HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 79-03-R - SCHNEIDER REZONE79-03-r
southcenter boulevard between 65th avenue south 68th avenue south
schneider rezone
26 February 1979
RJB /ckh
cc: Ping. Sup.
City of Tukwila
Planning Division
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845
Office of Community Development
Mr. Gerald E. Schneider
6510 Southcenter Blvd.
Suite #1
Tukwila, WA
(IRE REZONE
Dear Mr; Sc
„
REQUEST„
On Thursday, February 22, 1979, the Tukwila Planning Commission held a
public hearing and decided to deny the requested zone change from R -1-
7.2 to C -1 at this time because of the long standing nature of the ad-
jacent residential community.
Section 18.84.040 of the Tukwila Municipal Code allows any person the
right to appeal to the City Council any recommendation of the Planning
Commission. The petition must be received by the Council within ten
(10) days after the date of the Planning Commission meeting.
Sincerely,
L
Roger J. Blaylock
Assistant Planner
•
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
MOTION CARRIED.
SIGN REVIEW: VIP'S
MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission Page 5
Minutes 22 February 1979
MOTION BY MRS. AVERY AND SECONDED BY MR. WELSH TO TABLE THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR
GLOBE PLASTICS UNTIL A LEGAL OPINION IS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Mr. Al Pieper, Building Official, read the staff report and explained the dis-
played drawings.
MOTION BY MRS. AVERY AND SECONDED BY MR. WELSH TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SIGN PLANS
WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE SIGN BASE IS LOCATED IN A LANDSCAPED AREA EQUAL TO
50% OF THE SIGN SIZE.
PUBLIC HEARIN : SCHNEIDER RJR -1 TO C -1)
Chairman Kirsop opened the public hearing at 9:40 P.M.
Mr. Satterstrom read the staff report.
Mr. Robert Kessey, representing the applicant, stated he concurred with the staff
report. Stated he felt the topography in the area, however, separated the build-
ing from Southcenter Boulevard.
Mr. Lee Phillips, 5560 South 154th, stated he opposed the proposed rezone on the
basis it would be detrimental to the adjacent single - family properties.
Malcolm McLeod, attorney for adjacent landowners, presented a petition with 92
signatures against "spot zoning" in the City of Tukwila. Stated several adverse
impacts would result if rezone is approved:
- views will be impaired
- natural vegetation will be removed from site
- this is an example of "spot zoning" which will be detrimental to resi-
dential properties
- proposed parking is illegal
- proposed building design is below the standard of the surrounding community
- neighborhood may be severely disrupted
Mr. John Merrick, 6532 South 154th, stated he opposed the rezone due to increased
taxes and blockage of views. Stated he felt the "timing" of this rezone was poor.
Mr. Kessey stated the trees along Southcenter Boulevard may have to be removed but
the site will be landscaped. Said the development is valuable for City tax rolls
Planning Commission Page 6
Minutes 22 February 1979
and that the building will undergo architectural review to insure its compatibility.
Mr. M. E. Simonds, 15460 - 65th Avenue South, voiced concern over the present con-
dition of the unvacated roadway which will serve the proposed office building.
Chairman Kirsop closed the public hearing at 10 :17 P.M.
Planning Commission discussed condition of access road to site and previous street
vacation actions.
MOTION BY MR. SOWINSKI AND SECONDED BY MR. JAMES TO DENY THE PROPOSED REZONE FROM
R -1 -7.2 TO C -1 ON THE BASIS OF ITS POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS TO THE SURROUNDING
SINGLE - FAMILY PROPERTIES.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDED ZONING: SEGALE ANNEXATION AREA
Mr. Satterstrom read the staff report and explained this was not a public hearing
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Segale, applicant, stated he felt the property should be zoned M -1 due to the
surrounding zoning. Mentioned the property will likely be used for an expansion
of present operations.
Mr. Satterstrom explained the similarities between the City's C -M and the county's
M -L -P zones, the Comprehensive Land Use and the annexation policies of the City
were the reasons for the recommendation of C -M zoning.
Mr. Segale stated the area was isolated from any potential residential land. Also
stated C -M zoning did not allow outdoor storage and the 35 foot height limit was
too restrictive.
MOTION BY MR. SOWINSKI AND SECONDED BY MR. WELSH TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL
CLASSIFY THE SEGALE PROPERTY AS M -1 (LIGHT INDUSTRY) UPON ANNEXATION TO THE CITY
OF TUKWILA.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Satterstrom requested the Planning Commission hold a work meeting on the
zoning ordinance on 1 March 1979. Commissioners agreed.
Staff also announced that Mr. Richard Bowen had resigned from the Planning Com-
mission. Commissioners expressed their regrets at his departure.
Chairman Kirsop adjourned the meeting
Mi tes prepared by:
red N. Satterstrom
lanning Supervisor
at 10:55 P.M.
TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION
EAL c._ �,
_ d
Eileen Avery
Secretary
22 February 1979
FINDINGS:
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM\'IIIA: PUBLIC HEARIN 1
REQUEST: REZONE from R -1 -7.2 to C -i
APPLICANT: Gerald E. Schneider
LOCATION: Approximately 6540 Southcenter'Boulevard
SIZE: 27,153 square feet
ZONE: R -1 -7.2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office
8 :00 P.M.
The applicant requests a rezone from R -1 -7.2 to C -1 to allow the construc-
tion of a multitenant office building. SEE, Exhibits 1 and 2 for proposed
site plans. The proposed building is a two -story frame office structure
of 14,000 sq. ft. with 44 parking spaces. The structure will be oriented
toward Mt. Rainier lying to the southeast.
1. Current zoning of the subject site is R -1 -7.2 (One- Family Dwellings).
It was zoned R -1 -7.2 by Ordinance #506 in February of 1968. The adja-
cent property to the west is zoned C -1 (Neighborhood Retail); property
to the north is zoned R -1 -7.2 (One - Family Dwellings); and property to
the east is also zoned R -1 -7.2 (One- Family Dwellings). To the south
of the site is Interstate 405.
2. The site is presently vacant. A single - family residence formerly
occupied the site until approximately 5 years ago. The new Schneider
Office Building is located to the west and three houses abut the
property on the north and east sides.
3. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map designates the subject site for
office use. The surrounding property is also designated for office use.
4. Size of the subject property is approximately 27,150 sq. ft. or .62
acres. The size of the proposed office structure is 14,000 sq. ft.
5. According to the submitted site plan, the average slope of the property
is S - 10 percent. The slope has a general southeastern exposure and
rises from 80 feet elevation along Southcenter Boulevard to 125 feet in
the northwest property corner. There is a 20 foot high bank along South -
center Boulevard.
Planning Commission Page 2
Staff Report 22 February 1979
6. According to the "Data Inventory: Tukwila Planning Area," the site consists
of till soils over bedrock. Till soils are defined as a compact mixture of
sand, gravel, and clay which are normally 1 to 4 feet deep and poorly drained,
(SEE, Chapter V. of the "Data Inventory "). In this area, the till soils are
apparently underlain by bedrock, probably basalt. The depth to bedrock is
not known at this time.
7. According to the "Data Inventory," a portion of the site may be located in
an area designated as "unstable when modified," (SEE, Map 1 - 3). These
types of slopes are defined as slopes which are generally greater than 15 %,
normally stable, but may become unstable due to grading or excavation activities.
8. Several large ornamental trees are found on the site, probably associated with
the single - family residence which used to occupy the site.
9. Southcenter Boulevard, located along the south property line, is currently
a two -lane roadway with a curbed asphalt bicycle /pedestrian path adjacent
the north line of'the right -of -way. Improvement of Southcenter Boulevard
between 62nd Avenue and Interurban Avenue has been programmed for 1979.
10. A portion of the Old Renton -Three Tree Point Road right -of -way remains open
for public use. In 1971, that portion between Old Bluff Street and 65th
Avenue South was vacated. Old Bluff Street still connects with the remaining
portion of the Old Renton -Three Tree Point Road.
11. Sanitary and storm sewers are available to this parcel as is water service
and all are deemed adequate to support commercial development.
12. Three rezones have been approved in the vicinity of this rezone since October
'1977. These rezones were the Huntington rezone (Ordinance #1055), the Schneider
rezone (Ordinance #1041) and the Lynch rezone (Ordinance #1099). These rezones
were from R -4 zoning to C -1 zoning, with essentially the same three following
conditions:
A. Development of the property under the C -1 clssification shall be
limited to a single office building which may contain related com-
mercial uses customarily incidental to office use.
B. Development plans, including but not limited to site, elevation, land-
scape, and building materials shall be subject to review and approval
of the Planning Commission sitting as a Board of Architectural Review
as established in Chapter 18.32 of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The
express purpose of such review is to ensure the development design
complements the residential neighborhood.
C. All buildings shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the right -
of -way line of Southcenter Boulevard.
13. The C -1 classification permits a height limit of two and one -half stories
and 35 feet. There is no front yard or side yard setbacks, except in certain
cases. The rear yard, in this case, would be 10 feet per the C -1 classifica-
tion requirement.
Planning Commission Page 3
Staff Report 22 February 1979
14. Certain policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan relate to office
developments near residential districts, (SEE, Commerce /Industry element,
pp. 65 - 66).
15. Access to the site is from 65th Avenue South via Bluff Street. Schneider
Office Building #1 receives access via the same route.
16. The applicant has requested a vacation of a portion of Bluff Street, presum-
ably to provide more direct access to the site. No decision on the street
vacation has been made.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed office use of the site appears to be consistent with the Compre-
hensive Land Use Policy Plan Map.
If we consider the three residences to the north a neighborhood, then proposed
rezone appears to be consistent with Plan policies regarding office develop-
ments near residential districts. To explain, the development of offices along
Southcenter Boulevard acts as a buffer between the Interstate 405 freeway and
the adjacent residential district to the north.
3. The tone of development in this vicinity as established by the City in Ordi-
nances #1041, #1055 and #1099 should also be assigned to this parcel. Not all
of the restrictionsof these ordinances are applicable to the subject site,
however:
A. Use: The majority of uses authorized under the C -1 classification are
commercial /retail activities and as such are generally inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Classification of this parcel as C -1 must be
tempered through restriction of allowed uses so as to complement both the
Comprehensive Plan and the trend of development along Southcenter Boulevard.
B. Setbacks: Ordinances #1041, #1055 and #1099 require a minimum 25' front
yard setback along rights -of -way. The proposed site plan does not setback
25 feet. The objective of such a provision is to complement the surround-
ing residential area and to discourage a commercial strip appearance. If
this objective is to be achieved in a manner consistent with Comprehensive
Plan, the setback provisionshould be assigned to this parcel. Also, since
the C -i zone does not require side yard setbacks, the side yard requirements
of the R -1 district should be retained.
C. Plan Review: Assignment of the Board of Architectural Review requirement
is an essential element of classification of this parcel to ensure site
and building design complement the surrounding area and buffer the resi-
dential district.
4. There appears to be a trend toward office development along Southcenter Boule-
vard. In the last 12 months, three office buidings have been constructed in
this vicinity.
Planning Commission
Staff Report
RECO''iMENDATI ON :
Page 4
22 February 1979
5. The proposed site plan does not conform to the restrictions given to other
properties along Southcenter Boulevard which have recently been rezoned to
allow office use, (particularly the front yard setback).
6. Proposed siteplan appears to effectively remove all or most of large existing
trees found on the site.
Based upon the Findings and Conclusions contained in this staff report, staff
recommends the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the zone
reclassification from R -1 -7.2 to C -1 with the following conditions:
1. Development of the property under the C -1 classification shall be
limited to a single office building which may contain related com-
mercial service uses customarily incident to office use.
2. All buildings shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the right -
of -way line of Southcenter Boulevard and the unvacated portion of the
Renton -Three Tree Point Road.
3. The site yard setback requirements of the R -1 -7.2 district shall apply
to this property.
4. Rear property line to be landscaped to create an effective buffer to
the residential land to the north.
5. Development plans, including but not limited to site, tree location,
landscape, and building elevation and materials shall be subject to
review and approval of the Planning Commission sitting as a Board of
Architectural Review as established in Chapter 18.31-of the Tukwila
Municipal Code. The express purpose of such review is to ensure the
development design complements the neighboring developments and the
residential neighborhood.
6. Access to the proposed office site shall be approved by the Public
Works Department.
..,
�;;
110••••0411••••••
• • - " • ■ • - • ,
EXHIBIT 2
SCHNEIDER REZONE
••■••••• R. 11..••••••••
•
Schn•id•r homes inc.
•,.0 ■•••■•••••••• • ••• .1.1114 Q. le. 1.
c,
NaLra
GERALD E. SCHNEIDER
Tukwila, WA 98188
Property Petitioned for rezoning is located on
betw 65th Avenue South
Zbtal square footage in property
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERLY
and
27,153
44 Number required
APPLICATION E'OZ CHANGE OF LAND USC CLASSt ICITION OR
MODIFICATION OF LAND USE I DSULZTIO':S IN TEIE: CIT( 0? TUKrAIII.A
FOR OFFICE USC ONLY
Appl. No. Planning Canaission Action
Receipt No.
Filing Date City Council Action
Hearing Date
Ordinance No. & Date
APPLICANT TO ANSWER ALL TIM FOLLOWING QUESTIONS NEATLY AND ACCURATELY:
Address .6510 Southcenter Blvd., Suite #1
• Telephone No. • 248 - 2471
Southcenter Blvd.
68th Avenue Smith
S ipg1 d r 1p *irql attached
Form B
1•
Fcistirg Zoning ''R - - - Zoning' requested office C
jtlhat are the uses you propose to develop on this property? office
as recommended by 1975 comprehensive plan.
•
Number of permaneht off — street parking spaces that will be provided on property?
3. vitka: pr .i / i'':i.oris will be ii+i► lam. for aL:c cjuatc f:+:''.•::■r and water ^1vic ?
connections are available on MacAdam Road and Blvd.
44
•
NOTICE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are considered in •
reclassifying property or rrodifying regulations. Evidence or
additional, information you desire to submit to substantiate •
your request may be attached to this sheet.. •.(See Application
Procedure sheet Item No. 2 for specific minimum requircnents.)
1. What provisions will be made to screen adjacent surrounding property from any
inccpatible effects trhich may arise as a result of the proposed land. use classificatiOrn
We do not anticipate any incompatible effects. Office siruciure & finish wi11 hp
similar to adjacent Schneider office building and selectively landscaped.
2. jit'at p'fo :Iisi.ons will be made to provide for necessary street widening to City
tai.ni_►r!un L.:t('? Street access will be via MacAdam Road'off 65th Avenue South
which is 24 feet wide.
•
•
sewer and water:
4. 1,r, y 0.1:•97 c:clr n tints t ;h ich 1.1i'! petitioner fc:el'_.'. are FJpiiropri ale; Height of proposed
__
structure will be_ limited so as not to'bbstruct view from 2 single families residences
located above_an_d`to ^ north. _ th.__ Storm runoff will be collected and channeled to existi
' city storm drainage facilities._ ___' ____ _ F
•
'9V/A4 ./O 1001 1/11 al #17N MOW `111! F// 44azseavi
12%/1.9.1 146412 54,2# f:v v g4'7 /x'/0717 101#/8 / 7/!4 1,41 #97 ///4/ iow
If 01 1777 W 11011 01Z 111101 0/K1' PI/01V Mel ' 1/ 01 9P'ok
/6,1119/# 11111' 47 #/2J'b 1 Raw 111 #1/11 Y0/17.7f4/1118 1 01 1J'17 11010' 121,1
.- 01 #/ /9d0'1Y11Ri'? O /VJ' 9//O? 1117111 .7)1181 '/111/OJ' 111111' Fl 6910 094'61Y
IJVI 11/1 01 ff.17 101101' `112/ 4.0000.1(1 1)11/11 '1111 AC/ 41,00.G0.BJJ'
1J,(/1//1 !91//##/9101OYAW 7/!111//1 Ol 1111 t9 2 00.SI.WI.t' 172'14' '1111 `Q1
176'11 O //'.l' 10 .707 /11/X!1' 1W1 91/0/1 1.00,11.681 1.7//!11! 'x/01911/ /#/1 / 'ENO
9K 4 `If 1911 1WI /0 0/ 0!01'0.711 1171 1/11 Of 9oO10,7,76' `17.11ris
01 ,l/O/1/OOd J/P'i/811LV/ ,W 10 gI i)F1/ 10 491 /147 11741#1/!01' 18111 90#0.94
1',110770./ Rl0' 0.19/y)J'117
`#019#/ //YJO'4f 21#89J 9't/ /X '1/V /U/I/H' 111144 /41 ` 1J'0'1 P .151/d4' #IJtl#
Fl d /Hl#4/01 `I? #0 /12/f 0 'OP OK* K'/Y7R7 ii0 /1V1/O7 1'1 /77/9 1/14110 #0/11011142
V
11
o� ;a
a • o i
/ r
�o
od
0 ,11.S%
0
Atm' - a)I 3 zb
is
31 J.
1/O /1 d /4'2JIQ 7 '917
, ..
GERALD E. SCHNEIDER
I being duly sworn, declare that ram the
c purchaser or owner of the proper involved in this application and, that
the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith
submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of ny.kaowledge and
belief.
Subscribed and sworn before me
Notary Public in id for the
residing at Kent
AFFIDAVIT
(Signature of Contract Purchaser or owner)
248 - 2471
(Telephone)
this 1 day of January $ 1979 � ^.
6510 Southcenter Blvd.
(Nailing Address)
Tukwila Washington 98188
(City) (State)
to of Washington,
i
S4 11, • •)4 MIM'•A 'MM.M1 'MU w1MN8. 119 �
•w� /owoy �o'I�uy�f
. ,
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
11. Accepted by agency on: by:
(to be filled in by city upon receipt of checklist)
This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit
from the city of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official
that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other
forms have been developed for single - family home applications and legislation
proposals.
BACKGROUND DATA:
1. Name of applicant: GERALD E. SCHNEIDER
2. Address and phone of Applicant: 6510 Southcenter Blvd.. Tukwila_ WA 98188248 -2471
. 3. Project name: Schneider Office Building Rezone
4. Project location: fronting Southcenter Blvd. between 65th Avenue So. & 68th Ave. So.
5. Nature and brief description of proposal: rezone from R -1 -7 -2 to office
6. Estimated completion date: • fall '79
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain: no
8. What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this
project?
(a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. YES x NO
(b) King County Hydrolics Permit YES. . NO X
(c) Building permit YESj NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES x' NO
(f) Sign permit YES X. NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES X NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES x NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES NO X
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO
• (1) Other grading permit
• 9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
10. Agency requiring checklist: City of Tukwila, Department -
C
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.)
Yes Maybe No
Earth. Will the proposal result in:'
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in
any changes in geologic sub-
structures:
(b) Disruptions, displacements
. or overcovering of the soils:
(c) Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
(d) The destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
(e) Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on
or off the site? •
(f) Changes in deposition or
erosion of beach sands, or
in changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which
may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet x
or lake?
Explanation: (b)(c) approx. 2000 cy of earth movement will cause temporary dis-
ruption & permanent modification of existing topography in order to achieve final
lines & grades of proposed office structure & associated parking, rockeries & land-
scape surfaces. (e) erosion of soils will be of temporary nature during construction
until drainage' system, landscape •& ground cover is replentished.
Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable
odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or
in any change in climate, •
either locally or regionally?
• -1-
x
x
x
x
Explanation:
(a)(b) dust & objectional odors could reduce air quality temporarily during
construction, but not above level normal to this type of construction.
x
x
x
Water. Will the proposal result in':
(a) Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of grater
movements, in either marine
or fresh waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the
amount of surface water run-
off?
(c) Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface
water in any watercourse?
(e) Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of sur-
face.'water quality, including
temperature or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
acquifer by cuts or excavations?
(h) Deterioration in ground water
quality, either through direct
injection, or through the seep-
age of leachate, phosphates,
detergents, waterborne virus
or bacteria, or other substances
into the ground waters?
(1) Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Explanation:
(b) existing absorption rates, & drainage runoff will be modified to some extent
by addition of roofs, ac parking & other hard surfaces. Surface runoff will be
collected & channeled to existing storm drainage system.
-2-
Yes Maybe
x
x
x
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, micro -flora and aquatic
plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a bar-
rier, to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Explanation:
(a) earth work to office & parking will require removal of most trees,
shrubs,. berries and weeds.
(c) landscaping will reduce the regeneration of existing natural flora not consistent'
• Fauna. Will the proposal result in: with planned landscaping.
(a) _Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects, or micro- fauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna
into an area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat?
Explanation: (a)(d) loss of dense covered areas of brush, berries and unused ground
areas could result in the decreased concentration & diversity of small animals, rodent:
and reptiles.
Noise. Will the proposal increase exist-
ing noise levels? x
Explanation:
Temporary construction noise can be expected during normal working hours. Increase
auto use to new office could contribute to noise level, however, it is not anticipated
to be significant because of the existing adjacent freeway noise.
. -3-
Yes Maybe
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Explanation: '
Increase autos at office site & office will produce light as required for safety
and convenience.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of the present or planned land
use of an area?
Explanation:
Natural Resources. Will, the proposal re-
sult in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable nat-
ural resource?
Explanation:.
(b) decrease open space as required to develope site for office and parking
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
Yes Abe No
x
'x
x
1
x
Explanation:
Present zoning is R- l -7 -2, single family residence. Comprehensive plan recommends
office zoning.
r
C
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing availability, or create a demand for
additional housing?
Explanation:
It could lead some office occupants to relocate residences to Tukwila area.
Transportation /Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular
movement? x
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne or air
traffic?
Explanation: •
(a) increase auto movement at intersection of 65th Avenue So. & Southcenter Blvd.
At peak hours, probably 25 to 30 /hour. (c) some occupants could use bus-system
which serves the area.
Local Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new
services in any of the following areas:
(a) Fire protection? •x •
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks? i x
(e) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
(f) Other' governmental services? x
Explanation:
(a) through (e) proposal includes the use of existing city services and facilities..
-
•••x
Yes Maybe No
x
x
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a)
Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Explanation:
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or alterations to the follow-
ing utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) .Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
Proposal will require connection to existing facilities.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in the
creation of any health hazard or potential .
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or w i l l the . proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
Explanation:
-6- .
Yes Maybe
x
x
•x
x
x
x
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of ex-
isting recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site?
Explanation:
Employment. Will the proposal create a
significant amount of new jobs?
Explanation:
•
Yes Maybe.
Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi- x
cant.increase in city revenues?
Explanation:
Not significantly, but contributes to taxable base & contributes to steady
growth of business community. .
Indirectly contribute to goods and services as required.by occupants in addition
to maintenance and.•operation of building and.grounds.
cd/2 7- 2 , 34-04L- ;g7,
•
Project Name:
GERALD E. SCHNEIDER
Signature and Title
BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY
Date
CITY OF TUKWILA
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: •
I hereby certify that the information furnished in this environmental checklist
sheet is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
Schneider office building rezone
2// Da te
Project Address: fronting on Southcenter.Blvd. between 65th Ave. S. & 68th Ave. S.
ACTION .BY OTHER' DEPARTMENTS:.
-Check one
1. Date of Review: Building by: ( +) or ( -)
Planning by: ( +) or ( -)
Engineering by: ( +) or ( -)
Police by: ( +) or ( -)
Fire by:: ( +) or ( -)
2. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that:
':.The project is exempt by definition.
The project has no significant environmental impact and application
should be processed without further consideration of environmental affects..
The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ -,.:
mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit.
More specific information is needed to determine impact.
Signature and. Title of Responsible Official
•
Date
3. Applicant was notified of decision on:
'by by •
Staff Person Letter, phone
In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila
Ordinance No. 759.
( +) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be'done.
( -). Means recommend a full environmental impact statement.not'be done:
-vo • 1 $"' • r
, . CI rr
1. ,%.ild • I I 3 • • •
• /0 MO
I
TukwUa.
•.•
• ...• N. J ri ..11 ." gmi
(/04M0 sr) • ■
-1 '''' • 7- 1''''T - ' --- - -- r - r ,-
!
.0
-4 t , I i •Zi IS ilt.,..
I SA 4 S 1 i0 III 1 it I 3 r - ....
j •■■ :.; a i A r !" 4 .-_. •• ',a 1 I i lit ' cy
• • •, _., •_.
•zsg. . . .
.•,•11.` •••', ••:. ...J • ;.‘.•
, • 1- : .• ••••
. •••••••-• • ". ' •-•
• t • 1. ` • • • ` •
• •
— T,..
• :tor.
_........... 4j ,- .-. eata• ONO UMW •••1
1 . ir ipta 141/
i . ' : . • •■• 1
4 • - TR•4
isl
1 . ,• " 4014:Z06. - , . . :-• `":* : •:*"-"" I
"I I l'.1
. • •
.
• • , - I •s• :** ..,....::1
...: • A re 1 .. , • ob • ,.. • • : : r7', • : . . V. i _C
. ro t • • .. . 1. . • , •,.. .7":f *:,' •
• %kJ
; ' 1------ ' es .,
l ',.. .1 , •.•,.•..• ...,,.:•• , co.._ .
. ... • .......,,,•• ,,,, I •
1 — . .
i :.. 1
i ' , • . j v j . ,. -■ . • I
......• --..... ....._ . • , •.:.• -....,.
:.:i ,..,....,•._ I... . ri•
.t.: . ....,' Z
I i • : . . .
\I tw 1 i :.-.... •a • • . . • - i" :'• '' 4
1 • VI
•,... 77:111:',... •
iik '.; i DO , - . •::;'..."-•;',..-:....--.• • I 1
. .• ,. , 41. - - ' •
..... . .. ;
• . -11.1 • . 1
.. .. ....
MO ' . • ' .••• '
-. 1 ";".., t E .:; 1 •,, !(4) ? " ••• : •• ::: !."'• :1 • 9 ::::: , P . . ..
T R.' 2 : ir:14 ••••••■•:•-.........,
•
, .• •..'t••• •
..... 5.14.61 -•••••••••-•
1 . • . • • • . • • •
. • .• . • .
• ;As:
' • • tits co z;
cz
• - I • •
' CZ:1 4,0
i.
•
•