HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit DR-02-75 - PETERSON - RAINIER NATIONAL BANK DESIGN REVIEWDR-02-75
235 STRANDER BOULEVARD
DR-10-78
RAINIER BANK DESIGN REVIEW
CITY of TUKWILA
6230SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
Mr. Richard V. Peterson
1100 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98109
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Frank Todd, Mayor
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(.
2 October 1975
The Environmental Questionnaire completed by you for the proposed construc-
tion of the.Southcenter branch of the Rainier National Bank has been reviewed
by all appropriate municipal offices and has determined the proposed action
has no significant environmental impact. Thus, a complete environmental
impact statement is not required.
Should you have any questions or desire further information regarding this
matter, please contact me at 242 -2177.
Sincere
Gary Crutch ield
Assistant '` anner
GC /cw
cc: Ping Dir
Bing Dir
DURHAM ANDERSON FREED COMPANY, PS, 1100 EASTLAKE EAST, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109, 206- 682 -9000
AFFILIATED WITH THE HDR COMPANIES
September 5, 1975 Architecture •EnglneerIng•Planning
Tukwila Planning Department
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Attention Mr. Gary Crutchfield
Re: Southcenter Office
Rainier National Bank
Gentlemen:
We are enclosing the Environmental Questionnaire for the above project for your
review and approval.
Very truly yours,
DURHAM ANDERSON FREED COMPANY
RVP:Im
Enclosure
ROBERT L. DURHAM FAIA /MILTON L. SMITH PE /DAVID R. ANDERSON AIA /AARON FREED AIA /RICHARD V. PETERSON AIA /HAROLD K. ROE SE CE /JAMES E. BOONE AIA/STEPHEN M. DAM AIA /K.E. RICHARDSON AIA
CITY o F TU KWI LA
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWI LA, WASHINGTON 98067
Mr. Richard Peterson
Durham, Anderson, Freed Company, PS
1120 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98109 .
Dear Mr. Peterson:
c
Frank Todd, Mayor
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RE: Rainier Bank (Tukwila)
29 August 1975
The Tukwila Planning Commission, at its regular meeting conducted 28 August
1975, reviewed the site plan and elevations submitted for Commission approval
as required by Chapter 18.32 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC).
The Commission approved the site plan and elevations with the stipulation
that a detailed landscape plan be approved by the Commission prior to issuance
of occupancy permit and that all signing comply with Title 19 (TMC).
Please contact this office at 242 -2177 should you have any questions regarding
this matter.
Sincerely,
n,
Gary trutchfJ eld
Assistant P anner
GC /cw
cc: Bldg Dir
Dear Mr. Peterson:
Sincerely,
Gafr� utch'ield
Assistant P anner
GC /cw
Encl: as
C
Frank Todd, Mayor
CITY of TUKWILA
6230 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mr. Richard Peterson
Durham, Anderson, Freed Company, PS
1100 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98109
RE: Rainier Bank (Tukwila)
29 August 1975
In reviewing the environmental examination form completed by your firm
earlier this month, I must confess some confusion with respect to the
information contained therein as it relates to the site plan submitted for
the project.
More particularly, section. III (B) states "a11 of the property is paved ",
section V (A) states "none presently exist" with respect to existing vegeta-
tion and section XIV states "this new structure will replace a service station ".
The site plan submitted for the project situates the property adjacent the
service station property and as being in a semi - natural state.
This office, in the interest of an accurate record of information, requests
your firm submit a new environmental examination accurately reflecting the
existing conditions of the proposed site as well as anticipated effects of
the proposed project. For that purpose I have attached another blank form.
Should you desire to discuss the matter please contact me at 242 - 2177.
ti
Planning Commission Page 2
Minutes 28 August 1975
Mr. Stoknes, Planning Director, pointed out the Department hopes to be
started on initial policy plan review around mid - October.
Chairman Mettler requested that copies of the City Council Resolution #489
be made available to all Commissioners as it severely restricts rezones, ;
filling and excavation activities for the next year or until a new Comprehensive
Plan has been established.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Site Plan Review - #751 Segale Business Park
Mr. Gary Crutchfield, Assistant Planner, described the site plan submitted for
Project #751 of Segale Business Park. Pointed out that about three parking
stalls originally designed as a part of the adjacent Project #733 are now
proposed as truck door area for;Project #751. Mr. Tom Sconzo, Architect,
explained that additional stalls have been provided at the other end of
Project #733 to maintain the original number of parking spaces provided for
Project #733; thus, the use of those 3 stalls by Project #751 will not adversely
affect Project #733.
Motion by Mr. Link, seconded by Mr. West and carried to approve the site plan
as presented with the stipulation that all landscaping conform to the Master
Landscape Plan previously approved by the Commission.
Site Plan Review - #752 Segale Business Park
Mr. Crutchfield described the proposed site plan for Project #752 of Segale
Business Park and recommended approval.
Motion by Mr. Kirsop, seconded by Mr. Lamb and carried to approve the site
plan as presented with the stipulation that all landscaping conform to the
Master Landscape Plan previously approved by the Commission.
Site Plan rev -iew - Raini Bank (Strander...Bd,l
Mr. Crutchfield described the location and layout of the proposed banking
facility to be located directly across from the Double -Tree Inn on Strander
Boulevard and recommended approval.
Motion by Mr. Sneva, seconded.by Mr.. Lamb and carried to approve the site plan
with the stipulation that a detafiled landscape plan be approved by the
Commission prior to issuance of occupancy permit and that all signing comply
with Title 19 of the Tukwila Municipal Code.
Gentlemen:
DURHAM ANDERSON FREED COMPANY, PS, 1100 EASTLAKE EAST, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109, 206 -682 -9000
AFFILIATED WITH THE HDR COMPANIES
August 8, 1975 Architecture •Engineering•PlannIng
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98067
Attention Gary Crutchfield
Re: Rainier National Bank
Southcenter Office
235 Strander Boulevard
We are enclosing one set of drawings and the completed environmental examination
report for your review .
Should you have any questions, please contact me or Aaron Freed at this office
number, 682 -9000.
Very truly yours,
DURHAM ANDERSON FREED COMPANY
Richard V. Peterson
RVP:Im
Enclosures
ROBERT L. DURHAM FAIA /MILTON L. SMITH PE /DAVID R. ANDERSON AIA /AARON FREED AIA /RICHARD V. PETERSON AIA /HAROLD K. SE CE /JAMES E. BOONE AIA/STEPHEN M. DAM AIA /K.E. RICHARDSON AR
For Office
Use Only
NO
NO
CITY OF TUKWILA
King County, Washington
PROJECT NAME OR DESCRIPTION
Rainier National Bank
Southcenter Office
235 Strander Boulevard
No, not according to the Soils report
ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
I. EARTH
A) Would the proposal result in unstable conditions or in any
substantial changes in geological substructure?
B) Would the proposal result in any substantial disruptions,
displacements or overcovering of the soils?
C) Would the proposal result in any substantial change in
topography or ground surface relief features?
D) Would the proposal result in the destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
M/F #
Pursuant to the Washington State Environmental Policy Act of 1971
(SEPA) and Chapter 18.98 of the Tukwila Municipal Code, a deter-
mination must be made in accordance with the procedures set forth
therein as to the need for the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment Summary to sufficiently
assess the environmental effects of the proposed action. The
questions contained herein are designed to provide this office with
the basic information necessary to make the aforementioned determin -'
ation and should be answered in an objective manner and to the
fullest extent possible.
Please return the completed review at your earliest convenience to:
Na
RECEIVED
AUG `r 1l b
Durham Anderson Freed
For Office
Use Only
E) Would the proposal result in any significant increase in wind
or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
NO
II. AIR
III. WATER
F) Would the proposal result in notable changes in deposition
or erosion of beach sands, or in changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream?
NO
A) Would the proposal involve substantial air emissions, or
result in deterioration of ambient air quality?
NO
B) Would the proposal substantially alter air temperature, or
result in any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
NO
A) Would the proposal result in any notable changes in currents,
or the course or direction of surface water movement, in
either marine or fresh waters?
NO
B) Would the proposal result in any substantial changes in
absorption rates or the amount of surface water runoff?
No, except for planting areas; all of the property is paved.
C) Would the proposal result in any significant alterations to
the course or flow of flood waters?
NO
D) Would the proposal result in a significant increase or de-
crease in the amount of surface water in any watercourse?
NO
E) Would the proposal result in substantial discharge to surface
waters, or result in any significant alteration of surface
water quality, including temperature?
NO
F) Would the proposal result in any notable alteration of the
direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
NO
2
G) Would the proposal result in any notable increase or decrease
in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations?
NO
H) Would the proposal result in any notable deterioration in
ground water quality, either through direct injection, or
through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, water-
borne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground
waters?
IV. FLORA
NO
Would the proposal substantially reduce the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
NO. Only water used for inside plumbing and landscape sprinklers.
A) Would the proposal result in a significant reduction in the
numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora, and aquatic plants)?
NO
B) Would the proposal result in the elimination of notable numbers
of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora?
NO
C) Would the proposal result in the introduction of new species
of flora into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
NO
V. FAUNA
A) Would the proposal result in a significant reduction in the
numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals includ-
ing reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects,
microfauna)?
No, since none presently exist on the site .
B) Would the proposal result in the elimination of notable num-
bers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna?
NO
3
C) Would the proposal result in the introduction of new species
of fauna into an area, or result in a significant barrier to
the migration or movement of fauna?
VI. NOISE: Would the proposal produce objectionable noise levels?
None more than the existing businesLnoice levplc _
VII. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS: Would the proposal significantly
alter the location of the human population of an area?
VIII. LAND USE: Would the proposal result in the alteration of the
present or planned land use of a substantial area?
IX. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
Al Would the proposal result in the generation of substantial
additional vehicular movement?
NO
NO
NO. Present grades to remain.
NO. Only that traffic normal for a branch banking facility.
•
Would the proposal result in a significant impact upon existing
transportation systems?
NO. Most people use their autos to use banking facility.
C) Would the proposal result in significant alterations to present
patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods?
NO, only normal traffic.
D) Would the proposal result in substantial alterations to water-
borne or air traffic?
NO
X. LOCAL SERVICES
A) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial new fire
protection?
NO
4
B) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial new police
protection?
NO only that which is normal to presently existing business establishments.
C) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial educational
services, or will it have a significant adverse effect on any
existing school?
NO
0) Would the proposal result in a need for any new park facili-
ties not included in the proposal, or will it have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on any existing park?
NO
E) Would the proposal result in a need for substantially in-
creased maintenance of existing public facilities?
NO
F) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial other new
governmental services (libraries, animal control, social and
health services, etc.)?
NO
XI. ENERGY
A) Would the proposal result in the use of substantial amounts
of fuel or energy?
NO
B) Would the proposal result in a .significant impact upon existing
sources of energy, or require the development of new sources
of energy?
NO
XII. UTILITIES
A) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial alterations
to existing power or natural gas utility systems?
NO
B) Would the proposal result in a need for "substantial alterations
to existing communications systems?
NO
5
C) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial alterations
to existing water supply systems?
NO
D) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial alterations
to existing sewer systems, or result in substantial numbers of
new septic tanks?
NO
E) Would the proposal result in a need for substantial alterations
to existing storm water drainage or sewer systems?
NO
F) Would the proposal result in the generation of a substantial
amount of solid waste?
NO, Only that which is normal to business offices.
XIII. HUMAN HEALTH: Would the proposal result in the creation of any
health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental
health and the hazard of injury producing accidents)?
NO
XIV. AESTHETICS: Would the proposal result in the destruction of any
scenic vista or view or natural area open to the public,_and
would the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site?
NO. This new structure will replace a service station; therefore, enhance the site.
No. None presently exists.
XV. RECREATION: Would the proposal result in a significant adverse
impact upon the quality and quantity of existing recreational
opportunities (hunting, fishing, boating, swimming, camping,
hiking, picnicking, etc.)?
XVI. ARCHEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL: Would the proposal result in a notable
alteration of a presently unique archeological or historical
site?
NO.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RICHARD V. PETERSON, Ala --
DURHAM, ANDERSON, FREED CO., Archjtects
1100 EASTLAKE AVE. EAST
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON WAS
6
February 1975
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit
from the city of Tukwila., unless it is determined by the Responsible Official
that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other
forms have been developed for single - family home applications and legislation
proposals.
BACKGROUND DATA:
1. Name of applicant: 4/umee A/A TIO BA-1
2. Address and phone of Applicant: P e, Qok 3 5.C 1 SeA77t4F, . 6 24,2
3. Project name: ,:10U't?- 1-4.6.1 12 O c,5
4. Project location: 235 .oraor.fl SLVD ;, 1Uk1,vii-A - WA _
5. Nature and brief description of proposal: TWo slva.\f 13a -A-Ncs GlrMk_
TM I-b(4& APPt i /11A-74. -1- ! S s 0 0 , F T i ) A 1?•541
6. Estimated completion date: JuN E /4776
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain: NO
8. What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this
project?
(a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. YES NOV
(b) King County Hydr Permit YES- NO {/
(c) Building permit YES ✓ NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO V
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES tV NO
(f). Sign permit YES V' NO
(g) Water hook up permit YES i/ NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES V NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES V NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES V' NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES js' NO
• (1) Other
9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by , .
your proposal? If yes, explain: No
10. Agency requiring checklist: City of Tukwila, Department - PekgNftJG-'
11. Accepted by agency on: 9 cep '7 by: k( 4 td
(to be filled in by city upon 1 of checklist
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.)
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in
any changes in geologic sub-
structures:
(b) Disruptions, displacements
or overcovering of the soils:
(c) Change in topography or ground
surface relief features?
The destruction, covering, or
modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or
erosion of beach sands, or
in changes in siltation,
deposition, or erosion which
may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet
or lake?
Explanation:
Air. Will the proposal :result in:
.
(a) Air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable
odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement,
moisture or temperature, or
in any change in climate, •
. either locally or regionally?
Explanation:
-1-
Yes Maybe No
•
( g )
lt
5 •-•'•
•
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water
movements, in either marine
or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage pattern or the
amount of surface water run-
off?
(c) Alterations to the course or
flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface
water in any watercourse?
(e) Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of sur-
face:water quality, including
temperature or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground.waters?
Change in the quantity of
ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
acquifer by cuts or excavations?
(h) Deterioration in ground water
quality, either through direct
injection, or through the seep-
age of leachate, phosphates,
detergents, waterborne virus
or bacteria, or other substances
into the ground waters?
Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
Explanation:
-2-
Yes
Maybe No •
(b) h1A-Jeweirl 77 6"/ /3e 86i/c..4fly6 4
PiCptfirt-r Plirvin1G- tf./(Tht Ir /1 4 -94x.1405C017 4 5,,D.
ScieF-AeL.Z. C‘i,Trtet Cec c EITE 2)C-Mt12-6,66 /Ain)
805 7 tv G 12" S7Ott-A4 014-A-7/.,/ cf/ A/r_ez2) .:` Erieft
361)L&vAk
Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change'in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of flora
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, micro -flora and aquatic
plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of flora?
Introduction of new species of
flora into an area, or in a bar-
rier, to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
Explanation:
(G) Cst/Po vEL 'E S 711-e- 0 c -'o,r.D
Ai4b shtv &s .
Fauna.' Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of fauna
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects, or micro - fauna)?
) Reduction of the numbers of any
'unique, rare or endangered species
of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna
into an area, or result in a
to the migration or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
Noise.- Will the proposal increase exist -
ing noise levels?
Explanation:
Yes Maybe No
w r 7}f N,Ew 771 - -s
.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Explanation: '
Land Use. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of the present or planned land:
use of an area?
Explanation:
Natural Resources. Will the proposal re-
sult in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resource?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable nat-
ural resource?
Explanation:.
Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve
a risk of an explosion or the. release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
Population. Will the proposal alter the
location, distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an area?
Explanation:
Yes Maybe.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing availability, or create a demand for
additional housing?
Explanation:
Transportation /Circulation. Will the pro-
posal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular
movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation
systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne or air
traffic?
Local Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new
services in any of the following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
(f) Other' governmental services?
Explanation:
Yes Maybe No
Explanation: •
CA) Ofit.sf AFAhrtUok.044L i i i G &. &OI' / ? tU tar 8/211 11
rcPrC./ Lt co PI ,64-1 VC = UP 3 4 iA l A/6- AGrLrriic -S
•
Explanation:
•
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or alterations to the follow -
ing`utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) .Communications systems?
(c) Water ?*
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation;
Human Health. Will the proposal result in the
creation of hazard or potential .
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open
to the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically offensive
site open to public view?
Explanation:
Yes Maybe
V
•
Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi-
cantIncrease in city revenues?
Explanation:
Empl oymmnt. Will the proposal create a
significant amount of new jobs?
.::Explanation:
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of ex-
fisting recreational opp ortunities?
Explanation:
Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal
result in an alteration of a significant
archeological or historical site?
Explanation:
Yes
Maybe` No'.
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
Thereby certify that the information furnished in this environmental checklist
l ARU V. P T ?RS} mcurate to the best of my. knowledge.
DURHAM, ANDERSON, FREED 00.,;x. is
1100 EASTLAKE AVE. EAS1
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON pH*(
Project Name: 774C i or-pie-e t /<
Project Address: 2 35 671p.kE1.2 .E3�C)C9 p 1 71),W 4,4 ,
BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY
ACTION BY OTHER' DEPARTMENTS:
1. Date of Review: Building
Planning
Signature and Title
CITY OF TUKWILA
/ ) - 2f
9-j7_76"
by:
June 24, 1975
. by: •
by:
Engineering ;4.. by: 4 ' --•e.
Police /0-- i. by:
Fire SEP 3 0 1975
9 , ¢ _ 76 _
Date
2. Agency review of environmental checklist deter that:
':The project is exempt by definition.
The project has no significant environmental impact and application
should be processed without further consideration of environmental affects.
The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ -,::
mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for permit
More specific information is needed to determine impact.
•
•
/)/2./7
Date
•
=Check one
( +) or ( -)
( +) or
( +) Or (
( +) or
(+3 or Or
gnature and.'Title.of Responsible Official
3. Applicant was notified of decision on:
f'i RR
r "y ' b � ;:. y ',d e '..r' - '�° • J .ems
Date.' Staff Person Letter, phone
In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila
Ordinance No. 759.
(a) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be'done..
( -)• Means recommend a full environmental impact statement'not'be done:
4we
4 ;71v 1532
0QNYftellc
S Z - �dQ
tt
1
1
1: 1 l
7• za a „
7. 2: •,, ,Le "
DATE TO
EXIST. CONC.
MONUMENT
P.O.P>.
EXISTING STANDARD
STATION
C -M ZONE
5Ar1. M.H.
Rim 28.87
e 21. Q : _� 5 945
�1
ASPHALT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
. That portion of the S.E. 1/4 of the N.W. 1/4 of
Sec. 26, Twp. 23 N., R. 4 E., W.M. situated in
King County, Washington described as follows:
Beginning at the monumentod intersection of the
centerlines of Southcenter Parkway (57th Avenue So.)
and Strander Blvd. (So. 164th St.); Thence 5 89 ° 45'58 "E
along the monumentod centerline of said Strander Blvd. a
distance of 675.05 ft, to an intersect with the monumentod
East lino of said subdivision; thence S 0 ° 25'58 "E along
said East line a distance of 30.00 ft. to an intersect with
the South margin of said Strander Blvd. and the True Point
of Beginning of the heroin described tract; thence N 89
45'58"W along said South margin a distance of 200.00 ft.;
thence 5 0 ° 25'58" E along a lino parallel to the East line
of said subdivision a distance of 200,00 ft.; thence 5 89
45'58 "'E along o line parallel to the South margin of said
Strander Blvd. a distance of 200.00 ft. to an intersect
with the monumented East line of said subdivision; thence
N 0 ° 25'58" W along said East line a distance of 200.00 ft.
to the True Point of Beginning.
Situate in the Town of Tukwila, County. of King,
State of Washington.
P UNDERGROUND ROWER LIN '\
' P
G b A� 4 I MEDIATE �PRE'SSURE STEEL 42� RAPPED^ MAC? (30' =36"DEEP)'\
trN
SAN M.H. (!)
Rim 27.99 S
27 "ie W.99
8" ie 22..ces
I gt 5 89',x`45"58 4 '
r T
UNDERGROUND
'TELEPHONE CABL1 ��
T TELEPHONE
CABLE MAR
6" cone.
CURD
y9
42
•
8
S SIGN
5
'l�A 71E677atf 'ti�fl l7IFi!!Rl /E. ttt GOJ11R
DENCM MARK
ti 9
+L 9.
°�9
04 92
1
8 "C.I. WATER MAIN (150 P, S.I. STATIC HEAD) -\
W- W
STRAIr1 DER DOULEVARD
64" CONC. 1 ." ) VERTICA L(/ /CURB
ounD CONC. MoN h 59' ti 'W t %5'SB 200.00'
TOP EL. 28.214 10 UTILITY EASEM'T. PER. AUD. FILE N° 5990967
19 „ 0' 4 ?
x0 9
. �0
5ET I.P w /CAP
TOP EL. 29.55
ASPHALT
1g
9 D
a'f9' ,19'
INS ea
.�
xe L
D I2`STORM N..J
5
PAVING - GOOD CONDITION
1
0 " 01 5
8
0 y
O START 6 "GANG. RETAINING
WALL w/ FENCE ON LINE
0
!7P7' 429.
,fD ,2
9 A
• A(Y` 41o
C. P. R. ZONE
V12." SANITARY SEWER
.2
0
SOIL BORING
42 ,2
.2 .21 P
589 °45'55 "E
f� Z L
C -M 2.O(E
VACANT
SURVEY NOTES:
+l(
1 . Horizontal Datum: Assumed
•
2. Vertical Datum: City of,Tukwila
3. Setback Line as shown relates to any structure including •
canopies.
4. There are no future plani'•for regrading or the realign-
ment of Strander Blvd. by_the City of Tukwila at this
:r(
5. 'All underground utilities`,shown per records of applicable
utility.
6. •Fire District:. Tukwila Fire Zone 111
i.:
7. Building Zone: City of Tukwila Building Code 1973 UBC
ii
8 Property Zone: C -M C.:iIWt •of Tukwila
50' setback on street - Nate for side or rear yards. •
9. Area: 39,997 Sq. Ft.
•S
10• Sewer Linos: City of Tukwila
11. Storm Drains: City of Tukwila
12. Water Lines: City of Tukviila.
13. Gas Lines: Washingto Natural Gas Company
14. Telephone: Pacific N • W :'Bell
15. Power: Puget Sound Powe4 Light Company
16. Fuel Lines: Olympic Pipeline Company
4 ,19
47 piD xo t •1 o 421 , 4■
SURVEY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION - FOR
S "-- 27 "METRO SANITARY SEWER
W
1Y'
(SO. 164th 5T)
CATCH BASIN
RIM 26.W
le 2245 1 ),P
INFORMATION ONLY
1675.05"
AP'
50' 5ETFACK LINE PER CITY OF TUKWILA ORD. Na 18.52.030
6" CONC. a% VERTICAL IP
5
9y
■9 of
ti
FLb'
,t/P 8 103
,2 ,212 FU10
®1,1
50IL 6QRING
1 O
42 1°1
DAIS • DIEULS DRAWN • (;
INVITED •
FLE %1
W
FOUND
CONC. M N
8
.Z t
•2 10
Z1 e
CHECKED •
;
1' 41
1114040117101TRPT9T 1 � I 01
2 4 5 6 7
OE se EIL CZ 9Z SZ VZ CZ ZZ lZ OZ GI 01 1.1 91 91 't 'CI ZI 11 Gi i
-- .J 1161 , 1 1 .116111111411101[111114) 1111,111111.111141 111AIII1Jd,U, 1111111111 11Il1Ih11111111111.1111111Ig11111'
2 Awrrno: ,T.
_,,
8
CURB
2 11
1 0P
175'
� -W
FIRE
_
5
EXIST. CONC. MONUMENT
SAN. M.N, - RIM 2 4.58 - I.E. 1/0.4t
(PIPE NOT CFIANNELED)-
5 112' N
f, 10
vy. •
VAULT
UNDERGROUND POWER
\ LINE. (12.5 KY)
UNDERGROUND FUEL LINE
(1 P,S,I. MAX.)
d ,1, f'
4
/SO 4 ..
3 ft
0' zP
4 POWER
2 /o •
VACANT
C -M LONE
s„1.0
1100 EASTLAKE EAST
ROBERT L. DURHAM FAIA
TREET Licit-•r
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 51109
' IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO!
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT'
2- le a- 18
4-
ARCHITECTS DURHAM ANDERSON FREED COMPANY P.S.
MUlu.l 2.9000
DAVID R. ANDERSON AIA AARON FREED AIA • RICHARD V. 'ETERSON AIA HAROLD K. ROE 5E CE
I; •
•
21o'O"
D417i / io
N
\. I' ' /if'L 1
55 -o••
,- (1YP.
Ito 4"
REC0SSED G RBAGE
GAN \ SEE
`!SP. CS•
a SPACES 10= •
-r8
12 SPACES Co Ii•fn • 138' -0"
\\ \ \ \
\ \ \
1
;/;.?:
L3LDG.
LINES
U
0
U'
SITE PLAN - ROOF PLAN
II 1�
(r Y' FLAGPOLE- Hs
SEE OE7..
75
72
le% 0
O
1
PCS-2 -15
cfAINigZ n4NK
V75 5erok-NiDm
l
II
1 12:-
22_6"
;RAINIER NATIONAL BANK - SOUTHCENTER OFFICE
235 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKW ILA, WASHINGTON
VF ;.SURVEY -SITE PLAN - ROOF PLAN '., . 1 /a' -'
X
- 2 , 1 0
JOB NUMBER •
SHUT NUMBER
SAFETY GL,
CONC.
J
SAFETY GI:
/
/
SAFETY
GL *„
. ....._
GWB 1
/N
/
\,
e.
, a
2
r _____
CONC.
J
a ,,2 .H.- 0.c.
. GWB
3 RT. ac10 4 7 /3'4,"
GWB 1
/N
/
/-
e.
, a
2
GWB
..
GWB
—
\
\
/
128
i
16"o.c.
.4 -
--
.
- 4-2412
CARRIAGES
24' 12.
GRILLE OR
LOUVER M.
70 DOoR
LOUVER
5
: . ..
. .
. „
.'...- .. ...,,. .. „
..-
I
7.12.75
DATE
. • ,
TO
NO.
CEDAR
GM,
CEDAR
"a
OPEN
iIi
14" TRUS•JOISTS
C16'' 0.C.
WAHL
4.12."
GRILLE
J
4"4 12"
1GRILLE
011(1.1.331.30313 CO31•3113 300 30333 11341,
CONC.
I
SU LATION
RIGID IN•
ASBESTOS CEMENT BOARD
2.02
GWB
STEEL PIPE AND
RAIL ON EAST
WALL OF STAIR
GWB
e •
SECTION CC - STAIR 14 3
RIGID INSULATION
SECTION DD
P
SECTION EE - STAIR ' I
0
1-
0
HINGED 30 ROOF SKUTILE W/ INSULATED CURB
(SEE SPECS.) - PROVIDE CANT STRIPS - FLASH
INTO ROOFING
ASBESTOS CEMENT BOARD
LADDER
- -INSTALL 4 I 2. PAINTED
STAMPED SHT MET GRILLE
IN SECOND RISER FROM
TOP 4 BOTTOM OF STAIR.
COVER E.DGEs I
w000 SCREEN OWING.
31
2,12 4 11;0.c. 1 1 ' 1111_041,..,
'
CONC.
CONC,
4
111
SECOND FLOOR
ELEV.
FIRST FLOOR
ELEV,
CO NC,
1 , ISMIAMH
0
1
- 1 1
CLEAR PLATE GLASS
GR1LLE-SEE
MEC ---
H '
i -- 1
DRIVE-UP WIN-
oow (F.o.r.a)
CEDAR
• 1-12 CONC. SLAB
VENTILATOR
GWB
CONC.
GLX
SAFETY GL,
1■1104■1
CONC.,
- 4 12
JOISTS At LOW
P_01 NT
G.L. BEAM
1LANKET N
JLAT1ON
-G,L.SEAM BLANKET INSULATION
111
LT. Flx.
et R
G.L. BEAM
CEDAR
BLANKET INSUL
5 /8 . GWB
CONC. CoL.
VISUAL AUTO TELLER (F,010.)
;7.
L
\ TS
L T ' 0
GW9
CONC. • • I •
2412 4 0.C.
MlR ROR' C0
11 so: 'PTo
—LAM.P1.4.-sEE
spEcs.-ri
i 2414 D It. II
CO NC.
GWB
OPEN
/
• lk - 7 - 7 — n ---7- 1
4, 406d/surly-rap,
TRUSS. JOIST cu.; O.C.
BLANKET INSULATION
LT. FIXTURE
• Grub
DATE • A A DRAWN •
GWB
REVISED • CHECKED •
H • .101P
isriAs
CEDAR
•
1100 EASTLAKE EAST
ROBERT L.OURHAM FAIA
5 6 7
TLEXIDLE RuLER - 3DRAWr1xo,TR4=
8I 1
1 OE GZ DE LZ gZ SZ VZ CZ ZZ 10 OZ GI Ell hl 91 Sl AL Cl 0 11
1-,--1
SOUTH ELEVATION
SECTION F-F
6 COFFERS
SECTION G-G
9% 7
ct
1NSULA 1NG GLAS
ARCHITECTS DURHAM ANDERSON FREED COMPANY P.S.
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 911104 mUi5,41 2.9000
DAVID R. ANDERSON AIA AARON FREED AIA RICHARD V. PETERSON AIA HAROLD K. ROE SE CE
_CR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ::,
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESSr
LEA
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
COLOR AN= ALUM.
-SIL COL.
BASEBOARD HEATER
•
3 4 2 RISER
i RISERS
S Wr
1
SEAL 1 24 PLATE - / 4'4' 0 TEL CULVERT 1, 1
T S FOR BoT N ' MANHOLE ACCESS 1
,2( DEEP SUMP NW pumP
5 I
4-.4.6
',_
_ WINDOW (E0.1 0 .)
TRUSSES c? 0 0.C.
/G.L. SEAM
KEEP SPACE
OPEN
CONC.
- BLANKET INSULATio
;-G.L. SEAM
11
VISUAL AUTO TELLERS (RDA o.)
-GUARD POSTS
G.L. BEAM- x
CONC.
CONC.
128-2-1
17400■113m t3L
RAI NIER NATIONAL BANK - SOUTHCENT ER OFFICE
a5 STRANDER BOULEVARD TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION - BUILDING SECTIONS
/4 0"
Jot, NUMBER • MET21.
SHEET NUMBER
A- 6
OF