Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 78-44-W - CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA POND SENSITIVE AREA WAIVER78-44-w strander boulevard tukwila pond chartwell waiver Permit 78-44-W - CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA POND WAIVER 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Edgar Q Bauch, Mayor MEMORANDUM Zoning Ordinance Interpretation File/ Use Interpretation - CM Zone Kjell Stoknes, O.C.D. Director TMC 18.32 November 16, 1979 Allowance Of Retail Mall In CM Zone FINDINGS: 1. Preliminary Waiver to Ordinance No. 1035 was granted to Narod:Devetopment Corporation for a shopping center, offices, and hotel complex on the site, based upon it being in an area of constraint. (Interior mall included.) 2. On October 16, 1979, the City Council passed Resolution No. 656, setting 'forth.,specialdevelopmental guidelines on the property. Said resolution states that, "development proposals on the City Light site, - - -, require a waiver from Ordinance #1035, prior to the issuance of any permit authoriz- ing construction." No mention is made of a requirement for rezone based upon the type of use. In fact, the resolution encourages a compatible mix of office and retail uses. 3. Minutes of October 16, 1978, indicates that Narod felt the waiver was required since the site was zoned industrial and the comprehensive plan showed commercial. The City staff's position was that the project quali- fied for a waiver on both land use conflict and infringement on the pond. 4. Public comments by City staff in the City Council Minutes of October 23, 1978, on the Narod Development Corporation Preliminary Waiver, that the uses proposed by the development are consistent with present zoning (CM). 5. Waiver application form for Narod is only for natural constraints, not land use. 6. Waiver application was voted on by the City Council and approved. Council voted "YES" on criteria which states, "Do the requirements of this ordi- nance impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provi- sions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance and map ? ". 7. Narod bid on the property on the basis that the uses proposed in the waiver would be allowed on the property if consistent with Resolution No. 656. Chartwell Development Corporation and Don Koll Company bid on the property as well on the basis of the approved waiver and site plan. C C_ C. C.. Zoning Ordinance Interpretation File Page 2 Allowance Of Retail Mall In CM Zone November 16, 1979 8. Chartwell Development Corporation was the successful bidder on the property. 9. On December 18, 1978, Chartwell applied for a Preliminary Waiver Application for development of the pond for the same uses as Narod, though considerably more intense in terms of floor area versus ground area ratio. Site coverage of impervious surfaces is comparable, though Chartwell's proposal was significantly higher. Waiver application was for area of constraints only, not land use. 10. In discussions on the Chartwell waiver before the Council on January 8, 1979, staff representatives stated that a rezone from C -M to C -P would be required for the mall activity, as well as a conditional use permit for the hotels. 11. On January 15, 1979, the City Council approved a preliminary waiver for the Chartwell proposal on the basis of it being acceptable in an environmentally critical area sensitive area. The question of land use was not addressed. 12. On approximately September 6, 1979, the Director of Community Development, indicated to Chartwell that the CM zone could allow an enclosed retail mall, 13. On September 13, 1979, a written interpretation was prepared by the City staff to the affect that a CM zone only allowed one retail use per building, and that a retail mall was not an allowed use. Consequently, a rezone to CP would be required for the Chartwell Development. 14. C -1, C -2, and M -1, uses are allowed in the CM zone. C -1, C -2, and M -1, zones allowes " - -- -other than one of the following uses - - - ". The CM zone states that - - -" no bulding or land shall be used - -- for any purpose other than those permitted in C -1, C -2, or M -1 districts ---." This repre- sents a multiple use allowance rather than one use per building. 15. The difference of adding an enclosed mall is a structural and building con- cept, not a question of allowed use. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Actions to date seem to be inconsistent regarding whether or not the CM zone does or does not allow an enclosed mall as an allowed use. 2. The concept of a mall as a use is not valid since it is a structure rather than a use,and not a question pertinent to zoning interpretations. 3. Business centers without a mall are an allowed use by the action of the City. Example: Benaroya's Parkway Plaza near South 180th Street. and Southcenter Parkway. Zoning Ordina k InteLetation File Allowance Of Retail Mall In CM Zone DECISION: The interpretation dated 13 September 1979, that a shopping center /mall is not an allowed use in a CM zone. This interpretaion is reversed and in fact, is allowed in a CM zone based upon the analysis of this document. Kj Stoknes, .C.D. Director Date I have read the aforementioned interpretation. The interpretation rendered, herein, does lie within the authority of the O.C.D., Director, and appears to be reasonable. Larry Hard, City Attorney Date Page 3 November 16, 1979. !*?111244't120,-- I1 /777 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Edgar Q Bauch, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: Files 78 -44 -W, 79 -24 -BSIP FROM: Mark Caughey, Assistant Planner DATE: 13 September 1979 SUBJECT: SYNOPSIS OF STAFF /APPLICANT DISCUSSION - 11 September 1979 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHARTWELL PROPERTY APPLICANTS PRESENT: Kenneth Chauncey, President of Chartwell Development Company Graham Brawn, Planning Consultant Dr. Al Erickson, Biologist, University of Washington STAFF PRESENT: Kjell Stoknes, Mark Caughey - Tukwila O.C.D. The meeting was requested by Chartwell to discuss implications of the traffic circulation aspect of the Hayden Island BSIP decision of 6 September 1979. Dr. Erickson shared the following relative to potential impacts on wildlife of the City Light Pond if a 60' wide roadway is extended across the Chartwell south property line: Mr. Brawn observed that the roadway reservation requirement imposed on Hayden Island indicates an overlapping conflict of priorities which affects continued coordination of the design, economic, and environmental aspects of the Chartwell project. Is the traffic report upon which the Hayden Island decision is based a policy plan? Kjell affirmed that the traffic report is a policy plan the recom- mendations of which should be taken seriously. He noted that Terry Monaghan has not committed himself to a preferred solution for the super block bisection and that the burden of proof is on Chartwell to dispute the City plan's findings. Kjell stated his view that the pond should be a "people place" with a surrounding walking path designed to minimize disturbance to exist- -- The southerly edge, and s/w corner in particular are most critical areas of Chartwell site for wildlife preservation - i.e. nesting, roosting of shorebirds and shy water fowl. -- Noise, traffic will severely disrupt value of wildlife area. Memorandum Files 78 -44 -W, 79 -24 -BSIP Page 2 13 September 1979 ing wildlife, but is willing to accept displacement of more human - sensitive creatures if such a price is necessary to facilitate even limited public access. Dr. Erickson seemed to believe that continued use of the pond as a wildlife refuge and as a public- access facility are not mutually - exclusive objectives, subject to possible controls of the access privelege during certain critical seasons of the year. Kjell indicated that if the Hayden Island roadway is needed through the Chartwell site, he will support original waiver application standards relative to,sq. ft. build -out of the project. Kjell suggested that the appropriate forum in which to address the roadway issue is in context of the environmental analysis of the final waiver application. However, the burden of proof is on Chartwell.to'demonstrate that the subject bisecting road is not needed or that a more suitable alternative exists else- where. Chartwell should also negotiate the question of who will fund what part of the road improvements on the south boundary of their site, if needed. (Please type or print) CITY OF TUKVILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 1035 Permit applied for requiring a waiver: Date of Application: December 15, 1978 Name of Applicant: Chartwell Development Corporation Mailing Address: Suite 2800 - 555 West Hastings Street City: Vancouver, British Columbia Zip: V6B 4N6 Ownership Interest in Property: Finalizing purchase. Legal Descri•tion of Pro erty Affected: (See Attachment) General Location of Property: The property is located directly south of the Southcenter Shopping Center. It is bound on the east by Andover Park West and on the north by Strander Boulevard. 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1035 to which you are request- ing a waiver: See Attachment 2. Briefly and generally describe the action you are proposing, including demen- sional information about the development: See Attachment Phone: (604) 669 -1112 3. Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale? If so, please explain: See Attachment 4. Are other rcasona development alternatives ava able which would not require • a waiver? If so, what are these alternatives? See Attachment 5. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Base - map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint, what mitigat- ing measures are provided? See Attachment 6. What goals and policies can you identify which would support your request for waiver, if any? See Attachment 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of Ordinance #1035 impose a special hard- ship to a site which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map? See Attachment OWNER'S SIGNATURE: Kennp h J. Chauncey, P sident Chartwell Development Corporation BELOW THIS LINE IS TO BE FILLED IN BY THE CITY: Date application is complete and accepted for filing: Date SEPA review complete: -2- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AFFECTED: The property is legally described as follows: The southwest quarter (SW 1/4) of the northeast quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., King County, Washington, EXCEPT, the north 30 feet and the east 30 feet thereof, ALSO, Together with all of the seller's rights, title and interest in an easement for ingress and egress over the following described tracts: Beginning at the northwest corner of the northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., and running thence easterly along the northerly line thereof 20 feet; thence southerly parallel to the westerly line of said northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4, 20 feet; thence westerly parallel to the northerly line of said northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4, 20 feet to the westerly line of said northwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4; thence northerly along said westerly line 20 feet to the point of beginning; ALSO, The northerly 16 feet of that portion of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., lying easterly of Southcenter Parkway, formerly known as the Mess Bros. County Road; situate in the County of King, State of Washington. Subject to all easements, restrictions and encumbrances of record. 1. State specifically the action in Ordinance No. 1035 to which you are requesting a waiver: The Waiver is required under Section 3, Item No. 2 of Ordinance No. 1035 for: "Proposals for building, grading, clearing, excavation or filling which are located in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Basemap of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan as an area of constraint." .. 2. Briefly and generally describe the action you are proposing, including dimensional information about the development: The proposed action is development of a shopping center, offices and hotel complex focusing on a public boulevard/ natural pond. The concept recognizes the existing and anticipated land use context, providing a character which preserves and enhances the passive natural habitat features. The Site Plan, sections, and elevations depict the general nature and character of the proposal. Generally the proposals are for three storey department stores in the NW, NE and SE corners of the site, with retail shops on two levels connecting them. To the south and east of this 'L' shape will be terraced office and restaurant floors against a parking structure. The parking structure is located between the retail 'L' and these terraces. Above the terraces wit be two five - storey office buildings (75 feet x 150 feet approximately) benefiting from the view of the pond. Two hotels of 600 rooms approximately will be located on the NW and SE corners of the pond. An apartment hotel of 200 rooms will be located above office space adjacent to the boulevard to the north of the pond. Over 75 per cent of the parking will be in structures not visible from the streets or the pond. Traffic access will be provided by a four -lane boulevard connecting Strander Boulevard in the NW corner of the site and Andover Park West in the SE corner of the site. •v Delivery trucks will use this boulevard. Parking structures will be accessed off this boulevard and from two entrance exits on each of Strander and Andover Park West. The pond and wet lands are to be protected and enhanced. n 7.:) n ^:1t . . .4. 3, Does your proposal represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale? If so, please explain: The proposal is not insignificant in scale. The architectural concepts used, however, to enclose the parking with buildings and to reduce the scale of the walls of the shopping centre will significantly' reduce the apparent mass of the complex. Further, the boulevard and amount of pond wetland retained will enhance the presence of the pond and add a park setting to the overall industrial warehouse, shopping areas of the valley. The traffic patterns for the site recognise the need to ease the exit and egress of traffic onto and off the existing streets. 4. Are other reasonable development alternatives available which would not require a waiver. If so, what are these alternatives? No. The property has been designated an area in the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use. Policy Plan, and therefore any use requires a waiver. 5. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Base - map as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint, what mitigating measures are provided? The pond and the wetlands are a focus of the development. An island will be provided for nesting and feeding, and the ongoing planning will include a mitigation and manage- ment analysis to ensure a natural habitat. 6. What goals and policies can you identify which would support your request for a waiver, if any? The development proposals have been generated with cognizance of the City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use_Plan, and Resolution 656, the development guidelines of which are below. RESOLUTION 656: DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1. Surface runoff fr be channeled into devices and other maintain suitable 2. Encourage the pon particularly wate objective, the fo 3. Discourage the u site. Encourage amount of trucks surfaces and add peak volume peri a) b) c) Promote share roads, possib to the City. Encourage a uses on the Review all b compatibilit as for compa and waterfow m paved areas on the site should not the pond unless approved water filter measures are implemented in order to water quality for wildlife. environment to be used by wildlife, fowl. In order to accomplish this lowing policies should be implemented. a) Separate human access areas from prime feeding and nesting areas (see attached map for designation of these areas) . b) Separate the nesting area from the mainland (possibly create an isla d for nesting purposes). c) Future develo ment should setback from the edge of the pond. Ac•ess roads and parking areas should be setback also. d) Sufficient "ever" habitat should be retained in order to prov de the waterfowl with escape or hiding places (retai tree cover in southwest corner of site). e) Encourage vis al access to the pond. f) Monitoring of water quality should be done on a continual bas s. Measures must be taken to prevent eutrophicatio'. The pond must be maintained. e of trucks as a means of filling the fill to be brought by rail. A large delivering fill may cause damage to road to traffic congestion and hazard during ds. 4. Encourage the co.rdinated development of building sites on the City Ligh property. To accomplish this, implement the following: access points and internal circulation y built to city standards and dedicated mpatible mix of office and retail land 'te. ilding and site development plans for with surrounding developed areas, as well ibility with the objectives of wildlife enhancement. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL RESPONSE 1. This guideline is acceptable. At this time no decision has been made on channeling runoff into the pond. 2. a) Any human access through the wetlands will be landscaped with compatible physical forms and plant life to keep humans on the designated paths. b) An'island is proposed. c) This is proposed. d) This will be provided. e) The boulevard, the malls in the shopping centre, and the hotel and office complexes are oriented to the pond. f) Proposals will be made to the City on how to achieve this during the planning and design stages. 3. The parking structures are designed to use existing grades, thereby minimizing new fill delivery. Also, existing fill may be moved to other locations, thereby further reducing the need for additional fill delivery. 4. a) These are being proposed. b) This is proposed. c) This is proposed. 5. Concentrate grading and fill activities and site development activities which occur on or near the pond during the non - winter months of April - October, so as to minimize the adverse effects of construction activities on the use of the pond by waterfowl. Preference will be given to construction on piling. 6. Approximately one -third of the total area of the site should be retained in its natural state. 7. That area retained in its natural condition is to be located on the southeast portion of the site, generally between the southeast corner of the property and extending west to the southwest corner of the pond. 8. A major portion of the pond should be retained; the wildlife nesting and refuge areas on the southern portion of the site should be retained as well. . Visual and public access to the pond and natural areas from Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West should be encouraged. 10. Development plans, depicting the future utilization of the entire site, should be submitted at the time of waiver application review. Any proposal indicating less than full development of the entire site should contain, at a minimum, complete plans indicating treatment of the pond and adjoining wetland /wildlife areas. 5. The architectural concepts are related to the ability to phase construction to meet the intent of this guideline. 6. The area of the pond and wetlands. is 11 acres. 7. Generally respected. 8. This has been achieved. 9. This also has been achieved by the introduction of the boulevard. 10. See following under Development Proposals. 7. In your opinion, do the requirements of Ordinance No. 1035 impose a special hardship to a site which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map? No. The requirements of Ordinance No. 1035 would not impose a special hardship to the site because the proposed action would not necessitate a major policy commitment. The proposed development is in compliance with the existing zoning and the new comprehensive land . use designation. Signature Date 1.5 ap Q,yN '`t 1971 ' Ken'-th J. Chaunc resident Chartwell Development Corporation «.` ��: LIST OF DRAWINGS Location Plan Site Plan Parking and Traffic Flow Retail Mall Sections /Elevations ARCHITECT:• Graham Brawn, Architect ASSOCIATED Jim Paul, Balzhiser, Longwood, ARCHITECTS: Smith, Paul & Associates Aitken, Bozyk . ..;':' t; c : �r K::: r'F't? "iq`:s�wi:�.;:t:-i.'r �,,.;'Z'7a,.. RETAIL PARKING B OFFICES HOTEL C- I Undeveloped ANDOVER PARK WEST • i ) ••• • •• • • 8 0 • 1� k7 1 1 1 � • 'l. 1 • 0 CAJd 0 Q Gz r p O (Du i0 CJ cop CJ 0 nOO� O Q (Rainier l3,nkiboubletree Inn (proposed) II Office Building (proposed) o 7)-(33° ` zO o o o6 13 ° � O ALU S UN 4 8 ° 00 88 0 1+= i I • • • • 0 0 ° © 0 ■ • • • • i1 • M • • • • • `[7 OQ A &a dj 0 if cc ' 0 o o � �( 0 � . o ° O 0 .1. °0° • N O f a I o` SITE PLAN f a north 0 100 200 feet 0 N 0 0 l a* I Southcenter Shopping Mall �:ANDER lia I. 0 BLVD ' 1 1D I; 'Allied Stores Distribution Centre 'Office Building ■_Q_l r QA1• Ii I I - - - J - - -- �_ :... , ■ .. , ■ .... ■ ■ .... ■ • moor .nnnuunn0nnu I, ?fnnn in • 7 C. C. 0 H v u 0 CG Undeveloped • ANDOVER PARK WEST 1111111111101111111111111111110 unnunIUn II 1•Mn1m1nmmnnwn , ,.,.......... 1 • 1 Mn ttmte L_ .:3 retail 11111111111111 offices 1011111 people . mover u Rainier BankllDoubktree Inn (proposed) ilOffice Building (proposed) RETAIL.. MALL nort 0 100 200 feet . (Offices SECTION A A section aa RETAKE 0 PREVIOUS DOCUMENT 7'',7 -r 7^T 7 ". . a bit . 'Offices SECTION A A I Offices t� I OEM WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO ti 6 CITY OF TUKWI A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY LIGHT SITE, A SITE DEPICTED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN MAP AS AN AREA REQUIRING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSI- DERATIONS. COUNCIL ACTION WHEREAS, development proposals on the City Light site, generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West, require a waiver from Ordinance #1035 prior to the issuance of any permit authorizing construction; WHEREAS, the City Light site is presently for sale by sealed bid and several potential bidders have inquired as to the development potential of the • property; WHEREAS, in order to cooperate with these potential bidders, the City Council desires to develop uniform guidelines for the future development of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: That based on the information obtained from the Environmental Impact. Statement on the City Light property, certain mitigating measures should be imposed on development proposals to reduce the potential adverse environmental impacts of development. Also, using the policy direction of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan, the following guidelines are hereby adopted in order to provide direction for the future development of the City Light site: 1. Surface runoff from paved areas on the site should not be chan- neled into the pond unless approved water filter devices and other measures are implemented in order to maintain suitable water quality for wildlife. 2. Encourage the pond environment to be used by wildlife, particularly waterfowl. In order to accomplish this objective, the following policies should be implemented: a. Separate human access areas from prime feeding and nesting areas (SEE, attached map for designation of these areas). b. Separate the nesting area from the mainland (possibly create an island for nesting purposes). c. Future development should setback from the edge of the pond. Access roads and parking areas should be setback also. d. Sufficient "cover" habitat should be retained in order to provide the waterfowl with escape or hiding places. (Retain tree cover in southwe( corner of site.) e. Encourage visual access to the pond. f. Monitoring of water quality should be done on a continual basis. Measures must be taken to prevent eutrophication. The pond must be maintained. 3. Discourage the use of trucks as a means of filling the site. Encourage fill to be brought in by rail. A large amount of trucks delivering fill material may cause damage to road surfaces and add to traffic congestion and hazard during peak volume periods. 4. Encourage the coordinated development of building sites on the City Light property. To accomplish this, implement the following: a. Promote shared access points and internal circulation roads, possi- bly built to city standards and dedicated to the City. b. Encourage a compatible mix of office and retail land uses on the site. c. Review all building and site development plans for compatibility with surrounding developed areas, as well as for compatibility with the objectives of wildlife and waterfowl enhancement. S. Concentrate grading and fill activities and site development activi- ties which occur on or near the pond during the non - winter months of April - Octo- ber so as to minimize the adverse effects of construction activities on the use of the pond by waterfowl. Preference will be given to construction on piling. 6. Approximately one -third of the total area of the site should.be retained in its natural state. 7. That area retained in its natural condition is to be located on the southeast portion of the site, generally between the southeast corner of the pro- perty and extending west to the southwest corner of the pond. 8. A major portion of the pond should be retained; the wildlife nesting and refuge areas on the southern portion of the site should be retained as well. 9. Visual and public access to the pond and natural areas from $trander Boulevard and Andover Park West should be encouraged. 10. Development plans, depicting the future utilization of the entire site, should be submitted at the time of waiver application review. Any proposal indicating less than full development of the entire site should contain, at a mini- mum, complete plans indicating treatment of the pond and adjoining wetland /wildlife areas. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular meeting thereof this l4 day of Ap.roved as to form: ATTEST: D-puty City Attorney 2 Mayor (0c71 ei 4da.e2 rot) • 1978. OFFICES THROUGHOUT CANADA • 'MAILING ADDRC55 P.0.50K 111 ;!!,ROYAL CENTRE 1055 WEST GEORGIA STREET VANCOUVER,BRITISII COLUMIIA,CANADA Vet 3R2 95777 COOPERS & LYBRAND LIMITED 742/80 'TRUSTEES, RECEIVERS, UOUIOATORS • NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO CREDITORS (SEC. 28(33)) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TELEPHONE 16041662.7521 20r^ FLOOR,THE ROYAL SANK OFrICE TOWER 1065 WEST GEORGIA STREET VANCOUVERSRITI$H COLUMBIA ,CANADA VSE 3R2 ar. CABLE ADDRESS. COLTSRAND,VANCOUVER,S.C. TELEX: 04.507630 Take notice that Chartwell Development Corporation, of the City of West Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, has ,lodged with us a proposal under the Bankruptcy Act. A copy of the debtor's proposal, a condensed statement of its assets and liabilities and a list of the creditors affected by the proposal and whose claims amount to twenty -five dollars or more are enclosed herewith. A general meeting of the creditors of the debtor will be held at the Robson Square Media Centre, 800 Robson Street (corner of Robson .and Hornby Streets), Vancouver, B.C. on the 23rd day of January 1981, at the hour of 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. The creditors or Any class of creditors qualified to vote at the meeting may by special resolution accept the proposal made by the debtor either as made or as altered or modified at the meeting. If so accepted and if approved by the Court the proposal is binding on all the creditors or the class of creditors affected. Proofs of claim, proxies and voting letters intended to be used at . the meeting must be lodged with us prior thereto. DATED AT Vancouver, British Columbia this 8th day of January 1981. COOPERS,& -L(BRJ DD LIMITED, TRUSTEE : Craig G. Bushell IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. 4 • ;- .! IN BANKRUPTCY IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a body corporate with head office at 2800 - 555 West Hastings Street, in the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, and carrying on business in British Columbia and in the State of Washington, in the United States of America PROPOSAL DATED as of the 17th day of December, 1980. Chartwell Development Corporation, the-above -named debtor, hereby submits the following Proposal under the Bankruptcy Act: 1. That payment of secured creditors shall be made in the . following manner: Claims of secured creditors be paid in accordance with existing contracts, as may be arranged or satisfied with secured creditors, or a secured creditor may elect to realize on its security. 2. That preferred creditors shall be paid in priority as directed by the Act and payment shall be provided for as follows: Preferred claims, with interest from October 15th, 1980, to be paid in full, secured for payment, settled or otherwise satisfied in priority to all claims of unsecured creditors. • - 2 3. That the assets of the Company shall vest in the Trustee named in this Proposal as a bare trustee provi 3ed however that such vesting shall only be for the purpose of securing that the terms of this Proposal are carried out. 4. That provision for payment of all proper fees and expenses of the Trustee and legal and other consulting fees for preparing and presenting the Proposal and of fees and expenses for the Trustee and legal fees (including those of the Company) incidental to the proceedings arising out of the Proposal, shall be made in the following manner: All such fees, expenses, liabilities and obliga- tions shall be paid in priority to the claims of all preferred and unsecured creditors. 5. That all persons who advance money, goods, services or credit to the Company after the date of the filing of this Proposal, shall be paid in full in priority, to existing preferred creditors and unsecured creditors. 6. That Coopers Lybrand Ltd. shall be the Trustee in this Proposal. 7. That unsecured creditors shall be paid in full, plus interest, on their proven claims on or before June 30th, 1981, and such payment as provided herein shall constitute full and complete satisfaction of any and all claims against the Company. 8. That Interest payable under this Proposal shall be payable from October 15th, 1980 and at a rate of prime GDMIS /B /2 plus Two Percent (2 %) per annum as charged by the Royal Bank of Canada, at Vancouver, British Columbia, from time to time. 9. The Trustee, under the direction and control of the Inspectors, and with the advice and assistance of the company shall sell the Assets of the company on an orderly basis. 10. That the creditors shall elect five Inspectors to act on their behalf. Such Inspectors shall have the powers and duties of Inspectors pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act and as provided for herein. GDMIS /B /3 - 3 The net proceeds (being the total sale price less sales commission, adjustments at the time of sale and existing registered encumbrances) of the sales of assets shall be applied as follows: (a) firstly, to secured creditors pursuant to paragraphs 1 hereof; (b) secondly, to those who provided money, goods, or . services to the Company for payments required by paragraph ,5 hereof; (c) thirdly, for costs relating to this Proposal pursuant to paragraph 4 hereof;' (d) fourthly, to the preferred creditors pursuant to paragraph 2 hereof; (e) fifthly, pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 of this Proposal. GDMIS /B /4 4 IMP 11 The Trustee. under the direction and control of the Inspectors, and with the advice and assistance of the company on behalf of unsecured creditors, shall have r' ght and power to attack any preferential payment or fraudulent conveyance under any applicable law and may avail itself of any remedy under any fraudulent preference, reviewable transaction, or settlement under any law that a going concern operating under a Proposal may avail itself or under any provisions of the Act in like manner as if the Company had made an assignment pursuant to the Act as of October 15th, 1980. 12. The Trustee, under the direction and control of the Inspectors, and with the advice and assistance of the company shall review the affairs of the Company for the purposes of determining the validity or otherwise of claims or causes of action by or against the Company and the Company may prosecute or defend any such claim or cause of action if such action is thought to be in the best interests of tiib Company and its creditors. 13. That the Trustee and the Inspectors, and employees, shall be exempt from personal liability in the fulfilling of any duties or exercising any powers conferred upon them by this Proposal, or generally, in the carrying out of the terms of this Proposal except for any wilful and wrongful act, default or neglect. 14. That this Proposal may be amended by the Company with the consent of the Trustee at any time prior to or at the meeting of creditors called to consider same, provided that any such amendment shall be in the interests of the creditors. 15. That the Trustee, under the supervision and direction of the Inspectors, shall have -the right to exercise all of the powers vested in a Trustee under Sectios 12, 14, 15 and 16, of the Act and in particular, without in any way restricting the generality of the foregoing, the Trustee with the approval of the Inspectors shall have the right to incur obligations, borrow money and give security on any of the free property of the Company, by mortgage, hypothec, charge, assignment or otherwise; such obligations and money borrowed to be discharged or repaid with interest out of the property of the Company in priority to the claims of creditors, and to make the transfers, settlements, compromises, set -offs, and offsets contemplated in this Proposal. 16. That default hereunder shall be deemed to have occurred if the requirements of paragraphs 7 and 8 hereof are not met by June 30th, 1981; provided, however; that the Inspectors shall have the right to postpone, vary the amount of or defer fulfillment of such requirements or payments, provided such postponement, variation or deferment is deemed by them to be in the best interests of the creditors and of the Company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the corporate seal of the Company was hereunder affixed in the presence of its proper officers in that behalf this /7 day of Gr , 19 f4) The Corporate Seal of CHARTWELL ) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION was ) hereunto affixed in the presence ) of: ) L, ii ) t/ ) ) w ) ) I'.,,n! No. M — Statement of Affairs ke.ised July, 1970 1N THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL. OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION To the Proposer: You are required to complete carefully and accurately this sheet and such of the several sneets attached 1 9898 0 S s are ap completed showing the oath day of December 1 0 St wen omlet 1. Unsecured creditors as per List "A" 2. Secured creditors as per 'List "II" a. Liabilities on bills or notes endorsed or given for accommodation as per List "C" Of which it is expected will rank against the estate for dividend 4. Preferred creditors as per List "D 6. Contingent or other liabilities as per List 'E" estimated to rank for . . . - . Total liabilities Surplus MAUI LITI ES (as stated and estimated by debtor) 1. Kenneth J. Chauncey . of the of iancouver i the Province of British Columbia make oath and say (lint the above statement and the several lists hereunto annexed and marked "A" to "11" ioctal'vety CaT tweltloiev k el opmen TI poi ati f true and complete statement of h . tre affairs/ on the i day of January 19 81 , and fully disclose all its. property of every description in its possession and in reversion as defined by Section 47 of the Bankruptcy Act. , City SWORN before inc nt the of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia this _ 7th day of Jan. 1 9 81 A (bntotissinnrt etc.. or A Notary and for the Province of Bri t i sh C r its mbia. STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS (Sec. 129) MARK S. K"l_LY $ 957,735.00 $ 219,429.07 Nil $ Nil $ 31,252.81 $ Nil $ 1208,416.88 /2934,554.12 City SIGN ATIURE OF PROP9SIiR a !13000. 1055 WL'■1 C. Uttc;1A VANCOUVER, O.C. VGC 3R3 687 -6575 (a) (b) (c) If Proposer is a Corporation, add: Amount of capital subscribed A nt paid thereon Balance subscribed and unpaid Est' tell to produce Total Assets Deficiency A SSETS (as stated and estimated by I:ebtor) Stock -in -Trade nt cost price not exceeding fair markct value Trade Fixtures, fittings, utensils, etc. ... Book Debts, etc., as per List "F" Good Doubtful Bad .. .. Estimated to produce ... . Bills of exchange, promissory notes, etc., ns List "Fl" .. . Cnsh in clank of . . . Cnsh on Hand Livestock Machinery, equipment and plant Real Estate as per List "G" Estimated Value of securities in hands of secured creditors Furniture . . Life policies Stocks and shares . Reversionary or other interests under will Other property, viz.:— Dye P. nurhim I1m11MA — rr.fnnfn r*ni.f. •. Pr.ntets Ii, the I..q;I Prnfn;unn Form Ito. szr. 70,000.00 $� • per $ $ $ Nil 4 i. $ Nil $ 50,000.00 $ 272,971.00- $ $ $ $ 20,000.00 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 300,000.00 $ Nil Nil Nil $ 3500,000.00 Nil Nil $ Nil It142,�71.00 $ NO. NAME ADORES ` AMOUNT or CIM 1. ABC Cassidy Co. 2323 Quebec St., Vancouver, B.C. V5T 3A3 36.00 2. Airborne Freight 190 Queen Ave., N., P.U. Box 662 . . Seattle, Washington 98111 U.S.A. 25.00 3. 4 All Star Del 7342 Winston St., Vancouver, B.C. V5A 2H1 :. .. 40.00 . .. .,' . 5. Antonini 1310 East 12th Ave., Vancouver, B.C. V5N 1Z9 12,381.00 6. Aprok #2938A -224th St., R.R. #1, Langley, B.C. V3A 4P4 2,920.62 7. B.C. Industries 960 Richards St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4M4 387.61 8. B.C. Telephone Company P.O. Box 6767, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4L6 2,654.05 9. Bollman Roof , .µ 1696 Booth Ave., Coquitlam; B..0 V3K 1B9 52,361.35 10. Brown, Graham '' 101 - 1650 Alberni, Vancouver, B. C. V6G 181 40,288.55 '11. Builders World 16659 Fraser Hwy., Surrey, B.C. V3S 2X6 43,745.19 12. Burgess Austin & Assoc. #1160 -625 Howe St., Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2T6 937.15 13. Burke Concrete P.O. Box 65989, Vancouver, B.C. V5N 5L4 235.12 14. Camosun Electric 8 Devonshire Commerce Park, 831 Devonshire Rd. Victoria, B.C. V9A 4T5 4,349.77 15. Campney Murphy Box 49190, 595 Burrard, Van., B.C. V7X 1K9 946.79 16. Canwest Steel 13280 Mitchell Rd., Richmond,' B.C. V6V 1MB 16,340.90 17. Chauncey, Ken. . 1220 Heywood, N. Vancouver, B.C. V7L 1H4 13,892.43 18. Coast Steel F Ltd. 7950 Venture St., Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1V4 160,559.46 19. Columbia Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 3845 William St., Burnaby, B.C. V5C 3J1 400.00 20. Commercial Truck Co. Ltd. . P.O. Box 1219, Coquitlam, B.C. V3J 6Z9 1,554.12 21. Cooper Horowitz Inc. 342 Madison Ave., New York, NY. 10173 U.S.A. 35,612.00 22. CPI . 2282 Alpha Avenue, Burnaby, B.C. V5C 5L6 1,460.66 23. Cross Construction Co. P.O. Box 8,. Renton, Washington, U.S.A. 1,342.58 24. Crown Building Maintenance 4415 West 12th Ave., Vancouver, B..0 V6R 2R3 350.00 25. Demco Industries Ltd. 11819 Tannery Road, Surrey, B.C. V3V 3W8 13,428.45 26. Design Space P.U. Box 1400, Stn. A., Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2P7 48.72 • January 7 `,poled, 19 , 81 • • " Unsecured Creditors ' t..1.s/ %s o.Ntf.ro 1,611 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTNELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIOrhe names to be arranged in alphabetical order and numbered consecuti.•.ly.) Fono N.. 521 c : ............ ., o n __ NO. NAME ADORES! AMOUNT O/ CLAN • 27. Egdom Industries Ltd. 9704 River Road, Delta, B.C. 411.00 28. Fabrikeh Construction Supply Ltd. 1258 Francis St., Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1Z5 _ 297.70 29. Fiber -Cann Ltd. 2544 Barnett Hwy., Port Moody, B.C. V3H 1W3 24.53 30. Fraser Valley Aggregates Ltd. #17341 -56th Ave., Surrey, B.C. V3S 1C2 448.88 31. . Freeman & Co. . 16th F1. -1030 W. Georgia, Vanc., B.C. V6E 3C4 6,089.76 32. FVA (Fraser Valley Aggregates Ltd.) #17341 -56th Ave., Surrey, B.C. V3S 1C2 299.85 33. G & G Bulldozing 846 Greenfield Or., Richmond, B.C. V7A 4N6 622.00 34. Gastaldo Concrete Ltd. 211 Ewen Ave., New Westminster, B.C. V3M 563 8,101.41 35. General Paint & Wallcoverings 950 Raymur Ave., Vancouver, B.C. V6A 3L5 16,227.11 . 36. Glotman, Martin • , #305 -1008 Homer St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B 2X1 5,480.00 37. Grace, W.R.• `' 294 Clements Rd. W., Ajax, Ontario L1S 3C6 3,370.35 38. Grand & Toy Ltd. 222 S.W. Marine Dr., Vancouver, B.C. V5X 2R5 234.13 39. Grinnell Fire Protection Systems • P.U. Box 2004, Main P.O., Vanc., B.C. V6B 3P8 62,280.00 40. Harbord Ins #850 -999 W. Hastings, Vanc., B.C. V6C 2W2 865.00 41. Harbour Airlines P.O. Box J, Oak Harbour, Wash., 98277 U.S.A. 37.19 42. Hardy & Associates (1978) Ltd. 4052 Graveley, Burnaby, B.C. V5C 3T6 1,804.75 43. Henfry & Co. 7th F1. -1284 W. Pender, Vanc., B.C. V6E 481 8,694.25 44. Hi -Reach Mobile Platforms Ltd. 2338 Madison Ave., Burnaby, B.C. V5C 4Y9 4,598.00 45. 46. Hilti Canada Limited • Imperial Parking • 99 Glidden Rd., Bramalea, Ontario L6T 2J2 P.O. Box 2139, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3T8 3,294.23 990.00 47. Johnston's Terminals Limited P.O. Box 5300, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4B6 98.93 48. Journal of Commerce Limited P.O. Box 34080, Stn. 0, Vancouver, B.C. V6J 4M8 125.00 49. KOH Holdings Ltd. #31 -448 Seymour St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3H3 20.52 50. Kellie Construction Supply Ltd. #13140 -88th Ave., Surrey, B.C. V3W 3K3 17,366.90 51. Keystone Plumbing &.Heating Contractors 31844 Viewcrest Ave., Mission, B.C. V2V 4H9 718.50 52. L & S Masonry, 602 Lidster Place, New West., B.C. V3L 5E2 5,500.00 53. Langfield, Ed 1843 Western Dr., Port Coq., B.C. V3C 2X4 2,355.00 54. Langley Pre Hung Doors Ltd. #201- 20771. #10 Hwy., Langley, B.C. V3A 5E8 939.12 • ;•t , $.al. • • • // R..li./ S.p'...Ir.t. 1 61 • N► • IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF Unsecured Creditors CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIOtkhe names to be arranged in alphabetical order and numbered consecutiv:ly.) January 7 ,,, Onh& Uwh.+ La+iw HU sump owe. JsP.nr FwR U..321 • NO. NAME AOORES! 1 , , ,. AMOUNT OF CLAIM • 55. Lee Mar Industries Ltd. 2707 Mountview Place, Burnaby, B.C. V3J 1E5 1,948.00 56. Malcolm Campbell & Son Ltd. 1248 Franklin St., Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1K1 780.00 57. Malkin & Pinton Industrial Supplies 325 East 5th Ave., Vancouver, B.C. V5T 1H6 798.64 58. Master Charge P.O. Box 8700, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4V9 4,634.06 59. . McBride, G. • 875 Fairmile Rd., W. Vancouver, B.C. V7S 1R4 222,907.60 60. McElhanney Surveying & Engineering Ltd. #200 -1200 W. Pender St., Vanc., B.C. V6E 2T3 4,140.16 61. McGregor & Thompson Hardware Ltd. 1250 E. Georgia, Vancouver, B.C. V6A 2B1 3,629.19 62. Mid Valley Lumber Ltd. 20205 Fraser Hwy., Langley, B.C. V3A 4E7 1,736.17 63. Monks, Dave c/o Chartwell, Box 12128 -555 W. Hastings • Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N6 622.00 64. Much & Time 1225 No. 2 Rd., Richmond, B.C. V7E 2G4 3,066.10 65. Murray Door #12387 -84th Ave., Surrey, B.C. V3W 5Y5 21.84 66. Nabel Leasing Inc. Box 11537 -650 W. Georgia, Vanc., B.C. V6B 4R9 116.19 67. O'Brien Press Ltd. 610 Helmcken St., Vancouver, B.C. V6B 2E9 210.41 68. Ocean Cement Ltd. 8955 Shaughnessey St., Vanc., B.C. V6B 3W6 22,442.66 69. Office Overload Box 11578 -650 W. Georgia, Vanc., B.C. V68 4N8 38.50 70. OK Paving Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 1324, Victoria, B.C. V8W 2W3 2,513.28 71. OK Trucking Co. Ltd. P.U. Box 1324; Victoria, B.C. . V8W 2W3 6,672.97 72. Pac NW Bell. • Seattle, Washington 91.05 73. Paul's Inc. '' - 5385 Heathdale Crt., Burnaby, B.C. V5C 2H5 bb0.25 74. Phillips Barratt 2236 W. 12th Ave., Vancouver, B.C. V6K 2N7 7,752.62 75. Pitney Bowes 3157 Grandview Hwy., Vancouver, B.C. V5M 2E9 47.58 76. 77. PK Building Supplies • Plycap 18981 -88th Ave., Surrey, B.C. V3S 4P1 475 Clark Dr., Vancouver, B.C. V5L 3N5 266.03 39.26 78. Polycrete 1315 Elinor Crs., Port Coq., B.C. V3C 2Y3 900.00 79. Port Moody Propane #2 -7371 Montecito Dr., Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1R4 284.34 80. PPG 2282 Alpha, Burnaby, B.C. V5C 516 1,460.66 81. Purolator P.U. Box 3201, Seattle,' Wash., 98114 U.S.A. 17.00 • tedsed Sepieraloor, 1161 •IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIOeihe names to be arranged in alphabetical order and numbered consecuti.•:ly.) 11 -a -.1 January 7 19 81 Unsecured Creditors ' Fein No. S }S N0. NAME • ADDRESS , : • AMOUNT OOP CLAM 82. 83. Purves Ritchie Red Carpet • 503 E. Pettder St., Vancouver, B.C. V6A 1V4 1415 Venables St., Vancouver, B.C. V5L 2G1 223.00 308.46 84. Regency Caterers 1017 W. King Edward, Vanc., B.C. V6H 1Z3 542.90 85. Renfrew Rope & Canvas Ind. Ltd. 1283 Renfrew St., Vancouver, B.C. V5K 4C2 569.92 86. Richmond Metal Ltd. 829 Moody St., New West., B.C. V3M 1H9 6,484.00 • 87.. ' Ritewiay Rental Ltd. 1881 Lougheed Hwy., Port Coq., B.C. V3B IA5 11,859.37 88. Rondale 11947 -95A Ave., Delta, B.C. V4C 3W1 222.72 89. Rowan, Tom #203 -4675 Valley Dr., Vancouver, B.C. V6J 4B7 350.84 90. Royal City 711 Carnavon St., New West., B.C. V3M 1E6 419.83 91. Ryan Swanson 3201 Bank of California Ctr., Seattle Washington 98164 U.S.A. 10,872.97 92. Safeguard Business Systems Limited 24 Bunting St., Winnipeg, Man. R2X 2P6 116.43 93. Sealrite Caulking 4760 Eastridge Rd., N. Vancouver, B.C. V7G 1K4 4,450.00 94. Sears 2820 Underhill Ave., Burnaby, B.C. V5A 3C5 5.71 95. Shanahan's Limited #8400 -124th St., Surrey, B.C. V3W 6K1 564.00 96. Shorrett & Reily 1040 Washington Bldg., Seattle, Wash. 98101 88.00 97. Ski -Hi Scaffolding Ltd. 2338 Madison Ave., Burnaby, B.C. V5C 4Y9 65.16 98. Sleightholm Electrical Contracting Ltd. c/o McFarlane•& Co., 960 Howe Street . Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 1N9 20,597.00 99. Smithrite Disposal Ltd. - 1801 East Keith Rd., N. Vancouver, B.C. V7J 1J8. . 952.25 100. Spearhead Automotive & Industrial Supplies 250 Terminal Ave., Vancouver, B.C. V6A 224 62.58 101. 102. Star Mechanical Steel Bros. of Canada Ltd. • #2 - 7257 Kingsway, Burnaby, B.C. V3E 1G5 #215 -10451 Shellbridge Way, Rmd., B.C. V6X 2W8 15,537.65 12,817.19 103. Steeplejack Services Ltd. 5558 Short St., Burnaby, B.C. V5J 1L9 7,358.87 104. Stewart Clark P.O. Box 7060, Seattle, Wash., 98133 350.00 105. Suntex Canada Limited 4315 Canada Way, Burnaby,•B.C. V5G 1J3 180.00 106. Tempo 20 1 331 Andover Park E., Seattle, Wash., 98188 408.80 107. Tidy Car #4711 -57th St., Ladner, -B.C. V4K 4A5 a •S• 60.00 • Ii Unsecured Creditors • te•1se1 Sgaa1wr,19" .IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION_ he names to be arranged in alphabetical order and numbered consecuti♦ .Iy.) Firm Ho. 5Z Dated January 7 19 81 /)• , �j / ll` %1L/ NO. NAME • ADDRESS 1 ' . .• AMOUNT O/ CLAIM 108. Timberline Leasing Ltd. 845 Marine Dr., N. Vancouver, B.C. V7P 1R7 268.52 109. Tomeson'Saunders Whitehead Limited 200 Granville St., Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2B1 4,449.00 110. Trans Canada Glass 5471 Imperial St., Burnaby, B.C. V5J 1E5 3,847.70 111. Tyee 503 East 3rd St., N. Vancouver, B.C. V7L 1G4 970.08 112. Tyee Office Products 503 East 3rd St., N. Vancouver, B.C. V7L 1G4 407.52 113.' Urban Sawing & Grooving Company Ltd. 328 E. Esplanade, N. Vancouver, B.C. V7M 1L4 727.50 114. Weiss Industries Ltd. #3 -17930 Roan Place, Surrey, B.C. V3S 2B3 4,029.00 115. Western Reproducers Ltd. 514 Hornby St., Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2E7 28.34 116. Xerox of Canada 1333 W. Georgia, 9th Fl., Vanc., B.C. V6E 3K8 2,151.50 . ,.•• 957,735.00 • t • • • • • • • 19 81 January 7 Revised S.p s s,. 1,6* •IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIO he names to be arranged in alphabetical order and numbered consecuth;ly.) Unsecured Creditors • F«o Ns. 371 NO, 1 . NAME ADDRESS AMOUNT OF CLAIM • PARTICULARS OF SECURITY WHEN GIVEN ESTIMATED VALUE OF•• • SECURITY ESTIMATED SURPLUS FROM SECURITY BALANCE. OF CLAIM UNSECURED Bank of Montreal • • 595 Burrard Street Vancouver, B.C. • 219,429 07 • . R..I..i Sgr•.IL.r, 196 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DuleJ January 7 • 19 81. " Secured Creditors Mohan Cu L I.ufo!, 1W K1 iwr that r.1•** Form N•. 529 Signature of Proposer I Revised S[p1•.ltit. 1161 •IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTIVELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Doted January 7 NCI, Liabilities on Bills or Notes Endorsed or Given for Accommodation 19 81. • Signature of Proposer, NO. ACCEPTOR R NAME OF A OR MAKENE ADDRESS DATE *NEN DUE AMOUNT --- MOLDER'S NAME AND ADDRESS r- -- - - T ••OUNT [[r[CT[O TO Aim[ AAAINlt t TTT[ DIVIDEND OR C. .........mm ! _ • . - . .. N 00 NIL S t C. :(..T7• I Revised S[p1•.ltit. 1161 •IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTIVELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Doted January 7 NCI, Liabilities on Bills or Notes Endorsed or Given for Accommodation 19 81. • Signature of Proposer, —1 - -- R..1..1 Septifialost. 1901 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF "CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION January 7 19 81 Preferred Creditors for Wages, Rent, efc. 1 'Oro e. Ouwh'm CO 1.0'.I,d. 151 Brill, Onvt TOIOnl° F.I In V e. 531 G. .1 /l1f1(' e`+ F.s .'_' "_ Tetta,7,ws:2 ._'-wti4 _ ltiliX: -i%7 Mat;. ",�-"°��-Sas. -•...a ti . n • NO. NAM! Ot• C11l OITO11 ADORESSANDOCCUPATION NATunEorcLmm PERIOD DURING , WHICH CLA14 AMOUNT OI ACCRUED CLAIM — ---I 1 AMOUNT VAT. *I7LE IN FULL �� DIFrEnENCE RANAI•IG DIVIDEND FOR ,a_•Mov 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . - -- B.C. Hydro Carpenters Fund Cement Masons City of Vancouver Harbour Centre Labourers Medical & Benefit Plan of B.C. Port of Tacoma Workers' Compensation -Board of B.C. 970 Burrard Street Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 1Y3 #14 -2806 Kingsway Vancouver, B.C. V5R 5V1 #202-1053 Kingsway ° Vancouver, B.C. V5V 3C9 City Hall East Wing 453 West 12th Avenue' Vancouver, B.C. Box 12050, Harbour Ctr. 555 West Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N4 1 West 7th Avenue Vancouver, B.C. V5Y 1L5 P.O. Box 1837 Tacoma, Washington 98401 5755 Heather Street . Vancouver, B.C. I "• s ' I 1 $ I 456 93 2,349 �0 2, I9 1 176 7 2,934 7,766 #2 1,441 3,920 '1 ■ —1 - -- R..1..1 Septifialost. 1901 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF "CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION January 7 19 81 Preferred Creditors for Wages, Rent, efc. 1 'Oro e. Ouwh'm CO 1.0'.I,d. 151 Brill, Onvt TOIOnl° F.I In V e. 531 G. .1 /l1f1(' e`+ F.s .'_' "_ Tetta,7,ws:2 ._'-wti4 _ ltiliX: -i%7 Mat;. ",�-"°��-Sas. -•...a ti . n • R..is.d s.p'•' b.., 1961 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Dated_ _ January _ 7 sir Contingent or Other Liabilities (Full particulars of all liabilities not otherwise scheduled to be given here) 19 81 j i • • Signature PlroposEr "RiL�R.a�ta?f:. Fa.TM9`t)73IATTLST KY.FiXSYG-YC:'619,�al.:'a' NO. — NAME OF CREDITOR OR CLAIMANT ADDRESS AND OCCUPATION AMOUNT OF LIABILITY OR CLAIM ---- AMOUNT EXPECTED TO RANK FOR DIVIDEND -- -m.... ...s.som GATT WHIN LIABILITY IMCU..CO MOMTM -ar TEAR NATURE OF LIAeILIT• — evr+v -ss .mam.. -- - aria. --- -- - - - ` --- -- - -'-- $ NIL C. • $ C. R..is.d s.p'•' b.., 1961 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Dated_ _ January _ 7 sir Contingent or Other Liabilities (Full particulars of all liabilities not otherwise scheduled to be given here) 19 81 j i • • Signature PlroposEr "RiL�R.a�ta?f:. Fa.TM9`t)73IATTLST KY.FiXSYG-YC:'619,�al.:'a' • R •.isat.Sspls,mb.1. fN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MO. 1. 3 NAYS OF OESTOR Freeman & Company Bruce Smith Tahsis Co. Ltd. ADDRESS AND OCCUPATION 16th Floor 1030 West Georgia St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 2Y3 c/o Sooke Forest Product P.O. Box 1120 Victoria, B.C. V8W 2T5 1201 West Pender St. Vancouver, B.C. Debts Due to the Estate, including Book Debts NATURE OF bEET GOOD $ c. 71,000 21,588 180,383.00 272,971 .0 .00 00 AMOUNT OF DEDT 001/Orrin s 70,000.00 70,000 Ic. 00 !AO • s C. P0L10 or P WREN Lt001R 0R OTHER t [ IOQI. CONT4ACTt0 wH PARTICULAR! TO 0t FOUND Al MONTH TEAR Doted Januar 7 19 81 • 1 `C ;` % � L 4 • .bignature of Proposer t,T,M•TED TO PRODUCt s C ♦ART,cuLAA OF AR, Stcu* HCLO r Ot0T NO r�rsL. NAME! ACCEPT ORS.ENOORiE ALL PROMIS3 MORTGAGORS AND GUARANTORS AOOR ESSE! OCCUPATIONS AMOUNT OF OR NOTE, •IC. DATE WHEN DUE .• ESTIMATED TO PRODUCE :. • PARTICULARS OF ANT PROPERTY HELD AS SECURITY FOR PAYMENT O F SILL OR NOTE. Ale. c - • I NIL C. • I C. ... • R••,,.4 S•PI•I•I•r, NN Doted January 7 19_. 81 "Fr IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Bills of exchange, promissory notes, lien notes, chattel mortgages, etc., available as assets. Signature of Proposer OESCRI•tION OP PROPERTY NATURE OF BANKRUPT'S INTEREST IN •NOSE NAME ooes TITLE STAND TOTAL VALUE PARTICULARS OP I AMOUNT Land Lease • • • 300 00 ■ • .11..1“;1 Sgq *'n, 1968 :IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION .,G.. Real Estate or Immovable Property Owned by Bankrupt. • Doted January 7 i9 81 • ' i f /. /r1ll 4/i `, l , Signature of Proposer. R..Iset Sesremby 90 IN THE MATTER OF THE PRONSAAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT nn CORPORATION FULL STA TEMENT AND NATURE OF PROPERTY Doted January 7 n PROPERTY 11,116 morn to m.►/.Isoe II►T OHM,Tuo�I. Full porticulars of every description of property in possession and in reversion os defined by Section 39 of the Bankruptcy Act, not included in any other list, are to be set forth in this list. 19 81 F.rm M. • 776 f L --' /mil l� Signature of Proposer NATURE OP POOPCNTT LOCAt1ON DETAILS or rnOrEnt. ORIa1NAL COST LSTIMATEO to PIIODUCE (o) Stock•In•trode of cost price not exceeding lair market voiue (b) Trod. Fixtures, fittings, utensils, etc....Flms (c) Cosh in Bank of of (d) Cosh on hand j . (e) Livestock of (I) Machinery, equipment and plant at • (g) Household furniture and effects at N Life Policies (i) Stocks and Shores . Cha r. twe l l . AID xe1 n pole nx .. I.nn. (j) Reversionary or other Interests under wills, etc. (k) Other property (state particulars), viz. `1 rr . I r Nil 50,000 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 3,500,000 Nil Nil 00 00 R..Iset Sesremby 90 IN THE MATTER OF THE PRONSAAL OF CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT nn CORPORATION FULL STA TEMENT AND NATURE OF PROPERTY Doted January 7 n PROPERTY 11,116 morn to m.►/.Isoe II►T OHM,Tuo�I. Full porticulars of every description of property in possession and in reversion os defined by Section 39 of the Bankruptcy Act, not included in any other list, are to be set forth in this list. 19 81 F.rm M. • 776 f L --' /mil l� Signature of Proposer r DEVELOPMENT Suite 2800 • Box 12128 - 555 West Ha The Mayor and Council City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington Dear Sirs: I am enclosing a prelim City Light property at Boulevard. I am also e the application for wai 3. Design of the centr placed in the centr retail and office a standard shopping c are the featured ap 5. The addition of a f and Strander Boulev wildlife -pond area. th J. hauncey Pr �sident L— ORPORATION tings StreeR 1EGu , Canada, V6B 4N6 • Phone 669 -1112 O.CD. OrWOW December 15, 1978 _ • r.d• DEC i 8 19 nary plan of our proposed development to the he corner of Andover Park West and Strander closing the information.required to complete er from the provisions of Ordinance No. 1035. I want also to point ou some of the design features of the proposal: 1. The protection of t e pond and wildlife areas including provisions to airate and to co trol water levels. 2. The addition of an sland of approximately one acre for nesting and feeding areas. with parking hidden from the main roads and of the complex, where it better serves the eas and additionally gets away from the ntre design in which parking and automobiles earance of the development. 4. Development of a pe•ple mover,, to pick up people in the parking areas and to provid them with transport through the mall and lobby areas. This ystem can also link this development with others in the area 'f they and you agree. ur -lane boulevard between Andover Park Road rd through the development and by the We are very excited abo t the proposal and believe it will be a desirable and attractiv- addition to the retail and hotel centre of your city. Trusting this proposal eets with your approval. We remain, yours truly, CHARTWELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION *ILA 19 OS 4 City f Tukwila ►y 6200 Southcenter Boulevard 4 January 1979 M E M O R A N D U M Tukwila Washington 98188 Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor TO: Mayor . Bauch FROM: F N. Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: Cha twell Waiver Request Attached herewith please find Chartwell Development Corporation's waiver application for their property located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. Development on this site (formerly owned by Seattle City Light) requires a waiver from Section 3.b. of Ordinance #1035 due to the presence of a 13+ acre pond. The following is a short synopsis of the proposed development and preser- vation characteristics of the Chartwell waiver application: GENERAL Size of property: Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: DEVELOPMENT* Type of development: Parking: Heights of structures: Building materials: PRESERVATION* Pond area: Island area: Wetland area: Landscape, buffer areas: Edge of pond: 38.8 acres C -M Commercial Shopping Center. (Mall) (800,000 sq. ft.) Office (162,000 sq. ft.) Hotel (1,400 rooms) 5,750 (structured) 3 - 8 stories (35' -80') Precast concrete, with wood and glass approximately 7.0 acres 1.0 acre 4.0 acres 4.0 acres 2 sides natural, 2 sides geometric *Information provided by applicant. Detailed and specific floor plans and parking layout plans have not been submitted. Therefore, it is not possible to precisely verify any of these figures. Memorandum ` _ Page 2 Mayor Ed Bauch 1 January 1979 It should be noted that the contemplated development will require further city approvals. The following will help to explain: 1. The proposed• motels /hotels are conditional uses and require a conditional use permit per TMC 18.64. 2. A rezone to C -P (Planned Business Center) is required for the mall -type retail activity contemplated in the waiver applica- tion. 3. Construction of multiple buildings on a single lot in the C -M district requires compliance with TMC 17 (Subdivision). Unless rezoned to C -P, the proposed development would require platting or a binding site improvement plan. 4. Any proposal for filling, grading, building, subdivision, or rezoning requires full compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act. As a matter of procedure, the City Council should consider both the develop- ment guidelines of Resolution #656 and the criteria of.Ordinance #1035 in their review of the Chartwell waiver application. Copies of these documents are attached for their convenience. FNS /ckh cc: MF 78 -44 -W Attachments Graham 1'55 Carder.) Vancouver, :.:;• • ; 311 ; Reference; 'i'im,rtwell Prejed • pp '1 cation Dear Mr. Gra1bti I. have beet 1 • ,...cittac L wi ;Pe Tukwila 0 r1 Communi regarding 0-, (fliartwell Pr- and I und- i that you n b • verking on the l ! bos pro,jebl.. i would like I take this ot i lit to add my in p. to your rebord.4. I have been .4b,u,rving bir41:4 :11 ti'14-•: pond into 1/ and I some eighty d i l l 'en!. species d it H.; y on the p: -nd .• see : •:-- List. Many or rds use tile I.lown and sim grasses 1'. •• :testing and the run t• of' young. , 4•• i t--c net; , '• me are derin I •.; not found when d v-tlopment 1•1:1 The City or Tukwila has a. ra ,;.•1:; Lie rotIou.r(w :' the pond - sr -n .1 to :Lose it now would be a gin I. H s. There o.t.ly one o the i -..:a in the Kent Vail 1.iutt has a rein la 1•1o1; i'or at Lyn, -Li Fir; large numh, • avifauna, Including a number ;• ter int ; lid sewage pen I:. 1,1 Kent. this area 1....kr• the divers 1,\ ' habitat Fe, o the Sou or sight. A tremendow amount of ii' business use in i yea Marche warei:o These a winter duck.; r(.:Ited and re on the smal I pin is that to but the pond burn iTIO and I. At Southcente Pond 1 ha', this area. Obiriously ¶ my sentiment I i ii Mtrain area as zi park. Does the Cl or Tukwila in , park site In super.; or •., II.: a? I am not again.; t developmen1.. I. the trade tt ror develonmc•t-': mist be considered, nn ti the Char We nboject won Id der:1; roy the at- • . ;;he wild animals curer nt ly found tu- • nni replace titimi wi Lb van i on dem, , :tt Icated "white" duol•;;; and geese. 1 In I t believe t1;-• trade of'! b .1: i t. have not net Li en ed the mammaj :. round there, but the r.a.ldvi , muskrat and micro Lire provide v:1,1 rol.nge or , Hawks and .. ;.• nt f re. so nut the ay( •t,„ would appr- te the op : ' ' ty to comm. ;•te; Mier ,and . • •ropL•eciate reply to my t• mments. SA111'41,11111 in liouthe.oirt- areab nor , when flooded , • Limes, up t i rid Jafeeo. ;-• I: i 1 now would I: m'ved as inail,y Pinturn Add Salzer 1/1648 - lin S.W. :;ea Lie , WA 98166 fit Lob 'I' ' 1 1:1S been n - t n-1 Jafecm rovided , 000 ducks t• •.; ; This roostin. take away a vi i in t'• 1,500 at a I; r RECEIVED O.C.D. CITY Cf NORA OCT 1. 5 1979 for Bon be f ound L. in gone, o resource. Li 1 iting ' 33 34 35 36 37 t BIRDS OBSERVED AT "SOUTH CENTER POND" PROM NOVEMBER 1974 TO OCTOBER 1979 ><Derao Les raes U or young observed 1 western grebe 2 red. necked grebe 3 horned grebe 4 eared grebe 5 pied billed 6 mallard* 7 black duck 8 pintail 9 gad wal l American European northern grebe* 10 wigeon 11 wigeon 12 shoveler 13 blue winged teal* 14 cinnamon tea.L 15 green winged. teal* 16 canvasback 17 ring necked duck 18 lesser scaup 19 greater scaup 20 buff :Lehead 21 ruddy duck* 22 sharp shirned. 23 cooper's hawk 24 red tailed hawk 25 California quail 26 ring necked pheasant 27 green heron 28 American bittern 29 American coot* 30 killdeerX- 31 lesser. yellowlegs 32 dowitcher (sp. ?) western sandpiper dunlin common snipe herring gull rock dove 38 mourning dove 39 common night hawk 40 flicker - red & yellow 41 downy woodpecker. 42 hairy woodpecker 43 horned lark 44 barn swallow 45 cliff swallow 46 violet green swallow 47 tree swallow 48 rough winged swallow 49 Steller's jay 50 crow (sp. ?) hawk shafted 51 black capped chickadee 52 common bushtitx !i5 winter wren 54 long billed marsh wren* 55 Iiewi ck' s wren 56 robin 57 varied thrush 58 ruby crowned kinglet 59 water pipit 60 cedar waxwing 61 loggerhead shrike 62 starling 63 yellow warbler 64 ycllowthroat * 65 h!.ilson's warbler 66 northern oriole* 67 American goldfinclhx 68 house sparrow 69 meadowlark, western* 70 red winged blackbird* 71 brown headed cowbird* 72 rufous sided towhee 73 savannah sparrow* 74 Oregon junco 75 white crowned sparrow 76 song sparrow* 77 pine siskin 78 house finch 79 spotted sandpiper 80 common goldeneye 81 western gull 82 glaucous winged gull 83 kestrel 84 greater yellowlegs 85 virginia rail* 86 Nora 87 hooded merganser 88 common merganser >1 1•■•••■•• ••••••••■• • .1 ••••••••• 1•••••••■•• •••••••••■■ 0••••••■• •••••••••• ••••■•■••• : . .. . . . ...:::::::...:?. '... ......... : ' .• . : ::. .. ' .. :........ . . . . .. .. .. • ••••:...."...:::::::.. ,:::"...!'....... •:: . : . :::: . . : ..:::::::••"................::',..• ..... .•::,:::::::::.... .:',. ::' '•.:. ' .-....?........;;;; :•••:•-....... • •.:'•:::.!:::::::-:...."......... ' ....::::::::.:-.. '........ :: :•.:::::... ............: ..::•:::. ••: :.. .. ... ••••.•::,...::::!...'..:•.: . .:,:. . • . ../.....,...... . 3 a W % : '•✓ 4.4 , �;. , � ,fir ,� ° ka� O r.•. � �' N~�+�;• • .. t 1 / ` .V t� * r Oi i t' ll►_ : , y` , r � , r •y , . • t . m � i.. �'L�j ' _ . . c � , � y yd � a,j :�: :•: • • • r ' - - - •'�' d2YdA51no41 Nd2l•Ii C VT Y l_ t 1-17 611"E. "E. 5URFAcE. c.ONO1T1 ou5 - NORTh1 APPR DXJW E. S .: 1 "= zoo' A e L2 tom.. 512-. CF 5R's " 40 .7 AGR'S 15 P5 t A1PcR51-t AREA, ± 10 Asze, QR.Y PcRF-A t 16 A IZES 11.K. 10/18 1 UNW1 LH LI 1 T LUUIVLiL, KtUULNK Mtt I INN January 15, 1979 Page 2 ORDINANCES - Cont. Ordinance #1095 - Add certain sections of Title 9A RCW APPOINTMENTS Board of Ad- justment: Mrs. Rudolf Regel PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS Claim for Damages: George Armour Claim for Damages: Ms. Marla Beaty N Waiver Request by r •. Chartweil Dev. Corp. (Tukwila ) Pond Site) ; MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1095 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Councilman Bohrer asked Attorney Hard to explain the procedure on how this ordinance works. Attorney Hard said he is satisfied with the ordinance as it is now. It is proper in every respect. Ordinance No. 989 adopted changes in the Criminal Code made by the State Legislature. Section 4 of the ordinance says that these criminal acts will be considered misdemeanors in the City of Tukwila. This ordinance adds additional crimes to the list. It specifically states that these are all to be considered crimes in the City of Tukwila. The City is only empowered to assess a penalty of $500 or 6 months in jail. It does not have the power to penalize anyone for more than a misdemeanor. Councilman Bohrer said his concern is we are adopting definitions but are not making them illegal. Attorney Hard quoted from Ordinance 989 which says "Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter whether defined as a felony, a gross misdemeanor, or a misdemeanor shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." *MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch's letter recommending Mrs. Rudolf Regel, 14201 56th Avenue South, for appointment to the Board of Adjustment was read for the record. MOVED*BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL DENY THE CLAIM. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. McFarland explained that one of the Police Officers accidentally hit the side mirror of a parked vehicle and it was broken. Ms. Marla D. Beaty has filed a claim for damages in the amount of $7.43. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL AWARD THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7.43. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF MRS. REGEL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. MOTION CARRIED. John McFarland, Administrative Assistant, reported that Mr. George Armour has filed a claim for damages against the City in the amount of $5,000.00. The basis of the complaint is a charge of false arrest. Investigations by Mr. Jim Crook of Miller & Morris, Inc., loss assessors for the City's insurance carriers, reveal no liability on the part of the City or Police Officers involved. Mr. McFarland recommended the claim be denied. Mayor Bauch reminded the Council that the request for a waiver and the requirements of Ordinances 1035 and 1053 only involve the treatment of the pond which is the environmentally critical area sensitive area. Resolution #656 provided the guidelines for the development of the pond. This was passed before the purchase of the property so the purchasers were aware of the guidelines. The interpretation of 656 becomes a staff function. If there is a difference of opinion, the developer can go before the Board of Adjustment. If this is not satisfactory they have the 1 option of going to Court. When the final waiver comes back to Council, they will then determine if the development is . essentially the same as that which was in the preliminary plat. ,.w'`ILA CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING January 15, 1979 Page 3 C PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver Request by Chartwell Dev. Corp. (Tukwila Pond Site) Criteria #1 Criteria #2 Council is not here this evening to review the details of the buildings or whether they are allowable within the zoning and building codes of the City. The discussion should be held to the treatment of the environmentally sensitive area. Councilman Bohrer expressed concern over three items: 1 - Resolution 656 says the development should provide visual access from Strander Blvd. and Andover Park West and there is not direct visual access provided. He suggested moving the hotel currently planned for the southeast corner of the site to the southwest corner. 2 - The contour of the pond gets nearly totally reconstructed and there is the creation of an island. He suggested that maybe the island should not be created and leave the nesting ground essentially in its current location. 3 - The proposal does not leave quite 1/3 of the area in natural form. It appears to be more like 1/4 (9 acres) of the site. Councilman Van Dusen reminded Council that any type of construction is going to interrupt the wildlife for a period of time. He also agreed that the 1/3 natural area should be retained. The proposal, as it is now, has 7.25 acres for the surface area of the pond, .75 acres for the island, 4 acres designated as wetlands and 4 acres of landscaping for a total of 16 acres. Mayor Bauch noted that the resolution says to "encourage" visual access from the street. He called attention to Section 7 which says the southeast corner of the site will be retained. The proposal will have to be changed to meet this requirement. Attorney Hard said that Council does have to go through all five of the criteria on the waiver checklist the same as for any other property in the City. Fred Satterstrom; Planning Associate, indicated the area to be voted on is the pond and wetlands -- excluding the fill area. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES • ON CRITERIA #1. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition which is not significant in scale? ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - NO, the project is significant in scale. HARRIS - YES, the pond area should be 1/3 of. the development and this is not a significant difference. HILL - NO, a development of this magnitude has to have an impact. JOHANSON - NO, there is a significant impact on the wildlife in the area. SAUL - YES, the development of the pond and wetland will enhance the whole project. TRAYNOR - NO, it is significant. VAN DUSEN - NO, definitely significant. 5 - NO; 2 - YES. MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HARRIS, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA /2. Has the applicant investigated reasonable alternatives available which would not require a waiver ?* Mayor Bauch noted that previous discussion showed there were no situations that would not require a waiver, therefore, this one is not applicable. ca= January 15, 1979 Page 4 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver Request by Chartwell Dev. Corp. (Tukwila Pond Site) Criteria W2 Criteria n3 Criteria #4 Criteria r5 C *ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - NA HARRIS - NA HILL - NA JOHANSON - NA SAUL - NA TRAYNOR - NA VAN DUSEN - NA MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #3. If the request for waiver involves building, grading, clearing, excavation, or filling in a geographical area generally identified by the Environmental Basemap as an area of high natural amenity or development constraint, are mitigating measures provided ?* Councilman Johanson asked if Chartwell has agreed to move the building from the southeast corner. Mayor Bauch said they have to comply with Resolution 656 and it says they will have to move it. *ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - NO, mitigating measures are provided but the wording should read "are sufficient mitigating measures provided." HARRIS - YES, mitigating measures are provided and it does not ask if they are sufficient. HILL - YES, mitigating measures are provided - -if they move the hotel. JOHANSON - NO, question the amount of water and wetland area. SAUL - NA TRAYNOR - YES VAN DUSEN - YES 4 - YES; 2 - NO; 1 - NA MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #4. Is the request for waiver consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - YES HARRIS - YES HILL - YES JOHANSON - YES SAUL - YES TRAYNOR - YES VAN DUSEN - YES MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT COUNCIL VOTE YES ON CRITERIA #5. Do the requirements of this ordinance impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map? ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER - YES HILL - YES JOHANSON - YES SAUL - YES TRAYNOR - YES .VAN DUSEN - YES HARRIS - YES MOTION CARRIED. 71111.11. CITY COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING January 15, 1979 ,Page '5 PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS - Cont. Waiver Request by Chartwell Dev. Corp. (Tukwila Pond Site) Waiver Approved RECESS: 8:25 pm - 8:30 pm ORDINANCES Ordinance `1096 - Recognizing the position classi- fications of the commissioned. members of the Tukwila Police Department RESOLUTIONS Resolution #669 - Authorizing the Mayor to negotiate & execute an intertie agreement with the City of Kent MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PRELIMINARY WAIVER BE APPROVED ON THE BASIS THAT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 656 ARE COMPLIED WITH.* Councilman Saul asked why the southeast corner was determined to be environmentally sensitive. Councilman Johanson said that during the discussion periods it was determined that this area is used significantly by all the wildlife in the area. This area is still the natural valley floor. Councilman Saul said it is the southwest corner where he has always noticed the activity. Councilman Harris agreed with him. When they took the walking tour she said it appeared to be the southwest corner where the wildlife activity was. Councilman Johanson said he noticed that the southwest corner floods and a lot of the vegetation is dead. Mr. Satterstrom said the southeast corner has the advantages for nesting because most of the year it is surrounded on three sides by water so it is protected from human approach. It appears to be the major area where nesting occurs. The location is not exactly along Andover Park West but off of the road several hundred feet. *MOTION CARRIED WITH JOHANSON VOTING NO. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT COUNCIL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch called the regular meeting back to order with all Council Members present as previously reported. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Hard read an Ordinance amending Section 2 of Ordinance 639 and recognizing the position classifications of the commissioned members of the Tukwila Police Department. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1096 BE ADOPTED AS READ. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE READ BY TITLE ONLY.* MOVED BY HARRIS, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO READ THE RESOLUTION IN ITS ENTIRETY. MOTION CARRIED. *MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED. City Attorney Hard read a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to negotiate and execute an intertie agreement with the City of Kent. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 669 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* c-3 >d Councilman Hill asked if this has been approved by the Seattle Water Department. Terry Monaghan, Public Works Director, explained that this is one of the criteria before final approval - -to be sure Kent has documented clearance from the City of Seattle. However, Seattle does encourage interties. 7 :03 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES D - C Waiver request - Chartwell Dev. Corp. for proposed dev. of the Tukwila Pond Site COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEET MINUTES Council President Van Dusen called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HARRIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMAN TRAYNOR AND HILL FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. CARRIED. BOHRER, HARRIS, JOHANSON, SAUL, VAN DUSEN. Council Chambers MOVED BY BOHRER, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 2( 1978 BUDGET REVIEW MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 11 1978 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIEE Kje 1 Stoknes, Director of OCD, stated the proposed development comes unde the waiver process because of the lake that is involved. The Council can review the proposed development and make a decision as to whet er or not a waiver will be granted next week at the regular Co cil meeting. The Council may make the decision to refer the atter back to Staff or to the Planning Commission. Council Presider Van Dusen asked if the applicant was aware of the waiver check list that the Council uses in making the decision. Mr. Chauncey, Chartwei' Development Corporation, said he was aware of the criteria of the check list. Councilman Hill arrived at the Committee of the Whole Meeting at 7:15 p.m. Mr. Chauncey, Chartwell Development Corproation, introduced Mr. Brawr, and Mr. Paul, architects. Mr. Brawn made a slide presentation of the proposed development, stating they had set six objectives. The firs: was that they had covered the principles of development in a system- atic sense. These principles were clearly stated, they were workable they were believable, and as a Council they could best expect they would make refinements, but not major changes, as the ongoing plan developed. Second, that the pond and the wetland i•s a resource of the City at this stage and has the ability of being a resource and an amenity to the development. Third, Chartwell asked the architects to to have the minimum amount of car parking visible from within and outside of the development. Fourth, that the traffic system that was generated for the development on the site was such that ingress and egress to the site could be eased and facilitated by slip roads if they became necessary. Fifth, that there is an emerging urban characteristic to this part of the valley and to the extent that it is possible they should reinforce and extend that urba characteristic. Sixth, that they should not forget that once people get out of their cars they are in a pedestrian mode and the developme should seek to achieve a human scale. There are views down onto the site from the expressway; there are some warehouse developments to the south that may need screening through plantings. The location of the lake is such that building could be done to the north side of the site and make the most of the side facing the south for sun entry anc public people places, minimizing shadow caused by buildings. He saic they should be able to, for leasing purposes, get clear visual access to the major retail components of the proposed development and the site is large enough to create a number of different but harmonious settings for different types of land use such as retail, commercial, hotel and park -like setting. The pond is held in its present locatic with the major area of wetland left as wetland in support of the wile life. He said they have sought to keep an area which would leave a natural situation rather than a zoological situation, it is kept at a scale that would require ongoing support to maintain the wildlife. He said they also propose to introduce an island, as suggested in the guidelines, such that feeding and mating can happen away from th edges of the pond. This proposal has a total of 11 acres made up of wetland and water. The proposal that was previously considered from another group was a total of 7 acres. He said they are talking abou 11 acres plus 4 more acres of ooen space made up of such.pieces as the setback areas that will be landscaped and also around the west fi January E, 1979 Page 2 DISCUSSION - Contd. Waiver request - Chartwell Dev. Corp. fcr proposed dev. of Tukw. Pond Site - contd. 1 r H,E WHOLE MEE i 111G The landscaping would be part of the boulevard. Certain character- istics of the pond will be retained to keep the wildlife. He said there would be two sites for hotels, there will be three locations fc major retail stores, connected between them would be smaller retail - store - s: Along the and east face of the lake there would be opportunity for additional 200 beds in a hotel sense, office space, some retail such as restaurants, in the middle as a focus would be a glazed atrium public space as part of the mall, and also entry out into the boulevard area. He said they had a similar situation in Vancouver a few hundred yards from their office. It is called Lost Lagoon at the edge of Stanley Park. He said the bird life maintains an existence just a few hundred feet from one of the most densely populated areas in Canada. People can walk out and be over the water There could be cafeterias in the lower levels of the commercial space whereby they could be elevated and benefit from the presence of the lake without necessarily feeling they have to go right to the edge of the lake, separated from the lake by the boulevard and the planting strips. The proposed development is sitting on the more traditional open parking areas that are expressed in the Southcenter situation. For both commercial and retail development, it is possible that from the streets you feel close to 100% of the parking will be screened from view. This will be achieved primarily by placing between the retail strips the malls that are connecting the department stores and the commercial developments that are on the edge of the lake in structured parking. Also, beneath the level of retail, which we understand will need to be above the road levels because of flood conditions to meet certain State requirements, there will be one, perhaps two, levels of parking. We also feel this will be a benefit related to some of your other conerns, because this will mean we will not have to ship in a lot of fill. You will be able to park pretty well on the level that exists there now, and in some cases take out some of the fill. We are aware of the concern you have for traffic at the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. In that sense our traffi engineer has proposed that part of the boulevard allows them to, in t" case of Andover West, some 900 feet back from the critical intersectic come in with the boulevard, skirt around the face of the pond and com out at Strander Boulevard some 1300 feet from the intersection. Between these connections of the boulevard to the existing streets they would propose two entrances and exits for parking. It is possible for people to come in through one entrance, hit the boulevard and go out onto another street and this will facilitate their easier leaving of the site and the use of existing streets. The parking would be unseen. We are proposing outside of the retail development a 100 foot strip of parking which would be elevated up a few feet from the existing road levels. That would be screened, with plantinc around the top. In the two corners are the sites for the major hotels. 600 rooms each. The detail planning as to where the additional 200 rooms would be has not been resolved as yet. The prime tenants would have smaller shops in between. There will be a people mover system that would move people from the parked car through the development in a separate plane of movement, and across the street to Southcenter if this proves necessary. To summarize, the proposal is that there be two locations for major hotels, places for three major department stores, with retail in a shopping mall. Commercial office and some retail coring through the parking on the other side of the parking would make use of the environment created by the lake. There will be an atrium in the middle. The atrium will be a large public space, sky lit, high, in which public assemblies, concerts, etc., can be held. We want to show you a systematic structure development such as you would feel confident that you understood how it was being approached and that as long as the interest that has been expressed in the land through Chartwell by potential tenants stays there would only be minor changes in the development. The pond is an amenity and a re- source now that needs to be respected as a part of the City and it also has the benefit of being a resouce to the develop -ent. As much as possible the narking should be hidden from view arc we feel we have achieved that. The traffic system at this early s: =ce planning is C N ./ THE H MEETING CITY COUNCIL L �0�; EE OF �,. WHOLE �i ETI��G ,anuary 8, 1979 Page 3 DISCUSSION - Contd. Waiver request - believable and has the ability for responding to detail demands. Chartwell Deve. Corp.There is a realization that there is a urban characteristic emerging for proposed dev. and this development would add to that. We feel we should recognize of Tukw. Pond Site the human scale. We have tried to walk you through our development. - contd. Council President Van Dusen asked if this plan could be carried out as far as the City's fill and height requirements are concerned. Mr. Stoknes said yes, the concern is that the first floor elevation must meet the human use requirement. Parking lots do not need to meet flood conditions. He said on the raw parking figures it seems to be short, but parking can be underground. Council President Van Dusen asked if the developer had thought of dedicating the boulevard to the City. Mr. Brawn said they had not given it consideration, but it is something to think about. Council President Van Dusen asked about the time frame, and Mr. Brawn said they would like to have the project completed within five years. Council President Van Dusen sai: :: Resolution 656 called out the area retained in its natural condition is to be located on the southeast portion of the site, generally between the southeast corner of the property and extending west to the southwest corner of the pond. Mr. Brawn said they understood there were several concerns, one was the nesting area, and he said they had provided the island for the nesting and natural habitat of wildlife. Council President Van Dusen asked about the people mover. Mr. Brawn said it is a system of small cars that move along. The cars can be added or taken away according to the load requirements. Each car hol:: about 25 people. It is motorized and is presently in use at Duke r. ^ , a University. It is not a moving sidewalk. It is noiseless and a safe ; ``?' system. It is trying to be sold as a light rapid transit in some are. He said they would like to put in that system in their development. 4 Fred Satterstrom said sidewalks are in on Andover Park West, but not on Strander Boulevard. Councilman Bohrer asked if the Chartwell Corporation has had a site survey made. He said the resolution that the Council passed said that approximately one -third of the site should be left in its natura state. He asked to have that one -third pointed out to him, it seems that the lake has been reconstructed entirely, he said. Mr. Brawn said the present boundaries of the lake on the west face go down about there (using a wall map) and on the north face about here (wall 0 map) and then cuts back, so there would be more lake created. Counci" man Bohrer said when he calculates the area it is 9 acres, one -third of the site should be 13 acres. Mr. Brawn said the lake is something ' like 6 -3/4 acres, there are the wetlands and landscaped areas. Coun- cilman Bohrer asked if any soil surveys had been made. Mr. Brawn said the soil was tested, it was done by City Light in 1970. Council-, man Bohrer said the people movers are an interesting idea. He asked what the frequency would be? Mr. Brawn said the cars will accommodate 20 to 25 people. They will run on a frequency of 20 feet. It will be a computer hook -up, programmed to run as demanded. He said the syster is in operation at Duke University on a campus setting. Councilman Bohrer said he found their thought of putting the parking underground eliminating the need for fill, very attractive. That was one that was expected to be a very strong environmental impact on City Light' proposal. They were expecting to run trucks night and day for the better part of a year to carry in enough fill for the site. He said one of the guidelines in the Council Development Guidelines was that visual access be provided from both Strander and Andover Park. He t asked to be shown the Chartwell proposal that would allow that. Mr. Brawn pointed out how it had been provided on the wall chart. Coun- cilman Bohrer asked if they expected to provide a footpath around the t lake? Mr. Brawn said at this state they have not made any definite proposals on that. Councilman Bohrer asked what sort of trade studies had been made by the development in deciding how they would use the buildings? He asked if this was the only concept they had used in placing buildings on the site? Mr. Brawn said there were variations on the theme but the water being where it is tends to limit options. He said they felt the north side is already filled; it is close to existing Southcenter; the edge of the pond is a very hardsome site fc'• hotel development; and once they found they could manipl,iate the physical form such that a boulevard could be introduced ": seered to 1C70 D: 5CLSSI0N - Contd. Waiver request - Chartwell Dev. Corp. for proposed dev. of Tukw. Pond Site - contd. them that the commercial office development on the north and east of pond became very good ways of breaking down the scale of the site of the retail. It just tended to fall together with those objectives. Councilman Bohrer said basically there is a 200 foot strip down the west side that is probably broad enough to lend•itself to some develop -? ment. He said as he looked at the hotel plan forms they appear to be roughly 200 feet square. If you took the hotel that is down in the southeast corner and moved it over to the southwest corner it would seem that there is, under such an approach, a couple of objectives accomplished. First, we get visual access to Andover Park West and second, we reduce the amount of reconstruction of the lake and let more of it remain in a natural state. He said part of his concern is that it seems that by completely reconstructing the lake, which it seems i going on, that the habitat for the wildlife is destroyed during the construction period. If it is left natural durina construction then they can continue to exist while the construction goes on rather than having to find another site and then return at a later time. Mr. Brawn said he did not see there would be any problem in moving the hotel from one side to the other. Councilman Bohrer said he had thoue the depth of the lake a t the deepest part was ten feet. Mr. Satter - strom said eight to ten feet would be the deepest part of the lake in the middle during the winter time. Councilman Bohrer asked the status of the negotiations with the City of Seattle reaardinci the Purchase of the property. Mr. Brawn said it has gone to the Mayor and the City Council and the form of the contract has been approved. He said is scheduled for review during the coming week. Councilman Saul askec what date the Chartwell Corporation had for starting the development. Mr. Brawn said they would like to start as soon as possible, as soon as they can get building permits. Councilman Harris asked if they have commitments for the buildings. Mr. Brawn said they did have commitments for the buildings. Councilman Saul asked if they are doina the building or will they sublet. Mr. Brawn said the buildings would be built for them and then leased out. Council President Van Dusen said in referring to Fred Satterstrom' s , memorandum...ofJanua.ry 4, 1979 that he stated ..i..f .the_..Council grants this waiver.._.then..they._can go ahead and apply for building permits and there will be certain changes and corrections that will have to be made. Mr. Satterstrom._ said that is correct. The property is presently "zoned C -M and would, require rezoning to C -P for the mall -type retail activity that has. been planned. They will have to go through the Planning Commission before they build, they will have to apply for a rezone, all of these reviews would be accomplished before the buildinn permit is given. Wh; they come in for a grading permit they will have to comply with SEPA. Some of these permits can run concurrently. Mr. Stoknes said with the complexity of the building he did not see how the permits could be accomplished before the end of next summer. He said most of this can be done in- house. Council President Van Dusen said it is a complex development and he felt only a small percentage of the problems have been addressed. Councilman Bohrer said it is complex and this is a conceptual level of the plan. He said his feeling is that he would like to see another level of detail before the Council gets too far along in the waiver process. What he would propose is that the Council do a phase approval looking at this generally as a concept, working out the problems, the complete reconstructing of the lake and the placement of the hotel building on the southwest corner. He said he would like to see some alternatives presented there as well as the idea of leaving the nestir: area essentially untouched is one alternative versus. the one of trading for the island. The Council would like to consider those and arrive at a general site plan of about this level. He said he would like to ask Chartwell to go back and do some more detail work that has to be done. He said he would like to see some of the alternatives that have been mentioned, and then the Council can deal with them at that level. This would also give the developers a chance to look at it, they mic- find another approach that is equally as attractive. Mr. Stoknes said he felt it will take about two months to get through the rezone and conditional use permits and then another two months for the update of the property with respect to the State Environmental Policy Act review. That would be four months, then it would take at least two nnrths to draft up the drawings. Coun+ciir en Eohrer _; would like tc resolve some of these problems now before f7=: :..rther dc:. Fa e DISCUSSION - Contd. Waiver request - Chartwell Dev. Corp for prop. dev. of Tuwk. Pond - contd. RECESS 8:25 - 8:35 P.M. Information to Council prior to Riverton Hts. Annexation Hrg. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY HILL, THAT THE WAIVER REQUEST BY CHARTWELL . DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE TUKWILA POND SITE BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE JANUARY 15, 1979 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. CARRIED. Council President Van Dusen called the Committee of the Whole Meeting back to order with Council Members present as previously listed. Mayor Bauch stated the presentation to the Boundary Review Board on the Riverton Heights annexation would be made by him. He said he woul like to hear any specific requests the Council might have. He said the City would be developing a specific economic information presenta- tion that has to do with the money that would come in per capita, the change in the revenue sharing, the State sharing those things that would be projected based on what we think the per capita is in that area. He said we are going to try to make an estimate of what the sales tax that might come in from the businesses that are down there will be. He said we expect to present to the Council the exact state of the roads, the number of miles, etc, what types of storm systems are in along the existing roads and some kind of projection as to where they would fit in a six year plan or ten year plan as f.r as upgrading the streets. We will be making an assessment of those areas that are outside of the sewer district. Most of the area is ir a sewer district so it becomes the responsibility of the sewer distri; but there are some areas that are not in a sewer district which would come'under the Tukwila area unless it was depending on where the trunks might be, like McMicken Heights, even though they were in the City they would go into Val -Vue Sewer District or some other sewer district. An assessment of those areas would be a direct concern or would take action on the part of the City. He said they would be making an assessment of the impact on the Police Department. We have already made several inquiries or hearings as far as the Fire Depart- ment is concerned. If there is additional information the Council would like to know he said be would be glad to discuss it. Council President Van Dusen asked if it is possible at the Boundary Review Board to pick up some areas. Mayor Bauch said if the Boundary Review Board said they should be included then it goes back to another publi hearing after the effected people are notified by the Boundary Review Board. That is why it has to come back to the City Council after the Boundary Review Board is through, because they may modify it. If there are areas added there would have to be another public hearing and the people effected by it could be heard at that time. Councilman Harris asked if the documentation has been prepared showin the revenue expected versus the expenditures. Mayor Bauch said it is in process. He said he expected to have all of this developed by the first of February. He said he expected to bring the basic findin and the outline of what will be given to the Boundary Review Board to the Council for their comments. The City Council has to certify the annexation for election and then it is out of the Council hands. If the people vote for the annexation, that is it. If the Council is dissatisfied after it comes back from the Boundary Review Board they can keep it off the ballot by not accepting the recommendation of the Boundary Review Board. Councilman Bohrer said the Mayor is then going to show the Council the impact on the manning in the.Police and Fire Department and other departments that might be effected. He said he would like to request that the information submitted to the Boundary Review Board be made in matrix insofar as possible. Mayor Bauch said the submittal to the Boundary Review Board was in answer to a questionnaire and the format was followed. He said sometimes that does not lead itself to a proper presentation of data. Councilman Bohrer asked if the Mayor would take some of the data about the annexation area and show it in a matrix form. Mayor Bauch said they would show what impact this annexation would have on adjacent jurisdictions. Councilman Hill sa= he was glad we are going to know the impact the annexation will have on the Streets, Fire and Police Departments. He said there was one bridge he understood the City would have to replace. !laycr Bauch sai 14 February 1980 Chartwell Development Co. 555 Hastings St. Vancouver, BC Canada V6B4N6 Attn; Kenneth Chauncey Re: Rezoning Requirement - Tukwila City Center Project CRY Tukwila Planning Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 433 -1845 • Office of Community Development Dear Mr. Chauncey: As I informed you in our telephone conversation on 13 February 1980, I have deter- mined that the existing C -M (Industrial Park) zone for the Tukwila City Center pro- ject site is not appropriate to the type of development concept (i.e. - enclosed . mall) described in the project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (D.E.I.S.) In essence, my determination reverses the zoning ordinance interpretation of 16 November 1979 by former 0.C.D. Director Kjell Stoknes which concluded that shopping malls are an allowed C -M use. As designated Responsible Official and Acting Planning Director, I am charged with the duty of interpreting the City's zoning and land use regulations. With all due respect to Mr. Stoknes, I believe that several of the findings cited in the 16 November 1979 interpretation do not support the decision reached therein. The following is an analysis of the difficulties which I perceive with the 16 November interpretation and an explanation of why I believe the C -PR zoning district to be appropriate for accommodation of your proposed development concept: A) Regarding Mr. Stoknes' interpretation of 16 November 1979. '1. Findings 1 through 7 discuss the "Narod" waiver application on this site, which included an interior mall. The interpretor's basic conclusion was that the mall concept is permissable in C -M since no discussion to the contrary took place during the waiver application hearing process. Response: The fact that the City Council minutes are vague on the matter of permitted uses in 'context of a particular development proposal does not foreclose the possibility of future discussion and re- interpretation of the matter by public officials charged with zonir administration authority. I sincerely believe that the concept of the interior mall as a "use" should have been raised at that time and resolved. It is stretching the'poirit,though, to construct Chartwell Development Co. Page 2 Attn: Kenneth Chauncey 14 February 1980 B a binding precedent based on the absence of a specific point of dis- cussion, and to conclude that silence is necessarily consent. However, even if we were to assume that the City Council believed the interior mall use to be appropriate in the C -M zone, I am sincerely convinced • that such belief would be erroneous and would not feel bound to perpe- tuate an inaccurate, though sincere, application of city zoning provi- sions. Thus, it seems that the Narod application gives us little if any guidance on the subject of land use propriety. 2. Finding 15 concludes that the presence or absence of a common mall or concourse is irrelevant to the question of permitted uses in a given zoning district, in that a mall or concourse is solely a•structural amenity. Response: The Tukwila Zoning Ordinance provides a special category of land use controls for Planned Business Centers. In his interpretation dated 13 September 1979, former Planning Supervisor Fred Satterstrom explainer the relationship between the concept of "essential use" in a zoning district, and the requirement for unified and organized arrangement of buildings and facilities in a,.functional relationship as required in the C -P zoning district. It is my belief that the shopping center con- course with its tenant spaces opening onto that concourse together comprise an "essential use ", and that it is erroneous to separate the common mall from its adjoining tenant partitions when discussing the concept of a planned shopping center environment such as your firm proposes. Further, the mall portion of a shopping center can be considered a "use" in and of itself. One of the great marketing strengths of the shopping mall concept is the high degree of flexible activity space offered by the mall concourse itself. From time to time, activities such as automobile displays, art and craft fairs, cultural and seasonal events are scheduled on the concourse during regular tenant business hours. These mall activities have the potential to attract visitors tc the shopping center who may not partronize any of the retail shops. Regarding the intent of land use regulation in the C -P (Planned Business Center District) - TMC Chapter 18.34. 1. The presence of a zoning district specifically tailored to planned, functionally- integral retail developments suggests that the writers of the zoning code, Title 18, envisioned the need to promulgate specific constraints andrflexibilities to enable the city to respond appropriately to this type of development. I believe that the writers of the zoning code perceived a difference in the manner in which shopping malls are patronized as opposed to more common "strip - type" commercial centers which lack a unified and organized developmen form. ( Chartwell Development Attn: Kenneth Chauncey cc: Mayor City Attorney Wilsey & Ham, Inc. Sin erely f Page 3 14, February 1980 Shopping malls offer a hi'h quality retail environment which often include several vendors o the same general product, inviting compari- son shopping. Protection from harsh weather conditions afforded by the climate- controlled mall i vite shoppers and browsers to linger. To some, the mall area itsel is a source of private entertainment, offer a place to rest and /or to "people- watch ". On -the -mall cultural and display activities have a ready been mentioned. 2. The parking ratio of spaces to floor area is greater in the C -P district than in any othe retail zoning category. It is conceivable that the writers of the C P zoning ordinance envisioned the need for more parking in this dist ict, anticipating that the functionally - integrated shopping cente might attract more traffic and experience slower turn -over in occupancy of parking spaces than is the case in conventional retail confi'urations. Also, the region - serving scale of a shopping center such as you propose attracts customers from a wide market area, again necess tating an increased parking requirement. The foregoing material has been offere so that you may better understand my though behind the crucial decision to require rezoning of the Tukwila City Center site. I understand from Mr. Cinnamon of your organization that Chartwell wishes to appeal my decision to the Tukwila Board of Adjustment, in accordance with Tukwila Municipa Code Section 2.76.070. I commend you or your decision to follow the orderly appea process provided by the City, and will work with you to obtain a decision from the Board as quickly as possible. Please be assured that my decision to equire rezoning of your project site at this late stage of the processing sequence as been difficult to reach. I take no joy whatever in raising a potential roadbl•ck to implementation of the City Center pro- ject. Also, you should understand tha the rezone decision is largely a "housekeep matter, and does not in any way reflec on the quality of your design concept. M. Caughey Act ng Planning Director J�� sti City of Tukwila 0 2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard J 4i o Tukwila Washington 98188 TO: FROM': DATE: SUBJECT: ` 190 Edgar D. Baud,, Mayor MEMORANDUM Zoning Ordinance Interpretation File/ Use Interpretation - CM Zone TMC 18.32 Kjell Stoknes, O.C.D. Director November 16, 1979 Allowance Of Retail Mall In CM Zone FINDINGS: 1. Preliminary Waiver to Ordinance No. 1035 was granted to Narod:Deve'opment Corporation for a shopping center, offices, and hotel complex on the site, based upon it being in an area of constraint. (Interior mall included.) ia 2. On October 16, 197, the City Council passed Resolution No. 656, setting 'forth,specialdevelopmental guidelines on the property. Said resolution states that, "development proposals on the City Light site, - - -, require a waiver from Ordinance•41035, prior to the issuance of any permit authoriz- ing construction." No mention is made of a requirement for rezone based upon the type of use. In fact, the resolution encourages a compatible mix of office and retail uses. 3, Minutes of October 16, 1978, indicates that Narod felt the waiver was required since the site was zoned industrial and the comprehensive plan showed commercial. The City staff's position was that the project quali- fied for a waiver on both land use conflict and infringement on the pond. 4. Public comments by City staff in the City Council Minutes of October 23, 1978, on the Narod Development Corporation Preliminary Waiver, that the uses proposed by the development are consistent with present zoning (CM). 3. Waiver application form for Narod is only for natural constraints, not land use. 5. Waiver application was voted on by the City Council and approved. Council voted "YES" on criteria which states, "Do the requirements of this ordi- nance impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provi- sions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance and map ? ". 7. Narod bid on the property on the basis that the uses proposed in the waiver would be allowed on the property if consistent with Resolution No. 656. Chartwell Development Corporation and Don Y.oll Company bid on the property as well on the basis of the approved waiver and site plan. Zoning Ordinance Interpretation File Page 2 Allowance Of Retail Mall In CM Zone November 16, 1979 8. Chartwell Development Corporation was the successful bidder on the property. 9. On December 18, 1978, Chartwell applied for a Preliminary Waiver Application for development of the pond for the'same uses as Narod, though considerably more intense in terms of floor area versus ground area ratio. Site coverage of impervious surfaces is comparable, though Chartwell's proposal was significantly higher. Waiver application was for area of constraints only, not land use. 10. In discussions on the Chartwell waiver before the Council on January 8, 1979, staff representatives stated that a rezone from C -M to C -P would be required for the mall activity, as well as a conditional use permit for the hotels. 11. On January 15, 1979, the City Council approved a preliminary waiver for the Chartwell proposal on the basis of it being acceptable in an environmentally sensitive area. The question of land use was not addressed. 12. On approximately September 6, 1979, the Director of Community Development, indicated to Chartwell that the CM zone could allow an enclosed retail mall, 13. On September 13, 1979, a written interpretation was prepared by the City staff to the affect that a CM zone only allowed one retail use per building, and that a retail mall was not an allowed use. Consequently, a rezone to CP would be required for the Chartwell Development. 14. C -1, C -2, and M -1, uses are allowed in the CM zone. C -1, C -2, and M -1, zones allowes " - -- -other than one of the following uses - - - ". The CM zone states that - - -" no bulding or land shall be used - -- for any purpose other than those permitted in C -1, C -2, or M -1 districts - - -." This repre- sents a multiple use allowance rather than one use per building. 15. The difference of adding an enclosed mall is a structural and building con- cept, not a question of allowed use. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Actions to date seem to be inconsistent regarding whether or not the CM zone does or does not allow an enclosed mall as an allowed use. 2. The concept of a mall as a use is not valid since it is a structure rather than a use,and not a question pertinent to zoning interpretations. 3. Business centers without a mall are an allowed use by the action of the City. Example: Benaroya's Parkway Plaza near South 180th Street and Southcenter Parkway. Zoning Ordinance Interpretation File Paoe 3 Allowance Of Retail Mall In CM Zone November 16, 1979 DECISION: The interpretation dated 13 September 1979, that a shopping center /mall is not an allowed use in a CM zone. This interpretaion is reversed and in fact, is allowed in a CM zone based upon the analysis of this document. /1 -4 1 I f:.!Phi .1ttei� /. / q q Kjklfl Stoknes, O.C.D. Director Date I have read the aforementioned interpretation. The interpretation rendered, herein, does lie within the authority of the O.C.D., Director, and appears . to be reasonable. /. m)L_ Larry Hard, City Attor wt,ovitiv 2.4 7 ate • - Contd. .,_iver request - Chartwell Dev. Corp for proposed dev. oT Tukw. Pond Site '-contd. , them that the commercial office development on the north and east of pond became very good ways of breaking down the scale of the site of the retail. It just tended to fall together with those objectives. Councilman Bohrer said basically there is a 200 foot strip down the west side that is probably broad enough to lend'itself to some develu., ment. He said as he looked at the hotel plan forms they appear to b:-:,' roughly 200 feet square. If you took the hotel that is down in the southeast corner and roved it over to the southwest corner it would seem that there is, under such an approach, a couple of objectives accomplished. First, we get visual access to Andover Park West and second, we reduce the amount of reconstruction of the lake and let m6 . of it remain in a natural state. He said part of his concern is that.: it seems that by completely reconstructing the lake, which it seems going on, that the habitat for the wildlife is destroyed during the construction period. If it is left natural durino construction then they can continue to exist while the construction goes on rather thai having to find another site and then return at a later tine. Mr.. Brawn said he did not see there would be any problem in moving the hotel from one side to the other. Councilman Bohrer said he had tho► the depth of the lake a t the deepest part was ten feet. Mr. Satter- strom said eight to ten feet would be the deepest part of the lake in, the middle during the winter time. Councilman Bohrer asked the stag of the negotiations with the City of Seattle reoardinn the ourchase of the property. Mr. Brawn said it has gone to theMayor and the City Council and the form of the contract has been approved. He said is scheduled for review during the coming week. Councilman Saul asks'. what date the Chartwell Corporation had for starting the development.] Mr. Brawn said they would like to start as soon as Possible, as soon as they can Oct building permits. Councilman Harris asked if they have commitments for the buildings. tir. Brawn said they did ha:i commitments for the buildings. Councilman Saul asked if they are doing the building or will they sublet. 'err. Brawn said the buiidinc�' would be built for them and then leased out. Council President Van Dusen said in referrino to _Fred Satterstrom's memorandum_nf Jenuiry 1979 that he stated_ii_ the .Couci 1 aranis_thi s waiver then they can go ahea - end apply for building permits and there will be certain changes and corrections that have `to be" -- made M:r. Satterstrom._ said that property is - presently — C -M and _.wool d require rezoning to C -P f that has - Geen of a nne a l efore they - bui l d, they w i l l have to apply for a rezone, 1 i of thes4 reviews would be accomplished before the bui permit is given. ' they come in for a grading permit they will have to comply with SPA. Some of these permits can run concurrently. Mr. Stoknes said with ti complexity of the building he did not see how the permits could be .accomplished before the end of next summer. He said-most of this cal be done in- house. Council President Van Dusen said it is a complex development and he felt only a small percentage of the problems have been addressed. Councilman Bohrer said it is complex and this is a conceptual level of the plan. He said his feeling is that he would like to see anoth level of detail before the Council gets too far along in the waiver process. What he would propose is that the Council do a phase appro looking at this generally as a concept, working out the problems, th complete reconstructing of the lake and the placement of the hotel building on the southwest corner. He said he would like to see sor• alternatives presented there as well as the idea of leaving the nest area essentially untouched is one alternative versus. the one of trad for the island. The Council would like to consider those and arrive at a general site plan of about this level. He said he would like t ask Chartwell to go back and do some more detail work that has to be done. He said he would like to see some of the alternatives that ha been mentioned, and then the Council can deal with the- a: that levE This would. also give the developers a chance to look at it, they r i find another approach that is equally as attractive. Mr. Stoknes said he felt it will take about two months to get throuc1. :he rezonE and conditional use permits and then another two months for the uod, of the property with respect to the State Environ ^en. a'. Policy Act review. That would be four months, then it would tc 'e _ : : eas: two cram 'JO hS d`'aY:nCS. son. r,- thae the p n..; i• t.. !' .. �- 0 1908 . 4 January 1979 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Edcar D. Bauch, Mayor M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor . Bauch FROM:. F N. Satterstrom, Planning Supervisor SUBJECT: Cha twell Waiver Request Attached herewith please find Chartwell Development Corporation's waiver application for their property located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and Andover Park West. Development on this site (formerly owned by Seattle City Light) requires a waiver from Section 3.b. of Ordinance #1035 due to the presence of a 13+ acre pond. The following is a short synopsis of the proposed development and preser- vation characteristics of the Chartwell waiver application: GENERAL Size of property: 38.8 acres Zoning: C -M Comprehensive Plan: . Commercial DEVELOPMENT* Type of development: Shopping Center. (Mall) (800,000 sq. ft.) Office (162,000 sq. ft.) Hotel. (1,400 rooms) Parking: 5,750 (structured) Heights of structures: 3- 8 stories (35' -80') Building materials: Precast concrete, with wood and glass PRESERVATION* Pond area: Island area: Wetland area: Landscape, buffer areas: Edge of pond: approximately 7.0 acres 1.0 acre 4.0 acres 4.0 acres 2 sides natural 2 sides geometric *Information provided by applicant. Detailed and specific floor plans and parking layout plans have not been submitted. Therefore, it is not possible to precisely verify any of these figures. Memorandum Mayor Ed Bauch It should be noted that the contemplated development will require further city approvals. The following will help to explain: Page 2 1 January . 1979 1. The proposed-motels/hotels are conditional uses and require a conditional use permit per TMC 18.64. A rezone to C -P (Planned Business Center) is required for the mall -type retail activity contemplated in the waiver applica- tion. 3. Construction of multiple buildings on a single lot in the C -M district requires compliance with TMC 17 (Subdivision). Unless rezoned to C -P, the proposed development would require platting or a binding site improvement plan. 4. Any proposal for filling, grading, building, subdivision, or rezoning requires full compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act. As a matter of procedure, the City Council should consider both the develop- ment guidelines of Resolution #656 and the criteria of.Ordinance #1035 in their review of the Chartwell waiver application. Copies of these documents are attached for their convenience. FNS /ckh cc: MP 78 -44 -W Attachments 0: to:„ser 23, 1978 Page 2 DISCUSSION - Contd. Application for Waiver from Ord. 1035 - Tukwila Pond Site'- contd. RECESS 8:15 - 8:25 P.M. to retain the south and southwest portion as nearly as they could. He said they felt sure the ducks would come back to the pond. Councilman Bohrer asked if anyone knew the elevation of the water surface at the present time. Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner, said the engineers department in 1976 listed the elevation as 18 feet. h1r. Satterstrom la id the Development Comer oration plans said with respect to the natural environment Fey ad provid'elI fo`r an ade- quate and diversified supply of open space and included them in an open space system. Their methods for implementing the open space program had been developed to minimize the economic impact on the tax- payer and landowner. He said the development encouraged a smooth, steady and planned growth of the business community which allowed for the location of new commercial and industrial areas and the expansion of existing ones. It encourages the establishment of office areas and encouraged the continued vitality of the commercial retailing activity in the City. He said all of the uses proposed by the appli- cant . - 'cally consistent with the zoning. He said the plan as epicted is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. He said there are some creases that need to be ironed out. Council President Van Dusen said it is important how the water is going to be treated in the future. If there are to be hotels and restaurants, there should not be odors from the' marshlands. Mr. Vergel de Dios, architect, said there would be sidewalks on either side of the parking areas. Council President Van Dusen said he had thought it would be a good idea to have a sidewalk through the center of the parking lot. Council President Van Dusen asked if there was a quantity of nesting there. Mayor Bauch said he had seen quite a few females with young down there in the spring. Councilman Johanson said the 40 acre plot we are asking to have saved is now down to 7 acres. It will just be a duck pond. Mr. Kronskini, applicant, said it is difficult to meet ' all of the criteria, but they need Council direction. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, said he thought the applicant should be aware that he can ask for a continuation of the waiver so he can modify his drawings or he can ask that the checklist not come up tonight. Mr. Kronskini said he would like the right to come back with modification, but he would like to hear the Council opinion tonight. He said if it is not favorable he would like to come back in two weeks with modifications. He said they did not have the guidelines in the first place or they could have planned that way. Mr. Vergel de Dios, architect, said with respect to the office building located in the southeast corner of the site plan next to the pond, it could be moved to the right if the building is on a prime nesting area. Mayor Bauch said he had watched the site for two years and the site fills up with water in the winter time. The wildlife comes in the spri and nest on the edge of the water. During the summer the water recede and the wildlife has to travel further to get to the water. Deputy City Attorney Hard said it was his recommendation that the Council go through the Waiver Checklist. He said he thought the applicants understood the benefits and the risks. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COUNCIL GO THROUGH THE WAIVER CHECKLIST. CARRIED. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONTINUED REGULAR MEETING RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. CARRIED. The Continued Regular Meeting was called to order by Mayor Bauch with Council Members present as previously listed. Councilman Hill returne to the meeting at 8:25 P.M. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY BOHRER, THAT THE COUNCIL VOTE "YES" Ot THE QUESTION, "DOES THE PROPOSED ACTION REPRESENT A UNIQUE CONDITION WHICH IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN SCALE ?" * Fred Satterstrom, Office Engineer, explained the applicant has clarifi this item. Any development on 40 acres is significant. ROLL CALL VOTE: BOHRER, JOHANSON, SAUL, TRAYNOR VOTING NCO. VAN DUSEI VOTING YES, HILL ABSTAINED FROM VOTING. MOTION FAILED. • N 655 - j,jel i neS view Of +� on :r•h�. Site. • Plan designates it as a Retail /Commercial Center. ..-^ ) red Satterstrom, Associate Planner, said it qualifies for a waiver under both the land use conflict and that it infringes upon the natural area of the pond.. a'E I.E. - 2op1u6 i ' IPei1J515TtUr w coMV. P.J. Councilman Bohrer said it appears that Counci wou a not process an application until such time as someone has purchased the site or has purchased an option on it. He felt Council is attempting to establish guidelines for future development of the site not for the waiver process. Mr. Kropinski noted time is running out on the bids, they have to be in by November 8th. He asked if Council will review their waiver application according to these guidelines. Councilman Bohrer. said some changes he is going to suggest in the resolution are that the guidelines are for future development not for processing a waiver. , Mr. Kropinski said they have been working for over a month under the old waiver system but they would be happy to have their plans analyzed with these guidelines in mind. He expressed concern that now their applicant will not be processed. He further commented that they do have a financial interest'in the site in as much as they are submitting a bid deposit of 5% of the amount of the bid. They can also supply . a letter from Seattle City Light authorizing them to proceed with the waiver application. • Councilman Harris asked if the City would be legally involved if Council denied a waiver and it turned out to be the high bidder. Attorney Woo said he doesn't believe that just because City Light has accepted a bid proposal the Council is required to abide by City Light's decision. The decision is in the hands of the City Council as to whether the requirements have been fulfilled. There is no vested interest at this point. Councilman Bohrer said Council's intent was to make the whole process easier. The general guidelines are for future development so this should make it easier to submit a bid because you don't have to rush through a waiver at this point. This way an applicant doesn't have to disclose his. development ideas in order to get a waiver. Mayor Bauch suggested that Council continue this regular meeting to next Monday so they. can listen to any requests and still take action on this matter. If there are other serious bidders they should come forward by that time. • • City of Tukwila I Edgar D. Bauch re Department Mayor �� Hubert H. Crawley Fire Chief To: Planning Department Planning Commission Building Department HHC:vma cc: TFD file E, Bauch, Mayor City of Tukwila From: Chief Hubert Crawley Re: Building on City Light Property We have just now had a chance to review the preliminary drawings for a proposed project on the City Light property. The magnitude of this project demands that the Fire Department be considered in every step of its development. This includes preliminary items such as layout of parking lots. By even the earliest review of drawings we can find several items that should be addressed BEFORE final drawings are made. I personally believe that no approval of plans, access, water supplies, configuration of design or consideration should be granted by any department within the City before the developers talk to us. By working in a cooperative venture between departments before approving any phase of this development, a lot of our bad experiences from the past can be avoided. Your cooperation and consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated, Fire Department, 444 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 575 -4404 ELEVATION FROM STRANDER BLVD: SECTION A-A • MEL i aEr 255 otx UMW STMKTUAE SECTION B •B E -x GEti S1 26'0 .:...••• X..CA1PAA01G .STwtlCMM S ECTION C'C:: setback E=x I( x— m"a�inti a major . moms mat i _ x _RWAKE6 STRICT SECTION D•D tukwila city center I n r •ra05Erg .t . -nvx rrs ^.:se is tt« _ : l i : ' «:a - ••..: • 2 major. _x_mac i AGE 21111 $ MAO wu x x 11ACE100$WIM= • x IT AN MAC • levati on::. : ;: nd Sect ions 18 hotel AYEAME ariv WA1EA .51MtFALE 15.0 IEOAiK ELI WINO S1 Ka 1SS11 an. OF WATO SOLE'' 150 11 111E /0111 r1Etw g•Kv as OF mat Kira 150• FIG: •