Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 78-21-V - VAN WOERDEN - SHORELINE VARIANCE
78-21-v christensen road southcenter parkway and strander boulevard VAN WOERDEN SHORELINE VARIANCE CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the meeting, 21 September 1978. The regular September meeting was called to order by Chairman Duffie at 8:11 p.m. Board members present were Mr. Goe, Mr. James and Mrs. Rinehart. Roger Blaylock represented the Planning Division. Chairman Duffie called for approval of the minutes dated 4 May 1978. MOTION BY MR. GOE, SECONDED BY MR. JAMES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 4 MAY 1978. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. GOE, SECONDED BY MR. JAMES TO EXCUSE MRS. ALTMAYER SINCE SHE IS ON VACATION. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. GOE, SECONDED BY MR. JAMES TO NOMINATE ROGER BLAYLOCK, ASSISTANT PLANNER AS SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. DOUBLETREE INN /MF #77 -37 /VARIANCE EXTENSION The background information was presented by the staff. The Board discussed the conditions of the original permit granted to the Doubletree Inn in 1977. MOTION BY MR. GOE, SECONDED BY MR. JAMES THAT THE VARIANCE EXTENSION BE GRANTED WITH THE SAME CONDITIONS THAT AS WERE ORIGINALLY ATTACHED TO THE VARIANCE WITH THE FURTHER STIPULATION THAT THE VARIANCE TIME PERIOD UNTIL CONSTRUCTION FOR PHASE TWO BE REDUCED BY ONE YEAR. (PHASE 2 MUST BE INITIATED IWWITHIN FOUR (4) YEARS OF PRESENT DATE.) PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 4 ERDEN / #78 -21 SHORELINE VARIANCE The Board was informed that the application had been withdrawn by the Morris Phia Company. GARFIELD TRANSFER / #78 -23 /USE INTERPRETATION The staff presented the background information and the staff report. Mr. Goe 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 141 -2177 September 21, 1978 City of Tukwila Office of Community Development 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Roger Blaylock Dear Mr. Blaylock, Pursuant to our telephone conversation of this date, this letter . is to request the withdrawal of the variance application along the north line of Lot 1 of the Southcenter Investors short plat. Sincerely, MORRIS PIS COMPANY, INC. Stanley V Piha SP /cg MORRIS PIHA COMPANY REALTORS • INVESTMENT PROPERTIES 807 DEXTER HORTON BLDG., SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104, TELEPHONE: (208) 623 -5628 • CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT 7 September 1978 8:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM V B : . V A ARIANCE from Setback Requirements of Shoreline Master Program (Van Woerdon Property) REQUEST: VARIANCE from setback requirements of Shoreline Master Program (Van Woerdon Property) to allow construction within the 40 -foot river zone. APPLICANT: The Morris Piha Company, D.B.A. Southcenter Investment LOCATION: Approximately 11.1± acres adjacent and east of Christensen Road at the intersection of Baker Boulevard and west of the Green River. INTRODUCTION: The proposed subdivision, filling, and construction of office buildings have been proposed in general terms. The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is pre- sently being reviewed by the Department of Ecology. Facts concerning actual site plans are limited; thus, conclusions are based upon undisclosed plans. The granting of a variance is contemplated when physical limitations such as slope, size or_shape makes it impossible to use the site within the restrictions of City Codes. FINDINGS: 1. The variance request is limited to the northern property boundary of Lot 1 along the Green River. (SEE, Exhibit A) 2. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit has been granted by the City and it has been conditioned to a maximum of four (4) buildings for professional offices with site plan approval required prior to construction. 3. The shape of Lot 1 was predetermined by the course of the Green River and the location of the City of Seattle's Bow Lake (Water) Pipeline. 4. The applicant has proposed to dedicate 1.56± acres to the City of Tukwila for a park north of the ordinary high water line plus a twenty foot stripe along the Green River for a pathway. 5. Detailed building plans have not been submitted for any specific lot. 6 This is the first time that the Board of Adjustment has reviewed a variance request from the Shoreline Raster Program. Board of Adjustment. Page 2 Staff Report 7 September 1978 7. The Department of Ecology has final authority to issue variances on shore- line matters. The decision of the Board of Adjustment will be in the form of a recommendation to D.O.E. 8. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173 -14 -150) establishes criteria to review variance requests. (SEE, Exhibit B) Therefore, state criteria supersedes the local criteria normally applied to•variances. CONCLUSIONS: Local criteria for reviewing variances accompanies the applicable criteria out- lined in WAC 173 -14 -150. 1. LOCAL: • The authorization of such variance will .not adversely affect the implemen- tation of the comprehensive land use plan; STATE: WAC 173.14.150(1) Variance permits should be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstances should be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. CONCLUSION: R.C.W. 90.58.020 STATE POLICY - USE PREFERENCES is a Tegislative finding which sets tone of the entire Shoreline Management Act. Basically, the goal is to prevent any "inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the'state's shorelines. ", the granting of a variance will not thwart the policy enumerated under RCW 90.58.020. (SEE,.Exhibit C) • 2. LOCAL: That such variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size, shape, topography, location or surrounding of the subject property, to provide it with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and in the zone in which the subject property is located; STATE: WAC 173.14.150(2)a 2(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes or signi- ficantly interferes with reasonable permitted of the property. CONCLUSION: Since no specific site plans have been submitted, it is difficult to deter- mine if the shape of Lot 1 eliminates all reasonable use of the property. The applicant has had an architect, G. Cichanski & Associates analyze the Board of Adjustment Page 3 Staff Report 7 September 1978 site for possible building configurations. In their letter of August 22, 1978, two alternatives were suggested. Eventhough neither of the alterna- tives proposed may be the most aestheically pleasing, both provide for a reasonable use of the property. (SEE, Exhibit 0). The minimum distance between the southern property line and 40 -foot set- back line is 110 feet. If we use observable examples of other office buildings in Tukwila, it is possible to use the site as is. Schneiders Office Building on 65th Avenue South is 46•feet wide, while the buildings in Southcenter Corporate Square are approximately 78 feet wide. 3. LOCAL: That the special conditions and. circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant; STATE: WAC 173.14.150(2)b CONCLUSION: The "hardship" is not supported by any specific data. 4. LOCAL: That the hardship described in WAC 173.14.150(2)a above is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shpae, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the appli- cant's own actions. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare'or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in,which the subject property is situated; STATE: WAC 173.14.150(2)c That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment designation. CONCLUSION: The general concept of the project is compatible.with the other activities in the area. Since there were no designs presented it is impossible to complete a detailed analysis. It would appear that the variance would give greater design flexibility. 5. LOCAL: The variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsis- tent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and in the Zone in which the property on behalf of which the application was file is located; Board of Adjustment Page 4 Staff Report STATE: That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. CONCLUSION: The granting of the variance would be a special privilege that would allow the individual special design flexibility not allowed by other property owners. It has not been demonstrated that the granting of the variance is necessary in order to properly develop the site. 6. STATE: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The public interest would not be substantially affected by granting the variance, however, it could set a precedent which should be addressed, if necessary, by amending the Shoreline Master Program. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the Findings and Conclusions in this report, Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment recommend to the Department of Ecology that the application for a variance from the setback requirements of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program be DENIED. 7 September 1978 •r I- Lz J a- C) CC Ll Q CI Lel t-- 0 CO 7M- Ern X W LEI U Tr Ts 7 .1”,•••••... .. yy?NTP:r/ AIR N..01 f M TDAcrer rJ f •1 1 LEGEND EX /ST PROPOSED .. - - ._• ..•■•■•■•■SANITAP,' 5EMIS -.TORN SEWeS .NArCO MAIN o ■ care—mods"' Q • MANHOLE bq y GATE VALVE FLOE N✓DOANr so.9 CLE ✓Ar TTP/rAI STPffT •rCT /ON / .. 1.rl • v ♦r \r. ro i w ...NC . N n. - i PROPOSED L /Y /r OP SITS IMPROVEMENTS. At / Ord•rnr.n•. "1 .�l /Ai I Fo. C Arr•r .s F= e I / n r n:i ' N Ivr1 �•r,..... as J•... C .r ..rr . _ •••■"M�wn +e.[....o H.. rur ` > \ R.eCo e I I SCCTra.) B8 _.e TTPJCAL (NJ XW) NOTE: 40 R Above Ordinary N.yh Water Mork On Green Ave,: Conforming To Ceti? Of Ti kwl/a Shorch;•re Most, Plan (Ord 098), Te nlnater At easterly Bo✓nJary OFPcrk Dedication. Ave.—Zone Requirements Do No /App ly Adjacent To Pork Dedication Bounda•y. i f Y. .. 1 - a -L ew Ml/. I tkr. I — [..,.y oe•.. ^Q C'AIITER - ° Lw _ & a'IVATER _. I I ,. • j I ry nr,,.•.y I .rIVES i rvC LN .4 • e 4g • S W G Q t, <..--% 0 .z1 pp ti+p G ' v o �} ,, 4y 2 41 : : 1. t 0 7 0a m W2 ti S S 2 -m ` 0W kW, I v C F S /71"/ m I4 y ti CONNEC ` TO EX/TSTOR/)D.G".i/N SYSTEM OFF -SITE ONLY ----- i — I � - - - -- -- r T E.i7ST. 470A1". &'..! - -T _ •r N f I TRACT 6 TRACT 6 TRACT 5 t TRACT 4 f s t i I TRACT /O ANOOVED INDUSTD /AL PADK ND / ry 4NDOVE NOUSTD /AL I PARK NO 2 � ' ! ' I ANOOYER I•VOUDL' VOL. 66 PAGE 36. I VOL 7f PAGES 6469 I I 335 VOL. 7I P STP/AL -^ PA `^ `^ I /02 TRACT I I 330 /2!'/ATEDMAIN r t-d5ANSE:2E4 CONK TOEX /ST MA(MD • � CONN TO EX/ST M/l ANDOVERPAPKE I I ANDOVER PAO/1E0E / /.4E) ..• M� 0 50 = 00 5CALE+ / "•50 ■ N— Page 1 C/1fl I Di I D -` VARIANCE - VAi1 W0ERDON PRnPERTY OTS -365:3 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE PERMITS. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the master program would impose unnecessary hardshins on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. (1) Variance permits should be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a.thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances circumstances should be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (2) Variance permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.5R.030 (2) (b), except within those areas designated by the department as marshes, bogs, or swamps pursuant to chapter 173 -22 WAC, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set in the applicable master program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property. (b) That the hardship described in WAC 173 -14 -150 (2) (a) above is specifically related to the property. and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shane, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and ' not, for example. from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment designation. (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege.not'enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford 'relief. (e) That the. public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (3) Variance permits for development that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2) (b), or.within marshes, bogs, .or swamps as designated by the department pursuant to chapter. 173 -22 .WAC, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: (a) That the strict application of the bulk. dimensional or performance stan- dards set forth in the applicable master program precludes a reasonable permitted use of the property. (b) That the hardship described in WAC 173 -14 -150 (3) (a) above is specifically related to.the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the master program, and not. for example', from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. (c) That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted_ activities in'the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment designation. (d) 'That the requested variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. (e). That the public( ;jhts of navigation and use of I, .!shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. (f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. (4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar . circumstances exist the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 .and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Chapter 90.58 RCW SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1971 RCW 90.58.010 Short title. This chapter shall be • known and may be cited as the "Shoreline Management Act of 1971". [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 1.] RCW 90.58.020 Legislative findings -- -State policy enunciated Use preference. The legislature finds that the shorelines of the state are among the most valuable and fragile of its natural resources and that there is great concern throughout the state relating to their uti- lization, protection, restoration, and preservation. In ad- dition it finds that ever increasing pressures of additional uses are being placed on the shorelines necessitating in- creased coordination in the management and develop- ment of the shorelines of .the state. The legislature further finds that much of the shorelines of the state and the uplands adjacent thereto. are in private ownership; that unrestricted construction on the privately owned or publicly owned shorelines of the state is not in the best public interest; and therefore, coordinated planning is necessary in order to protect the public interest associat- ed with the shorelines of the state while, at the same time, recognizing and protecting private property rights consistent with the public interest. There is, therefor, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal. state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines. It is the policy of the state to provide for the manage- ment of the shorelines of the state by planning for and fostering all reasonable and appropriate uses. This policy is designed to insure the development of these shorelines in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction • — VA R T EXHIBIT C - VAN WOERDON PROPERTY of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will pro- mote and enhance the public interest. This policy con- templates 'protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protect- ing generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shore- lines of state-wide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of state -wide signifi- cance, and local government, in developing master pro- grams for shorelines of state -wide significance, shall . give preference to uses in the following order of prefer- ence which: (1) Recognize and protect the state -wide interest over local interest; (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; (3) Result in long term over short term benefit; (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; (5) Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; (7) Provide for any other element as defined in *RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary. In the implementation of this policy the public's op- portunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. To this end uses shall be preferred which arc consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural en- vironment. or are unique to or dependent upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for single family residences. ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks. marinas, piers, and other im- provements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the state. Permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, inso- far as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 2.] •Reviser's note: In subsection (7). a literal translation of the session law's reference "... section 11 of this 1971 act..." would read "RCW 90.58.110'. The above reference to "RCW 90.58.100` which codifies section 10 of this net is belicv•d proper in that (I) section 10 lists the elements includable within the master programs while section I I nei- ther defines.ngr mentions such elements, and (2) in the course of pas- sage of the bill. section 7 was deleted causing old section II to be renumbered section 10. but the above reference was not amended in consonance with the renumbering. 22 August, 1978 Mr. Stan Piha ., t AUG 2 4 1978 The Morris Piha Co . niiit in 807 Dexter Horton Bld Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Piha: EILT anskri ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 206 / 828 -3651 10 CENTRAL WAY KIRKLAND WA 98033 After reviewing the site plan of lot 1 in Tukwilla along the Green River, I would like to respond to the design problems regarding the configuration of this lot. Although it may be possible to put an office structure and required parking on this site, I feel the design implications and forced building -to- parking ralationship would be highly undesirable. I hope the following points will clarify what I feel these to be: 1. The imposed restriction of the Bow Lake Pipeline to the South and the resultant slope requirements forced upon the site due to the inability to fill over the pipeline reduce the usable area of the site considerably. Although it may be possible to develop temporary facilities over the pipe- line, i.e., sidewalk, parking, etc., the short term nature of this possible agreement cannot be counted on during the life of the project and therefore should not be considered -°�•' during the planning stages. 2. It is my understanding that the Northerly property line is at the suggestion of the planning staff and although the boundary creates a s ibstantial park : for the citizens of Tukwilla, it does, in fact, impose site restriction of a rather severe nature for lot 1. The location of the high water line and the resultant 2 -1 slope requirement to achieve maintenance vehicle access for the flood control dike, etc. again further reduces the usable site area. 3. With the above mentioned site constrictions imposed by the Bow Lake Pipeline, and the ordinary high water line, the addition of either a 40 or 50 foot river zone buffer restriction makes the actual developable area of over half the,site too narrow to accommodate reasonable development for its intended uses. EXHIBIT D VARIANCE - VAN WOERDON PROPERTY Mr. Stan•Piha August 22, 1978 page -2- 4. I feel the intent of the 40 foot river zone restriction is to provide a buffer or open spcae between private develop- ment and the edge . of the Green River at its highest potential state to create a physical and .visual amenity that will enhance and maintain the beauty of the Green River. It seems on the Northerly property line of lot 1 that you have already met and greatly exceeded this buffering require- ment by creating a riverfront park along the entire Northerly property edge. To provide an additional 8 -12 feet of buffering at this property edge would, in my opinion, be unnecessary overkill. I do feel, however, that the 40 foot restriction along the Easterly edge of the property abutting the Green River should be maintained to enhance the views of the river from the internal property of lot 1 and potentially lots 2 and 3 to the South. 5. Although, as I have mentioned above, it may be possible to build on this site (either offices, clinics, etc.) the configuration of the building and its parking would be undesirable from a planning and /or aesthetic point of view. The two basic options that would be feasible would be: (A) a long East to West spine of parking feeding directly to a 1 or 2 story structure exceeding 500 feet in length. All of this structure may be broken partially due to Code restrictions. It still will create an umposing barrier that would be anything but pleasing visually and would severely restrict public access and visibility to the Green River. This particular approach could be quite economical from.a,construction point of view and in fact is relatively effective regarding parking -to- office interaction; but would cepate what I, personally, would feel to be a rather ugly development immediately adjacent to the City park. From a purely aesthetic point of view, the thought of lowrise building stretching the length of this property with parking also the full length of the property would be anything but in the best planning principles. (B). concentrate building on the Easterly 1/3 of the property at the location of the widest building area. This would allow for a relatively conventional building shape and geometry of several levels that again would be relatively economical to develop. This building location, however, would force all the parking between the access road, James Christiansen Rd., and the building. This would not only create an everyday inconvenience in walking distances from car to building of approximately four hundred to five hundred feet, but would also probably create a greater Mr. Stan Piha August 22, 1978 page -3- visual blight than option A above. The need for delivery and service access for this option would create a heavier traffic impact along the dedicated City park, which I feel would be undesirable. The economic necessities of this site dictate that the development of options A or B would be relatively dense with building area being determined by the number of parking spaces that will fit on the site. The resultant sea of parking should in my opinion, be broken up and hidden from both the street access and the riverfront edge as much as possible to minimize visual blight. Options A and B above with the narrowness of the site being the determining factor force the parking into the least desirable visual configuration. 6. Although the addition of 8 - 12 feet of buildable area requested by your variance does not seem a significant amount, it greatly enhances the ability of an Architect to deal with the two given size requirements of office and parking design, i.e., an approximate 32 - 40 foot leasable office depth and the 58 - 65 foot double loaded parking corridor. The combination of these two basic elements can be accommodated in the given area (including 40 feet riverfront restriction), but it does not allow for on -site landscaping, walkways, outdoor furniture, handicap access ramps, elevators, etc. In closing,- then, as a designer and planner, I would say that although there are severe developemental restrictions regarding the current configuration and setback require - ments.of the site, thesite is, in fact, developable. The configuration of the development without requested extra buildable area forces a less than desirable building configuration and parking layout that I feel strongly negates the basic intent of the riverfront restriction. I would strongly urge that the City evaluate your variance not in light of economic hardship or totally impossible building conditions, but rather for what would provide a better development along the waterfront park and path system of the City and the developer. Please let me know if there is any other information I might supply regarding this particular parcel of land. Si ® ce ely, ( ‘ V I rr G. Cichanski and Associates, Architects GC:am qi. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: See attached text See attached text CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORT; This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for permit. 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 the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire - to cover costs of the threshold determination. SOUTHCENTER INVESTORS, c/o Morris Piha Company 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 612 Hoge Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone Number: 623 -5626 3. Date Checklist Submitted: May 26, 1978 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Cif of Tukwila Planninq_Department 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Southcenter Investors Property 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as . well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an, accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): c;. Estin:tt€d Date for Completion of tho Proposal: Mid - 1979 List or all Permits, Licenses or Governw2nt T .p .oval : Requi red for the Proposal (federal, state and local) : (a) Rezor 2 , conditional rise, shoreline perm t, etc. (h) i;irij County Hydraulics Permit ( c : ) ilu i l d i ng permit YES X !O YESX i ::1 YES X 1;0 c ( . (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i ) (J ) (k) (1) 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Development may occur incrementally, however, ultimate conceptual development is addressed in this checklist. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit Sewer hook up permit Sign permit Water hook up permit Storm water system permit Curb cut permit Electrical permit (State of Washington) Plumbing permit (King County) Other: YES NO X YES X NO YES NO X YES X NO YES X NO YES NO X • YES X NO . YES X NO I I . ENV I ROMEfiTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all 'yes" and "maybe" answers are required) . 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- i ng of the soil? (c) Change in topoc;raphy or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? -2- YES MAYBE NO X X Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or 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 or lake? Explanation: 2. 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 any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) Change in the c;.iantity of g. .;rd waters, either through di re. t additions or w i t :l s , or through interception of an aquifer by cut:, or excavations? -3- YES MAYBE NO X X X X (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne • virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? Explanation: 4. 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, microflora and aquatic plants)? X (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 barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: (d) Pasture grass which was raised for grazing purposes is the "agricultural crop ". There is some question as to whether this case fits the definition. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (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 emigration or wovemen t of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Explanation: -4- YES MAYBE NO X X X X X 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: Explanation: (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: Explanation: 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Ri s': 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 radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? YES MAYBE NO X 11. Population. Explanation: 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) (b) 14. Pu5lic Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Generation of additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Explanation: F i r e protection? Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or othar recreational facilities? (e) i• iintenance of public facilities, including roads? YES MAYBE NO X X X X X X X X X (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: 15. 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: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following 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: 17. Hu::tn Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential heal th hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: -7- YES f4AYBE NO X X X X X 18. Aesthetics. W i l l the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or w i l l the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? • Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: Explanation: C CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: Signature a Title 5 - /4 20 siv -8- c X 6 7v 1V2ir Date 'YES MAYBE NO I, the undersigned, state that to the Lest of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. I. BACKGROUND 2. Air. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 6. The sponsor proposes the 11.08 acre site to be developed for profes- sional office use. The sponsor seeks to short -plat the site into four parcels, and sell the parcels to building developers. Conceptual layouts have been drawn, however, this final design decision would be made by the builder. Compliance with applicable jurisdictional codes would be the responsibility of the builder. The sponsor would improve Christensen Road to comply with city standards. Appropriate storm and sewer lines would be installed with- in the street right -of -way. Additionally, a portion of the site ad- jacent to the Green River would be donated to the city for use as a park. 7. The site is bordered by the Green River on the east and north, Christensen Road on the west, and on the south by a fence which runs east -west between Christensen Road and the Green River beginning at a point approximately 517 feet south of the Christensen Road - Baker Boulevard intersection. Most of the land within the site will be directly impacted by development, exceptions being the dike area along the Green River, and areas of mature stands of trees. 1. Earth. (b) The site elevation presently undulates, averaging elevation 21. & To ease storm drainage and sanitary sewer design, plus relieve (c) potential flooding, the site will be filled to an elevation between 26 and 28 The Bow Lake pipeline right -of -way will be an exception to this blanket fill. The top of this 60 inch (asbestos cement) pipe is near elevation 17.5 and cannot sup- port the soil surcharge, thus, the effect will be to leave a swale over the pipeline. The sponsor would coordinate with the City of Seattle on landscaping treatment of this swale, so it could act as a buffer /wildlife habitat. The ditch may collect water and then would require storm drainage facilities. (e) There would be a temporary increase in the potential for soil erosion during construction. The erosion potential will be mitigated by proper construction techniques. (a) The major sources of air pollution at the site is due to auto- motive exhaust emissions. Traffic along the adjacent streets can create levels of carbon monoxide, the primary vehicular pollutant, of up to 3 mg /m during peak hour traffic (eight hour standard is 10 mg /m3). The increase in traffic generated by the facility will be less than 5 percent, resulting in an 0.1 mg /m increase in air pollution, which is indistinguishable from present levels. Solid waste will be removed by a disposal company, so there will be no incineration. 3. Water. (b) The introduction of impervious surfaces over approximately 50 percent of the site will increase storm water runoff. This runoff will be handled via a sponsor - installed and maintained storm drain system, exiting into the Green River. Storm runoff from the improved Christensen Road will be collected in an existing storm drain and ultimately discharge into the Green River. (d) The development will cause additional storm water to enter the Green River. (e) Storm water discharged into the Green River will pass through catch basins to remove most suspended particles. However, some impurities plus some dissolved oxygen will enter the Green River. 4. Flora. An on -site investigation of vegetative communities and of species present was conducted for preparation of the checklist. The site is primarily abandoned pasture and is presently covered by a wide variety of common grasses, weeds, shrubs and trees. Most of these would be eliminated and replaced with a smaller variety of species (some new to the site) used in landscaping of lawns and gardens. The large cottonwood trees along the north and east border would be preserved. The project site occupies a small isolated piece of abandoned pasture (agricultural crop); and would be converted to other uses. While the site was historically used for agricultural purposes (grazing) it must be recognized that agricultural use is no longer economically feasible on the site. 5. Fauna. On site investigation of the site indicates that it presently sup- ports a wide variety of common small wildlife species such as rabbits, mice, moles, swallows and song birds. Many of these would be eliminated from the site by the proposed development and replaced by birds common in developed areas such as crows, house sparrows and song sparrows. The abandoned barn and pasture habitats would be replaced by build- ings, parking lots and maintained lawns and gardens. Standard design and construction precautions would be necessary to avoid significant impact to the aquatic habitat of the Green River. Although the natural character of the site is an attractive con- trast to the surrounding development, the hahitat and species of the site is common. The site does not offer suitable habitat for any known rare or endangered species. C C 6. Noise. There will be a slight increase in noise levels resulting from human activity typical of an office site environment over that of the quiet activities which currently occurs on the site. 7. Light and Glare. Localized low level lighting sources will be introduced to this here- tofore unlit site for safety and security purposes. 8. Land Use The proposal site was used as a feed lot at one time by the previous owner. The feed lot facilities remain, in deteriorated condition, and includes a large barn, sheds, corrals, loading ramps, barbed wire enclosures and assorted debris. The sponsor presently rents these facilities on a monthly basis as warehouse space for a commercial landscape nursery. Additionally, there is a small single - family residence at the north end of the site which the sponsor rents out on a monthly basis. All structures on the site will be removed when approval to proceed with construction is obtained. Site use will change from a low -level commercial agricultural use to the more intense office use. Office use at this site is consistent with both the city zoning and com- prehensive plan. All lands in the site vicinity are also in office use. It is not feasible to continue the current use of this land in the midst of urban development. 9. Natural Resources. (a) Common building materials and energy will be consumed: in construc- tion. Long -term operational energy commitments would be relatively insignificant. Consumption amounts would be similar to that re- quired to meet this demand at an alternate site. 13. Transportation /Circulation. (a) The proposal will result in approximately 880 vehicular trips (in plus out) per day based upon 80,000 square feet gross leaseable area, (at ultimate development), according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers guidelines for office buildings. (b) On site parking will be provided to meet demand in accordance with applicable city standards. No off -site parking will be required. 14. Public Services. (a) New buildings will be of long -life, fire resistant construction and will be substantially less of a hazard than the structures presently occupying the site. Development of the site will also replace much of the existing annual vegetation with perennial types and thus, remove a possible source of nuisance fires. The impact of the project on fire protection services is expected to be slight. C (b) The increase in numbers of people attracted to the developed site will create a slight increase in demand for police services. However, the types of activities related to the development are not conducive to unlawful acts. The increase in traffic will slightly increase demand upon police traffic control staff. (d) Office occupants may increase usage of the adjacent Bicentennial Park during lunch hours on sunny days. Use is currently below capacity for this park. In addition a new waterfront park area along the north shore will be offered for dedication to the City (e) Buildings, grounds and on -site public utilities will be maintain- ed by the owner. Private utility companies would maintain their respective facilities. Off -site water, storm drainage, and sanitary sewer facilities would be maintained by the City, as would Christensen Road and Baker Boulevard. On -site roads and parking lots would be maintained by the owner. 15. Energy. (b) Construction equipment will consume electricity and fossil fuel in normal amounts. Long -term energy requirements for operation of the development will be insignificant. 16. Utilities. (a) Underground electrical service has been installed within the Christ- ensen Road right -of -way. Power vaults have already been in- stalled at the southwest corner of the Baker Road - Christensen Road intersection. Long range planning by the Puget Power Company has taken into account full development of the site such that power sources and supplies will be adequate for the foreseeable future, according to company spokespersons. Both on and off -site installation and maintenance will be the responsibility of the electrical utility company. The nearest natural gas line to the site terminates at the intersection of Baker Road and Andover East Boulevard, re- quiring approximately 350 linear feet of pipe installation to reach the site. Washington Natural Gas will install and maintain all lines on and off -site at their own expense if natural gas service is required for the development. Spokespersons at the utility indicate sources and supplies are plentiful for the fore- seeable future. (b) Pacific Northwest Bell indicates it has the ability to supply telephone service to the site. (c) The nearest water line to the site exists in the Andover East Parkway right -of -way. Approximately 350 feet of new line would have to be laid in the Baker Road right -of -way to reach the site. It is likely the developer would install both on and off -site water lines under city supervision. Existing watershed resources and distribution systems are adequate for long -term growth in this area. C C - . (d) An 8 inch sanitary sewer line exists in the Andover Park East right -of -way, approximately 350' west of the site. A sanitary sewer line would have to be installed along Baker Boulevard by the developer to serve this site. If the site is filled to 5' . about its present level, a gravity main would suffice -and would be constructed at the developers expense. The sewer line to the northern most lot of the development may require special considerations in order to avoid conflicts with the City of Seattle's 60 inch Bow Lake water pipe. (e) A storm drainage system will be constructed on -site to remove runoff generated by the addition of impervious surfaces. The sponsor - funded storm drainage facilities in the improved Christensen Road would collect the street runoff which in turn would eventually exist into the Green River. Catch basins would remove suspended particles. In accordance with state requirements, flap gates would be installed at the exit point of the on -site system to prevent to prevent fish from enter- ing the system when the river level is high. Although plans are not complete for the site development it is anticipated that average ground elevations in parking lots and site areas will be approximately 26 (MSL). On this basis the area grades would vary between lows at about 25.5 to highs at about 26.5 which indicate that the drainage system will function at full efficienty with river levels up to about elevation 24. The river water level for a 1:100 year flow occurrence in this area is estimated by the Corps of Engineers to be approximately 21.8. The system will function under this occurrence. When the river level rises above elevation 24 the capacity of the system will decrease slowly until, at a river elevation of about 25.5, the drainage system will begin to pond water over on -site catch basins in the low areas. The Corps of Engineers is authorized to discharge up to 12000 cfs from the Howard Hansen Dam, if it is deemed necessary, due to conditions in the dam area. This dam release plus local inflow downstream from, the dam is estimated by the Corps of Engineers to result in a maximum water surface elevation at the site of approximately 26Q. At this point the on -site drainage 'systemviillnot function and low areas of the site will pond water. Building floor grades will be at 28 safely above max- imum flood levels. (f) Proposed business occupying the development would generate relatively insignificant amounts of solid waste. Southgate Disposal Company, a private company, indicates its present facilities are adequate to handle the slight increase in demand. 18 Aesthetics. The site is an aesthetically pleasing rural scene containing green pastures, weathered farm buildings, and mature trees. However, it is viewed by only the infrequent passers -by on Christensen Road. The tall cottonwood trees can be viewed from further distances and provide vegetative relief to the urban character of the area. Close visual survey of the site is difficult as fences, signs, and locked gates discourage the casual observer. Foot travel along the dike adjacent to this site is difficult because of heavy vegetation. The farm buildings and pasture will be removed. In its place, at- tractive office buildings with appropriate landscaping treatment will occur. The mature cottonwood trees along the dike will remain. The trail along the east edge of Christensen Road will be relocated along the top of the dike and will connect the Bicentennial Park with a new river front park site along the north side of the site, thus, permitting more public use of the river than is now possible. 19. Recreation. Presently the site has no recreational value, as signs forbid un- authorized tresspass. Development of the site in the proposed man- ner will enable greater recreational use. The trail along Christensen Road would be moved from its present location and be placed along the top of the dike. The trail passes through Bicentennial Park to the south, then continues in a southerly direction adjacent to the Green River. The site itself will become more open and accessible to public use, together with the site amenities such as the river pro- ximity and mature stands of trees will act to enhance the recreational use of this site. 20. Archeological /Historical. The Tukwila Historical Society has determined that the site is of some historical significance, as migrating indians used the site to camp along the Green River. The State Office of Historical Preservation is currently researching their records for significant findings on the site. Additionally, the sponsor proposes to donate a portion of land along the northern boundary of the site to be used as a riverfront park. This portion of land contains many of the large cottonwood trees. Design specifics of this park are yet undetermined. The State Office of Public Archeology has responded with the attached letter. While there is a probability of significant remains on the site, they conclude that subsurface disturbance is unlikely consider- ing the depth of fill. Institute for Environmental Studies Office of Public Archaeology Engineering Annex FM -12 Mr. Ronald J. Smulski Wilsey and Ham, Inc. 631 Strander Boulevard Seattle, Washington 98188 RE: Preliminary Archaeological Assessment of Tukwila Development Site. Dear Mr. Smulski: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195 May 23, 1978 In response to your letter request dated May 12, 1978, I have prepared the following preliminary assessment of the potential for archaeological resources of the Tukwila development, site in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24 and the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 25, Township 23N, Range 4E, King County, Washington. What I have done is present for you a set of alternative courses of action that might be taken in regard to archaeological resources at the site and noted which alternative is more appropriate in the eyes of this office and the State Historic Preservation Office. It is clear from your vicinity and site maps that the property in question lies on the in -curve of an ox -bow of the Green River. The geological substrata is riverine silts and sands and, I presume, marine sediments . underlying that. Located as it is on an ox-bow, the site covers an area that contains buried channels of the Green River that are progressively older as one moves west from the modern channel. In addition, we know from other sites in the area that, until fairly recently, this area of the Green River floodplain was an estuary with extensive marine resources in the intertidal zone. Although no archaeological sites are known to exist in the Tukwila development site, one site has been reported to have existed nearby in an environmental setting which is identical (see enclosed map). Site 45-KI -6 was a shell midden, probably a seasonal shellfish collecting site, located in the in -curve of an ox -bow in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 24. It consists of a 60 cm thick layer of shell and artifacts buried three meters below the land surface. Nearby, to the north, were wooden posts which had formed a V- shaped fish trap in the Green River main channel. This site was totally destroyed by re- channelization of the Green River preparatory to 405 construction. 0ti4 Recycled Paper vow Mr. Ronald J. Smulski May 23, 1978 Page Two The probability is great that similar sites exist beneath the surface at the proposed development site. Shell midden sites are important for several reasons, foremost among them being the significance to Native American history and their potential for providing valuable data on the response of marine invertebrates to environmental changes and to long-term exploitation by humans. If a site or sites similar to 45 -KI -6 exist on the property in question, they are certain to be of significance. Two alternatives present themselves as regards the protection of the archaeological resource potential of the Tukwila development site: (1) In our phone conversation of May 19, you stated that from five to seven feet of fill would be placed on this site. Such a cap would effectively protect any archaeological materials that might exist. If your client chose to excavate beneath the fill level for sewage, footings, etc., it would be important for an archaeologist to monitor such activities. In this way, we would know if, in fact, any sites did exist in the area and have knowledge of the nature of the resources protected beneath the cap of fill. (2) The development site, an area of what appears to be between seven and ten acres, could be systematically tested for archaeological resources by coring either manually or mechanically. In this way, we would be certain of the presence or absence of archaeological resources on the site. have discussed these alternatives with Ms. Sheila Stump of the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She and I both feel that, while capping the site would protect any sites that may exist, it effectively prohibits the discovery of such sites, thereby limiting our potential know- ledge of Western Washington prehistory. Monitoring of subsurface disturbances would assure whether or not sites existed in the areas directly affected by the disturbances, but provides far less reliable information than would systematic coring. As far as the cost of the two alternatives, if there is subsurface disturbance of the area, alternative 1 would require an undetermined number of man-days, probably from two to six days. A systematic coring operation is likely to require three to four man -days. If you find that either alternative suits your needs, this office can readily supply the necessary services. It has been good working with you on this matter. Dealing with Wilsey and Ham is always a pleasure, as you provide adequate data from which we can make our assessments. If you have any questions about these recommendations, please call me. CC: Ms. Jeanne M. Welch, Deb to y SHPO, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation James C. Chatters Research Associate Sincerely, Chi � ting MAY 24 19783 WILSEY & HAM, INC. STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING MU E. Wa1by Affidavit of Publication ss. being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that *bake Ch .o....S.LO.kk.. of THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record- Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a Public .Notice as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of z consecutive issues, commencing on the 1'8 day of A iTtj'q>t t: ,19 7 . 8 , and ending the ..2.3.. day of A4a u.�t ,19..7.x. both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $. , which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundrerdWaedefor the first insertion and per folio of one hundr • . words for each subsequent insertion. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23 day of •.A.uqult ,19 78 V.P.C. Form No. 87 Notary Publa Chi.ef...Clark and for th residing 1 — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senati; 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting adopted by the newspapers of the State. words and figures, � r l i h .; c ! t UPS tan ce `J rn P • Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING /An E. Walby ..August , 19 7 t3 V.P.C. Form No. 87 • o �l tt!!r td ss. being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that Obie Chko....C1ot.kk.. of THE RENTON RECORD- CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a public. ..Notice as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of 2 consecutive issues, commencing on the tg day of MM US ,19 7 . E , and ending the ..2.3... day of Audaau#t , 19..7.8., both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $.+ac� which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundrel7 the first insertion and per folio of one hundr words for each subsequent insertion. C k t.11 f ...C.1. BXk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 23 day of Notary Pub i and for the State of Washing s n, residing at Kent, King Co ty. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. 1 i r ' "+ to r '~ , Uo„ r (awe C - 5 fn P 22 August, 1978 RECEI Mr. Stan Piha AUG 2 4 1978 The Morris Piha Co. emu► 807 Dexter Horton Bld Seattle, WA 98104 Mr. Piha: gicichanski ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS 206 / 828 -3651 10 CENTRAL WAY KIRKLAND WA 98033 After reviewing the site plan of lot 1 in Tukwilla along the Green River, I would like to respond to the design problems regarding the configuration of this lot. Although it may be possible to put an office structure and required parking on this site, I feel the design implications and forced building -to- parking ralationship would be highly undesirable. I hope the following points will clarify what I feel these to be: 1. The imposed restriction of the Bow Lake Pipeline to the South and the resultant slope requirements forced upon the site due to the inability to fill over the pipeline reduce the usable area of the site considerably. Although it may be possible to develop temporary facilities over the pipe- line, i.e., sidewalk, parking, etc., the short term nature of this possible agreement cannot be counted on during the life of the project and therefore should not be considered . during the planning stages. 2. It is my understanding that the Northerly property line is at the suggestion of the planning staff and although the boundary creates a substantial park . :area for the citizens of Tukwilla, it does, in fact, impose site restriction of a rather severe nature for lot 1. The location of the high water line and the resultant 2 -1 slope requirement to achieve maintenance vehicle access for'.the flood control dike, etc. again further reduces the usable site area. 3. With the above mentioned site constrictions imposed by the Bow Lake Pipeline, and the ordinary high water line, the addition of either a 40 or 50 foot river zone buffer restriction makes the actual developable area of over half the site too narrow to accommodate reasonable development for its intended uses. Mr. Stan Piha August 22, 1978 page -2- 4. I feel the intent of the 40 foot river zone restriction is to provide a buffer or open spcae between private develop- ment and the edge of the Green River at its highest potential state to create a physical and visual amenity that will enhance and maintain the beauty of the Green River. It seems on the Northerly property line of lot 1 that you have already met and greatly exceeded this buffering require- ment by creating a riverfront park along the entire Northerly property edge. To provide an additional 8 -12 feet of buffering at this property edge would, in my opinion, be unnecessary overkill. I do feel, however, that the 40 foot restriction along the Easterly edge of the property abutting the Green River should be maintained to enhance the views of the river from the internal property of lot 1 and potentially lots 2 and 3 to the South. 5. Although, as I have mentioned above, it may be possible to build on this site (either offices, clinics, etc.) the configuration of the building and its parking would be undesirable from a planning and /or aesthetic point of view. The two basic options that would be feasible would be: (A) a long East to West spine of parking feeding directly to a 1 or 2 story structure exceeding 500 feet in length. All of this structure may be broken partially due to Code restrictions. It still will create an umposing barrier that would be anything but pleasing visually and would severely restrict public access and visibility to the Green River. This particular approach could be quite economical from a construction point of view and in fact is relatively effective regarding parking -to- office interaction; but would create what I, personally, would feel to be a rather ugly development immediately adjacent to the City park. From a purely aesthetic point of view, the thought of lowrise building stretching the length of this property with parking also the full length of the property would be anything but in the best planning principles. (B). concentrate building on the Easterly 1/3 of the property at the location of the widest building area. This would allow for a relatively conventional building shape and geometry of several levels that again would be relatively economical to develop. This building location, however, would force all the parking between the access road, James Christiansen Rd., and the building. This would not only create an everyday inconvenience in walking distances from car to building of approximately four hundred to five hundred feet, but would also probably create a greater r Mr. Stan Piha August 22, 1978 page -3- visual blight than option A above. The need for delivery and service access for this option would create a heavier traffic impact along the dedicated City park, which I feel would be undesirable. The economic necessities of this site dictate that the development of options A or B would be relatively dense with building area being determined by the number of parking spaces that will fit on the site. The resultant sea of parking should in my opinion, be broken up and hidden from both the street access and the riverfront edge as much as possible to minimize visual blight. Options A and B above with the narrowness of the site being the determining factor force the parking into the least desirable visual configuration. 6. Although the addition of 8 - 12 feet of buildable area requested by your variance does not seem a significant amount, it greatly enhances the ability of an Architect to deal with the two given size requirements of office and parking design, i.e., an approximate 32 - 40 foot leasable office depth and the 58 - 65 foot double loaded parking corridor. The combination of these two basic elements can be accommodated in the given area (including 40 feet riverfront restriction), but it does not allow for on -site landscaping, walkways, outdoor furniture, handicap access ramps, elevators, etc. In closing, then, as a designer and planner, I would say that although there are severe developemental restrictions regarding the current configuration and setback require- ments of the site, the site is, in fact, developable. The configuration of the development without requested extra buildable area forces a less than desirable building configuration and parking layout that I feel strongly negates the basic intent of the riverfront restriction. I would strongly urge that the City evaluate your variance not in light of economic hardship or totally impossible building conditions, but rather for what would provide a better development along the waterfront park and path system of the City and the developer. Please let me know if there is any other information I might supply regarding this particular parcel of land. Sinc- ely, G. Cichanski and Associates, Architects GC :am • FMC. LICENSE No. 30E1 CB. LICENSE ND. 96 Fred N. Satterstrom Planning Supervisor City of Tukwila Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Reference: Van Woerdan Site Variance Dear Mr. Satterstrom: AEM /sm ESTABLISHED 1892 (� agicrow S.)JFItTSSU[ „tW" If�wCba � � INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT FORWARDERS I CUSTOMS BROKERS V • 259 COLMAN BUILDING August 15, 1978 TEL. (206) 623 -2593 CABLE ADDRESS; BUSH, SEATTLE TELEX NC. 32 - 0276 SEATTLE s WARRINGTON 0810 41. it E D AUG 161918 Thank you for your notice of'meeting regarding the Van Woerdan site variance on September 7, 1978 at 8 :00 p.m. at Tukwila.City Hall. We would like to know just what is proposed for this. land and its impact. and use of Christensen'Road in particular. Will you please send us. the particulars. and /or call me.so we can be properly appraised of the details before this meeting. Kindest regards, JEMMA ASSOCI ES, Albert E. Murray Partner C WILSEY&HAM,INC 631 STRANDER BOULEVARD • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98188 • Telephone (206) 575 -1420 July 14, 1978 File No. 3- 188 - 0101 -20 Board of Adjustment City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Gentlemen: Earl P. Wilsey (1892 -1957) It is requested that the Board of Adjustment of the City of Tukwila grant a variance to the provisions of Item B, page 6.3 of the Tukwila Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, it is requested that this variance permit site development with- in the forty foot (40') river zone shoreline setback area, to include roadway, parking, and /or building construction. Such uses shall not be waterward of the top of slope elevation 28 feet (MSL) and in no case closer than 13 feet to the ordinary high water line in conformance with the attached drawings. It is respectfully submitted that the following extra ordinary circumstances justify this variance and that the public interest will suffer no detrimental effect through the granting of the variance. The requested variance is located to the landward of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River and strict application of Shoreline would interfere with the reasonable use of the property because of the narrow dimension between the ordinary high water line on the north and the Bow Lake Pipeline right -of -way on the south. This hardship is specifically related to the unique physical restrictions and conditions on this parcel. The design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will cause no adverse effects to adjacent properties, or the shore- line environment designation as evidenced by the extensive shoreline park area on the north side. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege and is a minimum effort to afford relief which will not be detrimental to the public interest. L,CLs:;I v"i ai 0.C.D. CITY OF TUKWILA engineering • planning • surveying • environmental analysis • mapping • systems JUL 14 1978 Board of Adjustment City of Tukwila July 14, 1978 Very truly yours, WILSEY & HAM INC. Dick Reeves, P.E. Project Engineer DR /l jr cc: Stan Piha Page Two Your concurrence in the above request and in the justification therefore is respectfully requested. Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Aun..•E..x«•ii►lby being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is the Chief Clerk of THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is h©reline : as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of 2 consecutive issues, commencing on the 12... day of ..July ,19 ..78...., and ending the 19 .. day of July ,197 , both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $1.8..32, which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. Subscribed and sworn to before me this July 19 78 V.P.C. Form No. 87 IpzioLOTETIICRIAE ..... Notary'Public in and for the�tate of Washington, residing t Kent, King County. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. r L OPEMENT PER :VARIANCE ;r;:;:- Co.; D8A South 'S ite, lnv x 'I ,chaser t , . h OI d W described praperty:has ? w tt ^ for • dal deve lop^ ct' , received' , hd 1 o ( ! nic"�le cii C8 � 1t. 197 3 X191 n.s"., of at 8 w,v9;w Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Ann ..E... being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she is the Chief Clerk of THE RENTON RECORD- CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record- Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is a S horeline .':.pp as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of 2 consecutive issues, commencing on the 12.. day of .. J.uly ,19..78...., and ending the 19.. day of July 19.7 , both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of s1.8..32, which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundred words for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. V.P.C. Form No. 87 .Chiet...Clez1 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19 July 19 78 day of Notary ublic in and for the State of Washington, • residingft Kent, King County. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. VP i wum �;;s;RBypj'" —tzal,,,r�.r *^"!1EtNOH: a;wlio. iu tM, e; Jti' 12 sand �2" h url+ I D W. t . '*'r : xi 7 " LL t7 S� , � tul`�: city ;1,11Siflfe(1' i rl .. ti fa ` ' iw! � rai..,y D IC E f , ° 4�.; � Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING ss. Ann t, t%%Tby oath, deposes and says thatOhe.... is the .ChiC:..Ci.pr t o THE RENTON RECORD - CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4; times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now anc_ has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referrer:,, to, printed and published in the English language continually as a newslv . paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained; at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Rento,' <: Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of this'j CF1le% Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King Countyt ?, Washington. That the annexed is shoreline.. ; as it was published in regular issues (a not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a peril A∎ •• i11♦% , is ti of consecutive issues, commencing on tI j gi ,• 12 .. . . day of - jay ,19 . ...., and ending inc Co day of ... u �.V lusive, and that Such newspaper was r scribers during all of said period. Tha being first duly sworn on 1 grsp,, h charged for the foregoing publication ist; ;,a. ; O ;ApPL I C A T has been paid in full at the rate of per %;± 'FORT'S Rai first insertion and per folio of one hunli;,MANAGEi►�tEN.T insertion. �a` a -a 4 TANT Subscribed and sworn to before me this V.P.C. Form No. 87 Notary Pu . Chien . �lrrh. 19' til day of icon and for the State of Wash o , residing at Kent, King nty. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. Cz GnAc STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING V.P.C. Form No. B7 Affidavit of Publication ss. Subscribed and sworn to before me this J'1x 178 'ChteP "ClARNV. being first duly sworn on Ann t. 14�aiby oath, deposes and says that$he.... is the .Chic ;:..Clark of THE RENTON RECORD- CHRONICLE, a newspaper published four (4) times a week. That said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication referred to, printed and published in the English language continually as a news- paper published four (4) times a week in Kent, King County, Washington, and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That the Renton Record - Chronicle has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the County in which it is published, to -wit, King County, Washington. That the annexed is sh 7." as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplement form of said newspaper) once each issue for a period of 2 consecutive issues, commencing on the tQ • day of .. ,19 ..�...., and ending the 1. day of o v ,1978..., both dates incsive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its sub- scribers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $ , which has been paid in full at the rate of per folio of one hundrUd toilfds for the first insertion and per folio of one hundred words for each subsequent insertion. '9 day of Notary Publwin and for the State of Wash on, residing at Kent, King nty. — Passed by the Legislature, 1955, known as Senate Bill 281, effective June 9th, 1955. — Western Union Telegraph Co. rules for counting words and figures, adopted by the newspapers of the State. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - T:lAT PORTION OF THE W. H: GILLIAM DONATION LAND CLAIM N0.. 40 AND - CF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. M., AND OF GOVERNMENT LOT .1' IN ECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. s`., ALL IN KING t,:U?'TY, WASHINGTON, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. CjMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE SOUTH- EAST ALONG THE LINE COMMON TO SAID SECTION 24 AND 25, A DIS -- T.,NCE OF 110.30 FEET TO INTERSECTION WITH EASTERLY MARGIN OF JAMES Cr,RISTENSEN ROAD AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 °47' EAST 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °14' WEST 6.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 10 °34' WEST 47.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79 °2F' EAST 20.80 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE LEFT BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER; THENCE CONTINUING EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG THE BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER THE FOLLOW- ING COURSES AND DISTANCES; SOUTH SOUTH k,RTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH 13•: UTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH' SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH S'OJTH 5: UTH SOUTH 'd- i CH 33 °54'07 "EAsT 1.3.80 FEET; 78°22'29"EAsT 53.99 FEET; 86 °52 "EAST 50.09 FEET; 77 °54'28 "EAST 51.20 FEET; 85°06'39"EAsT 25.08 FEET; 82°50'31"EAsT 50.36 FEET; 43 °21'09 "EAsT 30:41 FEET; 29 °47'54 "EAST 57.80 FEET; 24°03'53"WEsT 54.63 FEET; 32°31'34"WEsT 59.10 FEET; 39 °40'01 "WEST 64.66 FEET; 29 °07'34 "WEST 34.24 FEET; 34 °31'52 "WEST 60.46 FEET; 13 °16'05 "WEST 51.30 FEET; 13 °48'40 "WEST 51.42 FEET; 00 °18'55 "WEST 40,00 FEET; 18 °27'46 "EAST 52.81 FEET; SOUTH SOUTH NORTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH 63 °07'11 "EAsT 69.32 FEET; 88°32'20"EAsT 50.01 FEET; 82 °20'44 "EAST .''.00.98 FEET; 64 °40 27 "EAST 55.46 FEET; 87°23'39"EAsT 25.02 FEET; 59 °34'16 "EAsT 57.80 FEET; 41 °40'19 "EAST 67.27 FEET; 3 °44'56 "WEST 50.09 FEET; 39 °19'22 "WEsT 64.34 FEET; 35 °18'26 "WEsT 61.03 FEET; 40 °00'29 "WEST 64.98 FEET; 31 ° 16'45 "WEST 23.32 FEET; 30 °51'21 "WEST 58.05 FEET; 15 °57'27 "WEST 51.92 FEET; 00 °38'22 "EAST 60.01 FEET; 07 °39'16 "EAST 50.49 FEET; 27 °57'17 "EAsT 17.29 FEET; IS 970.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 80 ° 47'WEST 366.02 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN THE SAID JAMES CHRISTENSEN ROAD; THENCE NORTH 00 °14' WEST 970.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 ?'71ETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE FORMER BED OF SAID GREEN RIVER ';.HICH FROM NATURAL ACTION OF ACCRETION WOULD ATTACH TO THE ABOVE :,ASCRIBED PORTION OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM. E`IEPT BOW LAKE PIPE LINE RIGHT - OF - WAY AS GRANTED PER INSTRUMENT rc:CORDED UNDER KING COUNTY AUDITOR'S FILE No. 4106155. TO A POII Sr's•TW:ETTEP I4VSTRIAS !noels opiA CO. AIL' 13.M Ac. ;DAGO. 11C. Tir • l'IC.0 1.11 Ac. O. PHIL S• I P1C1+APD HERS?. -..- PHIL nu e", J • TP1 LAID pcpc.y rir •■. & A.D. /WIZ S n 2 " lo.94,..,2;: 10.46 LAO AC. ca 1 11 is i■ CA'ST A4...ITT Last** 7AIE3 0 T 7 S;I:MTIOL 1 ;. AC. I A N D pws Am TO SIAM- 1 : I 3.13 M. 2 I V E R et:ICA/A. ELICTR1C CCII•Am I 1 INDU.:5 r A L C) P A R K 1 ,. 1 ,...... A.. rT nj a ;;;:;• .1 A:as TER G.011001A1:01 SEATTLE I 6:1 ' I I- • f V) t ;k ; Le°51114-,Z•rfr'il..::)i)."'Ij"; .'t1_47,;•Lr.•,151U7') A TI:! re....)1.ANCL S: 'ID '' 1.00 I Ac. .k9ED. :1 . .;.:7; RIAII.:( 1.20 Ac. ALPAC STRS3, • .. ... 4.. . R K \ .... I ... T -. N u • Pi . 1.65 As. 1. • cr21.: • a : AG. INTERSTATE AO6 I •t;•ati7,1 11:4143 114B KG., COKA0 t i 3.10k. t 1 1 1 I 1 .PARs. T.AR11 A.:2 C:TrPAlit 2.90 AC. e • L EY*1 - AT ••-•••• • 1.51 rt. .:-. • . •.' -• I INDUk £.50 k I i 3.20 Ac. 0 N P A , A.ANt A.. JR. A 25 C. 0 6.20 At A N 1 .. SAION CARPET Or AAT OCUSTRIES C. 1.30 F.C. 9 - air E BLVD • i • 1 A .t. 1 ; . , AACit 1 E. - ; -• 7 r ; - •LL t. :. CI •t/ , A ASATA0 • ....0•0•" • T. w•• - MOO wUrAr T • fiIJtt.A ;- DAVI fa, 14.441.1.:-'1• cjoaR.... movilo I. ! • .EPT• !Leo it. .3 J.? •c.1 0.73 A:. AKER 1;c. ! . AJTOMA:1C . PL. AC . Aim --------•- ‘ R67 TALS'T DS r • crr:s TPEST _, ,r,,, ,,,, DEPARTMENT s* '' X.1N D 0 ilf:,'? 0 \ 1.1 Ac. Pr.r • TRECK 7 • '.' i 41 ■V 4.; , 1 r..0:-...T.'.• ... .• • 1.-E . 1.74 A:. C11'4 1 :,r C• V D ,V .5' TRIAL ITS W..... :NM T : • 1 .4 N 0 C'. Pr A. PPr.o. 1. DR. ,1 ! A ); • • 3:11 AC. 1 A 7J J.IT:ch 5.IB At. • A r •••■• • 4 :: gc. • 1.15 At. • • - • • ^ ca 4 a. (F .. l ' s .::r•11.11CAL PPrrtErS - IT cT i'•ALr T 47r•• & TRANS \ . I \ A A iffIDUS TRA4 L. 4c,•;•,-. p, LAI Ac. \ \.,.....<-) P A R K `.. NC . 4 1 --,. - 7 •••011 jELL3 3 9\ : HPZI7g-S\ -2,1 ,,,,; N StArrLE. U. 'Ar"(P s : T .IC Fty • 1 63) 3, Ac. /3.97 re. ,•• SAZEA•CtO T2CcE,II 1 ) c .. . I , 0 1 • (43 .1 ' 5.17 Ac. . ?.C3 AC. t 1 1 wo• AC. 0 $.? 77 9 l 4 4A . . 1 : .• ill. ? CENTER ' C) • .ra .• AzA . • AJA"'Stt • I ASV: ri 1 N 1 , Alr.1 1 ' --. ' - '. - i r.„10:' 4.•• ' . i 1 C) I 1 1 cirr Cf Tutu's.* vim CUT OF nmilLA a C.4 ?(cry T. '13 OAT Ac. vii mogry C.00 Ac. •T 9 3,; 31 kr Istc. • 3. fl Ac. :rt Or room/ 0.00 Ac. - PROPOSED /OS /DEWAL A' CUT/L /TV EASEMENT 4O'Q /VEP ZONE BUFFEQSTP /P t ' Iry OF rukwILA)I 5 { i "7 Ns / r. e 1 H!. STOCK BA .4 PPDOX.NT 55 • tt STORM DRAIN COL LEC rop a y'cw-SITEONir.A.y 40 /NE FROM 000 /NAD H /ON AVATOP L /NE CONTLXJL M.H 1 RELOCA EX /ST TPA /L TO P /VEP BANK tot /97 N89`4 /'0O - tV 106.0. c/r) - OF T4/KW/LA (d /CENTENNIAL PAPA') to P a .. 'l Do —id EX /STING COTTPNO'OOO ODOVE OED /CATI )N FOP C/T ,pAPK" ,/ '" .<• 1 456_ ACRES " • NUA IEPOUS AWL/RE COTTON W000 TREES AGONO DIVED D4NA' TO BE PRESERVED 30' P/VEQ PROTECT /ON EA SEMENT(A' /NG COL4VTVf 61n. Per. 22 5!� t.0.' N.,A4M, 5Io•w Adel o S Add Fa. o Lino Fa. Shoe*. Girt Mimic 04.1LL SOUTHCENTER INVESTORS SHORT PLAT - - -- SITE PLAN TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Appl. No. - Receipt No. Filing Date r _ Hearing Date APPLICANT TO ANSWER ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS MEATLY AND ACCURATELY: Name Southcenter Investors Address 612 Hoge Building Seattle, Washington 98104 Telephone No. 623 -5626 Property Petitioned for variance is located on Christensen Road between Southcenter Parkway an d Strander Boulevard - Total square footage.in property 482,705 S.F. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF . PROPERTY . See attached. N/A APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Planning Commission Action City Council Action _ Ordinance No. & Date • Existing Zoning C -M -.., - • • - What are the uses you propose to develop on this property? Professional Office Use Number of permanent off - street parking spaces that will be provided on property? Number required NOTICE TO APPLICANT: The following factors are con- sidered in reclassifying property or modifying regula- tions. 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 requirements. 1. What provisions will be made to screen adjacent and surrounding property from r_n i.mcompatible effects which may arise as a result of the proposed land use classification N/A • 2. What provisions will be made to provide for necessary street widening to - City minimum standards? N/A 3. What provisions will be made for adequate sewer and water service? N/A Form B 4. Any other comments which the petitioner feels are appropriate: None 5. What hardship exists making this variance necessary? _ Awkward shaped jot with_ pq_sical boundary restraints. I, Morris Piha , being duly sworn, declare that I am the contract purchaser or owner of the property 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 best of xgy knowledge and belief. UTHCEN , E 4 VESTORS Subscribed and sworn before me this 12th d a y of July , 19 7 8 { f ' A t eX )k Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Bellevue AFFIDAVIT 612 jiocre Building (Mailing Address). Seattle, Washington 98104 (City) 623 -5626 Form C of Con ract Purchaser or owner) (Telephone) (State)