HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 84-33-SMP - EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY - SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT84-33-smp
6700 fort dent way
EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1908
October 17, 1985
Evergreen Management
2100 124th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98005
Re: Revised Application 84 -33 -SMP
Sin
L. Rick Beeler
Associate Planner
/ks
(EVRGRN)
( #1B)
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
t Tukwila Washington 98188
433 -1800
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
This is formal notification that the Board of Architectural Review, at its
September 26, 1985, meeting, approved revised application 84 -33 -SMP subject
to the following conditions:
1. Staff review and approval of exterior illumination for compliance with
TMC 18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
2. Staff review and approval of rooftop mechanical equipment screening per
TMC 18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
3. Landscaping along the Green River include large shade trees at a maxi-
mum spacing of 30' on center (TMC 18.44.130(2)(C)).
4. Parking areas being broken up by landscaping fingerlings per the origi-
nal landscape plan along the west and north property lines.
5. Window glass being a maximum of 20% reflectivity.
If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at
433 -1847.
1
rl.
aL
':: Lr,.` •, {.r `,.t.. .trv>l•f•4•r e, >.yl,: '��.. .1, n l.a.";'
-... ..., .- ,....: <i:.i;�e.' . ".'••s�;:'�:i� �r .,r... ":•a�;u "�w,.. ,., .� ... ..............._, ,., _..,..., ....t�.,..; tG S;t�a�.....,..- Wi;. a: r '..v.:..,.._..v_ik�;IM•... >tr•,. ..
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
Notice of Public Hearing and Meeting of the
Tukwila Planning Commission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila Planning Commission has fixed the
26th day of September, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers of
Tukwila City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the
time and place for
Public Meeting:
85- 35 -DR: NENDELS TUKWILA ASSOCIATES, requesting approval of a 151 room
motor inn, restaurant and conference center at the southwesterly corner of
South 158th Street and West Valley Highway.
DR- 10 -84: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO., requesting approval for revised plans
_if of Tukwila Bend, a five building office park, at the southeasterly corner of
Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard.
Any and all interested persons are invited to attend.
Published: Record Chronicle Date: September 15, 1985
Distribution: City Clerk
Project Files
Public Notice File
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
84- 33 -SMP: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
AGENDA ITEM,
INTRODUCTION
On January 10, 1985, the Board of Architecture Review (BAR) approved a development
plan for five single story buildings of a total of 109,300 square feet and 339
parking stalls. A Shoreline Management Permit was issued on January 24, 1985, and
became effective on March 7, 1985.
An application for a Building Permit for the first two of the buildings was filed
on August 20, 1985, containing changes in the footprint, area and design of the
buildings and in the site plan. These changes were found by staff to be of suf-
ficient magnitude to warrant bringing before the BAR again.
FINDINGS
1. Shoreline Management Permit N590 -14 -4057 became effective on March 7, 2985,
containing plans approved by the BAR on January 10, 1985. (Attachments A - C).
2. Building Permit Application CN -85 -245 was filed with the City on August 20,
1985, containing plans for the first two buildings (Attachments A - C).
3. Differences between these two sets of plans are highlighted in the direct com-
parisons made in Attachments A - C.
4. TMC 18.60.070 stipulates that BAR approval is necessary prior to issuance of
the building permit. Review criteria for the BAR is contained in TMC
18.60.050 and 18.60.060(4).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The differences between the plans and building elevations contained in attach-
ment A - C are not minor, but are significant enough to warrant BAR examina-
tion of the changes. These changes consist of:
A. More linear building facades,
B. Increased window areas in the facades,
C. More rectalinear /"boxy" building shapes,
Page -2-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
September 26, 1985
D. Parking circulation and landscaping at the southwest corner of the site.
2. Criteria 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site
The proposal is compatible with the planned improvement of the interchange of
Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue and I -405. This project will be
the first to be constructed along Southcenter Boulevard at the entrance to
Fort Dent Park. Overall the development continues to provide appropriate
landscaping, parking and building scale for the site (TMC 18.60.060(4)(C),
(D),(E), and (F)).
3. Criteria 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
Since the area along Southcenter Boulevard at the entrance at Fort Dent Park
is undeveloped, the proposal will be setting the trend for future development.
Therefore, the relationship of the structures to other development is not par-
ticularly applicable. The revised building designs are less visually
interesting than the designs originally approved, however, the deviation
appears still appropriate for the property and area. In addition, the revised
landscaping and circulation is compatible with existing uses and future deve-
lopment along Southcenter Boulevard (TMC 18.60.060(4)(B),(C) and (D)).
4. Criteria 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment
Landscaping within the project compliments the proposed buildings and deli-
neates Southcenter Boulevard. Parking areas are sufficiently landscaped to
visually break up the expanse of linear parking with a few exceptions.
Exterior illumination is not contained in the plans but can be adequately
reviewed by staff during review and approval of another building permit
application. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(A),(C) and (E)).
5. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design
The recent proposal presents less visually interrupted building facades to
Southcenter Boulevard than the original proposal. As a result, the new
designs appear more monotonous, although within reasonably acceptable limits.
Rooftop mechanical equipment remains unidentified on the revised plans.
Appropriate screening is required and may be adequately reviewed by the staff
during review and approval of another building permit application. (TMC
18.60.060(4)(A)).
Reflective glass is proposed of unspecified reflectivity.
6. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(5): Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
Illumination details were not submitted in the building permit application.
These plans can be reviewed by the Planning Department during review of
another building permit application.
Page -3-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
September 26, 1985
7. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(B): Relationship to Public Recreation Areas and
Facilities
A 20 -foot pedestrian easement is shown along the Green River to connect with
the Christensen Greenbelt Trail and Fort Dent Park.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, staff recommends approval of the revised plans subject to:
1. Staff review and approval of exterior illumination for compliance with TMC
18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
2. Staff review and approval of rooftop mechanical equipment screening per TMC
18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
3. Landscaping along the Green River include large shade trees at a maximum
spacing of 30' on center (TMC 18.44.130(2)(C)).
4. Parking areas being broken up by landscaping per the original landscape plan.
5. Window glass being a maximum of 20% reflectivity.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Comparison of Site Plans
B - Comparison of Building Floor Plans
C - Comparison of Building Elevations.
NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL - TMC 18.90.020
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may appeal said
decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal to the City Clerk within
10 days of said decision. The appear shall state the reasons for the appeal. The
City Council may hold a public hearing and may affirm, modify or deny the Planning
Commission's decision.
NOTICE OF TIME LIMIT - TMC 18.64.060
The conditional use permit shall automatically expire one year of the date of
Planning Commission approval unless a building permit is obtained and shall expire
within two years unless substantial construction is completed. Extension of these
deadlines may be requested of the Planning Commission subject to demonstration of
extraordinary circumstances or conditions not known or foreseeable at the time
the original application was granted.
Page -4-
Planning. Commission
84- 33 -SMP: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
September 26, 1985
(EVRGRN)
(5A.2)
)( )HN SPELLMAN
Governor
Evergreen Management Company
21'00 124th Ave. N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98005
Gentlemen:
Re:
ECY 050- 1 -28(a)
Rev. 11/81
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504
February 8, 1985
COUNTY: King - Application No. 34
APPLICANT: Evergreen Management Company
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT #N 590 -14 -4057
The subject Shoreline Management Substantial Development. Permit was
received by this office on February 7, 1985 . The .review period
by the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General's Office will
terminate 30 days from the above date.
If no notice of appeal is received, construction pursuant to the
permit may commence following expiration of the review period,
provided that all other federal, state, and local laws regulating
such construction have been complied with.
Sincerely,
i 71/ ie?
Linda S. Rankin
Permit Coordinator
Shorelands Division
cc: City of Tukwila
208/469 -6000
DONALD W. MOOS
Director
c• I
FEB 11 F EB 11 1985
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
1 [
1 t
.2100 124th Ave. N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98005
township, range)
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971
PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
NOTE - THIS PAGE FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENT USE ONLY
Type of Action
pi [ Substantial Development Permit
Conditional Use
Variance
Pursuant to RCW 90.58, a permit is hereby granted to:
Evergreen Management Company
to undertake the following development: 109,300 square feet of office and warehouse
(be specific)
space in five single story buildings on a 7.7 acre site
.upon the following property: NW* and SW * section 24 Township 23 Range 4, W.M.
(legal description, i.e., section,
within Green River
(name of water area)
The project will be
(be /not be)
Application. No. 84- 33 -SMP.
Administering Agency City of Tukwila
Approved (,/ Denied
Date51)00Pt2`( 2�4 1q 5
(name of applicant)
and /or its associated wetlands.
within shorelines of statewide significance
(RCW 90.58.030). The project will be located within an urban
(environment)
designation. The following master program provisions are applicable to this
development P.P. 4.1 -4.8; and sections 18.44.110 -150, zoning code
(state the master program sections or page numbers)
Development pursuant to this permit shall be undertaken pursuant to the follow-
1) Staff review and approval of exterior illumination for
ing terms and conditions
compliance with TMC 18.60.050 and 18.60.060; 2) Staff review and approval of roof-
top mechanical equipment screening per TMC 18.60.050 and 18.60.060; 3) Landscaping
along the Green River large shade trees at a spacing of 30 feet on center; 4)
compliance with applicable city ordinances and regulaitons.
This permit is granted pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and
nothing in this permit shall excuse the application from compliance with any
other federal, state or local statutes, ordinances or regulations applicable to
this project, but not inconsistent with the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter
90.58 RCW).
This permit may be rescinded pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(8) in the event the per -
mittee fails to comply with the terms or conditions hereof.
CONSTUCTION PURSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN OR IS NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL
THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS DEFINED IN RCW 90.58.140(6) AND
WAC 173 -14 -090; OR UNTIL ALL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE TERMINATED; EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN
RCW 90.58.140(5)(a)(b)(c).
THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A SUBSTANTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT.
Date received by the department
Approved Denied
This conditional use /variance permit is approved /denied by the department pur-
suant to chapter 90.58 RCW.
Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the following additional terms and
'conditions:
•
e) ' Director, P 1 g .ii . Department
(date) (Signature of Authorized Department Official)
r
;1909
City of Tukwila
cc: Applicant
City Clerk
Mayor
File
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
�rwyC'�:� + ,�'ar';:'�RVq'.r'ncJ1i5'.,,reJt J,i(.: /n...r 1 5
XP% Xf: � 1".+ �il, i`.: u,,,. toF :v,;�.'7..tsfnt�.w.Y'.�u.r�euL� t4.�,.. �uc7;.J:u�7.Lti ?�.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
Notice is hereby given that Evergreen Management Company who is purchaser
of the below described property has filed an application for a substantial
development permit for the development of an office park of 5 one -story
buildings totalling 109,300 square feet located at the S.E. corner of
Interurban Ave. S., and Southcenter Boulevard, within NW and SW quarter of
section 24 of township 23 N., Range 4, W.M., in Tukwila, Washington. Said
development is proposed to be within Green River and /or its associated
wetlands. Any person desiring to express his views or to be notified of
the action taken on this application should notify Rick Beeler, Associate
Planner, in writing of his interest within thirty days of the final date of
publication of this notice which is October 28, 1984. Written comments
must be received by November 29, 1984.
Published: Record Chronicle, October 21 and October 28, 1984
1
#At"197 -11 -970
•
Description of Proposal Office /Warehouse Development of five single story buildings
of a total of 109,300 square feet
Proponent Evergreen Management Co.
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any southeasterly corner of
Interurban Ave. S. and Southcenter Boulevard and along the Green River
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 25a-84
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.
Mitigating measures are attached.
' There is no comment period for this DNS
_El This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted
by January 2 , 1984
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Position /Title Planning Director
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Phone 433 -1845
Date di 081 Signature o
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.
�;•� •.;.i'...� ;.'t; -;, ate .., nyrwy ;� +iii ..,.x;?w�`:ir'�„'?S �e y.,Y':{3"� "'�;i'.. "
,,�,F '!4� � ! � f . j; j., v } ,�e�•:... :-}�, i �r �•ir,�_ : t':-.. t . am�tr� t Yv � s ';`myk"`r Z• �':,';;:,Te:X'h�. ` �%z ; +�.,N.. nwcr._t 7,,'� ...
t �4'u.�vl >v ;' ^,. ri�,�s, n .rk.:...n + ,.:.1�:.,4..1ru .U....u:nTt�i�,.c v :.i�:.as.,n:Jn^.tf ;.., r. d ,i..�.'�i:�i}'•.f, a4. r .Ya`rW „��tV�a'..t...xr.�'t! ,.w ��:i� >.<.a.!n.s:.::�): x��.!�. ... _, i.,_
S ATED DETERMINATION NONSIGNIFICANCE
1PIC- 252 -84, Evergreen M .ement Co.
MITIGATING MEASURES
1. Geotechnical study being submitted with the building permit application.
2. Dedication of 20 foot public access along and on top of the dike.
F 3. Construction of a dike and dike maintenance road per King County Hydraulics
Division requirements.
4. Construction of oil -water separators in the storm water system.
5. Construction of an archeological interpretive display per requirements of the
State Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation and City of Tukwila along
the public access easement.
6. Traffic analysis of temporary and permanent street improvements submitted with
the building permit application.
A. BACKGROUND
L Name of proposed project, if applicable:
TUKWILA BEND
\PAe. 197 -11 -960 Environmental checklist.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2. Name of applicant: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
2100 124th Avenue N.E., Bldg. 'D' c/o Mark Miller
Bellevue, WAshington 98005 (206) 881 -2212
4. Date checklist prepared:
5. Agency requesting checklist: („Ini of ' ..X\NLIL
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Phase One: April - August 1985
Phase Two: August - December 1985
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider
the environmental impacts of a proposal before making 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 agen-
cies 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 de-
scription 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 know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal. write 'do not know" or 'does not ap-
ply'. Complete answers 16 the questions now may 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 agcncics 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 in-
- 474 — nation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered 'does not apply.' IN AD-
DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROIECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project,' 'applicant,' and 'picprty or site'
should be read as 'proposal,' 'proposer,' and 'affected geographic area,' respectively.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal?
If yes. explain.
NO
8. List any environmental inform-.;on you know about that has been prcparr or will he prepared, directly related to
this proposal.
Environmental checklist dated July 9, 1982
EIS dated June 3, 1983
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the
property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
NO
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Shoreline permit Electrical permit
King County Hydraulics permit Plumbing permit
Building permit
Sewer hook up permit
Water hook up permit
Storm water system permit
Curb cut permit
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site.
There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. - $glen 11. revises a COMP! e -ice c,2e.scri pT;Ort Q-f -1.t
cbjc� •ccs and a wtstives ere yaor propes4( •w4 skootd s-h6 sorvo. uriud c,.e. .
.Five one -story buildings totaling 109,300 sq.ft. (approx.) Buildings features are
smooth painted concrete walls with reflective glass windows.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro-
• posed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur
over a range of arca, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map,
and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you arc not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The site butts Green River on two sides, with Southcenter Boulevard to the west and
property under development to the north.
Uses 4 propesal ti (oak&Sti a.. 411...4 ctc5i kc cct 0 C14y
Perky P1aK Map 41S .00.14rohn.eA.1a its/ sekr ifi.te?
Yes - Commercial
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth •
a. Genera l description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous.,
fat
other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
One percent (1 %)
lAN•Preltk LSr
EVAL.UATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
Silt and sandy silt
NO
•
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
muck)? If you now the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime
farmland.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro-
posed. Indicate source of fill.
Footing and structural fill
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
NO
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
78%
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the e2rth, if any:
Install filter fabric, ditches and rocked layed entrances.
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.
Dust and vehicle emissions during construction. Vehicle emission
during regular use.
b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your propos:A? If so,
generally describe.
NO
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
During construction, use of good operational techniques such as
watering of exposed areas and regular street cleaning. Efficient
layout of parking, driveways to reduce traffic congestion; there-
fore, less idle time and lower car emissions.
3,
1.V Al t.ATWN l'Ok
L'SI: ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCAN';,
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.
Green River
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.
Yes, construction of parking, landscaping and proposed buildings
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. In-
dicate the source of fill material.
None
NO
a:. ��. w. �.., r �+. , y.' �d�-0 �;�.�_Y•.%`: %C: {iE'�ad. �.�r'7 �:'aiJ.t��u Lu.ij5`.5� 1' °�. w.<...
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de-
scription, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Construction of new storm drainage system that will collect run -off
and directly discharge it to Green River
5) Does the proposal Be within a 100 —year floodplain? 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 volume of discharge.
b. Ground : -
I) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
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.
NONE
nt!.'�l�'.%lx•Rn 4 ++I:Y �1 +� T i 1SF:yc�iF�rti 'Hl �
EVALUATION FOR
AGt :NCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED 8Y APPLICANT
•
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 waters? If so, describe.
See 4 on Pdge 4
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally' describe.
No, possibility exists though if any of sewer pipes break
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if
any:
Storm drainage system including catch basins, underground pipes
and oil separator
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen. other
_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _
shrubs
x : grass
irasture
_ 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?
Addition of new landscpaing, possibly removal of existing trees
if require by City of Tukwila, as walk along Green River is install
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
See Landscape Plan L - 1
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: Crows, sparrows, robins
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: finches
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
NONE
5'
ed
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN
c. Is the she part of a migration route? If so, explain.
NO
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Construction of buffer area along Green River bank as proposed
by City of Tukwila
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, manu-
facturing, etc.
Electric or Natural Gas HVAC units and manufacturing
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjaccnt 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:
Insulation of roof, slabs and walls
7. Environmental Health
a. Arc 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 sa, describe.
NO
. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Each individual tenant will provide emergency services as
required.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
See 1
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic noise (60 dba) from Interstate 405
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the projcct on a
short —term or a long —term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi-
cate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise during construction between 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Traffic noise between 6:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.
(c.
EVA( UATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT t-
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Limiting construction to daylight hours and use of quite
equipment.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Site is undeveloped. The site to the north is presently being
commercially developed. To the south and east is Green River.
se
To the west is hillside unde lopeed with apartment buildings on to
b. Has the site n used tor agriculture. It so, escn e.
NO
c. Describe any structures on the site.
NONE
d. Will any structures be demolished? if so, what?
J•
NO
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
C2
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
' Commercial
_CCy ., .:'yc: �aR�,^ ',Y-d,•,..`_f rf r�;C;ytf'Q
g. if applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Urban
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an 'environmentally sensitive' arca? if so,
specify.
Yes, Shoreline Master Program
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
500 - 600 people
Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
NONE
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
NONE -
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
Buildings are designed to accomodate primarily office use, with
less than 50% of space allocated for manufacturing. Primarily
high -tech usage is anticipated.
7.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAP'
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid-
dle, or low— income housing. NONE
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low — income housing.
NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
NONE
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?
Buildings are constructed of smooth painted .concrete walls and
reflective glass
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Heavily landscaped parking areas and building elevations
11.. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur ?Parking and building lights at night, low glare during some hour
due to the reflective glass
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
NO
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:
Use of low glare fixtures
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Fort Dent Park
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
NO
8
s
EVALUATION FUR
AGENCY USE ONLY
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op-
portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
Proposed walk along Green River
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser-
vation registers known to be on or next to the site? if so, generally describe.
Fort Dent was constructed across the river from the site
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
FORT DENT
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
The site has beenfilled approximately 8 -9 years ago and archeologist
have searched the site and not found any artifacts. No measures are
presently in works unless artifacts are found during construction
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to thc
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
. Intei.urban Avenue South '
Southcenter Boulevard
Interstate 405
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is thc approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop? No, there is a bus route presently along Interurban
Avenue.
c. .How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
The project will provide 323 parking spaces and none will be elimina e
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). Construction of dual left turn lane on Southcenter Blvd.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transporta-
tion? If so, generally describe.
Project abuts Green River
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
Estimated trips per day would be in neighborhood of 240 -250 trips.
Mainly between 7:30 A.M. - 8:30• A.M. and 4.40 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
,rt ;rtra ?Cltv+^:� ^K���C.'.w.r.:�r ° �. F.•.t?,'4r'-
.Y':* .. .• y<�4 r�+- Oi 4 YA -1 C:�i'h.Yl:.'r.Aa:i =�t- . �:i(e 1 a < <.; 'i! �`tk'YC�3cn
�,Fi �.� .. ..ltirr i.. w.. ...- �..,..:: Y. isf�ir :i:��G��lti:,i.x.i.�iy�i:lri. rii {YJiASs1L ,. `t..t: Sri: �r:. til` Ctil.: L`,' �, �/' S.'i��r'.c�.11 %'•i', +�I:r:i:.:. . �L.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro-
tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
Proposal of dual left -turn lane, altering of existing traffic light,
phasing and timing to accomodate extra traffic
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
Yes, emergency only
16. Utilities .
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse serv-
ice, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the
and the general
be needed.
Bringing of
sub- station.
utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service.
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
natural gas line, pick -up of refuse and telephone
C.'SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and plete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
the lead agency is relying on the o m e its decision.
- .
Signature: ..
. Date Submitted: October 16, 1984
ld
Sr i' > � t7Nal!t
EVALUATION FOR g,
AGENCY USE ONLY
t . SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET ,FOR ALL P =N.Kr PdJO O N Nv7 4 P '
• The objectives
and alternative means of reaching •;‘c 0123cr.4Nc(s)-fn•- a Proros41
will be helpful in reviewing the'aforegoing items of the Environmental
Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and
the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. -
1. What is the o6je.A■vtO of the proposal?
The objective of this proposed project is to provide aesthetically pleasing,
efficient and economically feasible complex of buildings without significantly
disturbing existing environment.
I!. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
An alternate to proposed project would be to increase the number of floors per
building and decrease number of proposed buildings. This would accomplish two
things; reduce building footprint and increase landscape area.
4. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the prefered course of
action:
The proposed project calls for single -story buildings, approximately 17'0" tall
with landscape at parking and at building elevations. The alternate calls for
two to three story buildings, approximately 35'0" tall. Both of these schemes
are economically feasible and can be aesthetically pleasing. I think that
the proposed scheme will less visually dominate. and it.wi11 blend with neighborhood
better due to its scale. Even though alternate scheme would provide more 'open'
landscape area, I think that taller buildings negate the added advantages of
open areas. Therefore, one story buildings with adequate landscaping is the
preferred course of action.
RECREATION
tl
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Fort Dent Regional Park is immediately adjacent to the proposed complex.
The publicly owned river bank along the site is presently used lightly for
recreation. Some of the employees from the proposed complex would use
Fort Dent Regional Park for picnicking or informal athletics during
favorable weather.
MITIGATING MEASURES
As a mitigating measure the land for a trail and benches along the
river front would be deeded to the city. The city could then construct a
trail and install benches. This would increase the opportunity for public
recreational use of the site. Each building would be provided with
showers and lockers, thus reducing impact on the park. The park is very
lightly used during the week at mid -day, and with the addition of a river
trail and benches, such additional use would not have a significant
adverse impact.
SHORELINE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The site is surrounded on two sides by the Green River. The River bank is
presently covered with low grass and few small groves of young cotton wood
trees. The proposal calls for parking next to 40' -0" wide management
zone, possible diking as required for bank stabilization and construction
of foot path or trail in the 20' -0" wide land deeded to the City. A
drainage system with oil /water separators and silt would have to be
constructed with discharge to the Green River.
MITIGATING MEASURES
As a mitigating measure, benches will be installed along the trail. The
trail will be landscaped with low growth and large shade trees at maximum
30' -0" on center. The trees will be primarily used to screen the project
due to location of the property and will not provide shade to the River.
The trail will connect to the Fort Dent Park, thus opening the river bank
for recreation.
SOILS REPORT
The site has been graded and filled many years before and is nearly level.
The fill is medium- dense -to -dense and slightly -to- moderately compressible.
Prior to constuction and /or working drawings a soils analysis will be
performed on the site. The soil report will be submitted to the City at
the time of Building Permit application.
TRAFFIC
See report prepared by Entranco Engineers.
2
i
• i
n ::
•
C
1
November 26, 1984
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Re: TUKWILA BEND
SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
MITIGATING MEASURES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
MITIGATING MEASURES
1
j
AESTHETICS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The project would be visible from adjacent streets,• but would be set back
from Interurban Avenue. All visitors entering Fort Dent Regional Park
pass down this street and by the proposed complex, thus, the appearance of
the project would become a part of the park experience. The proposed
complex will not block any residential views on the hillside west of the
site, thus, the project would not create a significant impact on views of
nearby residents.
Mitigating measures included in the the project are master plan of the
site as unified visual element. The site will be landscaped and there
will be provisions made for a perimeter trail and green belt along the
river. In order to heighten visual experience of employees and park
users, each building will have different architectural articulation. All
the buildings will be the same height, yet, each one will have different
wail treatment (see enclosed pictures). Glazing will be either tinted
and /or reflective glass. In either case reflection would be confined to
the site due to location of the site and its relationship of the hill west
of the site.
The site was investigated by the University of Washington of Public
Archaeology to identify the potential for historical or archaeological
resources on the site. Since the site was filled and graded many years
ago, any potential cultural remains have been covered by several feet of
fill. Construction of the poject will occur entirely on previous fill,
and will not cause any additional impact to potential cultural resources
on the site.
As a mitigating measure to the previous filling of the site, an
interpretive display describing local history could be constructed along
the river trail.
November 26, 1984
Dear Mr. Miller:
Aiex J. Redford, P.E.
Mr. Mark Miller
Evergreen Management Company
2100 - 124th Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Re: Traffic Impact for
Tukwila Bend Development
Entranco Project 85024 -65
ENTRANCO Engineers
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
1515 -116th AVE. N.E., SUITE 200. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004
(206f 454-0683
Per your request, we have conducted a study of the traffic impact of the
Tukwila Bend development on traffic flow performance on the Southcenter
Boulevard /Interurban Avenue intersection, which will serve as the sole
access gateway to the development. Traffic impact on the nearby Interurban
Avenue /Grady Way intersection was also assessed.
We note that the proposed development is markedly reduced in scale from the
previous development proposal as described in the "Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Tukwila Bend Development," April 1983, and will
generate considerably less traffic volume. (Entranco Engineers conducted
the traffic impact study for the previous development.) The following
table summarizes the building area, use profile, and traffic generation for
the present proposal and compares it with the previous proposal.
Daily traffic generation for the present proposal is estimated to be 1,320
vehicle trips, or 27 percent of the total traffic generation of the
previous proposal. The p.m. peak -hour traffic generation for the present
proposal is 210 vehicle trips (170 outbound from the site plus 40 inbound
to the site), or 24 percent of the previous proposal.
Traffic generation for the present proposal was estimated from national
average data presented in the third edition (1982) of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation" handbook, which became available
in 1983. Traffic generation for the previous proposal was via the 1979
second edition. The third edition shows a daily traffic generation rate of
14.3 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of building area, which is an
increase of 16 percent over the 12.3 trip ends per 1,000 square feet shown
in the second edition.
John T. Bannon, P.E. Patrick H. McCullough, P.E.
Mr. Mark Miller
Evergreen Management Company
November 26, 1984
Page 2
Site Development Traffic
Generation
Daily Vehicle Trips 1,320
Peak Hour Trips:
Inbound
Outbound
Building Area & Use, sq. ft.:
Office 82,000 (75 %) 401,000 (100 %)
Warehouse /Distribution,
Light Manufacturing 27,300 (25 %) --
Percent
A B Ratio:
Present Original Present
Development Development Original
Project* Project ** (A /B)(100)
109,000 (100 %) 401,000 (100 %) 27.3%
4,930 26.8%
40 130
170 750
210 880 23.9%
* Evergreen Management Company /Lance Mueller Architects, September 6,
.1984 site plan.
** Draft Environmental Impact Statement for original development
proposal, City of Tukwila Planning Department, April 29, 1983 (traffic
impact study element conducted by Entranco Engineers, July 1982).
Mr. Mark Miller
Evergreen Management Company
November 26, 1984
Page 3
Level of service analysis at the key site gateway intersection of
Southcenter Boulevard (Fort Dent Access Road east of Interurban Avenue) at
Interurban Avenue was performed for the year 1986, when the Tukwila Bend
project will be fully developed at its 109,300 square foot building area.
Level of service was estimated for the p.m. peak hour with and without the
Tukwila Bend project development. Current traffic volumes were projected
forward to 1986 via the annual average 2.9 percent• increase in traffic
which has prevailed at this location in recent years.
The 1986 p.m. peak hour level of service without the Tukwila Bend project
is estimated to be at the borderline between Tevel of service B and C, with
a volume /capacity ratio of 0.70. The 1986 level of service with the
Tukwila Bend project is C, with a volume /capacity ratio of 0.7$77 The
Tukwila Bend project traffic will thus increase the volume /capacity ratio
by 11 percent, but overall traffic flow performance will remain in the "C"
level of service range. Level of service C provides quite acceptable
traffic operation conditions and is a desirable level for new urban street
projects. The next lower level of service, D, is increasingly accepted as
a suitable level for heavy use existing urban streets and highways in
highly constrained right -of -way corridors; moderate congestion obtains with
D. Level of service E is full capacity, with severely congested
operations.
The next nearest intersection to the Tukwila Bend site is some 500 feet
south on Interurban Avenue at the Grady Way /I -405 southbound ramps
junction. This intersection currently operates with moderate p.m. peak
hour congestion (level of service D), and will operate at level of service
0 for the 1986 p.m. peak hour with or without the Tukwila Bend traffic
generation. The Tukwila Bend traffic will increase total approach volume
for the four legs of this intersection by less than four percent.
It should be noted that substantial changes to the area's traffic
circulation system are planned. The Grady Way Bridge will be replaced with
a four -lane facility and will be widened to provide a four -lane section
from Interurban Avenue to Renton. There are also plans to widen and
realign Southcenter Boulevard between Interurban Avenue and 62nd Avenue
South. The new section would intersect Interurban Avenue at Grady Way,
rather than at the Fort Dent Park entrance. The 1-405 southbound ramps
would be aligned with the Fort Dent Park entrance rather than Grady Way.
Four approach lanes will eventually be provided at the Grady Way approach
to Interurban Avenue. The reduction in turning movements (Southcenter
Boulevard to Grady Way would have a straight through movement rather than a
Mr. Mark Miller
Evergreen Management Company
November 26, 1984
Page 4
1
right turn and then a left turn), together with improved approach lane
configuration on Southcenter Boulevard and the off -ramp, will improve the
level of service at the intersections. The Grady Way project is now under
construction and the Southcenter Boulevard realignment could be completed
as early as 1988.
Additional transit service is expected to be implemented by Metro. The
increased service is linked to the construction of a transit center in the
Tukwila commercial district and a park- and -ride lot on Interurban at 1 -5.
New routes will provide direct service from Tukwila to areas currently
without service. Service will also be improved on existing routes. The
Tukwila Bend site is easily accessed by transit passengers. In addition,
the Seattle -King County Commuter Pool continues to improve carpool programs
for the region, with heavy emphasis on major generators such as the nearby
Southcenter /Tukwila commercial - industrial district.
Finally, the Washington State Department of Transportation has programmed
the construction of transit/carpool lanes along I -405, from Bellevue
through Tukwila, to 1 -5. Use of these lanes will be restricted to transit,
carpools, and vanpools during peak periods, thereby enhancing the
accessibility of these travel modes to the Tukwila Bend site and reducing
vehicular travel growth pressures in the site area. The HOV lanes are now
being constructed in the I -90 to Renton segment of I -405.
All of the above projects and programs will contribute to improved traffic
flow and circulation in the Tukwila Bend site area.
We note that a Burger King restaurant has been proposed by others for the
northeast corner of the Southcenter Boulevard /Interurban Avenue inter-
section, with access restricted to driveways along the Fort Dent Access
Road. Traffic generation for the Burger King project is not included in the
foregoing analysis. Fast -food restaurants in such locations usually
generate their highest hourly traffic at noontime, while the Tukwila Bend
hourly traffic generation will be greatest during the p.m. peak hour.
At some future date when all property accessing the Fort Dent Access Road
is fully developed, minor widening of the road will likely be required to
provide a three -lane approach to Interurban Avenue (separate left -turn,
through, and right -turn lanes) and to provide a two -way left -turn lane
along the road between Interurban Avenue and the 90- degree turn north to
Fort Dent Park.
•`:fr�•i�'.?i�i ';tr�S . '•� t ' 1
-1 r r •,: `r4vVS,V1' ' �V gt r .V1 , .dt
w=*� si,'�3w:�:�?'�'tty ° .C �•«�d..h <�:ti� ""'�"'�:i7r�; .`.�s�i7S�£t: ti�5�.a.._t i?':' �", n�xK�i: �t?; ���vcnsFYt,^ �" t�^ 9°�.�" „�T�'S•"+���:�'n�...?'��r m.�
Evergreen Management Company
November 26, 1984
Page 5
Should you have any questions or comments about our study findings, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC.
Dennis Neuzi P.E.
Associate
DN:lbc
cc: Ed Linardic
c
OFFICIAL NOTICE
NOTICE IS GIVEN UNDER SEPA, RCW 43.21C.075, THAT THE CITY OF
TUKWILA TOOK THE ACTION DESCRIBED IN (2) BELOW ON (DATE)
January 24. 1985 •
1. ANY ACTION TO SET ASIDE, ENJOIN, REVIEW OR OTHERWISE
CHALLENGE SUCH ACTION MUST BE COMMENCED WITHIN ten DAYS
PURSUANT TO (STATUTE OR ORDINANCE) Tukwila Municipa Code
ANY ACTION. TO SET ASIDE, ENJOIN, REVIEW OR OTHERWISE CHAL-
LENGE SUCH ACTION ON THE GROUNDS OF NON - COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 43.21C RCW (STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
ACT) SHALL BE COMMENCED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER NOTICE; NO LATER
THAN February 24, 1985 . ALL APPEALS SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE
CLERK OF THE KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ROOM E609, 51.6 THIRD
AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 98104 (344 - 2530). ANY PERSON
DESIRING TO RAISE SEPA ISSUES BY JUDICIAL APPEAL MUST SUBMIT
A NOTICE OF INTENT TO DO SO WITH THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL OF
THE ACTING AGENCY, Bradley J. Collins
WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT FOR COMMENCING ACTION SET BY (STATUTE
OR ORDINANCE) Tukwila Municipal Code
2. DESCRIPTION OF AGENCY ACTION: approval of a shoreline
management substantial development permit 84-- 33 -SMP
3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL (IF NOT COVERED BY (2)):
five single -story office -.warehouse buildings consisting of 109,300
sq. ft. per the record established in.this permit application
4. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (A SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE
GIVEN TO LOCATE THE SITE, IF ANY, BUT A COMPLETE LEGAL DE-
SCRIPTION IS NOT REQUIRED):
easterly of and adjacent to Southcenter Boulevard, westerly of Interurban
Ave. S.
5. TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER SEPA (INCLUDE NAME AND
DATE OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS):
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
6. DOCUMENTS MAY BE EXAMINED DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS
AT (LOCATION, INCLUDING ROOM NUMBER, IF ANY):
Planning Department, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA
i'r kkgb.TAM Sty :.iratvartnsLnztirtrvs;r.+t :
•n :r.^xrav-�mr
Lot 3 of City of Tukwila Short Plat Number 74 -7 -SS, recorded
under Recording Number 7908210370, being a portion of vacated
Blocks 6 through 17,.Gundakers Addition to Seattle, according
to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 14 of Plats, page 46,
in King County, Washington;
TOGETHER WITH vacated streets adjoining which upon vacation
attached to said property by operation of law; and
EXCEPT those portions conveyed to the City of Tukwila under
Recording Numbers 7410290105, 7908230298 and 7908230299, and
to King County under Recording Number 7507300471.
A More linear building facades,
B . Increased window areas in the facades,
C. More rectalinear/ "boxy" building shapes,
CI T Y OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
84- 33 -SMP: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
AGENDA ITEM
INTRODUCTION
On:January10,`985,`the Board of Architecture Review (BAR) approved a development
plan for five single story buildings of a total of 109,300 square feet and 339
parking stalls. A Shoreline Management Permit was issued on January 24, 1985, and
became effective on March 7, 1985.
An application for a Building Permit for the first two of the buildings was filed
on August 20, 1985, containing changes in the footprint, area and design of the
buildings and in the site plan. These changes were found by staff to be of suf-
ficient magnitude to warrant bringing before the BAR again.
FINDINGS
1. Shoreline Management Permit N590 -14 -4057 became effective on Mar
containing plans approved by the BAR on January 10, 1985. (At achments - .
2. Building Permit Application CN -85 -245 was filed with the City on August 20,
1985, containing plans for the first two buildings (Attachments A - C).
3. Differences between these two sets of plans are highlighted in the direct com-
parisons made in Attachments A - C.
4. TMC 18.60.070 stipulates that BAR approval is necessary prior to issuance of
the building permit. Review criteria for the BAR is contained in TMC
18.60.050 and 18.60.060(4).
CONCLUSIONS
1. The differences between the plans and building elevations contained in attach-
ment A C are not minor, but are significant enough to warrant BAR examina-
tion of the changes. These changes consist of:
Page -2-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
September 26, 1985
0 Parking circulation and landscaping at the southwest corner of the site.
2. Criteria 18.60.050(1): Relationship of Structure to Site
The proposal is compatible with the planned improvement of the interchange of
Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue and I -405. This project will be
the first to be constructed along Southcenter Boulevard at the entrance to
Fort Dent Park. Overall the development continues to provide appropriate
landscaping, parking and building scale for the site (TMC 18.60.060(4)(C),
(D),(E), and (F)).
3. Criteria 18.60.050(2): Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area
Since the area along Southcenter Boulevard at the entrance at Fort Dent Park
is undeveloped, the proposal will be setting the trend for future development.
Therefore, the relationship of the structures to other development is not par-
ticularly applicable. The revised building ; designs are >,less v,isual:ly
:interesting: than t he - designs originally,'approved, however,: the` deviation
appears still. appropriate for the property and area. In addition, the revised
landscaping and circulation is compatible with existing uses and future deve-
lopment along Southcenter Boulevard (TMC 18.60.060(4)(B),(C) and (D)).
4. Criteria 18.60.050(3): Landscape and Site Treatment
Landscaping within. the project compliments the proposed buildings and deli -
neates'Southcenter Boulevard. Parking areas are sufficiently landscaped to
visually break up the expanse of linear parking with a few exceptions.
Exterior illumination is not contained in the plans but can be adequately
reviewed by staff during review and approval of another building permit
application. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(A),(C) and (E)).
5. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design
The recent proposal presents less visually interrupted building facades to
Southcenter Boulevard than the original proposal. As a result,. the
:
desi`gns appear'more monotonou although, within reasonably acceptable'�limit
Rooftop mechanical equipment remains unidentified on the revised plans.
Appropriate screening is required and may be adequately reviewed by the staff
during review and approval of another building permit application. (TMC
18.60.060(4)(A)).
Reflective glass is proposed of unspecified reflectivity.
6. Criteria TMC 18.60.050(5): Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture
Illumination details were not submitted in the building permit application.
These plans can be reviewed by the Planning Department during review of
another building permit application.
Page -3-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP: EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
September 26, 1985
7. Criteria TMC 18.60.060(4)(B): Relationship to Public Recreation Areas and
Facilities
A 20 -foot pedestrian easement is shown along the Green River to connect with
the Christensen Greenbelt Trail and Fort Uent Park.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above, staff recommends approval of the revised plans subject to:
1.
Staff review and approval of exterior illumination for compliance with TMC
18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
Staff review and approval of rooftop mechanical equipment screening per TMC
18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
. Landscaping along the Green River include large shade trees at a maximum
spacing of 30' on center (TMC 18.44.130(2)(C)).
4. P arki reas bein roken up by landsca 1 n ver
� g g p y p per the original landscape plane,
Vii g kJ ni t4441
`'�
5. Window glass being a maximum of 20% reflectivity.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Comparison of Site Plans
B - Comparison of Building Floor Plans
C - Comparison of Building Elevations.
NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL - TMC 18.90.020
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may appeal said
decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal to the City Clerk within
10 days of said decision. The appear shall state the reasons for the appeal. The
City Council may hold a public hearing and may affirm, modify or deny the Planning
Commission's decision.
NOTICE OF TIME LIMIT - TMC 18.64.060
The conditional use permit shall automatically expire one year of the date of
Planning Commission approval unless a building permit is obtained and shall expire
within two years unless substantial construction is completed. Extension of these
deadlines may be requested of the Planning Commission subject to demonstration of
extraordinary circumstances or conditions not known or foreseeable at the time
the original application was granted.
Page -4-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP :. EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT CO.
September 26, 1985
(EVRGRN)
(5A.2)
comparison of site plans
comparison of floor plans
attachment c
comparison of building elevations
.
.
.
1
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Since the subject site lies within 200' of the Green River a Shoreline Management
Substantial Development Permit is required per regulations of TMC 18.44. In addi-
tion, TMC 18.60.030(2)(A) requires Board of Architectural Review approval of the
development per the guidelines of TMC 18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
INTRODUCTION
The Evergreen Management Company proposes to construct five one story buildings
along the Green River Shoreline at approximatley the southeast corner of
Interurban Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard (along the entrance to Fort Dent
Park). The development consists of a total of 109,300 square feet and 339 parking
stalls. Approximately one year ago, the subject site was a portion of a larger
and more intense industrial park and office development known as "Tukwila Bend
Office Park." The latter was not pursued further than the preparation of a draft
environmental impact statement.
3. Two access points onto Southcenter Blvd. are proposed, one at the southeast
corner of the property and the other at the existing cul -de -sac at the end of
the street. The five buildings are evenly spread over the property are set
.84- 33 -SMP: Evergreen Management Co.
AGENDA ITEM
FINDINGS
1. The proposed development lies within 200' of the ordinary high water line of
the Green River and within the Interurban Special Review Area (TMC
18.60.060(2)). RCW 90.58 and WAC 173 -14 require this development receive a
Substantial Development Permit pursuant to the Shoreline Master Plan of the
City of Tukwila and TMC 18.44 (Shoreline Zone ). In addition, TMC
18.60.030(2)(A) and 18.60.060(3) require the Board of Architectural Review to
approve the proposal prior to the City's issuance of the Substantial
Development Permit. Design review guidelines for the Board of Architectural
Review are contained in TMC 18.60.050 and 18.60.060 which form the basis for a
decision to approve, modify, or deny the proposal.
2. The subject 7.7 acres site was raised to its present configuration by land
fill activity approximately eight years ago. Grades on the site are approxi-
mately a differential of six feet with the highest point at the southeast
corner. Available soils information indicates the land fill requires addi-
tional investigation for building foundation stability and load bearing capa-
city. This will be done in conjunction with the actual building permit
application.
page -2-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP: Evergreen Management Co.
January 10, 1985
back approximately 90 feet from the mean high water line and are of slightly
different configurations although of a similar unifying design scheme.
4. Along the Green River a 20' easement is to be dedicated to the City for
pedestrian access. Within the same area King County will require the normal
dike maintenance road.
5. Little vegetation exists on the property for incorporation into landscaping
within the project. The applicant proposes landscaping along the perimeter of
the project and around individual buildings.
6. Along the Green River enbankment a dike will be required for flood management.
The details of the dike construction are not contained in the submitted plans
but will subsequently be reviewed by staff and the King County Hydraulics
Division prior to issuance of the required grading permit.
7. The zoning of the subject property is C -2, and variances from applicable City
ordinances and variances were not requested.
CONCLUSIONS
1. TMC 18.60.050: Relationship of structure to site.
The proposal is compatible with the planned improvement of the interchange of
Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Avenue and 1 -405. This project will be
the first to be constructed along Southcenter Boulevard at the entrance to
Fort Dent Park. Overall the development will provide appropriate landscaping,
parking and building scale for the site (TMC 18.60.060(4)(C),(D),(E), and
(F)).
2. TMC 18.60.040: Relationship of structure and site to adjoining area.
Since the area along Southcenter Boulevard at the entrance at Fort Dent Park
is undeveloped the proposal will be setting the trend for future development.
Therefore, the relationship of the structures to other development is not par-
ticularly applicable. However, the project contains five buildings which
maintain a unified theme while being slightly different in footprint. The
proposal contains appropriate landscaping which is compatible with that on
adjoining properties. Daycare and pedestrian circulation is accomodated on
Southcenter Boulevard, the riverbank trail, but not within the site between
buildings. The latter appears less necessary in industrial park like develop-
ment. The two access points on Southcenter Boulevard are compatible with the
existing use and future development along Southcenter Boulevard (TMC
18.60.060(4)(B),(C) and (D)).
3. TMC 18.60.050(3): Landscaping and site treatment.
Landscaping within the project compliments the proposed buildings and deli -
niates Southcenter Boulevard. Parking areas are sufficiently landscaped to
Page -3-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP: Evergreen Management Co.
January 10, 1985
4. TMC 18.60.050(4): Building Design.
visually break up the expanse of linear parking. Service entrances to the
buildings are oriented to the interal central traffic circulation roadway,
thereby obviating the need for additional screening of these entrances to the
general public. Exterior illumination is not contained in the plans but can
be adequately reviewed by staff during review and approval of the building
permit application. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(A),(C), and (E))
Neighboring developments to the subject site are sufficiently distant to not
require establishment of a relationship in terms of building design and scale.
More appropriately is the relationship of the proposal to Fort Dent Park and
the undeveloped, directly adjoining properties. The proposed single story
buildings appear to be appropriate at this location. The building materials
and off -white and beige color treatment and non - monotonous building design are
very appropriate. Roof -top mechanical equipment will be erected, but does not
appear to be proposed to be screened. Appropriate screening is required and
may be adequately reviewed by the staff during review and approval of the
building permit application. (TMC 18.60.060(4)(A))
5. TMC 18.60.050(5): Miscellaneous structures and street furniture.
Additional street furniture and lighting is not contained in the proposal.
However, external illumination very probably will be incorporated for security
purposes and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement. These plans and
details can be appropriately reviewed by the Planning Department during review
and approval of the building permit application.
6. TMC 18.60.060(4)(B): Relationship to public recreation areas and facilities.
The proposal is located adjacent to the Fort Dent Park. Access to that park
will be available on Southcenter Boulevard and /or the proposed 20' pedestrian
easement along the top of the dike along the Green River, which will even-
tually connect with the Christensen Greenbelt Trail system in the City.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the above staff recommends approval of the subject application subject
to:
1. Staff review and approval of exterior illumination for compliance with TMC
18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
2. Staff review and approval of roof -top mechanical equipment screening per TMC
18.60.050 and TMC 18.60.060.
3. Landscaping along the Green River include large shade trees at a maximum
spacing of 30' on center (TMC 18.44.130(2)(C)).
• C'.t: :ir jj :.in'.k. 1' r :'1:4'.•N_ #i:?U'f:`_R5•:..•..•t +c;:'r stirs
P age -4-
Planning Commission
84- 33 -SMP: Evergreen Management Co.
January 10, 1985
ti p'rr,isi7Jw1w�.``xS •..'r : li- e:. Y: F=,". 4','. S. ' }.1t�Zi7GT�iu"n.'C'4:'SX�:A'C �rr,,�oa!:.+2.uncwrkmrF. 3e%3r.9?v".:fi'.S'Sw�"r'F"��i w 2' x' ^. "' "t..�"`7v 2e'S v nIgt"S AT
NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL - TMC 18.90.020
Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may appeal said
decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal to the City Clerk within
10 days of said decision. The appeal shall state the reasons for the appeal. The
City Council may hold a public hearing and may affirm, modify or deny the Planning.
Commission's decision.
NOTICE OF TIME LIMIT - TMC 18.64.060
The conditional use permit shall automatically expire one year of the date of.
Planning Commission approval unless a building permit is obtained and shall expire
within two years unless substantial construction is completed. Extensions of
these deadlines may be requested of the Planning Commission subject to demonstra-
tion of extraordinary circumstances or conditions not known or foreseeable at the
time the original application was granted.
RB /blk
(PC.EVRGRN PC.EVRGRN1)
• •
5
PRELAINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
In°ellasa •1•
180 1•■••14• • •••111• wool, 111•1111111.1KM MIS 11•113
prepeceed development far
EVERGREEN
MANAGEMENT
COMPANY TUKWILA. BEND
Tukvslia, Washington
In
lirdown
roolalon
7
orte
Inesse=Ateets .fal
propioNd d,wlo msnl lot
EVERGREEN
MANAGEMENT
COMPANY
TUKWILA BEND
Tukwila, Washington
7i0 IMSU /. • w.111. wee. M7M•le011 iie ESOi 1 .
.. M
. r n
. IIS...r
revision
�: i:•. c0' w•<[» T• LRJJ'; Yfi� '�?t:�lY: ?.�ACfF.•r,'J4i�:'•V ��•n +�ti:l.`,< %i. r cr0 : 4'. L�:: J• 3'.}.' 2::..: Wi'. ^t.��..:+.a�.:rl�v�ti'd.i.;:i:.'
1■
1,V•
'SOIL
Zia■
4
r lit
!1..
IW
1
r
1.
sio
1 0 I.N..I.. • mails 0U1M•0O111 ■NSW
Proposed deoloor 0 fq
EVERGREEN
COMPANY 'MANAGEMENT TUKWLA BEND
Tukwila, Washington
.I,....•
.01.1.. A..%
1
A
11
r
1
1
I
A
0
Z
h
NIS
1�
IS
11i a
11 jr
min �
Yr" f•
ii
I W
raw
Iv-
.11f.' U
mon
1
o
II N l■
llama
awls
OMNI
AIM ^tall
'04
ti .
�nf�i Il�r
tM ,••.1•• • owns ■.r. 1110111•••0110•• N••
orao•o••d dwMaprrM for
MANAGEWNT
COMPANY
TUKWILA BEND
Tukwila. Washington
lob wo.
ti .w
w..�.�.w .•y
1
1
A
5
1
-1
0
111
IEW
IN
11/
IN
MI
llai
111
•IIP
OR. .
look
rni
11 a
..;•.■ .g
il.eg
MEM
ammo lt•
a .
NM
IN
NM
NE
1U
=mail
seri
II
a*
iii Ng
LIERIPIII
E.
M-
INI
IIII
ill
IU
NM
IN
NM
Or •
1
sr
111-
or g
.,:.
ail
iens
2..—
...• _
IM
III
IN
li
1U
IIIN
NY
lir,
:AI
Ma
ME
,,
+3"
tmi.o.^44 '
_ __5• .1.
1.■
tee 'Noodle • soodtle Sine•eue ene ewes
progsossd development for
EVERGREEN
MANAGEMENT
COMPANY TUKWILA BEND
Tukwila, Washington
d
d keelsed
d o.
••oldled
1
L
• r.
r ow ' 'NMI
VINC' 11111
Eq
111 4
/
ijL •
lb\
, LW
sow
no
5
11
A
1
OulL.01.4•Le
Lil
kreres=4
41.40 Nis
Imo • boom. wool. 11•1118111.11011 UU US
Mapeoe•d dsvMommord for
EVERGREEN
MANAGEMENT
COMPANY TUKWILA BEND
Tukwila, Washington
I. or
WL.6
drown
• boolso■
▪ 114
revision
ed •
1:
4.
.1:
rbUI4..p..14,
- .0 I
0
trez-ms...
IMP Mooed* • *MIN wools. IPMM•MM MO 6888
Peopeoeed development for
EVERGREEN
MANAGEMENT
COAMANY TUKWILA BEND
Tukwk. Waslinoton
.r.ite
rovioNn
v
L-d
1
ly
1
0
(I)
ImotIA041- i
r e
1
J
-j
-
Istrd• 4•130.303133
'11111
1
h I
1
e
.Orr03331
1.0.. anawriM13.3
lass io
0
0
,0333313
ALA
1909
r:
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
; s ue City of Tukwila
Z 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
CITY OF TUKWILA
. NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING OF THE
TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the
10th day of January, 1985, at 8:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers of Tukwila
City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and
place for:
DR- 06 -84, Gull Industries: Requesting approval of revised plans for
expansion and remodeling of the existing service station at 13435 Interurban
Ave. S.
DR- 10 -84, Evergreen Management Co.: Requesting approval of plans for a
5- building /office park at the general southeasterly corner of Interurban Ave.
S. and- Southcenter Boulevard.
Any and all interested persons are invited to attend.
Published: Record Chronicle, December 30, 1984
Distribution: Mayor
City Clerk
File
Y":Cl i`i:•F.: " .r 7..er,7 -• a�7�: ,f-rvilcd;.Yt,.VMVP -;?: i PYtEM. ✓L ?l. -.. N!
1906
(T ' Z�?�� :, tis4 >i is s:a =.� �= �}.'�.v- :�'.,��.s- .f=R.t .i%4V�!lii: ':'f•.`'.
City of TukvOks
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Arturo Salazar, Jr.
816 East Prospect, #1
Seattle, WA 98102
GP, 0W fl t? US
IN T NO
6 '
warmesonsttroastke
422969E:1 12./29/84
RETURN TO SEND,
MOVED LEFT. :
NO ADDRESS
II 15111! 1,551111115555151115,11
; ;; PQ91 • DRUNK AND
,k' 1ti: '-U
-Y � WEEK
i
1
1
1
1
la A
;1908
. ;w ;r.�n:Itgrig4, "`74X1,A'Fa;NPfri eKUw�, +.liK€
•
S< r'..... tY,.l A°,' C!: Gh,: M1�w.. �.. v�C:•... s. .._�J.F:��(::ocr.az_...:!i5.ii: i re:'; is {.,.�., ?. «..,'i�;�......`i�•Jd she,: 5•;:.- a:$. �! �5! c_...[-. T�;: e�::! t xs. �;rine?.uiu,.,';.L;7nn.�_ -.�... r. n..Kf..f;e:n.,,, ?•k:..,e:r:Y.'�•. «./.n.a.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 9'8188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING OF THE
TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila PLANNING COMMISSION has fixed the
20th day of December 1984, at 8:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers of Tukwila
City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, as the time and .
place for:
DR- 06 -84, Gull Industries: Requesting approval of revised plans for
expansion and remodeling of the existing service station at 13435 Interurban
Ace. S.
DR- 10 -84, Evergreen Management Co.: Requesting approval of plans for a
5- building office park at the general southeasterly corner of Interurban Ave.
S. and Southcenter Boulevard.
Any and all interested persons are invited to attend.
Published: Record Chronicle, December 9,•1984
Distribution: Mayor
City Clerk
File
Effective Date: June 30, 1982 at 8:00 a.m.
Chicago Title Escrow Dept.
1100 Olive Way, Suite 1400
Seattle, WA 98101
Attention: Margaret
Crf t ttte" TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ^N
1100 Olive Way
` _cattle, Washington 98101L
Unit 6
Title Officer, Rod Cottrell
Telephone: 628 -5610
Policy or Policies to be issued:
A. ALTA Residential Policy Form
Proposed Insured:
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
B. ALTA Owner's Policy Form B 1970
(Amended 10- 17 -70)
Standard ( ) Extended (X)
Proposed Insured:
Amount $
Tax
DON LEWISON, presumptively subject to the
community interest of his spouse, if married.
C. ALTA Loan Policy - 1970 Amount $
(Amended 10- 17 -70) Tax
Standard ( ) Extended ( )
Proposed Insured:
D.
Amount $
Tax
TOTAL PREMIUM
Your No:
Our No: 56853
$
The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is
covered by this commitment is: A Fee
The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Commitment
vested in:
PREMIUM
Amount $ 2,000,000.00 $4,763.25
Tax 309.61
$5,072.86
J. D. FIORITO and VERA S. FIORITO, husband and wife; and E. J.
FERULLO and JANICE FERULLO PICATTI, both presumptively subject to the
community . interest of their respective spouses, if married.
The land referred to in this commitment is situated in the County
of King, State of Washington, and is described on Schedule A, pages 2 and
3, attached.
•
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
Page 2
(continued)
56853
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS SITUATED IN THE
COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND IS DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
Parcel 3 of Short Plat Number 74 -7 -SS, City of Tukwila,
County of King, State of Washington, and being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at Highway Engineer's Station P.O.T. (2M) 127 +
75.0 on the 2M line shown on the State Highway map of
Primary State Highway #1 (SR 405) Green River interchange,
sheet 2 of 4 sheets, established by Commission Resolution
#1192, February 19, 1962;
thence, northeasterly at right angles to said 2M line north
30 ° 27'06" east 284.88 feet;
thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a
curve to the left having a radius of 300.00 feet and a
central angle of 08 ° 19'06 ", an arc length of 43.56 feet;
thence tangent to the preceding curve north 22 ° 08'00" east
309.43 feet;
thence north 64 ° 00'36" east 60.00 feet to a point on the
northeasterly line of Southcenter Boulevard as conveyed to
the City of Tukwila by Deed recorded October 29, 1974 under
Recording Number 7410290105 and the true point of beginning
of the parcel to be described herein;
thence from said true point of beginning north 63 ° 35'49"
east 640.40 feet to the bank of the Green River;
thence along the bank of the Green River the following
courses and distances:
south 36 ° 57'02" east 35.20 feet;
south 33 ° 08'34" east 99.98 feet;
south 34 ° 32'34" east 106.41 feet;
south 35 ° 10'59" east 102.59 feet;
south 33 ° 56'05" east 42.65 feet;
south 05 east 39.33 feet;
south 47'32'38" west 32.76 feet;
south 72 ° 08'52" west 389.92 feet;
south 72 ° 18'44" west 93.66 feet;
south 64 ° 02'45" west 111.69 feet;
south 58 ° 26'46" west 115.38 feet;
and south 47 ° 20'51" west 271.21 feet, to a point thereon;
thence, leaving said bank of the Green River north 59 ° 32'54"
west 152.45 feet to the easterly line of said Southcenter
Boulevard;
thence along said easterly line north 30 ° 27'06" east 106.52
feet;
thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a
curve to the left having a radius of 330.00 feet and a
central angle of 08'19'06 ", an arc length of 47.91 feet;
thence tangent to the preceding curve north 22 ° 08'00" east
223.43 feet;
thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of a
curve to the right having a radius of 50.00 feet and a
central angle of 26 ° 32'41" an arc distance of 23.16 feet;
A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT 56853
SCHEDULE A
Page 3
thence tangent to the preceding curve north 48 east
41.18 feet;
thence tangent to the preceding course along the arc of
curve to the left having a radius of 60.00 feet and a
central angle of 74 ° 40'06" an arc distance of 78.19 feet to
the true point of beginning, and containing 7.335 acres of
land more or less;
LESS the dedication of the northeasterly and southeasterly
20 feet thereof to the. City of Tukwila for a river trail
system.
.re .15
IMPORTANT: This is not a Plat of Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon
with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of reliance hereon.
GUAILVIICERt3
Interurban addition
Chicago Title Insurance 6...apany
Metropolitan Park
1100 Olive Way
Seattle. Wdshington 98101
Phone ti28-5666
ORDER NO. a 3.
CITY OF TUIZ'vVILA � �� �� "` ° "
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE AP L1CATIONS WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
SECTION 1: GENERAL DATA
TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ BSIP ❑ SHORT ❑ SUBDIVISION SHORELINE ❑
PERMIT PRO ❑ PMUD ❑ BAR
PLAT t NT ERURBAN
2
❑ COND ❑UNU ❑ VARIANCE ZONING ❑ AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: NAME EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TELEPHONE (206 ) 881 -2212
ADDRESS 2100 - 124th Ave. N.E., Bellevue, Washington zip 98005
PROP. OWNER: NAME EVERGREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY TELEPHONE (206 ) 881 -2212
ADDRESS .(same)
ZIP
3) PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) SOUTH CENTER BLVD.
SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION
4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YQU.PROPOSE. Five 1- story
5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM May, 1985 To August, 1985
6 ) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED.IN PHASES? ® YES ❑ NO IF YES, DESCRIBE:
Phase One - Buildings "A "& "C ", Phase Two - Buildings "B ", "fl " & "F"
7). PROJECT STATISTICS.:
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET 6.86 Acres GROSS 7.7 Acres EASEMENTS .832 Acres
B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTALS /FLOORS 1 INCLUDES•
TOTAL GROSS 109,300 INCLUDES:
FLOOR AREA -
C) SITE UTILIZATION:
ZONING DESIGNATION C2 same
Ccr rr n u-
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION _
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA • 0 0 109,300 0
LANDSCAPE AREA 0 0 63,420 ❑
' PAVING AREA 0 0 126,100 ❑
TOTAL PARKING STALLS:
- STANDARD SIZE
- COMPACT SIZE
- HANDICAPPED SIZE
TOTAL LOADING SPACES
AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA
AVER. SLOPE OF SITE
❑ BASEMENT ❑ MEZZANINE
❑ BASEMENT ❑MEZZANINE
EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES
333
6
. 339
0
1%
333
6
339
<2%
1%
IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE
MAP? ,IZ YES ❑ NO
SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
, BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE
CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE-
GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE INFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN
ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGF,�ild• BEL1 F.
DATE /
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME
S te! DAY OF
._eL.J
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE
RESIDING AT
C.N- '84 3 4L
19
F WASHING •N
( S I GNA
. GONTRdL',. IJRC1 ER
I I$ '�: E,,tUN F /� •
.
c GJ r� r . v' .
•
. lJ
•
OR OWNER )
p.
- MASTER LAND
)
CITY OF TIWILA
Central Permit System
Green River and South Center Blvd.
WITHIN NW & SW
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
(1/4 SEC.) OF SECTION 24
GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The site is surrounded on two sides by the
4 W.M., IN TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
OF TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE
2) NAME OF WATER AREA AND /OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED:
Green River
CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: Presently the property
is unimproved.
4) PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: Five 1 -story buildings with parking and landscaping.
5) TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL
DEVELOPMENTS CONTEMPLATED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION: $2,420,000.
6) CONSTRUCTION DATES (MONTH AND YEAR) FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS REQUESTED:
BEGIN May, 1985
TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL:
7) DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE:
COMPLETE August, 1985 (Phase One)
8) APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL
HAVE A VIEW OBSTRUCTED BY ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.
mF v4.33.snlr
rvw t4-33-sme
;�.���:��a . ....v..+�'S.t:(tsar.,. •. ��; r•::s�ca...:;.n�a�.µ.,,�..�:,<a ...,.. —
111
rnE 43SmP
(p7co SORT De-NT wy
VER(IPEFS1 MM/k66-
N6MT moo.
site plan
tukwila bend
elevations
floor plan