By Brian Kelly
Herald Writer
ARLINGTON — After a marathon four-hour meeting, the Arlington Planning Commission late Tuesday gave its stamp of approval to a controversial 40-acre auto storage yard in south Arlington.
Voting 4-1, with one commissioner abstaining, the commission will recommend that the city council approve the project. The council is expected to vote in January, perhaps as soon as its first meeting on Jan. 7.
The storage yard would be built on land zoned for industrial use near 51st Avenue NE and would be serve as a temporary home for totaled vehicles before they are auctioned off once a week to dismantlers, rebuilders and used-vehicle dealers.
Don Fitzpatrick Jr. and Airpark Industries hope to break ground on the project by next summer.
"It was kind of a bitter victory, because it’s something that should have happened nine months ago," Fitzpatrick said.
The project was stalled by an environmental challenge that was subsequently tossed out, and by a claim that the site was the location of an Indian village hundreds of years ago.
John Burkholder, a land use consultant for the developer, said they were relieved the commission voted in favor of the project. Burkholder had earlier asked the city to send the case to a hearing examiner, saying the project was too complex and emotionally charged to be handled by the city’s planning commission.
"I think the planning commission did a good job in a difficult circumstance," Burkholder said Wednesday. "The public process worked here."
Nearby neighbors supported the project, but the storage yard proposal was highly controversial. Many people labeled the project a junkyard and an eyesore.
Proponents, however, said the project was basically a parking lot that would be hidden from public view by an 8-foot fence and landscaping.
The planning commission decision was the right one, Burkholder said.
"The issue was the law and what’s allowed," he said. "You can’t tell people, ‘No, you can’t do that, just because we don’t like it,’ even though it’s legal. The planning commission had no other choice, because we had met all the other requirements."
Members of the Stillaguamish Tribe, who said the property was once the location of a 19th-century Indian warrior village, also fought the development. However, a recently released archaeological survey found no evidence to support the tribe’s claim.
During the hearing Tuesday, tribal members asked for a 60-day delay so they could review the survey, as well as boxes of records from a tribal elder that were being sent from Eastern Washington University that might contain information on the property.
Although the request for a postponement was refused, Stillaguamish officials vowed to continue their research and to fight any proposed development that would desecrate sacred sites.
Stillaguamish Tribe chairman Edward Goodridge Sr. said some developers may face costly delays in the future as the tribe becomes more forceful in preserving its past.
"They’re going to have to prove me wrong," he said. "If they think they’re going to make a profit, it ain’t going to happen."
You can call Herald Writer Brian Kelly at 425-339-3422 or send e-mail to kelly@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.