The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 89-04-R - MIKAMI / SHIMATSU - REZONE89-04-r 16813 southcenter parkway epic-25-89 mikami shimatsu rezone MIKAMI REZONE SHIMATSU REZONE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN W \TUKW\005REZ.OR -2 CITY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. / Sf3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, REZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16813 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD FROM R -1 -7.2 TO C -2, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 4 WHEREAS, the real property located at 16813 Southcenter Boulevard, more specifically described in Exhibit A attached hereto, is presently zoned R -1- 7.2, Single Family Residential; and WHEREAS, Robert H. Schofield filed an application on behalf of owner Matt Mikami .requesting that the zoning be changed from R- 1 -7.2, Single Family Residential to C -2, Regional Retail Business, under City File No. 89 -4 -R, Mikami Rezone; and WHEREAS, the City's SEPA responsible official made a mitigated determination of nonsignificance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 25, 1989, at the conclusion of which it adopted findings, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council to approve the requested zoning change; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the application on March 12, 1990 and has determined that it is in the public interest to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Conclusion Adopted. The City Council hereby adopts the findings and conclusions previously adopted by the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 25, 1990. Section 2. Zonina Man Amended. The official zoning map of the City of Tukwila, as adopted by Ordinance No. 1247, is hereby amended to change the zoning classification for the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto from R -1- 7.2 (Single - Family, minimum lot size 7,200 square fest) to C -2 (Regional Retail Business). ' Section 3. Duties of the Plannina Director. The Planning Director is hereby instructed to make the necessary changes to the official zoning map of the City to reflect the changes authorized by this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five days after publication of the attached summary, which is hereby approved. Page 1 PASSED Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, this 0 �� day of 6.C7?i11�L 1990. • ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED: CANTU, ACTING CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFIr OF THE CITY ATTORNEY FI D WITH THE CITY CLERK: q-8-f PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 4/- -'1 PUBLISHED: 4I. 6 - 9 0 EFFECTIVE DATE: - Q ORDINANCE NO.: / $SS MAY , GARY VAN DUSEN HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: ACREAGE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: Cit y of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor STAFF REPORT TO THE genufwePmterrrrrerettxvitmertst eG A d" �n� G Prepared January 15,1990 CoM. M (S S (of - January 25, 1990 89 -4 -R: Mikami Rezone Robert H. Schofield Rezone 75,970 square feet from R -1 -7.2 and R-1-12.0 to C -2 16813 Southcenter Parkway. T.L. 9011 -07 and 9012 -06 in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, Township 23, Range 4. (Attachment A) 1.74 acres Commercial (Attachment B) R -1 -7.2 and R-1-12.0 (Attachment A) Mitigated DNS issued on January 5, 1990 (A) Zoning Map (B) Comprehensive Plan Map (C) Land Use Map (D) Existing Site Topography (to be submitted at Planning Commission Hearing, but available for review at Tukwila City Hall) (E) Conceptual Development Plan STAFF REPORT to Planning Commission FINDINGS 1 VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 1. Project Description: Rezone 1.74 acres from R -1 -7.2 and R -1 -12.0, Single Family Residence to C -2, Regional Retail Business. 2. Existing Development: Vacant. 3. Surrounding Land Use: The rezone site is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses except for I -5 freeway to the west. Existing land use is shown in Attachment C. 4. Terrain: The site is very flat except for the rear (western) perimeter which is the foot of the Green River Valley wall and contains slopes over 15 percent. Site topography is shown in Attachment D. 5. Access: Site access would be directly from Southcenter Parkway; a five -lane minor arterial, with adjacent peak hour traffic volumes of 1800 vehicles. 6. Utilities: The site is fully served by all utilities. BACKGROUND 89 -4 -R: Mikami Rezone . • Page 2 The subject property is the last remnant of a family owned farm. Farming was once the land use over the valley floor which is now the City's largest business district. All other parts of the farm have been developed into commercial uses. Now a single vacant parcel remains, which is here before the Commission for rezoning to C -2 with development envisioned in 1990. The site has been, graded with imported fill. The property is subject to the development moratorium (Ord. 1544) due to slopes over 15 percent on the property. An administrative waiver for the rezone and a Council waiver for design review and building permit have been granted to allow processing of these applications pursuant to Ord. 1550, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant and landowner sign an agreement to abide by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance adopted by the City (completed); and b. No development shall occur above the toe of slope. This condition may become void if the final Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows such development. A mitigated determination of non - significance was issued on January 5, 1990, subject to a fair share traffic impact mitigation fee of $38,580 for the rezone. The fee shall be paid to the City upon approval of the building permit. • STAFF REPORT to Mikami Rezone Planning Commission Page 3 DECISION CRITERIA The Tukwila Zoning Code and Washington case law identify six decision criteria for rezone requests which must be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in their deliberations. After considering and balancing these criteria, the Commission will recommend to the Council. The six criteria are identified in bold print and discussed below. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted comprehensive land use policy plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the site as "Commercial," the provisions of this title as discussed below, and the public interest in that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The site is not an environmentally sensitive area in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. A possible development of two, 20 -foot one -story buildings is shown in Attachment E to demonstrate development feasibility only. Total building area shown is 23,880 square feet with approximately 95 parking spaces. 3. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfaction that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. This criteria is not applicable. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Criteria No. 1). 4. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surrounding neighborhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone. The surrounding area has been fully developed since the establishment of area zoning. This commercial growth occurred between 1968 and 1982 per the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. In this particular case, the implementing R- 1-7.2 zoning the specific property is not consistent with the surrounding development and zoning (see Criteria No. 6). STAFF REPORT to t4, 89 -4 -R: Mikami Rezone Planning Commission Page 4 5. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property value, imposed on the individual property owner. The proposed rezone is in the public interest in that it implements the Comprehensive Plan (see Criteria No. 1). The rezone would increase the subject property's value. 6. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it has been zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area. The subject property is not viable as detached single family housing because of the surrounding commercial uses, traffic, and noise. Single family housing is not attractive in this location when compared with other sites with lower noise and traffic levels. The single family residence on the property is the last of the family farms which once dominated the flatland that is now the City's business district. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed rezone is in the public interest because the new zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The conceptual commercial development is generally in character with surrounding commercial and industrial structures. This is not to be in any way construed as an approval of building location or design. Such review will be done at a later date by the Board of Architectural Review. 3. The existing detached single family zoning of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, nor are detached single family residences compatible with surrounding commercial and industrial uses. 4. The property is currently unsuitably zoned and should be rezoned to C -2 to be consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. RECOMMENDATIONS Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone from R-1-7.2 and R -1- 12.0 (Single Family Residence) to C -2 (Regional Commercial). •47 • .•A SW " • • I. 44 " 22/ I --•-• • • • • • .•••• .••••• Ow", •■•• ••• a • • ••• 04 ••• owym• lir • • • • • - - • - - A • - - • - ^ ^ ^ - • • - • I ^ • is I Is •••••,• I L C. I e IA tot; 11. st.f•I• 4 • •. " • •••:.” • .1.0 4114114140111•1•0411.• I ; .• 1.1 r- • c") I UM S , oc? i . • 6. d r CF N. 1 y 14 Olf.1....LY " s•-• . * tt * arm«, n4 th • rr T �. milimmimirmisimosa to A C FAct.CTI $ • .1 • •..ro....r t.:. ••: • •• y � •• y• • Sr • vF t v 4S 'e j �r 4 ! v . o f ,•• _ 1H Y s9 • .NNMtOt • ■ A ararNi \ ... .. I li l %: • / .r... r y , CO M ►+ Ertc1 & Ltco4 T INpusiwAL 1 00P-1PIZetkEN sIv E USE PL-A•••' p r '` p I000 LLS • ., •✓ • I. `i ` , P • ' r3•••• r: 5 • VC Commi % I D A , S 1 T'i' To PO Cie!' PK Y pReseu Pvfc.c KEme c *N AVAIL AI LE Ar TVk c.)/c./1 CITY KALc. Polk REV I Ew• AT PcA,i,' nK G SfoilAS •t• A8/3 Join= 114/47r !WAN AMIA927 sal 974 Sula rgo' lieoPeAry LINA" pre 4M••■// 1■1•11, Ara& tv .840E1 14480 sr DP yr TO og*DaecT l WOW- oN News Lar 11 I 4* R7:60 W.45) Cute. 1.o.4 %.4 /s 4r/Ltrr f 1 11! I ! EASEAAENT Z-S" /11 1. LSIDE .111•1■11•••• .....%tillIGEA11671. PAC< W A Y al : .. 1 A "r T'A C 14 E I . , el...... i v / asr. itim platovso ........... i cagxesfriN I i JAano.v) ! f -- •-...A. i • L 1 Slat"... • 1 IGt..1 . - a 1411•PIC MAPS!' a" .11 z km& 6.4.s / * r171E ...Salo LiT TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 12, 1990 Page 2 CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Michele & Scott Nangle (Con't) PUBLIC HEARING Rezone of 75,970 square feet of property from R -1 -7.2 to C -2, located at 16813 Southcenter Parkway, requested by Robert Schofield (Mikami Rezone) Michele Nangle stated that the City should direct the Tukwila Fire Department to go out to the area and run tests on the air because they are trained in this area. Of course, a simple sniff would tell a trained nose immediately that something is wrong with the air. Councilmember Steve Lawrence commented that if the Fire Department ordinarily enforces rules against outdoors burning at the wrong time of the year for safety reasons, that if they suspect sombody is burning the wrong materials in the house that may be in violation of a Code, can't they go to the door and talk to the person without going into the house (and wouldn't need a warrant) and at least inform that person of their suspiction, and that alone might immediately cause the person to cease the activity. Attorney Colgrove stated that either our police or fire departments should be able to go and talk to suspicious per - sons in matters such as these. Council President Hernandez stated the matter will be forwared to the Finance & Safety Committee and will ask Allan Ekberg, Chairman, to put on his Agenda. Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development, presented the Planning Commission's recommen- dation for approval of the Mikami Rezone of 75,970 square feet of property from R -1 -7.2 (single family residential) to C -2 (regional commercial), located at 16813 Southcenter Parkway. The property is currently vacant. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on January 25, 1990 and made recommendation that the Mikami Rezone be approved based on the findings, conclusions stated in the Staff Report dated January 25, 1990. The rezone site is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses except for I -5 freeway to the west. The site is very flat except for the rear (western) perimeter which is the foot of the Green River Valley wall and contains slopes over 15 percent. Site access would be directly from Southcenter Parkway; a five -lane minor arterial, with adjacent peak hour traffic volumes of 1800 vehicles. The site is fully served by all utilities. The Planning Commission agreed with the Decision Criteria as stated on page 3 & 4 of the Staff Report: The proposed rezone is in the public interest because the new zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; The concep- tual commercial development is generally in character with surrounding commercial and industrial structures; the existing detached single family zoning of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, nor are detached single family residences compatible with surrounding commer- cial and industrial uses; the property is currently unsuitably zoned and should be rezoned to C -2 to be con- sistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. Councilmember Duffie inquired will the property line cut into the hill? Mr. Umetsu stated that the property line does go up the hillside and that the applicant has signed an agreement to be in conformance with the SAO (Sensitive Area Ordinance). March 12, 1990 7:00 P.M. OFFICIALS CITIZEN'S COMMENTS Michele Nangle & Scott Nangle TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Tukwila City Hall Council Chambers MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pro -Tem Joan Hernandez called the Special Meeting of the Tukwila City Council to order and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL JOE DUFFIE, JOAN HERNANDEZ (Council President), DENNIS ROBERTSON, CLARENCE B. MORIWAKI, ALLAN E. EKBERG, STEVE LAWRENCE, JOHN RANTS. JOHN COLGROVE, City Attorney; MAXINE ANDERSON, City Clerk; JOHN MCFARLAND, City Administrator; RICK BEELER, Director, Department of Community Development; VERN UMETSU, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development. Michele ' Scott Nangle, 14140 56th'Avenue South, reported that due ' o a citizen's woodstov,e burning she truely believes she has lo%t a year of her life%` Michele suspects that this citizen is urning plastics an the smell is not only unbearable, ut is impairing/her health. She stated that the smell was so ad that after getting out of her car she had to hold her brea h until she •ntered her house, ran down stairs and placed a covering ova her mouth before taking another breath. Michel- has se: her doctor and is now on medication as a result of he pol ted air she has to breath in her neighborhood. Scott Nangle, hus ►a • of Michele (same address as above), reported that he d'► call the Tukwila Fire Department and complained he had . neighbor that he suspected was burning trash and was tol► at yes, Tukwila does have rules against burning trash bu si ce it was being done indoors they didn't want to come ou and 'et involved. Tukwila Fire Department stated this wa a civil issue and it was against the rules to enter the hou e. Scot ► stated he felt very frustated that Tukwila Fire epartment did not offer to help. Instead, they referred hi the the Pug-t Sound Air Quality Board. Of course, th- r office is o ►ened weekdays and not weekends when the burnin usually takes ►lace. Councilm tuber Joe Duffie s pathized with the Nangles and stated hat he had experien -d similar problems with his neighb rs and would like to hare with the Nangles infor- matio of other possible contacts for further help. Councilmember Dennis Robertson ommented that he finds it difficult to believe that burning pollutants in a neigh - b is not a civil matter. C ouncil President Hernandez concurred that this issue appears /to be a civil matter. City Attorney Colgrove stated that he would check the TMC (Tukwila Municipal Code) to see what specific provisions are there for issuing citations, if there are any. Councilmember Moriwaki posed the question: Could this fall under the Public Health, Safety & Welfare since her health was endangered? Moriwaki used an example of an ammonia cloud posing a threat on citizens, surely we would take action to protect the welfare of those citizens. City Attorney Colgrove commented that someone in the City would to go out and make that determination, that it is a threat to the public. YibKWILA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING . = MARCH 12, 1990 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING Robert H. Schofield (Mikami Rezone)Con't OLD BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 7:45 p.m. Robert H. Schofield, 4212 Hunts Point Road, Bellevue, WA 98004, speaking on behalf of Mr. Matt Mikami (who was present at this meeting). Mr. Schofield will be leasing the land but Mr. Mikami is the property owner and is responsible for the rezone. Mr. Schofield asked the Council to consider the traffic miti- payment timing. Mr. Mikami has been asked to pay $38,500 which in part is for a street light that may or may not be put in someday. About $8,500 is for the participation in the widening of Strander and Southcenter Parkway. Mr. Schofield stated that rather than have Mr. Mikami pay $38,500 at the time of the building permit issuance that he be allowed to put $38,500 into an account that would be assigned over to the City as an effective method of bonding. This would guarantee that the money is there for the City. Councilmember Robertson asked was the traffic mitigation payment a condition for the building permit. Mr. Umetsu explained that the traffic mitigation payment is not a condition for the building permit and not a condition of the rezone; however, it was a condition of the SEPA determination for rezone. Any modification of those con- ditions should be through a SEPA Appeal. Mr. Umetsu also commented that the City Engineer would con- sider the establishment of an irrevocable Letter of Credit from a bank but that is a decision that would have to be made by the City Engineer and by the SEPA Official. Council President Hernandez asked if it was appropriate for the traffic mitigation fee to be considered at this meeting. Mr. Umetsu stated not to his knowledge and that he believed that this would be more of a SEPA Appeal. City Attorney Colgrove agreed that this was a condition of the SEPA and that it was not appealed. Mr. Schofield stated that this is a bonding type process and there should be a fairer way to approach it. Council President Hernandez commented that this was not a criteria that could be considered by the Council at this time and that perhaps Mr. Schofield could pursue the appeal pro- cess should he wish to do so. Discussion on the Mikami Rezone concluded, Council President Hernandez closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY LAWRENCE THAT THE MIKAMI REZONE REQUESTED BY ROBERT H. SCHOFIELD BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Hernandez announced that Item 6a (Clarification of Council conditions to Sensitive Areas Ordinance Waiver) had been withdrawn from the agenda. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. MOTION CARRIED. rding Secretary :SS_ a pit 1 Iwt • s :I"-PARKWAY ;n.._. _n,i,6c ....y - -_ - - -^ - (S7TI/ AYE. S.) f s1I♦ rs� 0 J SSs OC . • fr PiSH ' 1 5505 /5 = 47 ig ea STATE 'ne ic o -' b 74s - /W. f .;J 0.c.,. -rep - 160ts3 , 1 AR4tN: 0 A CA b 0 0 294- XI= f-24e t I 0 1. A. v . ▪ • J p _ O :::) c3. o ' Ma tSQy __ tom 4 0 It SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY .44.1.4 " ° "" � `� " �N. ,, cra.nay• odv y) . 1 , ✓JD. 0 ,'::! ... 1-1C- 2.3 -W. .!L ..'•I�.�T --- • .�lL r♦ __ w1.. v i 1 1i; 0 0 o J - a :n is L O . r57,♦ N Cwt w 0 e o (571H A YE. .5., • s. .. :e R • .c ir S N -' A •-• '' :. u 1 v • ▪ 4■..t • 0 • • 4 I. v1 1 L a Tie ISxt AfteA MAKE rife SCKo F' eCD PR o Pc2.Ty V g e' cT 'P o MOP- c -roP1OM. Agreement To Be Subject To A Sensitive Areas Ordinance The undersigned owner and developer of real property located at 16813 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, WA and more specifically described in Exhibit A attached hereto, hereby agrees, pursuant to the requirements of Tukwila Ordinance No.'s 1544 and 1550, that if the City of Tukwila will process the following applications: EPIC -25 -89 SEPA for Mikami Rezone. 89 -4 -R Mikami Rezone the development of the property described in Exhibit A will be subject to all of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance provisions as finally passed by the City Council even though those provisions may be more restrictive than any conditions or limitations imposed by or resulting from the processes described above. The Undersigned agree(s) that these processes will be continued solely at their risk and expense and that the result of the final Sensitive Area Ordinance may be to require extensive project modification and re- evaluation or recision of the above approvals. It is also understood and agreed that continuation of these processes does not mean that applications not pending on November 20, 1989, for this project, will be accepted or processed unless the City Council approves a petition therefor. The undersigned acknowledges that the covenants herein run with the land described in Exhibit A and that this document will be recorded with the King County Department of Records and Elections and that these covenants cannot be released without the written consent of the City of Tukwila. Dated January 10 , 1990. Landowner pplicant STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RING On this day personally appeared before me Matt M Mikami and Robert H Schofield , to me known to be the individual described in and who executed this instrument, and acknowledged that s /he signed the same as a free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. i /f/ Notarye .r and for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way M appointment expires 9-29-93 DESCRIPTION: EXHIBIT A, Page 1 of 2 PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SUBDIVISION) . IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. LYING WEST OP COUNTY ROAD NO. 972, MESS BROTHERS ROAD, CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 921233 (SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY FORMERLY 57TH AVENUE SOUTH), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 1,020 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 294.82 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE SOUTH, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 294.62 FEET, MORE OR'LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE.RUNNING EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST ON SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 (SR 5) BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5524599 AND 5992105; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6343852; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE WHICH IS 1,020 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST N.M., DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS OPPOSITE HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS HES) LW 2504 +89.33 ON THE LW LINE SURVEY OF SR 5, SOUTH 178TH STREET TO SOUTH 128TH STREET, AND 553.73 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE. EASTERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2505 +00 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 590 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2505 +75 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 570 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2507 +15 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 515 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2509 +50 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 500 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE SAID HES AND 428.97 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE SOUTHERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. Form ou WA1 �5 • .!! $4 5 4 a a llo Is A! 7Z 2. PO 6 t7 • 1t • • • 4.. 1�� I i �sl CS 2 ,. crow CO � N EUBIT A, Page 2 of 2 0S ` f i t pI,' .. ...I 4 v� `1 0 S i -- "or, • ie 1 1 f $ 1 g 0 41 * 4 ., , of / b� ~ ..., A: SG . ►*. r410° .P y� 0 / I . . . . . jgv m • .♦ ■ ■ 801 4 0 4 ORDER NO. ESCROW NO. LOAN NO. MORTGAGOR PLAT MAP .Vol 321.99 J I I I " I •v 1 I I .J • • PG • I. 0; ') ' , • This map does not purport to show all highways, roads or easements affecting said property: no liability is assumed for variations in dimensions and location f REZONE APPLICATION 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL: 1,1E 2 -1 -}Z, C -.. 2. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) 1(48 15 SaUThc ►YrE2.. ?/1 �UILw►ua w A . cjR IB8 Quarter: SvJ Section: 2.( 2.( Township: 23 Range: 4. (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: P_OSEer N.. 54.E -6F4e Address: 42,12 4ukrs t'P6iwr R.aie•D 3c , w� . 98o0µ Phone: 4 to 2- -- o c C. Signature: � ,(� Date: 9 - /989 * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant. AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: lk--11... - rr OWNER Address: liD013 y ou, H i214.1..r I iu ��u� .wp.9Sr1 Phone: 2-o (. 8 i9 I /i[signature(s()] swear that £,ewe are the owners or contract purchaser(s) of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Date: q1 -5 -8 5. WHAT IS THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY? 7. WHAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS REQUESTED? 8. WHAT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION? RESPONSE: Co N pp s RESPONSE: AR.F Cite 1-1 e act A t..L• 6 el Exta - D . ATTA.c. PL.P. e- 6. WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY? /S 9-70 ! 1 C.- 2- REZONE APPLICATION Page 2 C . fri L. . REZONE CRITERIA: The burden of proof in demonstrating that the change is appropriate lies solely upon the proponent. Generally, the more dramatic the change, the greater will be the burden of showing that the proposed change is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as implemented by the Zoning Ordinance. The proponent must show in a clear and precise manner why the rezoning application should be granted. The Planning Commission and City Council will review your proposal using the following criteria. You may attach additional sheets and submit other documentation to support your rezone application. 9. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted comprehensive land use policy plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest; 57/2. EFT v- A.7Y 5 A Ce T' t?f2oPE2Ty 10. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form; 11. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfac- tion that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. To respond to this criteria, obtain a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applica- tion and submit in conjunction with Rezone Application. J RESPONSE: N,4 12. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surround- ing neighborhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone. RESPONSE: S o1.4.1 - 14ceNTEg- +iaac IS. AN iki $E' C.,am S L,., err4+ 2es oDe ,.rrlPL "PRA PEaW j I I MMe ) NTE Ai • " um DES RA (11.0 PtS R.t* s L DGZJTI A.L. . RESPONSE: 135r REZONE APPLICATION Page 3 13. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property value, imposed on the individual property owner. 1�pGIaTE C4 M�"Y�LtAL 2)EVEL Pr - ieTi in:N E 2E A 1....2zP.Dq EktST, ►.SCE - Nis '+S 114-IF C#s14IF Hr"12E . 14. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it has been zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: S urs.a.°0.,J i NC, .602.erot L+AS Del a _coell AS cdM �ac -LAr_, (29 /REZN.APP1,2) 4 rSO I 561 0 0 1 1 ° * `s " 0 0 • \ .: 0s7. oz .' • __ `I i I f :;0 N „ I 1 ,o I 4w•1 / .z � � } 4 ' j i t 0 •t� s ' / el. .t 7 y ► 1 653. 4 ! + i =.t.. ��ll I i b "33!..1:.. , 1 " �• Y ; >„ ti 4 . P � dcU i.3 `./ ;� fi mss. s = a ;, ''4 { rr 1s A ,d9 /S -- '327. 99 A /o4! 3'I 3 I 6 • I I 4 MN 1 1 s90 o I i ' ,. 1 I 1 13,' 31 4 7fw4-7 Y I 1 Y a by ..6,-ee. • 0 3 'J 9 . vas1 1 +0 s C, e9 • ss • 58 w' PCL. 3 • 1 A/ 89• Is .4 6 z9.�s' Z/. s7 4f '� = • 1 " • I .. • • •+ .7N C(f .11.4. • .27 de's ..9prom --or IC. • t. (morrow • 1 ve myr o may 4visprevy • fTh grn ONAriM Xi> rtele :IT 040 *(77g 1V,Zeli , A VseX2WcE 'to" %PO 0 .16 Amy i7:cat .? .208 A1/7an 71 71, 3U477// ( f 1 I 111 jti J 1 1 LI 1 _dr 08fr. 4eig Aicat "waft cd, pall MID 0.1. 3A MI I STOC 1 4/ orN5C 68 - - Agnew ihwayN • ..shwit, =ems El87/ • STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 1. Project Description: Rezone 1.53 acres from R- 1 -7.2, Single Family Resi- dence to C -2, Regional Retail Business. 2. Existing Development: Vacant /Agricultural. 3. Surrounding Land Use: Attachment C is an existing land use map. The rezone site is surrounded by commercial and industrial uses except for an agricul- tural parcel to the immediate north and I -5 freeway to the west. 4. Terrain: The site is very flat except for the rear (western) perimeter which is the foot of the Green River Valley wall. 5. Access: Site access would be directly from Southcenter Parkway; a five lane minor arterial, with adjacent peak hour traffic volumes of 1800 vehicles. 6. Utilities: The site is fully served by all utilities except sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer system along this western segment of Southcenter Parkway is of an ad hoc collection of private sewer systems which occasionally fail and require constant maintenance. The applicants are working with adjacent property owners and the Public Works Department to build a gravity sewer system through a local improvement district which the City will agree to own and maintain. BACKGROUND Next month the Planning Co^mission will be considering its oropo:ed zoning ^e amendment to require design review of C -2 and CM zoned properties, the issues arises of how that amendment relates to the subject rezone. The connection between the two actions is only because of their close timing. Imposition of design review is a policy decision eventually to be decided by the City Council for the C -2 zone in general. The subject rezone is a separate consideration which must be evaluated based upon existing adopted policies which do not require design review. Unless the applicant willingly accepts a condi- tion of design review, the rezone must be reviewed as submitted. The subject property is the next to last part of a family owned farm. Farming once was the land use of the valley floor that is now the City's business dis- trict. The family gradually sold and /or developed, in commercial uses, parts of the farm. Now two parcels remain, one of which is here before the Commission for rezoning to C -2 and development early in 1988. This parcel contains a single family residence and land fill recently placed in what once was a corn- field. FINDINGS 87 -4 -R: A. Shimatsu /Y. Mikami Page 2 C.YYIr:A'.�.�.v .. wi(.:: t!.�u': �.'.� w._.:'i x�. rr i ✓::� .i STAFF REPORT to the Planning Commission DECISION CRITERIA 87 -4 -R: A. Shimatsu /Y. Mikami Page 3 The Tukwila Zoning Code and Washington case law identify six decision criteria which must be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in their deliberations on any property specific rezone request. After considering and balancing these criteria, the Commission may then determine whether the rezone is justified. The six criteria are identified in bold print and discussed below. 1. The use or change in zoning requested shall be in conformity with the adopted comprehensive land use policy plan, the provisions of this title, and the public interest. The proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which desig- nates the site as "Commercial," the provisions of this title as discussed below, and the public interest in that it is consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan. The site is not an environmentally sensitive area in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The use or change in zoning requested in the zoning map or this title for the establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential use shall be supported by an architectural site plan showing the proposed development and its relationship to surrounding areas as set forth in the application form. No specific development is now proposed. A possible preliminary development concept for a one story, 22,620 ft. building with 85 parking spaces is shown in Attachment D. The conceptual lot coverage, at 33 percent, is generally consistent with that of surrounding developments. 3. When the request is not in agreement with the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City Council's satisfac- tion that there is an additional need for the requested land classification. This criteria is not applicable. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan (see Criteria No. 1). 4. Significant changes have occurred in the character, conditions or surround- ing neighborhood that justify or otherwise substantiate the proposed rezone. The surrounding area has essentially totally developed since the establish- ment of area zoning with the exception of the lot to the immediate north. This commercial growth occurred between 1968 and 1982 per the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. In this particular case, the implementing R -1 -7.2 zoning the specific property is consistent with the surrounding development and zoning (see Criteria No. 6). 5. The proposed rezone is in the best interest of public health and safety as compared to the hardship, such as diminution of property value, imposed on the individual property owner. The proposed rezone is in the public interest in that it implements the Comprehensive Plan (see Criteria No. 1). The rezone would increase the sub- ject property's value. r . • STAFF REPORT to the 87 -4 -R: A. Shimatsu /Y. Mikami Planning Commission Page 4 6. The unimproved subject property is unsuitable for the purpose for which it has been zoned considered in the context of the length of time the property has remained unimproved and land development in the surrounding area. The subject property is not viable as detached single family housing because of the surrounding commercial uses, traffic, and noise. Single family hous- ing is not attractive in this location, when compared with other sites with lower noise and traffic levels. The single family residence on the property is the last family farm that once dominated the flatland that is not the City's business district. (22/87- 4- R.1,2) CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposed rezone is in the public interest because the new zoning would . be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The conceptual commercial development is generally in character with sur- rounding commercial and industrial structures. 3. The existing detached single family zoning of the property is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, nor are detached single family residences com- patible with surrounding commercial and industrial uses. 4. The property is currently unsuitably zoned and should be rezoned to C -2. RECOMMENDATIONS Approval of the proposed rezone from R -1 -7.2 (Single Family Residence) to C -2 (Regional Commercial). .as. u..a 4,47.... 1111.. a... 44 44 ..a.....«..C.......w..M «�.Y... _. ....__....._ a runivI Iv \■, vv- IYG u011D0111U11Utl 11110 IIIJUI 0IWU VV111N411y VVdb11111y1U11 V1AII111111II711 It — 17100 COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued By Transarnerica Title Insurance Company Transamerica Title Insurance Company, a California corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums ;and charges therefor; all subject to the exceptions and conditions and stipulations shown herein; the Exclusions from Coverage, the Schedule B exceptions, and the conditions and stipulations of the policy or policies requested. (See reverse side of this cover and inside of back cover Exclusions from Coverage and Schedule B exceptions contained in various policy forms:) This Commitment shall be effective only when;thp.identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have beeninserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsements and is subject to the Conditions and Stipulations on the back of this cover. p � ....tra b This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance;of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and- terminate six months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed_for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or poicies s, not the fault of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Transamerica jTitle.Insurance Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly„authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. NOTE: THE POLICY COMMITTED FOR.:MAY, EXAMINED BY INQUIRY AT THE OFFICE WHICH ISSUED THE COMMITMENT,AND,A COPY OF THE POLICY FORM (OR FORMS) REFERRED TO IN,THIS COMMITMENT WILL BE FURNISHED PROMPTLY.UPON REQUEST. Transamerica Title Insurance Company .,r � By By President Secretary PLEASE DIRECT CORRESPONDENCE TO: Transamerica Title Insurance Co. 320 108th Avenue N.E. P.O. Box 1493 Bellevue, WA 98009 Prepared for: ROBERT H. SCHOFIELD 4212 HUNTS POINT ROAD BELLEVUE, WA 98004 1. By SCHEDULE A EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1989 at 8:00 A.M. Policy or policies to be issued: (X) Alta Owner's Policy (6 -1 -87) ( ) Alta Owner's Policy -1970 (Amended 10- 17 -70) Standard Policy Proposed Insured: ROBERT H. SCHOFIELD AND LESLIE M. SCHOFIELD, HUSBAND AND WIFE Amount Transamerica No.: 0858815 Customer No. . - -- Seller . - -- Buyer /Borrower : Schofield For ser on this order, call: 646 -8 :9/1- 800 - 441 -7701 JOHN W. JONES, CINDY L. ESSER, BRUCE H. ANDRUS or RANDY L. RIEMAN (FAX #646 -8593) $1,300,000.00 Commercial Rate Premium $2,725.00 Tax $ 220.72 Total $2,945.72 2. Title to fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: MATT MIKAMI, AS HIS SEPARATE ESTATE 3. The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County of King, State of Washington and is described as follows: -see attached- DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE SUBDIVISION) IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. LYING WEST OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 972, MESS BROTHERS ROAD, CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 921233 (SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY FORMERLY 57TH AVENUE SOUTH), DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, 1,020 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NORTH, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 294.62 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE SOUTH, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 294.62 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION WITH A LINE RUNNING EAST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE WEST ON SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 (SR 5) BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5524599 AND 5992105; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY AS CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 6343852; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE WHICH IS 1,020 FEET NORTHERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF THE HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4: THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M., DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH IS OPPOSITE HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS HES) LW 2504 +89.33 ON THE LW LINE SURVEY OF SR 5, SOUTH 178TH STREET TO SOUTH 126TH STREET, AND 553.73 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE EASTERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2505 +00 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 590 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2505 +75 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 570 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2507 +15 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 515 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE HES LW 2509 +50 ON SAID LW LINE SURVEY AND 500 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY TO A POINT OPPOSITE SAID HES AND 428.97 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY THEREFROM; THENCE SOUTHERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. PAGE 2 0858815 Sw.l�+- i +.anUem.uw o.tta :.. ..v.. v..v.hX 11.WC10.021M11V0.. .V.O. Y t. SCHEDULE B A. Standard exceptions set forth on inside back cover. EXCEPTIONS: Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following matters unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. B. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. C. Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be properly executed, delivered and duly filed for record. 1. General taxes, as follows, together with interest, penalty and statutory foreclosure costs, if any, after delinquency: k (1st half delinquent on May 1; 2nd half delinquent on November 1) TAX ACCOUNT NO. YEAR AMOUNT BILLED AMOUNT PAID PRINCIPAL BALANCE 262304 - 9068 -09 1989 $1,515.71 $ 757.86 $ 757.85 The levy code for the property herein described is 2390 for 1989. 2. Liability for supplemental taxes for improvements which have recently been constructed on the property. Said improvements are not presently assessed, but may appear on future rolls. 3. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT: 0 ESTIMATED AMOUNT: $74,129.26 L.I.D.*NO.: 32 LEVIED BY: City of Tukwila FOR: Sewer ASSESSMENT ACCOUNT NO.: 5 Lien attaches, as between seller and purchaser, 30 days after said filed date. 4. RELEASE OF DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: BETWEEN: Matt Mikami, a single man AND: State of Washington, and /or its agents and contractors DATED: March 26, 1985 RECORDED: May 15, 1985 RECORDING NO.: 8505150266 (Covers Parcel B) PAGE 3 0858815 . EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: (Covers Parcel A) GRANTEE: PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: DATED: RECORDED: RECORDING NO.: 6. EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: ... PAGE State of Washington Drainage system A strip of land 20 feet in width February 8, 1966 February 23, 1966 5992108 City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation Utility mains and lines Easterly 15 feet of Parcel A April 10, 1968 May 6, 1968 6343884 Right to enter to inspect drainage facilities as reserved by deed recorded under Recording No. 8505150265. 8. Terms, conditions, restrictions and reservations contained in deed from the State of Washington, recorded under Recording No. 8505150265. 9. Relinquishment of access to State Highway No. 1, and of light, view and air by deed to State of Washington recorded December 28, 1962 and February 23, 1966 under Recording No. 5524599 and 5992105. 10. Relinquishment of access to SR 5, and of light, view and air as reserved in deed from the State of Washington recorded May 15, 1985 under Recording No. 8505150265. (Covers Parcel B) NOTE 1: A proper lease must be executed and recorded before the policy can be issued. We also call your attention to the necessity of examining the terms of the lease for provisions which might require the consent of the lessor to any transfer of the leasehold estate. NOTE 2: We note survey recorded under Recording No. 8803259009. 0858815 END OF EXCEPTIONS INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE MADE TO DETERMINE IF THERE ARE ANY SERVICE, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE OR CONSTRUCTION CHARGES FOR SEWER, WATER OR ELECTRICITY. IN THE EVENT THIS TRANSACTION FAILS TO CLOSE, A CANCELLATION FEE WILL BE CHARGED FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RATE SCHEDULE. ENCLOSURES: Sketch Paragraphs 4 and 5 BW /al UNCLASSIFIED USE 1989 APPLICATION DATE FILE NUMBER PROJECT NAME I ADDRESS APPLICANT FILE CROSS REFERENCE ACTION 5/9/89 89 -1 -UCU DICK'S TOWING S.E. CORNER OF S. 134TH (134TH ST. /44TH PL. S.) YKC ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING -KEN CHIN EPIC -11 -89 DENIED 8/21/ BY CITY COU1 UNCLASSIFIED USE 1989 cole and associates shimatsu property boundary and topographic survey f MUa0N 150N$ mum • • 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION -•: •---- - �ryi i ' I. e That portion of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter (hereinafter referred to as the subdivision) in Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. , in Kin/ . County, Washington, lying West of the County Road and described s follows: BEGINNING al a point on the West line of uid subdivision 1,020 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof running; THENCE North along said West line 294.62 feet, more or less, to the Northwest Sumer of said subdivision; THENCE rut elon/ the North line of said subdivision to the int ion'with the hest linear said County Road; THENCE South along said West line a'distence of 294,62 feet, more or Its, ao the interaction with a line running East from the point of BEGINNING parallel to the South line of aid subdivision; • • THENCE West on said parallel line to Ma POINT OF BEGINNING; • EXCEPT portttn thereof conveyed to the Stale of Washington for Primary State Iliahway No. 1. under deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5992105, lying Westerly of the West line oflhat properly conveyed by the state of Washington by. deed recorded under Recording No. 1502150265. . ALSO EXCEPT the East 6Feet thereof for Southcenter Parkway per deed filed in Valun 5O13 of Deeds ai page 533, M• Magma ‘u-f Tom: p,' AIS ri.4 i To / PV4ueur off M. fund) of 6t6r•I.APE6.t WaTML (5tf. DETAL,\, et...A. u.o MA,L oI •w.4 O J& W 41I2Pd6R O•ERFL.o&4 WEIR M EA/P-1 o Lyn4 C EA-41M A- P6RK.aJA9, sPiL.�uA� S MIJ, u.ad.. 2Z.0 o mm 1. Poem CMW.4 Fve.a) b hg X .. ........ :....... 'te ........... bry . ,.......• .. ....... ..,.....,...... ... ' wry .... . .. ..................... X . ....., r t••• 11K 24" t? QOCit CONbTRAX110 TtasramJcr- 9- 03.941) to TNIC c. 4 " RIP -RAP • V 1 6 o• W I 1 3 ................ .• .. ............ .. ... . . .... ..... . : .......... .... . M4.. .. ...... . ... q M1• v _. - •-Y • • ,1 y ry B OGLE ttf c4-4. to I perERR, 4•.1► IBMS. ats� OJTL .T ......................... .. . ,....... ,.......20.....,..,.,. DtU6RLlo4 DITGaF' `: • lit r;'° . • F2.42sio4.4 t2DLL RbuO sL)IF E_ 21.0' ( IOFtx 16oct) WA1t6. Surf cF n.c 'BLEU 18.2 6NAu.- 6E toff x t3o Fr • ...._y 3" F5?ooZE DISC "P6?4 LCo - L•S.' Z71 Etfiv 22.4Z" LC�Lt I URV fc,( 3 .O Hot. te.tD' �st,�LZIi� it' N1tt . r RAJl 4.044 e. OWER410w DITC4.1 511-T GENGE • F f1 SEGTIoN / 2t4 ooTlbr (SEC OtVAIL.) E{.tep.(sF„S,dC OueR•F(OMJ (Set= WAIL) 4o exesT1t. c.t CDAITOUR -.. •''� : 1 x`� .Nctt!nt,t rl �SPDr EeAJ IE* -®-- PfloPoScA Cossfaue• P1OPOSE• -ab Spo•f to�ADE Iit.IZ.G/..VC_ PRoPoSE t 96uictwe44, PA PR096SED D1VCEStOA-1 DoTG4\'' GRAOM'S A2f_`. Dee-As/ CP FGtON1 ItstFOR.MAS102 -1 o44ou-SM oµ Cot.Z 4 AiSOCtA'TR`.s StAmilt1 DATIGD ocr, viTb ANo AGDIT1ourt.L- INFOtegnstgi foga.% P't.aH PETERSo6.A CROW. \4Ut9 (o. �.T l A3.1.0 I4ICMAE�.. PAMDD LJK.K. 14'0404 A. Ch '46PT6.Mb6R 1991 - Co.. rinAc•Ttnet2.. cttt ve4JFY ALL IMfc3RNoNTtos.J patcaral co 4 til)CTtotl1, Aft EROSION /SEDIME 1. ALL LIMITS OF CLEARING AND AREAS OF VEGETATION PRESERVATION AS DESCRIBED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED ON THE FIELD AND OrSERVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. ALL REQUIRED SEDIMENTATION/EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING ANO /OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES HOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ALL ERO- SION AND SEDIMENT FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SAT- ISFACTORY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT CLEARING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL FOR ONSITE EROSION HAS PASSED, THE IMPLEMENTATION. MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND ADDITIONS TO EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE THE RESI OF THE PERMITTEE. 3. THE EROSIONS AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON THIS DRAYAN ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO MEET ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITTEE SHOULD ANTICIPATE THAT MORE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CON- TROL FACIUTIES WILL BE NECESSARY TO INSURE COMPLETE SILT- ATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT SHALL BE THE OBUGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PER�IITTEE TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY HIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACIL- ITIES, OVER AND ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS MAY BE NEEOEO TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND WATER QUALITY OF 1HE RE- CEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. • 4. APPROVAL OF THIS PLAIT IS FOR EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLT. IT DIES Ilol CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF STORM DRAINAGE - DESIGN, SIZE, NON LOCATION OF PIPES, RESTRICTOIIS, CHANNELS OR ?r RETENTION FACILITIES. 1 ' 5. ANY DISTURB D AREA WHICH HAS BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATICN AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS ANTICIPATED FOR A PERIOD OF 3D DAYS OR MORE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STABILISED 111TH MULCHING, CRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLI- CABLE TO THE TIME OF TEAR IN QUESTION. GRASS SEEDING ALONE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE ONLY DURING THE MONTHS OF APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER INCLUSIVE. SEEDING MAT PROCEED OUTSIDE THE SPE- CIFIED TIME PERIOD WHENEVER IT IS IN i::. INTEREST OF THE PERMITTEE, RUT MUST BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING, MEETING, OR OTHER TREATMENT APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ALL EROSION / SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PONDS WITH A DEAD STORAGE DEPTH EXCEEDING 6 INCHES MUST HAVE A FENCE WITH A MINIMUM HEIGHT or 3 FEET. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 10 'Y3':k :' ir e, .., .. .i .,,.•, �.rI / ,,, �.1< .sr',t'fl,' :t'f.'"I,'� 7._4 :.: r.M lj hi, ir ) O IIr I r INI I " 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I r I 1 I 1 3 1 III l IIIrIIIIIIIIIIIII��I 1 11 IIIIIII Illll.11 I.I111I.11I111I1 IIIIIII �IIJI I IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII 1111111 i l l l l l l l 4._- 5 6 7... 8 9 10 1 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS + CLEAR•THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS•DUE TO OE bz se cz ez sz 55 ez; ' zz tz (. THE FUALITY OF' THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; ; 6 o C a S ,t(l IU�I i ul�I! }I 1 r ran I I I i tl ; �I Ir r n 1 ii uul rd 11111V i n it r r nrrl`'tq( I % r l l 1 111111 n I ii lu rlmili n� D z • "0 uu ii ihm ulnu�uuhni�. NC) SCAM TATION CONTROL NOTES to to ( IN FEET) I Inch - 20 n. T. I. ATTEND PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. 2. INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 3. FLAG CLEARING LIMIT. 4. PLACE STRAW BALE DAM IN EXISTING DITCH. 5. INSTALL FILTE FENCE AND DIVERSION DITCHES. 6. CONSTRUCT NORTH EROSION CONTROL DITCH /POND PATH PERFORATED RISER. 7. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE. IL REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL. 9, GRADE TO SUBGRADE MAINTAIN EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTIIOL MEASURES DURING ALL GRADING. • ALL. wort *Wk. Cow W Leif et'IXE - ZEMM1 4o(W 2t ?OArt rso ate liffl w64o GRAPHIC SCALE CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE YOU DIG 1.800. 424.5555 near CITY OP TUasvuA QCT U 4 1989 NRMIT CMTM t,.ff HRJ SCAlt 1' ■20' 0e 8934100 1 0 , N C5 1 ON DATE FILE NUMBER PROJECT NAME ADDRESS APPLICANT L CROSS REFERENCE ACTION 5/9/89 89 -1 -UCU • DICK'S TOWING S'.E. CORNER OF S. 134TH (134TH ST. /44TH PL. S.) YKC ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING -KEN CHIN - EPIC -11 -89 DENIED 8/21/ BY CITY COUN • • • UNCLASSIFIED USE 1989 S 9 IL DATE (FILE NUMBER' I t PROJECT NAME ADDRESS APPLICANT FILE CROSS REFERENCE ACTION Koveo 5/8/89 89 -1 -V • FOSTER HIGH SCHOOL 4242 S. 144TH ST. SOUT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 5H - $q - I -C-Uj 7/26/89 89 -2 -V SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. 6530, 6532, 6534, 6536, 6538 S. 153RD ST. H.C. BLOSS SCHNEIDER HOMES 89 -7 -SMP DENIED 11/13/89 89 -3 -V BOEING 1409 BUILDING 8701 E. MARGINAL WAY S. NEAL TUNISON BOEING 89 -16 -DR 89 -8 -SMP HYf1eP VARIANCE 1989 x �i