, he purchased some land of a lesser zoning South of his main truck
yard and was okayed through the County. He was okayed to use it for parking of his
employee vehicles. He almost immediately started parking his trucks on it and complaints
did very little good to the County government. The Planning Commission is the
instrument of this subzoning. I don't know what should be done about this - but you
should be aware that this is going on. If you approve this, you'll set up a situation where
all the neighbors will look at what Mr. Becker did, and say "the trucks are making all the
noise and the quality of life is deteriorated in the neighborhood, so why don't we do the
same thing "? Nobody has brought up the fact that this document is not identical to the
previous one. The matter of the entrance on East Marginal Way is different. There was
no entrance on East Marginal Way, when it was approved in 1990. There's been no
discussion of that tonight, although there was great discussion in 1990 with the Council
because there was community concern about the trucks turning onto East Marginal.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
Also, Mr. Becker hasn't been operating just until 10:00 p.m. in the past, and I see no
reason to believe. that he's going to in the future. Unless you put some condition on him
that requires that he do this.
Page 11
Mr. Pace -Our purpose tonight is to look at that new site. Those hours would be limited to
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if this is approved.
Mr. Clark - Mr. Robinson, is it your recollection that there was strong public opposition to
any kind of egress, ingress on East Marginal Way?
Curtis Robinson - As I recall, there was a reason that the exit was not used. Perhaps
there has been re- examination of that and some other reasoning. I don't think the public
has been allowed to comment on that. It was significant in 1990.
Mr. Meryhew - For my benefit, would you explain the difference to you for accessing
directly from the parking lot to East Marginal and accessing instead to 128th into the
parking lot..what is the difference?
Curtis Robinson - I just brought this up because there have been several studies from 1990
and I didn't hear any other people that will bring the matter up. It appears that trucks
entering and leaving the East Marginal Way entrance will constitute a considerable threat .
to the traffic on East Marginal. It also occurred to me that trucks aren't supposed to be
out to the left of there - -I wondered why we cut the corner on the other side - -why was it
necessary to develop a corner on the direction where no trucks are going?
Mr. Mann indicated it was required at that time to have that link there.
Nadine Morgan - 5190 S. 166th St., Tukwila.
I'm building four new homes just south of the proposed site. Probably about 500' or so.
They're directly west of the Community Center. Shortly after I started building my homes,
my neighbor to the south and I engaged in an agreement to use the same road. I've been
approached by two other investors in the area to develop other houses nearby, very close
to the intersection of S. 130th and 40th Avenue S. I'm not saying I'm going to do that,
but one of the reasons I'm building down there, is because it is a very nice single family
neighborhood. It seems there is a lot of interest in keeping it that way. I'm mostly
concerned about what the previous speaker said. That what we're seeing is an expansion
of a fairly noisy commercial facility toward the residential area. I don't have any
comments on the parking lot development itself, except that it seems like they've done a
better job than four years ago. My main comment has to do with the traffic that is going
in and out of there. There's a lot of traffic that goes on East Marginal Way, south from
the facility towards Interurban. It creates a lot of noise. I've noticed a lot of pedestrian
traffic down at the intersection of 130th & 40th Avenue South. There are .a lot of school
kids that use the old school grounds down at the current Community Center. I would like
to see, if possible, the trucks using this facility, are routed more toward Seattle, to the •
North, rather than the South.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 12
November 18, 1993
Nadine Morgan continued - If I had anticipated commercial development just a few
hundred feet of where I am building, I certainly wouldn't have started building the homes.
I don't want more trucks going through that neighborhood. If they went more toward the
bus barn, as most of the busses seem to do, I think that would mitigate some of the traffic
you see coming from the Becker Trucking site.
Mr. Meryhew - They would be doubling their time...
Nadine Morgan - That may be true, but at least they're not going through as heavily on the
residential area -- they're going through commercial area.
Jim Wolbert - 12800 Fast Marginal Way in Tukwila.
Mr. Becker answered my question regarding the safety of the kids of the neighborhood
getting on and falling off the trailers they have parked over there. He answered my
question by saying he was going to put a fence there.
Mr. Meryhew - Where is your property in relation to this site?
Jim Wolbert - Just east of the parking lot. Instead of two houses, there are five here. I
would like to state that there should be a fence to protect the children.
Mr. Haggerton - What about the noise situation as far as you're concerned?
Jim Wolbert - Well, we've put up with it ever since they've been there, so there's really
nothing we can. do about it.
Mr. Clark- Are you opposed to barbed -wire on top of the fence?
Jim Wolbert - No, I'm not -- anything to keep the kids out.
Mr. Clark- How do you feel about the colored slats?
Jim Wolbert - I think the trees are going to cover it.
Brian Kennedy - 12802 37th Avenue S.
I live about a half block West of Becker. We were fighting against this parking lot about
ten years ago with King County Council. At that time, Becker said my house was
insignificant. The cars park all along the side of the road, as well as the trucks. I can't
believe it's going to be basically an employee parking lot. I just think having the parking
lot on my side of the road, with all these trucks going back and forth, is going to make it
worse. There should be some rules that they can't have' any more trucks - -they have too
many. The main concern is parking out on the road and their operation is really loud all
night.
'Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
Brian Kennedy continued - I see cars par ed on the side of the road could present traffic
hazards. But the slanting of the gates or • ock is not going to eliminate that.
Page 13
Mr. Meryhew - Mr. Kennedy, you may n =ed to take this up with the City in another way
to get further restrictions. I don't think w here in the Planning Commission can address
that tonight. If it's truck traffic, then you : e to contact the police department. There is a
limit to the number of spaces, but it doesn t say that they can't park in the driveway as
well.
Brian Kennedy - So I have to call the poli e every time they park in the street?
Mr. Meryhew - In the statement here, it s.ys no parking signs will be posted. That doesn't
say once you get back away from the inte ection, they're going to have no parking. At
least it doesn't tell me that.
Brian Kennedy - Well I feel I'm living in a truck yard.
Mr. Meryhew - I sympathize with you. T
and making it available to Becker Truckin
on 128th. ' I hope Mr. Becker is listening
neighborhood that neeed improving. It so
think we can do much about the traffic pr
existence of the plan by the City Public
any satisfaction from talking to the Police
Jackie Dempere -4133 S. 128th, Tukwila.
I was under the impression that the site w
months ago because I'm interested in the
I would not have invested so much into m
I don't think we should have to put up wit
until you have a 24 -hour study of the nois
want the people to come in and build.
me, it appears, by opening up the parking lot
, we will alleviate the problem that is there now
uite well he's got some relationships with the
nds like he's willing to take those steps. I don't
blem on the street, other than watch the
orks and Police Departments. If you don't get
epartment, call the Mayor.
for sale. I called the leasing agent about six
eighborhood. Had I known this was happening,
property. I'm losing money on my property.
the noise. This permit shouldn't be allowed
. There are no single family homes yet but we
Mr. Meryhew - Are you saying that the ck traffic is going on your street now?
Jackie - It has improved. I don't have side alks, and I'm on a hill. The trucks have
crossed my street.
Mr. Meryhew - They are using your street. Have you called the police department on
this?
Jackie - If I call the police department, I h : ve to wait until they have time to make a
report. I was under the impression that B : cker was moving out. There will also be some
lights.
Planning Commission Minutes • Page 14
November 18, 1993
Mr. Meryhew - We heard testimony earlier that the residents requested no lighting in the
parking because of the night glare it would produce in the homes -- now you're saying that
they should have these lights up?
Jackie - I don't see how trucks are going to be backing up and moving in the dark. It's
impractical. I think Becker is a growing company and should simply move to another site.
This area would be good for low- income housing, or a clinic, etc. I'm sorry, but the
quality of life for the neighborhood has depleted. I also have a concern regarding asphalt.
Asphalt is very bad for the environment. When, it gets hot, the oils go to the surface. The
oils will then go into the drain and the river, untreated.
If you have trucks coming in to East Marginal Way, those trucks are going to be using the
opposite lane. If you are coming from the River and using Gateway on 35th -- before you
go to the 4 - way stop, on 130th & E. Marginal Way - -if you want to turn to 42nd, you
have to stop in the middle of the street to turn left. If you have a truck going 30 mph
behind you, that's scary. There are kids coming from the school on 42nd and they are
going to the community center and playground -- it's unsafe.
Lillian Wolbert - 12800 East Marginal Way.
We've lived in our home for 46 years and Becker is across the street from us. There are
five homes on that side of the street that have to go out on East Marginal. With the trucks
coming out against us, I don't think its a good idea. We have Metro busses that go by and
park in front of our house and sometimes, in our driveway. I don't think we need the
trucks to add to it. Going out on East Marginal Way is not a good idea. We'd like to get
out of our driveway once in a while.
Mr. Meryhew - Do you think it would be better if they exited off of 128th onto East
Marginal?
Mr. Meryhew - How do you feel about a light in the parking lot?
Lillian - I think it would be a good idea. I don't think it would be a good idea to have that
lot dark.
Mr. Meryhew - How is the noise, as far as you're concerned?
Lillian - It's noisy. If we have company spend the night at our home, it's miserable.
Mr. Pace - For some of those Planning Commission members involved in pre- annexation
zoning, I think you recall some of the controversy we heard tonight went back to the
history of what the County had done. In this area, we did a little down - zoning. Under the
County, they. could do all of the activities we're describing here tonight outright without
any public hearings. This area was much more restrictive than the County zone. I think
the points brought up tonight, we will be dealing with in the Growth Management Act. If
you look at the landscape plan, Item #20, it specifically says there will be an irrigation
Planning Commission Minutes Page 15
November 18, 1993 .
system. It seems to me that we have two issues that we need to decide upon. One is the
lighting on the site, the second is the access off East Marginal. In the applicant's
modification, the proposals dealt with the issue of fencing and type of fencing, barbed wire
and the gating issue. Mr. Meryhew - Jack, would you remind us on the situation on the
lighting from the previous hearing? Somewhere along the way, I heard the statement that
the citizens didn't want the lighting.
END OF 11- 18 -93, TAPE 2 .
(Continues from Tape 2)
Mr. Meryhew - I have a question of Mr. Mann. How would you feel about some lighting
on the parking lot? Do you want to address that?
Jeff Mann - I think I'll have Mr. Becker address that, if I can. I would like to make a
comment with regard to the driveway access. I think Jack covered the zoning issue very
well. There is commercial zoning and light industrial zoning throughout this area. With
regard to the driveway, the reason there was discussion at the City Council, was because
the City engineer had precluded us from having that driveway. We kept asking for it all
the way through the hearings, but it was denied. In reality, site distance is not as good on
128th as it is at this driveway. There is better site distance for cars and trucks at this
driveway than at the intersection.
Mr. Meryhew - What is blocking the site at 128th?
Jeff Mann - The road goes down at that point and also curves as you go to the north. The
proposal is that there be no cars parked going north on East Marginal Way. There is also
some landscaping around the corner of the existing Becker site, that if it were removed, it
would also help. I think he's willing to work with the City to remove some landscaping.
The City Engineer still felt, based on the traffic study, that this driveway was safer than the
intersection,
Mr. Clark - Even with the landscaping and size of the trees?
Jeff Mann - Yes, because when you go out on the 'driveway, you can see both ways..
Mr. Meryhew - Does the landscaping on the property to the north sit closer to the street
than it will to the parking area?
Jeff Mann - It goes right up to the inside. The City controls that right -of -way and if they
wanted that vegetation removed, they could ask to have it removed. We initially
submitted a traffic study that eliminated the driveway. The City Engineer, after looking at
the site distance, said he wanted that driveway back in to help the safety.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 16
November 18, 1993
?- According to this chart, it looks like there is a couple of homes a little bit to the north of
the driveway, one almost directly across from the driveway, and a couple the other way..
(tape becomes inaudible)
Jeff Mann - The truck would still be going by the homes. As far as turning out of the
driveway, the same number of trucks would be going by the driveway.
? -The other issue I wanted to cover was the CM zoning. This is considered the light •
industrial use. We're talking about a parking lot: Again, it is for a truck terminal, but it is
for a lighter industrial use. The items that have been in place, as far as landscaping- -we've
done a good job - -we're trying to address the aesthetics and impacts of this operation.
Lillian Wolbert - There are entire companies that are all down Fast-Marginal Way to the
north of Becker. They all come out on East Marginal Way, but they come out on one
road. They don't have a separate approach, like they want. They do fine - -they have no
problem coming out on one road. It's been miserable because they have their cars parked.
there now on account of no parking - -they don't have the lot. When they don't have •
anywhere to put their trucks, they park them on East Marginal. It's not easy to come out
of East Marginal and see where you're going, and what you're going into. I don't want
them coming out on East Marginal. •
? - It may help you, in the sense that, as they come out, they're in a better position to see
what is coming or approaching. I hope that the City Engineer is looking at the total
picture, and not just what is' best for the applicant.
Mr. Becker - The issue was•brought up that maybe we should move. At this point in time,
we don't have the money to do that. We rent this from our father. He was in control,
prior to 1987. So this is new to me. I've tried to do the best I can to get along with the
neighbors. We're just trying to eliminate congestion and noise. Our equipment is there,
noise .and activity are higher than it should be. This lot is not a working area, it's just a
parking lot. By law, we do not have to have back up signals on our trucks.
Mr. Meryhew - What about the comment about trying to direct all your traffic to the north
on East Marginal, as opposed to going South -- what's the possibility of that? Do most of
your trucks go on the freeway, or do they go to the greater Tukwila area?
Mr. Becker - City trucks will head north; Kent, Auburn, and Tacoma trucks will head
South. Efficiency is pretty important to us and they have been told. When I was made
aware that this was a problem, we contacted the Swift dispatcher and told them that they
can't go on back roads. What happens is the drivers get lost and they start looking
around. Maps have been drawn out and distributed to the Swift dispatchers so they can
forward it to their drivers. In the neighborhood, if there is a problem, they can phone us,
give the truck or tractor number, time and date - -then I can take care of it internally.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
Mr. Clark - Were you surprised to hear some of the residents talking about some of your
vehicles coming through the residential neighborhoods even though you had sent out
notices?
Page 17
Mr. Becker - If it has been since 1987, yes. Prior to that time, people who purchased
Becker Trucking had a very bad track record. Right now, we have a very good DOT
track record. We are the only local trucking company that is not union. But we still have
a procedure that we go through. If there is a problem, a ticket is written. We bring the
employee in, present him/her with that ticket and discuss it and try to see what the
problem is. If the driver accepts this ticket and signs it, then there are penalties. So many
points lead eventually to suspension or even termination. This is not set up to terminate
people -- it's set up to make people do things correctly. If the driver still has a problem
with that, he /she goes to his/her representative and they discuss it. If the representative
agrees with the driver, then we have a "grievance ". At that point, two of the
representatives and myself come in and hear the problem, make a determination and vote
on it. The system works very well. This is what would happen - -but we have to know
about it.
Mr. Clark - Why weren't the terms and conditions of the Conditional Use Permit issued in
1990 complied with?
Mr. Becker - At the time, the facilities weren't right..there was still things I was worried
about. I was looking at efficiency and looking at another sight - -but financially, it just
didn't work. I didn't want to put the funds towards this property if we were going
somewhere else. My dad had a permit in place to extend the warehouse. That also
involved the lot across the street. We had a strike in 1979, and when it was over, we had
about 36 drivers. At this point in time, we have 30.
Mr. Clark - What is your total workforce at that site right now?
Mr. Becker - About 65, with 30 drivers.
Mr. Clark -.Have you changed your operation...are you bringing in more trucks from other
companies, is the volume down?
Mr. Becker - The volume is down. We are an LTL carrier as listed in the truck load.
What dictates our growth is our dock. We can't really grow any more than we have now.
The Swift drivers are bringing in loads we used to bring in- -their trucks replaced ours.
I was recently made aware of the dock plate situation at night. What they do, is when
they get through moving a truck, they will move a hand truck under, move the plate over
and throw it off into place of the truck. If that's still an issue, I'd like to know, but they
were told not to do that anymore. They can set it in place - -they don't have to throw it in
place.
Mr. Meryhew - Mr. Kennedy is gone..but he did say that was still an issue.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 18
November 18, 1993
Mr. Becker - Then he needs to call me.
Mr. Meryhew - As a way to improve your neighborhood relationship, I suggest you need
to call him.
Mr. Becker - I can do that.
Mr. Meryhew - His phone number is 243 -6639, the name is Brian Kennedy.
Mr. Becker - Parking was brought up as an issue from East Marginal Way. We're placing
"NO PARKING" signs. This may be good for us, but bad for the neighbors. I expect my
employees to park in the parking lot. I don't want to handicap the neighborhood if they
want to use it for parking.
Mr. Becker - Another issue was that we are lowering the standard of the neighborhood.
That is not our goal. We try to keep our facility up as best as possible. I think this lot
would help. We paint our building when it needs it, we weed around the area, we do have
buffers on our trees.
Mr. Meryhew - I would say that the landscaping and parking area right now needs
considerable care.
Mr. Becker - There was an issue regarding asphalt versus gravel as being more hazardous
to the environment. My intentions are to put in an oil/water separator. An oil/water
separator does skim off the oil so it doesn't run off - and we have environmental rags that
soak up the oil from the water. We have those on our present lot now and they are
maintained weekly. •
Regarding size of trucks - We have twelve medium footers and the rest are short boxes.
We have three 53', but those are kept off -site. Regarding lighting of the parking lot - this
is a parking lot, it's not a working area. I was under the impression that it was an issue
with the neighbors as far as the lights coming on. There can be some lights provided that
can just shine into the lot. That would be for our safety - -I don't see that as being a benefit
to the neighborhood. If the lot was not fenced, I would want the lighting.
Mr. Clark- Your gate closes at 10:00 p.m., so you're open from 6:00 am to 10: p.m.?
Mr. Becker - Yes. But if the fence was open, then the chance of kids or someone else
getting into the lot- -that would be a concern to me. Without the fence, I would feel the
lighting is important. With the fence, I think we have the security without the lighting. I
would want the gates closed at 10:00 p.m.
Mr. Clark- But right now, it's dark at 5:00 p.m. You have five hours of darkness.. And
especially if you have female employees in a dark parking lot - -isn't that a safety problem?
Planning Commission Minutes Page 19
November 18, 1993
Mr. Becker - Females don't park over there. We have designated parking for them right
in front of the building. In fact, I've even given up my spot for them.
Mr. Meryhew - Would you be opposed to low level lighting?
Mr. Becker - No. I hadn't thought lighting was much of an issue, so I didn't give it much
thought. Perhaps it could be directed into the lot rather than out on the street. On the
other hand, maybe you'd like to use some of that light for the street.
Mr. Meryhew - The whole purpose would be to provide safety for the lot.
Mr. Clark - Maybe add a condition.. "lighting shall be provided so as to avoid off -site
diffusion of light ". That gives them a good direction.
Patrick Becker- I'd like to address the light issue. Along East Marginal Way, there are
already City street lights. I believe when they're on in the night -time, they're exceeding
one half into the property anyway. So even if you have a fourteen foot fence, the lights
are still thirty-five feet in the air and there will be lighting into the lot. If any lights, in my
opinion, should be added, it would be lights half -way into the lot facing West (where it.
would be darkest). The other issue I have is, Mr. Kennedy mentioned traffic in the
residential area. Classification of trucks: Class 8 trucks - 33,000 - 80,000 pounds; Class 7
trucks will go from 33,000 down to 26,000 pounds. None of those trucks have ever
crossed that boundary into those residential areas. Mr. Kennedy is addressing the express
division, which is a courier van. That has never been addressed to our employees on the
Express -- telling them not to use that residential area. We could eliminate that
immediately. I know there are NO class 7 or 8 trucks in that area.
Mr. Meryhew - What do you have between the Class 7 and the Vans?
Patrick Becker - We have Class 3, 4. Class 3 is a van. Class 4 is G -van: 16,000 pounds,
gross weight limit and Class 4: up to 26,000 pounds. The 7 & 8 are the big maximum
trucks of 80,000 pounds.
Mr. Meryhew - I think it's great that you're supporting your organization, but maybe there
are some guys that take a short cut through the residential neighborhood. You can't
control each and every vehicle that comes out of there. I can't truly believe that all of the
residents in that neighborhood haven't seen a lavender truck. There aren't too many
lavender trucks that say "Becker" on them. I don't think the people would fabricate some
of that. I'm not trying to get on your case, but to some degree, I think there may be some
traffic that has gone through there, arbitrarily.
Patrick Becker - That's correct, but it is traffic involving vehicles Class 5 and under. I do
trucking operations in the morning and I know we have no allowance to give the drivers
incentives to go to the west and go that direction. Mr. Kennedy mentioned a truck with
an exhaust. We had one contract driver that worked for us in the courier division. He
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
maintained his own equipment. The last issue is the noise level. Our entire fleet is
equipped with Cummins power. It is the most quiet diesel engine on the market today.
We will always be running Cummins power. What is the noise problem? Is it the engine,
is it the brakes, is it the dock plates?
Mr. Meryhew - Mr. Kennedy isn't here to make a rebuttal. Maybe he's referring to the
start-up..I don't know.
Page 20
Mr. Mann - I would like to get back to the lighting issue. In our original application, it
was never an issue with the Planning Commission...that's why we're not sure of our site
plan. I think Mr. Becker has indicated that they do have sufficient lighting and was not a
condition previously. I think the Beckers have received a good message about working
with the neighborhood- -they are trying to be pro- active.
Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing at 12:00 a.m.
Mr. Meryhew - They're going to have a fence, 6' chain link, barbed wire on the top,
landscaping- irrigated, wheel stops before you get to the fence...
Mr. Malina - I do have a concern regarding the trucks driving either north or south on
East Marginal Way. I can understand the concerns of the residents of the community.
Unfortunately, we have a small gathering from that area. I do see a future need - -we
control the truck traffic in the residential neighborhood. I don't see it too far fetched, to
control the traffic going north on Marginal versus south, turning toward the bus barn
versus coming down through the residential.
Mr. Haggerton - I don't see how you can do that though..how are you going to control all
the buses, etc.
Mr. Knudson -In trying to push everybody back to the north - -I see that as more of a traffic
hazard and road jam. Their access is to get to the freeway.
Mr. Haggerton- On the East Marginal entry way -- if the City Engineer says that's safer
than 128th..128th is a City street..if that's not a safe place for entrance and exits on East
Marginal, it should be made safe. It looks like that should be the logical way to approach
it, instead of making a new entry/exit way.
Mr. Meryhew - I have a hard time understanding why it makes a difference. .I think the
City Engineer is the expert on this...if they say that the exit is better, then they must know
what they're talking about.
Mr. Meryhew - I have a problem with the lighting - -as far as safety of the employees and
even car theft. Low level lighting could be provided, while not infringing upon the
neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutes Page 21
November 18, 1993
Mr. Clark - I have a comment to the citizens who came - -I respect everybody's comments
about the negative impact caused first by spot zoning then by commercial development in
what was formally a residential neighborhood. The opinion of the Planning Commission is
probably going to be that the net result of allowing the parking lot is a beneficial impact on
•the neighborhood. It is not in our jurisdiction to turn back the hands of time and tear
down the Becker facility, nor to force Becker to move out. The parking lot appears to be
the best alternative that is fair to Becker and beneficial to the neighborhood.
MR. FLESHER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROJECT BASED UPON STAFF'S
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. That adequate lighting be provided within the parking perimeter,. illumination shall
not extend-with-no-lighting beyond the confines of the property.
2. That a 6 -foot high, Pro- ie si f- ot, chain -link fence with gates -and barbed wire
be placed inside landscaped areas around the site and that gates be installed at
entries onto East Marginal Way South and S. 128th Street; g n.. •
3. That landscaping be installed in accordance with r
the landscape plan received November 4, 1993 by the Department of Community
Development, and that with an irrigation plan be submitted and approved by the
City prior the issuance of Utility Permits;
4; That provide curb stops be provided within the parking lot;
5. That a The performance bond of 150 percent for landscaping be paid prior to the
issuance of the Utility Permits;
6. Improvements must be completed six (6 )They-le -six months from the issuance
of the Utility Permit.
Please note that five feet of landscaping is required along the S. 128th St. frontage. There
is one small area which measures less than this by approximately three feet. The increase
from three to five feet will be reflected in a revised landscape plan submitted prior to the
issuance of utility permits.
MR. CLARK SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION WAS PASSED
BY A VOTE OF 5 -1, WITH MR. HAGGERTON VOTING AGAINST.
Mr. Haggerton- I'd like to clarify my "NO" vote by saying that this project is going to be a
big improvement over the way it exists today, but I believe there are two or three items
that need further study.
Mr. Meryhew adjourned the meeting.
Prepared By, Volt Temporary Agency
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
HEARING DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
Prepared November 10, 1993
November 18, 1993
L93-0058 - Conditional Use
PAC-TECH Engineering, Inc.
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
To improve a vacant site as a parking lot for parking of
employee vehicles, truck, tractor and trailer parking for Becker
Trucking.
The site is located at the southwest corner of 128th Street and
East Marginal Way South (directly south of Becker Trucking).
ACREAGE: 1.5
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Light Industrial
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA
DETERMINATION:
(EPIC-2489)
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF:
ATTACHMENTS:
C-M Industrial Park
Determination of Nonsignificance issued November 3, 1989
Approval With Conditions
Denni Shefrin, 431-3663
A. Site Plan
• B. Landscape Plan
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
FINDINGS
BACKGROUND
Vicinity and Site Information
L93 -0058: Becker.Trucking
Page 2
Project Description: The applicant proposes to pave a 1.5 acre parcel located on the
southwest corner of S. 128th St. and East Marginal Way South, to create a parking
facility for employee vehicles (43 spaces) and for storage of trucks, truck tractors and
trailers (17 spaces). The intent of the parking facility is to allow Becker Trucking
(located directly north of the site) to expand their truck terminal operation. The
Tukwila Municipal Code, Section 18.38.040 requires a Conditional Use Permit for a
truck terminal in the CM zone. The hours of operation would be from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m..
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Becker Trucking offices /operations
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Zoned CM
Zoned C-1 and R -1 -72
Zoned C -1
Zoned R -1 -7.2
Site Conditions: The site rises gently from north to south with a maximum
percent slope of 2% within the proposed paved area. The southwest corner of the
site is steeply sloped and will not be disturbed as part of the proposal other than the
addition of vegetation to help control erosion.
Traffic /Circulation: Access driveways would be from three locations: two from S.
128th Street and one from East Marginal Way South. A sidewalk is also proposed
along the S. 128th St. frontage. A traffic analysis was requested by the Department
of Public Works to evaluate turning movements and sight distances. Based upon the
traffic study provided by the applicant, the Public Works department concurs with the
recommendations which includes restricting parking along S. 128th St. and East
Marginal Way South.
Vegetation/Landscaping: Evergreen trees and shrubs exist along the East Marginal
Way frontage. The landscape provisions of the zoning code require a 15 -wide
landscape buffer adjacent to E. Marginal Way South, 22.5 feet on the south and west
sides and 5 feet on the north side. There are several existing conifer trees and shrubs
along E. Marginal • Wy. S., and along the south and west property lines.
Staff Report to the L93 -0058: Becker Trucking
Planning Commission Page 3
The project proposes a 3 -foot high landscaped berm along the E. Marginal Wy.
frontage and a 4 -foot high ( + / -) landscape berm along a portion of the .south
property line. Because of the existing slope along the southwest portion of the
property, trees would be planted on the property line to gain greater height. Existing
trees along E. Marginal Way South will be retained. Additional trees (including
deciduous) and shrubs will be added along all property lines to create a dense screen
to adjacent properties (See Landscape Plan, Attachment B).
Drainage: The final drainage design will provide treatment for oil/grease /fuel
contaminants associated with vehicles prior to conveyance off -site and will be in
compliance with the City's adopted Surface Water Comprehensive Plan policies.
Fencing/Lighting: No fencing or lighting is proposed.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review were both conditionally
approved in 1990 for an identicalparking facility on the same site. When this project
was initially proposed in late 1989, the site was being used for parking purposes
without an approved CUP. Design Review was required then because the site was
being used with non - conforming landscaping.
The CUP decision was appealed to the City Council by Becker Trucking because the
applicant did not agree with some conditions of the permit. Conditions were then
modified in April, 1990 by the City Council.
Conditional Use Permits are typically valid for one year, however, the 1990 permit
required compliance with all CUP conditions within six months (Oct. 2, 1990) of
approval. The conditions however, were not complied with by the October deadline
and the CUP was subsequently revoked. The site could no longer ge used for
parking and the applicant was forced to park on S. 128th Street and East Marginal
Way.
Design Review is not required with this proposal because the site is currently vacant
and there is no existing non - conforming condition. All future improvements will
conform to current codes including landscaping.
As indicated above, a Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance was issued
for this project when proposed in 1989. Because the current proposal is identical to
that proposed in 1989, no new environmental impacts are anticipated. Therefore, the
SEPA Determination of Significance stands.
4
Staff Report to the
L93 -0058: Becker Trucking
Planning Commission Page 4
Below is the Conditional Use Permit Decision Criteria followed by applicant and staff
responses:
Decision Criteria
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public weLlare or injurious to the property
or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property
is situated.
Applicant's Response:
Operations on the site will primarily occur during normal business hours. The site
will be heavily screened by landscaping on boundaries abutting residential areas. The
site is adjacent to East Marginal Way which serves industrial traffic. No lighting is
proposed. Landscaping will mitigate potential detriment to surrounding properties.
Staff's Response:
The proposed business hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. The landscape plan
shows how screening will be achieved to create a buffer to adjacent properties.
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district
it will occupy.
Applicant's Response:
The site has. provided 15 to 22.5 feet of landscaping as required by the Tukwila
Municipal Code. Trees will be planted at an initial 6 feet (1 foot over the minimum
of five feet). Screening trees will be planted 4' on center which will provide a total
site obscuring buffer.
Staff's Response:
See response to 'A' above.
C. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of
traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
Applicant's Response:
No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing
industrial uses in the area and will use the same materials for ingress and egress.
•
Staff. Report to the L93 -0058: Becker Trucking
Planning Commission Page 5
Staff's Response:
Staff concurs. Also, pedestrian circulation will be improved with the new sidewalk
along S. 128th St..
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan.
Applicant's Response:
Comprehensive Planning Efforts as part of the annexation designated this site for
commercial /manufacturing uses. The site will proposed a low intensity use that is
well buffered to provide compatibility and consistency with the land use policies.
Staffs Response:
The following elements contained in the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan:
In the Residence Element, Objective 3, Policy 2 states:
"Encourage the proper location and screening of unattractive but necessary use
districts to protect residential areas from visual blight."
In the Commerce ndust Element, Objective 1, Policy 4 states:
"Encourage the use of live landscaping in all developments."
Policy 5 states:
"Promote renovation of areas which are not aesthetically pleasing."
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts . which the proposed use may
have on the area in which it is located.
Applicant's Response:
Screening of the site will mitigate potential aesthetic impact. The site will have a
relatively low traffic generation and will only use East Marginal Way for access.
Storm drainage will be provided to handle storm water from the parking area. There
will be no on -site lighting.
Staff Report to the
L93 -0058: Becker Trucking
Planning Commission Page 6
Staff's Response:
Two additional access driveways are proposed onto S. 128th Street which is not
mentioned above.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusion is based upon the Conditional Use Decision. Criteria:
a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements
in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated.
A parking facility is not considered an intensive land use, and therefore, the issue of
compatibility has been addressed from a visual perspective. Efforts have therefore, been
made to achieve substantial screening from adjacent properties.
b. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will
occupy.
Many of the surrounding residences are elevated above . the site with the exception of the
residence to the south. A visual screen is deemed critical between the use and surrounding
residential uses to best mitigate any potential negative visual impact. For this reason,
landscape materials were selected based on their characteristics which include fast- growing,
drought - tolerance and their ability to effectively screen. Vegetation can also be effective in
suppressing some noise and absorption of pollutants from traffic along E. Marginal Wy. S.
and from the parking facility.
Landscaping will be effective in creating a visual buffer to the parking facility from the .
surrounding residences. The effectiveness of the screen is dependent upon the installation
and maintenance of the plant materials. Plant materials were selected because minimal
irrigation is needed after plants are establishment. The landscape architect should also be
present during installation to monitor placement of plant materials.
Because of the denseness of landscaping proposed on the site's periphery, it was felt that
landscaping within the parking area would not be necessary.
c. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of trcit is
and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
No structure is proposed with this project.
Staff Report to the L93 -0058: Becker Trucking
Planning Commission Page 7
The new sidewalk proposed along S. 128th St. will improve pedestrian access from both the
neighborhood and between the two Becker Trucking sites.
Circulation of truck traffic would also be improved by removing parked vehicles along the •
street to create a better sight distance for vehicles entering E. Marginal Way South from S.
128th 'Street. No Parking signs will be posted by the City to ensure the sight distance for
vehicles is adequate.
d. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan.
The intent of the CM (Industrial Park) zone designation is to allow uses which are non -
nuisance oriented and which don't produce excessive noise, pollution or odor. The
Conditional Use Permit process offers opportunity to assure that restrictive performance
standards are imposed on specific uses to minimize perceived incompatible land uses.
Extensive landscaping as proposed meet each of the policies identified above. Further, while
lighting is typically installed within parking areas, it isfelt that lighting may negatively impact
nearby residences, and is therefore not required.
A parking facility is an appropriate use within the CM zone provided adequate measures . are
taken to ensure the use is generally compatible with the surrounding land uses. By requiring.
dense landscape buffers, any negative visual impact will be significantly reduced.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development recommends the Conditional Use Permit be
approved with the following condition:
A performance bond for 150% of .cost of landscaping to be installed within 6 months
of approval shall be required. Lynn William Horn and Associates (Landscape
Architect) shall be retained to monitor and approve the placement of landscape
materials during installation.
PAC-TECH Engineering, Inc.
-`^ = Engineers / Planners / Surveyors. / Environmental Specialists
Mr. Ron Cameron
City Engineer.
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Reference: Becker Transfer Traffic Study
Mr. Cameron,
pr.r)rw.SiiG >rir7
J�
1 ----.-
Pie t/
RECE(VF,„ ovember 5, 1993
NOV - 8 1993 •
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
l.e
CUlVititU " -
DE \IELOPMcP�
After discussing traffic patterns and growth in the vicinity of the proposed Becker Transfer
parking lot we feel a modification of the initial recommendations presented in our traffic
study is appropriate.
It is recommended that the proposed driveway access on East . Marginal Way South be
developed. This recommendation is based upon the following:
1. The intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street is a
geometrically complex intersection. As indicated in the traffic study this
intersection is inadequate for both entering sight distance and stopping sight
distance. according to current AASHTO standards.
2. The entering sight distance and stopping sight distance for the proposed
driveway access on East Marginal Way South are also less than the full
distances recommended by current AASHTO standards. However, the sight
distance conditions for the proposed driveway do provide for a larger margin
of safety than the conditions at the southern intersection of East Marginal
Way South and South 128th Street.
3. Most of the vehicular traffic accessing the proposed parking lot will be
traveling north (approximately 82 %) on East Marginal Way South. By
allowing access to the parking lot directly from East Marginal Way South both
passenger vehicles and trucks can avoid the intersection of East Marginal Way
South and South 128th Street, and thereby utilize safer sight distance
conditions.
Environmental Services: 3640 South Cedar, Suite A • Tacoma, WA 98409-5700 • (206) 473 -4491 • FAX (206) 474 -3695
Pierce County: (206) 473 -4491
•
King County: (206) 243 -7112 Kitsap County: (206) 377 -2053
4. There is the possibility of increased traffic volumes at the intersection of East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street. Because of the complex
geometry of this intersection, and in order to promote a safer environment,
it is desirable to limit the number of turning vehicles at this intersection. The
installation of the driveway access on East Marginal Way South will help to
accomplish this.
•
With the development of the _proposed driveway access on East Marginal Way South on-
street parking will need to be restricted on the west side of the street, between the proposed
driveway_ locataort_and_ the .southern intersection of East K argina`l-Way South and -South
128thStreet. _..._._....... __._....._......._.......
If there are any questions please contact either Heather Bornhorst or myself at
(206) 473 -4491.
Sincerely,
James A. Mitchell, P.E.
Transportation Manager
1
1
1
1
1
• Prepared For:
Pat Becker
Becker Transfer
PO Box 68426
Seattle, WA 98188
BECKER TRANSFER
TRAFFIC STUDY
Prepared By:
• James A Mitchell, PE.
Heather Ann Bornhorst
PAC-TECH Engineering, Inc.
12720 Gateway Drive, Suite; 212
Seattle, WA 98168
(206) 243-7112
File# 50322
November 4, 1993
RECEIVED
•
NOV ..•41993:
• COMMUNITY. •
DEVELOPMEN1'.
BECKER TRANSFER
TRAFFIC STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
This traffic study was initiated as the result of a City of Tukwila Department of Community
Development letter. This letter from Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner, to Jeff Mann, P.E.,
indicated that this study should be provided in order to evaluate the safety of both the
existing and proposed intersections on East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street.
Becker Transfer proposes a parking lot located on the southwest corner of East Marginal
Way South and South 128th Street intersection as shown in Figure 1. The proposed parking
lot is approximately 1.5 acres in size and will have 43 vehicular parking stalls, and 17 truck
trailer parking stalls. The proposed parking lot will have two access points on South 128th
Street, and one access point on East Marginal Way South. The purpose of this proposed
development is to provide parking for the Becker employees and to provide a storage facility
for truck trailers.
II. EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM CONDITIONS
A. Roadway System Description:
The proposed development has three access points; one located on East. Marginal Way
South and two Located on South 128th Street.
East Marginal Way South is a minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. It is an
asphalt surface two lane roadway that has a traveled width of 36 feet. Currently on- street
parking is allowed along the west side of the roadway, and along the east side to the south
of the South 128th Street intersection.
South 128th Street is a local roadway with a speed limit of 25 mph. It is an asphalt surface
two lane roadway that has a traveled width of 36 feet towards the East Marginal Way South
intersection, and a traveled width of 24 feet towards the 37th Avenue South intersection.
Currently on- street parking is allowed along both sides of South 128th Street.
The intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street is an offset
intersection. Both directions of South 128th Street are stop controlled. There is an existing
painted and signed crosswalk across East Marginal Way South . between the intersecting legs
of South 128th Street.
i
B. Traffic Volumes:
Average daily traffic volumes for the years 1991 and 1992 were provided by the City of
Tukwila Department of Public Works. Tbeseolumes were then projected, assuming an
annual traffic growth rate of three percent`(3 %),,in order to obtain 1993 average daily traffic
volumes. These projected volumes are shown in Figure 2.
III. SAFETY CONCERNS
A. Sight Distances:
Both the entering sight distance and stopping sight distance were measured for each of the
three proposed driveway accesses and for the southern intersection of East Marginal Way
South and South 128th Street. The sight distance measurements were performed assuming
that parking would be restricted within the sight triangles. The field measured sight
distances are given in the following tables.
TABLE 1— Entering Sight Distances (ESD)
INTERSECTION LOCATION
DIRECTION
FACING
,
EXISTING ESD
(FEET)
East Marginal Way South and South 128th
North
178
• Street (Southern Intersection)
South
203
Proposed Driveway Access onto East Marginal
North
220
Way South
South
395
Eastern Proposed Driveway Access onto South
East
148 '
128th Street
West
605 2
Proposed Driveway Access onto South
East
252 '
128th Street
West
502 2
1 Measured distance to -T' intersection with East Marginal Way South.
2 Measured distance to 'T' intersection with 37th Avenue South.
TABLE 2 - Stopping Sight Distance (SSD
INTERSECTION LOCATION
DIRECTION
TRAVELING
EXISTING SSD
(FEET)
East Marginal Way South and South 128th
South
185
Street (Southern Intersection)
North
210
Proposed Driveway Access onto East Marginal
South
230
Way South
North
395
Eastern Proposed Driveway Access onto South
West
148
1
128th Street
East
605
2
Western Proposed Driveway Access onto South
West
252
1 .
•
128th Street
East
502
2
1 Measured distance to "T" intersection with Fast Marginal Way Nrnrth
2 Measured distance to 'T' intersection with 37th Avenue South.
The entering sight distance measurements were made at a point on the intersecting roadway,
located 10 feet back from the edge of the traveled way of the through roadway, considering
an entering vehicle eye height of 3.5 feet and an approaching vehicle eye height of 4.25 feet.
The stopping sight distance measurements were made at a point on the through roadway,
located perpendicular to the centerline of the intersecting roadway in the center of the
traveled lane, considering an approaching vehicle eye height of 3.5 feet and an object height
of 0.5 feet.
The required sight distances were determined according to AASHTO's A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. The entering sight distance calculations were
performed for both passenger vehicles and large semitrailer combination trucks. The
calculations are in the appendix of this report and a summary of the results are shown in the
following tables.
(�,
1<
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 3 - Required Entering Sight Distances on
East Marginal Way South
INTERSECTION
MANEUVER
DIRECTION
FACING
PASSENGER
VEHICLES
COMBINATION
TRUCKS
Case IIIA - Crossing Maneuver
North
South
N/A 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Case IIIB - Turning Left
North
South
329 feet
284 feet
607 feet
576 feet
Case IIIC - Turning Right
North
South
329 feet
N/A
607 feet
N/A
oadway conditions do not permit crossing maneuvers.
TABLE 4 - Required Entering Sight Distances on
South 128th Street
INTERSECTION '
MANEUVER
DIRECTION
FACING
PASSENGER
VEHICLES
COMBINATION
TRUCKS
Case IIIA - Crossing Maneuver
East
West
N/A 1
N/A
•
478 feet
478 feet
Case IIIB - Turning Left
East
West
284 feet
235 feet
576 feet
434 feet
Case IIIC - Turning Right
East
West
N/A
235 feet
N/A
434 feet
•
rossing maneuvers were considered for trucks only due to the driveway
alignments across South 128th Street.
The required stopping sight distances were determined from the roadway's design speed and
are shown in the following table.
TABLE 5 - Required Stopping Sight Distances •
ROADWAY DESIGN SPEED
(MPH)
REQUIRED SSD
(FEET)
East Marginal Way South
35
250
South 128th Street
25
150
4
The southern intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street, and the
proposed driveway on East Marginal Way South do not meet the required entering sight
distances for either passenger vehicle or combination trucks. The intersection of East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street has insufficient stopping sight distance in both
directions. Only vehicles traveling north on East Marginal Way South will have adequate
stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway.
Both of the proposed driveways on South 128th Street meet the required entering sight
distances for both passenger vehicles and combination trucks. Stopping sight distances are
also sufficient for both driveways in both directions.
B. Accident History:
Accident information for the intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th
Street was obtained from the City of Tukwila Department of Public Works. Only one
accident has occurred at the intersection during the past three years. This accident occurred
on July 22, 1993, due to driver inattention and there were no injuries, only property damage.
C. Left Turn Lanes:
The need for left -turn lane facilities at the intersection of East Marginal Way and South
128th Street was evaluated according to AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets. According to information provided by Becker Transfer it was
determined that the peak hour would be from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., the time period when
all 45 employees arrived. The employee arrival patterns and volumes were assigned and are
shown in Figure 2. The results . of the evaluation indicated that the traffic volumes are too
low to warrant a left turn lane on East Marginal Way South at the South 128th Street
intersection.
IV. CONCLUSION /SUMMARY
According to the findings of this report it is recommended that the proposed parking lot be
limited to only the two access locations on South 128th Street. This recommendation is
based upon the following:
1. Entering sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate.
2. Stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate in both directions.
3. The recommendation from the City of Tukwila that the intersection be
restricted to an exit only would not promote a "safe" environment due to the
lack of sight distance.
5
It is also recommended that on- street parking be restricted within the sight distance triangles
along East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street. This would include approximately
200 feet north of the southern intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th
Street along the west side of East marginal Way South, and the entire southern side
(approximately 500 feet) of South 128th Street. These parking restrictions would provide
the maximum amount of sight distance for the intersections and limit the adverse safety •
impacts.
J I /,t fj. ,
i.�•' L rQ•- �'
#--93
7 / -/o- 91. 1
EXPIRES: /-/2 95
NOT TO SCALE
vardlbe
PAC -TECH uron«„ .l
'win o�n w� wrsn
•l■w wA .4.t.. =WM..'
r•r' w: i•• , b� MY ..I=mam ..
4 ••• w'w .:. ti•I••s ••••w
•
VPCNTY MAP
BECKER TRANS
TRAFf�IC STUDY
C►
to
S 128TH ST
✓
2
A-
I
S 130TH ST '41
10 (15) (2370 ADT)
S 128TH ST
LEGEND
S 133RD ST
5 (7)
XX (XX) 6:00 A.M. -7:00 A.M. VOLUMES (7:00 A.M.-8:00 A.M. VOLUMES).
(XXXX ADT)'. 1993 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
NOT TO SCALE
TRAFFIC VOLUMES USED
TO EVALUATE LEFT TURN
LANE CRITERIA.
FC -TECH c► ,.., .,�
& ii Armor. iCnIewonenki
__ .. •
••• • e* 1S • ;I= la Priar.
IS l •rP W
. TRAFFIC va.€s'
BECKER TRANSFER
TRAFFIC STUDY
FIGURE
2
(.D
ENTERING SIGHT DISTANCE CALCULATIONS
PAC TEC H Engineering, Inc.
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists
2601 South 35th, Suite 200 • Tacoma, WA 98409 -7479 • 473 -4491
6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 • Seattle, WA 98188 -2441 • 243 -7112
3721 Kitsap Way, Suite 4 • Bremerton, WA 98312 -2461 • 377 -2053
3640 South Cedar, Suite A • Tacoma, WA 98409 -5700 • 473 -4491
FOR:
BSCK.ER -T2.1WSFEf�
ESD PPswio CP LCS •
FILE NO.
50522
TA §k 06.
PREPARED BY: H A$
DATE: 11-3-q3
CHECKED BY:
SCALE:
PAGE
Z
5. N1a261 NPt. tORY S. -- POSTED: 2S MPH SP ti; LIM tT; ;
C!..�_. NSSUME 35 .MPN •
otCOR.D 1 t3 f& .."`p' P P S ikTO ._'..._ __ .._ __._.._ `:..._. •
l
SASE ti A -_ k) S I & �l p oet.t U e�. _ _ ' - - I
���T -.►, POSS'1 SLG; ALL' "T" .1L T E2SE�Ti Ohs .
•
1 -r• 1 1 ;-
I. i ' 1
1P1SC t t tt a - 1.e FT Tura 3S ; _ f -._ -- I ._ _...___.._ --�- -- 1 II 1
T_No i
UTtie _1.e5 RT{+) 'd s' 1• ;4-4 V (s to.) V s t35Me►+ T' s
iiI! 1_ 'PAss�E G't.ES. tP�.
' 29
1 - - -' ! I i ! i t' =. 41.4s....i._..1(v►C,,...It x -33)_ { .J ! 1 [ I 1
1
1 1 NP�Tl:Oto 'TR.UGK.S-..(h1B -50) 77 >! •
' tf
d;16201 f•1 ,
i !
•
1 ^1 �
2‘61-1-1- (c UT N) :: 2 LA E. 120Ap o i3 Y, oo metal Fi lA) -�- �-
Qom . 1&UR.E • ix
•
iQ)= .3421:
PAC_ TECH Engineering, Inc.
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists
`�r 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 • Tacoma, WA 98409 -7479 • 473-4491
6100 Southcenter Blvd„ Suite 100 • Seattle, WA 98188 -2441 • 243 -7112
3721 Kitsap Way, Suite 4 • Bremerton, WA 98312 -2461 • 377 -2053
3640 South Cedar, Suite A • Tacoma, WA 98409 -5700 • 473 -4491
FOR:
BectcE Q -ce RMSFE e.
FILE NO.
503Z2!'
TASK NO.
ESt PASHTO CIS LCS . PAGE
2
PREPARED BY: 4 3 DATE:11. 3 -�13 - 2_
CHECKED BY: SCALE:
I
OFII
SOOTN 1121�T1.1 S F.EGrt S?C-CD L1M.1T _25:MPI} __._ ;...; �_— .__..~
I I
...1 PtE'' Mk- cRoss rv&...M.F J UiE2 _ 1 .. ! + —•I--• 1.�__ 1 -- i i _: I 1 1
TRuCYS Guru. BE CPOSS1Nth TO ort-tE2.Al2tvet.06,y;._To
id..1 l•4 'iVCT* to.) : V• 25rnp•h 37.2s' ; I -1
' ! 1
1 s 1. ! • 1
a._. { 1 ;_.. 1 i- ' ■ •' - - -_ 1• S l Cam._
i I {t I
CASE Iii 13 - LEFT TUQ�VS I i
1 1; i! j I
1
E ' SFTi C`wetT) + d! i 1.49 v %T± o.-. V' 1Z mP S —
' � ' ).--)-__1___. -- -- P)2:1.44.11.i. CPS-- :Q.�4s '
--- ,_._�_.___.,. -.--- - ..,... .,. .gig ....- -
' I ! ` -• 1 s.(tN8-50 g3: bA (WB. -o)_.
AssuMED . DES■C,:ty SPCC -D. 25 MPl?._'
1:011. DAD ._.....
__� P ? `_' 1 ! ! 1 1
---;_ .- 1.._ -! .. I __.d► Nws . 50) q ; - -- - - - -- - -
FE.__e.1��-* cEPtsT) . j ►-
.
i
i I I
1
t
j - ; - ; 7 —• _ .: • - ' ' -E. X02. _1 -...; ._'. ! } ` '- I i- •
1_ :.. ' PCP).. Amu .... _._. .F16:�..IA _ '3s ! ' '
_ . _ ._
_�_ 'PCw8 'SO)..: Z�... y_._ ' ~ ICa(tbg.60) ? 3�8.._. - -� - - - -- i_ • --- -1 -
I . ' ± ' __._. (1-41•49.q(3-.4 to.) ... F�' Sm tit .' f' ZsI;. !.—;. ...__._.. __�...
- P
1
% P -1lo': -1•ctV -Veh. Itn 7
o�.� Kai j 9 1 :..
! '1
25.mp _': _ _•• ,._ __.
i
rtSE ! ui C Q.1(,HT To12 JS , __-
rorHE :=E' orv�y C WEST)
� I.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE COUNCIL, CITY OF TUKWILA
IN RE: )
Appeal of the Planning )
Commission's decision to ) Case
approve a Conditional Use )
Permit to Becker Trucking )
)
)
by )
)
Jackie L. Dempere, et al, )
Appellants )
)
g/Zifel■I -9209P--0
J �1LlCvvl
� ZI
No.L93 -0058
Appellants's Memorandum
In Support of notice Of
Appeal
I. INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila has
granted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to the Becker
Trucking Company. This CUP will allow Becker Trucking
to pave an one and a half acre lot which exhibits
sensitive features e.g., steep slope, rface wat
and wetland vegetation Srhis action will allow as low Becker
7
Tucking to expand its scope of operations above present
levels, generating 70 -80 vehicle trips per day. See
exhibit # 11 Environmental Checklist page 11, g. This
is a very conservative figure, examination of the truck
dispatches for the existing site, and the interim site
Becker Trucking has leased at 131st and 44th Ave will
confirm this claim.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 1
EXHIBIT -
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In a primarily residential neighborhood, activity
• of this type and volume would be an obvious detriment
to the quality of life and to the environment.
Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) a
threshold determination is required for all non - exempt
actions. Accordingly, the applicant (PAC -TECH
Engineering, Inc.) completed an environmental checklist
in support of its first application for a CUP in 1989.
Subsequently, the responsible official (Rick Beeler)
issued a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for
the subject proposal dated November 3, 1989, there was
comment period for this DNS. See exhibit # 5,
Determination of Nonsignificant. The CUP was
authorized, and after an appeal by many residents to
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Tukwila City Council, the
several
onditions. This
conditions were not met.
Becker Trucking applied for a
CUP was permitted with •
first CUP expired because
2nd CUP in August of
1993. The Planning Commission, relying on the DNS
issued in 1989, authorized the 2nd CUP- the subject of
this appeal. See exhibit # 8
II. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
A New Information
Either through misrepresentation or
because of simple ignorance the applicant
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
failed to disclose that the project area
contains Environmentally Sensitive Areas as -- e/
-� aY) S
defined in the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC)
Chapter 21.04.300. Tukwila has yet to map
wetlands in this newly annexed area, but this
C 1P1r
t)
omission does not absolve the applicant of k rly ? .
his duty to address the sensitive nature of ( 7
the proposed project site:
(c)Certain exemptions do not apply on
lands covered by water, and this remains
true regardless of whether or not lands
covered by water are mapped.(emphasis
added)
TMC21.04.300(c)
The residential character of the neighborhood has
also ben severely understated. These omissions and
misrepresentations render the Environmental Checklist
void and unreliable and requires the lead agency (City
of Tukwila) to withdraw the DNS issued in 1989:
The lead agency shall withdraw a DNS if:
(ii) There is significant new
information indicating, or on, a
proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts; or (iii) The DNS
was procured by misrepresentation or
lack of material disclosure
WAC197 -11 -340 (30) (a)
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1�
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WAC 197- 11- 600(3)(b)(ii) reinforces this concept
by requiring the preparation of a new threshold
determination if there is, "New information indicating
a proposal's probable significant adverse environmental
im•acts ". Obviously, grading, filling, and paving a
wetlan'i is far different than doing the same to a
"vacant lot ".
0171 ��y
Other new information includes ecently enacted
federal law designed to protect
Increased .
knowledge of the need to preserve and restore life in
wetland and waterway habitats have prompted the Feds,
to require a permit to discharge water into the river
(the Duwamish is less than a quarter mile distant).
Th- - tional Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
permit that Becker obtained in 1992, requires'.
minimum cleaning of the water before any run -off leaves
the lot This laws are not even enough to protect our
Duwamish, is up to Tukwila and other cities to act now.
The 1989 DNS does not (could not) reference this
information and the current CUP fails to address these
issues in its conditions. A new threshold determination
must be made utilizing current information. See
exhibit # 11.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING. MEMORANDUM. -.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
New OSHA les that require lighted workplaces and
backing satety features for loading equipment make
mitigation impossible in a residential neighborhood.
No light was permitted on the 1990 CUP ..7 J1/10C'i- �j�4l
We are also uninformed regarding the type of cargo
these trucks are carrying and storing on next to our
homes, another
federal regulation . 06141
wila Tomorro re •mm on zoning for t
site is neighbor ood commercial a use that allows fair
use and protects the quality of life of its residents.
This area is another Gateway to Tukwila and worthy
of the same attention.
Conditions which cannot be monitored properly
because of changes in enforcement responsibilities of
previous nois= and other Tukwila's Ordinances for
budgetary reasons.
B. Public Notice
A major goal of SEPA is to, "encourage public
involvement in decisions that significantly affect
environmental quality" (WAC 197- 11- 030(2)(F). But
before the public can become involved in the decision -
making process, it must be aware that a decision is
being contemplated.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM 5
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
• 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SEPA requires the lead agency to utilize
"reasonable methods" to inform the public of proposed
actions that may affect it. There are 70 signatures on
file on the
P, the administration chooses to
ignore this persons of "interest" claiming it is a (new
permit) clean slate! See exhibit # 6.
A lynch -pin of SEPA is liberal construction -
complying with both the letter and the spirit of the
law is required. There are residents living withi
feet of the project area who are still unaware ofd
Becker Trucking's expansion plans. These "most ._---
affected citizens" should have been i- ified directly
by mail of Becker's proposal at th. earliest •ossible
�C
det65-
time to allow them time to prepare reasoned, informed
comments. Apparently, the only method used to inform'
the public was publication of a notice in local
newspapers and The Hazelnut. Obviously, this was not a
"reasonable method" as evidenced by the lac ...nf public
erning the subject CUP. Original
signatories on the earlier expired CUP should also have
been directly notified.
TMC 18.92.020 requirements for this
new CUP is written notification to every
resident and owner within 300 feet of
the periphery of a Conditional &
Unclassified Use Permit, ten days before
each and every public hearing. This
requirement was' not met . .1 &Ate (_1 Py1 0-1 21 1-I'Y1e r
pd'JtJ1 g€1' .
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -6 PEF2-1 WH-77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Posted announcements required bylaw (when
complied with) have been nullified by a large "For
Sale" sign on the project site for the last several
years. Sale sign size a 30/1 compared to posted public
notice. ----- - NI117 S I ) 3O trce Pt w-aL-- - G
it:er,e) 7.42400a, llo PC,
It is understandably difficult for the council to make
an appropriate decision with inadequate information.
J'The quality of a decision depends on getting a full
story. Planning commission minutes must reflect fully
& accurately what was presented. Who makes the
decision about what the council will know about
citizens comments durin• the only unlimited Public
Hearing? See exhibit # 10
Minutes of the planning commission minutes were
provided late beyond reasonable time to main appellant.
Providing minutes within a reasonable time to
appellants is a reasonable expectation which has not
been met. See exhibit # 12. Letter from appellant "no
mentioning name applicant" to the council.
III. GROUNDS FOR REVOKING CUP
A. TMC 18.64.050 sets forth the criteria to be
used by the Planning Commission in granting a CUP.
criterion (1) states in full:
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -7
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
1]
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The proposed use will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or
improvements in the vicinity of the
proposed use or in the district in which
the subject property is situated.
Becker Trucking's proposed use is totally contrary to
this criterion:
* Increased traffic and air pollution will escalate
the health hazards in an already non - attainment area
for air pollutants.
* Gross vehicle weight is limited to 5 tons in the
subject neighborhood. Many of Becker's trucks have a
gross weight of 40 tons and have caused considerable
wear and damage to city roads and bridges.
* Recommended zoning for this area is neighborhood
commercial. Expansion of heavy trucking not only poses
a safety hazard but also significantly degrade the
quality of life of area residents as well as reducing
residential property values. The hours of operation of
7 days a week from 6 to 10 p.m. are not compatible with
a residential neighborhood. See exhibit #2.
The legislature recognizes that each
person has a fundamental and inalienable
right to a healthful environment and
that each person has a responsibility to
contribute to the preservation of the
environment. [1971 ex.s. c 109 2.]
Title 43 RCW: 43.21C.029
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -8
B. The CUP was approved beyond what was described
and requested in the application: See exhibit #10�
* Trailer parking has increased from 17 to 50.
* The Decker Transfer Traffic Study (page 5) or see
exhibit #5 specifically rules out the possibility of
providing access to the site via E. Marginal Way South
to safety concerns. Incredibly, the CUP was approved
WITH AN E. MARGINAL WAY ENTRANCE. See exhibit # 9
* The CUP requires Becker to limit its operations to
the hours of 6 am to 10 PM. However, Becker Trucking
has a long history of operating well into the early
morning and continues to do so despite complaints by
neighbors. Normal residential permitted noise hours
are already different for this site. See exhibit # 3.
* The lightning requested for the site together with
equipment noise that were prohibited but now change
will give a factory environment to the area and
disturbed peaceful and undisturbed sleep on a
residential neighborhood. See exhibit# 7
*
Tukwila's Tree Ordinance and buffer required for
surrounding zoning and uses. Existing trees will die
by the addition of propose
around 4' of their
trunks. Trees are not mature to be a buffer for
several years, are citizens going to be the buffers?
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -9
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
* Original zoning request for the site toKing)
count in talks about 512 trees planted on the existing
site either they died or were never planted. See
exhibit # 4, pg.4, dated October, 1978.
C., (IF fC, SAFETY
en feet fencing has been reduced to 6' with a 4'
26
27
28
irth
supposedly landscaped,) will created mud on
sidewalks, kill existing trees and became an eyesore
and unsafe place to walk by at night
* Attractive nuisance. Children are attracted to
equipment on the site and to th
created by
the opening into East Marginal Way, while on their way
to and from School or other neighborly activities. The
city of Tukwila does not have a safe route for children
coming from the Schools from 42th Ave. S. in their way
home or to the Community Center, as well as regular
pedestrians. ���(�Q.,I.��W� )
* The width of East Marginal Way South combined wit
the over size trucks makes hazard driving conditions
for every driver facing every arrival or departure of
truck from the existing site.
* i The failure to protect city property that you are
intrust to by it's Citizens. We have two known
instances of Becker'.s trucks getting stuck on the
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -10
1
2
3
4
.5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
/ roc 1'
bridge located on the approved route.' To avoid this
trucks are driving over the opposing traffic road space
at this point, creating a major safety hazard for
regular traffic under and over the bridge. The speed
on this location is 30 MPH. 5 miles more of what
Becker's Traffic Study considers unsafe stopping
`distance for the weight of these trucks. An entrance
into the Community Center's Playground is located at
this point and no safety features are in place!
* The speed, 1
sidewalks, safe crossings and .
visibilit .£-- the— rodtes rom tTiis
e such, that
the que tion is if but when a death will 'cur.
IV. SUMMARY
Heavy trucking, with its attendant noise,
pollution and safety impacts, will never be a
"compatible use" in a residential area. The existing
site will increase its already Unconditional Use.
Allowing Becker to expand its operation and the change
of conditions despite its history as a "violator
amounts to tacit approval to operate around the clock.
Failure to live up to CUP conditions have been
demonstrated twice.
NOTICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM -11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
To allow an expansion of such use is not only
unconscionable, but is in violation of state and local
law.
At the minimum more thorough study of the issues
is needed before issuing a CUP that affects so many
people.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED
Based on the foregoing, the Appellants hereby
request the following relief:
A. That the subject CUP issued to the Becker
Trucking Company be revoked immediately.
B. That a new threshold determination be required
in conjunction with any future application for a CUP
for the subject.
C. That this aforementioned CUP be the last one
accepted on this kind of use so that residents can have
some stability in their lives and property values.
D. Such other relief as is deemed just and proper.
Dated this 25th day of February, 1994.
B
Jackie L. Dempere
For the appellants
TICE OF APPEAL SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM - 12
pter
•age
his
it or
and
rich
ural
s. c
n—
an
for
t as
an's
ural
u l..
ion,
Jing
icai
:tal
an,
of
! Ed.)
z
_. Title 43 RCW: State Government=-Executive 43.21C.t.
Washington, in cooperation with federal and local govern-
ments, and other concerned public and private organizations,
to use all practicable means and measures, including finan-
cial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to: (a)
Foster and promote the general welfare; (b) to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
productive harmony; and (c) fulfill the social, economic, and
other requirements of present and future generations of
Washington citizens. • •
(2) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this
chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of
Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practica-
ble means, consistent with other essential considerations of
state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions,
programs, and resources to the end that the state and its
citizens may:
(a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as
trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;
(b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful,
productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing surround-
ings;
(c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended consequences;
(d) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural
aspects of our national heritage;
(e) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which
supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
(f) Achieve a balance between population and resource
use which will permit high standards of living and a wide
sharing of life's amenities; and
(g) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and
approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable
resources.
(3) The legislature recognizes that each person has a
fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment
and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the
preservation and enhancement of the environment. [ 1971
ex.s. c 109 § 2.]
43.21C.030 Guidelines for state agencies, local
governments— Statements — Reports — Advice-
Information. The legislature authorizes and directs that, to
the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regulations, and
laws of the state of Washington shall be interpreted and
administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this
chapter, and (2) all branches of government of this state,
including state agencies, municipal and public corporations,
and counties shall:
(a) Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which
will insure the integrated use of the natural and social
sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and
in decision making which may have an impact on man's
environment;
(b) Identify and develop methods and 'procedures, in
consultation with the department of ecology and the ecologi-
cal commission, which will insure that presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate
consideration in decision making along with economic and
technical considerations;
• (1992 Ed.)
(c) Include in every recommendation or report
proposals for legislation and other major actions significar
affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed staterr-
by the responsible official on:
(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action:
(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot
avoided should the proposal be implemented;
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;
(iv) the relationship between local short -term uses
man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement
long -term productivity; and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments
resources which would be involved in the proposed act:
should it be implemented;
(d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the respor.
ble official shall consult with and obtain the comments
any public agency which has jurisdiction by law or spec:
expertise with respect to any environmental impact involve
Copies of such statement and the comments and views of
appropriate federal, province, state, and local agencies, wh:_
are authorized to develop and enforce environmental st::
dards, shall 'be made available to the governor, the depa:
ment of ecology, the ecological commission, and the pub,
and shall accompany the proposal through the exist:-
agency review processes;
(e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate altemati•.
to recommended courses of action in any proposal wh:_
involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses
available resources;
(f) Recognize the world -wide and long -range charac:
of environmental problems and, where consistent with st:
policy, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolution
and programs designed to maximize international cooperati,
in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality
mankind's world environment;
(g) Make available to the federal government, oft..
states, provinces of Canada, municipalities, institutions, ar .
individuals, advice and information useful in restorin
maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environmet:
(h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in tr.
planning and development of natural resource- oriente
projects. [ 1971 ex.s. c 109 § 3.]
43.21C.031 Significant impacts. An environment_
impact statement (the detailed statement required by RC'
43.2IC.030(2)(c)) shall be prepared on proposals for legisi:.
tion and other major actions having a probable significan•
adverse environmental impact. Actions categorically exemr
under RCW 43.21 C.110(I)(a) do not require environment,.
review or the preparation of an environmental impa.:
statement under this chapter.
An environmental impact statement is required
analyze only those probable adverse environmental impac
which are significant. Beneficial environmental impacts ma:
be discussed. The responsible official shall consult wit:-
agencies and the public to identify such impacts and firm-
the scope of an environmental impact statement. The
subjects listed in RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) need not be treater:
as separate sections of an environmental impact statement.
Discussions of significant short-term and long -term environ-
mental impacts, significant irrevocable commitments o:
[Title 43 RCW —page 121
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE.
. (33) "Watercraft "•:•means cuy contrivance,
- xduding aircraft, used or capable of being used as a
.neans of transportation or. recreation. on water. • .
(34) "Weekday ". means. any day Monday
uirough Friday which is: not:.a legal holiday. .
(35) "Weekend ". means Saturday and Sunday
or any legal holiday. • • .
... • (Ord 1363 §1(part), 1985) •
8.22.030 Environmental sound levels — Unlawful sands.
It is unlawful for any person to cause sound, or for
any person in possession of property to permit sound
originating from such property, to intrude into the real
property of another . person whenever such sound
exceeds the maximum permissible sound levels
established by this chapter.
(Ord 1363 §!(part), 19831
8.22.040 Maxima pemtlssble sound levels.
. For sound sources located within the City, the
maximum permissible sound levels are as follows:
•
District of
Sound Source
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Receiving
55 dB(A) . -
57 dB(A)....
60-dB(A).
District of . •
Property Within the City
•- •57 dB(A) • 60 dB(A)
60 dB(A) 65 dB(A) .
m6550(A) ,- -70 dB(A)
(OnL 1363 51(par),.1985) •
A 22.050 Modifications do iimn ptse sound
The maximum ..permissible sound • levels •
established by this; I chapter :: shall be. reduced or
increased by the sum . of the following: • . •
(a) Between the hours of: ten .p.m. and seven a.m.
during weekdays, and •between the hours of ten: p.m.
and seven a.m. on : weekends, the .levels established
by Section 8.22.040 are :seduced by 10 dB(A) where
the receiving property lies -within a. residential district
of the ^+�Y
(b) For any source of sound which is periodic,
which has a pure tone component, or which is
impulsive and is not measured with an impulse sound
level meter, the levels established by this chapter shall
be reduced by 5 dB(A); provided, however, that this 5
dB (A) penalty for the. emission of sound having a pure
tone component shall not be imposed on any electrical
substation, whether existing or new.
(c) For any source of sound which is of short
duration, the levels established by this chapter are
increased by:
(1) 5 dB(A) for a total of fifteen minutes in any
ne -hour period; or
(2) 10 dB(A) for a total of five minutes in any
,;one -hour period; or
(3) 15 dB(A) for a total of 1.5 minutes in any
i ue -h ur period.
. (Ord. 1363 §!(part), 1985)
8.22.060 Motor vehialesound levels— Creeted by
open tt Is unlawful 'for any person to operate upon any
public- highway, any motor vehicle or any combination
of motor vehicles' under any conditions of grade, load,
acceleration or deceleration in such manner as to
exceed the following maximum permissible sound
levels for the category of vehicle, as measured at a
distance of fifty feet from the center of the lane of travel
within the speed limits specified by measurement
procedures established by the State Commission on
Equipment in WAC 204.56:
• 35 mph Over
Vehicle Category r. • or less 35 mph
Motor vehicles over 10,000
pounds GVWR or GCWR 86 dB(A) 90 dB(A)
Motorcycles 80 dB(A) 84 dB(A)
All other motor vehicles 76 dB(A) 80 dB(A)
(Ord 1363 §)(part), 1985)
8.22.070 Muffler requirements.
It -is unlawful for any person to operate, or for any
owner to permit any person to operate, any motor
vehicle upon*. the'• public highways which is not
equipped with a muffler in good working order and in
constant operation.
• (Ord 1363. §1(part), 1985)
•
8.22.080 Modittatlon of motor vehicles.
It is unlawful' for any person to operate a vehicle
which has' been modified.' or' changed in any way or
had installed any device thereon in y manner that
permits sound ••to- be emitted by the otor vehicle in
excess of the limits 'prescribed by chapter. It is
unlawful for any person to remove or render
inoperative, or cause to be removed or rendered
• inoperative, other than for purposes of maintenance,
'repair, or replacement,' any muffler or sound
dissipative *device.' on a -motor vehicle•'which is
• 'operated on the City's streets. • • • • ' 7
(Odd 1363 51(part), 1985)
8.22.090 Tine noise. .
It Is unlawful for any person to operate a motor
vehicle in. such a manner as to cause or allow to be
emitted squealing, screeching or other such sound
from the tires in contact with the ground because of
rapid acceleration or excessive speed around corners or
other such reason; provided, that sound resulting from
emergency braking to avoid imminent danger shall be
exempt from this section.
(Ord. 1363 51(part), 1985)
8.22.100 Sabot new motor vehicles which exceed knits.
It is unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale
within the City limits a new motor vehicle, except an
..off•highway vehicle, which produces a maximum
sound level exceeding the following maximum
Page 8-14
First Edition - Printed August 18, 1993
,. .i� iwVtN, Uiil. Nti. 1
ROBERT 8. DUNN, Dist. No. 2
BILL REAMS, Dist. No. 3
BERNICE STERN, Dist. No. 4
RUBY CHOW. Dist. No. 5
MIKE LOWRY, Dist. No. 6
PAUL BARDEN, Dist. No. 7
BOB GREIVE, Dist. No. 8
DAVE MOONEY, Dist. No. 9
King County Council
Bruce C. La Zoning & Subdivision Examiner
Room 403, King County Courthouse
Seattle, Washington 98104
344-3460
October 27, 1978
NOTICE OF ACTION BY TILE KING COUNTY
COUNCIL ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF TILE
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
RE: Building and Land Development File No. 261 -78 -R
Proposed Ordinance No. 78 -568
J. R. CATRON; SR & SR (Potential CG) to M *'
On October 23 , 1978 the Council passed
approving the above - referenced application.
On , 19 the Council passed
denying the above - referenced application.
Motion No. 3796
Motion No.
0 On , 19 the Council passed Motion No.
concurring in the recommendations of the Zoning and Subdivision
Examiner on the above- referenced item. The Council will not
take final action on the ordinance until the.applicant has
presented to the Building and Land Development Division, Room 450
King County Administration Building, evidence showing satisfaction
of the conditions contained in the Examiner's report, which was
previously transmitted to parties of record. If the conditions have
not been satisfied by , 19 , the Building and
Land Development Division will take action to close the file on the
application.
/ / I t
Bret C : —Laing
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION•EXAP
BCL /jk
cc: Parties of Record
��`,11 Building and Land Development Division
)the Council concurredwith the Exam_iner',s recommendation to approve
IJ' CG -P forortion of the property, subj.ect to conditions
OFFICE OF TIIEONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL.
•
SUBJECT: Building and .Land Development File No. 261 -78 -R
Proposed Ordinance No. 78 -568
J. R. CATRON
S -R and S -R (Potential C -G) to M -L
Three acres lying on the southwest corner of
• South 128th Street and East Marginal Way
South. •
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Division's preliminary:
Division's final:
Examiner:
PRELIMINARY REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
Approve CG -P in part, subject to conditions.
Approve CG -P in part, subject to conditions.
Approve CG -P in part, subject to conditions
(modified) .
The Building and Land Development pkelim'inary
report on Item 261 -78 -R was received by the
Examiner on July 20, 1978.
After reviewing the Building and Land Development
report, examining available information on file
with the application and visiting the property
and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the subject as follows:
The hearing on Item 261 -78 -R was opened by the Deputy Examiner at 10:10
A.M., July 27, 1978.
The Examiner explained procedures for the benefit of the participants.
Ms. Powers, Building and Land Development, made the following changes
to their preliminary report:
Page 1, Item D -4, King County Division of Planning: Memo dated
July 5, 1978 making recommendations.
Page 1,. Item D -1, King County Division of Traffic dated July 6,
1978 requesting additional right-of-way.
Page 2, add Item D -15: Washington State Department of Transportation.
dated July 10, 1978 indicating no interest.
Page 2, add Item U -16: Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Barnhardt
dated July 21, 1978.
Ms. Powers offered the following exhibits:
Exhibit No. 1 - Preliminary report dated July 27, 1978.
Exhibit No. 2
Exhibit No. 3
Exhibit No. 4
Application dated March 23, 1978.
Environmental CheckliEt dated March 23, 1978.
Declaration of Non - significance dated June 16,
1978.
Exhibit No. 5 - Assessor map of the NW; of Section'15 -23 -4
showing subject property outlined in red.
Exhibit No. 6 - Land Use Sheet 324 W (to be retained in the
Division's permanent working files).
Exhibit No. 7 - Two sheets of plans;
7 -1: Site plan;
7 -2: Drainage plan.
Exhibit No. 8 - Large copy of the Highline Community Plan Map
(to be retained in the Division's permanent
working files) .
Mr. Marbett, Building and Land Development, made the following
modification to the Division's preliminary report:
Page 4, Item K -1 should read: "The Highline Community Plan Map whic.
:was adopted as part of the Highline Community Plan under
Ordinance No. 3530 on December 19, 1977, has the easterly 370'
of the subject property shown as general commercial•area and
the remainder as single family. The area north of South 126th
Street and east of East Marginal Way is the area proposed
for expansion of the light manufacturing zone."
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Marbett.
Speaking in support were:
J. Ray Catron, applicant
3717 South 128th
Seattle, Washington 98168
Edwin J. Becker
Becker Transfer Company
16828 S.E. 28th •
Bellevue, Washington 98008
The Examiner directed questions to Mr. Becker. Mr. Marbett also
• responded.
•
Also speaking in support was:
Phil Hemmingway
4036 South 128th Street
Seattle, Washington
Mr. Becker made additional comments.
Speaking in oppos ition were:
Ruth Burnhardt
3704 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
Beverly Nicholso^
3810 South 130tL .street
Seattle, Washington
Ms. Nicholson offered the following exhibit:.
Exhibit No. 9 - Set of 35 letters in opposition.
The hearing on this matter was recessed at 10:53 A.M., and reconvened
' at 11:05 A.M., July 27, 1978.
Also speaking in opposition were:
Mr. Malasz
12633 - 35th Avenue South
Seattle, Washington 98168
Sharon Burnhardt
3418 South 126th
Seattle, Washington
Ms. Burnhardt offered the following exhibit:
Exhibit No. 10 - Two letters of opposition from Mrs. F. Bernhardt
and Mr. Robert J. Bernhardt respectively.
All proponents and opponents having given their presentation, the
participants responded with cross - examination and rebuttal.
Building and Land Development's final recommendation was to approve CG -P
in lieu of M -L for the easterly 264 feet of the subject property
subject to conditions as stated in their preliminary report.
The hearing on Item 261 -78 -R was closed by the. Deputy Examiner at 11:38
A.M., July 27, 1978.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in
this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. General Information:
Location: Lying on the southwest corner of South
128th Street and east of Marginal Way South
Existing Zone: S -R and S -R (Potential C -G)
Requested Zone: M -L
STR: 15 -23 -4
Size: 3 acres
Water District: 38
Sewer District: Val Vue
Fire District: #18
School District: #406
2. Approval of this application will constitute a "major action"
under the provis ons of R.C.W. 43.21C and WepA.C. 197 -10. The
applicant submit d an environmental oheckl,,t with .the
application. After reviewing the environmental checklist, the
Manager of the Building and Land Development Division made a
threshold determination that approval of this application will not
have a significant adverse impact upon the quality of the environment
and that an environmental impact statement is not required. The
Building and Land Development Division transmitted a proposed
declaration of non - significance to other agencies with jurisdiction
on June 16, 1978. After theelapse of fifteen days following the
transmittal and after reviewing comments submitted by agencies with
jurisdiction and by other parties, the Manager of the Building and
Land Development division adopted the proposed declaration as a final
declaration of non - significance. At the public hearing on this
application a representative of the Building and Land Development
Division reported that having considered the comments and testimony
by agencies with jurisdiction and by other parties, having visited
the subject property, and having evaluated the natural, physical
and social systems related to this application, the Building and
Land Development Division reaffirms its determination that approval
of this application will not have a significant adverse impact on the
quality of the environment and an environmental impact statement
is not required.
3. The purpose of the request is to allow parking for employees
of the adjacent transfer and storage company in the easterly one-third
of the property and parking for transfer trucks and trailers in the
central portion. The most westerly portion is intended to be leased
or sold for. other light manufacturing purposes.
4. The subject property was zoned SR and .SR (Potential CG) at the
time of the Highline Area Zoning Study, adopted by Resolution No.
34529 on December 11, 1967. Prior to that time the zoning on the
subject property was R7.2 (Residential Single' Family District).
There is no indication in the record that a more intensive zoning
classification than the above was requested or considered during
the 1965 area zoning.
5. The property directly north, across 128th Street from the westerl
400 feet of the property, was reclassified ML subject to screening
conditions in 1977 (249- 74 -P). This property, which is occupied by
the intended lessee or purchaser of portions of the subject property
(the Becker Transfer Co.), has placed about 510 trees and shrubs in th
required peripheral screening of that site. The owner of this firm
advised that the company has experienced considerable growth the past
years and is seeking additional employee and truck parking space. Th .
present parking area is fully occupied by both, and employees are
parking.on the surrounding streets. ML permits both types of parking,
but CG would limit the expansion to employee parking lots.
6. The applicant asserted that industrial expansion in the immediate
area is inevitable because of the proximity of industry to the north
and the ready access to new freeway and industrial expressway routes.
7. Opponents who filed letters or testified at the hearing are
seeking to preserve an existing residential area to the south and
west of the site. Testimony indicated that many young families with
elementary age children live in the area and attend a nearby school.
They are concerned about the truck traffic and the gradual erosion of
the line of demarcation between residence and industry.
8. The Highline Communities Plan indicates general commercial for the
easterly 370 feet more or less of the property_and residential for the
,westerly 160 feet r( e or less. This designa 3n corresponds with
the existing potential zoning on the property.
Ordinance 3747 requires, during the interval between Community Plan
adoption and Area Zoning adoption that reclassification requests in
the Highline Area be judged by the Community Plan. The Highline Area
Zoning has not been adopted as yet.
9. The application for ML is opposed by the Cities.of Seattle and
Tukwila:
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Based upon the whole record and according substantial weight
to the determination of environmental significance made by the
Division of Building and Land Development, it is concluded that
approval of the subject action as recommended below, would not
significantly affect the quality of the environment. All
evidence of environmental impact relating to the proposed action
.and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action have been
included in the review and consideration of the subject action..
2. The request for ML is inconsistent with the Highline Communities
Plan and would have an unreasonable impact on an existing residential
community.
3. The reclassification to CG -P with certain limitations and
conditions would carry out the Highline Communities Plan.and would
be consistent with the intent of the 1965 area zoning.
4. Screening, landscaping and restoration of graded land outside .
of the potential CG property is essential in order to establish a
more definite and defensible line of demarcation between residential
and non - residential uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve CG -P in lieu of ML for the. eastern 264' of the subject
property subject to the following post- ordinance conditions:
!l. A plot plan to be approved by the Division of Building and
Land Development showing circulation, access and parking layout.
(2. A landscape plan showing a minimum landscape strip of 20'
along the west and south property lines and 10' along South 128th Street
as required by the adopted Highline Plan (page 35)(e).
3. A bond, the amount to be determined at the time of the plat
plan submittal to insure the installation of the approved landscaping.
.4 A plan for the restoration.of ground cover in the westerly
third of the subject property and, where feasible, on the cut slopes
of the south and west boundaries of the applicant's ownership.
ORDERED THIS 10th day of August, 1978.
Rnhort- A
I ?vnlPit,h
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal Development of an improved parking facility for employee
parking and semi -truck trailers.
Proponent PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
Jeffrey D. Mann 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Seattle, WA. 98188
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Southwest corner of South
128th St. and East Marginal Way.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC
24 -89
the lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS
[l This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title Planning Director
Phone 433 -1846
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, T ' WA 98 88
Date . ��� ��, 37/e/7(`."7 S i g n a t u r e 46-41
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
'opies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
lanning Department.
FM.DNS
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
RECEIVE() (6
CITY OF TUKWIL\
JAN 1 8 1990
PERMIT CENTER
In considering the request by Becker Transfer for a conditional use
permit allowing parking of tractors and trailers in addition to the
parking of employee vehicles which is presently allowed, interested
residents respectfully bring the following areas of concern to your
attention:
1. Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto E. Marginal Way
from S. 128th, due to the dangerous blind curve which obstructs the
view south of S. 126th St. A 45' -48' truck pulling out onto E.
Marginal Way from S. 128th St. would not be visible in time for
through traffic to stop. The radius of turn for a large truck
could present an impediment for both south and northbound traffic.
The volume of traffic generated by Metro, Boeing and the Bank
Computer Center among others demands further scrutiny.
2. Problems of surface water management, emanating from the
subject property. The problem of the flooding of S. 128th St. was
created when the swamp, which is now the subject property, was
filled and graded to become a parking lot. Waterflow generated
from springs on the subject property has never been properly
channeled. S. 128th St. readily becomes a lake which prevents its
use in the area between Mr. Becker's north and south properties,
with the lake extending westerly depending on the amount of
rainfall.
3. The landscape design has provided a minimal plan for screening
of the proposed truck terminal and storage yard. Residents would
like to see a living wall of vegetation as required in 1979. The
design totally neglects the vital provisions for maintenance of the
landscaping materials to ensure their survival and optimum growth.
A sprinkler system should be a minimum requirement and the
employment of a qualified, approved, bonded landscape architect
should be mandatory. A bond at maximum % should also be required
of Mr. Becker. Landscape island requirements within the parking
area need to be consistent with City requirements in Southcenter
and elsewhere in Tukwila. An intrusion of this magnitude into a
residential community needs to contribute not detract.
4. Threat to neighborhood security of an unfenced, visually
screened, accessible parking area needs. to be addressed. There is
already a potential for liability from unauthorized use of the
subject property. The subject property needs a security fence with
gates which are locked after. work hours (between 10:00 pm and 6:00
am and on weekends). A fence which is placed inside the
landscaping will serve an aesthetic purpose as well as reduce
fencing costs for Mr. Becker.
BECKER TRANSFER
ATTACHMENT D
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
.2.ei ,1. .i.:i% Lr
AMMIMffil aL
Address
4(q s- hQF-NL-z--
/20 -2-7 I
t
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
0)
42st ('39S
C31('1 e" S
99. ) ,S(c) %yf3 c4- *.r /379 Li :2
/y3% 6) ly"-zY re
4/,5— ,S;;. % 3 9t41
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional U.se Permit 89-3-CU
Design Review 89-10-DR
Signature
Xf /6'72,01
Address
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
riA■ee-g,% �3, (� ii
oec7.,.
: (3r77 if 4. ..yc
Address
,34//g l
?ci/g 126
kW, , 3 o - 3 9_
/ 2 t4' c tp,
I .
./
y n rc: Sc.
is 11 I%
12 /././/1-
,9d-// g Sc' / ,()
/ase9 7 ,3<-23-774v
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Us.e Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. , We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
44.-/
074aitli .rn (J44.40_1
,ff/a9,01:, am.<-7
g7,(\A 14,1/44)k.
1-“,)/L.
/3263 1-&' '-.. at .
/34/09 . /Cr '� 6-1't V, s
4505'7 -0 -/ a
I. ?(.?57 �� ;`- �v�•,5n.
(j 0I 1 11,:/-7- S(j .
1
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents. '
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between _industrial and
residential uses was established by. King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
i
'' //'f
1
f 3
Address
ac•.(! Isciaace. wad' u.r:
3/ 37a Cia.4 �. °• �. c :t %y'
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line_42f demarcation between industrial and
residential, uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
•
Sc,
/3a /7- c3eFt k. So .
a, Y'2Lc--1 ,•..- ail() ..)24,1,44 /34.
r„�•
r /.3!?/ � - ,.,�i '? "�" �' ,tom , �-� L�� �
r
/3 oil .37 /71,1-(.x' j
3 0 / s`— 3 3 `-d
/' ''L ,J 4n (1w),tz4,) •
/3 60 7 7-X1 -
35-2) 5c 130 5r
.4114'11 6g
13n'3 39 % /40E, S.
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of pavina of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried .on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
1433 • / 2
!2�10 t . MdNil1;,t( Uki S,
,a4- moo. /
/,?/, 9 .1'874
3717 S I28
I C6Og 37-01 s .
1Z1f3g 37 41 S
12.13:5' 37 Q SO
: '/7 1/ ii' S.
/307 g mss,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89-3-CU
Design Review 89-10-DR
Signature
tir.
w
w
.-_ •
rez.„ ffm
Address
terz.,c1 45-. lAtg:
4/47-46
J302-6— 4./Y AVg Soo
y//1;
110,40
REVISED CONDITIONS
BY THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 2, 1990
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
File 89 -3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee
automobiles, trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six
months of approval date. (October 2, 1990)
5. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will
provide a safe intersection for automobiles. If a
restriction of parking along East Marginal Way is deemed
necessary, then an ordinance will be passed to provide for
such restriction.
Design Review Conditions
File 89 -10 -DR
Prior to issuance of Building Permit revise plan to include:
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
2. Placement of wheelstops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
3. Increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will
be a minimum of 10 feet high at installation.
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated.
Landscaping along the East Marginal Way property line will
be enhanced to provide the same level of screening required
along the south and west property lines. This requires the
addition of shrubs and trees with the trees plaltted at 4
feet on center. The species will be identical.to those
planted on the adjacent property lines.
5. Provide a drainage system plant that will eliminate the
flooding problem on South 128th Street. Plan will be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
6. Applicant will be required to install a security fence
around the property with locking gates at entries. An eight
foot high cyclone fence will be located inside the planting
buffer and will include an additional two feet of barbed -
wire at the top.
7. Revise landscape plan in the Southwest corner to decrease
erosion that is currently occurring by retaining original
landscape plan with the addition of erosion- resistant
planting on slope and provide a curb to protect wall /edge of
hillside from damage by automobiles.
,ONDITIONAL USE APP ;ATION Page 2. ci
(
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY:Employee parking, truck trailer parking (unimproved lot) .
6. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020):
Conditional uses listed in the specified use district.
7. ADJACENT
LAND
USES
North:Becker Transfer Company -*Truck terminal
South: Residential single family homes
East Vacant property
West Residential single family homes
.8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale /retail /warehouse functions, outside storage of goods or
equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding of the activities you
proposed to develop on this site):
trailers.
9. Will the conditional use be in operation and /or a building to house the use be started
within a year of issuance of the permit?
Yes
10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a Conditional Use Permit
will satisfy each of the following criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030 (attach additional
sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public wel fare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in
which the subject property is situated.
RESPONSE:
Operations on the site will primarily occur during normal business hours. The
site will be heavily screened by landscaping on boundaries abutting residential
areas. The site is adjacent to East Marginal Way which serves industrial traffic.
No lighting is proposed. Landscaping will mitigate potential detriment to
surounding properties.
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required
in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE:
The site has provided 15 to 22.5 feet of lanscaping as required by the Tukwila
Municipal Code. Trees will be planted at an initial 6 feet (1 foot over the
minimum of five feet). Screening trees will be planted 4' on center which will
provide a total site obscurring buffer.
CONDITIONAL USE APP' TION
10. (continued)
Page 3
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
RESPONSE:
No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing
industrial uses in the area and will use the same materials for ingress and egress.
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Land Ilse Policy Plan.
RESPONSE:
Comprehensive planning efforts as part of the annexation designated this site
for commercial /manufacturing uses. The site will propose a low intensity use
that is well buffered to providr compatibility and consistancy with land use
policies.
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed
use may have on the area in which it is located.
RESPONSE:
Screening of the site will mitigate potential aesthetic impact. The site will
have a reletively low traffic generation and will only use Easy Marginal Way for
access. Storm drainage will be provided to handle std water from the parking
area_ ThPrp will he no on —site lighting.
The southern intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street, and the
proposed driveway on East Marginal Way South do not meet the required entering sight
distances for either passenger vehicle or combination trucks. The intersection of East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street has insufficient stopping sight distance in both
directions. Only vehicles traveling north on East Marginal Way South will have adequate
stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway.
Both of the proposed driveways on South 128th Street meet the required entering sight
distances for both passenger vehicles and combination trucks. Stopping sight distances are
also sufficient for both driveways in both directions.
B. Accident History:
Accident information for the intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th
Street was obtained from the City of Tukwila Department of Public Works. Only one
accident has occurred at the intersection during the past three years. This accident occurred
on July 22, 1993, due to driver inattention and there were no injuries, only property damage.
C. Left Turn Lanes:
The need for left -turn lane facilities at the intersection of East Marginal Way and South
128th Street was evaluated according to AASHTO's A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets. According to information provided by Becker Transfer it was
determined that the peak hour would be from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., the time period when
all 45 employees arrived. The employee arrival patterns and volumes were assigned and are
shown in Figure 2. The results of the evaluation indicated that the traffic volumes are too
low to warrant a left turn lane on East Marginal Way South at the South 12Sth Street
intersection.
W. CONCLUSION /SUMMARY
According to the findings of this report it is recommended that the proposed parking lot be
limited to only the two access locations on South 128th Street. This recommendation is
based upon the following:
1. Entering sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate.
2. Stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway on East Marginal Way is
not adequate in both directions.
3. The recommendation from the City of Tukwila that the intersection be
restricted to an exit only would not promote a "safe" environment due to the
lack of sight distance.
5
November 12, 1993
City of Tukwila, City Council and Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Board of architectural Review Public Hearing
Case Number L93 -0058 Becker's Trucking Expansion
Dear Council Members and Mayor.
I would like to bring to your attention regarding the need to involve the South
Central School District on the decision to issue this Conditional Use Permit.
I have been involved on the reversal of a City of Seattle permit to Waste
Management, in a site by the First Avenue Bridge. During arguments in front of
Hearing Examiner, I became aware that trucks, going to and from industrial
areas, were a major concern. The School District have a responsibility to protect
students that walk to school. The existing Community Center site belongs to the
South Central Schools, there is the strong possibility that it will return to its
former use.
Allentown lost its school site to a Tukwila Park, the new Sports Play -Field was
also a School location. There is a great amount of hope for the increase of
single family homes in Tukwila. The City of Tukwila has a duty to protect the
quality of life and safety of future residents of its allocated SF zones. The hill
north of 128th is zoned SF, this site is a stone throw from 'Becker's. The approval
of this permit could adversely affect its development.
You may possibly be in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, since the
Community Center is a Public Facility and walking access is unsafe for children
and people. I am referring to the very ackward situation for wheelchairs, bicycles
and pedestrians crossing 133rd or East Marginal Way to East side of 42th
avenue towards the Schools or, Community Center. The speed on the street is
30 miles per hour, but frequently, I have seen police giving tickets to. speeders.
The area across Becker's is also a dangerous crossing for vehicles and
pedestrians.
November 12, 1993 - page 2, Becker's.
I would like the City to study the possibility of working with King County
to purchase all of Becker's property at a fair market value. This property could
address the need for senior and.other subsidized housing, together with support
services.
I will be very thankful if you could address these possibilities and requests.
Sincerely
Jackie Llinas Dempere
4033 South 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
cc: South Central School Board
TO: Tukwila Planning Commission
DATE: 17 January 1990 •
RE: Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89-10-DR
5.- The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
RECEIVE()
CITY OF TLU<WILA
JAN 1 8 1990
PERMIT CENTER
In considering the request by Becker Transfer for a conditional use
permit allowing parking of tractors and trailers in addition to the
parking of employee vehicles which is presently allowed, interested
residents respectfully bring the following areas of concern to your
attention:
1. Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto E. Marginal Way
from S. 128th, due to the dangerous blind curve which obstructs the
view south of S. 126th St. A 45' -48' truck pulling out onto E.
Marginal Way from S. 128th St. would not be visible in time for
through traffic to stop. The radius of turn for a large truck
could present an impediment for both south and northbound traffic.
The volume of traffic generated by Metro, Boeing and the Bank
Computer Center among others demands further scrutiny.
2. Problems of surface water management emanating from the
subject property. The problem of the flooding of S. 128th St. was
created when the swamp, which is now the subject property, was
filled and graded to become a parking lot. Waterflow generated
from springs on the subject property has never been properly
channeled. S. 128th St. readily becomes a lake which prevents its
use in the area between Mr. Becker's north and south properties,
with the lake extending westerly depending on the amount of
rainfall.
3. The landscape design has provided a minimal plan for screening
of the proposed truck terminal and storage yard. Residents would
like to see a living wall of vegetation as required in 1979. The
design totally neglects the vital provisions for maintenance of the
landscaping materials to ensure their survival and optimum growth.
A sprinkler system should be a minimum requirement and the
employment of a qualified, approved, bonded landscape architect
should be mandatory. A bond at maximum % should also be required
of Mr. Becker. Landscape island requirements within the parking
area need to be consistent with City requirements in Southcenter
and elsewhere in Tukwila. An intrusion of this magnitude into a
residential community needs to contribute not detract.
4. Threat to neighborhood security of an unfenced, visually
screened, accessible parking area needs. to be addressed. There is
already a potential for liability from unauthorized use of the
subject property. The subject property needs a security fence with
gates which are locked after.work hours (between 10:00 pm and 6:00
am and on weekends). A fence which is placed inside the
landscaping will serve an aesthetic purpose as well as reduce
fencing costs for Mr. Becker.
BECKER TRANSFER
:'' ATTACHMENT D
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990.
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of pavinq of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation bet ween i,ndust ial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
W.
-1251 ISctat
i .3`` (CC 14 ? ' Prd
PRac'e ari'
�1�i31 v %Y8 �r /379.2-y2
'IL/ 3/ Sv
1r /,5"- S;. i39
If
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Signature.
Address
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature Address
L,�, ,,�et_
,:
' ' L -J
d 77 h
i
&i - /
(f / R 1z6
k ) ? 6 3o- 3 / r`-
42 y - ci.,
1
,
3.1f q-
, 1 ;
//,-'y J ` `4 J Nei ! ''- ;Wet
S 7 35' -A ✓c . --,
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Us.e Permit
Design Review.
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
el) kcobv
U2)
; 0.. d c7ti
0,(46A,1 4'4
,„
Lufrkti.
Address
/3261 46,4k- Ylc .
■..ke
• / y, . '.
1)Al c-- (/ r]1`1 L4ii/. Sy).
11)O29 , JoY''
�J�
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is. important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents. •
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
j•esident.ial uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
6/2 Gtr/ LU, 6
Address
f31.,2a2 .40 a c• e .:57 c14144/4.1 . FP 168
/1/W ;1�? -7r= U/. %d . . 1 b 'l' ? /
/3o.3/ 37a
TO
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit
Design Review
89 -3 -CU
89 -10 -DR
5. The quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions, for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial, and,
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
a. )201,v4,--
r0
;,_/
. —
/ GL6cc r
/ ! G2.1 tee (! 11)6.1--1
Address
/3-71 7 38"A�e S o
/ 3a i 7 - 3yt Aize So .
/ P�•!� gFMhke_ Sv
3g c v .. /36f',1".
t3ry 7- - 71,-.?,z
/30/ / .31,'',ff-Le 5
/3co7 e6 :;4 5-11 (izw.c4) `.
/3 60 7 S-7 . . ze''11
L`�L
)&'3 3r-'�I kF. &.
3 7 t ``",4 , S. .
TO:
DATE:
RE:
Tukwila Planning Commission
17 January 1990
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
5. The Quality of paving of the subject property needs to be
spelled out in detail; likewise, curbing inside the parking area.
A surface which will not break down under truck use is important.
Mud carried•on truck and employee vehicle tires is transferred onto
city streets creating nuisance conditions for drivers and
residents.
6. Precedence for a line of demarcation between industrial and
residential uses was established by King County in an August 10,
1978 hearing. Tukwila was fully in support of the community's
efforts to maintain their residential base. We earnestly petition
that the City of Tukwila reaffirm that position.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature
Address
kri) 4ID. /�
/2.5 -t LLO. So
1200-2_ AAevpag S.
//078
...•,. d - .y _� 3717 S IN
Q7
l7C6-09, 3 ?t" 5,
1 2 - T 3 5 - 37'2' 3
1213:5' 39
/35/7 it?
To: Tukwila Planning Commission
DATE: 17 January 1990
RE: Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit 89 -3 -CU
Design Review 89 -10 -DR
Signature
VA 1
Address
t,-7;o
-ef i 47- 4c6- + ,
_1302-6- AJ1 sa
/ /,7 g-
REVISED CONDITIONS
BY THE CITY COUNCIL APRIL 2, 1990
Conditional Use Permit Conditions
File 89 -3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of
landscaping to include materials, labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee
automobiles, trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation of the site will be confined to the hours
between 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six
months of approval date. (October 2, 1990)
5. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will
provide a safe intersection for automobiles. If a
restriction of parking along East Marginal Way is deemed
necessary, then an ordinance will be passed to provide for
such restriction.
Design Review Conditions
File 89 -10 -DR .
Prior to issuance of Building Permit revise plan to include:
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way.
2. Placement of wheelstops in parking spaces adjacent to
landscape areas.
3. Increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will
be a minimum of 10 feet high at installation.
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated.
Landscaping along the East Marginal Way property line will
be enhanced to provide the same level of screening required
along the south and west property lines. This requires the
addition of shrubs and trees with the trees platted at 4
feet on center. The species will be identicai.to those
planted on the adjacent property lines.
5. Provide a drainage system plant that will eliminate the
flooding problem on South 128th Street. Plan will be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
6. Applicant will be required to install a security fence
around the property with locking gates at entries. An eight
foot high cyclone fence will be located inside the planting
buffer and will include an additional two feet of barbed -
wire at the top.
7. Revise landscape plan in the Southwest corner to decrease
erosion that is currently occurring by retaining original
landscape plan with the addition of erosion - resistant
planting on slope and provide a curb to protect wall /edge of
hillside from damage by automobiles.
,ONDITIONAL USE APP ;AT1ON Page 2 -
5. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY:Employee parking, truck trailer parking (unimproved lot) .
6. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (from list in TMC 18.64.020):
Conditional uses listed in the specified use district.
7. ADJACENT North: Becker Transfer Company Truck terminal
LAND
USES
South: Residential single family homes
East: Vacant property
West Residential single family homes
.8. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (for example, describe the manufactur-
ing processes used, wholesale /retail /warehouse functions, outside storage of goods or
equipment or other information which will facilitate understanding of the activities you
proposed to develop on this site):
trailers.
9. Will the conditional use be in operation and /or a building to house the use be started
within a year of issuance of the permit?
Yes
.10. Describe the manner in which you believe that your request for a Conditional Use Permit
will satisfy each of the following criteria as spedfied in TMC 18.64.030 (attach additional
sheets, if necessary).
A. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public wel fare or injurious
to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in
which the subject property is situated.
RESPONSE:
Operations on the site will primarily occur during normal business hours. The
site will be heavily screened by landscaping on boundaries abutting residential
areas. The site is adjacent to East Marginal Way which serves industrial traffic.
No lighting is proposed. Landscaping will mitigate potential detriment to
surounding properties.
B. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required
in the district it will occupy.
RESPONSE:
The site has provided 15 to 22.5 feet of lanscaping as required by the Tukwila
Municipal Code. Trees will be planted at an initial 6 feet (1 foot over the
minimum of five feet). Screening trees will be planted 4' on center which will
provide a total site obscurring buffer.
CONDITIONAL USE APP' : °' TEL
10. (continued)
Page 3
The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in
terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design.
RESPONSE:
No buildings are proposed. The proposed use will be compatible with the existing
industrial uses in the area and will use the same materials for ingress and egress.
D. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Land Use Policy Plan.
RESPONSE:
Comprehensive planning efforts as part of the annexation designated this site
for commercial /manufacturing uses. The site will propose a low intensity use
that is well buffered to providr compatibility and consistancy with land use
policies.
E. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed
use may have on the area in which it is located.
RESPONSE:
•
iti•ate .otential aesthetic im•act. The site will
�•
have a re1etively low traffic generation and wi11 only use Easy Marginal Way for
. •V . - . • • - • . - • •111
Aran_ Thorp will hP nn nn —cite lighting.
The southern intersection of East Marginal Way South
proposed .driveway on East Marginal Way South do no
distances for either passenger vehicle or combination
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street has insuffici
directions. Only vehicles traveling north on East Margi
stopping sight distance for the proposed driveway.
Both of the proposed driveways on South 128th Street
distances for both passenger vehicles and combination tr
also sufficient for both driveways in both directions.
B. Accident History:
and South 128th Street, and the
meet the required entering sight
rucks. The intersection of East
nt stopping sight distance in both
al Way South will have adequate
meet the required entering sight
cks. Stopping sight distances are
Accident information for the intersection of East Mary nal Way South and South 128th
Street was obtained from the City of Tukwila Depart ent of Public Works. Only one
accident has occurred at the intersection during the past t ree years. This accident occurred
on July 22, 1993, due to driver inattention and there were no injuries, only property damage.
C. Left Turn Lanes:
The need for left -turn lane facilities at the intersection
128th Street was evaluated according to AASHTO's
Highways and Streets. According to information pro
determined that the peak hour would be from 6:30 a.m.
all 45 employees arrived. The employee arrival patterns
shown in Figure 2. The results of the evaluation indicat
low to warrant a left turn lane on East Marginal Way
intersection.
IV. CONCLUSION /SUMMARY
According to the findings of this report it is recommende
limited to only the two access locations on South 128t
based upon the following: •
1. Entering sight distance for the proposed drivewa
not adequate.
2. Stopping sight distance for the proposed drivewa
not adequate in both directions.
3. The recommendation from the City of Tukwil
restricted to an exit only would not promote a "sa
lack of sight distance.
5
f East Marginal Way and South
Poli on Geometric Desi of
'ded by Becker Transfer it was
o 7:30 a.m., the time period when
nd volumes were assigned and are
d that the traffic volumes are too
South at the South 128th Street
that the proposed parking lot be
Street. This recommendation is
on East Marginal Way is
on East Marginal Way is
that the intersection be
e" environment due to the
November 12, 1993
City of Tukwila, City Council and Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Board of architectural Review Public Hearing
Case Number L93 -0058 Becker's Trucking Expansion
Dear Council Members and Mayor.
I would like to bring to your attention regarding the need to involve the South
Central School District on the decision to issue this Conditional Use Permit.
I have been involved on the reversal of a City of Seattle permit to Waste
Management, in a site by the First Avenue Bridge. During arguments in front of
Hearing Examiner, I became aware that trucks, going to and from industrial
areas, were a major concern. The School District have a responsibility to protect
students that walk to school. The existing Community Center site belongs to the
South Central Schools, there is the strong possibility that it will return to its
former use.
Allentown lost its school site to a Tukwila Park, the new Sports Play -Field was
also a School location. There is a great amount of hope for the increase of
single family homes in Tukwila. The City of Tukwila has a duty to protect the
quality of life and safety of future residents of its allocated SF zones. The hill
north of 128th is zoned SF, this site is a stone throw from Becker's. The approval
of this permit could adversely affect its development.
You may possibly be in violation of the American with Disabilities Act, since the
Community Center is a Public Facility and walking access is unsafe for children
and people. I am referring to the very ackward situation for wheelchairs, bicycles
and pedestrians crossing 133rd or East Marginal Way to East side of 42th
avenue towards the Schools or, Community Center. The speed on the street is
30 miles per hour, but frequently, I have seen police giving tickets to speeders.
The area across Becker's is also a dangerous crossing for vehicles and
pedestrians.
November 12, 1993 - page 2, Becker's.
I would like the City to study the possibility of working with King County
to purchase all of Becker's property at a fair market value. This property could
address the need for senior and other subsidized housing, together with support
services.
I will be very thankful if you could address these possibilities and requests.
Jackie Llinas Dempere
4033 South 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
•
cc: South, Central School Board
5V./ 10. to -4
IJW 15-LJ-�
SCALE 1"= 100'
SIM SW 10 -a3-
nor": •zAr VAC. 5- i1•4f; ar. VAC. !•14••14 7HIt90145
.. • 7007t4009t 1i e 1. • X i '47. v1 ^ ‘41/4;
4 • sSC. tst•04. •
1 : 22 : 21 : 20 l J • 18
•
SP ' = •;-4 - S;S o1 9101140403
)T
34•
/r1.
)o•co,v
0
... • 0
:r
•3Igg: LOT :B
PC): ,:..� 3
• • •1 ::'' 4g: �7SO o10 401
• IRV
••. • • r..1 liii; 14.61
• ♦1 R�
l!'4
it 94.Sef
2
"� 13 "
00vy
"too
16.
•
f
40p. 006
.o
•
. 2SG
IP 66
poo
JO
-:o 4047
11
7.5466°
i
J0
J0
100
1
so
00
1oi11 1 p0 61
to00
18
21
11 flk0
0405
22
IpggO Opgalh
23 24
010
a
1000
25
4p00 0
ooio
.00.11
(SAMPSOO RP.)
225
`0000.
0010
•
•o • w11•
✓ N • USIA R•
130TH
40•01
1OO
� '\ #0voo')
00
000$1
N? 2t5 j
Ito
40000 4 mh lot 0 hl 1�
o9Z �o e\-06\07 v l01' 1- to_ vi
0 1J0.7s 'b, j `000° Ip
* lei• 4 el 'inc. s I ` o • qoq • 1• •
1G1,? oq0` I4 .�N 71.eG 1
6
g O 1; �o6 2
CL. too
■ 1' 011 p 3
os
40
0
52
ote
``t.e0O 062 off'
GO
0!
oe
o
$ SJ
'� ost4
if
ti; Ito
Ih
VI .47
Ix , `ti aPo
1 l 211k 1 .2 3 4, 5 6
40 40 40 _ 50.43 40 �•
• '
0
� °" IY ?X16 /0 OISa- 04•131ST4;14ST
1►l� , TUKWILA ORD. isa, ��lf t
-tat 6 if: I 2 .3
TUK SP 92439 �� 93032408 ;4
IrOCI
140
100
lot 1 '1,4;
e1it0
0403
100
!to —
• o
v�
v
X03
of
m
3W 10- LS -4
34 •
SW 1d -t3-
nevi: MIA r *me. s -41'W; Ar. VAC. ,• /A•44 1,,/1!014!
!,.4d4& • •'� , •
•
• lK • WM64.
• 22 : 21 • 20 • 1 �c• • 18
• 4L. 21 • 20 .1 •
-4 -SS f 9101140403
PVC):
M�
1 it a ►�
: LOT
• a9.
-�• Ng: A' �O O'0 ao 0 SO
• 5
• • s 4 !o.3° 91040... G/•
•- `•'� d0 .0A4? 1»4» "
Doss 13 "1 m4
0000
`�
01
110
7300
V0�' `31 s6
n
N
108°
01g0
•
n
20
1 1t
^8
0000 Is
01 *h
100
fn
61.6
•
itog0
0'100
18
1 V
A` ° ,110
L0410 1too
19 20
00
o2.
/LO
005°
000
21
1• ew0
o'►ss
22
23
Psoo R�') S
�saM
0
24
1208
hl
(-26
.o•4S.
R•
130TH
4500°'
colo
650° 4
))? 225
it* 111. Te
•,�TUKSPL 920039
0000 4 t. 1ot 40.'0 y �1
co 09Z r6 /30, 75 0^�\
P
10* 4 10 °s
IG .7
225
M
,\A0°
\1.0
08
�;
Ao‘rio. I o119
0116
ST
4o 100 2
0,
roo
to
will53"'I
'W p 5 ■14 I
gN ov6 4I$
0) �; 1v
, isiT-----170:
;104)(1.^ et
,to 00
40.01
40
TR.ss
01100 4
,41D to. 00 • • „
A003,41.11_
o/00
1 �
20801 1 1A °a
000 $I
6
oo0 $
O0 1
93032408$4
lot e!_ `q o
•
�p41 00
�0Y' 1 �' m'
og0 1» 0
4
7. 1 �
i
`1h
0
874
5000!
4 1 Y
40
TURWILL
�- ---ate so,
1 2 3 4
40. 40 ,1045 4o`tYb•
li
0ery
00v
6
734160 t 13�,ST tpt T
7Vrn 4L4 o 0.10 , a0
ik
ORO. 111:1
66;0 P•■ 2
ob140 b1 $
1
0°10` � N 1t.ea 1 100
_. 0g03 "1
0
18Qo p0
Oqt
1O COI
b
1•�4
IVO
:55..0t
00_
•
401►
lS0
Planning Commission Mi( °s Page 6
November 18, 1993
residential streets. All of our access to the site would be either North or South on East
Marginal Way, and we would not use residential streets to access this site. There had
been some concern because there had been some construction in the area, and some trucks
had used the residential streets at that time. We're saying that we're going to get to this
site from East Mar inal Way, whether North or South. How we turn into it, we have a
driv way on East Marginal Way an o course we can get into it on 128th.
S bA
You'll notice the landscaping on the site, on two of the boundaries, 22.5' in width is fairly
wide landscaping area. That's because of the zoning and relationship to the surrounding
zoning districts and land uses. Those two boundaries require 15' plus 50% of that for a
total of 22.5'. Again, the use is limited to employee parking, trucks, tractors, and trailers.
The surrounding land use consists of Becker Trucking to the North, to the south is one
single family home, and it is sandwiched between this property and some older commercial
property. There has never been any concerns raised by that resident who lives in that
home. To the East is an open space area, undeveloped. The other half of the site across
from East Marginal Way, there are two homes. So really, there is only one home that
abuts the site, and that is the one directly to the North. There are two directly to the east.
To the West, is a vacant piece of property. The closest single family home to the West is
about 300' away.
Mr. Malina - On the two entrances off of 128th, why, in this drawing, does the one access
have a niche out of it - -at the access point? Why does it curve in?
Jeff Mann - The intent there is to have a full width commercial driveway.
Mr. Malina- How many feet are between the other access point?
Jeff Mann- It appears to be about 30' also. Again, because of the significant landscaping
buffer, the parking is considerable into the site. The drive -in is 30' which is significantly
wider than the normal parking lot that you'd find, which is roughly about 25'.
Mr. Malina - The main entrance to this site on East Marginal Way -- How many feet are
in there?
Jeff Mann- It looks to me that it is about 25'.
Mr. Malina - And that is wide enough for your tractor - trailer rigs?
Jeff Mann- Yes. I expect that most of the activity in that driveway will be exiting activity
rather than entering. Most of the entering activity will occur from the main terminal site
to the North. Again, there is sufficient site distance on East Marginal Way so cars and
trucks can enter that driveway.
Mr. Malina- So you're saying that this is going to be the only use -. the access off of East
Marginal Way?
�. :4
Planning Conunission Min( Page 9
November 18, 1993
and then Mr. Becker knows what he needs to have there in order to keep people out.
Otherwise, we do concur with your staff report and recommendations, we do concur with
the condition on there for the bonding and the six month time limit, we concur with the
assessment of the compatibility of the comprehensive plan and with zoning, and we would
ask for your approval based on those conditions with the amendment to add the fencing
condition on the site.
Mr. RolandXeckgL__..President of Becker Trucking, 12677 East Marginal Way South.
We would like to put all of our empty trailers here. We're trying to eliminate movement of
trailers. We would like to increase our efficiency as much as possible. What we have •
here, on the north side, is some heavy trees and a lot of parking. This turn here, is
somewhat hazardous. Fnr cpr,LMMann sai we.have.15_.trailet . we huo.,4
We would like to put a fence up for safety. We would like to keep kids out. The fence on
the inside would help us maintain security..we could monitor the fence to make sure there
are no holes in the fence.
Mr. Meryhew - How tall is the fence?
Mr. Becker - It is a 6' fence with barbed -wire on top. The total height would probably
then be 6.5'. If the vegetation does what it is supposed to, you probably won't even see
the fence. As far as the irrigation, if it is an issue, then we would like to put it in. It
doesn't make sense to spend that much money on trees and take a chance on losing them.
Mr. Malina- Would you be opposed to a drip- system?
Mr. Becker - No.
Mr. Malina - Would you also be opposed to having a green colored chain link fence to
help provide some better screening? It would better blend with the landscape.
Mr. Becker - I don't know what the difference in cost would be.
Len Horn - I just did a quick mental picture after he agreed to the fence as to what this
scenario is going to look like from all four sides. The way it is going to appear - you are.
going to have a 4' berm and a 3' berm. The mass of the trees are going to compose the
bottom 3', 4', 5' of the 10' to dig those in. You may not see this fence. I don't think the
extra expense of slats, is a necessary expense. Except for the gates, it's just not going to
be a visible fence. Especially on the south and the west - no one lives there to see it
anyway, and on the north side, they have their own facility looking at the fence. It appears
to me that the only place that a fence would be visible would be the one access point off of
East Marginal Way.
Mr. Becker - We want to maximize efficiency and safety, and minimize traffic. The gate
will be a key system. We will open it up at 6:00 a.m. and lock it at 10:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 18, 1993
Page 20
maintained his own equipment. The last issue is the noise level. Our entire fleet is
equipped with Cummins power. It is the most quiet diesel engine on the market today.
We will always be running Cummins power. What is the noise problem? Is it the engine,
is it the brakes, is it the dock plates?
Mr. Meryhew - Mr. Kennedy isn't here to make a rebuttal. Maybe he's referring to the
start -up..I don't know.
Mr. Mann - I would like to get back to the lighting issue. In our original application, it
was never an issue with the Planning Commission...that's why we're not sure of our site
plan. I think Mr. Becker has indicated that they do have sufficient lighting and was not a
condition previously. I think the Beckers have received a good message about working
with the neighborhood - -they are trying to be pro- active.
Mr. Meryhew closed the public hearing at 12:00 a.m.
Mr. Meryhew - They're going to have a fence, 6' chain link, barbed wire on the top,
landscaping - irrigated, wheel stops before you get to the fence...
Mr. Malina - I do have a concern regarding the trucks driving either north or south on
East Marginal Way. I can understand the concerns of the residents of the community.
Unfortunately, we have a small gathering from that area. I do see a future need - -we
control the truck traffic in the residential neighborhood. I don't see it too far fetched, to
control the traffic going north on Marginal versus south, turning toward the bus barn
versus coming down through the residential.
Mr. Haggerton - I don't see how you can do that though..how are you going to control all
the buses, etc.
Mr. Knudson -In trying to push everybody back to the north - -I see that as more of a traffic
hazard and road jam. Their access is to get to the freeway.
Mr. Haggerton- On the East Marginal entry way -- if the City Engineer says that's safer
than 128th..128th is a City street..if that's not a safe place for entrance and exits on East
Marginal, it should be made safe. It looks like that should be the logical way to approach
it, instead of making a new entry/exit way.
Mr. Meryhew - I have a hard time understanding why it makes a difference. I think the
City Engineer is the expert on this...if they say that the exit is better, then they must know
what they're talking about. .
Mr. Meryhew - I have a problem with the lighting —as far as safety of the employees and
even car theft. Low level lighting could be provided, while not infringing upon the
neighborhood.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn,(„ Hill water be discharged to ground water? C : ✓e
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals...agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or
humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not applicable.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other water? If so, describe.
Runoff will occur as a result of rain water collecting
on the paved parking lot surface. Catch basins will be
utilized to collect storm water which will be piped -to
a retention pond on the northerly boundary of the
site. The retention pond will meter and control off -
site volumes and will be collected in the City of
Tukwila storm drainage system, which .will eventually
conduct it to the Duwammish River.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
See 3A.6
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts,
• any:
See Item 3C.1
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
_ pasture
_ crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_ other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Existing vegetation in areas which are proposed for
paving will be cleared and vegetation removed.
5
ELI
•
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
)uthgate Park located at South 134th Street and 40th
venue. Rainier Golf and Country Club located to the
northwest at Glendale Way South and Des Moines Way
South.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Not applicable
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
Not applicable
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Not applicable
-t. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to
the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Access to the site would be provided from South 128th
Street and East Marginal Way. See site plan.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
Yes, East Marginal Way at South 130th Street.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed 'project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
The site would provide 48 employee parking spaces, as
well as 17 trailer space parking spots. No. parking
spaces would be eliminated.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads
or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
No
10
Will the project use (or occur in th immediate vicinity of) water,
ansportation? If so, generally describe.
No
rail, or at
f. ",.w many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
k .t, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Approximately 70 -80 vehicle trips per day. .
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Restriction of access to South 128th will reduce
potential impacts on.East Marginal Way. Access path
will be restricted to East Marginal Way and 128th.
Traffic by employees or trucks will not go westbound
on 128th into residential areas.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally. describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Not applicable
16. Utilities
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
The site will require storm drainage service.
b scribe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
set . and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity
which might be needed.
Surface water will be collected on -site and conducted
to City of Tukwila Storm Drainage facilities by way of
an on -site control /retention facility.
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:a \- b
Date Submitted:
11
F. Facilities EXCLUDED from Coverage Under This Permit
Ecology will not consider coverage for the following facilities:
1. Any facility subject to an existing effluent limitation guideline addressing storm
water or a combination of storm water and process water, (Section B of
Appendix #1); these facilities need to obtain a NPDES permit for storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity;
2. Noripoint source silvicultural activities; such as nursery operations, site
preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning,
prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface
drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural
runoff as excluded in 40 CFR Subpart 122.27;
3. Industrial facilities which only have storm water discharges from office
buildings and /or administrative parking lots which do not have storm water
discharges commingled with storm water discharges from areas associated with
industrial activity;
4. Facilities that are federally owned or operated or arc on Tribal land;
5. Any facility covered under an existing NPDES individual or general permit in
which storm water management or treatment requirements or both are included
for all storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.
S3. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS
A. Discharges to a storm sewer or surface water of process wastewater, domestic
wastewater or non - contact cooling water not covered by a NPDES permit are
prohibited.
B. Discharges of storm water to sanitary or combined sewers shall be limited pursuant to
Chapter 173 -245 WAC. Discharges of storm water to sanitary sewers shall not occur
without the approval of the municipality which owns or operates the sanitary sewer
system.
S4. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
A. This permit does not authorize the violation of ground water quality standards
(Chapter 173 -200 WAC), surface water quality standards (Chapter 173 -201 WAC), or
sediment management standards (Chapter 173 -204 WAC) of the state of Washington.
Facilities that are in compliance with these standards must remain in compliance.
Facilities that are out of compliance with these standards will be required to come
into compliance through the application of BMPs in accordance with the schedule
established in Special Condition Si. Facilities not in compliance with standards
following the implementation of BMPs will be identified in accordance with Special
Condition S7 and will be considered for a furthcr compliance schedule. Ecology
reserves the right to take appropriate action for the protection of human health or
where standards violations require more immediate action due to obvious and severe
violations.
10
christine woelfel
best treatment is catch basins
coalescing plate
vehicle washington
vegated biofilter swale
sand filter
FEB- 24• -94 THU 13:30
CITY OF SEATTLE DWU FAX NU. 2U6684UU6
1, U2
BMP
2.50
VEGETATED BIOFILTER
DESCRIPTION
There are two general types of biofilters vegetated channel and the
vegetated filter strip. The vegetated channel is sloped lice a standard storm
drain channel: the storrowater treated u it
passes through the channel. With filter snips the
flow is distributed broadly along the width of
the vegetated area.
Which method to use depends upon the
drainage patterns of the site. A vegetated strip
would function will where the wain can be
spread along the length of a parking lot. Gaps in
the lot curb provide the entry points. of course
the grade of the parking lot must be flat parallel
to the strip.
Unless a bypass is included, the bioftlltrr
must be sued as both :f treatment device and to
pass the peak hydraulic Rows specified by the
City drainage utility. But to be effective, the
depth of the stremwater during treatment must
not exceed the height of the grass.
If a peak -rate drainge control facility is
required, the biofilter can be placed eitehr before
or after the facility.
•
•
DESIGN CRITERIA
Based on limited research it is recommended
that a biofilter channel have length of 200 feet
(Part Vi). The channel width is calculated for
the design flow using the design criteria
pre rated below:
1. A grass height of 6 inches;
2. Depth of stormwater during the
design storm is 4 inches;
Bost Managemern Practices: Stormwater Treatment 6189
4.21
tt-IU 1J.31
r .u1--"amt-F1 1 Lt- uwu
I 11111-11V1r—L—QCIQU'Tv‘d....,,, —
.-- *Mich
Cheals44ta far
*00 not Mops w5%
ractsouhrely
careasoctaa
3. The channel slope between 2 and 5%;
4. A slope less than 2% can be used if undentrains ase
are placed betteadt the channel to prevent ponding
5. A slope greater than S% can be used if check dams are
placed in the channel to slow the flows;
6. /Maker width for effecative long-term treatment is to be
calculated wine a design flow of 0.2 cfs/acre of srea
condhuting to the biofiltee The rationale for dries
particular flow is provided in Part VI.
7. Channel width and/or height is added as needed
to pass the peak hydraulic flow, or a bypass is hicluded.
B. The biofilter can be less than 200 feet in length as long
as the width is increased proportionally to maintain the
treatment surface area. as defined below. However,
minimum length is 25 feet. at which point the channel
has become a filter strip. The minimum bioftlter width
shall be lir:
9. Either preceding or following the Moffitt:: shall be
a SC ofl/waser separsuar or an API or CP1 separator •
if required for the pliticular business (BMP 2.10)
SIZING PROCEDURE
Engineers have proposed that the width of vegetated biofilters be deter-
mined using various roans of the Manning's equation. For reasons provided
in Part VI, this methodology has been shoplifted to the simple rule of thumb
that the bioftlter shall have a total surface area of 500 square feet (ft2) per
acre* of catchment surface that is draining to the bloftluse The biofther may
be of any length or width al long as it is within the constraints previously
identifirA
CONSTRUCTION
The subsurface of the biolliter must be carefully constructed to avoid
undue compaction of the soil. Compacted soil reduces the infiltration and
inhibits growth of the grass. Restoration of grass shall not be left to chance.
The soil must be properly fertilized and seeded using current City require-
ments for site restoration.
4.26
Best Management Practices: $ tarmwator Treatment 6/89
FEB-24-94 THU 13:32
a.p.lr cuts at dolmas
CITY OF SEATTLE DWU
FAX NO, 2066840963
�CGE'TK'Eb r DF1 Lt
P. 04
MAINTENANCE
7b be effective the biofilter must be properly maintained. It should be
mowed several times during the growth season and the clippings must be
removed from the channel. Mowing encourages growth thereby improving
the removal of soluble pollutants. The final mowing should occur near the
end of the growth season. Failure to remove the growth before the dormant
season will cause a loss of pollutants back to the stormwat=
•
•
r•▪ •••."
▪ `
.:` `:
• :.� :. :: • .. • 't •
%O.*, ♦ / . •
cr
-r;.r
Cut gran to &alga height.—
A standardized grass height for an designs is
proposed to simplify maintenance and post
consuuction fccility inspection programs. If
every biofilter were sized using a different
height. it would be impossible to retain agency
memory of how each biofilter in the City is to
be mowed.
• Research has not yet identified proper
mowing strategies. For now all mowings
during the spring and summer must keep the
grass at the 6" design height. In some commer-
cial applications where 6' may cause an
aesthetic problem the grass can bs cut to 4" but
the last mowing of the season must not be
below ¢ ".
Any damage to the channel such u rutting
must be repaired with suitable soil. properly
tamped and seeded. The grass cover should be
thick if it is not reseeding is necessary.
Any standing water removed during the maintenance operation must be
disposed to a sanitary sewer at an approved discharge location. Residuals
must be disposed in accordance with current Seaule-King County Health
Department requirements.
INTEGRATION WITH CITY DRAINAGE
CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
As described above. the biofilter can be placed before or after the rate
control facility.' After is preferred as the drainage facility will moderate
hydraulic flows through the channel. The conuol manhole will also remove
paper Doubles and oil spills before the suormwater reaches the biofiltae
Best Management Practices: Slormwatar Treatment 6/89
4.27
FEB -24 -94 THU 1::3
L t I Y OF SLA l l Lt; UWU rHh lye. cUO(JO4U UO
Beach Community
Adds Sand Filters
to Storm Drains
Rehoboth Beach, DeL, is installing sand
filters along several streets in the city to
reduce the volume of pollutants that are
discharged along with rainwater from the
city's storm drains. Decomposing street
litter and food waste washed into storm
drains in this commercial rryfirt area con-
tribute to bacteria levels in the stormwater.
The drains currently empty onto the beach,
under the boardwalk, but after the
S402,000 'storm drain renovation program,
the drains will be connected to one out -
fall pipe that will run 46 m (150 ft) beyond
the surf line and direct staruiwater away
from the swimming area. The project is
expected to be completed by mid -1993.
Sand filters can be used to treat stormwa-
ter runoff'tn urban settings with impervious
drainage areas where vegetative filters are
not practicaL The locally designed sand fil-
ter being used for this project ii well suited
for small sites, such as fist-food restaurants
or parking areas; for pretreatment of runoff
before entry into another stormwater man-
agement structure, or, as a retrofit strategy in
an existing urban area.
T E C II It O l 0 C r
In heavily developed areas, stormwa-
ter runoff from impervious surfaces con-
tains significant levels of asbestos, copper,
chromium. lead, nickel, phosphorus, zinc.
rubber. oil, grease. and hydrocarbons, all
primarily from automobiles. Delaware's
stormwater management regulations re-
quire 8076 removal of inflow suspended
solids. Previous tests indicate that this sand
filter design should meet these require-
ments.
The sand filter uses a sedimentation
chamber and a filtration chamber.
Stormwater from the gutter pours through
the street -level grating into the sedimen-
tation chamber where sand and gravel are
removed, Then, the water flaws over a weir
into the filtration chamber where bacte-
ria, oils, greases. metals, and other pollu-
tants are filtered out as the water seeps
down through the sand and out through a
drain at the bottom (see Figure).
Sand filters are used for water quality
treatment of urban stormwater runoff;.
Where they are used independendy ofoth-
er stormwater practices, they should be
designed to handle the runoff from fre-
quent storm events and ro accommodate
all surface water runoff. Drainage areas
larger than 2 ha (5 ac) should be broken in-
to smaller areas that drain tasevetal sand
filters to achieve site control.
Each sand filter is 20 m (67 ft) in length.
F. uJ
In the basic design, each chamber has a
surface area of 33 m'/ha (360 ft= /ac). The
sedimentation chambet's volume is at least
15 m•'/ha (540 ft' /ac) draining to the filter
for the entire area draining to the chamber.
The sedimentation chamber's only outlet is
through surface withdrawal over the weir,
so that heavy particles sink to the bottom
of the chamber where they remain until
'leaned The sedimentation cumber also
ensures that the flow arrives at the sand
filter as sheet flow, thus preventing con-
centrated flow from scouring out the sand.
Storms with more than 25 mm U in.) of
runoff may. depending on their intensity
and duration, overflow the sand filter sys-
tem. In those situations, treatment of
runoff in excess of the first 25 mm (1 in.)
may not receive the same level of water
quality treatment that smaller storms re-
ceive. However, because of the design of
the two chambers in conjunction with the
grate covers. resuspension ofparticles pre-
viously entrapped is not anticipated.
Standing water in the sedimentation
chamber is not likely to attract mosquitos
because the oil and grease from the runoff
on the water's surface would smother eggs
and larvae. Any eggs or larvae that do sur-
vive on the water's surface would be car-
ried into the filtration chamber during the
neat runoff c ent. As the runoff drains out of
the pipe at the bottom, the filtration cham-
ber's sediments and
captured pollutants
Weir flow
Sand filter Design
Owenrnd sow
Writer level
Sedimentation
chamber
Auer screen
Trapped solids
Sand
Quaid leas
filtration chamber
Shanovatier sntsIS the sediatetttatlor chamber through a atrect -ieve1 ream Afar dirt aM other lair
policies Nettie to the bottom, the aster flows lets a said -Abed chamber where Sher partici*" and pollutants
are removed as the water seeps down to the eutfall pips
Wooer Env/rant-lam a Twr
dry out, eliminating
the moist environment
needed for breeding,
The filtration
chamber is usually 437
mm (18 in.) deep. The
outfall pipe from the
chamber has a fabric
filter screen to ensure
adequate flow and pre-
vent sand from mi-
grating out of the fil-
tration chamber.
Filter systems are
designed to withstand
vehicle loadings, but
an be modified if this
is not a design re-
quirement,
—Earl Sharer.
Department of Natural
Resources and Environ-
mental Control, Doper
Del
FEB -24 =94 THU 13:33 CITY OF SEATTLE DWU
The GullywasherTM
Water Pollution Prevention Baskets for Storm Drain and Sewer Inlets
from Aqua -Net, Inc.
P. 06
Aqua -Net, Inc. proudly introduces The Gullywasher^". The Gullywasher"" is a vinyl coated, wire
basket for placement in storm drain and sewer inlets to help stop pollutants from entering our
rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal waters. The basket can be fit with sorbents, screens, and
filters to help trap hazardous liquids, oil, grease, sediment, soil, debris, heavy metals, and other
pollutants which often end up in our surface waters. Applications include industrial facilities,
construction sites, fish processing plants, shipyards, marines, steam cleaning pads, service
stations, car washes, parking lots or anywhere there is a potential for contaminated storm water
or spills of hazardous materials entering s drain.
The Gullywasher'" has several unique features. The open surface area of the wire allows
significant volumes of water to pass unrestricted. Reliefs are cut into the sides for additional
overflow and to pass Large objects. The support frame and optional "drip -lip" are designed to
disperse liquid over the entire basket, thereby maximizing filter and sorbent life. Gullywashersiv
are lightweight, come with bars for easy lifting, and can be stacked for efficient transportation
and storage. GullywashersTM are made with durable, non - degradable AOUAMESH ®, a high
strength, galvanized steel wire bonded with a thick, tough, plastic coating which resists abrasion.
Support frames and drip -lips are manufactured in both galvanized end stainless steel and all
baskets are assembled with stainless steel rivets and hog rings. GWlywasheren' are
standardized to fo ndry sp4cifiCations. We currently tit 1 X7(24 ", 201(24",and 20" tQ 26"
diameter frames and grates manufactured by local foundries. Orders placed for non - standard
grates and frames will be custom.
In November 1993, certain industries and construction companies must begin implementing;
pollution prevention plans to ensure contaminants do not enter our surface waters. Aqua -Net
Inc. is dedicated to helping those companies plan their pollution prevention with simple, low cost
systems. We are currently working with local governments, port districts, and private industry to .
approve the Gu1yweshern" as a "Best Management Practice" to be used in conjunction with their
overall pollution prevention planning. K you would like to know more about how we can help you
comply with the regulatory requirements of a pollution prevention plan, please call us toll free at
1 (800) 208-5447.
To order your Gultywashor*", mall order form to:
Aqua-Net Inc.
18105 36th Ave. W., 0104
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
Phone (800) 208 -6447
Fax (206) 774 -3788
AQUA-NET. INC. WARRANTS THE GULLYWASHER" TO BE FREE FROM DEFECTS N MATERIAL. ANO
wCRKMANSHIP. ACUA -NET, INC. MAKES NO REPRESEMAnoNS OR WARRANTIES. EITHER EXPRESS OR
a+WLSED. WITH REsPEC f TO THE GuLLYYYASHEWW, NCLuomia ITS PEFWORMANCE. MERCHANTMIUTY, Out
FITNESS FOR A PAMTJCULAR PURPOSE. TMR° GULLYWASHERR 1' DE8IONED TO US USED N CONJUNCTION
WITH A POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND 18 NOT INTENDED FOR USE AS THE EXCLUSIVE IMAMS Or
REDUCING 111E AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS FROM MERINO DRAINS. PURCHASERS OF THE GULLYWASHER^"
ARE SOLti.Y RESPONSIBLE FOR SERVICING AND MAINTAINING THE GULLYWAMHER": PURCHASERS SOLE.
REMEDY WILL sE REPLACEMENT OP OULLYWASHERS'r. IN NO EVENT WILL AQUA NIT, INC. eE WILE FOR
ANY Lost morns. CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES.
FEB -24 -94 THU 13:3
CITY OF SEATTLE DWU FAX NO. 2066840963
•
ENVrno.DB1UN®,.
PATEN• T PENDING .
•
•
P. 07
•
•
• j '
, : Ems•.
•-••
•
• .
'.
•
on't wait for pending legislation, prepare' yourselves to do.,your part to remove surfaOawatarr
payoff pollution
before getting lined up 'to $25, 000 per day for noi7 mpIi inoa. ' • Call now to receives ►tse.eaUn',ate_ ' •
. (206)•820.1 953 :.: . .
13228 97th Avenue N.E:f C208 • Klrkland, WA .98034 ..
Fax ( ?06) 820,8364 • . •• •
FEB224 -94 THU 13:36 CITY OF SEATTLE DWU
'`
;': I :•$:tpdim Waininty. ENVIRO- DRAIN, iNC.'ehpraity w•arrtats -this product to be free from defects its material, wotiunlnship ood tilts. ,.
,.2, Dselaintar of 1mr iea and Other Wartan41, THE FOREGOING WARRANTY 1S EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL QT ER WARRAIgTIE!• •
. WHETHER WRITTEN, IMI'LIZD SCNCLUDENG WITHOOT LIMITATION A WARRANTY OF MERCH71JNTARILITY OE; iITNESs P'OI*• ' •
, ). In the i pt u lased po be defacdve to wortnwuNis cyan itetel. ENVtRO•t>RA1N, INC. • 1s' • ' 'ar sno i,I lei '
, amiss � r.Place OttsOot.•[, option.
: ; , .. , II• die pasiect is so be spoked, Supra will best snap asibigq Jan rais l such product to ENV,IRO- DRAIN, IDIC. tt ENVIRO•DRA174.24C•. is vlabh to Idrect '
' iodt rep* or tt iacerncnr'whbin 30 days (+rtlicittlnds Is *heed Os 6s'ressimablel. buyer will 'have the attdiiionii AI1Iddy► d(NerentIOrm. detlesfle ' iii '
• • Pi4V O.OMIN. INC. far a Nall seltisnd'af me pdclnst ptt� THESE R>slEDQ $ ARE EXCLUSIVE. AND RUYER AG*ZE$ FIRS WALL 11< � '' ' • •
• Ltttii'n Of ANY LIABILITY ON Tritt riurr or r1VIRO- OaiuN. a 4C• •
• I:, s:n.:Sa..ad""'� =t nt"- spC$Clsiile�d �Yya/it OYUrrW ail reaparriWtit�t For the ao"tequorrasr at mac d dreprgatieG"JIrTIM!!1>`DR7tlN, INC aflrrrnsr •
• so liability for consequential audior incidental asmaia or any find tincl'ndbul wilhout Ununiiotl minty to die psfs0"r =PI ho CileVr gmcrs trill WIN.nto -' • .
DRAIft• INC'. be tlabls for wen dsmars. buyer agrees me emltaoon and etc/talon in this (us/graph is independent ,ottfwa hmit:aim ot'retneeiat coniai, di In • • .
the Precodinl paralf.p t. , • , • -
Pillar Tay
,
••tek Basin
FEB -24 -94 THU 13:40
CITY OF SEATTLE DWU
BMP
2.10
SC ..Posner
FAX NO. 2066840963
P.09
OIL/WATER SEPARATION
DESCRIPTION
Them are three general types of separators. The fast type is the spill
control separator (SC). It is a simple underground vault or manhole with a
"T outlet . The SC- separator is effective at retaining only small spills. The
SC-separator will not remove diluted oil droplets spread through the
atoimwates from oil contaminated pavement. Local jurisdictions already
require these types of separators with peak -rate detention facilities.
The other two separators can remove dispersed ' - - Pe
leum Institute (API) separator and -. - . _ plate interceptor
The API - separator is a long vault or basin with • ; i to improve the
hydraulic condition* for treatment. Large API- separators may have sophisti-
cated mechanical equipment for removing oil from the surface and settled
solids from the bottom. However, most applications to commercial and
industrial land uses will use the simple system u illustrated.
'i7te CAI- separator contains a Nagle of plates made of film :glass or
polypropylene. The plates art: closely spaced. Depending on the manufac-
turer and/or application the plates may be positioned in the bundle at an
angle of 0 to &P from the horizontal.
The closely spaced plates improve the hydraulic
conditions in the CPI - separator promoting ail removal.
Removal of fine suspended solids is also improved. The
primary advantage of the CPI- separator is its ability to
theoretically achieve equal removal efficiencies with orie-
ntal to one -half the space needed by the API separator,
when designed to remove the same size droplets. .
API separator
CP l sop/trto'
TYPE OF SEPARATOR
REQUIRED
Land uses that must use an API or.CPI-
separator are identified in Part II. The owner
may choose between the API or CFI-
separator using the design criteria outlined
below. All other land uses or businesses
must use the SC- separator even if a peals -rate
drainage control facility is not required.
Bast Management Practices: Stormwater Treatment 8.419
4.7
FEB-24-94 THU 13:42 bilVoF SEATTLE DWU FAX NO. 2066840963 P. 10
••
EFFLUENT REOUIREMENTS
The WDOE requires that stormwater have no visible sheen, average less
than 10 mg/1 daily and at not time exceed a daily maximum 0( 15 mg/L
DESIGN CRITERIA
Requirements regardless of separator type
1. Appropriate removal covers must be provided that allow
=ass fog observation and maintenance
2. Stannwater from building rooftops and other impervious
surfaces not Maly to be comantirrated by oil shall
discharge downstream of the separator, m • long as City
drainage requirements are met (R.2 In Part V).
3. Any pump mechanism shall be installed downstream of the
separator to prevent oil emulsification;
Additional requirements for API and CPI-separators
1. These separators shall have a forebay to collect floatables
and the larger settleable solids • Its surface area shall not
be less than 20 square feet UM per 10,000 ft2 of the area
draining to the :vents=
2. They shall have an afterbay in which absorbent pillows
or similar material are placed. With the SC-separator,
absorbent materials shall be placed in the manhole/vault.
Used absorbent pillows shall be properly disposed.
3. If placed "downstream" of a detention facility, the
separator is sized for the oudet flow of that facility.
4. If file separator Is placed 'upstream" of a peak-rate
detenden fecal% or without a detention facility, the
inlet to the separator and the separator shall be sized
foea flow of 0.20 calmly of drainage arm See Part IV
for the derivation of this flow ram
Adaitional requirements for CPI-separators
1. Plates shall MX be I:ss than 3/4" Van..
2. Tbe angle of the plates shall be from 45* to SO* from
the horizontal.
4.1 Best Management Practices: Stormwator Treatment 6189
hh.ti -L4 -ti l HU 13.44 "U 1 'I Y OF 5tH l I LL uwu
• rt1A"riu; •
CONSTRUCTION
There ace no special construction oonsickrations.
MAINTENANCE
Oil/water separator(s) must be cleaned frequendy to keep accumulated oil
from escaping during an extreme astern. The separator must always be
cleaned by October ISth to remove material that has accumulated during the
dry season and again after the fiat significant steam. In addition:
1. The facility shall be inspected weekly by the owner;
2. Oil absorbent pads are to be replaced as needed but
shall always be replaced in the fall prier to the wet
season and in the spring;
3. The effluent shutoff valve is to be closed during
cleaning operations;
4. Waste oil and residuals shall be disposed in accordance
with current Seattle -tang County Health Department
requirements.
S. Any standing water maimed during the maintenance
operation must be disposed to a sanitary sewer* an
approved discharge'ocation.
6. Following removal of any standing wares it shall be
replaced with clean water to prevent oil carry -over
the outlet weir or orifice;
INTEGRATION WITH CITY DRAINAGE
CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
If a peak -rate control Wilily is fequircd the awn= separator must be
carefully integrated. Where only the SC- separator is used, it serves for both
off spill and peak -rate control. �
With the API and 1 -a wrs it is best to ate the facility •down-
atream" as previously indicated Design tows for either ease have been
provided above.
A sgsscial case ;s the use of constructed wetlands and wet - staling basins.
Ilse surface area of these systems are sufficient for effecdve removal of
dispersed on dropiets. 'Therefore, for either of these aystenma at API a
CP1- separator is not requibtd. Stoney/mar with heavy concentradoos of oil
(greater than say a) mg/1) may tease probkms in wetlands. Thcrt fot0. prior
reduction of oil is necessary. If a wet - sealing bashs Is ased,a barrier must be
placed near the outlet to prevent the bud the aoaunttlated 00.
Bost Management Practices: Stormwatar Treatment 6/89 4.11
r•� �'4 j9 i;,J ,? �5
. SE TLE Gripi
yep ' :i- r -
tt i El`
t174 1%.,' Chr15
is ' • rid. ` .
•
rag, ,tt��i •
P. 12
The MPal0 coalescing plate
from Facet International.
Have you ever heard of something being so
simple, it's genius? That's the new high - performance
coalescing MMPak from Facet International— quite
,imply
one of the most innovative a alescrr designs
that hag come along in years.
Not only does it provide superior performance in
real -world environmental cleanup, but the punted
MPaak design is also seeCleaning. T1t2t mesas you
no longer need to remove the plate pack to dean it
Here's how it works: As the od/water /solid€
mixture travels through the plate, oil rises to the top
and solids drop to the bottom through dedicated
surfaces and weep holes. Piste supports at the
bottom allow for easy removal of the solids that
collect beneath the plates.
Besides being setklearing, the tid.Pak has a mod-
ular construction that makes it easy to install in
existing tanks, pits znd v<ults.
The bottom4ittc benefits are higher performance
and lower maintenance costs. So no matter how
you look at it buying the new coalescing MPak
from Facer International is a very
..ice •z smart thing to do.
•
4 i Facet
4.44 international
Because good enough just isn't good enough.'
Facet International, Inc.
P.O. Box 50096
Tulsa. OK 74150 -0096
Telephone. (913) 272 -8700 •1- 800.223.9910
Fax: (918) 272.8787
Designed foiperformance
Environmental MPak. Thirty years of development have gone into the design and
construction ot the new patented MPak tram Facet International. The MPak is 2 simple, well -
engineered coalescer that addresses real-world applications.
- ,4... 2711, rZ,td•._..1.... .iLFauf1.. -..m.r r.�. --- -_ +iafi011=MZI MOCIWO
T Y P I C A L . A P P L I C A T I O N S
V Yu eeITTIN TI17".
caCntel$
�itluim-
m MOW imp ��ruru
��
:U+M
RI:lIIIT, 11 11t t. ;i.1(1 (` { l4i y1��11`,
rC) ! 1)I l f' ii"
semirt >0.
ile a ••••: +M; OLM
e_MjR►["rnnsitt
mow Ho• n
°"•",
7.1 ,;111(1`.7(-1
•
w •tnduwr "j
emtrienew
P ut•..;ii0l II I(1 \
I�Or1■ 1!!., •1
Features
• Perfonnaxce grramntee -- Reduces o0
contamination to limits as low as 10 ppm
• Radices wmmiifing of oil acrd
salidr Dedicated awfaces and weep
holes for oil and solids
• SeVclianing -- Solids fan to the bottom.
oil weeps to the top
• Modstlarcoastruetiog— Retro&ts
existing API separators and tanks
• Nem support:ystart —Mows access fur
solids removal
• 1/r'artd U2- (6.25 or 12.5 awl
spaci —Moat efficient on removal
available
• Coasprt r liaist-Written performance
guarantee to meet your effluent
requirements
Applications
MPak has hundreds of environmental
applications, including:
•Rainwater r l-of
• Gmurtdtunter remrediatiotr
• Coolant tramp oil removal
• Ot1 cod grease removal from washdotart
axd mairttexayrce areas
Specifications
• Operating tertature: 40° - 180* F
(4.4• -822• C)
• pH Lange: 2.12
• Material: polypropylene
• Surface area per 2 R' ;186 fe
(More plate coalesdng surface area
than any competitor)
• Spacing 1/4" or 1/2" (635 or 12.7 mm)
Can 1- 800423.9910 to find out how to
MPak your environment, beginning with a
free consultation on your application
needs. And be sure to ask about the
MPak's Performance Guarantee!
IsomosolominsmonselormIlmonlinorsallImmolomsoldm
4•0 Facet
�..4 international
Because good enough just isn't good enough."'
Facet intemstional, Irw"
P.O. Box 50096 �..�
Tulsa, OK 741500096
Telephone: (918) 272 - 8700.1.800- 223.9910
Fax (918) 272.8787
'FE8 -24 -94 THU 13:57 CITY OF SEATTLE DWU
•
FAX NO. 2066840963
13,14
BMP
1.20
VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT
WASHING AND STEAM
CLEANING
Washing of highway vehicles and parts, and cq&pmau and pare such as
construction equipment, is to occur in a building or in a designated area u
described below. This requirement refers to all methods of wasting in which
water is used including low - pressure water, high- pressure water and noun
cleaning:
Wash water from the above cleaning activity contains significant quanti-
ties of oil and grease, suspended sol ids, heavy rands, and organics, as well
as pollutants from the deurgents:
As the surfactants in detergents chemically stabilize free aid dispersed oil,
oil/water separators are ineffective.
Therefore., wash water from vehicle and equipment cleaning shall be
'discharged only to sanitary sewers. The business shall conduct washing
operations in one of, the following locations: ,
1. Inside the business owner's building; or
2. At a commercial washing business in which the washing
occurs in an enclosure (see Part II, Car and Truck Wash
Businesses): or,
3. In a designated wash area at the owner's business that meets
the requirements outlined below.
The use of mobile wash services is not allowed unless the wash water can
be contained and discharged to a sanitary sewer.
If the business owner chooses to conduct washing operations at its
business but outside the main building of the business, the owner must:
1, Construct a vehicle or equipment washing building, similar to .
a commercial car or truck washing business, in which all
internal drains discharge to the sanitary sewer The wash
building shalt comply with the same BMP taquiresnents
imposed on a commercial car or truck washing business (see
Part I): or,
Best Manapomsnt Pracilces: Source Control 6/89
33
FEB-24-94 THU. *13 58— -Orr( OF, SEATTLE OWU 66.-2666840963 7-
•■•
P. 15 u •
311
2. The business may establish a "designated area" for all
washing operadone shot need not be ;named or covered.
However, the 'designated maw shall mete the
following tsquirementz
• The sea What uncovered shall not exceed 200 square •
!bet of (R.1 Ls Part V);
• The area shall be ;overt
• The area shell be so designed all to prevent the ninon
stormwater &mu adjacan men
• The area shall have a drain to collect all wash water.
• The drain shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. The
discharge shall pass through a SC-type oll/water
separator (BMP 2.10 in Pirt TV) and in an respects
shall comply with Metro requiremenu (R.1 In Part V).
. lbe wash AM shall be wen masked at gas stations,
multifamily tesidences and any other business where
• vehicles may be walled by non-employees. Included in
the posting will be stemma forbidding the changing of
oil over the wasb-area. -
•
Tukwila's Council & Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Council Members and Mayor,
This letter is to bring
problems that have developed
the main appellant, although
by a number of other Tukwila
4033 S. 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
February 4, 1994
to your attention several
with an appeal on which I am
it is also signed and supported
citizens.
The issues on appeal are important, difficult, and with
far reaching effects on the lives of many residents and
property owners.
Several times, I have requested the transcripts of the
minutes from the public hearing of November 18, 1993. As of
today, I have yet to receive them. I have experienced
stonewalling.
I now learn that subsequent to. the November 18th
meeting, another meeting took place and changes were made to
the transcripts. I was not notified of this meeting nor that
one of the subjects was going to be this appeal. As the
appellant, I have a special interest in being informed of
any issues related to this permit. Notice in the newspaper
of a planning commission meeting on an unscheduled or
regularly scheduled date is not enough. I had no way of
knowing that the issue of my appeal would be addressed at
this meeting.
I am formally requesting that the public hearing
scheduled for February 22nd be delayed. I base my request
under the principles of "procedural due process" of the 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
1,2_
.........., -..:. «.. •
As the appellant I am entitled to a fair hearing,
adequate time to prepare, and timely information among other
rights. I need to bring to your attention the problems I
experience as a citizen with English as my second language.
Translation of my verbal comments during your council .
meetings are many times in total opposition to what I have.
-said. Lack of understanding as to the very serious issues I
have brought before the council is of grave concerns to me.
In order to remedy the aforementioned problems I hereby
formally request:
1. Information which includes written transcripts
of the appeal hearing of November 18, 1993, and
unaltered or unedited audio tapes of A11 the
meetings with the planning commission that have to
do with my appeal.
2. A new hearing be scheduled six'weeks from the
time I am provided with all the requested
information.
Yours truly,
Jackie Dempere
1
\� g
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
February 11, 1994
Jackie Dempere
4033 s. 128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Subject: Becker Trucking - Appeal
Dear Ms. Dempere:
This letter summarizes our phone conversation today.
In your letter received February 4, 1994, you requested transcripts and tapes from previous Planning
Commission hearings related to the Becker Trucking CUP. I had attempted to contact you by phone on
two occasions, February 9th and 10th, to inform you that the appeal hearing date is February 28 and to
inform you that the written minutes have been mailed to you. I stated the applicant was not in agreement
to postponing the hearing to March, but agreed to February 28.
You informed me today that you had received the written minutes of the November 18 and January 27
Planning Commission meetings. As you are aware, it is common that minutes, unless transcribed
verbatim, do not include all information presented at a hearing.
You had also requested copies of the tapes for each of the two Planning Commission meetings. It was
my intention to get a verbal ok to pay for the cost of the tapes prior to sending them to be duplicated.
You provided this ok to me today and agreed to pay a $15 fee for each tape. The tapes should be
available Tuesday afternoon. You will be contacted by the City when they are ready to be picked up.
I have included the Notice of Public Hearing with this letter. This letter and notice has also been mailed
to all appellants as listed in your Notice of Appeal. As the notice states, the February 28 appeal hearing
is a limited public hearing where testimony will be taken only from the appellants, the applicant and City
staff.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. I can be reached at 431 -3663.
Sincerely,
Denni Shefrin
Associate Planner
cc: L93 -0058
Robert Bernhardt z.1-k65440 Curtiss Robinson
Sharon Bernhardt Shirley Robinson 24 SO 2
William Cavanaugh Donald Scanlon
Elizabeth Springer
630 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 s (206) 41313665
PLANNING
PARKS 1
RECREATION
BUILDING
4 October 1978
;
CITY of TUKWILA
CFFIC -° of COMMUNITY CEV LOOPmENT
M EM0R.ANDUM
' TO: .Kjell Stoknes, Director, O.C.D.
FROM: Roger Blaylock, Secretary, Board of Adjustment
SUBJECT: TRUCK TERMINAL IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA
TMC Title: 18
Section: 1019.40.010 (41)
•
The Board of Adjustment at their last meeting on Thursday, September 21,• 1973,
directed me, as. Secretary for the Board, to request that the planning staff
review "all companies in the City of Tukwila that are performing a.trucking'
function, whether it be common carriage, contract carriage, or private carriage
for consideration of the necessity of application for a conditional use permit
by each company reviewed."
The Board of Adjustment has adopted the interpretation presented by Mr. Goe •
based on the following common functions of a truck terminal:
1. A location to receive, pick -up and /or delivery of orders which are
placed by customers.
2. The location of the dispatcher .(functioning with that or any other
title) which directs the activities of the truck driver.
3. The location used by the truck common carrier.to receive shipments for
transloading, transhipping and /or consolidation or from which trans-
portation ensues after transloading, transhipping or de-consolidation.'
4. The location where rolling stock of the coninon carrier is parked during
periods of non -use.
All four of the above functions must be present on the site to be determined to
be operating as a "truck terminal ".
RB /ch
cc: Chairman, Planning Commission
May�o-rr
anning Supervisor
6230 Souchcencer Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 9616e ■ (206).242 -2177'
A
sti City of Tukwila
1908
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Brad Collins, Planning Director
FROM: Mark Caughey, Associate Planner
DATE: 7 May 1982
SUBJECT: Truck Terminal Definition
This memo is sent to you on behalf of the Tukwila Board of Adjustment
following their meeting of 6 May 1982 at which the definition and inter-
pretation of Truck Terminals within the city was modified. The de-
finition which was adopted by the Board on 6 May supersedes that con-
tained in the memorandum of 4 October 1978 from Roger Blaylock which
discusses the Board's prior interpretation of this type of facility
on 21 September 1978::
TRUCK TERMINAL =- Truck terminal means a site or building, or .a
tenant space within a building the occupant of
which is a holder of a certificate of public
necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion, the Washington Utilities and Transporta-
tion Commission or a similar agency, and which
exhibits any one of the following characteris-
tics of use: •
- -the business location is a place to receive,
pick -up and /or deliver orders which are placed
by customers.
- -The business includes the use of a dispatcher
(functioning with that or any other title) which
directs the activities of the truck driver.
•
- -The business location is used by the truck car -
rier to receive shipments for.transloading, trans-
shipping and /or consolidation, or from which• trans-
portation entues after transloading, transshipping
or deconsolidation, whether or not rolling stock
of the carrier is parked at the location during
periods of non -use.
All businesses meeting this definition, except those located in the M -2
zoning district, will be expected to obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior
to beginning operation, and only in those zoning districts where truck
terminals are°recoanized as a rnnditinna1 „sp
.. .....
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: March 7, 1994
RE: Becker Trucker parking site at Marginal Way & S. 126th
Street.
At your request, I visited the Becker site today to review the
potential presence of wetland. Reportedly, this site has been
filled for more than ten years. It appears that several feet of
fill have been placed on the property. The fill is very compacted
and typically does not allow water to infiltrate.
I walked the entire site and did not observe any obvious wetland
habitat. However, a very small area with ponded water was found at
the south property line. The area has about 2 to 4 inches of
standing water that is a result of runoff from several days of
significant rainfall. Dominant vegetation consists a grass species
that can occur in wetlands. Hydric soil indicators were found
close to the surface and may have been caused by seasonal ponding.
The area may meet the wetland determination criteria if it has a
ponded situation for a significant time period.
Regardless of the technical criteria, this area is only about 120
square feet in size (20' by 6'). If it is a wetland, it would not
be regulated because the area is less than 400 square feet as
determined by SAO standards. I hope this helps resolve any
sensitive area questions about this site.
cc: Rick Beeler, DCD Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 431-3670 • Fay (206) 41313665:
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
John W. Rants, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and City Coun
Rick Beeler, DCD
March 3, 1994
Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision
File #L93 -0058 - Becker Trucking Conditional Use Permit
Rick Beeler, Director
Councilman Dennis Robertson requested information from. the Department's files on this
application for consideration at the March 7 continued public hearing. That information is
attached.
Appellants and the applicant will also receive this information, except for the last item, a
memorandum from the City Attorney. That memo is attorney -client privileged
information and not available to the public.
Attachments: Councilman Robertson's request.
Attachments A through S from the Department's files.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 . • (206) 4313670 .::Fax (206) 4313665
•
•
_ •
/-tf3'- CJ/`
v
3/l
4/2'?-40-.2
/cg
Gam - ZS,(pyo
2-2--(7 •
•
. f/7d'
2.222frPo
r
r
f 2? -
?‘• .0/< .
. • .
. - .• .- •. • --. •
/
(), 7t6p
?3 -0057
6.rc.-21e-a?)
jr- 3 - 6,c)/td, atr-c
•
3r- 3 -C..07 cePr-(6
f -3 - Cuti ffP-/c' "a<.
(r-
. c (?c,c7
•
•
■••
#ze:•.• •
-g•it.1":••••
,A•
4•2;4f.'••
•; • .
• •
•••
1lf
L93 -0058: Becker Trucking;' Conditional Use, 8/93:
Affidavit of Distribution 1 -21 -94 with mailing lists, notices
maps
Affidavit of Distribution 11 -5 -93 with ai'~lig l st ", notice,
returned envelopes.
, ette yr rpm erxy ?;,ands Chris; +::Bitzig:;'. °::recei:ved Yontl`l- 1'6:193
wnv aN.rllar r i w+•r•ti,(RV•@: , i /..e.•.. ,,.r...::.. .
;Affidavit of Distribution 11 -4 -93 with notice and fax co er
indicating faxed to Seattle Times.
� ,t erw"7€51MTZ f= Marini dated;' 110:= 29 :1:i9;3 :. fronveAem aShefr r1,L Jregar•.d 'rig?
Gom entwat- `;t;Concift' onal 'Us0i Permit'': ;'and- 'Envi�ronmenta 1n, review':
w..: L.... il..!:. N :i'i..•t'Tr.+ :•!.I1,�i.!)�1:
lMemgxandum%' fromr "YOK1174.P rog` t.0 Arin'-AS egerithidXerg;::.dated +9 :r :1 6;z-,i9•.3 .
Land Use Routing Form .L93 -0058 and L93 -0057 from Public Works.
Land Use Routing Form L93 -0058 land L93 -0057 from Fire Departm-nt
with attached memo .from Mike Alderson to Ann.Siegenthaler dated 2-
10 -93.
Land Use Routing Form L93 -0058 and L93:.0057 from Parks Departme t.
Parcel map faxed to Jeff Mann from Ann Siegenthaler on 8- 26 -93.
Blank Land Use Routing Form L93 -0058 and L93 -0057.
Receipt for Conditional Use Permit application for $850.00 date
6 -93.
Letter to Jeff Mann from Denni Shefrin dated 2 -8 -94 regard ng •
Notice of Decision for Becker Trucking.
.M, n....rF :-di!7 ,, ... :.. . .a y -.�.. ...r�,r -n "•�, ^r r• .y,.F• •,.�.,.,.
>t4 t+ 2X o:xi�.:Camerori from' ' James` Mitct ell'.•',' dated ?s;'1''T- 5egard
Beck Transfer Traffic Study.
Letter to.Jeff Mann from Denni Shefrin dated 10- 29- 93regard'ng
Conditional Use Permit and Environmental review.
'11 40'
g'�:.�
Three overhead transparencies of site plan, landscaping plan,
parking plan.
:1:' I4iva,ted2•.T1- a: 6- 93,w� from ' °lDenn'' = Shefrina :.toi,;i; the :VAB�eckerb,; f
egardiTrigapYiorie; conveys 'at`o'ri,•'with';Je:ff�;Ma'rin
Notice of Appeal by Jackie Dempere received 11- 29 -93.
Planning Commission minutes dated 11- 18 -93.
Conditional Use 8/93 cont...
Page 2
Staff report to the Planning Commission dated 11-10-93.
Memorandum from Denni S efrin to Lynn Horn dated 11-8-93 regarding
the landscape plan.'
SiernETHATi'diim7C,ftegir:Derirog2 risn f
kroggt'aThgAtfigPriiaffIC-q-ilasiv
List of names added to m iling list taken from previous proposal of
1989.
ta7e-§-7a7r-driFriPEt7FIE3Fiiiiiirii2
Mailing List (untitled)
;') It5firaI5WHOlt-amerori2,rf old'Jam6-kifc.he'rl ii6teat.f1-5-93 regardIne
Att,rit.0174g4-.4117.757;.'
Transmittal sheet from
eff Mann dated 11 -4 -93.indicating enclosed
ro■Krevised site plan and 1 ndscape plan.
‘f4 Conversation Record fro Denni Shefrin regarding.conversationwlth
Jeff Mann on 11-2-93.
Handwritten notes by De ni Shefrin regarding Becker Trucking dated
10-25-93.
City Council' minutes da ed 4-2-90.
11): rTfKe'c3"Kt"FEE'slrCrafgaVigt ."v7b--e7f *ER. -6
EP,11510S—;1 InVeTaiWaiirgErfaii
•
IA I 0:,;•.-pygip„ap 71toggigroiriT ''' , s
„"...., ,,7,.-v,„..
IT.a.Wfl.T.::il',5-crgi."6"ef.9.;=11493hr:Iregaid,agig:.zf.theas'a.ter
C)f p344FgggN3pckee..e,office:, r04'.:::An :1!'reliiiddiT:tppl:Anforix,Conditaonal'
" neegairew7n:7.- ._..,
.......„..... ....,,,,,,,,::,,,,,,...,
TxAAVkxttalm'sheee-AIr'die'eITiinPdMF?DYYgggi7JqiaiigN'at"..:dWggR
I) .
ifaravggPIX.4-47B-gakeirfFai56-iirOliTiiiiti..7.iffaTElle-ciTcdgriesSsOi,"TaTirialEig:'Y
d o
.......„1:,.................? t..... v.„ ...,..r„ „,..,...„......7.,,,sr.r.r.7707=7"Fr 7i17°.!::%I•t- , •*17115.7fn.; 11 k.:7"..r..y.4
, PLow,e7p.0.4;24.37,AgoOk-
7..;f:m,:iAnii,:::Sie,gprithaaer-tIto."--thei•
- L . td44#4444NO-60-61eafiemiiiii.Jerff'.4a.ririaage§til-76'i
, EcompLikt.qtWEEFe'e-ii7iliTifiii.-"u-i-SO-f,76"6-mm—e-ri-e!',76-,:?;,.ie
Et&RdJXZ5RYrggjSe4Permie cVldateigz26 dtercre.g.ardirx.g.p.:713e.cker
.91v,r,.,;-RT •
Conditional Use 8/93 cont...
Page 3
Conditional Use Application with attached maps.
2 copies of site plan.
2 copies of assessors maps.
Copy of parking lot site plan.
Conditional Use Application received 8 -6 -93 with attached
checklist.
8 copies of site plan.
.City Council notice of hearing returned envelope from•Ed,Becker.
Landscape plan.
Becker Trucking CUP Appeal File:
Copy of packet which went to Council on 2 -28 -94 regarding the
appeal of the Planning Commission.
Letter from Brian Kennedy to the City Council received 2- 25 -94.
Mailing list and Certified Mail receipts:
Letter to Jackie Dempere from Denni Shefrin dated 2 -11 -94 regarding
the appeal. Also attached copy of public notice.
Letter from Jackie Dempere to the City Council and Mayor dated. 2 -4-
94.
Notice of Appeal by Jackie Dempere received 11- 29 -93.
5 �MemOY'andumwton a" O r • :v- •r-c tee•• �•�• -• .
,. g afar,Qn�; enn; Shefrin�: dated= 2- 1` =A4` regarding
concurrences on Code' I'nterpret3tion and' BeckerTriicki:ng:
•
• Fax cover sheet from. Denni-Shefrin to Jeff Mann dated 1- 26 -94' and
attached memo to Planning Commission from Jack Pace regarding
clarification of conditions of approval.
Conversation .record regarding discussion with Jeff Mann on 12 -27 -93
'regarding the.moratorium.in place affecting. Becker Trucking.
Vicinity Map.
Fax cover sheet to Jeff Mann from Denni.Shefrin dated 2- 25- 95(94)
referencing attached letter•from Brian Kennedy to the Council.
Fax of an equipment list and seniority list to Denni Shefrin from
Rolan Becker dated•2- 24 -94.
Letter to Jackie Dempere from Denni Shefrin regarding .Planning
Commission tapes dated 2- 16 -94.
Letter to Mayor and City Council from Jeff Mann dated 2 -15 -94
' regarding the response to Appeal related to Becker Trucking.
Letter to Jackie Dempere from Denni Shefrin,.dated 2 -11 -94
summarizing phone conversation.'
Fax to Denni Shefrin from Jeff Mann dated 2 -7 -94 regarding. delay in
appeal.
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal Development of an improved parking facility for employee
parking and semi -truck trailers.
Proponent PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
Jeffrey D. Mann 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Seattle, WA. 98188
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Southwest corner of South
128th St. and East Marginal Way.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC
24 -89
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
® There is no comment period for this DNS
0 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below..
Responsible Official
Position /Title
Rick Beeler
Plannina Director Phone 433 -1846
Address . 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tu wi1 ' WA 9 88 _
Date /./ir.-,- -%'F 2(r.n -'7 (1c`: `1 Signature �'
You may appeal this determination to.the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk 'and..
Planning Department.
FM.DNS
Environmental Checklist
FU pose of Checklist:
FILE EPIC -24 -89
The State Environmental Policy Act (SETA), chapter 43.21C RCM, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before m:ildng decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose
of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help *the agency decide whether an EIS is
required.
Instructions .for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental
agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant.,
requiring preparation of an. EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give
the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should
be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If
you really do not }mow the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does
not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now rrev avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such.as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time
or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its
environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide
additional information reasonably related to.detennine if there may be significant adverse impact.
A. BACKGRWND
1. Nam of proposed project, if applicable:
Becker Transfer Parking Lot
2. Nano of applicant:
PAC —TECH Engineering
3. Address and Phone number of applicant and contact person:
Contact Person: Jeffrey D. Mann
PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Seattle, WA ;98188
Phone No. (206) 243 -7112
4. Date checklist prepared;
September 4, 1989
5. Agency requesting checklist:
'City of Tukwila
• .
G. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable)
Fall 1989
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
p •posal? If ves, explain.
No
8 List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related
to this proposal.
None to our . knowledge_
9 Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting.
th property covered by your proposal? If yes, Wain.
Nos
10 .List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if }mown.
rading Permit, Approval of drainage plan':
11 Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and
si e. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your
p iposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include
adiitional specific information on project description).
Development of a parking facility for .employee parking and trailers.
12..L cation of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your
p posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if blown. If a proposal
wo d occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site
pl , vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
tle agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
t. this checklist.
S•uthwest corner of South 128th Street and East marginal Way.
BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT •
B ENVIRONMENT.AL 1LTENTS
. Earth
. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling,, steep slopes,
rr�untainous, other
Gently• rising site from north to south.':.
. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope) ?.
29 slopes ,,
. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
avel, peat., muck)? If you }now the classification of agricultural soils,
ify them and note any prime farmland.
he site is urban land with gravelly sandy .lomes which%
ave not been'used for agriculture purposes,
. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
cinity? If so, describe.
o:
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY. USE ONLY
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
This site will be graded in order to prepare a surface'
for paving. The general topography of the site will:
remain intact in order to provide for drainage which
will .take surface waters to a drainage facilities in
South 128th..
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
Yes, however minimal. Temporary erosion control plans
will be implemented as part of construction as
required by the City.
g. About what percent of the sitewill be covered with impervious surfaces after
project. construction (for example, asphalt or buildings) ?
71%
h. Proposed measures to reduce 'or control erosion, or other impacts to the
earth, if any:
A temporary erosion control measures will be
implemented as part of construction in order to;.
prevent off -site erosion and also control dust and mud'
on adjacent streets.:
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e.,
dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood.smoke) during construction and when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities
if known.
Emissions from construction equipment during grading,
and paving of site. Emissions from asphalt concrete
mix during paving operations. Long term emissions`
from the site will result from employee vehicles%
entering•and exiting the site. Emissions from trucks"
:moving trailer onto the site will also occur:::
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe.
No
c. Proposed Treasures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any:
None proposed.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)?
If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or
river it flows into.
There are no• surface water bodies located immediately,
on or adjacent to the subject site. The Duwammish••
River is .located approximately one quarter' mile to;
the northeast of the site:
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)
the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or
removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
Not applicable.;
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give
general description, purpose, and appro dmate quantities if known.
No''
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so, note location
on the site plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volute of discharge.
•Oils and greases from pavement surfaces resulting from
vehicular 'use of the site will be washed away and•:
surface waters during periods of rain., Storm.. water
from the site • will b e'• contro1Ied'and contained 'ands
conducted ' to City of Tukwila• storm drainage :,
facilities.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water?
Give . description, - known.
. No
2) Describe waste material that will•be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if :any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...agricul.tural; etc.). Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served
(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected
to serve.
No
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this
water flow? Will this water flow into other water? If so, describe.
Runoff will occur as a result of rain water collecting:
on the paved parking lot surface. Catch basins. will:
be utilized to collect storm water which will be piped.
to a retention pond on the northerly boundary of the.'
site which will meter and control off —site volumes
which will be collected in the City of Tukwila storm:
drainage system and eventually' conduct it to the,.
Duwammish River.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters?' ,If so, generally
describe.
See 3A 6
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, ant runoff water
impacts, if any:
See item 3C 1.
Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X' deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
X grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Existing vegetation in areas which. are.proposed.for-
paving will be cleared and vegetation removed.,
Existing Douglas Firs and deciduous trees located.
around the perimeter of the site will be retained and
enhanced by landscaping' as shown on the site plan.;
Approximately six existing. trees will be removed from
areas which. are proposed for paving.
•
�
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Preservation of existing Douglas Fir and deciduous
trees along the perimeter of the site and enhancement:
of the vegetative buffer by the placement of Douglas
Fir and other shrubs and ground cover in order to
enhance the landscaping and vegetation on the site.:
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or
are known to be on or near the site:
:Small field mammals .
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
No
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None proposed
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be
used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Fossil fuels will .be utilized by vehicles during
construction and also by employee vehicles and trucks,'
bringing trailers to the parking lot:
h. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
.No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any:
None proposed= :
7. Ehviromental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
No
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
No
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:'
None proposed
b. Noise
1) %That types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment., operation, other)?
Any noise from East Marginal Way or 'existing transfer
operations to the north would not affect the operation
of this parking lot.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short -terra or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate that hours noise would cane from the site.
Short term: Noise from construction vehicles during
grading and paving operations.
Long term: Noise from employee vehicles.and from
trucks bringing trailers onto the site for
parking. •
•Noise would 'occur between 7:OOam and 10:OOpin. Monday -
thru Saturday..
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Proposed landscape buffer will provide some noise
mitigation. Restriction of on -site traffic from
between 7:OOam to 10:OOpm.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site is presently undeveloped with some employee
parking occurring in the northeast corner of the site..
Some trailers are located on the site and some storage
of miscellaneous equipment. The north is existing-
Becker Transfer offices and operations center. To the
south are single•family homes. To the west are single-.
,family homes,•and.to the east are existing businessesv
and single family homes in the C1 zone <.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
.No structures proposed....
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
•Not applicable
e. What is the current zoning classification or the site?
Cl
f. What is the current ccmprehen.sive plan designation of the site?
Commercial
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
Does not apply • '
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
No
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the ccmpleted project?
None
j. Approximately how many people would the ccmpleted project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement. impacts, if any:
None proposed
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is canpatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
The development of the site will include the
maintenance of 'existing trees and the addition of
supplemental landscaping in order to provide a
significant landscape buffer for screening between the_
proposed parking lot and single family areas to the ,
west and south. Access is to South 128th. Traffic..
from the site will enter and exit from East Marginal
Way in order to reduce impacts on residential areas to-
the west. The site will not include active loading or
unloading in order to reduce the amount of activity
and potential noise on the site and it's impact on
surrounding areas.
9. Housing
•
a. 'Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
high, middle, or low-inccme housing.
None .1, •
•• 7
b.: Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
high, middle, or low-income housing.
None
Indicate whether
Indicate whether
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None. proposed
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
No structures are included as part of the project.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
•None to our knowledge..
c. Proposed measures to reduce to control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Proposed landscaping as described in the land use.
section..
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
Light and glare impacts may occur from vehicles
utilizing the site during earlier morning and late .
evening hours and from security lighting on the site.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views? •
The proposed landscaping the light and glare impacts
should be mitigated and have minimal impact.' on
surrounding properties.
c. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None'
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Proposed landscaping should mitigate any potential
light and glare impacts on surrounding properties:.
12. Recreation
a. What. designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
•Southlgate Park located at South 134th Street and 40th,
*Avenue. Rainier Golf and Country Club located to the'"
northwest at Glendale Way South and Des Moines Way;'
South.,
b. Would the proposed project. displace any eisting.recreational uses? If so,
describe. •
No •
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None proposed
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state,
or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,
generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None proposed
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Access to the site' would be provided from South 128th;
Street and East Marginal Way. See site plan:
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes, East Marginal Way at South 130th Street.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
48 employee parking, 16 trailer space parking spots;.
None would be eliminated.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
No
e. Will the project use (or occur in the irm ediate vicinity of) water, rail, or
air transportation? If so, generally describe.
• No
f . How mane vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?
If known; indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Approximately 70 -80 vehicle trips per day.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Restriction of access to South '128th to reduce.;
potential impacts on East Marginal Way. Access path;
will be restricted to East Marginal Way 128th traffic,'
by employees or trucks will not go westbound on 128th.r
into residential areas.:
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if
any.
None proposed
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available•at the site: electricity, natural gas,
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic. system, other.
The site will require electrical and storm drainage
service,:
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility
providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Electrical service will= be provided by Seattle City.
•Light to provide electricity for on— site security
lighting. Surface water.will be collected on —site and
conducted to City of Tukwila Storm Drainage facilities:.
by way of a on —site control /retention facility.
C•. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my buowledge. I
• understand that the lead ag ncy is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature: ...
Date Submitted:
li 1\1\
'PAC. ECH ENGINEERING
6100 SOUTHCENTER BLVD #100
SEATTCE, WA 98188 •
MR. ED BECKER
16828 S.E. 28TH
BELLEVUE, WA 98008
MS. SHIRLEY ROBINSON
13422 - 40TH AVENUE S.
TUKWILA, WA 98188
MR. BILL SCHEFFLER
4033 S. 128TH
TUKWILA, WA 98188
ALLAN EKBERG
4123 S. 130TH
TUKWILA, WA 98188
BARBARA DAVIDSON
4020 S. 128TH
TUKWILA, WA 98188
GARY EVANS
4020 S. 128TH
TUKWILA, WA 98188
KATHY STETSON
13258 - 40TH AVENUE S
TUKWILA, WA 98188
PAT BECKER
16828 S.E. 28TH
BELLEVUE, WA 98188
Everett C. Kolsky
13001'41st South
Seattle WA 98168
Albert C. Tutt
P.O. Box 1353
Lynnwood WA 98036
Larry and Belinda Hall
12902 East Marginal Way South
Seattle WA 98168
Billie and Janice Seheffler
4033 South 128th Street
Seattle WA 98168
D.R. Babcock
4027 South 128th Street
Seattle WA 98168
Edward M. J. Dupont
1240 South Orr Street
Seattle WA 98108
Nadine C. Tice
3269 -South 137th
Seattle WA 98)68
'Jim Woolbert
12800 E. Marginal Way
Seattle WA 98168
Philip Iiemenway
4036 South 128th Street
Seattle WA 98168
Richard Quea]y
4020 South 130th
Seattle WA 98168
Arijna Fontana
311 Burnett Pl. South
Kenton WA 98055
Beverly Nicholson
1010 S. 130th
Seattle WA 98168
C.F. Nolden
3816 S. 230th
Seattle WA 98168
a'411.1 E. hrov.
18920 127th P1. S.E.
Renton WA 98055
i�ll)'I11it Ma]u
• P.O. Box; 1011
Re.utr:ln WA 98
William D. Saari
3832 South 130th .Street
Seattle WA 98168
Kenneth E. Cllouuard
3836 S. 130th
Seattle WA 98168
Ronald Roth
12224,121h Ave. South
SP;rttle WA 98168
H.J. Prc :ul•r.ittski
1318 East. Boston Street
Soatt10 WA' 98102
:arl R. Clyde
11030 18th Ave. S.W.
;;reattle WA 98146
Virginia M. Key
4021 S. 128th
: aLtle .WA 98168
Stephen James Hill
18436 S.E. 224th
Kent WA 98042
Richard L. Houle
12910 East Marginal Way S.
:Seattle WA 98168
Boulevard Excavating, Inc.
P.O. Box 68128
Seattle WA 98188
Hazel S. Watson
121 N. Park Dr..
Tacoma WA
Rae. Anne Cartron
P.O. Box 222
Vashon WA 98070
James S. Ritter
12909 East Marginal WAy
Seattle WA 98168
rrnInt.aece Ness
111313 32and Slilltll
Svat:t1e WA 98)88
)Edui 11 .1 . Reck.'r
16828 8.N. 211111
1+.•llevue WA 98008
Peter and Natalie Sarantos
2722 S.W. 151st Street
S.at.tle WA 98166
Chuck Cyra
18802 215th S.E.
M.1i.I] rl ,Valley WA' 98038
.,1effrPy M. Wong
1 821 Rolling -• ills Ave.
Renton WA 911055'
George Goodal e
3726 South 128th .
Seattle WA 98168
Rudi nie'h
37 1 2 $r'ut 1, 130th
Seattle WA 08168
Albert L. and Patrice Franklin
1800 South 130th
:;at,lt.t.lp WA 98168
Chest.or R. Lovegren
4807 .53rd . South
Seattle WA. 98118
1+'illi.lul
R. and Tliane.L.
13017 •1151 Ave.. .Sout.11
Seattle WA 98168
PAC-TECH (.
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors
City of Tukwila
622 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Attention: Molly Headi€
January 24 , .1990 '
Job #50322 •
Reference: Becker Transfer Conditional else 'Permi l: and Design Review
Dear Molly:
As per our telephone conversation I am forwarding this letter to
request a continuance of our. Public Hearing before the City of
Tukwila Planning Commission on January 25, 1990. I find it
necessary to request this continuance due to another Public Hearing.
I have scheduled at that time. I feel it would be appropriate for
me to be at the Becker Transfer hearing based on my involvement in
all'of the previous meetings and hearings that have been held.
I have also contacted Mr Ed Becker. He is in agreement with the
continuance and is looking forward to a resolution of this
application as soon as possible. I would request that you set this
matter for hearing at the next possible planning commission
hearing.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please give me
a call if there are any questions with regard to this request.
Jeffrey D. Mann
Planning Director
King County Office
JDM /pc
6100 Southcenter Blvd. - Suite 100 / Seattle, WA 98188 / 243 -7112
2601 South 351h Suite 200 / Tacoma. WA 98409 / 473.4491 / FAX 474 -5871
3721. Kitsap Way - Suite 4 / Bremerton. WA 98312 / 377 -2053
Planning Commission Report
Becker Trucking - 11/18/93
Page 7
NAMES ADDED TO MAILING UST TAKEN FROM PREVIOUS PROPOSAL OF 1989. NOTICES SENT OUT
NOV. 10, 1993 FOR NOV. 18 HEARING:
1. Kathy Stetson, 13258 40th Av. S. ty
Tukwila, WA 98168 izge'
,i /Jo)f3 •
2. Beverly Nicholson, 3810 S. 130th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
3. Shirley Robinson, 13422 40th Ave. S.
Tukwila, WA 98168
4. Robert and Sharon Bernhardt, 3418 S. 126th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
5. Donna Meagher, 13242 40th Ave. S.
Tukwila, WA 98168
6. Gary Evans, 4020 S. 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
To Tukwila City Council
RECEIVED
NOV 1 6 '993
GQWv,1v1UNITY
r3€VM.OPMENT
RE: Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing
Case Number L93 -0058
I am writing this letter due to the fact that I did not receive the public hearing
notice for Becker Trucking. 0
I live at 4049 S. 128th, my neighbor to the west, at 4033 S. 128th, did receive a
notice of the public hearing. •
I would like to have the 300 feet rule for Becker Trucking expanded to allow all
community members affected (residents and those who use the community
center) the opportunity to be informed and to voice their opinions.
When community members do not receive notification of impending issues they
are denied necessary information. The board is also affected since it may not
hear opinions from all sides concerning this and other issues.
Our neighborhood and the goals identified by the Tukwila Tomorrow Committee
and Vision Tukwila meetings may be impacted by decisions made at these
public hearing meetings. .
I feel that expanding the boundaries to include the entire community will allow us
to all work together to meet the goals that we have identified as critical to,
Tukwila's survival as a community.
Sin ¶ely'
Terry an Chris Bitzi
4049 S. 128th
Tukwila, WA 98168
City. of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
October 29, 1993
Mr. Jeff Mann
PAC TECH Engineering, Inc.
6100 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: Becker Trucking - L93 -0057 & L93 -0058.
Dear Mr. Mann:
I have completed my initial review of your request for a Conditional Use Permit and Environmental review
and have the following comments:
Background
As you are aware, applications for a Conditional Use Permit (89-3 -CUP) and Design Review (89- 10 -DR)
were submitted in 1989 for an identical proposal. The' CUP and DR were conditionally approved with final
conditions imposed by the City Council on February 22, 1990. An Environmental Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued November 3, 1989. The proposal included creation of a parking facility for
employee automobiles and semi - tractor trailer truck parking. One of the conditions of approval was that
all improvements be installed within six (6) months of permit approval. This condition was not complied
with and the Conditional Use Permit was subsequently revoked.
There is no expiration for Design Review (DR) approvals, however, based upon current codes, DR .
approval would not be required. According to the Staff Report to the Planning Commission and Board
of Architectural Review dated November 10, 1989, DR was triggered due to the upgrade of non-
conforming landscape areas.
The site is a vacant, unimproved parcel. Because landscaping is generally part of a development
proposal, compliance with applicable codes and regulations are typically included as part of the proposal.
Therefore, there is no existing non - conforming condition. Design Review would therefore not be not
necessary.
The conditions have been included in this letter for your information only for both the CUP and Design
Review. These conditions may be considered and /or modified in the overall review as either conditions
or as recommended changes to the project prior to taking the project forward to the Planning
Commission:
. DESIGN REVIEW CONDITIONS - FILE 89 -10 -DR
1. Deletion of entry point shown on plan off East Marginal Way;
2. • Placement of wheel -stops in parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas;
3. Increase height of new landscaping /screening so that it will be a minimum of 10 feet high at
installation;
4. All new landscaping areas will be automatically irrigated. Landscaping along the East Marginal
Way property line will be enhanced to provide the same level of screening required along the
F
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206J 4313670 • Far (206) 431 -3665
Becker Trucking - CUP Page 2
south and west property lines. This requires the addition of shrubs and trees with the trees
planted at 4 feet on center. The species will be identical to those planted on the adjacent
property lines;
5. Provide a drainage system plant that will eliminate the flooding problem on South 128th Street.
Plan will be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Building Permit;
6. Applicant will be required to install a security fence around the property with locking gates at
entries. An eight foot high cyclone fence will be located inside the planting buffer and will include
an additional two feet of barbed -wire at the top.
7. Revise landscape plan in the Southwest corner to decrease erosion that is currently occurring by
retaining original landscape plan with the addition of erosion - resistant planting on slope and
provide a curb to protect wall /edge of hillside from damage by automobiles.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS •
AS REVISED BY CITY COUNCIL - File 89-3 -CUP
1. Applicant will provide a 150% cash assurance for the cost of landscaping to include materials,
labor and maintenance.
2. Use of site will be confined to parking of employee automobiles, trucks, tractors and trailers.
3. Hours of operation.of the site will be confined to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m..
4. Applicant will comply with conditions of approval within six months of approval date (October 2,
1990)
5. A traffic study will be conducted to determine what will provide a safe intersection for automobiles.
If a restriction of parking along East Marginal Way is deemed necessary, then an ordinance will
be passed to provide for such restriction.
The comments below are for the project now under review and incorporate those provided by the
Departments of Public Work, Planning and Parks and Recreation:
Environmental Review
As indicated above, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued November 3, 1989 for an
identical proposal. No new potentially adverse environmental impacts are anticipated with the current
proposal. Therefore, the original Determination of Nonsignificance still stands and further environmental
review is not necessary. A refund is forthcoming.
Site Plan
1. The location of the property line should be more clearly delineated, specifically on the north and
east sides. Existing and proposed sidewalks should be clearly shown.
2. The maximum number of employees at any one time should be specified to better understand
the amount of needed area within the proposed parking lot.
3. The location of the existing street within the South 128th Street, right -of -way, with edges of.
pavement, will need to be shown as part of the application submittal. This will allow the
Department of Public Works to determine whether or not the sidewalk location and street lane
widths are acceptable.
4. Consider inclusion of picnic tables on the western edge of the site for employees..
• Becker Trucking - CUP
Page 3
Landscape Plan /Fencinq
Several concerns were raised by residents when the project was initially proposed in 1989. ' The CM
(Industrial Park) .designation is considered a transition district between industrial and residential uses.
Landscaping is commonly used to best alleviate visual impacts within transition districts.
Because residential uses generally surround the site, the Tukwila Municipal Code requires a 15 -foot wide
landscape buffer on all sides of the property. Conditions imposed (per DR) included restriction of access
onto E. Marginal Wy. S. and construction of a security fence with gates and barbed wire at the top. A
recommended approach to better mitigate the visual impact to surrounding residences would involve
construction of a landscaped berm along the East Marginal Way frontage and potentially along the S.
128th Street frontage. A landscape architect can recommend a berm height and plantings to provide
adequate screening and to best control erosion. All plantings should be drought- tolerant to avoid need
for permanent automatic irrigation.
Because the adequacy of landscaping is so critical to this project proposal based upon earlier input
received from residents in 1989 and 1990, a landscape plan stamped by a registered landscape architect
is required. It is recognized that there may be some conflict with some of the Design Review conditions
related to types, sizes and placement of plant species, however, as indicated above, modifications can
be made•as part of the CUP review process.
Drainace
1.
A storm drainage analysis with calculations shall be provided for review in accordance with
requirements stipulated in the King County Surface Water Design Manual. This analysis shall
include detention or retention facilities and address flows' through the private Becker storm
drainage system downstream on the north side of South 128th Street;
2. Storm drainage •design shall also include provisions for the treatment of oil /grease /fuel
. contaminants associated with vehicles prior to conveyance off -site;
3. . Any unstable or currently eroding slopes located on the property shall be stabilized as part of the
development project (see landscape comment above);
Traffic
An evaluation of turning movements and proposed operation of the facility with regard to vehicular
movements shall be submitted for review. This evaluation (traffic analysis) shall take into consideration
sight distances on East Marginal Way south and South 128th Street with on- street parking in mind. At
this time, it is recommended that access onto E. Marginal Wy. S. be limited to an exit only. The evaluation
should considered exiting conditions in both north and south direction. This is similar to condition No.
5 of the revoked CUP.
Conclusion
It is desirable to limit the number of conditions for a permit as much as possible.. Secondly, an attempt
should be made to recognize and satisfy concerns raised by residents in 1989 -1990 to avoid a potentially
lengthy process. For these reasons, I suggest revisions be made to the site plan and that a landscape.
plan be provided prepared by a licensed landscape architect which include the conditions and
recommendations as identified above. .
Becker Trucking - CUP
Page 4
The Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for November 18. The following should be provided by
November 4, 1993:
1. Revised site plan
2. Landscape Plan prepared by a Landscape Architect
3. Traffic analysis
Pleasd feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 431-3663.
Sincerely,
penni Shefrin
Associate Planner
cc: L93 -0057 & L93 -0058 Files
John Pierog, Dept. of Public Works
Don Williams, Dept. of Parks and Recreation
To:
From:
Date:
Ann Siegenthaler, Planning Division
John A. Pierog,.Public Works Department
September 16, 1993
Subject: Becker Trucking (Parking Lot)
12677. East Marginal Way South
SEPA Review (L93 -0057)
Conditional Use Application (L93 -0058)
The subject project was reviewed at the August 31 P
development plan review meeting. Public Works co
previously presented at the October 1, ,1992 DRC m
current comments are as follows:
1. SEPA Review
A. No traffic mitigations are required.
B. A storm drainage analysis with calculati
provided for review in accordance with
stipulated in the King County Surface
Manual. This analysis shall include dete
retention facilities and address flows
private Becker storm drainage system downs
north side of South 128th Street.
C. Storm drainage design shall also include
for the treatment of oil /grease /fuel con
associated with vehicles prior to conveyan
D. Any unstable or currently eroding slope
the property shall be stabilized as
development project. .
E. An evaluation of turning movements a
operation of the facility with regard to
movements shall be submitted for r
evaluation shall take into consider
distances on East Marginal Way South and
Street 'with on- street parking in mind.
2. Conditional Use Application
A. Under Item 10.0 on the application, s -e Item 1.E •
above.
B. Under Item 10.E on the application, see Items 1.A
thru D above.
blic Works
ents were
eting. Our
ns shall be
equirements
ater Design
tion or
through the
tream on the
provisions
aminants
e off -site.
located on
art of. the
d proposed
vehicular
view. This
tion sight
South 128th
RE F VED
SEP
CCU;
. DEV'
1 61993
t'i!UNI Y
LOPMENT
•
3. Miscellaneous
A. Property boundaries as shown disagree with King County
assessor's maps. This was previously mentioned.
B. The location of the existing street within the South
128th Street right -of -way, with edges of pavement,
will need to be shown .as part of the application
submittal. This will allow us to determine whether or
not the sidewalk location and street lane widths are
acceptable.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
cf: Development File
JAP /jap
PAC-TECH
Engineering, Inc.
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists 1`/
I�. ✓..
D°v• )l -e-
RECEIVF,,. �'•�ovember 5, 1993
NOV -81993 •
Mr. Ron Cameron
City Engineer.
City of Tu-kwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Reference: Becker Transfer Traffic Study
Mr. Cameron,
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
NOV ` •2.199.3
GOIVtIVIIJi' L
DEVELOPMEN
After discussing traffic patterns and growth in the vicinity of the proposed Becker Transfer
parking lot we feel a modification of the initial recommendations presented in our traffic
study is appropriate.
It is recommended that the proposed driveway access on East Marginal Way South be
developed. This recommendation is based upon the following:
1. The intersection of East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street is a
geometrically complex intersection. As indicated in the traffic study this
intersection is inadequate for both entering sight distance and stopping sight
distance. according to current AASHTO standards.
2. The entering sight distance and stopping sight distance for the proposed
driveway access on East Marginal Way South are also less than the full
distances recommended by current AASHTO standards. However, the sight
distance conditions for the proposed driveway do provide for a larger margin
of safety than the conditions at the southern intersection of East Marginal
Way South and South 128th Street.
3. Most of the vehicular traffic accessing the proposed parking lot will be
traveling north (approximately 82 %) on East Marginal Way South. By
allowing access to The parking lot directly from East Marginal Way South both
passenger vehicles and trucks can avoid the intersection of East Marginal Way
South and South 128th Street, and thereby utilize safer sight distance
conditions.
Environmental Services: 3640 South Cedar, Suite A • Tacoma, WA 98409 -5700 • (206) 473 -4491 • FAX (206) 474 -3695
Pierce County: (206) 473 -4491
•
King County: (206) 243 -7112 • Kitsap County: (206) 377 -2053
4. There is the possibility of increased traffic volumes at the intersection of East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street. Because of the complex
geometry of this intersection, and in order to promote a safer environment,
it is desirable to limit the number of turning vehicles at this intersection. The
installation of the driveway access on East Marginal Way South will help to
accomplish this.
With the development of theyroposed driveway access on East Marginal Way South on-
street p.arking will need to be restricted on the west side of the street, between the proposed
driveway_iocgion_andAhe .sonintersectionofEatMargnWaySiiindSouth
128th Street.
If there are any questions please contact either Heather Bornhorst or myself at
(206) 473-4491.
Sincerely,
• if" OY.
• James A. Mitchell, P.E.
Transportation Manager
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FILE - L93 -0058 BECKER TRUCKING
DENNI SHEFRIN
NOV. 16, 1993
PHONE CALL WITH JEFF MANN OF PAC TECH
Reword condition to separate time to submit
from time landscaping should be installed.
SITE DIRECTLY WEST IS VACANT AND ZONED R1 -7
SITE CONTAINS RESIDENCE.
3. FAXED LETTER FROM TERRY AND CHRIS BITZIG
4. CONFIRMED SITE HAS BEEN POSTED AND PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED.
performance bond
.2. REPORT STATES
5. CLARIFIED WHY DRAINAGE ISSUES WERE NOT PUT IN AS CONDITION:
BECAUSE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ARE BASED UPON CITY STANDARDS
WHICH DOES NOT NECESSITATE A CONDITION.
6. MANN ASKED ABOUT FENCING AND LIGHTING. I STATED THE CONDITIONS
ARE BASED UPON THE SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPING PLAN WHICH DO NOT
INCLUDE EITHER. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY ADD CONDITIONS IN
RESPONSE TO RESIDENT'S CONCERNS. FENCING CAN BE ADDED LATER
IF IT COMPLIES WITH CITY CODES, WHICH MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE
CITY.
7. CLARIFIED PLANNING COMMISSION IS FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY
UNLESS APPEALED TO COUNCIL.
8. MANN INDICATED THAT THE REPORT IS INCORRECT. HE STATED THE
RESIDENTS APPEALED THE DECISION IN 1990, NOT THE APPLICANT AS
STATED IN THE REPORT. I RESEARCHED COUNCIL. MINUTES IN
PREPARING THE REPORT. I WILL GO BACK AND REVIEW AGAIN.
.7 cA*45 6010.6019/ e) it;*?).kx
1137 ;% t() so
• To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Denni Shefrin, Planning
John A. Pierog, PW Development Engineer
November 5, 1993
Becker Trucking (Parking Lott
12677 East Marginal Way South
Conditional Use Application
Activity No. L93 -0058
Traffic Study
RECEIVED
NOV -51993
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Public Works has reviewed the subject study in accordance with your
November 4th request.
We are in agreement with the recommendations for on- street parking
restrictions along East Marginal Way South and South 128th Street.
We also agree that entering and stopping sight distances for the
proposed East Marginal Way South driveway are not up to AASHTO
standards, However, these distances would be closer to standards
than those for the existing East Marginal Way South and South 128th
Street intersection. That being the case, entrances and exits from
the proposed driveway onto or .off East Marginal Way South would
actually present a safer situation. No restrictions on turning
movements are necessary. Subsequent telephone conversations with
the traffic consultant indicated agreement on this point.
Formal agreement documentation will be forthcoming. Additional on-
street parking restrictions will be necessary south of the East
Marginal Way South and South 128th Street intersection.
If you have any questions concerning the. above, please let me know.
JAP /jap
cf: City Engineer
Development File.
kti21\431 4" &PPM OP A3
Div, :, 7) , $214> O7
190$
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
.Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Brad Collins, Planning Director
Mark Caughey, Associate Planner
7 May 1922
Truck Terminal Definition
This memo is sent to you on behalf of the Tukwila Board of Adjustment
following their meeting of 6 May 1982 at which the definition and inter -
pretation•of Truck Terminals within the city was modified. The de-
finition which was adopted by the Board on 6 May supersedes that con-
tained in the memorandum of 4 October 1978 from Roger Blaylock which
discusses the Board's prior interpretation of this type. of facility
on 21 September 1978::
TRUCK TERMINAL -- Truck terminal means a site or building, or a
tenant space within a building the occupant of
which is a holder of a certificate of public
necessity from the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion, the Washington Utilities and Transporta-
tion Commission or a similar agency, and which
exhibits any one of the following characteris-
tics of use: '
- -the business location is a place to receive,
pick -up and /or deliver orders which are placed
by customers. •
- -The business includes the use of a dispatcher
(functioning with that or any other title) which
directs the activities of the truck driver.
- -The business location is used by the • truck car-
rier to receive shipments for transloading, trans-
shipping and /or consolidation, or from which•trans-
portation ensues after transloading, transshipping
or deconsolidation, whether or not rolling stock
of the carrier is parked at the location during
periods of non -use.
All businesses meeting this definition,.except those located in 'the M -2
zoning district, will be expected to obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior
to beginning,: operation, and only in those zoning districts 'where truck
terminals are'recognized'`as.a conditional use;
•
PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
-_14-labs Engineers / 'Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists
November 4, 1993 •
Mr. Denni Shefrin
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Reference: Becker Transfer Traffic Study
Dear Mr. Shefrin,
Enclosed is the completed traffic study as requested as part of the Design Review Conditions
(File 89- 10 -DR) and Conditional Use Permit Conditions (File 89 -3 -CUP). If you have any
questions please feel free to contact Heather Bornhorst or myself at (206) 473 -4491.
Sincerely,
James A. Mitchell, P.E.
Transportation Manager
RECEIVED
NOV -4
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT..
Environmental Services: 3640 South Cedar, Suite A • Tacoma, WA 98409 -5700 • (206) 473 -4491 • FAX (206) 474 =3695
Pierce County: (206) 473 -4491 •..: King County: (206)243 -7112
Kitsap County: (206) 377 -2053
Electronic Mail 10-29-1993 11:22a
Egai4igggir d • e 366gggng6t0gEgggge4tgalb=
eeee
=Date: -93 11:22 • g
0From: DENNI (DENNI SHEFRIN) 0
=To: DENNI
=Copies-to: JOHN-P
=Subject: BECKER
=Message-id: 05FDDO2C01AEAEAE
ZCONVERSATION SUMMARY. JOHN DISCUSSED ACCESS ONTO E. MARGINAL WAY S. FILE
089-10-DR RESTRICTED ACCESS ONLY ONTO 128TH. NEW PROPOSAL SHOWS ACCESS ONTO E. 0
=MARGINAL WY S. JOHN STATED THAT ACCESS AT PROPOSED LOCATION MAY BE BETTER AND 0
=SHOULD BE EXIT ONLY. THE APPLICANT SHOULD ANALYZE TURNING MOVEMENTS ONTO E. 11
=MARGINAL WAY SOUTH WHICH ALSO ADDRESSES SIGHT DISTANCE.. THE ANALYSIS SHOULD *11
=CONCLUDE WHETHER THE ACCESS CAN .SAFELY ACCOMMODATE TURNING MOVEMENTS BOTH 0
=LEFT AND RIGHT OUT.
MegedegededgedegedededgeddedgeddeededgeddedgedgeggegeddedgeggeggedgeodegedgeggY
OOMOOMOMMOOMMOOMMOMMOOMMOOMOOMMOOMOMMOOMMOOMOMMOMMOOMO
Press <Esc> to quit reading. <ALT>-F-F to toggle message folding.
FlHelp F2 F3Exit F4SavposF5ConfigF6ChgUsrF7ScreenF8Block F9ExportFOMenu
artmeff ommunity D ent Rick Beeler, Director
9:0a R -C fo terview
eeddeddedgeeddedgeggedgeggegeggedgedeeededgeodgedgedgedgeggegged£
•
• - • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 , Tukwila, •Washington 98188 • (206) 4.31-3670 Far (2O6)4313665
PAC_ L E H Engineering, Inc.
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists
❑ 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 • Tacoma, WA 98409 -7479 • 473 -4491
❑ 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 • Seattle, WA 98188 -2441 • '243 -7112 • ❑ 3721 Kitsap Way, Suite 4 • Bremerton, WA 98312 -2461 • 377 -2053
`� ❑ 3640 South Cedar, Suite A • Tacoma, WA 98409 -5700 • 473 -4491
ATTN.
6
i
WE ARE SENDING YOU ATTACHED
7/ 09
DAT
JOB NO.
RE /c1 / ': 1"
R
COPIES
DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
• THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval / review / comment
For your use
As requested
Remarks "—
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returned for corrections
��ii -- --
/
SEP 1 4 199'
DEN .LOP'iVIENT
COPY TO
SIGNED.
PT 004
PAC-1Et Engineering, . 9 9• Inc.
•
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists
❑ 2601 South 35th, Suite 200 • Tacoma, WA 98409 -7479 • 473 -4491
o 6100 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 • Seattle, WA 98188 -2441 • 243 -7112
`�� o 3721 Kitsap Way, Suite 4 • Bremerton, WA 98312 -2461 • 377 -2053
�diS ❑ 3640 South Cedar, Suite A • Tacoma, WA 98409 -5700 • 473 -4491
JOB NO.
WE ARE SENDING YOU ATTACHED
COPIES DATE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
Allirtah
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
❑ For approval / review / comment
For your use
As requested
❑ Approved as submitted
❑ Approved as noted
❑ Returried for corrections
Remarks
COPY TO:
SIGNED.
COMtwt,N1 1 Y
DEVELOPMENT
PT 004
.
7.
• u, --
'� _.0 a __
4. a
,trs 1.• SFZ_-- _ —___r_
r+
O
0Ir..1
141
0 is
i
ANC. •
r
-. ( 0 y f .
Cr .!
r' in a.1 )
C. L• !. .16. ;. 1,. T
I. > > 01 t
1 t.
1 sr 1 7�' 1h'c
/n us 1n
lL r _
tra
0
c' -
I. 1.5 Do N
11 • + 6 0 •
0 ~ r `v^
C.n >t'.� -- c o
/ S OOH!
ettk
K! u
CD
O
o'
O u
px p I' _ �1 -
A :6h2 ''° OI ro Ih Cs
_�r., 1 o (....% o �
1 OF' S� S
E6'sic,.. ' 75 r
O 0 I tom•• % 1 6 .? 1 O..1 ff Jr
O K' c` r o- H•
�.O �° 1 �• O I CO 1 Cn 1 rsyV
ca 111 1 W oH y▪ 1 c� 1
cr 1 r[ ss 1 t r
to
In
�r •
O
O
T
EF'G 9 '
s ? r1h
it
f6I
co
mOS•ec.cr
L ?Y•i.
OF Of
H10fi f '`' CR I.o r`�+ 1�-- '�!__
/ J 6'0.7E747, G. r.
�. tea;• --
_' R-t sSd r'' .L,- T >s'
H f n".^" 10 {�+ •
Stit'G .1..A `, j 06.
2- J VG �
L11 f1d
n r w G)
•5 1.
O.
a O 7
to
Oat 11•IA Mr Or.l.s,A ? ^ilex•.."6
tt V)
c fn N
r- not �IJ� c0,�cf
Qom. Qh .. o'n c.'c��41.7 K��U o
:4:? t_" _N `Iy O Fr
_ •oc' >CC fi 1p d.
• /00.000...- :.. .. ., . (n tt. • �Q �� r� r• V N I� 1
7. .06 01 \
IK
.�. 1 -. !.• •
•
.. .O • t`•• • Sr
C^144? et
4— • ...
YOCt.OY.pN . ' ;pt
ICJ .
CI
H :J .4-
c ... O) �
^ a a o ... ... 0.1
H o....= . --1.. N :..�.... •'
co -4 .._ F-
c
0
Nw '. c _��. . r.v
ti g1•% �wt�c: rC it .
T- cu 1 '
�..0 - !
• ,
,w�, r•. m ! — \ .A W 'c'
et. el
a
t`: I.
:L.:1:.: i
1
71,65 :
1
V1
a
r
CD
r[Z1'
1.,.
(.: •�` 1 t•i
1 �..�'.. •.�
••s'
is -,c rii. .3 c
•
L., DJ • u! A..rfT:
,V. • � -v
rr:•'
t1 •..
4
•
•
le
.7"44.!5. :;: •,>,R, .p �': tom. ,,;..,, •: •,
roil A " :;• �'•
= f .�5. 'RAW. %:?,, -...........7, 1.... •
sLv �� .X1T 'GiB.:Y 5�y:
'•' •
C O N V E R S A T I O N R E C O R D
FILE: BECKER TRUCKING C. ile #L92 -0058
FROM: Ann Siegenthaler 4
Department of Co y Development
C9
DATE: September 1, 1993
TYPE: In person
WITH: Jeff Mann, Pac Tech
Jeff brought in following materials in response to my request:
Corrected KC Assessors map showing site boundaries. S. 129th
Street has been vacated. Our KC maps are outdated.
Copy of old survey of Becker office site (north of proposed
parking lot). Jeff will re -draw as an Exhibit showing main
features so that legible.
Site plan: Jeff will draw in at least a portion of Becker
office site onto parking lot site plan, so that relationships
& circulation can be evaluated.
Also discussed proposal:
Some employee parking on office site and along S. 128th.
Need more room for employee parking. Also, office site does
not have room to store truck trailers, only loading /unloading
room.
Trucks do not use or manoeuver in S. 128th any further west'
than parking lot. Stop sign at intersection. Previous CUP
application: Jeff says Public Works would not allow
driveways onto EMWS.
Landscaping: Will eventually need revised planting plan.
Need plant sizes and spacing; specify what type /size of
proposed trees (looks like some along 128th & EMWS ?); need
tighter screening along EMWS and'S. 128th. •
AS will prepare letter to Jeff re: required revisions after
all comments received.'
�
CITY OF TUKWILA Id: ROUT1u Keyword: UACT User: X685 08/26/93
Activity document routing maintenance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Permit No: L93 -0058 Applicant: PAC-TECH. ENGINEERING, INC.
Status: PENDING Address: 12677 EAST MARGINAL WY S
Route: 1 Current Route Line: 2 of 8
Packet Units Description Station Status Received Assigned Complete
aaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Packet Units Action Station Initials Status Received Assigned Completed
PLAN' 01 00 C PLANNR APS Ap Cond. 08/26/93 08/26/93 08/26/93
Priority (0 /low..9 /high): 0
Regular hours (HH.MM): .00 Overtime Hours(HH.MM):
Comments 1[ROUTED TO DEPTS. WITH SEPA 8/26/93. CALLED JEFF MANN: ASKED]
2[HIM FOR PLAN OF ADJACENT SITE W /BECKER BLDG. AND ASSOC. ]
3[FACIL'ITIES TO SHOW RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSED OFF- PREMISES ]
4[PARKING LOT, TRAFFIC, PED CIRCULATION, ETC. ASKED ALSO FOR ]
5[COPY OF ASSESSOR'S MAP W /BOUNDARIES OF SITE DRAWN.. HIS SITE]
6[PLAN INCONSISTENT W /ASSESSOR MAP PROP. LINES. FAX'D MANN AN]
7[ASSESSORS MAP TO USE AS BASE. MANN WILL SUBMIT THESE ITEMS ]
8[ASAP. ]
9[ ]
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
F1= Help, ESC =Exit current screen.
■r )N 4
Full Work Description
Description: Page No: 1
IMPROVEMENT OF BECKER TRANSFER PARKING LOT FOR
SEMI -TRUCK TRAILER & EMPLOYEE PARKING. PROPOSAL
INCLUDES PAVING OF EXISTING GRAVEL PARKING LOT OF
APPROX. SQ. FT.; REMOVAL OF 3 EXISTING TREES;
PLANTING OF NEW TREES AND SCREENING SHRUBS ALONG
PERIMETER OF SITE. FACILITY WILL PROVIDE PARKING
FOR 17 SEMI -TRUCK TRAILERS AND 48 EMPLOYEE CARS,
DURING THE HOURS OF 6:00 AM TO 10:00 PM. NO
LOADING OR UNLOADING OF TRUCK TRAILERS WILL OCCUR
AT THE SITE.
-F2 =Next Page, F3 =1:ST Page, F.4 =Prev Page, F7= Update, ESC =Exit Desc Maint
IDENTIAL ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRILDGED COMMUNICATION'
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM REC I /ED
TO: Linda Cohen, City Attorney
CITY OF- TUS,x 9a9LA r !P i' V 7
FROM: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner myKir opttS CFr OE
DATE: February 1, 1994 FEB j 1c 0,;:
SUBJECT: Concurrence on Attached Code Interpretation & Becker Trucking
COi'.��i::�t�:��_'ri
DEVELOPMENT
•
On November 10, 1993, Becker Trucking requested that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to enable Becker to use a 1.5 acre parcel as a truck terminal /parking area for trucks,
trailers and employee vehicles. Becker's existing truck terminal is located on the northwest corner of East
Marginal Way South and S. 128th Street. The 1.5 acre site is located on the southwest corner of the
same intersection.
The Planning Commission approved Becker's request with conditions. The action of the Planning
Commission was subsequently appealed. The existing Becker facility does not currently conform with the
TMC, and is thus considered a legal non - conforming use.
Issue:
Would the proposed parking lot be considered an expansion of an existing non - conforming use?
Findings:
1. The proposed development is separated by S. 128th Street;
2. The site is zoned CM (Industrial Park, TMC 18.38)
3. The City regulates land based on the legal lot of record;
4. The site is a separate legal lot of record;
5. The site is independently eligible for Conditional Use Approval provided all CUP criteria is met per
the TMC.
6. The proposed development, on its own, is a truck terminal requiring a Conditional Use Permit in
the CM zone (18.38.040 (2))
Conclusion:
The proposed development is not an expansion of a nonconforming use for the following reasons:
1. Its ability to be approved on its own merits;
2. Its location on a separate legal lot of record;
3. Land use regulations are based on legal Tots of record.
Please indicate if you concur with the conclusion of this memo and the attached code interpretation. Your
response by February 4th would be appreciated.
cc: Jack Pace
5 •
-1- Cvrrc �.,r' LAI1 -ti,�,L do
s p/.e 4-,,, -j G.-■
• 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
c' I , .,
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
February 11, 1994
Jack Dempere
4033 s. 128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Subject: Becker Trucking - Appeal
Dear Ms. Dempere:
This letter summarizes our phone conversation today.
In your letter received February 4, 1994, you requested transcripts and tapes from previous Planning
Commission hearings related to the Becker Trucking CUP. I had attempted to contact you by phone on
two occasions, February 9th and 10th, to inform you that the appeal hearing date is February 28 and to
inform you that the written minutes have been mailed to you. I stated the applicant was not in agreement
to postponing the hearing to March, but agreed to February 28.
You informed me today that you had received the written minutes of the November 18 and January 27
Planning Commission meetings. As you are aware, it is common that minutes, unless transcribed
verbatim, do not include all information presented at a hearing.
You had also requested copies of the tapes for each of the two Planning Commission meetings. It was
my intention to get a verbal ok to pay for the cost of the tapes prior to sending them to be duplicated.
You provided this ok to me today and agreed to pay a $15 fee for each tape. The tapes should be
available Tuesday afternoon. You will be contacted by the City when they are ready to be picked up.
I have included the Notice of Public Hearing with this letter. This letter and notice has also been mailed
to all appellants as listed in your Notice of Appeal. As the notice states, the February 28 appeal hearing
is a limited public.hearing where testimony will be taken only from the appellants, the applicant and City
staff.
Please feel free to contact me if you have, any additional questions. I can be reached at 431 -3663.
Sincerely,
Denni Shefrin
Associate Planner
cc: L93 -0058
Robert Bernhardt
Sharon Bernhardt
William Cavanaugh
Jackie Dempere
Curtiss Robinson
Shirley Robinson
Donald Scanlon
Elizabeth Springer
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 o .(206)'4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665
•
Becker Appeal
J.Dempere 2/11/94
David Fox Kathryn Stetson
Ray Funk Tracy Weibel
Jack Hendricks Roger Young
Suzanne Hendricks
Page 2
•
C1TY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE
OF
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A
LIMITED PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1994 AT 7:00 PM IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT TUKWILA CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.,
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT,
APPELLANT AND CITY STAFF IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
CONDITIONS TO BECKER TRUCKING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TRUCK
TERMINAL /PARKING LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST.
MARGINAL WAY SOUTH AND SOUTH 128TH STREET.
DATED THIS q DAY OF 1994.
CITY OF TUKWILA.
JA E E. CANTU
CI CLERK
DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEATTLE TIMES .- FEBRUARY 11, 1994
y..
Tukwila's Council & Mayor
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Council Members and Mayor,
This letter is to bring
problems that have developed
the main appellant, although
by a number of other Tukwila
4033 S. 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
February 4, 1994
to your attention several
with an appeal on which I am
it is also signed and supported
citizens.
The issues on appeal are important, difficult, and with
far reaching effects on the lives of many residents and
property owners.
Several times, I have requested the transcripts of the
minutes from the public hearing of November 18, 1993. As of
today, I have yet to receive them. I have experienced
stonewalling.
I now learn that subsequent to the November 18th
meeting, another meeting took place and changes were made to
the transcripts. I was not notified of this meeting nor that
one of the subjects was going to be this appeal. As the
appellant, I have a special interest in being informed of
any issues related to this permit. Notice in the newspaper
of a planning commission meeting on an unscheduled or
regularly scheduled date is not enough. I had no way bf
knowing that the issue of my appeal would be addressed at
this meeting.
I am formally requesting that the public hearing
scheduled for February 22nd be delayed. I base my request
under the, principles of "procedural due process" of the 14th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
As the appellant I am entitled to a fair hearing,
adequate time to prepare, and timely information among other
rights. I need to bring to your attention the problems I
experience as a citizen with English as my second language.
Translation of my verbal comments during your council
meetings are many times in total opposition to what I have
said. Lack of understanding as to the very serious issues I
have brought before . the council is of grave concerns to me.
In order to remedy the aforementioned problems I hereby
formally request:
1. Information which includes written transcripts
of the appeal hearing of November 18, 1993 and
unaltered or unedited audio tapes of all the
meetings with the planning commission that have to .
do with my appeal.
2. A new hearing be scheduled six weeks from the.
time I am provided with all, the requested
information.
Yours truly,
Jackie Dempere
IDENTIAL ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVLEDGED COMMUNICATION"
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
TO: Linda Cohen, City Attorney Fa? ~ 2 1994
FROM: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner
DATE: February 1, 1994
SUBJECT: Concurrence on Attached Code Interpretation & Becker Trucking
CITY OF TUKWII.R1- �� CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE , , ..
P
ill~ VEI_OP∎Lit =i� $
On November 10, 1993, Becker Trucking requested that the Planning Commission approve a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to enable Becker to use a 1.5 acre parcel as a truck terminal /parking area for trucks,
trailers and employee vehicles. Becker's existing truck terminal is located on the northwest corner of East
Marginal Way South and S. 128th Street. The 1.5 acre site is located on the southwest comer of the
same intersection.
The Planning Commission approved Becker's request with conditions. The action of the Planning
Commission was subsequently appealed. The existing Becker facility does not currently conform with the
TMC, and is thus considered a legal non - conforming use.
Issue:
Would the proposed parking lot be considered an expansion of an existing non - conforming use?
Findings:
1. The proposed development is separated by S. 128th Street;
2. The site is zoned CM (Industrial Park, TMC 18.38)
3. The City regulates land based on the legal lot of record;
4. The site is a separate legal lot of record;
5. The site is independently eligible for Conditional Use Approval provided all CUP criteria is met per
the TMC.
6. The proposed development, on its own, is a truck terminal requiring a Conditional Use Permit in
the CM zone (18.38.040 (2))
Conclusion:
The proposed development is not an expansion of a nonconforming use for the following reasons:
1. Its ability to be approved on its own merits;
2. Its location on a separate legal lot of record;
3. Land use regulations are based on legal lots of record.
Please indicate if you concur with the conclusion of this memo and the attached code interpretation. Your
response by February 4th would be appreciated.
cc: Jack Pace
C v v f c - - 4 4 t 1 - do
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665
cr
PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
Engineers / Planners / Surveyors / Environmental Specialists
February 15, 1994
Job #50322
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Reference: Response to Appeal Related to Becker Trucking - L93 -057 & L93 -0058
Dear Honorable Mayor Rants and City Council:
This letter is written in response to the appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the
Becker Transfer Conditional Use Permit for a truck terminal/parking lot in the C -M zone.
Our position is that the Planning Commission of the City of Tukwila acted appropriately in
approving the Conditional Use Permit for the Becker Transfer Site based on a land use that
has limited impact and also based on the fact that conditions were placed on the parking lot
to mitigate the limited impacts of the proposed use. We would request your approval of the
Conditional Use Permit and denial of the Appeal request.
Background
Becker Trucking applied for a conditional use permit for a parking facility for employee
automobiles and truck and tractor parking on a site directly to the south of their existing
transfer operation. This conditional use permit was approved by the City Planning
Commission on November 18, 1993 and was subsequently appealed on November 30, 1993.
The site was originally annexed into the City as part of the Riverton Annexation with
comprehensive plan and zoning adopted as part of Ordinance 1508 and Ordinance 1480.
Subsequent to the annexation, Becker Transfer applied for a conditional use permit in 1989
and it was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission in 1989 and the City Council
on appeal on February 22, 1990. Due to the retirement of the previous owner, Mr. Edwin
Becker, and subsequent business decisions, the site was not improved and the conditional
use permit expired.
Key Points
We offer the following keypoints in response to appellant's contention that the proposed
conditional use permit is an expansion of zoning or modification to existing land use
regulations or land use designations.
RECEIVED
King County: 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 212 • Seattle, WA 98168 -3333 • (206) 243 -7112 • FAX (206) 243 -F
1 7 1994
Pierce County: (206) 473 -4491 • Environmental Services: (206) 473 -4491 • Kitsap County: (206) 377- 2COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
1. When the property was annexed in March 1989, the City adopted a Comprehensive
Plan land use designation of Light Industrial and a zoning designation of C -M-
Industrial Park. At that time in the recommendations made to the City Council from
the task force it was concluded that these designations "would...provide a better
transition from single family to commercial use." In response the task force
recommended that the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan would be amended
to reduce the commercial area and designate an area on the west side of East
Marginal Way as Light Industrial. The area designated as such is the Becker
Transfer property.
Under Section 18.38.040, Item 2 - Conditional Uses Under the C -M Zone, provides
for and allows for truck terminals subject to requirements of Chapter 18.64 which
outlines requirements for conditional use permits. The proposed parking lot is not
an expansion or a change in zoning or land use designation but a permit filed under
an existing zoning designation.
2. This parking lot is proposed in order to facilitate the existing transfer operation and
reduce some of the existing impacts from this operation. This parking lot will allow
employees that currently are parking on the street to park in an off - street parking
area. The parking of trailers on this site will reduce the amount of movement that
is required during loading operations on the existing site particularly movements of
trailers during night time hours as they are being loaded and prepared for the next
day. The same number of employee vehicles and trucks and trailers will be used
however they will be able to use this parking lot in order to facilitate the operation.
From a high of 54 drivers in 1974, Becker Transfer has maintained an average of 36
drivers from 1984 until recently. Presently the company maintains a list of 34 drivers,
with an average of 28 that are on active status at this time. this again emphasizes
that this parking lot is for the purpose of facilitating the operations and not
expanding it.
PAC-.TECH Engineering, Inc.
Comparison of Permits
We provide here a comparison of the conditional use permits approved in 1990 vs. 1993 to
indicate the increase in the conditions and requirements on the proposed development.
Site Plan Requirements
1990
1993
1. Landscaping
Buffers - 5 to 22.5 feet. 123
trees provided. Irrigation
required.
Buffers - 5 to 22.5 feet.
163 trees provided.
Irrigation required.
2. Lighting
None required.
Lighting required but
conditioned to be directed
on the site and blocked by
the buffer landscaping.
3. Fencing
Required
Required and specifically
to be located inside the
landscape buffer.
4. Gates
Not required.
Gates required
5. Wheelstops
Required
Required
6. Drainage System
Required
Required
7. Access
Access only onto 128th
Street.
Additional driveway on
East Marginal Way to
provide better site
distance and safety for
traffic exiting to East
Marginal Way.
PAC-TECH Engineering, Inc.
Response to Elements of Decision Being Appealed - Item 5 of Appellant's Letter
The following responses are made to the elements raised in the appellant's letter identified
as Item 5 and in the same order that is outlined in the letter of November 29, 1993.
Issue
Response
A. Use of 1989
Determination of Non-
Significance
The determination of non- significance is
adequate in that there has been no change to the.
proposed project. There remains no significant
adverse impact from the use of the proposed site
under conditional use permit for a parking lot.
B. The Approval of the
Conditional Use Permit
Including Design Review
Approval of the Conditional Use Permit with
appropriate conditions was made pursuant to all
appropriate criteria and land use regulations
provided for by the City of Tukwila Land Use
Regulations.
C. Failure to Require an
Environmental Impact
Statement (E.I.S.)
It was noted in the Determination of Non -
Significance and findings by staff and the
Planning Commission both in 1990 and 1993 that
the proposed use had no significant adverse
impact which would require an environmental
impact statement.
D. Inadequate Disclosure
All pertinent City regulations regarding
disclosure and notification of residents were
followed in connection with the advertising and
Notice for the conditional use permit. .
PAC-TECH Engineering, Inc.
E. Inadequate Conditions
or Lack of Conditions
As has been noted the Planning Commission and
the applicant have both increased the number of
conditions on the proposed site in order to
provide further mitigation from the original
approval in 1990. Many of those conditions were
incorporated into the site plans itself and not
enumerated in the conditions in the staff report.
The site plan itself incorporates all applicable
regulations and requirements of the City and by
definition become conditions on the proposed
project.
F. Limited Scope of Traffic
In 1990, the traffic study for the site was
Study
placed as a condition on the project. In this
case the City required the traffic study be
prepared as part of the Conditional Use Permit
review. The traffic study was limited to site
distance in that there is no change or increase
proposed in terms of trips or traffic generated
from the existing or proposed transfer
operations. The traffic study recommended the
addition of the driveway on East Marginal Way
in order to enhance site distance for traffic
entering on to East Marginal Way. Traffic exiting
at S. 128th Street is using an existing intersection.
The removal of the proposed driveway would
leave all traffic entering onto East Marginal Way
at S. 128th as it presently does.
G. Failure to Enforce
The proposed development has increased the
Existing Tukwila Tree
number of trees on the site. The landscape plan
Ordinance
required by City staff was prepared prior to the
approval of the Conditional Use Permit. It was
prepared by a landscape architect. As part of the
approval of permits for construction, final
approval of the landscape plan will need to be
given by the City of Tukwila. All plantings will be
consistent with City regulations.
PAC-TECH Engineering, Inc.
H. Failure to Protect City
Property
As with all the items above, the appellant in the
letter of November 30 has failed to indicate what
issues or concerns are being raised.
1. Traffic Impacts
As noted previously, no increase traffic trips are
proposed. Site distance being enhanced by
additional access driveway.
2. Air Quality and Wetland
Wetland Habitat
There is no wetland identified on -site. There is
no increase in traffic proposed. Subsequently
there is no resulting impact on air quality.
3. Noise and Light
The proposed parking lot will reduce noise
particularly night time noise due to the reduction
of trailer movements on the existing transfer site.
Lights as required by the City Planning
Commission are to be located in a format to be
below the landscaping and site specific so as not
to effect surrounding properties. These may also
be turned off after business hours to reduce night
time light glare.
4. Hazardous Materials
No issue is identified here and no hazardous
materials are proposed in connection with the
proposed parking lot.
5. Drainage and Water
Quality
All requirements of the City of Tukwila drainage
standards will be met as part of engineering
plans and subsequent construction including
erosion control measures and on -site collection
and detention/retention as required by City
regulations.
PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc.
6. Buffers Surrounding
Zoning Uses
The site plan incorporates all buffer widths as
required by City ordinances. This includes
additional buffer widths adjacent to single family
zoning and land uses as seen on the east and
southerly boundaries wherein a normal 15 foot
buffer normally is required is expanded to 22.5
feet in order to respond to these land uses and
zonings. As noted previously, enhanced
landscaping has been provided in order to
protect surrounding land uses but also provide
aesthetic view of the proposed site.
7. Performance History of
Applicant
We have noted that due to ownership change
and business decisions on the previous
conditional use permit, the site was not
developed at that time and the conditional use
permit expired. Becker Transfer will be posting a
bond for the completion of the improvements on
the subject site as per City conditions.
8. Pedestrian Safety
Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will be provided
along S. 128th Street providing additional
pedestrian access along this street. A proposed
access on East Marginal Way will be designed
per City standard providing for appropriate
site distance for viewing of traffic but also of
pedestrians on the existing sidewalk on East
Marginal Way.
9. Children Security
The site is provided with gates and fencing
in order to prevent from children cutting
through the site or playing on equipment.
10. Tree Protection
Two existing trees which were planted by Becker
Transfer a number of years ago would be
removed in connection with the proposed across
on East Marginal Way. These trees are more
than replaced by the proposed landscaping which
exceeds City minimum.
PAC-TECH ECH Engineering, Inc.
11. Cumulative Impacts
As noted previously, this parking lot will
accommodate existing employee parking and
existing trailers and trucks that are currently
using the existing transfer site. As noted
previously and as presented testimony to the
Planning Commission, the location of tractors
and trailers on the proposed site will actually
reduce the amount of noise and truck movement
during night time hours on the existing truck
transfer site.
12. Disregard for Previous
Citizen Input
,
The City Planning Commission and City Council
in both previous decisions and decisions on
this application have exhibited significant interest
in citizen input and have modified the subject
application in response to citizens' concern
regarding safety which have resulted in
requirements for fencing, lighting, gates, and
increased landscape buffering in order to
mitigate potential impacts.
F. Lack of Public Notice
See D above. Appropriate public notice was
given.
G. Approval of Permits
Which Authorized the
Expansion of a
Conditional Use Permit
Beyond What Was
Described and Requested
in the Original Application
As noted above, the proposed parking lot will be
utilized to accommodate existing employee
parking trucks and trailers. The proposed
application is not an expansion of any zoning or
other land use designation. The proposed use is
a use allowed and identified as a conditional use
under the C -M zone.
PAC-TECH ECH Engineering. Inc.
H. Approval of a Permit
That Aggravates,
Intensifies,
and Expands and Other
Related Site Beyond its
Original Conditional Use
As noted previously, the proposed parking with
conditions in place, will not cause any significant
adverse impact upon the surrounding properties
or the neighborhood. We would note that
surrounding properties across the street to the
south and to the north are zoned for a
commercial and C -M uses. The proposed
conditions will also address impacts to single
family homes in the commercial zone across East
Marginal Way to the east and the single family
home in the C -1 Zone immediately to the south.
As noted again, the proposed use should
decrease the impact of the existing transfer site
both by removing existing employee parking from
S. 128th Street and East Marginal Way South as
well as reducing truck trailer movements during
the night time by providing this parking area.
Summary
As noted in the staff report to the Planning Commission prepared November 10, 1993, "A
parking facility, is an appropriate use within the C -M Zone provided adequate measures are
taken to ensure the use is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. By requiring
dense landscape buffers, any negative visual impact will be significantly reduced."
We would note that in the Conclusions on pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report of November
10, 1993, that the proposed use is consistent with all four decision criteria for Conditional
Use Permits and as noted under criteria A, "A parking facility is not considered an intensive
land use and therefore the issue of compatibility has been addressed from a visual
perspective. Efforts have therefore been made to achieve substantial screening from
adjacent properties."
The appeal has not presented any new evidence or facts which support any of the issues
raised in the November 30, 1993 letter. The letter provides list of issues but no basis for the
issues. We would submit that with the proposed landscaping plan and other improvements
as required by the City of Tukwila that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact
on surrounding land uses and that Becker Transfer has provided and will provide through
the development process a parking lot site which is well buffered and improved to achieve
compatibility with surrounding and adjacent properties.
PA C• TECH Engineering, Inc.
We would again request your approval of the Conditional Use Permit consistent with the
Planning Commission approval of November 18, 1993, and rejection of the appeal based on
the finding that there is no significant impacts or issues raised by the appeal which have not
been addressed through conditions placed on the Conditional Use Permit.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Sincerely,
n
Jeffrey D. Mann
Project Manager
JDM/ss
cc: Rolan Becker; Becker Transfer
Denni Shefrin; City Planning
: PAC - TECH Engineering, Inc, •
City of Tukwila
John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
February 11, 1994
Jackie Dempere
4033 s. 128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Subject: Becker Trucking - Appeal
Dear Ms. Dempere:
This letter summarizes our phone conversation today.
In your letter received February 4, 1994, you requested transcripts and tapes from previous Planning
Commission hearings related to the Becker Trucking CUP. I had attempted to contact you by phone on
two occasions, February 9th and 10th, to inform you that the appeal hearing date is February 28 and to
inform you that the written minutes have been mailed to you. I stated the applicant was not in agreement
to postponing the hearing to March, but agreed to February 28.
You informed me today that you had received the written minutes of the November 18 and January 27
Planning Commission meetings. As you are aware, it is common that minutes, unless transcribed
verbatim, do not include all information presented at a hearing.
You had also requested copies of the tapes for each of the two Planning Commission meetings. It was
my intention to get a verbal ok to pay for the cost of the tapes prior to sending them to be duplicated.
You provided this ok to me today and agreed to pay a $15 fee for each tape. The tapes should be
available Tuesday afternoon. You will be contacted by the City when they are ready to be picked up.
I have included the Notice of Public Hearing with this letter. This letter and notice has also been mailed
to all appellants as listed in your Notice of Appeal. As the notice states, the February 28 appeal hearing
is a limited public hearing where testimony will be taken only from the appellants, the applicant and City
staff.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. I can be reached at 431 -3663.
Sincerely,
Denni Shefrin
Associate Planner
cc: L93 -0058
Robert Bernhardt.
Sharon Bernhardt
William Cavanaugh
Elizabeth Springer
Curtiss Robinson
Shirley Robinson
Donald Scanlon
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 o (206) 4313670 o Fax (206): 431-3665
Becker Appeal
J.Dempere 2/11/94
David Fox
Ray Funk
Jack Hendricks
Suzanne Hendricks
.... .__.... »...,.,..�_..- ...,. *,
Kathryn Stetson
Tracy Weibel
Roger Young
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE
OF
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A
LIMITED PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1994 AT 7 :00 PM IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT TUKWILA CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.,
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT.
APPELLANT AND CITY STAFF IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
CONDITIONS TO BECKER TRUCKING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TRUCK
TERMINAL /PARKING LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAST
MARGINAL WAY SOUTH AND SOUTH 128TH STREET.
DATED THIS 7 DAY OF 1994.
CITY OF TUKWILA
DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEATTLE TIMES FEBRUARY 11, 1994
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
25
26
27
28
1 C/
BEFORE THE COUNCIL, CITY OF TUKWILA
IN THE MATTER OF: )
)
THE APPEAL OF JACKIE DEMPERE )
AND THE UNDERSIGNED CITIZENS ) Case No.L93 -0058
OF THE DECISION OF THE )
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND )
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
APPLICATION•, )
Appellants. )
TO: THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL;
AND TO: RICK BEELER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. •
Pursuant to T.M.C. Section 18.90.020, 18.90.010
and Ord. No.1659 , appellant, Jackie Dempere and the
undersigned citizens, hereby appeals the Analysis and
Decision of the Director of the Department of Community
Development and the Planning Commission Case No. L93-
0058. The decision consists of the issuance of a
Determination of Non - Significance (DNS), approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Design Review approval
by the Planning Commission, for the expansion of a
truck terminal facility located at the Southwest corner
of 128th Street and East Marginal Way South (directly
south of Becker Trucking) Tukwila, Washington.
1. App 1lan- The name, address, and telephone number
of appellant:
ti Jackie L. Dempere
4033 S.128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Phone:(206) 433 -8539
NOTICE OF APPEAL -1
The appellant and the undersigned is comprised of
property owners, tenants, business owners and people
who work or use the vicinity of the proposed project.
2 Decision Appealed. The Analysis and Decision of
the Director of the Department of Community Development
and Planning Commission involving Case No. L93 -0058
given on November 18,1993.
Applicant's Name: Pac -Tech Engineering
4 2ingarty Address of Decision Being pealed
Southwest corner of South 128th Street and East
Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA. 98168
5 Elements of Decision Being Appealed
A) The use of a issuance of a Determination of
Non - Significance from 1989;
B) The approval of a Conditional Use Permit,
including Design Review;
C) The failure to require and prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS);
D) The inadequate disclosure and lack of
disclosure of the adverse impacts associated with the
proposal;
E) The inadequate conditions and lack of
conditions imposed upon the project to mitigate adverse
impacts, including but not limited to:
F) The limited scope of the traffic study and the
misinterpretation of study as provided.
G) The failure to enforce existing Tukwila's Tree
Ordinance.
H) The failure to protect city property.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2
7 Objections to the Decision
A) Failure to require the preparation of an EIS.
The proposed project is a major expansion of a.truck
and truck - trailer terminal facility that has already
grown in intensity beyond its originally permitted use.
The environmental impacts associated with the project
are significant and adverse.
B) The Department of Community Development has
approved an expansion of the truck and truck - trailer
terminal facility beyond what was described in the
application.
C) The public notice required for this project was
legally and historically insufficient.
D) The conditions imposed upon the project are
inadequate to address the significant adverse
environmental impacts resulting from the project. The
Director has failed to impose conditions which would
mitigate adverse impacts of the project..
E) The proposal, as conditioned, fails to satisfy
the criteria for approval of conditional use.
8. Relief Requested Appellant respectfully requests
that the Director's DCD decision and Determination of
Non - Significance be reversed and that the applicant be
required to prepare an EIS for a clearly defined
proposal. Appellant further request that the
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval be
rescinded.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of November,
1993.
By ,_; q.;
Jackie L. DempereI
Appellant
and Undersigned.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1) Traffic impacts;
2) Air Quality and Wetland Habitat;
3) Excessive Noise and Light;
4) Hazardous Materials;
5). Drainage and Water quality;
6) Buffers, surrounding zoning and uses;
7) Performance History of Applicant;
8) Pedestrian Safety;
9) Children Security;
10) Tree Protection;
11) Cumulative impacts ;.
12) Disregard for previous citizen imput;
F) Lack of proper public notice regarding the
proposal;
G) Approval of a permit which authorizes the
expansion of a conditional use beyond what was
described and requested in the original application.
H) Approval of a permit that aggravates,
intensifies and expands another related site beyond
it's original conditional use.
6
....- -0
• - , -
.. .06 .. , • -
are Affected by the Decision. The appellant and the
undersigned, live, work or use facilities in the
vicinity of the project. The Director's approval of
this major expansion of a conditional use, without
adequate environmental review and mitigation,
significantly and adversely affects appellants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL -3.
To whom it may concern:
nN
NOV 2
We, the undersigned, appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for
construction of a parking lot to be used for semi - trucks,
trailers and employee parking on the SW corner of South
128th Street and East Marginal Way South.
We respectfully bring the following areas of concern to
your attention:
Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto East.
Marginal Way S. from the subject property.
Management of surface water emanating from the subject
property.
Safety of children attempting a shortcut through the
subject property.
Nsame Addres s
i)/a/i/Ped�� /5°073 �/G tLA ,Co?..tA
l3Sg - & . Jo.
/61.-7/ spy -- y z 9(-
fr
fr" - /
14A1.0
/1„,[1,7,07L
-3 v
102(0 5 Boat.
1-44M 4M L. A r 1�u�K
Take all signatures to 4033 S.128th St.or call 433 8539
To whom it may concern:
/V `
N.' 2 a ,�" ('7
We, the undersigned, appeal
'
peal the decision of the
Planning Commission to grant a Conditional Use Permit for
construction of a parking lot to be used for semi - trucks,
trailers and employee parking on the SW corner of South
128th Street and East Marginal Way South.
We respectfully bring the following areas of concern to
your attention:
Traffic hazard involved in trucks exiting onto East
Marginal Way S. from the subject property.
Management of surface water emanating from the subject
property.
Safety of children attempting a shortcut through the
subject property.
Name
Address
4.-72 7 7
��. .f fit/ 7Aag c-
.&eri /.3 5��7� ,t o �'l�•,C .� ok'� «�Q, lUiEt - 9cP16
W4 987,
!��r -u -, /3 +-iv 4-6 , 5 Tkkk i /
William Cavanaugh
4026 S. 130 Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Ray Funk
3803 South 130 Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Tracy Weibel
12855 35th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Kathryn Stetson
13258 40th Avenue South
"Tukwila, WA 98168
` Elizabeth Springer
13325 Macadam Road South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Jack & Suzanne Hendricks
3514 South 142 Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Roger Young
3715 South 130th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Curtiss & Shirley Robinson
13422 40th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Robert & Sharon Bernhardt
3418 South 126th'Street
Tukwila, WA 98168.
David Fox
13023 40th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Danald Scanlon
13410 40th Avenue South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Jackie Dempere
4033 South 128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Vern Meryhew
4431 South 148th Street
Tukwila, WA 98188
88186 VM ` P 16M)I nl
1.90a4S 1.11.8tI u.noS I£bti
MatiRae uaa(
'
.
IIIIIIIIIIItillilliTilpirliA111111111111111111111111111H111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
0 16 THS INCH 1 :14 I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MAUEINGrRMANY
• "."" . • • • ' ' • • .•' .." ."'. • . „ "." •.• ":" .".":":"•:":"""'"" •"" ":"
•
L94-0018
BECKER
TRUCKING
CUP APPEAL
•
„.10.tpk, (4". 4 4 • '40"..41\d‘4.4,1. J..'',$•."4**.
"artkAil,
" • .
. • . ".• „ • „
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO •
iSS
1 .THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT .
0€ 6 • 8G. ,,,LZ 9c ,SZ • • ye, CZ • Ze.
\11111111\1t111111 1111111111111111\111111111\11111i111\111111111\ 6111 I.
•
r
a
SCALE: I" =20'
10
20'
40'
S. 128TH STREET
/.
';VICINITY MAP
SCALE: I " =I/2 MILE
E X . S O - : -
• 38 —
a0
40
19 (r1 P.)
19 (NP.)
F :. STTE DATA
G 2.0N2NG: C -M"'
ACREAGE: - .1.'5.'• ACRES
PARCEL :NO.: 238420- 005 -03
EMPT nv►I : PARKING 43 '
TRAILER SPAC�•'C: 17
LANDSCAPE AREA: 1COZOO JG1.FT. ...3$�1C..
2(o °4 of TOTAL. S►"j'E ...
O'
N
22.5' (TIP.)
42
AS
U
0
\ _J
N
\ •
so N �\
N \N \ \
\ 6o N \ \N �\
N. _ < .■ \ LANDSCAPE AREA •
` , — — EE LANDSCAPE PLANS
- :: — �� =�` ` -- •
N
D(b
ri, 'y4;�o`'`,�r tY?..�x� f. - s.,'1Z- +s�if. -Y 1.?�.:Gr., Yz :_ .L�J, V > f. Y f..• -., �c e
�. _..ti: 3t.r .sa;.n . } � _r ;' i' ', f a `� x� �y,. a•.,E 0 d t "t K 3t l �. � � ��
Iib '$. r;•..ct� ^,`!.`i!ridu`�e✓d'm,if„ .e.h. ::}: 1 . J , ;:., �
II II I'I'I'IIIIIII IIIIlIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII II II II IIIII 'III'IIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII' IIII IIjIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII' I1IIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiI
0 6'NS∎NCN 1 ? : 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
/
140 '
CSI
EXIST.
HOUSE
i
•
124' \ \ .. N.
\ ce
\� s2
-1
.6‘
s6.
5
C13
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW..,,.,..,._
OE 6Z d6 LB 9i SZ vZ CZ ZL LZ
_.. O? 6 L 8 L L 9 SL 4L Et ZL O1, 6 I 13 4 9 S 4 C Z L +w 0
11111,111,.1 , 1111�JIIIJ,1I,111.1 1111nlul)Innlln nlnnlll 1,V)1 111!�I 11,1 11.l1111111,d1W111111JI I ,111< 11II 1P11lllll.11I I kill 11 1114 L' 1 Il! 11 1 Il 11l 1 I441141,1-1,1,1.11.19,174.11,11411
4.4/V. '..
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS:
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
RECEIVED
FEB 1 71994
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT E
Q
—i
z z
N
4
W .cc
C O
1
CHECKED
SCALE Y'= 20
REVISION DESCRIPTION
c
W
—
W
W
F
0
W a
CO W
Q • U)
-0
CC J
LLI
U Y
CO LLJ
CC
a
W
J
Engineers / Planners/ Surveyors
c0
CC '30
OD
Z N
Q.4"d
•
I- •
X W
WOJ
00 F..
wci w
m 0_ (n
SHEET 1 OF L
JOB NO 50322
•
•
•'s
SECTION B
/a'-a" tG7,oN7
= Con/D /7-, JI4
n4(..euLATl o/J
S. 128th Street
'too /i•(./ =�� ter• - -ti.
a� 6o/zw/ -� 1
_y t
1
•
— �gx / %nNcrt
PRoPETTr L/NE
//'flop7' L? 16e'ts OfievAv Si/ .
PEr‹.onl
tx /sr� e� ,4 ,
P3,L K /N� G ,r eo fn- r/7 So /e S /'ea,l ria' 1 r ��,�/+ �a �r nl t / JA w
< x xTm — - - � / -->
SECTION A R�
/o ,.0" (..i%/0r/)
CO,v1 /.ion/ L 77/9/E °F PLANT /1,1.
L'R a /n/RG7F ..eit.cc/Ace
loo •1;� • 38 �clB� . 2? j o` T °TAL S/7-
_SEX' 7_,,'Ac7 GIREN /D/�AN�
�' EY /..1111 C1 5 /D604A, -A
Exlc,7 /,17
S7o,e I v GvATEI'.
\
VAULT
SECTION.
PF,Cip.ovl.11Jeovgfz.S
553E ..5.0 0 :a.TP.r1i .Jv14IPE S
F.% 'eh./qt-Is/4 AG A . rGACE/a
)5�' LANDe FCI1 /Tec77 oNIS •
Ex/I) 711./L A /47 /vc
ELX7E
To fief "A //J.
Ey /ST//J 7 THEE
• ;I
•
SECTION B
. . P4u. /7. 2 STi?lP /"., "TYYICAC..
�_:' -: \" ` K"15��^.�- '1-x'1 � `�' ��c���:'\`i-L�'. � y`'`F•' �•�G
)0
SECTION B
Landscape Planting Plan
pe.<-,/DeNCe
'1'8 " ET: AL xp of
SECTION A
i
._�ox /sT/rJG7 yoLe:
_I.
EX /£ %,NC7 po
4kf rAeg ; % 1=474,A
Tyj ie, .
Faun/ 0C'o e�
AL on /y GA IT ct'A/ i1'/AL wA
RECEIVED
FEB 171994
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
STATE OF
WASHINCT
REGIS.
D APc" R t(I CT
LYNN WILL IAN HCRN
CERTIFICATE NO. 419
•r.. ? . 1191ELEN EN/BENAL NO. 6103 A CT B•26X36
lC:;,........ - ,c- xx6!666,19nmN39!w•:R, ..+w . 9,O6r*'ra9:r.v7.•:•"rarr..;,,,,
ter.. ,.. a7”` • A
•
,; "'.__....�.._ ,,..,,...,,,., ., ..,.,,. >a,.....— `^.i4;i. :�4. :itti.ra �y _. Lt !•<-.rn���l „/�,Sz�_._ _._., ....bbl ,�C3N7 ^ati'= ✓�n'}.'S`�L`iA. �.4si. /...H.` \- !r.a� "t,.4 w.wi[,�. - „i7 t/, ..tccallr -ut •.::
111' 1111 I I I I I I I I 1 1111111 1 111' I I I 1 111111 I I 1 I I 111 11 I I I 1 I I 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11' M I L L I 1111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 I I I 111 I I I I I I I 1 I I 111 I I 111' 1 I I I I I 1 1111' I I I 111111 11 1111111111111111' 111111111 I I 1 I+ I
0 laT115INCH 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MG2FINCfIIMHIY 17
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW.e,,.,.N.
vt 6Z BC 1L1IZ 9 SZ VC. CZ LL
11111IIII,� 1,111: 11 0141114 if 1111�IIIII;;II IIIIIIIIII;III
Oa 64 HL
Ll 9l St 7l £t Zl
0.41.0! 116
;111111; II VIII
iI� �1; I:
— Q
0.1,100 7
l '\
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS 1.
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
•
't:rnr .... .., ,.r..
A
REVISIONS
I1rIN 1ti1IMI!
HORN
& ASSoUM1
LANDSCAPE ARCIIITF:CNRR
$III PLANNING
LYNN W!I.LIAM MORN, AS LA
REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCIIITKLT
OFFICE
10020 GRAVELLY LAKE DRIVE SW
811111:103
TACOMA,WA.SIIINCFON
206•5112•CM
MAIL
I'OST OFFICK I10X 989G7
TACOMA.WASIIINLTONIX41V8 •O9(7
Tukwila, WA.
• DRAWN
• w• / /',e../
CHECKED
DATE
//- 9 3
SCALE
20 /no i/
JOB ND.
OF
SHEET
L -1_
2
SHEETS
'r �;. .y %1 22.
•
• "7".;`,"t
''•
.IARVISIONO
Specifications: - - • •
J.r. as required; for Lally -Work, associated , with the
IeedecePe..end.,"iriigation:
locations of all utilities,' prior to any work.: Mjut
Work as ; required; .. Upon .. approval.." or the •LA',• •other
•consultant(s) and/or owner. •
Merit" location of. all • eaise•eists• prior to • . • `1!"-• ".
• • iiBring!. ail...Adverse . conditions ae soon'. as .possible.,', • . ..•
• ,....'''•its';I,A,...arehitects Ind/or; owner's , attention ,-;priOr ., to
: _ • )6OrrectiOns/ModifiCatione.'- • :, • .
.:COntractore•;,'• shall • confore: and .•with; : all, •
regulations as required , by the 'gOvernmeritalegencieef,WhiCh'
this project odours .Within. •,,, •'.„'':' • „. • • • scope ,Of7Work7ehn11.- inalndsk , • . ;
and . relatect..itenas necessary to secoiplieh: the estsbgrade and
soil preparation, peril fill.)testerials, placeilent and
grading of topsoil, .• • '.• " • . • . "..
placement - of ,specified plant materiels; : fertilizer, ., • -7,
Vitamin • 13-1, staking • and Mulching, appropriate'
• ::
protection, maintenance • guarantee and repleceeent, or. plant,'
material, . clean-up, 'debris .resioval,,- and eny.,-iteitiii,',OeCeseary,',::
or incidental to 'complete the work shown and speciified..",„
Land. Contractor shall Call.. Underground ;i:stilities.:LOCcitor....:z •
• • ' Service, prior to any work. . • " . •
•
.
•
Should • :any ,errors or conflicts be . preient..between..'the.7:
drawings or :sPecificitione;and,'on site conditions, . theland::
cont.. shall immediately -notify: the LA, Architect 'and/or;:-,:;". •, :
owner,,,priOr...to proceeding with work. .1, •
Abbreviations. for interpretation of landscape .plans:
cs.C.a■on, center, B&B..balled.fi burlapped,.:cont:ascontainer, •
ht..rNeigth,, 8prd...spread zialo•calip,er, ,N.T.S.-not to:.ecale.
min..■diinimum,..WouLandiscape7'Architect,. zuni,F4intsciiine. •:. • ' ' ••,1
All.groundcover planted using :triangle: spacing as • '
..•" .- . . . . ,
ii.T.S.•'•:: ,-- - • • - • • ,.- •• • • '------Equal spacing
5. : ' Plant : as per ' details :provided, sidinetiente. 'Will' be by the , ,.;',..•., :
LA- Only.,,Brisig any proposed changes to LA's attention' prior
te'•'Oheinges, 'Areas of ,ateeding, Water; shall be .brought ' if). thfi,:;:,::.:,
- ;
LA's attention. -: ... 5: ' '!..,- .. ' ' - ..' . :-1 •. • .. , ,, ,•:'. - .•:: ':,.
. , 6. •. Rotetill • the exisiting,, soil to Es .cletrith of 61 : prior • 'to . anY,:-
topsoil placement, in.":all grOusidcover:,;planting •beds•-assd.-71-aw*--777-7_, -.:•;.' • :
, . • • .• .
HINL2411111-1.-- . . , !,, -..,..,;, ,•, ,..,, , ,• , .
, . - , , • .
..'..', 3-way off all reeks'. 2"-:diadeter and.' larger. Place 2" depth of
' • ' .mix topsoil or approved equel, iis these new 4 :groundcoiier,'2.:::. •
bed and ,&siwii--eireas .. Rotatilt into the aubgrede.: soils. this,..i.
, -.: • :
2" layer of .topsoil. ‘ Then....Pliice'. abotbir2",1:layar Of ' topeail : :•';,
thus .adding a :total of .4"s:or-topsoil. :•Sams:bedes'.•mey :reguire.:,,: .'•
,• „
.:
ore than the , mildews 46":i depth of topsoil, adjust . as' keguired,':'.
to be flush with the tons of curbs. , siavinct; ,. sidewalks, etc.... 17,„•:..:
:L. Tr"""IL.....,:' 24-1.Act-t..;•:E55, At: ' iloNi4sireiGtyPi5P :.,_ my L146R-ilik74ET: . G.04cAF' '. ::-.::-
:.,- ftirALai-0,. r44.: • *84672-371 ;•'• •-• ;•••-•. r• ._•-- ': . ' ., ' •,,'' .- ' : .! -• .' ' • "':,,:' ': .
• '•".• • Xrs the planting 'of the trees, shrubs and ilgallan: can
!*', groundcovers the following topsoil mixture shall, :be ueed....,..
' . .
This topsoil mixture shall be a total of .75% of the *belie ..,.:. ;
- • :. dpecified..topeoil with', the, balance being '25%. -or the Onsite ,'„ „.,,i:-
• . •. ' '.screened soils, with all rocks 2" and largerremoved.-..Mist,..-„`:::
these soils together. Dispose Of all remaining unused ' - ,• ....:,, - : ... ;
. 7 existing soils, , on site if possible. : . • .. : - •-' : ' .....,...: .-• . ',..
Verify with general contractor if unused soils need to be ,....
.. : •2.exported. from - site.. Determine this prior to ,bidding.. - , ; .-7..:,;*. ' • ..
• .: source' of the topsoil Shall . be, approved by::the'LA prior -, to,:-...,..
. delivery .: • - " '' ' ' -• :: .7 ' : : . • -:
.t3t:tiP . all :existing 'weeds/greases ,prior: to any topsoil
placement or rototillisig.: Remove , all ,debrie„frozi .eitsiii..-'.:-;,,::,::.:17:',';....'''
• ". plant beds . :shall:, be: to. the satisfaction of the L? ,',:r1
to planting, . /sod Shall: only. occur itft:er approirals.cif .Auch.;..7.'1,•
correction Of..Zeill",;drai nage,,prObliszes in ailpiant ,:bede.7.,
Pert,ef this :COntraCt.:•:',•
.. Landscape contractor ' shall. be rasponsble : for establishing appropriate grades to assure that all
•'Mater; shall not?collect:le:iny. ; plant pits Or • plant beds or
against .. buildings and walks. 7, .r- • •
13,....AnySubstitntionsi de/eationsetoshill:,:be approved only.
• y. • • ; •"; ' :
14. shall ,provide the owner : with !a.'One Yearguarantee::
:‘7,:;,•...10e;e11,!plant :materials: ihdrworkaisinehip: - : '•
•:Guarantee shall begin upon final acceptance by LA:, _ •
Maintain, all plantings until final.eacePtance by the LA. • • '
is the landscape contractors reeponsibility..te7errange si•
site 'meeting ,: at :the,. conclusion Of the one • year :guarantee'
period, with the :Owner., and the • landscape :architect, onsit.. • "
15.,Vaisdallini corrections are. not the responsiblity of the • .' T.
contractorichoweVer....lind.1:cont.: shall...take every precaution • •-• •
to protect -all;;,WOrk• " during construction: Provide
fencing/ropieg,:as;reqnired.- ' • 7,• . -7 ,
16. ,:contractor 7shall :provide the 'LA with 72, hour notice on the
: following inspections: • • • - • " " • . • • • • ':•" ' ' • •
' • • 1. PreConstruatiOn, seating, after,. Contract eigeed.. ' • ' : • .
2. Inspection of fine, Iiniehed grades to plenting..:
• 3..,;.Pleint:materiaile: inspeation ' . ' • ,
4. Final inspection. • • , ,
.1.-
These inspectiOnsi, can occur trea by. area, as required:
These inspections. are &required, It is the contractors
responsibility tocall the •LA and schedule • a' time....The -:.•
• cost' of these inspections will , be , the responsibility . of • the
:17.:,DO::';OOt prune anyexisting vegetation ;lot,. new landscape
asterials Withenit. the ,direction of the LA and/or Owner.. , • : ' :,••
la:. See'. all • grading' , •• and. 7, utility, Plena ". :,,•
-1.9-.- All finished - _ - .
20.. All , plantings distal be irrigated shOwe'..en. the
. .attached irrigation plans. 21..Provide an emirate :"AwrBnilt":draWing of the final landscape "--
and irrigation work to the LA, upon final approval of .the,..,. • •
17,itork.:... '- ' , '•;.• . ,, 7 ,-;.. ,:7.--,:••.t'" 7.- - .. '..'",, ._ .; 7.....1 : ..: ....'..'..
22. Obtain all •bondi'ne required: by the state and local • codee,'
--..,..,: planted with • trees ,-.•shrubs or-groundcovers „shall •ber.covereds.:
.'.;,;:t.41pepe:::::,,•10:::'asi ii.h,o.wT1" - •-, ,''.. •
,.,,' :'
1:17reCoinsendations . See : civil : plena for' the prOposed. ' .''..- •... . . •
;■..:.*..14:,. elopes- 2S1 • (liOrli. :Wert) 'arid ,steeper'..whien7,Sehall :' be
..:::With:.jute net .mattieg; :installed, as per the manufacturers : •
, .
,1::f•iiiiita)..1 "neep,,,• inot"roist,giovith::beiiier_nateMialie perthe;.;____LL,.•
eanufacierers iecoiiiendations at the. base of all
.; ' .• TRES% pli-r4t4' 1-5,4' FEET .of ,44y. irAvIt.,sel,',.,..,:-.-. • • ..-,•:,,: : . ..
,.. ., ,
as shown on the 'plans ".Call.7K-.C:.sales , "Kirkland,.. WA. . , , • , .
-- '..; 483.8317 for further information and costs. : 7: : :, ".. ' ,7. ::• ' , . .i.
25. Landscape Contractor 'Chill: provide the City:or County, ie.:,
i 'Which this : project • occurs, with . any and all appropriate . • :: ,„ - ;
. ., ,..::"As-Built" - or "Revised Plan" information/drawings that . • ..,, ,
.1..1.:sziaerlyd.:batepere7.,i3eirgedrx,;.. at th.t±..c.,:olipletioeef . the., p_,5,e,,,,j,.. f.fer:-.1e11.,::::.f.
261 All :Permite.end,'bofids,, as May be required by the city or
tensity; i in which this :project occurs, shall be paid for and
:kiiiiiiii-lable-at7the-...timeuviegUired- by , the ' governing. body, end
_44-.1..jrzitilted -for. by,tbe,Iandecsaps contractor.., .' 7•-- • , -,:,,i";: .., ..,'. : .:: '...• ..- '7.
tf: .. ' . .1 ,
d ...,....
• :.f.;':'..,' ,:':.•
. '.. ‘,-,pirijeilluP7-41Aer-approWecieter-lit-Waier--and-Lr7--- 7, '. • , ..
tizainta-iii=as7per7the-growere=secsomaseodations , .• : ' .- . . , ;,:'
. , .
2ss tWerify, with the landscape architect. . the : retentioo, of,:ell ; 7
.., existing *ante,: on 'site,' prior •.to •removal of , sinY,;''':;.,:',= • :"‘ :I' .::
.7-•:,7:::,.
. • . .
7. ent • pits shall be twice the size ,• Of the rootballe,ht, 'and:7,-
width. Plant as shown in details. Scarify 6" of soil ',Under
the. plant pits. Contractor' shall' test the • pits for drainage:, .;,.„', 7.
' ... ,.
, . -•
upon notification by the landscape contractor that there is • e . ''. :. -- ..,.- ,t, : , , •
. . problem.
. .13robleitus ' if 'tally . problems ;encountered they., shall ,be•brOught.,,, ,- : : „ : ..•.' • .- 2.. .1. . .,..•,. f ..- . :
, taking any actions. - - „- • • ' .:- ,. :. :' .. -:„ .:. : • . -..; • .. :,' ,_:. - ' ••.• :. - . • . ..
Proposed drainage solutions. shall be approved , by the LA, , ...... ', . , : ., . . • • , ,-.. :..: .
..
. ..
• .-. No • 'Plants will ' be Allowed. to be planted during ' times of ;
. , . , ., ' .• . prolonged freezing, . and. during times. which the - topsoil is in
• • 'a wet' or muddy .condition.- Plant. only during times of locally . ...• 7. .- : . •-•':.•.,. ,, ••
. . ..,-
accepted practice. Stake trecis,ae.pheen--inthe . details. , - -.. ` • ,. : .,. . .
8... Fertilize all trees and shrubs and, 1 galion.greendcovere_with slow :
. .. .
'geese formula .fertilizer. tablets .' 20-10-5;-cis:-pee, manufacturers
, • 41Comiiiindations. AgrifOrm brand tablets or ,approved. equal. ' : ' :-! ::,",
9. • 11. dulcih :in plant bads ..shall be approximately I/2". below all . ,•,,..... :-.: ..
. f 7 eiljOining . hard surfeCes• roads 'edges : top of curbs, etc , • - ' ' ' : :.• • .
. . . surfaces,
,,- •.i Mulch..shall. occur only .. in all' plant..heds, in which :,. • .. . , , : •
- •
trees, -,shrube and groundcoVer plants only occur. • • I- :, : _ :- ' • „
.• islets.. shall be 219 depth . of Nutramulch:: as meOufactured .bY ." • . -, "
Northwest Cascade, Puyalinp:, ;-. Vil 7.er. approved :equal...' .;:'...:-,.
10. pply.-, Vitenein .-B-1 . root atimulator. ..te,. plants., -•priar'.. to
lanting, of .• any plants. , .. • -: - . - • . '. .. ..', Y • • : , •:',,'....,,
....,„ pply ,antidesionnt to, plents.,at:the,OurserY.,..prior ..to...7,..,:;...,..- ... ,.: •
delivery to site. „ . • .... . . ,.. ..„...,..
• ' .;.:.::-. field adjusted by .. the "landiseape,contractisi;;,with:-.iapPiciv-...,..7.:• .
• .•- .. .. .
: • ' 11... Pacingei of.. all. plants Ltiri.011., be: as per . the., plan and7,'will' Lia7.!..:::.."7.:.
to the LA's attention for correction, prior to the contractor:1 • : •
-
'." •
. • . • •
+.4 . T • .,
MapprtLi..1 Atrits.triaity•411.;;C...94.T Ittclocit'LLWAiliiii.h.4tst4oZadiff:P. .YASL‘ PrAGINKI,'
• , I ;
' 011
2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 meaLL Ira LI 10.041' 12
FLEXIBLE RULER -302
sz L 9 SE vc c.4 LZ o st. et. Lt 91 St VI. Et Zt 01, L. 9 G 9 E;
111111111111111.11,11111111116101111,111111.111,!11,11!!!li.119,1,11.9.1111illiiltitillilijkillikilj1111,110111.1111,111,1110111,1,1111.1111111111111.111111111111111111111111.111011111111111111111,11111111,11111111111111111111111,111111P11111111111111.1,11111111111111111,111.11,1111111111111111,111111111111111111
. •••••..2._ : •
- -
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
:CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
•