Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L99-0037 - SBD INC - CONDITIONAL USE / WAIVERL99 -0037 LAS VEGAL BLVD. WAIVER REQUEST 14040 Interurban Ave. So. (CUP CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR WAIVER FROM GAMBLING MORATORIUM (ORDINANCE 1867). COUNCIL DENIED REQUEST ON 6/7/99 MEMO TO: Steve Lancaster Jack Pace FROM: Deb Ritter DATE: July 1, 1999 RE: Appeal of Denial of Hardship Waiver under Gambling Moratorium Las Vegas Boulevard Casino 14040 Interurban Avenue South File L99-0037 Ross Rad ley has been retained by SBD, Inc. to appeal the Council's denial of the hardship waiver. According to Bob Noe, this appeal will be filed with King County Superior Court under "LUPA" (the Land Use Petition Act — see RCW 36.70C, attached). Mr. Radley indicated that the appeal w* I be filed under the expedited review process (see RCW 36.70C.090). Per Bob, the appeal must be Hd within 30 days of the June 7th denial and must be heard within 60 days of filing. This is a closed record peal — no depositions or discovery will occur. ho offv_Q Per 640 116€-- q tom 'Aug RCW Public ;upment ��aring. :,mmis- by the :unduct a pro - `S 6.70C ::on the mg RCW ,rity to 11B.170 '.aws of impose ire any except ions of RCW _ounty Ire that 1 assis- licants. '.,ermit i l,ection 1t focal !)ply to irovide •opies 111 also '•lining Ins and means `id of the .ection ppila- (2) of td the '.anent. rvided nment :ounty :nsive 1st of to the )98 Ed.) Local Project Review 36.708.230 plan and regulations that were adopted before July 31st of each following year. [1996 c 254 § 6.] 36.70B.900 Finding — Severability —Part headings and table of contents not law -1995 c 347. See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. Chapter 36.70C JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LAND USE DECISIONS Sections 36.70C.005 Short title. 36.70C.010 Purpose. 36.70C.020 Definitions. 36.70C.030 Chapter exclusive means of judicial review of land use deci- sions— Exceptions. 36.70C.040 Commencement of review —Land use petition— Procedure. 36.70C.050 Joinder of parties. 36.70C.060 Standing. 36.70C.070 Land use petition— Required elements. 36.70C.080 Initial hearing. 36.70C.090 Expedited review. 36.70C.100 Stay of action pending review. 36.70C.1 I0 Record for judicial review— Costs. 36.70C.120 Scope of review— Discovery. 36.70C.130 Standards for granting relief. 36.70C.140 Decision of the court. 36.70C.900 Finding — Severability —Part headings and table of contents not law -1995 c 347. 36.70C.005 Short title. This chapter may be known and cited as the land use petition act. [1995 c 347 § 701.] 36.70C.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to reform the process for judicial review of land use deci- sions made by local jurisdictions, by establishing uniform, expedited appeal procedures and uniform criteria for review- ing such decisions, in order to provide consistent, predict- able, and timely judicial review. [1995 c 347 § 702.] 36.70C.020 Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Land use decision" means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on: (a) An application for a project permit or other govern- mental approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfer streets, parks, and similar types of public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area -wide rezones and annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, develop- ment, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinanc- es regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. However, when a local jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinances in (1998 Ed.) a court of limited jurisdiction, a petition may not be brought under this chapter. (2) "Local jurisdiction" means a county, city, or incor- porated town. (3) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corpora- tion, association, public or private organization, or govern- mental entity or agency. [1995 c 347 § 703.] 36.70C.030 Chapter exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions— Exceptions. (1) This chapter replaces the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use deci- sions and shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, except that this chapter does not apply to: (a) Judicial review of: (i) Land use decisions made by bodies that are not part of a local jurisdiction; (ii) Land use decisions of a local jurisdiction that are subject to review by a quasi-judicial body created by state law, such as the shorelines hearings board or the growth management hearings board; (b) Judicial review of applications for a writ of manda- mus or prohibition; or (c) Claims provided by any law for monetary damages or compensation. If one or more claims for damages or compensation are set forth in the same complaint with a land use petition brought under this chapter, the claims are not subject to the procedures and standards, including deadlines, provided in this chapter for review of the petition. The judge who hears the land use petition may, if appropriate, preside at a trial for damages or compensation. (2) The superior court civil rules govern procedural matters under this chapter to the extent that the rules are consistent with this chapter. [ 1995 c 347 § 704.] 36.70C.040 Commencement of review —Land use petition — Procedure. (1) Proceedings for review under this chapter shall be commenced by filing a land use petition in superior court. (2) A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served on the following persons who shall be parties to the review of the land use petition: (a) The focal jurisdiction, which for purposes of the petition shall be the jurisdiction's corporate entity and not an individual decision maker or department; (b) Each of the following persons if the person is not the petitioner: (i) Each person identified by name and address in the local jurisdiction's written decision as an applicant for the permit or approval at issue; and (ii) Each person identified by name and address in the local jurisdiction's written decision as an owner of the property at issue; (c) If no person is identified in a written decision as provided in (b) of this subsection, each person identified by name and address as a taxpayer for the property at issue in the records of the county assessor, based upon the descrip- tion of the property in the application; and (d) Each person named in the written decision who filed an appeal to a local jurisdiction quasi-judicial decision maker regarding the land use decision at issue, unless the person [Title 36 RCW —page 199] Z . HZ r 00 OD CI OD Ili J F- • LL W O 2 <. a W 1— 0 W~ • W U� O - H W W' O Wz U =. O F-. Z 36.70C.040 Title 36 RCW: has abandoned the appeal or the person's claims were dismissed before the quasi-judicial decision was rendered. Persons who later intervened or joined in the appeal are not required to be made parties under this subsection. (3) The petition is timely if it is filed and served on all parties listed in subsection (2) of this section within twenty -one days of the issuance of the land use decision. (4) For the purposes of this section, the date on which a land use decision is issued is: (a) Three days after a written decision is mailed by the local jurisdiction or, if not mailed, the date on which the local jurisdiction provides notice that a written decision is publicly available; (b) If the land use decision is made by ordinance or resolution by a legislative body sitting in a quasi - judicial capacity, the date the body passes the ordinance or resolu- tion; or (c) If neither (a) nor (b) of this subsection applies, the date the decision is entered into the public record. (5) Service on the local jurisdiction must be by delivery of a copy of the petition to the persons identified by or pursuant to RCW 4.28.080 to receive service of process. Service on other parties must be in accordance with the superior court civil rules or by first class mail to: (a) The address stated in the written decision of the local jurisdiction for each person made a party under subsection (2)(b) of this section; (b) The address stated in the records of the county assessor for each person made a party under subsection (2)(c) of this section; and (c) The address stated in the appeal to the quasi-judicial decision maker for each person made a party under subsec- tion (2)(d) of this section. (6) Service by mail is effective on the date of mailing and proof of service shall be by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. [1995 c 347 § 705.] 36.70C.050 Joinder of parties. If the applicant for the land use approval is not the owner of the real property at issue, and if the owner is not accurately identified in the records referred to in RCW 36.70C.040(2) (b) and (c), the applicant shall be responsible for promptly securing the joinder of the owners. In addition, within fourteen days after service each party initially named by the petitioner shall disclose to the other parties the name and address of any person whom such party knows may be needed for just adjudication of the petition, and the petitioner shall promptly name and serve any such person whom the petitioner agrees may be needed for just adjudication. If such a person is named and served before the initial hearing, leave of court for the joinder is not required, and the petitioner shall provide the newly joined party with copies of the pleadings filed before the party's joinder. Failure by the petitioner to name or serve, within the time required by RCW 36.70C.040(3), persons who are needed for just adjudication but who are not identified in the records referred to in RCW 36.70C.040(2)(b), or in RCW 36.70C.040(2)(c) if applicable, shall not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the land use petition. [1995 c 347 § 706.] [Title 36 RCW —page 200] Counties 36.70C.060 Standing. Standing to bring a land use petition under this chapter is limited to the following persons: (1) The applicant and the owner of property to which the land use decision is directed; (2) Another person aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision, or who would be aggrieved or ad- versely affected by a reversal or modification of the land use decision. A person is aggrieved or adversely affected within the meaning of this section only when all of the following conditions are present: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision; (c) A judgment in favor of that person would substan- tially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision; and (d) The petitioner has exhausted his or her administra- tive remedies to the extent required by law. [1995 c 347 § 707.] noted to I allows dis (4) T the initial be submi schedule hearing o (5)7 uling wit merits an tional ani the issu section. (6) [1995 c 36. provide chapter . days of record, or a stil 36.70C.070 Land use petition— Required elements. A land use petition must set forth: (1) The name and mailing address of the petitioner; (2) The name and mailing address of the petitioner's attorney, if any; (3) The name and mailing address of the local jurisdic- tion whose land use decision is at issue; (4) Identification of the decision - making body or officer, together with a duplicate copy of the decision, or, if not a written decision, a summary or brief description of it; (5) Identification of each person to be made a party under RCW 36.70C.040(2) (b) through (d); (6) Facts demonstrating that the petitioner has standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060; (7) A separate and concise statement of each error alleged to have been committed; (8) A concise statement of facts upon which the petitioner relies to sustain the statement of error; and (9) A request for relief, specifying the type and extent of relief requested. [1995 c 347 § 7081 36 petition suspem to imp' set fort basis f (2 (il the mf irrepal (( pantie: C1rCUr terms nece: [199f 36.70C.080 Initial hearing. (1) Within seven days after the petition is served on the parties identified in RCW 36.70C.040(2), the petitioner shall note, according to the local rules of superior court, an initial hearing on juris- dictional and preliminary matters. This initial hearing shall be set no sooner than thirty -five days and no later than fifty days after the petition is served on the parties identified in RCW 36.70C.040(2). (2) The parties shall note all motions on jurisdictional and procedural issues for resolution at the initial hearing, except that a motion to allow discovery may be brought sooner. Where confirmation of motions is required, each party shall be responsible for confirming its own motions. (3) The defenses of lack of standing, untimely filing or service of the petition, and failure to join persons needed for just adjudication are waived if not raised by timely motion With recon as th cour land the; any recr tior dup the cos sul' tim (1998 Ed.) and use lowing ', which seted by ,: or ad- Lund use t within flowing ikely to use that u made ubstan- caused .inistra- 347 § tnents. <ner; Tuner's irisdic- 'Officer, not a S; party !riding error Hi the extent days RCW io the juris- shall '1 fifty led in ' tional tying, )ught each 'ons. 1g or (1 for 'ution .18 Ed.) Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions noted to be heard at the initial hearing, unless the court allows discovery on such issues. (4) The petitioner shall move the court for an order at the initial hearing that sets the date on which the record must be submitted, sets a briefing schedule, sets a discovery schedule if discovery is to be allowed, and sets a date for the hearing or trial on the merits. (5) The parties may waive the initial hearing by sched- uling with the court a date for the hearing or trial on the merits and filing a stipulated order that resolves the jurisdic- tional and procedural issues raised by the petition, including the issues identified in subsections (3) and (4) of this section. (6) A party need not file an answer to the petition. [1995 c 347 § 709.] 36.70C.090 Expedited review. The court shall provide expedited review of petitions filed under this chapter. The matter must be set for hearing within sixty days of the date set for submitting the local jurisdiction's record, absent a showing of good cause for a different date or a stipulation of the parties. [1995 c 347 § 710.] 36.70C.100 Stay of action pending review. (1) A petitioner or other party may request the court to stay or suspend an action by the local jurisdiction or another party to implement the decision under review. The request must set forth a statement of grounds for the stay and the factual basis for the request. (2) A court may grant a stay only if the court finds that: (a) The party requesting the stay is likely to prevail on the merits; (b) Without the stay the party requesting it will suffer irreparable harm; (c) The grant of a stay will not substantially harm other parties to the proceedings; and (d) The request for the stay is timely in light of the circumstances of the case. (3) The court may grant the request for a stay upon such terms and conditions, including the filing of security, as are necessary to prevent harm to other parties by the stay. [1995 c 347 § 711.] 36.70C.110 Record for judicial review — Costs. (1) Within forty -five days after entry of an order to submit the record, or within such a further time as the court allows or as the parties agree, the local jurisdiction shall submit to the court a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the land use decision, except that the petitioner shall prepare at the petitioner's expense and submit a verbatim transcript of any hearings held on the matter. (2) If the parties agree, or upon order of the court, the record shall be shortened or summarized to avoid reproduc- tion and transcription of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the issues to be reviewed by the court. (3) The petitioner shall pay the Local jurisdiction the cost of preparing the record before the local jurisdiction submits the record to the court. Failure by the petitioner to timely pay the local jurisdiction relieves the local jurisdiction (1998 Ed.) 36.70C.080 of responsibility to submit the record and is grounds for dismissal of the petition. (4) If the relief sought by the petitioner is granted in whole or in part the court shall equitably assess the cost of preparing the record among the parties. In assessing costs the court shall take into account the extent to which each party prevailed and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct in agreeing or not agreeing to shorten or summarize the record under subsection (2) of this section. [1995 c 347 § 712.] 36.70C.120 Scope of review — Discovery. (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi - judicial body or officer who made factual determina- tions in support of the decision and the parties to the quasi - judicial proceeding had an opportunity consistent with due process to make a record on the factual issues, judicial review of factual issues and the conclusions drawn from the factual issues shall be confined to the record created by the quasi-judicial body or officer, except as provided in subsec- tions (2) through (4) of this section. (2) For decisions described in subsection (1) of this section, the record may be supplemented by additional evidence only if the additional evidence relates to: (a) Grounds for disqualification of a member of the body or of the officer that made the land use decision, when such grounds were unknown by the petitioner at the time the record was created; (b) Matters that were improperly excluded from the record after being offered by a party to the quasi - judicial proceeding; or (c) Matters that were outside the jurisdiction of the body or officer that made the land use decision. (3) For land use decisions other than those described in subsection (1) of this section, the record for judicial review may be supplemented by evidence of material facts that were not made part of the local jurisdiction's record. (4) The court may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record. (5) The parties may not conduct pretrial discovery except with the prior permission of the court, which may be sought by motion at any time after service of the petition. The court shall not grant permission unless the party re- questing it makes a prima facie showing of need. The court shall strictly limit discovery to what is necessary for equita- ble and timely review of the issues that are raised under subsections (2) and (3) of this section. If the court allows the record to be supplemented, the court shall require the parties to disclose before the hearing or trial on the merits the specific evidence they intend to offer. If any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, requests records under chapter 42.17 RCW relating to the matters at issue, a copy of the request shall simultaneously be given to all other parties and the court shall take such request into account in fashioning an equitable discovery order under this section. [1995 c 347 § 713.] 36.70C.130 Standards for granting relief. (1) The superior court, acting without a jury, shall review the record and such supplemental evidence as is permitted under RCW [Title 36 RCW —page 201j Z W J C O 0 • 0 w J I_.. N LL W0 �QQ u. to �. = a. I- W Z� I— 0 W O • — O H W u• l IL 8 111 Z U N 0 H Z 36.70C.130 Title 36 RCW: Counties 36.70C.120. The court may grant relief only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the standards set forth in (a) through (f) of this subsection has been met. The standards are: (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a pre- scribed process, unless the error was harmless; (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court; (d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous applica- tion of the law to the facts; (e) The land use decision is outside the authority or jurisdiction of the body or officer making the decision; or (f) The land use decision violates the constitutional rights of the party seeking relief. (2) In order to grant relief under this chapter, it is not necessary for the court to find that the local jurisdiction engaged in arbitrary and capricious conduct. A grant of relief by itself may not be deemed to establish liability,for monetary damages or compensation. [1995 c 347 § 714.] 36.70C.140 Decision of the court. The court may affirm or reverse the land use decision under review or remand it for modification or further proceedings. If the decision is remanded for modification or further proceedings, the court may make such an order as it finds necessary to preserve the interests of the parties and the public, pending further proceedings or action by the local jurisdiction. [1995 c 347 § 715.] 36.70C.900 Finding — Severability —Part headings and table of contents not law -1995 c 347. See notes following RCW 36.70A.470. Chapter 36.71 PEDDLERS' AND HAWKERS' LICENSES Sections 36.71.010 Peddler's license — "Peddler" defined. 36.71.020 Peddler's license — Application for and issuance of license. 36.71.030 Peddler's license — Record of applications. 36.71.040 Peddler's license — Cancellation of license. 36.71.050 Peddler's license — Liability of deposit —Lien on. 36.71.060 Peddler's license — Penalty for peddling without license. 36.71.070 Hawkers, auctioneers, and barterers must procure license— Exceptions. 36.71.080 Hawkers, auctioneers, and barterers must procure license — Issuance of license. 36.71.090 Farmers, gardeners, etc., peddling own produce exempt from license requirements— Exception. 36.71.010 Peddler's license — "Peddler" defined. The term "peddler" for the purpose of this chapter includes all persons, both principals and agents, who go from place to place and house to house, carrying for sale and offering for sale or exposal for sale, goods, wares, or merchandise except agricultural, horticultural, or farm products, which they may grow or raise, and except vendors of books, [Title 36 RCW —page 202] periodicals, or newspapers: PROVIDED, That nothing in this chapter shall apply to peddlers within the limits of any city or town which by ordinance regulates the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise by peddlers. [1963 c 4 § 36.71.010. Prior: 1929 c 110 § 1; 1909 c 214 § 1; RRS § 8353.] 36.71.020 Peddler's license — Application for and issuance of license. Every peddler, before commencing business in any county of the state, shall apply in writing and under oath to the appropriate county official of the county in which he proposes to operate for a county license. The application must state the names and residences of the owners or parties in whose interest the business is to be conducted. The applicant at the same time shall file a true statement under oath of the quantity and value of the stock of goods, wares, and merchandise that is in the county for sale or to be kept or exposed for sale in the county, make a special deposit of five hundred dollars, and pay the county license fee as may be fixed under the authority of RCW 36.32.120(3). The appropriate county official shall thereupon issue to the applicant a peddler's license, authorizing him to do business in the county for the term of one year from the date thereof. Every county license shall contain a copy of the application therefor, shall not be transferable, and shall not authorize more than one person to sell goods as a peddler, either by agent or clerk, or in any other way than his own proper person. [1985 c 91 § 3; 1963 c 4 § 36.71.020. Prior: 1927 c 89 § 1; 1909 c 214 § 3; RRS § 8355.] 36.71.030 Peddler's license— Record of applications. The appropriate county official of each county shall keep on file all applications for peddlers' licenses that are issued. All files and records shall be in convenient form and open to public inspection. [1985 c 91 § 4; 1963 c 4 § 36.71.030. Prior: 1909 c 214 § 4; RRS § 8356.] 36.71.040 Peddler's license — Cancellation of license. Upon the expiration and return of a county license, the appropriate county official shall cancel it, indorse thereon the cancellation, and place it on file. After holding the special deposit of the licensee for a period of ninety days from the date of cancellation, he shall return the deposit or such portion as may remain in his hands after satisfying the claims made against it. [1985 c 91 § 5; 1963 c 4 § 36.71.040. Prior: 1909 c 214 § 5; RRS § 8357.] 36.71.050 Peddler's license— Liability of deposit— Lien on. Each deposit made with the county shall be subject to all taxes legally chargeable thereto, to attachment and execution on behalf of the creditors of the licensee whose claims arise in connection with the business done under his license, and the county may be held to answer as trustee in any civil action in contract or tort brought against any licensee, and shall pay over, under order of the court or upon execution, such amount of money as the licensee may be chargeable with upon the final determination of the case. Such deposit shall also be subject to the payment of any and all fines and penalties incurred by the licensee through violations of the provisions of RCW 36.71.010, 36.71.020, 36.71.030, 36.71.040 and 36.71.060, which shall be a lien 0 998 Ed.) upon th. provide( Prior: 1 36: without or expo wares, r punishe more th nor mot 36.71.0 36 . procur goods, barters wagon basket obtains missio barter. convi( fifty d the co cost o law: as to execu indivi farmi grow sale. cou ni state § 36 § 83. pro( tive offic desi uncl 196 pro Its wit ble gat cir the m %= PP se: an sh sn (lc Z �W 00 CO t° CO La J = W gQ Nd = W Z� i- 0 Z F- W W U� 0 -. c I WW H= Z 111 —I 0 Z City Council's Findings, Conclusions, and Decision City Council for the City of Tukwila, Washington, having first conducted an open record public hearing on May 17, 1999 and continued on May 24, 1999, having first considered the testimony offered during the hearing, and having first considered all of the written exhibits submitted for the record, now enters the following findings .and conclusion and issues its decision below. I. Findings. A. Procedural History. 1. On February 1, 1999 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 1867 which imposed a moratorium "upon the filing of applications for business licenses, building permits, development permits or any other permits or approvals required for food or drink establishments seeking to conduct gambling activities, whether as a principal use or as an accessory use, including social card games, punch boards, or pull tabs, and a moratorium on the same fro establishments seeking to expand their operations if currently conducting gambling activities, including social card games, punch boards, or pull tabs." 2. On April 14, 1999, SBD, Inc. requested a hearing pursuant to Section 8 of Ordinance No. 1867 asserting that it has suffered an unusual and unreasonable hardship as a result of the moratorium and that a hardship waiver for SBD Inc. would not be contrary to the intent and purpose of Ordinance No. 1867.. 3. On May 17, 1999 City Council conducted an open record public meeting on SBD, Inc.'s request. That hearing was left open and .was continued to May 24, 1999 so that Council could receive further information and take additional testimony regarding on the hardship issue. 4. On May 24, 1999 City Council closed the hearing and indicated that it would issue findings and conclusions at the next regular City Council Meeting, June 7, 1999. B. Factual Findings. 1. SBD, Inc. owns and operates the Riverside Casino located at 14060 Interurban Avenue S., Tukwila, Washington. 2. SBD Inc. does not own the real property on which the Riverside Casino is situated. The BBN Trust owns that property. BBN Trust is the lessor and SBD Inc. is the lessee of the premises. 1 z }- z LLJ c4 2 JU 0 co co cp w W =' J H w O'. J li Q` = w z� I- O. Z ~. U co ON. H =U F- — LL Oi O ~` z 3. SBD Inc. seeks to expand its operations by developing another casino establishment immediately adjacent to Riverside Casino at 14040 Interurban Avenue S. 4. SBD Inc. does not currently own the property, which is the site for its proposed casino development. SBD Inc. asserts that it has an option to purchase that property. 5. To further its plans for developing the additional casino, SBD Inc. requested a pre - application meeting with City staff. The pre - application meeting was conducted on September 3, 1998. 6. On December 29, 1998 SBD Inc. submitted various permit applications to the City, including, a conditional use permit application, design review application, shoreline permit application, and a SEPA checklist and application. . 7. SBD Inc. expended $2,625.00 in permit application fees. 8. On January 22, 1999, the City's Department of Community Development issued to SBD Inc. two separate notices of incomplete applications. Those notices indicated that SBD Inc.'s applications were incomplete for several reasons. 9. By letter dated February 8, 1999 the City's Department of Community Development outlined what measures SBD Inc. might pursue during the effect of the moratorium, short of submitting applications to the City, to further SBD Inc.'s development interests. The letter cautioned that any such pursuits would be taken at SBD Inc.'s peril as the City has not yet decided how it will address gambling establishments in its land use considerations. 10. SBD Inc.'s current development plans require the vacation of a portion of Maule Avenue within the City of Tukwila. 11. In 1994 SBD Inc. sought the vacation of a portion of Maule Avenue. The vacation sought at that time was unrelated to the current project proposed by SBD Inc. 12. On May 2, 1994, the Tukwila City Council passed Ordinance No. 1702 which provided for the vacation of Maule Avenue between S. 141st St. and S. 141st Pl. 13. The vacation, however, is contingent upon the completion of all of the requirements of an agreement entered into by SBD Inc., the City and BBN Trust. The requirement that all of the obligations of the agreement be performed before vacation was a condition City Council imposed in lieu of monetary consideration for the vacation. The agreement was attached to the ordinance and incorporated by reference into the ordinance. 14. Despite the passage of more than four years since the passage of Ordinance No. 1702 and since the signing of the agreement attached to it, the parties to the z �W. re 2 J U. 0 U U: J= CO IL w O; u. a, D. d. I- w o. z U.1 uj U ,„ ou w • w: ��LL • co O I- • agreement have not fulfilled its requirements. As a result, Maule Avenue has not yet been vacated. The agreement attached to Ordinance No. 1702 provided that the parties must perform all of its provisions within a year of its execution. 15. Because SBD Inc.'s development proposal requires that a portion of Maule Avenue be vacated, the lack of street vacation has impaired its ability to go forward with its proposed project. 16. SBD Inc. claims that BBN Trust has wrongfully delayed complying with agreement and, as a result, has caused the delay of the street vacation. 17. BBN Trust claims that it cannot comply with the terms of the agreement because the agreement requires BBN Trust to construct a parking lot on property that BBN Trust does not own. According to BBN Trust, it is unclear who owns the property. 18. SBD Inc. also asserts that there is an issue of whether the City's right of way relating to 140th street is actually located within the street. SBD Inc. asserts that this issue has impacted its ability to complete its applications for it proposed project. The 140th street issue is not indicated in either of the January 22, 1999 notices of incomplete applications as a basis for the finding of incompletion. 19. SBD Inc., and its proposed expansion, is on the Washington State Gambling Commission's list of businesses that may potentially receive a mini - casino license. 20. SBD Inc. is the only business on the State list in Tukwila that submitted permit applications to the City prior to the effective date of the moratorium. 21. Other businesses have indicated a desire to expand current gambling operations, but failed to file permit applications before the effective date of the moratorium. 22. The Silver Dollar Casino located at 14027 Interurban Avenue S., Tukwila, Washington, seeks a hardship waiver in the event City Council decides to grant hardship relief to SBD Inc. 23. SBD Inc. indicates that it has expended approximately $200,000 in its casino expansion and development efforts, this figure includes the permit application fees, other costs associated with its proposed development and money expended for an option to purchase the property where the its proposed project will be situated. 24. SBD Inc. indicates that it has gross monthly revenue in excess of $600,000. 25. Ordinance No. 1867 was adopted in February, 1999 to halt the unstudied and unplanned proliferation of gambling establishments within the City until the City could z re w J0 00: c 0 w= w w0 ga co p =a in z H O. z� 11J Lu 2o 0 w w' f=.. U w z U =, O~ z study and properly provide for such land uses within it Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and Development Regulations. 26. City Council specifically rejected the notion that, because some gambling establishments currently exist on Interurban Avenue, additional gambling establishments should be permitted in the same area when it adopted Ordinance No. 1867. 27. City Council could potentially decide, after the moratorium is lifted, to ban all gambling within Tukwila as provided for in state law. II. Conclusions. 1. SBD Inc.'s failure to submit complete permit applications prior to the effective date of the moratorium does not give rise to an unusual or unreasonable hardship. When SBD Inc. failed to submit "complete" permit applications it did not "vest" in its ability to go forward with the proposed project. All businesses within the City of Tukwila are subject to the same constraint. Like SBD, Inc., other business seeking to expand their casino operations (i.e. Silver Dollar Casino), are subject to the moratorium because those businesses did not submit complete permit applications to the City prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 1867. 2. SBD Inc.'s assertion that its situation is unusual or unique and that it suffers an unreasonable burden under the moratorium due to circumstances beyond its control is not persuasive. SBD Inc. claims that the actions of a third party, BBN Trust, has prevented the vacation of Maule Avenue. SBD Inc. was a party to an enforceable agreement, the terms of which were to be executed prior to the vacation of Maule Avenue. BBN Trust, according to the terms of that agreement, was to perform its obligations within a year of execution. When BBN Trust did not do so, SBD Inc. could have pursued remedies available to it over the past-several years to ensure compliance with the agreement in order to obtain the vacation of Maule Avenue. When SBD Inc. submitted permit applications to the City prior to vacation of Maule Avenue, its submission was premature. It did so with knowledge that Maule Avenue had not yet been vacated. Whether Maule Avenue will ever be vacated is questionable due to issues raised by BBN Trust. BBN Trust asserted that it cannot complete its obligations under the agreement because it does not own the property on which it is to perform its obligation. BBN further asserts that the ownership issue is unresolved. Thus, it is ' questionable whether SBD Inc. would be able to submit complete permit applications, even if the moratorium was not in effect. Given what BBN Trust has alleged regarding its obligation to perform under the agreement and given the time that has elapsed since the passage of Ordinance No. 1702 without performance on the agreement, (which agreement required performance of all the obligations within a year of its execution), it is uncertain when Maule Avenue will be vacated or whether Maule Avenue will ever be vacated. 4 3. SBD Inc.'s permit applications were incomplete for other reasons, in addition to the Maule Avenue vacation issue. None of the reasons for incomplete application demonstrates an unusual or unreasonable hardship on SBD Inc. There are several other reasons why SBD, Inc.'s permit applications were deemed incomplete. These other issues are not created by any third party. These other issues are the same types of issues that could potentially face any developer when submitting permit applications. The moratorium would have affected any other similarly situated applicant in the same manner. Thus, SBD, Inc.'s situation is neither unique nor constitutes an unreasonable hardship. 4. Requiring SBD Inc. to put its development plans on hold during the moratorium is not an unusual or unreasonable hardship. All affected businesses or prospective businesses must put their plans on hold as a result of the moratorium. The City in it's February 8, 1999 letter to SBD Inc. indicates that SBD Inc. could take several steps in moving toward its development goals, short of submitting applications to the City. SBD Inc., as a business decision, chose not to pursue any of those options and chose to place its development plans on hold, including those things that it could have done short of submitting permit applications to the City. 5. SBD Inc.'s inability to expand its business is not an unusual, unique or unreasonable burden. SBD Inc. currently owns and operates the Riverside Casino. SBD Inc. is essentially seeking to expand its business to occupy the property adjacent to the Riverside Casino. SBD Inc.'s inability to expand its operations due to the moratorium is not unique. Other existing casinos (i.e. Silver Dollar Casino) have indicated a desire to expand and cannot do so because of the moratorium. 6. Monetary impact alone is not an unusual, unique or unreasonable burden. The inability to expand or develop gambling operations at this time undoubtedly leads to the loss of potential revenue to those businesses seeking to expand or develop such business. Development regulations, in general, may change and such changes may financially impact developers. If a development regulation changes and a developer submitted a "complete" permit application before the regulation changes, the developer "vests" in the old regulation and need not comply with the new regulation. If a developer submits an application that is not complete and does not vest, that developer cannot argue that it should not be bound by the new regulation simply because the developer expended money towards its development project or towards the submission of a permit application in anticipation that regulations may not change. The vesting rule applies universally without regard to such economic impacts. Similarly, the moratorium is a development regulation that has impacted SBD Inc. monetarily. This alone does not dictate that SBD Inc. should be relieved from the effect of the moratorium. Moreover, SBD Inc.'s stated expenditures on the proposed project are not substantial in relation to the revenue its current business operation generates. The Riverside Casino is financially flourishing. SBD Inc. is merely prevented by the moratorium from expanding its operation at this time. ....:.: . . . 5 7. The burden the moratorium suffers on SBD Inc. may actually serve to protect SBD Inc. At this time SBD Inc. is unable to go forward with its proposed development project. If SBD Inc. is provided a hardship waiver, it will likely proceed with its development plans and it will likely expend greater sums of money in doing so. It would, however, do so at its own peril. After the moratorium expires City Council must decide how it will address the 'gambling establishment issues. City Council could potentially ban all gambling establishments in the City pursuant to state law. Under such a scenario, SBD Inc. would suffer much greater financial losses if it has proceeded forward with its proposed development. Thus, the moratorium not only provides the City with the needed time to study the issues; it also provides developers, like SBD Inc., some protection from investing in a venture that potentially may be banned. 8. Providing SBD Inc. with a hardship waiver would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the moratorium. As indicated in Findings No. 25 and 27, City Council is still uncertain how it will ultimately address gambling establishments in the City's Comprehensive Plan, zoning code and development regulations. The intent of moratorium was to afford the City time to study the issues to make determinations in the best interest of the City as a whole. Allowing the development of an additional casino establishment in the face of this uncertainty is clearly contrary to the intent and purpose of the moratorium. III. Decision. SBD Inc.'s request for a hardship waiver is DENIED. SBD Inc. has not demonstrated an unusual or unreasonable hardship. A hardship waiver under the circumstances would be contrary to the intent and purpose of Ordinance No. 1867. This decision is based upon the City Council's findings and conclusion set forth above May 24, 1999 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wally Rants The Honorable Pam Carter The Honorable Joe Duffle The Honorable David Fenton The Honorable Jim Haggerton The Honorable Joan Hernandez The Honorable Pam Linder The Honorable Steve Mullet Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Members of the City Council, MAY 2 4 1999M'‘I l.i . • iur(WI CITY CLERK After reading the 5 letters submitted by a few of our past employees of The Riverside, I wanted to send you a very short note letting you know why these letters were written. There seems to be an organized effort by someone to damage by credibility, obviously in hopes of influencing your decision regarding this hardship waiver. As you can see by the letters, at least 3 of them have the same handwriting on the top of them, and 2 of them appear to be the same form letters, just signed by different people. The letters are false and misleading. My record with the gambling commission and every other agency I deal with speaks for itself. Sine rely, even B. Dowen President The Riverside Casino Cc: Bob Noe, Tukwila City Attorney Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Senior Planner Deb Ritter, City of Tukwila Senior Planner 14060 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Phone: (206) 244 -5400 Fax: (206) 244 -5481 wwwtheriversidecasino.com J "C=) c) 0 :N to . W= ig W O;: IL.Q• _ _. Z� F- O' Z W.W. V ;O —; ;O H? • • • :W W Z • May 21, 1999 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98168 To Whom It May Concern: 4iR D RESTAURANT & LOUNGE RECEIVED MAY 2 4 1999 CITY OF TUKWILA CITY CLERK This letter is in regards to the waiver for Cardroom Moratorium that was requested by Steve Downs of the Riverside Casino. If Mr. Downs is request is granted, then I would also like the same consideration. Sincerely, JA- Tim Iszley Silver Dollar Casino ' FosTE...PEPPER & SHEFELML:_J PLLC A r r o R N E v a A T L A W FP May 20, 1999 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wally Rants The Honorable Pam Carter The Honorable Joe Duffle The Honorable David Fenton The Honorable Jim Haggerton The Honorable Joan Hernandez The Honorable Pam Linder The Honorable Steve Mullet Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: SBD, Inc.'s Supplemental Letter on Request for Hardship Waiver under Ordinance No. 1867 Dear Mayor Rants and Members of the City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to present SBD, Inc.'s request for a hardship waiver under City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1867 at the public hearing held before. the Council on May 17, 1999. This letter is a follow -up to the presentations made to the Council and addresses some of the questions raised by members of the Council during the hearing. Dates Associated with SBD's Application. SBD began working with the City on the Diamond Mine Restraurant and Cardroom in September 1998. September 3, 1998: Pre - application meeting. Attached to this letter as Exhibit A is a Meeting Attendance Record reflecting a meeting held between Steve Dowen, principal of SBD, Inc., Rick Lentz of Merrick Lentz Architects (SBD's architect) and Duane Griffin, Nick Olivas, Carol Lumb, Joanne Spencer and Brenda Holt, all of the City. The meeting on September 3 was the pre- application meeting for the Diamond Mine Restaurant and it addressed the preliminary comments of the Public Works Department, Planning Division, Environmental, Fire Department and Building Division of the City. Comments from each of the respective City departments are also attached as part of Exhibit A. 50098613.01 CITYOF TtJK TulNVI[A MAY 2 4 1999 PERMIT CENTER Direct Phone (206) 447-8902 Direct Facsimile (206) 749 -1962 E -Mail JoneS@foater.com rtrt THIRD AVENUE Suite 3400 SEATTLE Washington 99t3t -3.99 Telephone (:.o6)447-4400 Facsimile (.o6')44? -97oo Websit t W w W. E O i T E R. CO .t ANCHORAGE Alaska BELLEVUE Washington PORTLAND Oregon SEATTLE Washington SpOKANE Washington The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 20, 1999 Page 2 October 21, 1998. Discussion with Public Works Regarding Parking Agreement. Attached as Exhibit B is a letter from Rick Lentz to Bob Giberson of the City's Public Works Department and a second letter, also sent on October 21, 1998, to Brian Shelton, the City Engineer. Both of these letters involve work associated with the parking agreement and vacation of Maule Avenue that I spoke about in my presentation to the Council. As I stated in my presentation on Monday evening, an agreement was struck in 1995 between the City, SBD, BBN Trust (SBD's landlord), Fairway Associates and ATACS. A copy of that agreement is attached as Exhibit C. Pursuant to that agreement, parking improvements were to be constructed and a property exchange negotiated that would have resulted in vacation of Maule Avenue and conforming the City's right of way with the improvements that had been constructed. While SBD was a party to that agreement, the improvements necessary for the vacation of Maule Avenue were to be constructed by Fairway Associates and SBD's landlord, the BBN Trust. Thus, as a result of this agreement, SBD was forced to wait for Fairway and the BBN Trust to move forward with its contractual obligations before SBD's project could proceed. None of the City's concerns as they pertained to the vacation of Maule Avenue of the parking agreement were discussed at the initial pre - application meeting held on September 3, 1998. However, once the issue was raised by the City, SBD tried to address it. October 27, 1998. City Responds Regarding Maule Avenue and Proposes City Project to Deal With Right -of -Way Issues. The City Council had earlier taken the position that vacation of Maule Avenue would be approved, subject to conditions contained in an "agreement for the exchange and use of real property." This position was reflected in Ordinance No. 1702, which is referred to in the letter of October 27, 1998 letter from Bob Giberson of the City Public Works Department to Rick Lentz. That letter is attached as Exhibit D. With respect to the location of 140th Street, Mr. Giberson proposed a potential City project to relocate the street. Here again, SBD was forced once again to wait for another party to act before it could move forward with its application — this time, that actor was the City. November 5, 1998. Traffic Impact Analysis. Notwithstanding the delay associated with the Maule Avenue vacation and the issues surrounding the parking agreement, SBD continued to assemble the analysis necessary for its application. On November 5, 1998, C.V. Brown sent a letter to Gary Bennet of the City's Public Works Dpartment discussing the issue of whether a traffic study was actually needed for the project. This letter is attached as Exhibit E. 50098613.01 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 20, 1999 Page 3 z December 16, 1998. Environmental Checklist. Attached as Exhibit F is an Z' Environmental Checklist for the project prepared on December 16, 1998. December 23, 1998. Response to CUP Criteria. On December 23, 1998, Mr. Lentz 0 D prepared a response to the City's Conditional Use Criteria, as reflected in TMC 18.64.030. CO W This response is attached as Exhibit G. �. �: w0 December 29, 1998. Application Packet Delivered. On December 29, 1998, Mr. �. Lentz delivered the following documents to the City: u_ < CUP Application, checklist and the response attached as Exhibit G; = c�. Design Review Application, checklist and response; Z ujx Shoreline Permit Application, checklist and response; 1— p' SEPA Application and checklist; z III 1- Site Plan o Floor Plan U fn- ;O Elevations 0 F- Landscaping Plan = w Survey �_ Drainage Plan . Z'` Land Use Plan — Traffic Analysis o Colored Elevations z Assessor's Maps Copies of many of these documents, including the transmittal letter, are attached as Exhibit H. In addition to these documents, SBD submitted application fees totalling $2,625.00 to the City for processing the various applications it submitted. Receipts for this payment are also included as part of Exhibit H. January 22, 1999: City Notifies SBD that Application Materials Are Incomplete. The City responded to SBD's applications with a letter from Nora Gierloff dated January 22, 1999, noting additional materials that needed to be submitted before the City would deem the application complete. The vast majority of the items identified were related to the Shoreline Permit application. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit I. January 25 and February 2, 1999: More Discussion About Maule Avenue. Notwithstanding Ms. Gierloff's letter, the main hurdle from the City's perspective in proceeding with review of SBD's materials still appeared to be issues pertaining to the parking agreement and the vacation of Maule Avenue. Mr. Lentz sent Bob Gilberson a memorandum on January 25, 1999 requesting information on what was necessary from the 50098613.01 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 20, 1999 Page 4 City's perspective to complete the vacation process. Then, on February 2, 1999, Mr. Lentz met with Mr. Giberson to discuss this issue. Both Mr. Lentz' January 25 memo and his letter following up on the February 2, 1999 meeting are attached as Exhibit J. The second letter highlights the fact that SBD was forced to wait on action of third - parties, including the City, before it could proceed. Mr. Lentz communicated this fact to Mr. Dowen on January 29 in a memorandum which is attached as Exhibit K: I've been trying to get some resolution on the Maule Avenue vacation. Apparently the construction per the agreement has not been satisfactorily resolved, so the vacation documents have not been recorded. It looks like the work in question has to have been done by the trust (Riverside Owner ?) with some landscaping to be done by Fairway. So even though ATACS is not obligated to complete any construction, projects requiring Maule Avenue to be vacated will not be reviewed by the City until it is entirely done. We should get together to determine what to do next. We appear to be prevented from any further review by the City until we find some way to twist their arm. February 1, 1999: Ordinance No. 1867 Adopted; SBD Notified on February 8, 1999. SBD was first notified of the adoption of the moratorium by the City Council by a letter from Nora Gierloff dated February 8, 1999. A copy of that letter is attached as Exhibit L. The moratorium reflected by Ordinance No. 1867 caught SBD completely off-guard. SBD had been working closely with the City since September of 1998, having the City evaluate its pre - application materials, and attempting to get the issues associated with Maule Avenue resolved and the parking improvements constructed. Suddenly, without any notice, the City imposed a six -month moratorium and then took the position that no further action could be taken on SBD's permit application because the issues associated with the vacation of Maule Avenue had not been resolved and because SBD's application materials were not viewed as complete. The moratorium reversed what had previously been a cooperative working relationship with the City, a relationship that had existed for five months. Now, rather than working together with SBD to identify issues and work towards their resolution, the City took the position that it could take no further action while the moratorium was in place. As was noted in the public hearing on Monday, the City's action raises real issues of fairness with respect to SBD's treatment when compared to that accorded the 21 Club and Golden Nugget, whose applications were processed prior to the moratorium. 50098613.01 z w. JU 00 w= • J � w0 u. J = d. �- _ z�. I- 0' Z uj w •0 :0-. o H w uj ._ — O. uiz z The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 20, 1999 Page 5 z These fairness issues are made more troubling by the fact that SBD was prohibited ILI!. from moving forward with its application by the actions of third- parties who did not fulfill J U�. their responsibilities under the parking agreement attached as Exhibit C. SBD was held U o hostage by an agreement under which it had no responsibility to construct improvements, but w W because of which the City refused to move forward until those improvements were w constructed. Having been delayed through no fault of its own, SBD was now caught by the co W O; moratorium. w cc D. a ui z� I- O'. Z t-. uj np u'. 0 w w: g: 0 U 52, As noted at the hearing on May 17, SBD is the only business currently affected z.... by the moratorium, despite the fact that SBD, Inc. submitted its initial materials relating to its application in the September 1998 and its permit applications in December 1998, prior to the adoption of the moratorium. Second, the large investment made by SBD, Inc. in connection with SBD's application has been placed at risk by the operation of the moratorium. Finally, SBD's application is for development of gaming facilities on Interurban Avenue, an area originally proposed to be exempted from Ordinance No. 1867. Consequently, a hardship exemption would not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, since processing of the application will not result in new gaming facilities outside of an area of the City in which gaming is already permitted. A Hardship Waiver Is Appropriate. The text of Ordinance No. 1867 provides at Section 8: In the event of unusual or unreasonable hardships which may be caused by the imposition of this moratorium, appeal may be made to the City Council for an exemption from the moratorium provisions, provided, unique burdens or unreasonable hardships must be shown to exist by an applicant, and no exemption shall be granted that is contrary to the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. Emphasis supplied. $0098613.01 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 20, 1999 Page 6 Based on the fact that Ordinance No. 1867 imposes a unique burden on SBD and based on the fact that a waiver will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the ordinance, SBD respectfully requests that the Council grant SBD a hardship waiver under Section 8 of Ordinance No. 1867. Sincerely, FOS R PEPPER & SHEFELMAN PLLC (____TE S even G. Jones Attorney for SBD, Inc., dba Riverside Casino Attachments cc: Steven G. Dowen, President SBD, Inc. Blake Dowen, Manager Riverside Casino Bob Noe, Tukwila City Attorney Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Senior Planner Deb Ritter, City of Tukwila Senior Planner 50098613.01 � ....,.. • z QQ� UO; p !n. CO w J =(. o w f u. Q . co Da 1- w _. Z �. :w w;. ;2 D. iO NF D. W: 1- ILI- Z. H z City. of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMO TO: Mayor Rants FROM: Steve Lancaster DATE: May 19, 1999 RE: Las Vegas Boulevard Casino 14040 Interurban Avenue South Request for Waiver from Gambling Moratorium During the May 17, 1999 public hearing on this issue, Council asked staff to provide a chronology of events associated with the project's application submittals. These events include all meetings with, and documentation submitted to, the Department of Community Development on the following applications: L98 -0101 Design Review • L98 -0100 Conditional Use L98 -0102 Shoreline E98 -0035 SEPA That chronology as well as copies of relevant correspondence and application materials are attached for your reference. cc: Bob Noe, City Attorney (w /attachments) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Chronology of the Las Vegas Boulevard Casino Applications 8 -25 -98 Pre - application received for Diamond Mine Casino proposal to remodel a warehouse into a restaurant/cardroom 9 -3 -98 Pre - application meeting held 9 -11 -98 Pre - application meeting checklists mailed to applicant 10 -21 -98 Letter from the applicant to the City Engineer asking for documentation of the Maule Avenue property exchange and stating that the S 140`h Street improvements are located on private property. 10 -27 -98 Letter from Public Works responding that the conditions for the property exchange had not been met and that the City was considering relocating S. 140`h Street to the right -of -way. 12 -29 -98 Applications received for: L98 -0101 Design Review L98 -0100 Conditional Use L98 -0102 Shoreline Permit E98 -0035 SEPA Checklist 1 -22 -99 All of the applications were declared incomplete, see attached letters for details. Applicant was notified of the moratorium and advised of elements of the applications on which work could continue, such as the Maule Avenue vacation issues, the lot consolidation, and the traffic and parking studies. No response was received. z ....z. w co co W W Z: J �. CO u. W O' g u, = d' I- al Z Z F- W W`, U w w.. ILo. Ili U Ni z City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor TO: City Council FROM: Mayor's Office RE: Appeal of Ordinance 1867 (Hardship Waiver); SBD, Inc. DATE: May 10, 1999 Enclosed for your pre-review is the Hardship Waiver submitted by SBD Inc. The waiver pertains to a permit request for the construction of the Diamond Mine Restaurant and Cardroom. SBD currently owns and operates the Riverside Casino. Contained within are the following documents: 1. Staff Report from City Attorney 2. Request for Hardship Waiver under Ordinance 1867, (with enclosure) submitted by Steven Jones, Attorney for SBD 3. Notice of Public Hearing dated May 7, 1999 4. Ordinance 1867 Please bring this packet to the May 17 meeting. The agenda will contain only the CAS form and not a re-publication of the enclosed material. The Council is reminded that this is a quasi-judicial hearing. As such, ex-parte contact should be avoided. Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433-1833 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor S T A F F R E P O R T TO: Members of City Council FROM: Robert F. Noe, City Attorney DATE: May 7, 1999 RE: Request for Hardship Waiver - Ordinance 1867 Moratorium I. Request for Exemption and decision criteria. SBD, Inc. has requested a hearing before City Council pursuant to Section 8 of Ordinance No. 1867. Ordinance No. 1867 was adopted and became effective on February 1, 1999. It imposed a six month moratorium on the filing of applications for business licenses and development permits for food or drink establishments conducting gambling activities. Section 8 of the ordinance provides that, in the event of "unusual or unreasonable hardships ", a party may appeal to City Council for an exemption from the moratorium's effect. A party seeking an exemption must demonstrate "unique burdens or unreasonable hardships ". Section 8 provides that no exemption should be granted if it is "contrary to the intent and purpose of the Ordinance." Council should keep in mind that parties simply affected by the Ordinance should not be granted an exemption. The adoption of Ordinance No. 1867 was a legislative act having city wide impact. A party seeking an exemption must demonstrate unique or unreasonable hardships. II. Quasi - judicial hearing. Because the request for an exemption relates to one particular property owner and will affect the rights of that property owner, the hearing before City Council is considered a quasi - judicial hearing. Council is very familiar with its duties and obligations as a quasi- judicial decision maker. Council must remain impartial and fair throughout the pendency of this hearing. Moreover, Council must maintain an "appearance of fairness" in addition to fairness in fact. Council's decision is to be made solely on the record presented to it at the hearing. Council must avoid all ex part communications (communications regarding the subject matter of the hearing outside of the hearing). Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 Staff Report May 7, 1999 Page 2 III. Facts. The facts have been presented to the City Council through the April 14, 1999 letter from Steven Jones, attorney for SBD, Inc., to City Council requesting the hearing. City Council will also receive additional facts during the hearing. For the purpose of providing clarity to the City Council, SBD, Inc. submitted various development permit applications to the City prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 1867. If those permit applications were "complete ", SBD, Inc. would have "vested" in those applications and the permitting process would have continued notwithstanding Ordinance No. 1867. Unfortunately, although SBD, Inc., clearly indicated its intention to proceed with work on its proposed establishment, it did not technically submit complete applications in time to vest and the processing of those permit applications was discontinued as a result of the moratorium. SBD, Inc. accurately indicates that it is the only entity with a pending application for a license before the Washington State Gambling Commission in the City of Tukwila. Council should note also that the Golden Nugget, the Silver Dollar, and the 21 Club, although already in receipt of state licenses, are affected by the moratorium, which effectively prohibits each of those clubs from acting upon their stated desires to expand their current operations. Similarly, any contemplated future establishments, not on the state's list, are likewise subject to the moratorium. IV. Recommendation. It is recommended that Council deliberate over the information it has received. Council need not necessarily make a decision on the same night of the hearing. After deliberations, Council should direct the City Attorney to draft findings and conclusions reflecting Council's findings and its conclusion. Those will be then presented to Council for formal adoption. FOSTER PEPPER & S H E F E L M A N P L L C A T T O R N E Y S .\ T L A W April 14, 1999 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wally Rants The Honorable Pam Carter The Honorable Joe Duffie The Honorable David Fenton The Honorable Jim Haggerton The Honorable Joan Hernandez The Honorable Pam Linder The Honorable Steve Mullet Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Request for Hardship Waiver under Ordinance No. 1867 Dear Mayor Rants and Members of the City Council: With this letter, SBD, Inc., requests a hardship exemption under City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1867, as provided for in Section 8 of that Ordinance. The effect of such an exemption would be to allow the City to continue accepting additional submittals and processing the applications of SBD, Inc. for a conditional use permit, SEPA review, design review and a building permit for the Diamond Mine Restaurant and Cardroom, Public Works File No. PRE98 -051 (the "Application "). Ordinance No. 1867, Section 8 provides that In the event of unusual or unreasonable hardships which may be caused by the imposition of this moratorium, appeal may be made to the City Council for an exemption from the moratorium provisions, provided, unique burdens or unreasonable hardships must be shown to exist by an applicant, and no exemption shall be granted that is contrary to the intent and purpose of this Ordinance. SBD, Inc. has experienced unique and unusual hardships as a result of the adoption of Ordinance No. 1867. First, it is the only business currently affected by the moratorium, despite the fact that SBD, Inc. submitted its initial materials relating to the Application in the fall of 1998, prior to the adoption of the moratorium. Second, the large investment made by SBD, Inc. in connection with the Application has been placed at risk by the operation of the moratorium. Finally, SBD's 50089994.01 • Direct Phone (206) 447 -8902 Direct Facsimile (206) 749 -1962 E-Mail JoneS(gfo,ter.com rtII THIRD AVENUE Suite 3400 SEATTLE Washington 93 t0.t.3 =99 Telephone (_o6)447 -4400 Facsimile ilo6)447-9-oc Web,ite W W W. FOSTE R..COH ANCHORAGE .1 las.l•a BELLEVUE Washington PORTLAND Oregon SEATTLE Washington SPOKANE Washington z i�� w. oo w w• w =, J � w o, g J` w¢ CO D =o Z 0' 1C) N 43 I— w w: tv 0 Z 0 H, z The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 12, 1999 Page 2 Application is for development of gaming facilities on Interurban Avenue, an area originally proposed to be exempted from Ordinance No. 1867. Consequently, a hardship exemption would not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Ordinance, since x. w processing of the Application will not result in new gaming facilities outside of an area of re the City in which gaming is already permitted. Each of these reasons will be discussed _1 v below. v o ' aiw. w =. The Ordinance Only Impacts SBD, Inc. —' rnw' WO Ordinance No. 1867 has had a completely disproportionate impact on SBD, Inc. As was noted at the public hearing before the Council on Ordinance No. 1867 on March g a 15, 1999, SBD, Inc. is the only applicant for a permit from the Washington State co a Gambling Commission that has a pending application for development within the City of I w Tukwila. z z o. Enclosed with this letter is the list of currently pending applications for permits uj before the Washington State Gambling Commission. SBD, Inc.'s application appears as o No. 57 on that list. As you can see from a review of this list, there is no other applicant 'O N. o located within the City of Tukwila, apart from SBD, Inc.' As a result, no other party is w �. affected by Ordinance No. 1867 — SBD, Inc. is the only applicant whose application is v; currently being held in place by operation of the Ordinance. o. .z SBD's position as the only applicant affected by the moratorium is particularly v =' troubling given the fact that SBD first submitted materials relating to the Application in O the fall of 1998, prior to the adoption of the moratorium. Processing of those applications was held up by the need to complete parking improvements pursuant to a multi -party agreement that was signed by both SBD, Inc. and the City. Under that agreement, SBD was not obligated to either fund or construct those improvements. Nevertheless, it was the lack of those improvements that prevented SBD's application from being processed by the City prior to the imposition of the moratorium. A hardship exemption would enable those improvements to be constructed. The impact of the moratorium is made worse by the fact that, because SBD is the only applicant affected by it, the Ordinance is not fulfilling the City's stated purpose of "ensur[ing] that the location of such uses [i.e. gaming] is consistent with its policies and purposes embodied in its Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and development regulations." Ordinance No. 1867, ¶ 5. The proposed location for the Application is Interurban Avenue, which is the site of three existing gaming establishments already. Based on this proposed location, holding up SBD's Application has not prevented the t Applications for the Golden Nugget and the 21 Club, which appear as No. 2 and No. 12 respectively on the Gambling Commission list, were granted prior to the imposition of the moratorium. 50089994.01 The Honorable Mayor ana Members of the City Council April 12, 1999 Page 3 expansion of gaming into other areas of the City, one of the stated purposes of the Ordinance. Instead, the only impact of the moratorium has been to impose hardship on ¢ SBD. u re 2 SBD, Inc. Faces Financial Risks as a Result of the Ordinance -1 ci. 00 SBD, Inc. is experiencing severe financial impacts from the application of the W moratorium. SBD, Inc. has spent more than $125,000 on architectural costs, permit H application fees and legal fees in connection with the Application. These payments are w 0 placed at risk by the continued operation of the moratorium and the uncertainty regarding the development regulations governing gaming within the City. These impacts will be even more severe if the moratorium is extended for another six months. Particularly v_� a' problematic is the fact that SBD, Inc.'s option on the property necessary for the 1 w` Application expires on September 1, 1999 and an additional $30,000 option payment is z due under the option agreement on May 1, 1999. The uncertainty created by the z O' !— moratorium makes it very difficult to evaluate the advisability of making continued 11J uj option payments. Should the moratorium be extended, SBD, Inc. could conceivably lose D o; co its option on the property and be unable to realize any return on the considerable o development costs it has already incurred. w W L 0. By contrast, as was noted at the public hearing on March 15, 1999, the Riverside p Casino (which is also operated by SBD, Inc.) employs hundreds of people, generating w z both tax revenue and income for City residents and others who patronize establishments =; within the City. Construction of the Diamond Mine Restaurant and Cardroom will only z /— expand this economic benefit to the City. In addition, as was noted above, processing of the Application will enable the construction of adjacent parking improvements. These improvements were deemed sufficiently important that SBD's original Application was held up pending their completion. A hardship exemption and continued processing of the Application will enable these improvements to be constructed. Processing of SBD, Inc.'s Application Will Not Result in an Expansion of Gaming into Other Areas of the City. Approval of the Application would allow construction and operation of a restaurant and cardroom on Interurban Avenue, on a site adjacent to the existing Riverside Casino. Interurban Avenue is also the site of the Golden Nugget Casino and the Silver Dollar Casino. Based on the location of these three existing gaming facilities, the original draft of Ordinance No. 1867 exempted Interurban Avenue in recognition of the fact that there were already existing gaming facilities present there. Other jurisdictions (Auburn and Renton for example) have either exempted certain locations from similar legislation or have specifically zoned for gaming within a particular location within those cities. Given the location proposed by the Application, there will be no 50089994.01 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 12, 1999 Page 4 expansion of gaming activities into areas of the City in which gaming facilities are not already present. Conclusion SBD, Inc. is the only applicant currently affected by the operation of Ordinance No. 1867. In addition, the ordinance imposes a significant financial hardship on SBD, Inc. These two facts constitute an "unusual or unreasonable hardship" created by the operation of the ordinance. Based on the fact that SBD, Inc.'s Application will not result in expansion of gaming activities into areas of the City where such facilities are not already present and will enable construction of parking improvements, a hardship exemption would not be "contrary to the intent and purpose of [the] Ordinance." Accordingly, SBD, Inc. respectfully requests a hardship exemption pursuant to Section 8 of Ordinance No. 1867. Sincerely, FOS ! ' _ 'PER & SHEFELMAN PLLC Steven G. Jones Attorney for SBD, Inc., dba Riverside Casino Enclosure cc: Steven G. Dowen, President SBD, Inc. Blake Dowen, Manager Riverside Casino Bob Noe, Tukwila 'City Attorney Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Senior Planner Deb : Ritter, City of Tukwila Senior Planner; 30089994.01 z :J U J m • :(i) u_ W qa !'a H W z� ;wF 2 • M of C.) N? o�. =W: • O;. zz : z House BANKED TES/ PROi#1AM • 1 LkeneaelApplicants City Lic'd • E Appl. ON Premiss, License Validation # Comm rile IE(AI (Y.aINo) App. Ill I>r Apvd 37 r. enoemenl thy dtea. INC Lucia(1o•s Histonnle - Don Naga - GRK Con» VM 4ttwr Bend Casino • Rim fiend Inc Rahn Spokane ES Ell Y Y 0017678000 x017299000 014051 018118 wo•3A ! 38 39 Mar DolW Casino • Mike MoCariny - Big *wads. INC SaaTac A Y 0017623000 0t4006 , 40 1--. Silver Doha C asino/ o 1rKdon - reason Saddler - 1 War Nevada IL INC Kant A Y 0017577000 014841 61 Sehumaky's AN Cty Ma - A•1 Academy of Gaming (Jee Reseal) Keaton u A Y 0013560000 014004 42 C W Casino World Ltd (AI Undfud) Kent A Y 0017561000 015027 43 WT, INC Steve Marlanneenks Sze Unknown A Y 001762100C 015107 e • 44 A�ertine '•Atbadnrs Inc. - frankPasoo Spokane Es Y 0014066000 014440 45 coves cc st 7 Bays Paled - AIb.d1ni% INC. - Rank Passe DavenpoA A Y 4017765000 46 No Bull Saloon & Casino- Chris Pails Auburn A Y 601557387U 015021 47 CI SMnostp s i HavMns's- Ration Wry Corp Tacoma A Y 0012540000 016113 48 Ram Mtetnadonal, LID Unknown A Y 0017002000 016109 49 ;Lakeracd Ctulr Naas* - 6001ST Corp Lalusa•d A Y 0017001000 015110 • 50 Ram Border Cal& S Sports the - -100111 ST Corp Wavres& A Y 0$1700700C 015111 51 Rants FamOy Uataurant 4 Sparta Dar Puyallup A Y 001582704U 015112 62 liletot. Garth Centro - Enid Ksndi - Monte Carlo, INC Taco , A Y 0011481000 014640 - 53 Jack Nieman.'. Steak Houle/ Buwrds Sports Bar BNIIn/Aam Ea Y .011170•000C 016248 r di 9 54 Duly's Edmonds A Y 0011570000 014619 53 j(3.1 Pockets - nomads Gaming 4 8(eve Gri161h1 Unknown A V 001/567000 01501/ 56 Olunond Ltrs -MO - Lail ism . Renton ES Y 0004124550 014507 fejp tip 57 (Iamoru4 Mine Guinn - 111voiakle km (2nd location! - SOD INC - Blake Aaww• rukwita A 0017556000 • 014366 58 • Last Frontlet • MT a M 13amtny. INC LaG.1.r tss 0/11731000 014120 Felp gt 59 tao PAdt Pub a Eatery BeI1N5hMm E6 001676000C 015087 60 PJ Packet - Plenacta Gaming 00i'SIev a 6riM11n Unl nown r A 0017566000 015018 61 TN. Spot Sports par A Oda - J 4 A Ent r ee. INC - Jim Rados Ramon E2 0002232000 014860 62 Riooty. Sports Hat 0 GAN - J d II Ente pdaes. INC - Jim Rattles Bwlen E7 001697100C 014881 ` 63 /Players Casing Spouts Pars Orr -Jlrs Ra lea sl- Imbibery 11. INC Fodenrl Way E2 001760100C 014812 r i 1 04 ' isles Ctub & Brow,- am ,Cargos 12 Redmond A 0017813410C 016116 65 pavan Casino & Grt1 • Jim Rados 03 Federal Way A _ 0017014400 015115 86 ISidneirs Resistant -Hick Burgess Aberdeen _ Ga 60042244511 014966 67 dead Junction- JoaCreep _ Spokane E4 00/4268000 014091 65 "Karl Enterprises • Donnas SOMA audio Made Cull -Maley • Oakes Murray Spokane 8saTac A A 0017654000 0017670000 016114 014099 withdrawn . 69 70 pumas Casino - Dumas Cukto. 1.1C - John Curran Sumas A 001002187U 015102 71 ,Trials CrwanCedno ILC • Trip Crams By S 0dll - Don Ildiam)I lephsray rowdy Roadhouse • Pod TownaandCasino, INC Auburn Pal Townsend A F2 Y 601901183U 0012440/00 015103 0 i4n7e —1 wiOWrawn 72 .... ..... ,. '§ e+ntr!in a ]Sass rnr%a rurrous r 0 1nnu IJcru t 1 w iau,uvu nom L1utnatu, U14 MAUL ANPLIIkil PUN WGEN1lURE J� to lJ_ W o.. { g5: a. 1- a ! U� —1 •W W — Z U tn; O.. Z: City of Tukwila NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, MAY 17, 1999, BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT TUKWILA CITY HALL, 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD., TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: A REOUEST FOR A HARDSHIP WAIVER UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 1867 WHICH ENACTED A SIX -MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE FILING OF APPLI- CATIONS FOR BUSINESS LICENSES AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR FOOD OR DRINK ESTABLISHMENTS CONDUCTING GAMBLING ACTIVI- TIES, INCLUDING SOCIAL CARD GAMES, PUNCH BOARDS, OR PULL TABS. Applicant: SBD, Inc., 14060 Interurban Ave., Tukwila, WA 98168. ANY AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS ARE INVITED TO BE PRESENT TO VOICE APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL, OR OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE. FOR THOSE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING IN PERSON, YOU MAY SUBMIT WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE UNTIL 5 PM ON MONDAY, MAY 17,1999. THE CITY OF TUKWILA STRIVES TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE BY NOON ON MONDAY IF WE CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE (206- 433 -1800 OR TDD 1- 800 - 833 - 6388). DATED THIS n DAY OF ,1999. CITY OF TUKWILA aft.< E E. CANTU, CMC • TY CLERK • i DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEATTLE TIMES, FRIDAY, MAY 7,1999 FOSTE:: PEPPER & SHEFELMA PLLC A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W March 23, 1999 The Honorable Wally Rants The Honorable Pam Carter The Honorable Joe Duffie The Honorable David Fenton The Honorable Jim Haggerton The Honorable Joan Hernandez The Honorable Pam Linder The Honorable Steve Mullet Tukwila City Hall 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1867 and Proposed Expansion of the Riverside Inn Dear Mayor Rants and Members of the City Council: This letter is written as a follow -up to the Public Hearing held on Monday, March 15, 1999, regarding City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1867, the moratorium on filing of business licenses and development permits for food and drink establishments conducting gambling activities. As I noted at the hearing, our law firm represents SBD, Inc., the owner and operator of the Riverside Inn. In addition to my testimony, you also heard testimony at the public hearing from Steve Dowen, President of SBD, Inc. and Blake Dowen, Manager of the Riverside Inn. A number of the employees of the Riverside Inn also testified at the hearing. As Blake Dowen pointed out in his testimony, based on the applications currently pending before the Washington State Gambling Commission, there is only one application affected by Ordinance No. 1867: the Riverside Inn's application for expansion of its facilities at 14040 Interurban Avenue South. While Ordinance No. 1867 covers the entire City, the moratorium is only impacting the Riverside Inn and its employees. 50084109.01 S Direct Phone (206) 447-8902 Direct Facsimile (206) 749-1962 E -Mail JoneS@foeter.com 1111 THIRD AVENUE Suite 3400 SEATTLE Washington 93 Los-32.99 Telephone (2.06144; -4400 Facsimile zo6144 - -97oc Website W W W. FOSTER.001 ANCHORAGE .4laSkJ BELLEVCE Washington PORTLAND Oregon SEATTLE Washington SPOKANE Washington • The Mayor and City Council of the City of Tukwila March 23, 1999 Page 2 As Steve Dowen pointed out in his testimony, the uncertainty created by the moratorium places him in a dilemma. Mr. Dowen has already expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in development and option fees relating to his efforts to expand his business, expansion which will create more jobs and generate additional tax revenue for the City. With the moratorium in place, Mr. Dowen's investment is placed at risk and the uncertainty created by the moratorium makes it very difficult to determine whether or not to go forward with the additional expenditures necessary to complete the expansion. As I mentioned in my testimony, the owners and operators of the Riverside Inn do not oppose the City's exercise of zoning authority. Robert Noe, the City Attorney, has been kind enough to share with me his analysis of the City's authority to continue to exercise zoning control over gaming establishments within the City limits. I have reviewed Mr. Noe's analysis and concur with his conclusion that the City continues to possess zoning authority over gaming within the City limits, notwithstanding the Legislature's amendments to Chapter 9.46 RCW. The gaming industry has never taken the position that recent amendments to Chapter 9.46 RCW constituted a preemption of the City's power to regulate gaming establishments through the exercise of its zoning authority. Only the State Gambling Commission has advanced such an aggressive position. The industry and the City have a mutual interest in the City's reasonable exercise of its zoning power — the City has an interest in regulating the location of gaming establishments and making sure that appropriate infrastructure for those businesses is in place. Conversely, those operating in the industry have an interest in being able to conduct and expand their businesses in an environment of certainty where the rules relating to development are clear so that they can plan and develop their businesses within those rules. Consistent with this interest, Mr. Dowen, myself and Chuck Wolfe from our office recently met with Jack Pace and Deb Ritter, Senior Planners with the City of Tukwila. Mr. Pace and Ms. Ritter described the process by which development regulations governing gaming within the City are being developed. Mr. Dowen offered himself as a resource to the City as those regulations are developed, to assist staff in creating definitions and requirements for infrastructure that would be effective and that would accurately reflect methods of operation in the gaming industry. I want to reiterate Mr. Dowen's offer to the Council: Mr. Dowen and others at the Riverside Inn would be happy to assist the City as it creates its development regulations. However, Mr. Dowen also needs the limited assistance of the City in order to realize some return on the substantial investment he has already made towards expansion of his business. SBD, Inc.'s initial applications for expansion of the Riverside Inn were submitted to the City in the fall of 1998, prior to the adoption of the moratorium. We would propose that those 50084109.01 The Mayor and City Council of the City of Tukwila March 23, 1999 Page 3 applications continue to be processed during the pendency of Ordinance No. 1867, under the condition that SBD, Inc. agrees to abide by the development regulations relating to gaming that are ultimately adopted by the City. Completely apart from any gaming- specific development regulations, design review and processing of SBD's application for a conditional use permit, shoreline substantial development permit and lot consolidation all still need to be processed by the City. This review and processing of these applications could be ongoing while development regulations specific to the gaming operations are being developed. Consistent with this proposal, we are offering to enter into a development agreement with the City under Chapter 36.70B RCW. A development agreement would provide the City with the assurances it desires to make sure that any expansion of the Riverside Inn would conform to the development regulations the City ultimately adopts, regulations that Mr. Dowen would be willing to help put together. Under such an agreement, processing of SBD's permit applications could proceed while the development regulations are being developed. The goal would be that, when the moratorium expires on August 1, 1999, building and other permits could be issued and expansion of the Riverside Inn proceed, consistent with the new regulations. After you have had an opportunity to review this letter, we would invite a response from the City Attorney or members of the City planning staff regarding whether the City would like to explore the possibility of a development agreement for expansion of the Riverside Inn. Sincerely, FOSTER P "ER & SHEFELMAN PLLC Steven G. Jones Attorney for SBD, Inc., d.b.a. Riverside Inn cc: Steve Dowen, President, SBD, Inc. Blake Dowen, Manager of the Riverside Inn Robert Noe, Tukwila City Attorney Jack Pace, City of Tukwila Senior Planner Deb Ritter, City of Tukwila Senior Planner 50084109.01 z :mow. J U: U 0:; in 0 w is J F- N O; u.< = w` z zO� uj U0 :,0 N: w w • LL L11 N • • The Mayor and City Council of the City of Tukwila March 23, 1999 Page 4 Merrick Lentz Chuck Wolfe Peter S. Ehrlichman 50084109.01 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development February 8, 1999 Rick Lentz Merrick Lentz Architect 1800 136th Place NE Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Las Vegas Boulevard Casino Dear Mr. Lentz: John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director I am writing to inform you that on February 1' the Tukwila City Council passed ordinance 1867 (enclosed) which started a six month moratorium on the establishment of new gambling uses. Like other communities, the Council is responding to recent changes in state law by seeking time to explore its options regarding the siting of mini casinos and other gambling establishments. This action affects your permit applications because they are still incomplete. I have enclosed the "vesting" section of our Zoning Code. The City is considering ways to allow you to continue working on some elements of your proposed project despite the moratorium. For example, you may continue to work to resolve the issues around the Maule Avenue vacation, file for a lot consolidation for the site, and conduct the traffic and parking studies. Of course the Council may adopt regulations that prohibit your intended development, so all work during the moratorium period would be at your own risk and not vest you with any rights for a gambling use. If you would like to meet to discuss the project or have any questions please call me at (206) 433- 7141. Nora Gierloff Associate Planner CC: Gary Barnett, Public Works Graham Black, City Attorney Enclosures. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 a ,_ u6n O J O0. Off. LU w =; CO ; wo u.Q. co ;= a _. z 1 0. z UJ U ,O Ni w W U- H Oi , z, U N, H =' 0 z MERRICK LENTZ ARC ECT. F A X t r. a n s m i• t t a Y date: JA04, ' .�1 1'W\ to: 1riU we Goo attn: Ec fax #: (0 (244 SO re: NO etkYrO ftMOLE EELS •to 'P T .pages: 1'Vt Vfls44 ¶c 4 T sant w- rtta►.1 b1 TE I 1 1.. .NE- i� cK> PrPPA earce 11d 4:081-trac►4 PM nit AAVamegi Ids kitir ec sKraturrow RaSoLVEV1 ST, -M VirATlOn1 Utatft 6Z0 l'ior4 WA;s "fa l Cety sIM 01414E 7O WO scow idltsoseitMti io ee 6 . 50 Mtsllii0LXIA A AG$ is 6C 0113L4AA1TO To ecIANZTE i AVSTeiktok 1 PPaoec s• Vapaikz, icitxe moque To se V,4Q Th-O grow tan as Ifw o $w TitE Cx utzttu rC is know . LIE SittOULo C 1614e-i10.. To peiwininsE S3k To lro tJ '. we Vk1?it.. 6g19 w ¶c, rtw► t -rietR AVM. titRENM yo') . Ck ftCI L fit€ Osi-c -e or rvi6 qAcicrioNi Veg, t•SE t 5xrte *eta kti3 'To CT. 1800 - 136th Plata NEE,, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 4251747 -3177 ■ FAX 425/747-7149 E -Mail mlarch @isomedia.cnm Z. 6 • o.O: vow; • .w = co D. Z 0: O Z .w U �, D- ;w im • Ill Z:' • O F" z MERRICK LENTZ ARCH ECT F A X t r a n s m i t t a l date: January 25, 1999 to: Dept. of Public Works - City of Tukwila attn: Bob Gilberson fax #: (206) 431 -3665 re: Las Vegas Boulevard Casino from: Rick Lentz pages: •At4ae Two Per your letter of October 27, copy attached, you reference the need to complete the Maule Avenue street vacation process. The owners of the ATACS parcel believe that the only action remaining is for the city to record the agreement. Can you tell me what the owners of the ATACS parcel need to do to complete their portion of the agreement, and what else, if anything, must be done to complete the vacation process? Thanks for your help. 1800 - 136th Place NT.E., Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425/747 -3177 ■ FAX 425/747 -7149 E -Mail mlarch1111111@isomedia.com •z o- o` • )o U) w; .w J I, NC:. • x_: 1-, w cx 0 wuj.• :I—U � Z Z MERRICK LENTZ ARC • ECT Mr. Bob Giberson Public Works - City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 • RE: Maule Avenue Vacation at the ATACS Property - 14040 Interurban Avenue South Dear Bob: • On January 25 we requested the a determination of the status of the Maule Avenue vacation as it relates to the ATACS property at the address listed above. We then met on February 2 to discuss possible.solutions. At that time the possibility was discussed of releasing ATACS from the Agreement for Exchange and Use of Real Property dated March 2, 1995 . This was due to the fact§ that improvements to be done by the adjacent property owner have not been completed to date and are not likely.to be done. ATACS has no responsibility for improvements to the south, and also would have no effective use of the improvements even if they were in place. Therefore, we request that ATACS be released from the agreement, and that the Maule Avenue vacation and property swap be completed for the affected parcels. On another note, the question of the physical location of South 140th Street was revisited. In October 1998 We requested a solution to the'presence of•the street improvements on the • ATACS property, as shown on the survey prepared by Becker and Associates. At that time the city indicated that it would investigate relocating the street. At the February 2 meeting several other possibilities were mentioned. In order to satisfy the parking requirements for the proposed use of the parcel, we need to know what will be clone to resolve the question. Mr. Becker will be contacting you•to answer questions relating to the survey to help resolve the physical placement of the improvements. We would like to have these issues resolved as soon as possible, in order to be able to proceed with development plans for the property. These questions have a direct bearing on the proposed project, and a final resolution needs to be reached. we would appreciate your assistance in achieving the solutions. Sincerely, MERRICK LENTZ ARCHITECT Merrick D. Lentz 1800 -136th Place N,E, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425/747-3177 • FAX 425/747-7149 • E -Mail mlarcht @isomedia.com City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director January 22, 1999 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Rick Lentz Merrick Lentz Architect 1800 136t Place NE Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Las Vegas Boulevard Casino L98 -0101 Design Review L98 -0100 Conditional Use As we discussed earlier I am treating the SEPA and Shoreline applications separately from the consolidated Design Review and Conditional Use applications. Please let me know if you have changed your mind about this approach. Your Design Review and Conditional Use Permit applications for the Las Vegas Boulevard Casino located at 14040 Interurban Avenue South in Tukwila have been found to be incomplete. In order to be complete, the following must be submitted to the permit center: a. As your site plan is dependent on the land in the Maule Avenue right -of -way, review of your project cannot proceed until the Public Works Director determines that you have met the conditions of the "agreement for the exchange and use of real property." This means that the construction required as part of that agreement must be completed prior to beginning this project. I believe that you have corresponded with Bob Giberson from the PW Department about this issue. b. In order for you to obtain building permits you must consolidate the four lots that make up your site by applying and receiving approval for a BLA/Lot Consolidation from Tukwila. Please submit an application to start this process. c. Tukwila does not have a standard for the number of parking spaces required for a casino use. You have approximately 3,900 square feet of casino /card room use in building A that will likely require more parking than the restaurant standard you have used. Please submit a parking study that addresses the parking requirements for casino /card rooms in this area. I understand that you have agreed to complete a traffic study to determine mitigation fees per Tukwila's Concurrency Ordinance. You may wish to submit the traffic study at the same 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665 . �,.,,,,...,., ................. Notice. of Incompleteness Page 2 time as the parking study. At the latest the traffic study will have to be completed and any required mitigation fees paid prior to issuance of building permits for the project. d. The legal description on the survey does not include the land across Maule Avenue from the rest of the site. Please provide an accurate legal description of the entire site to be developed. e. Have the responsible party (architect, landscape architect, surveyor) stamp and sign each drawing. f. Show a turn- around behind Building B for fire apparatus. Contact the Fire Department for standards. g. Provide a sample board showing the colors and materials to be used on the project. h. Provide information about the external lighting fixtures and how the riverbank and adjacent properties will be shielded from light spillover. Upon receipt of these items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. I have included review comments from the Building and Parks Departments with this letter. You do not have to respond to them for completeness, though the issues should be addressed in your subsequent Design Review and building permit submittals. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). If you have any questions with this matter please call me at (206) 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner CC: Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Ken Nelson, Building Department Don Williams, Parks Department Enclosures. John W. Rang Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director January 22, 1999 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Rick Lentz Merrick Lentz Architect 1800136'" Place NE Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Las Vegas Boulevard Casino L98 -0102 Shoreline Pennit E98 -0035 SEPA Checklist Dear Mr. Lentz: z • H Z. J U' O 0 NO cn w' JI H CO 0 u_ g• � u. < � _ Z �. �0 z� D U� As we discussed earlier I am treating the SEPA and Shoreline applications separately from the w consolidated Design Review and Conditional Use applications. Please let me know if you have v- :. changed your mind about this approach. w F-- — O ..z Your SEPA and Shoreline applications for the Las Vegas Boulevard Casino located at 14040 Intenuban Avenue South in Tukwila have been found to be incomplete. In order to be complete, the following must be submitted to the permit center: Z Shoreline Permit Items a. Show the location of the mean high water mark (1VBiWM) on the drawings. b. Show the correct locations of the River Environment, Low Impact Environment and High Impact Environment on the drawings (see enclosed Figure 18 -1), There is a 35 foot height limit in the Low Impact Environment, please review the architectural drawings to make sure that the additions will comply with the standard. c. Provide two shoreline cross sections at representative locations. d. This project triggers an engineered storm drainage design. Please provide a conceptual stonn drainage design along with a narrative description of how your project relates to the Army Corps of Engineers requirements, Department of Ecology Manual and special requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual. e. Have the responsible party (architect, landscape architect, surveyor) stamp and sign each drawing. 6300 Southcenter Roulevar4 Suke #1011 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (204) 4373670 • Fax (2(X) 4313665 • Notice of Incompleteness Page 2 f. Reference the survey to the NGVD 1929 datum or provide an equation to convert from NAVD 88 to 29. SEPA Checklist Items a. The public notice radius is incorrect, see annotated Assessor's Maps. Please submit 2 copies of the additional labels. b. Complete the attached pages 22 and 23 of the SEPA Checklist, In addition, while it is not a completeness requirement, I urge you to start preliminary discussions with the other agencies with jurisdiction over your Shoreline Permit including King County DNR, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Department of Ecology and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. Your approach to the project is that because you are working within the footprints of the existing structures no additional riverbank stabilization or habitat enhancement is required. Your permitting will go more quickly if that approach is accepted by the other agencies. Upon receipt of the listed items, the City will re- review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E }, If you have any questions with this matter please call me at (206} 433 -7141. Sincerely, Nora Ctierloff Associate Planner CC: Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olives, Fire Department Enclosures. z CL Ul g, JU; UO: moo: cn w =; J � Nu_ i, wO: zv w. ? I. I- O Z w: 2 U 0: to ww O: ..z. 'es 22 z ~. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) APPLICATION ...::.:: ..... ....::....:.:..::.:.......::... JBMITTAL°`REQUIREMEN. To submit for SEPA review, provide the items listed above to the Planning Division at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100. 6 copies of the completed and signed environmental checklist. You may use the City's pre - printed form or you may re -type the questions on your computer. If you choose to re -type the form into your computer, be sure to do so accurately. Mistakes or omissions will increase the review time. 6 sets of the full size plans needed to clearly describe the proposed action. ,11 One set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11". 71 Four copies of supporting studies. One copy of the checklist application. One set of mailing labels for all properties 500' from the subject property. (See address label worksheet.) $325 filing fee. The checklist contains several pages of questions which you are asked to answer. It covers a comprehensive set of topics. As a result, several of the questions may not apply to your project. If a particular question does not apply, simply write N/A underneath. HOWEVER, be aware that many questions apply despite appearing not to. Care needs to be taken in reading and answering the questions to ensure the appropriate response is provided. It is important that accurate and clear information be provided. You may not know all of the answers. Answer each question to the best of your ability. If we find an answer to be insufficient, the City may contact you to ask for more information. Sometimes, after reviewing the checklist, the City will ask you provide additional studies or information. Commonly requested information includes traffic analysis, site topography, soils studies and tree surveys. CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Department. Please contact the Department if you feel certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670. URN :THIS CHECKLIST ;WITH YOUR APPLICATIOP APPLICATION FORMS: al Application Checklist ❑ Application Form (12 copies) (ti) ❑ Other permits applied for: Conditional Use Fee - $850 • Complete Environmental Checklist and fee ($325) ® Design Review application and fee ($900) (if applicable) PLANS (12 copies): Site plan at 1 "= 30' or 1" = 20', with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the architect. The following information must be contained on the plan (details may be included on additional drawing sheets): O Property lines and dimensions, lot size(s), and names of adjacent roads O Location and setbacks of existing and proposed structure(s) with gross floor area O Location of driveways, parking, loading, and service areas, with parking calculations 0 Location and design of dumpster /recycling area screening and other exterior improvements Location and type of exterior lighting Location and classification of any watercourses or wetlands, and 200' limit of Shoreline Overlay District Existing and proposed grades at 2' contours, with the slope of areas in excess of 20% clearly identified • Location of closest existing fire hydrant; location and size of utility lines; location and size of utilities or street/sidewalk easements or dedications 0 Description of water and sewer availability from provider of utility (note which utility district or City) 0 Other relevant structures or features, such as rockeries and fences. N/P 0 Location of outdoor storage areas and method of screening CLIPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 z _1. re.w N tu tu J H N U,. w (1' a xw Z� Zo uj 0 0 co 0 /-. =c) -L-Lz O • Z U N. 0 ❑ Landscape/planting plan at the same scale as site plan, with north arrow, graphic scale, and date; and the license stamp of the landscape architect. The following information must be contained on the plan: A Property lines and names of adjacent roads • Location of the following: proposed structure(s), vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas, dumpster /recycling area, site fumiture, any proposed public outdoor art W' 0 Existing trees over 4" in diameter by size and species, and any trees to be saved O Proposed landscaping, including size, species, location and spacing. • Building elevations of all building facades at a scale of 1/8" = 1' or 1/4" = 1', with graphic scale and date. Include on the elevations: Igo Dimensions of all building facades and major architectural elements 30 Materials to be used 6 Location and type of exterior building lighting ,5 Location of mechanical units and proposed screening where necessary. One (1) "PMT" (photomaterial transfer, or photostat) each of the plan set, reduced to 8.5 x 11 inches. OTHER MATERIALS: Other documentation and graphics in support of the proposal may be included as appropriate, such as color renderings, perspective drawings, photographs or models. If other materials are to be considered, twelve (12) copies of each must be submitted (except models). Color drawings or photos may be submitted as 8.5 x 11 -inch color photocopies. N/A ❑ Certificate of Water Availability if the site is served by a water purveyor other than the City. IVA ❑ Site percolation data approved by the Seattle -King County Department of Environmental Health if the site is proposed for development using a septic system, or a Certificate of Sewer Availability from the sewer utility purveyor (if other than the City). ❑ Proof that the lots are recognized as separate lots pursuant to the provisions of TMC Title 17 and RCW Ch. 58.17. N /A ❑ Any Sensitive Area studies required by TMC 18.45. NIA El A list of existing environmental documents known to the applicant or the City that evaluate any aspect of the proposed project. WA ❑ A list of any permits or decisions applicable to the development proposal that have been obtained prior to filing this application, or that are pending before the City or any other governmental entity. rg A storm water design which meets the requirements set forth in the Surface Water Design Manual adopted pursuant to TMC 16.54.060(D). NIA ❑ A soils engineering report for the site. Traffic study or studies, if required pursuant to TMC 9.48.070. PUBLIC NOTICE: King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 feet of the subject property. 71 Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks- - must be included.) See Attachment A. ❑ A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received. See Attachment B. CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 .. - . CITY OF TL1WILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (P- SHORE) APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: Ora. (1.ctr- I File Number: L.qp ,010 Z Receipt-Number:::, ''; °::..::: ' Project File #: -pas----, a..051 ❑' Application complete :(Date :_ ) SEPA.File #: q� . ear, Applicatiomincomplete (Date :. I - 2-Z- r-i 4i ) I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: I.Ar5 eZ4P6 I OULEVM -47 C 51NO B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: I STREET ADDRESS: I ` r040 IMF -R.0 RB P. JE N % Sarni ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 33COS clO 3-3(069 O - 102(0 ; 33 Co 5'10 - 1026 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Quarter: 51.) Section: 14 Township: 23ri Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: R l 6 K LEJ T2 / Nl E .I (K (_E1�T2 -i Gt I ITS GT ADDRESS: / I f 00 t%44 PLA6e. t4 . 501-M. I O) ELLEVC)E r 1t 1- (' 800rj ) PHONE: (425 74-7 -31-17 EPIC ,e4 -Z5) -24-7- -7141 SIGNATURE: DATE: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 9 1998 PERMIT CEN'TER z • w QQ g: J U; UO rn w z: co LL WO g Q. N d, H= Z E-o Z I- 2 j. U N O 0 I-- WW �. g O' WZ I. ~ 0 z E. CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTY: C.,/ LL F. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: MANl.) FkTd IZlN1y l)SEV 6%�� ��{, 1 G. SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGNATION: H. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING LAND USES: (Within 1,000 feet in all directions from the development site.) - Ctol CoU(.5 IGeS) CASINQS� Gor.IVET3zEIJCE. STrYKE) 1 1T Sfio• u0 L. :iu L L al 1L z .■ .•' I. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST & FAIR MARKET VALUE of the proposed development: (Include additional future phases of development contemplated but not included in current proposal.) Co+JSTt2k)C lot4l GoST -4P/50100o (X uJ DE J. BRIEF NARRATIVE DESCRIBING PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: ThNA r IrnPOVErnEC To 6ot\1VE{LT bl.14 Mf4R. Ed Lott. To - STAURAt -c ANYo wR NII IN1GWDI PANI1i 4 Ot icts-rIN. G syre..m / • Auto SToVE SSE PW5 LANDSAPIr.TLI MO )5114. EfT. lATtcr15 IMP2d al 1 K. PORTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY ALREADY COMPLETED: (If any portion or phase of the proposed activity is already completed on subject site, indicate month and year of completion.) . I-1/A L. PROPOSED STARTING DATE: Pt AL. , 114\1 ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: S .471. MCY .. i '\'9 . (If project will be constructed in stages, indicate dates:) M. TYPE AND EXTENT OF RECONSTRUCTION OF RIVERBANK (IF ANY) AND PROPOSED RIVERBANK VEGETATION: tiot3E f PoPo7). No SYCE ea115tc rRc?o5ED wmir4 40161=- 'New. e ..tA col F16 01-rJoDv p,5 I _ g u I Lct E XT . (0' WAL2 \5 c ' H...e0R7 05) Hi t.% ill 4 •r tml . N. IF PROPOSED ACTIVITY TO CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS, INDICATE IMPACTED AREA (acres): SSDPNIT.DOC 7/3/9E 3 O. TYPE AND EXTENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSED (if any): -)7(IST11\1 1 AC-1-,e.-6 f19-0M t tSiegti R> ME 1S t) E 50uTN Aa° Sour t4o4- ST -ro t T t� Q. P. SETBACK OF PROPOSED PARKING/LOADING /STORAGE AREAS AND PROPOSED SCREENING: (setback measured from mean high water mark.) P A N ) 1I• Of E n 1 S m t 44 P M - i N I A Q r 2 , E I \ l5 SET f . 6001 oM TitE -foe or- QNt 1 . Q. HEIGHT AND SETBACK OF ALL PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: (height measured from average grade level to the highest point of the structure, or mid -point of pitched roof; setback measured from mean high water mark.) LX Y- II.l4 &C-) l D1t\w-, To $E QEiAMt\1EO j DE_O 1-n\ E a t s Pc D L 1 Trb-1 rp 1- of EXtsTIJC, -C- -ruer-� -co 6E 45' MAXI vlo M t Vrt(. R. MEASURES PROPOSED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT IN AND ALONG RIVER: Ko woeK 6 PPoPosEV orb 9Jt\JERi i oR Wrrt -m1 40' or- Tole DY K exGtiaT Nlogf►tA-no0 -ro )C15iNiC t3611,0iNY 01 lATion15. II. A. TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL SHORELINE OFFICIAL NATURE OF EXISTING SHORELINE: (Describe type of shoreline, such as stream, lake, marsh, flood plain, floodway, ,delta; type of beach, such as erosion, high bank, low bank or dike; type of material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any.) B. RESIDENTIAL VIEWS OBSTRUCTED BY STRUCTURES OVER 35' IN HEIGHT: (In the event that any proposed buildings or structures exceed a height of 35' above average grade, indicate the approximate location of, and number of, residential units, existing and potential, that will have views of the shoreline obstructed by the proposed development.) C. CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE REQUIRED: (If a conditional use is required, state in full that portion of the Master Program which provides That the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, if a variance is required, that portion from which the variance is being sought. SSDPNIT.DOC 7/3/96 4 III. OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT Indicate permits for which you have applied or will apply to the federal government, the State, City of Tukwila and other agencies; include permit application date, whether the permit is pending, approved or denied, and the permit number. ® Tukwila Conditional Use Permit ❑ Tukwila Variance Permit ® Tukwila SEPA Environmental Checklist SEPA Lead Agency: TV1CW 11-k SEPA decision date: 2 Tukwila Design Review ❑ Tukwila Preliminary Plat Approval ❑ Tukwila Flood Control Zone Permit (per Flood Ord. #1462) 21 Tukwila Storm Drainage Permit (per Ord. 1755) ❑ Tukwila Land Altering Permit (per Ord. 1591) ❑ Archaeological Excavation Permit (WA DCD /Office of Public Archaeology) a Section 106 Review (WA DCD /Office of Public Archaeology) ❑ Coastal Zone Management Certification (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) (WA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife) ❑ Approval to Allow Temporary Exceedance of Water Quality Standards (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) (Nationwide Permit) (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Aquatic Lease (WA Dept. of Natural Resources) ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permit (WA Dept. of Ecology) ❑ Section 404 or Section 10 Permit (Army Corps of Engineers) PERMIT # ❑ Other: APPLICATION DATE DATE APPROVED I2Ivi j1f 1211-111f7 121 2q Jae, 12/2q at) SSDPMT.DOC 7/3/96 5 • z • _ 1- z. .6 J U; • 00: • la CI J to LL: w 0' ; J: • IL Q• �...w • D D p U N: O H. �w W: v_ w Z O ~. z. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST -FOR STAFF •USE.ONL.Y... Fife :Number: Receipt Number:. Cross -reference .files Appticant notified of incompleteapplicatio Applicant'notified:of.:comp(ete ;application: Notice:of:application issueCd :.. A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: . LAS \l e4 P6 WO LEY. D CAS-I Nl o B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: (address andaccessors parcel number(s)) 14174-0 M 0E SOUTt -4• ) 33 `10- I0260 .) 334P`y10- 1025 Quarter: SbA) Section: 14 Township: 23n! Range: “ANM (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: "r4 hi< I i\A?Ko E M ET1T N1CA 3U t 1.01 .) C44 , E c f U 5 r-> vl Mkrnl o FPcC i 1)PNILI To ISM At7 c CAD ‘Coryil Rt-s 5 NAME: k IG L Z M E'R1GK LENTZ ITC• ADDRESS: Il,DO l r` PL N SUITE Iap 6ELLE(OE w,A•-s}- (1$Co5) PHONE: (425) 3177 • Ek( (425) 7471141 SIGNATURE: DATE: MG. I40 � D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoin.g statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at fW ' �� .�. � r} (city), �' (state), on pc.) 1 , 199 V) . (Print Name) • /l1,o 21J- 01-643S (Address) (Phone Iryib.er) (Signature) Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. CITY Or TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (P -CUP) APPLICATION FOR_STAFFUSE Planne File'Num Receipt Numt Project Flle # pplication.Complete' (Date: El :Application.incomplete SEPA File Other File 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: LP6 NI ECt Pa E J CP611Q0 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: STREET ADDRESS: I .4t-04-0 I N.VC U'R.& IV E1•\ OE SO ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 33GSg0 - 1035 ; 336oS61O - I0210 .) 33(S'tO - t025 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Quarter: SW Section: 14 Township: 23t■1 Range: 4 E. (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: k.1C. Lt r/ MEN?- A G. L J rZ AIZCA -'I CECT ADDRESS: 1 BCD i&oc h PLP - . I■E 501,TE ICO BELLE VL)E , WA-'St r N4-CON1 ('t 3coy ) i PHONE: ZS. '74'1- 3 Ill NC. _425 14 -'? 14 SIGNATURE: .7:��% DATE: r i aiars_n.•a_ ___ CLIPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 z ,• W .. aa� JU 00 cn• w J I- CO u_ w0 u Q. = i- w _ Z� 1- O Z 1-' W W. 2O ON '0 I- W • W. lL Z U =` o~ z II., A. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: N A1\10 AC e.it44 0 SET C j B. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE REQUESTED (FROM LIST IN YOUR ZONING DISTRICT): Res-r( Wm-1 cow C. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE (FOR EXAMPLE, DESCRIBE THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES USED, WHOLESALE/RETAIL/WAREHOUSE FUNCTIONS, OUTSIDE STORAGE OF GOODS OR EQUIPMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION WHICH WILL FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTIVITIES YOU PROPOSED TO DEVELOP ON THIS SITE): FP0..\FL-c UN_ CoIJV E4Z."( PAPT iOOLi in41 4 W1LDINL9 To Re TPUR -Aft DSE tJ 1TH IS CPs1-01A€ L 'PeR 57if7 e Mist•1 op cw C W(1QDN1 12.t4OL.A7►aN15_, WoU_11•L1-00E7--) Pt\liti c, EnesnNc, PA-?-Li PKLEA6 LAN\DCAPII.4Ci kt.10 pr-.lC SIoN! 10 X.1.slit W11.PIt\Lt E ENA %oNS. D. WILL THE CONDITIONAL USE BE IN OPERATION AND /OR A BUILDING TO HOUSE THE USE BE STARTED WITHIN A YEAR OF ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT? YES - ASPcP E. ON A SEPARATE SHEET, DESCRIBE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR AN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL SATISFY EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.64.030. 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. CUPCKLST.DOC 7/5/96 ...:: . z _•: JU 0O: ND` J LL. cu LL '' $3. I— w z� H 0 z I--, uf .2 CI: 'O co', '0I-- W of. LI O w z. :0 T R A N S MI T T AL to: City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington (98188) attn: Carol Lumb re: Las Vegas Boulevard Restaurant and Cardrootn Tukwila, Washington date: December 29, 1998 from: Rick Lentz Per our recent discussion, we are submitting for SEPA, Design Review, Conditional Use and Shoreline Substantial Development Permit reviews. In order to determine the correct number of submittals of each document, due to overlap of requirements, we are submitting ONE each of the following: S2625 Fee (5325 -SEPA; 5550 - Shoreline; 5900 - Design Review; 5900 - CUP) CUP - application, checklist, response Design Review - application, checklist, response Shoreline - application, checklist, response SEPA - application, checklist Plans - Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Landscaping, Survey, Drainage, Land Use One each 8-1/2x11 reduction of each plan Traffic Analysis Colored Elevations for Colorboard Assessor's Maps 2 each - Owner and Tenant Mailing Labels We understand that the submittal will be reviewed for completeness and the actual number of submittals of each item will be identified, along with any other items that need to be included. If there are any questions or comments, please let me know. MERRICK LENTZ ARC ECT z W c4 2 J0. 00. N RESPONSE TO W' W =: CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA nu.' AS APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED uj 0' LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD CASINO g A RESTAURANT AND CARDROOM TO BE LOCATED AT LLQ'. lo 14040 INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH = f� w December 23, 1998 1— 0 z � ,2 �. We believe the criteria as specified in TMC 18.64.030 are satisfied by the following: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to o f—. the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which v the subject property is located. u.. O ..z This use of restaurant with cardroom is compatable with the surrounding uses. There are three separate casino -type uses immediately adjacent to or across the street from this subject - property :Other nearby uses include office and retail/business uses that are not adversely . z affected by the proposed use. The remaining adjacent uses include municipal shops and yards, and the golf course. The parking and landscaping improvements proposed as part of this project will be an aesthetic improvement that will provide a benefit to all properties in the area. 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. The development of this property, while primarily a tenant - improvement project, will include extensive remodeling of the exterior surfaces as well as improvements to the existing parking areas, plus full landscaping of the subject property around the parking and circulation areas. It is the intent of this project to provide a desireable use for the residents of the area, and to be constructed to a high quality that will encourage its use. Although the development will meet the standards that apply, care will be taken in the design and construction phases to assure a quality project. 1800 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425/747 -3177 • FAX 425/747 -7149 E -Mail mlarchitect@isomedia.com 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally tit'ith the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. This project will utilize existing traffic circulation patterns for access into and out of the property, and will improve circulation for traffic within the site by designating traffic lanes. Pedestrian circulation will be enhanced by improving circulation within the property, and by maintaining and enhancing the existing jogging/bicycle trail that has been constructed along the southwest property edge. The building design is intended to display a realistic presence of the intended use by presenting the image of a bustling gaming center that is recognizable and generally acceptable to the public at large. The site design will also enhance the use by Providing landscaping in excess of the minimum requirements, and improving a site that is currently a non - descript eyesore in the community. History would suggest that a major improvement to a previously under - developed area will encourage improvements to the surrounding areas. Since success of the project will depend greatly on acceptance of the use, it is important to do whatever is possible to encourage improvements in the greater area. It is believed that by providing a unique presence, this will spur others to do similar work to make the Interurban corridor more desireable for the public than it is currently. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. The use of restaurant is already allowed outright in this zone. The addition of the cardroom as part of the use is the purpose of requiring Conditional Use approval. Since there are already several similar uses in the immediate area, this would imply that the proposed use is in keeping with the necessary policies. The actual use of an assembly area providing food service and methods of entertainment should meet the policy guidelines as they apply to this project. 5. All measures shall be taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. The design and construction phases will satisfy those issues that are development requirements as mandated by the city. Any inforseen impacts that may occur once the project is completed will need to be resolved by the operation, as it will be in their best interest to ensure that there are no adverse impacts that would cause potential patrons to stay away from the project. There would appear to be no adverse impacts that would be attributed to the development of the site. so issues would need to be addressed by the operators if they should arise. z _� � W.. J U 0 0; w= J H; WO.. 1 J {L Q co d. w`. . z_ �.. 1-0. zt-. '0 . :w ui .z •w , I=_' 0 z MERRICK LENTZ ARC ECT RESPONSE TO DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA AS APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED z 1 Z re W2w 6 -J C.) 00: Nc J ••' w 0; LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD CASINO g A RESTAURANT AND CARDROOM TO BE LOCATED AT N 14040 INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH 1 w. Z December 23, 1998 z We believe the criteria as specified in TMC 18.60.050 are satisfied by the following,: ,n o 0 , -! DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES: w uj` 1---• A. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE z LLI N i O ,z This project utilizes existing structures without increasing any of the footprint areas. Fortunately the structures are located away from the street so that a good transition is provided between the circulation spaces and the buildings. The inclusion of landscaping in the improved paved areas and around the buildings will accentuate the transition from the streetscape. Due to the circulation requirements, there will be no large expanse of pavement on the site. The new facades of the proposed development are a collaberation of visual elements, and have been modified to reflect the impact of the intended image in relation to the size and shape of the existing structure. The project is intended to provide a strong visual presence while maintaining an acceptable relationship to height and scale proportions. B. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA The Interurban corriclor as existing lacks a visual identity. The surrounding structures are aging and have been built without any reference to neighborhood identity or consistency. The surrounding uses include offices, small retail spaces and several casino -type operations. This will be the first project in the immediate area that is designed to provide a specific appearance characteristic. Landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is proposed in the parking areas, and is provided at the property boundaries. The existing on -site vehicular patterns are adequate, and access points to the main thoroughfare will be retained at the existing locations at South 140th Street and South 141st Street (vacated). The conversion of 1800 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425/747 -3177 ■ FAX 425/747 -7149 E -Mail mlarchitect @isomedia.com this space to the proposed use, combined with the conversion of the adjacent space to a similar use, will create traffic demands that are actually less than those present in early 1998 when the Riverside was a restaurant only. C. LANDSCAPE & SITE TREATMENT The existing site is relatively flat, and does not provide the opportunity to accentuate vistas, but the intent of the proposal is to screen the circulation spaces and enhance the architectural features of the proposed improvements. The service yard is located in the rear of the property, screened by the existing buildings, and surrounded by a 6' concrete block wall. Exterior lighting is located in the parking areas to provide safe access for the quests from their vehicles to the building. Building accent lighting will be provided, and located to enhance the architectural features without impacting the surrounding properties or circulation areas. The area will be well -lit, but is intended to avoid brightness or brilliant coloring. D. BUILDING DESIGN As stated previously, there is no consistency in neighborhood presence existing in this area. As a result, this project proposes to create an identity that is unique to the area, while being a true representation of the intended use. By making a strong design statement, it is hoped that new development to follow will be encouraged to improve their sites in ways that support the encouragement of attracting guests to the area. For this project to succeed, it is important to create the image of a space different than the usual cardroom use that is typically accomplished with minimum expense using design solutions that lack definition or presence. By creating a quality environment, it is hoped that this can be a difference that can allow the use to prosper and succeed, not only as an inclependant business, but as a respected representative of the area as well. E. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES & STREET FURNITURE The intent of this project will be to encourage patrons to come to the site and enter the premises. The existing jogging trail will provide pedestrian access adjacent to the site. Due to the relatively tight spacing required to utilize the existing buildings and provide adequate parking and site circulation, there is not suffucient room to provide street furniture or miscellaneous structures and maintain proper circulation within the site. This will be mitigated by detailing on the exterior facades of the buildings, and the pedestrian- friendly treatments on the pathways to the building entrance. DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES: A. ALL COMMERCIAL AREAS • Goal: "Commercial districts that are visually attractive and Auld value to the community, are visitor and pedestrian friendly, are designed with pride and constructed with quality z • =1- W. 6 J0 0O' U) o, viw W I. J I- U) U. w0. J.' ND _ °i w Z 1-.0. Z U0 0 0.. z H 1' O ~' z workmanship, are secure and safe with adequate lighting and convenient access, are uncongestecl with smooth flowing traffic patterns, are well- maintained with adequate streetscape landscaping, and are wholesome and in harmony with adjacent uses." (Goal 1.7) 1. The acceptance of cardroom uses by the state was initially requested by a business owner in Tukwila, so the development of a project of this type is on the leading edge of a new era of history in Tukwila. Otherwise, there are no historical features on or near this site that would be an enhancement to the project or to the historical record of Tukwila. (1.2.4) 2. Fencing and landscaping are provided along the north property line between the project and a residence to the north of the site. (1.7.4) 3. The development provides parking in excess of the minimum required and will be adequately lit by the placement of light poles as required to provide coverage. (1.7.3) 4. The pedestrian trail is existing along the southwest edge of the property, and is already connected with the properties on each side of the project. This path will be retained without modification, both during and after construction. (1.10.11; 1.11.7) 5. See number 4. above. (1.11.4) GENERAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Goal: A more attractive form of commercial development along major streets in the conununity, in which buildings and plantings are prorninant and oriented to pedestrians, transit and automobiles." (Goal 1.8) 1. Since the property is adjacent to the river, it is not possible to provide through -block pedestrian connections. Also, restrictions of improvements adjacent to the river prohibit any modifications to this area, whether for pedestrian or property user purposes. (1.8.5) 2. The project provides very distinctive building facades and rooflines. Due to the presence of the existing building and the required usage of the floor area, it is not possible to provide • meaningful see - through glass areas. However, the placement of the structures provide an interesting intermixing of building, courtyard and planting areas that should be interesting to experience. (1.8.7) 3. Pedestrian walkways are provided within the project boundaries, connecting to the parking areas, the property to the south and to the pedestrian trail at the street front. (8.1.2) 4. Parking areas are fully landscaped through the interior and at the perimeters of the site. (8.1.4) z 0:: .J U 00: (0 o W= wO 2 g J: a: za z� zo LI- 01 W w. z. • U _' `O~ z • 5. Rooftop mechanical units will be screened by the building facades. The dumpster enclosure is located behind the building and is enclosed by a concrete block enclosure with gates. (8.1.5) 6. The rooflines of this project are very prominent and contribute to the distinct character of the project. There are no distinctive design elements with which to be coordinated in this neighborhood. (8.1.12) 7. Transit is already provided along Interurban Avenue, so no additional improvements are deemed to be necessary. (1.8.8) 8. Due to the restrictions of development within the shoreline area, it is not possible to modify the use of this site. In order to utilize this site, we must retain the existing buildings, which requires that the existing parking areas also be retained. This provides the parking area with landscaping as the separation between the structures and the street. This does provide a project that is prominent and oriented to pedestrians, transit and automobiles. (1.8.2) INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH The location of this project is already remote from substantial residential development. The one residence adjacent to the site has been in existance for many years, and does not provide the possibility of continued residential development. By being located between the river, Interurban Avenue, city shops and Metro, and existing commercial uses, there exists a logical and harmonius separation between commercial and residential uses. (8.3.4) MERRICK LENTZ ARCH ECT z JU RESPONSE TO c) O, SHORELINE PERMIT QUESTIONS & DESIGN POLICIES ` J cn AS APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED N w: LAS VEGAS BOULEVARD CASINO w o A RESTAURANT AND CARDROOM TO BE LOCATED AT g 114040 INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH N <. December 23, 1998 We believe the criteria as specified for the Shoreline Review are satisfied by the following: O ui TUKWILA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES: ci �. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT w 1. This project will primarily serve the local population, as well as provide an attractive use Z • that can attract neighboring residents to the area. Increasing traffic into the neighborhood can cwi be a benefit to other surrounding uses as well. - 2. The current use of the property is manufacturing, with a commercial use on the south side and city maintenance shops on the north side. This would not seem to be an area that could be developed into recreation or public uses. 3. The location of the existing buildings that will be retained do not contribute to shoreline enhancement. In addition, there are prohibitions against any modifications within 40' of the shoreline, plus mandates to retain all existing vegetation along the river bank area. The structure will be remodeled to provide viewing of the river from inside the building, which will not require physical work to be done along the river. 4.The proposed changes to the property will be a great improvement to the existing manufacturing use. Paving and landscaping, along with the exterior changes to the building, will enhance this area tremendously. 5. As stated in 3. above, there are restrictions against development within 40' of the river bank. Visual access will be provided from within the building, but pedestrian access is not possible in this development. 1 S00 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 95005 425/747 -3177 • FAX 425/747 -7149 E -Mail mlarchitect @isomedia.com 6. Converting to an assembly use in lieu of a manufacturing use will increase the public's awareness of the river's presence in this location, which is an improvement over the existing conditions. 7. This restaurant/cardroom will be open 20 hours per day, which will allow increased exposure of the river to the public. 8. Since no modifications are allowed or will be proposed for this property, there should be no impairment to the biological features of the river and its shoreline. PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT 1. The work on this project will be tenant improvement to an existing building. 2. This project will not be proposing any modifications to the existing area along the water's edge, due to the requirement of the city to restrict any construction activity within 40' of the shoreline. It is proposed to retain the shoreline area in its existing condition without enhancement or modification. 3. The trail is existing and has been relocated to parallel Interurban Avenue as it passes by this site and the Riverside Casino to the south. It is proposed to retain this improvement without modification, as it is connected at both ends to the existing system. CIRCULATION ELEMENT 1. No roadways are proposed adjacent to the shoreline as part of this proposal. 2. Parking is proposed to be located in areas already being utilized for vehicle storage on the site, and is located more than 60' from the shoreline. 3. Public transportation serves the site along Interurban Avenue. No modifications to the system are being considered. 4. No railroad property is included with this project. RECREATIONAL ELEMENT There are no publicly owned recreational uses immediately adjacent to the site, although Foster Golf Course is located across the river from the property. Views of the shoreline will be improved and enhanced by improvements within the existing building that will provide new visual access to the water that are not currently present. z �W -.I 0, U Or U Cl: Nw W I: W O. :g -J U =Ci F- _, Z �.. E- a Z al U 0I w w': z U' ui z. CONSERVATION ELEMENT This project proposes no modifications to the site other than improvements to the existing building exterior elevations. This will preserve the existing conditions of the water's edge. All development to take place as part of this project will be oriented away from the water to avoid activity that could be potentially detrimental to the river environment. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHORELINE DESIGN POLICIES ALL SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT 1. No modifications are proposed for the riverbank or areas immediately adjacent to the water's edge. 2. By limiting development activity in the 40' from the water's edge there should be no adverse impact on the riverbank. 3. There should be no disturbance of the vegetation or habitat along the river's edge. 4. The parking and storm drainage systems are existing for this site. It is proposed to install an oil -water separator catch basin in place of an existing catch basin to improve water quality. In addition, the area currently used for parking and vehicular circulation is being reduced and will be replaced with landscaping, which will also be an improvement to the water quality on this site. 5. The work on this site will be tenant improvement to the existing building. The new finish floor elevation will be constructed at elevation 22.15', which is 12" above the level of the base flood elevation. Improving the site drainage by repaving the parking areas will also help to control drainage flow. 6. This project should be an improvement to the community, and will pose no adverse impacts on public safety, health or welfare, or inhibit benefits of the river to the community. 7. This project minimizes impacts to habitat, vegetation,access, recreation, historical resources and flood control by restricting improvements to existing buildings and systems. 8. No modifications to the riverbank is proposed, and no over -water structures. will be constructed. 9. No unique historic /archaeological features are believed to be present on or around this site. Items 10 - 16 do not apply to this project. 17. The existing trail between the building and the street will be retained. A. BACKGROUND ..- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Control No. Epic File .No. Fee $ 325 Receipt No. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Lif\-5 VfL<AS $L�(b CP6INIO 2. Name of applicant: E1GK LENTZ /MteCiGK [.t"1.YCZ �r1;Gl�r1�C G� 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4-25')747_31-7 15700 1SLAil 'L NE SUj(E loo CDELteque 980o5- 4. Date checklist prepared: pl'GEN115 1Lple1b 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Cot ter oG'f►oti S-rf :-( - Af IL t1'11 e00.5TtzvL---0or i cofAKE75 - JULY teMet 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. �p 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. NONE FREeteW K1=rzo 126o 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.. t1.1E. KNotkir.1 z a • II mow. —1 C.) U0' co 0 W = J w• o u- <i =v z F: zo W W;. gyp;. 'o co 0 F-!. w w: 2 - U. LL O W z. =, 0 F' z 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. DDS 1C� 1`1 RCS/► Evil [o QI7lo NAL USE Pf.Mrr 5 Ur.1E 51.E7,5TANT4AL P V oPI'fE Porn rC j,�1~ CDt�1SoL1D TIOrJ 01)1Lp 1 NCB e& \r( 5 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. cD1■1\I e•rn m uf- -ro r V use -co ' .EST Ls R Ck-Q P-OOM _ OQ._1r1 LUD TtSJ tvIM VEjYl TC ATioK iYoDi ACAT1oNts T�► � 10 o f . r .. oc F OSTir' A ' c .EO prq- t4 /P Tto 51OeAGE AQ€ VAN pScHIh1C.t . 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. PST To 13e 5011:c INT 1404 -o INT- 1 -2U1`e •kJ E )E5 x L.oCaTEv ►N 5t) V4. Dv. 5t✓G. S4,Ct�►N 23l•I wM . - i.1P Nt i W ovEN\ETSC woIZ( o 6E. _,)ENE tN Ct nt•IC:t_ BUILQ1 t ■4 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? -3- ;..,:...._. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, o er b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? -,512.0y/612A5'17.0 -itt-rRNegIsm•Kok)LY c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. SAN :1 eliZAW L- d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NONE KNOWN e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Na f'Rci- tfsr-0. GRP?■N(i - o e2ePPf. 50K Pie- VDR PANNCIONL`f. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? eoci (RWL) W N1 kP? c''. 1501Q) Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NCNE PEEN1eO To SE 0ELCSS! r (. ftL ?eK 546045 'to gE PLINtEO IN .- xlS2t r44Ct_ CRT C H 8t"5 f NS To I1P z CONTROL Wirt =K NoACr ' pU2h.1C‘ ize'i i . _ Wiz;. 2. Air ' mlt 6 D a. What types of emissions to the air would result from 'v p; the proposal (i . e. , dust, automobile odors, Wm' industrial wood smoke) during construction and when w =' the project is completed? If any, generally _I F_ describe and give approximate quantities if known. :W O; GUST (rJ\NoZ) 2 2- PUTo eAISS1ot.5 A-tTTR i'2o3Ecr COMP.ETto, (p\ltibR) g 5; u_ a; ca 1w _: b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor ?F' that may affect your proposal? If so, .generally z O' describe. w w No io:= w W: c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or O, other impacts to air, if any: iii U � 1 = _ Not` e_ o F' .z . Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. p JAGU T 'Co t7UWlkt \ISi -3 R1Y R 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Nopi Kic NEW I,AKO5cAPI R tganLoinlei W_LLSD c301UOINIC15 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. NONE. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and apprbximate quan- tities, if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to. surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No -6- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • z 'U O • CO o: :CO la • w=` N LL W p; J LL • d I- -W, 'Z .z F--: uji U 2W O: ii Z l U �' it .:O •z b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. 110 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. b451 It OQAintAt,i STEM \AMA. eE e"1 P NCO. Evaluation for Agency Use Only W: re 2 • J U' 0 0 N3. mw .W = -J AO W. ;. O; 'LL <- CO D. W z 1-0 .Z Ali La -U • ,o m = O ill Z' ' Uco: 2 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Nog- 1..AML•( d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: el.'s t v' 81= iGSU R- t=A[ -t:0 'T0 f3SS c� RE rRiP 4 MNTo ClS-n cA-T stns. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, C them shrubs ,7 grass pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? 5LT� PJA-S V11?TUALL:l' ETA-1-1o(.1 c. .List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. KNOW Kk■bwN To 13E fR.E5E-1cc LC • 2 n' J U. U OS W I W O. u.Q Do • .z a: • :z �-, 0. •Z • • w W, Z H V: w Z H ='• d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: _ SKI To Cze LPtNWAQEV Pr PLAIQS PNIMLAfA A( PP 1 • or 11W7 f 4IDA/ 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Mtn fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, (other: CA-WACT1i --co SITE F iri t?'e4.`) List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. . Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Kot• p 6MEQ Z AaEcesprz-( Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. EL T2tG c x'( i IG -tX.1. w R L1a1{Ylp,161) ?u2l�t- CiPS (Repc NC1 r Co 1r4E ) b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: E.t4ER4C-,Fft6t'Et\1T FQ .)19m r14-C . Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Mo Sf EGt AFL 5 Y1 GE5 StslouLO BE NC- E4DSA -211 . 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: NONE DEEMED To NEc-ESSAN.s -10- Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? -r-c. No6.e IS MA-SoT, Nolbt 1mpA�'C 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? indicate what hours noise would come from the site. TRWIC. ib AN* QOM 51 ci t1Jouuo ceepiTE oMC NotsE. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ANN ttotS% IoM -1 5 SirE W o u t.-Q B S i mtL To AsVJALEIST USES Ate z 6 W) WouLQ Nor RE otR6 rn 141% -fioN . • Land and Shoreline Use a. What. is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? S1TE - Nti- NUVACTU .tNVA ANO PL5Co SAi..E b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. cLik Sutt,)tN Z \ mo, 6 J U; O O' UE N 0; w =. J H: In U..' W o' J. :CO I... al :z LU z F- ON = w AL' ~O. w z: :O Z d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? NO e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C /LZ. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? COj\m cI PA.. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i . Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? RE51OE -c) • . WofzK - 1 eSO 1►t ahrl'S-EA.11.4 you 25 Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? eLSjf EES'TS- O WoK1 -5 - 1J • k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Nor4€ DEer' E0 To BE NEGESSP ( 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 1\100Z. rEEME:0 To PEE C.ESS Ate-'_ -12- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • �w. 6 Nom, w w' w: 0: J. �w ,z ►-: E— O. z Lut D. = V` f- -. O: .z. . 0 co' H ' 0 z 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? NONE. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. NONE. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. 46 VIN(InDiv1 aEmmt5 D12$/r[ -re.RioR w/ 66L AND a ?.perwE -fu S 3 7 9ETl�t(,1r�I What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Ronk__ c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: E e MAIKI -A wS k 3Gk igoPL% (i 1?�t'A�L ID -�N1�� -13- Evaluation for Agency Use Only z J0: U O cnw = N u_ wo u. < 9.2v I-_ z o 2 Di U i 0': of = U -` .O z Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal - produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? DVCD.AT1\JE C.1 it4 PLOS eitui tzt_ANO WAttuiP SIC, TIN oN Nor v\ ouSK 'fo pAN,anl &A/¢N1 QP t5 VO2 WtrtY b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: • 5 1 -W5 foRIALPaq-6- .gDU[.7tor\1 X12 Jlre lzT . P r1 • esi r4t-Q PLA EmLT of 10: L? 11 E to M114\mrzt 5 12. 'Recreation* a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? fd5T loot f CouRSE k:4c.1 4 / ?1(NCC. Pf -Th NOOPicE/ 7 To PeoPmT -I'. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: oNE DEE fc1D 1 �3E ti�C�S .�: z Z w re 2 6 J C) 00 u) o, Ill is Jam:. w 0: Q. = d, ZX' Z Lij 2 0 F- LU mi ;H U LI O Z, (W)Ni o I—, z 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. KO b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NoNE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the • site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. IV0PmT1 9p Att- Ta Jr 161Er ee Lsrt-k. A& EE5 "V0 5'fcE• ANO 5, 141st WILL CE eE-rAIN EO b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Hoar many would the project eliminate? 118 WO SPA'€ LALL EE k_A1Lt SLL SINCE e(IS- nlNI'8/Ki W tLl e i_ESu2�AE€O nnAll' 1.10 SPRCE`D LottA_ Be (r=urmopt -rf.D. -15- Evaluation for Agency Use Only .z re • .0 O • W =` IWa • 1 -J .zI-i o. z e-: U� • O.N a.. :H • U- F= _! O F-. z Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private)814o.4k '+, – eAlcq of TO t(- ►to W1L1, 8E RELOc, aE e11 Sk g311-7 •►n► 1 - Oc - t4 ' a, ktN10 atYC,C;tn}Ct 161 &?CI. E ply-To J l LL SE g ti . Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. ftoJECT PRov 10n A •eC LOSS Dr V P-116LE TeA P5 PRDM KEV , (35E oN AtJO Ac,1AL.EI r To SITE. \lotA i IeS Pr € AN)TTCIPATet7 TU oCCOP- APIY r2 7 PM . Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: 9. t4OtJE OCFMEO To 6E MEC.ESSfssR'c' 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NONE Ot'N1EO To SE NEGESSf `7 w JV • UO ; cnwf w =; w �.. J'. w a� -a • =w z 1; • • zi—: U 13: ' :O 'ww: . H V. z U - O 16. Utilities a. Circle utiliti Celectricity3 (t---e- 1 „ atural rently available at the site: fates Cefuse service septic system, other. eft8t,>± 'TEVt oN b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. f)iI TINV-:‘ UTILITIES WILL, BE t2� -r,, i,IeD, C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledce. I understand that the 1 -.d agency is relying on them to make i Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE COiNTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -17- Evaluation for Agency Use Only Mr. Gary Barnett, P.E. Senior Engineer - Development Department of Public Works City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Christopher brown at Associates 9688 C2ainier Ave:. A. 8eattic, WA 98118-5981 206 722 -1910 Fax 206 722 -1909 November 5, 1998 Traffic Impact Analysis Preliminary review The Riverside Inn versus The Riverside Casino Net New P.M. Peak Hour Trips Dear Mr. Barnett: 2Z rw 6 U0. ma' cn w =, N LL; wo g' ti ?. _. z� o. zI uj o' 0 —. I stopped by your office yesterday (November 4th) to see what w w. traffic volume and accident data you may have on file along or Interurban Avenue from I -5 to I -405. Similarly, I met with the z 0 developers and the architect for the above casino to review such items as project scale, access and so on. Indeed, I even v N started to assess the use of the zip code addresses of clients as a means of defining the trip distribution. z However, on a close examination.of new expected trip generation versus trip generation in former days, namely pre - January 1998, it appears that the new usage, while generating larger daily 1. traffic volumes, produces smaller p.m. peak hour volumes. Given this unusual outcome it would seem to me that there is no need for a traffic study, per se. It goes without saying that while I would look forward to the challenge of such an impact analysis with this kind of land use it would serve no useful SEPA related purpose. Accordingly, may I ask you to review the attached letter on trip generation and, if you agree, then delete the TIA element of the application? In advance, thanks for your time and understanding on this matter. Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. encl. 2 d Traffic Engineers a Transportation Planners S31WIJOSSb2NNOd3 Str:_i 86, SO AON Christopher Brown Cn Aatccialet 9688 Rainier Ave. S. 8cattfc, WA 98118 -5981 206 722 -1910 rex 206) 722-1909 Mr. Steven B. Dowen, Owner The Riverside Casino 14060 Interurban Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98168 November 5, 1998 Re: The Riverside Inn and The Riverside Casino P.M. Peak Hour Trip Generation Dear Mr. Dowen: Thank you for meeting with me this morning and reviewing the former site usage against the current building and its proposed neighboring, expanded use and existing neighboring usage. Briefly, the former use, I recall it as the Riverside Inn, was a 650 seat capacity restaurant with an attendant bar /dance floor. For its traffic generation I would suggest that it complies with the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Land Use Code 832 which includes facilities with bars that also serve both lunch and dinner. Trip production, defined in the 6th edition of the.Trip Generation Manual for LUC 832, High- Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant is noted below in Table I. TABLE I Trip Generat_i_pn - The Riverside Inn Time Period Traffic Volumes A.W.D.T. P.M. inbound P.M. outbound 3,140 Trips /day 158 veh. /hour 115 veh. /hour You might wish to note that traffic impacts with commercial facilities, such as this, are all associated with the p.m. peak hour of the street system since that is the most heavily traveled time of the day in that it carries both home -based work E•d Traffic Engineers Transportation Planners sa tIJoSSd'Hr1od3 Sb:LI 86, Set AON z U; :0 O, N O • ww AU 2' w0 Q: • D. � . z� ►- • 0'. Z 1- w w; p N! w 1- u. ~-. O: z. w H= z Mr. Steven B. Do, .n, Owner November 5, 1998 page 2 trips as well as social, shopping and recreation travel. In essence, for the purposes of this discussion the p.m. peak hour is the focus of any traffic impact analysis. That is the time of day and associated traffic generation that is used for arterial street impact assessment, not the least being how well your driveways function, and so on. Next, the new facility includes a restaurant in the same building as before but reduced in scale to 330 seats -- the reduction being undertaken to accommodate gaming tables and so on. In addition, the new building next door will have 9,800 g.s.f. also devoted to gaming. The trip generation for the smaller restaurant is shown below in Table II and is based on ITE LUC 831 for a Ouality Restaurant. This is applicable given the time your clientele are expected to be on the premises. TABLE II Trip Generation - The Riverside Casino Based on Quality Restaurant per ITE LUC 831 Time Pe.od Traffic Volumes A.W.D.T. P .M. inbound P .M. outbound 944 Trips /day 57 veh. /hour 29 veh. /hour Next, the only available ITE data for casino facilities are published under LUC 473 for Casino /Video Lottery Establishment (6th edition, page 742). Its also limited to only the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent street. Its data is shown below. i b'd TABLE III Trip Generation - Casino Addition ITE LUC 473, 9,800 g.s.f. Time Period Traffic Volumes P .M. inbound 74 veh. /hour P.M. outbound 58 veh./hour S31CIDOSSd3NM0dS 9r:!t 86, SS nON z JU `U o, N (3. W I. N u. WO tea, cs . z W W. moo` CO, '0 F- .W W` •0,_ Lb 01-` • z Mr. Steven B. Doc.. .a, Owner November 5, 1998 page 3 Continuing, about 3,500 g.s.f. of space is used from the old Riverside Inn for gaming. According to ITE this space would likewise produce some limited peak hour traffic. This is shown in Table IV. TABLE IV Trip SeneraUon - Casino Par of the Riversi e Inn ITE LUC 473, 3,500 g.s.f. Time Period Traffic Volumes P.M. inbound 26 veh. /hour P.M. outbound 21 veh. /hour Last, your expansion program to the northwest will displace adjacent sales and /or light manufacturing businesses with an estimated employee count of 12 to 15. These would typically depart the site in the p.m. peak hour and, accordingly, reduce the basis of the prior land-use trip count. Assuming the displaced business are light manufacturing in nature, certainly not a poor assumption considering activities such as auto re- build, then ITE LUC 110, General Licht Industrial, would apply. The p.m. peak hour trip data for this use is shown in Table V. TABLE V Trip Generation_ - General Light Industrial, Displaces ITE LUC 110, 12 Employees Time_Period, Traffic Volumes P.M. inbound P.M. outbound t veh . /hour 4 veh. /hour To estimate the approximate peak hour traffic impacts for your proposed, expanded facility the traffic demands from the new S ' d SaUIDOSSUSNMOLIS 9b:LT 86, SO AON Mr. Steven B. Doa._n, Owner November 5, 1998 page 4 usage need to be subtracted from the original usage to see if there is a positive, negative gain or a neutral trade -off. For the p.m. peak hour of the arterial street the net new traffic data is shown below. TABLE V _M. Peak Hour Volumes: Oldrvs. New Uses Qrieinal Use Inbound Outbound Total, Peak Riverside Inn 158 115 273 vph Adjacent Light Ind. 1 4 5 vph ► Total, Former Uses 278 vph 'New Uses Casino, restaurant Casino, gaming' New Casino, adjacent ► Total, New Uses Inbound Outbound Total, Peak 57 26 74 29 21 58 86 vph 47 vph 132 vph 265 vph From the above you will see that in terms of the p.m. peak hour of the adjacent arterial street system the new facility produces less traffic than formerly found at the site and at the adjacent property. Indeed, there is a small reduction in the peak hour traffic, about (278 -265) 13 trips per hour so that fundamentally your new facility is a traffic mitigation measure. This is not to mean your daily traffic is less. Rather, with your peak hour beginning after about 7:00 p.m. and continuing through the night I would expect your "daily traffic" to be much larger. However, in the context of traffic impacts, the new use is a betterment since it reduces the peak hour loading. This leads to the next issue. Since the proposed development reduces the p.m. peak hour volume there is little reason to conduct a traffic study, per se. Indeed, as a traffic mitigation measure I would suggest you request that a traffic study not be a requirement of your building application. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. 9'd cvb /s cc Gary Barnett, P.E. Yours truly, C. V. Brown, P.E. S31H I JOSSti tIOE L7:11: 96 . S9 AOH z _► • �QQ 2: D, 0 01 w p w =. w O, u- ?. Z .z F-: • N: w w. V; 111 2: .O z City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director October 27, 1998 Mr. Merrick D. Lentz Principal Architect Merrick Lentz Architect 1800 136th NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, WA 98005 Subject: Diamond Mine Restaurant and Cardroom File # PRE98 -051 Dear Mr. Lentz. Regarding your October 21, 1998 letter to Brian Shelton, City Engineer, and the issues requiring attention, I offer the following information for you. The first issue of Maule Avenue street vacation is a complex one. The street vacation was approved by City Council on April 25, 1994 - subject to conditions of an "agreement for the exchange and use of real property" (ordinance 1702, council agenda and agreement and parcel descriptions are attached). The second issue of the actual location of 140th Street being built south of the 60 foot right -of -way is being worked. A possible solution we are working on is relocating the street with a city project. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at (206) 433 -0179. Sincerely, Bob Giberson Senior Engineer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax: (206) 431 -3665 MERRICK LENTZ ARC ECT October 21, 1998 Mr. Brian Shelton, P.E. City Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: Diamond Mine Restaurant and Cardroom File # PRE9S -051 Dear Mr. Shelton: •Following the pre - application meeting that was held on September 3, 1998, we have proceeded with the development activity needed to comply with the requirements for permit application. The first activity was to have the property surveyed as one of the needs,to improve the parking area that will be a part of this work. As a result of the survey, we have several conditions that will require your attention. The first issue revolves around the status of `Mule Avenue and the jogging trail that has been ., constructed: It is my understanding that a property trade was negotiated between the City and the property owner that swapped the 20' Mauie Avenue R.O.W. for 20' along the edge of Interurban Avenue. The jogging trail has been constructed, but we cannot find the documentation that recorded the agreement for the trade. This would appear to be a housekeeping issue that can be resolved during the plan review and permitting processes. The second issue involves the actual location of 140th Street, versus the actual location of the R.O.W. for that street. Per our survey, the physical improvements lie on private property, and not within the established R.O.W. This is a concern for the project, because the parkin, and drainage requirements for the proposed use require that the full area of the property be available. In a meeting at the City on Thursday, October 21 with Joanna Spencer and Bob Giberson, the situation i.vas discussed, and copies of the survey and a schematic site study • were left to assist with the necessary review.. • In order for the restaurant to comply with the necessary development requirements, some resolution to this second situation must be achieved. One possibility would be for the City to 1800 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 425/747-3177 • FAX 425/747 -7149 E -Mail mlarchitect @isomedia.com relocate the street paving back into the established R.O.W., thereby freeing up the private property for the necessary development for the restaurant. A second possibility would be prefferable - that would be to allow our client to purchase or lease the parcel between the subject property and the 140th Street R.O.W. to the north. This parcel is currently owned by the City, and is used as a dumping/storage area for street cleaning crews. The client would agree to pave, landscape and otherwise improve the parcel to be used for additional parking for the restaurant use, in return for the ability to secure use of the land. This would allow the existing street paving at the Interurban/140th Street intersection to remain, probably via easement or some other agreeable method of legal use. This solution would also provide a great visual improvement for this area, which would be a benefit to the City as well as the restaurant. Please review these two issues at your earliest convenience. The outcome of this discussion has a direct bearing on the feasibility of this project, and we need to know as soon as possible whether we can continue with the development, or whether we have to abandon the project. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Sincerely, MERRICK LEi TZ ARCHITECT Merrick D. Lentz Principle Architect cc: Steve Dowen John Becker • CITY OF TUKWI' 1)6 1 Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431 -3670 Pre Application Checklist Pre - Application File No.:. PRE98 -051 Meeting Date and Time: 9 -3 -98 @ 3 :30 pm Project Name. Site Address: • Diamond' Mine Restaurant 14040 Interurban Av S The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements /regulations may need to be met. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. Apply for and obtain the following permits/approvals through the City's Permit Center: ❑ Channelization /Striping/Signing ❑ Sewer Main Extension (private) iRt Curb Cut/Access/Sidewalk ❑ Sewer Main Extension (public) RI Land Altering Storm Drainage ® Fire loop /Hydrant (main to vault) Water Main Extension (private) ® Flood Zone Control ❑ Water Main Extension (public) `©i Hauling (2,000 Bond, Cert of Ins) ❑ Water Meter (exempt) Landscape Irrigation ❑ Water Meter (permanent) ❑ Moving an Oversized Load ❑ Water Meter (temporary) ® Sanitary Side Sewer ?yea -A. imitzuf ❑ Other: cz,•e-.:0,-2- i,w+e-',:,270 2. Hauling Permit required prior to start of any hauling of material on public right-of-way ($2,000 bond, $1,000,000 certificate of insurance, route map apd $25.00 permit fee required). iirnvri' 11/"•:„ �vcy m, ,ie.-..a. ,.,irll be IL htI e4 t, t'r• p/` 7 2. s, fa 3. All applications and plan submittals must be complete in order to be accepted by the Permit Center for plan review. Use the Plan Submittal Checklist provided on the reverse of the application forms to verify that all the necessary materials and information has been supplied. 4 Water and sewer assessments may apply and will be determined during the utility plan review process. rtp.u., >% 6r L.redi INi; iF 5. Provide sidewalks per Ordinance Nos. 1158, 1217, and 1233, or obtain waiver. 6. Provide Hydrological - Geotechnical analysis. 7. Provide erosion control plan as part of gradingifill permit application. 8. Identify building elevation above 100 year flood elevation per FIRM maps (use NGVD datum and recognized benchmarks). Provide a traffic analysis/trip generation study for: t/-t f;5 62, ofaz. :r/�LiC. prerinn,e u )?/ (2.4r.. (Atilt Ccttc.zrrneit t pie, 4 reProvide de elopers ageemn �cc. J r ��'vC•lc�or%zK,t�i� :wi for :' d 9. O 10. 0 11. Provide the following easements and maintenance agreements: O 12. Provide water /sewer availability letters or certificates from districts serving your development. o 13. Obtain METRO Waste Discharge permit of approval (206 - 684 - 2300). 1 -. Complete Business Declaration (attached) and return to METRO (self addressed and stamp provided). r 4 j 0L QA- ' 012. Ad-e- 11//�� II t`)' ,},, / ,) ,l WMyn.liu.JaH•1 � �.W � ^V1 /f'l.t,�7,(,1 �,`}•�'. V�,W,.�LI �v�.A. - d7:El7� I '' 1I 1 ''' Z W 6 J U' U O W I J (•- N LL` WO. J LL Q; = W Z �..: O; Z 2p 0 1— W' 1— U LL F" W Z, U= O I— Z rUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Pre - Application Checklist File No.: PRE98 -051 .age2of: • 15. Review the following City studies when designing your project and preparing your plan submittal: 16. ;9; (Lfrt 4-)42,14-1 N;-,-G .- D FstE iv ,r -f4 - 8E? PPFA E/ Pre i=/4),.: COG[ /V Imo/ S"LR.-Fi9-CE G,i - DESAIN ,-i/'i ).- ci:-c- /7lvO izt .,_c 4_,.1 O 17. c i, t,8 F (4-C w !?'r•E12.. Ntt iv.- ?-c;EME,G' ` ok 6 . 7 �� /t2f2YE% STZ' GE G1LC'5 F/GGt/r�E11. rJhze -wc -::.. -c r tl., i a 18. be .v,,,•4leti ?,? 19. 1^3 t S i �e 64-4 / - Ty lQEG r c /RED — / F /' T� 1G J,coer= f-)--E /4 x..)-7.- J=161\1 Mt1/1'."ALt 7?-1 - SGt,P, Ae.g u/:Lr..r? ci'. trA) n E4e,t_6,c; y' SHOW %-`1,4-TER, (.Z i.GdZ/ TY /Nr- /- rf57-Et.c C i LLP_E oN /?c-t— -i r .,--z /-),: ,y-A; O 20. 6i. f i M / TT*Z /NC G Gr / /nkd 84A..' _5/ eze.L,//u Pe.g/ -r /7:I. E T. Checklist prepared by (staff): 0 N't.i, t;,As:- ! i Date: 1 ..1 ,L;<) -e. .t%f E1 1.�� U I . e /1f Uti -�-i <� �� --� J 6tiv��.4 b1 ,) M ,. 5 ho re -ti',,. � � ��.�; ��- �'/3� -fi G irf P � , W •�L'.� �t t ETC. (SSt,,t Iu 1 :ett, (.� �d c 1.. �p,Q p -I-e- 0 s7 ft'U(.1 ✓ 1 o- :b tvf e c4-;o t-‘, dper.,,w�.v ,. b(:,) kvork.s . •Jrc�uw�i:�.Jx . arad9e 4 ‘fI3 ' °5O 1< - fML 5 i, - -iFae i$ui95TA/VT /AL UNDE4 THE FWr4 ogD (REFER. Tn 46g Pi/6E 4 of Fcoop 20/0E ORS.) tJHtGW REQUIRES FLOOD Rae l//6141 4/v0 sawcriRes 1,1P6 EIRETRoPir Fog FGaoap P °OT CT /olV R- 9 Vi (() A-ND Coore.D /N/tT /ON 141 /TH F1.tV0D 1)157-ie/cr is REQ' 4 A57, DISTRICT PEQuIREHENTS AND NEEDED SCOPE OF R /vz.Res•Nt4 571381E /ZA77ON. Plc) boES NOT H»UF ANY REcoQoS '•x/STjNc BULKHEAD f1ND R /P -R4/ RWERE t/YK /S $7-9P $7-cmwee Ttf, -,V e e/ 1,)N /CH DOESN 7 MEET PLOCQ D/sreIGr REQ'D SLOPE. i PPLICo} -NT sfjigGG CON 1 CT H - ■911.1DY L&vESau , 4-/M6 couNT7 DEPT, of NA- Tr-c,e o c. R ESougCES 4 C. 296-65/9 77? Disaiss THE 4500E /sS OE3 4,ve u - DING EASEMENT REQu/,p011ENr /N FGoo) iota 00e45, R.F0IEGJ oP $uLKfge o orNatcreikE /AM A /Ti L /N /TS /s 2Qu /R.EL TD DFTFJMI uE IF 5/15 /s FGO0D P1PO 27ED fDE auA-7 Lr. DeAJIN6 SHglt. 1,160 N L'L 1929 AfraN ,s VP-AT/444 EXE REFERservcie FED .5PPRoaano BENCR Afisse.4 / 2s=T ceNre t eS ARoft TOE VFW RIVER. 70 IN7Ee ll, t1 4904 , S74o /co r z Pt o130 ,Et.Ev, CRA Hlb H 1441612 MftRk , 7701" BotAl !/ A-ND 8 ut- Kt/Ei,461 ,Ec.�E v. j FP ESvsi- ri cW FO MA-INTENA}NCE PEOPLE HA'E s4/0 rt..OaD/rv6 0UEg7VPPED &M id tN •i/E PAt5T. PER FUx,?-ONE 0124 • - 5wBSTAN T /AG I EKPROVEHENT oC 4}-M1 C AIHEE - G t �L STEW TucTuRe 5 MfGL Et 77/ER. N »vE 77yE LDwF_sr F1 e. !N CLUDI N94 BsMENT i ELE I'A»TED Ta i} M'IV /HUI'i O. ONI._ roof 13BOt z THE LEVEL OF THE 80255 Fl o+oD ELEV. og. 0E P LO+DOp oapED so THST THE 5TP u crUgE /5 GJ A'1'EL r'EHr Owe FOOT A801/* THE BVSE PLOoD wow wfLL5 su,857" r/,9t.L Y IMPER /LIEABLE To THE PAS5A6E of 40A 7-6--R. 'R. CITY OF TUKW'-A Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431 -3670 Pre Application Checklist Pre- Application File No.: PRE98 -051 Meeting Date and Time: 9 -3 -98 @ 3:30 pm Project Name: Site Address: Diamond Mine'Restaurant 14040 Interurban Av'S The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements /regulations may need to be met. PLANNING DIVISION - Land Use Information 1. Comply with Tukwila ,Municipal Code (zoning, land use, sign regulations, etc.) Obtain the following and use permits/approvals: od ❑ lJ 0 0 Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Binding Site Improvement Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Design Review s<< it IL( Design Review - Interurban Environmental (SEPA) Planned Mixed Use Development Planned Residential Development 3. Zoning designation: G 4. t___I 3. is r Minimum setback requirements: ❑ Rezone • Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Tree Permit ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Sign(s) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Unclassified Use ❑ Variance ❑ Other: 13 Site located in sensitive area? ❑ Yes d :.tt tF Front: 076-- Side: 6 ' Side: h Rear: 6' allo Maximum Building Height: '-I ' Lei'ii Height exception area? ❑ Yes V'No 3 ' ,11.L4.::,C:e11144. 1-,X l 41:. -pt•ck —ice W. ( :14.014/.1,L, 6. Minimum parking stalls required: Handicap stalls required: ).jI1 ,o :. iC '-)ru, ✓a.+.1- 1 /ix •.: 7;an.ty (t..ac,Cu..i.t) 1/ --lox: 7. No more than 30% of required parking stalls may be compact. No landscape overhangs into compact stalls are permitted, although no wheel stops prior to hitting the curb will be required. 8. Minimum landscaping required: Front: 1.2.7 Side: �- Side: •i Rear: (] �J i ;✓ehtti.e aK:n ,V•c.ty.�.(.. 9. Landscape plans must be stamped by 4 Washington State licensed landscape architect. All landscape aTreas require a landscape irrigation system (Utility Permit Required). 10. Roof -top mechanical units, satellite dishes and similar structures must be properly screened. 'Provide elevations and construction details as part of building permit application submittal. 11. Trash enclosures and storage areas must be screened to a minimum of 8' in height. Provide elevations and construction details as part of building permit application submittal. 12. Building permit plans which deviate from that already approved by the Board of Architectural Review may require re- application for design review approval. 13. ?...4.1.; JtvnJt:.nr.✓..:1" 0 Vt' /N L't.b- t•10 £ _,, - »_tct1� ('•A' vct+ -l.- - Y'�rAt".• 01,0. 4;u4.1• 14'eut_. Vtw.l.t`:l - foci Ka e1. V.:«. 1ra...1'it,. OK... 01.1.11,6,-,„(.4.--;\ `, ...L.-A.,. ■11.v.C.t,..- �.LYts Utter J,..1 r1n7pi t(•f .f,Yt ;a'1.11)t.ri . +•:-.10et7a•_f••Ir: tr.: tl1 • 14. t Jpl.• /M ,:ko, :Of 1 �= rk! Checklist prepared by (gtaff): 1,1101,1•nbt.doc N:M'18 — 4.1 Li/ : 4.4,:1,.1. -- Date: CITY OF TUKWP''1 Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431 -3670 Pre Application Checklist Pre - Application File No.: Meeting Date and Time: PRE98 -051 9 -3 -98 @ 3:30 pm Project Name. Site Address: Diamond Mine'Restaurant 14040 Interurban Av S The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements /regulations may need to be met. ENVIRONMENTAL c /p J, r A1/19--it -� . Vet- -� Y,i�°ga, 7fi S <� /iii 1,/ii/ i.(% 0.41,4.1i,' e.._ ci 5X ab2-4;1 4___, / tr /4/ ;Air /2; cs-,2 2�/1 ` ` !� C� 2. /'1\ -e4✓A 72-. • /;71-, :5, / r La,,d 144_ ✓/ 4' G/�°_ U 'chi / % eL • Checklist prepared by (staff): 'Areenvliu.Ja N2d ^NI cJ leC,l/ Le-,1 ' 3 V / d4-\ / A 1/ / V/A8-Y1 a 4"/ Date: �/7 Z `00: rn0' V) w: W °}. J u.a z� Z 11.1 uj D p: w ur 1--U u- -0 o: Z' al co' O~ CITY OF TUKWI' Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431 -3670 Pre Application Checklist Pre - Application File No.: PRE98 -051 - Meeting Date and Time: ' 9 -3 -98 @ 3:30 pm Project Name: ' Diamond Mitie Restaurant Site Address: '' 14040 Interurban'Av`S The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements /regulations may need to be met. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Construction Information 1. The City of Tukwila has adopted the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. This and other nationally recognized standards will be used during construction and operation of this project. (City Ordinance No. 1846) 2. Fire hydrants will be required. (City Ordinance No. 1692) 3. Required fire hydrants shall be approved for location by the Fire Department, approved for purity by the Water Department, and fully in service prior to start of construction. By line of vehicular travel, a fire hydrant must be no further than 150 feet from a structure; and no portion of a structure to be over 300 feet from fire hydrant. (Uniform Fire Code 903 and City Ordinance No. 1692) Automatic fire sprinklers, audible and visual devices, and a minimum of one pull station per floor are required for this project. Sprinkler system and fire alarm shall comply with N.F.D.A. #13, #72, and ADA requirements. Sprinkler plans shall be submitted to Washington State Surveying and Rating Bureau, Factory Mutual or Industrial Risk Insurers for approval prior to being submitted to Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval. The fire alarm plans are to be submitted directly to the Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval. Submit three (3) sets of drawings. This includes one for our file, one for company file, and one for the job site. (City Ordinance No. 1742) 5. Maximum grade is 15% for all projects. 6. Hose stations are required. (City Ordinance No. 1742) A fire alarm system is required for this project. (City Ordinance No. 1742). Plans shall be submitted to the Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval, prior to commencing any alarm system work. Submit three (3) sets of complete drawings. This includes one for our file, one for company file, and one for the job site. nimAkteAh*A-4r zap, 8. Special installations of fixed extinguisher systems, fire alarm systems, dust collectors, fuel storage, etc. require separate plans and permits. Plans to be submitted to the Fire ;vlarshal prior to start of installation. (City Ordinance Nos. 1742 and 1846). 9. Portable fire extinguishers will be required in finished buildings per N.F.P.A. #10 (Minimum rating 2A, 10 BC). 0 10. Buildings utilizing storage of high piled combustible stock will require mechanical smoke removal per Article 81 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. During construction, an all - weather access will be required to within 150 feet of the building. (City Ordinance No. 1846) No building will be occupied, by people or merchandise, prior to approval and inspection by Fire and Building Departments. 13. Adequate addressing is required. Fire Department will assign all new addresses. Number sizes will be determined by setback of building from roadway. Four inch numbers are minimum. Numbers will be in color which contrasts to background. (Uniform Fire Code 901.4.4) 14. Designated fire lanes may be required for fire and emergency access. This requirement may be established at the time of occupancy and /or after the facility is in operation. (City Ordinance No. 1846) N26h1E z Li)— Z .. 6 UO' to CI: U)11.1 W I: F— Wo 2 g J' _CY W: . F_ z z OF� U 11J uj- N, O W W � U W F": lllZ H 0 .. z. FIRE DEPARTMENT Pre - Application Checklist File No.: PRE98 -051 rte....,, F.02 of2 15. Special Fire Department permits are required for such things as: storage of compressed gas, cryogens, dry cleaning plans, repair garages, places of assembly, storage of hazardous materials, flammable or combustible liquids or solids, LPG, welding and cutting operations, spray painting, etc. (Uniform Fire Code 105) 16. Fire Department vehicle access is required to within 150' of any portion of an exterior wall of the first story. Fire Department access roads in excess of 150' require a turn around. Fire Department access roads shall be not less than 20' wide with an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13'6 ". (City Ordinance No. 1846) 17. Adequate fire flow availability will need to be demonstrated for this project. 18. 6/64 m s�eox .�a� .4a4LLwi/tee �1 cum chteis Checklist prepared by (staff). Date: `/ --4417 .. CITY OF TUKWI_.: Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431 -3670 Pre Application Checklist Pre - Application File No.: PRE98 -051 Meeting Date.and Time:'-' • 9 -3 -98 3 :30 pm Project Name. Site Address: Diamond Mine Restaurant 14040 Interurban AS - " ` ' The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements /regulations may need to be met. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Inspections Overhead sprinkler i in a. Hydrostatic test b. Trip test c. Alarm system monitoring test d. Fire Department approved plans e. Sprinkler head location and spacing f. Materials and test certificate Underground tank a. Location b. Distance between tanks c. Distance to property line d. Depth of cover e. Vent piping, swing joints, fill piping, discharge piping f. Anchoring g. Hydrostatic test h. Separate Fire Department approved plans Fire alarm a. Acceptance test b. Fire Department approved plans 4. Hood and duct incpPctinns a. Installation b. Trip test 5. Spray Booth a. Location b. Fire protection c. Ventilation d. Permit ❑ 6. Flammable liquid room a. b. c. Location Fire protection Permit 7. Rack storagj a. Permit b. Mechanical smoke removal c. Rack sprinklers d. Aisle width Checklist prepared by (staff). /Z&35 ❑ 8. Fire doors and fire damper4 a. Installation , b. Drop testing Fire Final a. Fire Department Access b. Building egress and occupancy load c. Hydrants d. Building address e. Fire protection systems: (1) Halon systems (2) Standpipes (3) Host Stations (4) Fire Doors (5) Fire Dampers (6) Fire Extinguishers 10. Other a. b. c. d. e. f. Date: 97�y�P z • Z+ • •Wes` • 0 W=.. • W O. J• LL.Q • F=- _; Z •Z j; • 0�' .0 ALE W, :1- -. � F ILIZ` o �i. Z CITY OF TUKWI' Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431 -3670 Pre - Application Checklist Pre - Application File No.: PRE98 -051 Project Name. Diamond Mine Restaurant Meeting Date and Time: 9 -3 -98 @ 3 :30 pm • Site Address: ' 14040 Interurban Av S The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements /regulations may need to be met. BUILDING DIVISION The following is meant to be general information related to the requirements of the Tukwila Building Division for the processing of building permits. Specific code issues will be addressed through the normal plan review process after the permit is applied for. 1. Comply with the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, as adopted and amended by the State (Table 10 -B, Section 1607, and Section 3003 of the 1997 UBC are not adopted). 2. Comply with the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition, as adopted and amended by the State. 3. Comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition, as adopted and amended by the State. 4. Comply with the Washington State Energy Code, Chapter 51 -11 WAC, 1997 Edition. Energy code specifications and data must be included on the building plans. 5. Comply with Washington State Regulations for Barrier Free Facilities or Design (State amendment replaces UBC Chapter 11 in its entirety). ` 6. All applications and plan submittals must be complete in order to be accepted by the Permit Center for plan review. Use the Plan Submittal Checklist provided on the reverse of the application as a guide to the necessary materials and information needed. 7. Plans submitted for approval must be stamped by a Washington State licensed architect or engineer and shall specifically contain the name of the person designated as the architect or engineer of record for the project. This person shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating all submittal documents prepared by others, including deferred submittal items, for compatibility with the design of the building. (See UBC Section 106.3.4) 8. Temporary erosion control measures shall be included on the plans. Normally, no site work will be allowed until erosion control measures are in place. 9. Rockeries are not permitted over 4' in height. Retaining structures over 4' in height must be engineered retaining walls, and require a separate building permit. 10. All rack storage requires a permit and rack storage over 8' high must be designed for Seismic Zone 3. A Washington State structural engineers stamp will be required on plans and structural calculations submitted for rack storage over 8' high. 11. Construction documents shall include special inspection requirements as specified in UBC Section 106.3.5 and 1701. The architect or engineer's inspection program required by Section 106.3.5 shall be included with plan submittal documents when permit application is submitted. Notify the Building Official of testing lab hired by architect or owner prior to permit issuance date. The contractor may not hire the testing lab. 12. Structural observation shall be required as specified in UBC Section 1702. 13. Construction documents shall contain soils classification information specified in Table 18 -1 -A of the Uniform Building Code on the copies stamped and signed by Washington State licensed architect or engineer in responsible charge of the structural design work. `JMLldglifl.doc er:erie .UILDING DIVISION Pre - Application Checklist File No.: PRE98 -051 2of2 ❑ 14. Separate demolition permits are required for removal of any existing buildings or structures. ❑ 15. Comply with UBC Appendix Chapter 12, Division II - Sound Transmission Control. ,' 16. Addresses are assigned by the Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau. 17. Obtain approvals and permits from outside agencies: Q ELEVATORS are regulated by State Department of Labor and Industries. Permits and inspections for elevators are obtained through the elevator section of that agency (reference RCW Chapter 70.87). Phone: (206)248 -6657. 18. 19. 20. ELECTRICAL PERMITS AND INSPECT IONS are obtained through the Department of Labor and Industries. Phone: (206)248 -6630. PLUMBING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS are obtained through King County Health Department. Inspections: (206)296 -4732; Permits: (206)296 -4727. PUBLIC POOLS /SPAS AND FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES - King County Health Department must approve and stamp plans prior to submittal to the Tukwila Building Division. Phone: (206)296 -4787. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM plans are reviewed through the Tukwila Fire Department. Phone: (206)575 -4404. Checklist prepared by (staff): ! , `T 'atraldcli,doc 4:8/78 • ILL Date: (.), % ,t .�. ,, e of Rea o • e This agreement is entered to exchange parcels of real property, to provide easements, to establish responsibilities for construction and maintenance of a jointly used facility, and for other related purposes. Parties 1. The parties to this agreement are: B.B.I. Trust [Trust]; Richard L. Imus and Lewis A. Bergan, Jr. as tenants in common [Imus /Bergan], Fairway Center Associates, a Washington partnership [Fairway],' the City of Tukwila [City], and S.B.D. Inc., a Washington corporation [SBD]. z Z •,f-'w e:2 00 N 0 v� w, w X: -4- u) u_ w0 fan 2. Trust represents that it is the owner of certain real property in the City of N Tukwila in the vicinity of the parcels exchanged by this agreement. Trust's property will be called w. Trust Property hereinafter. Trust also represents that it is authorized to affect Trust Property as is z '-. done by this agreement. z F- LU 2 ,8 co_ 0F_, wai Li= o .z. 4. Fairway represents that it is the owner of certain property in the City of 9 _. Tukwila in the vicinity of the parcels exchanged by this agreement. Fairway's property will be z �. called Fairway Property hereinafter. Fairway also represents that it is authorized to affect Fairway Property as is done by this agreement. 3. Imus /Bergan represents that it is the owner of certain property in the City of Tukwila in the vicinity of the parcels exchanged by this agreement. The Imus /Bergan property will be called Imus Property hereinafter. Imus /Bergan also represents that it is authorized to affect Irnus Property as is done by this agreement at that all or part of the Imus Property is leased to ATACS Products Co. 5. SBD represents that is the tenant of Trust Property. By the signature of its authorized representative, it approves this agreement. 6. City is a Washington State Municipal corporation. It represents that it has obtained or will obtain a shoreline permit for the new construction identified in this agreement. 7. Each person signing this agreement represents to all parties that he /she has authority to do so for his /her principal. Term 1. All parcels transferred and easements created by this agreement are depicted in attachments hereto. The attachments are adopted by this reference. All references to parcels are with reference to the attachments. 2. Attachment 6 is a collection of the legal descriptions of parcels exchanged and rights of way created by this agreement. P.6/20 . Agreement for Exchange and Use of Real Property Page 2 3. City will vacate parcels B, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, except those portions of parcels C, F, G and I which are overlapped by parcels A or E. If approved by the City Council, the Mayor will execute such ordinances as are required for this vacation. W. 4. The parties agree to the following distribution of the vacated parcels and, for that purpose, will provide the recipient with such Quit Claim Deed as the recipient reasonably -J o requires: N w =, a. Parcels B, C (except to the extent overlapped by parcel A), H (and G, n u. except to the extent overlapped by Parcel A) are to be transferred to W o: Trust. g �. b. Parcels D and F (except to the extend overlapped by parcel E) are to be D. a transferred to Imus /Bergan. z� 1- o c. Parcels I (except to the extent overlapped by parcel A) and J are to be w tansferred to Fairway. j o N d. Signal pole easement in Parcel G. o —: Iuj o 5. The parties hereby grant City with the following easements: Z a. Easement for roadway use at parcels A and E. v co; o F-" b. Easement for underground utilities at parcels B and D. z c. Easement for storm drainage line under parcels G, H, I, and J. d. Trail easement on parcels G, 1, and J. 6. The parties agree to the following parking arrangement, and that the parking arrangement shall constitute a covenant running with the land for all parcels depicted in the attachments. a. As depicted in attachment 1, stalls numbered 1 through 18 shall be reserved for use by Fairway and its tenants and guests from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. These stalls shall be counted towards satisfaction of City's parking requirements for Fairway property. At all other times, and on generally accepted holidays, these stalls shall be available for use by (1) Trust for parking of its tenants and guests, and be useful towards satisfaction of City's parking requirements for Trust property; and (2) members of the public while using the trail referred to in this agreement. Parties shall cooperate in resolving conflicts. . JP-14 29 '99 e4:4-FM 11_10-1,::_i; DCD/Pt4 P.7/2'3 Agreement for Exchange and Use of Real Property • Page 3 maintenance: b. Stalls numbered 19 through 23 and 73 through 77 shall be reserved for members of the public for use of the trail identified by this agreement. c. Parties grant one another access to the parking facility as indicated in the attachments 7. The parties agree to the following arrangements regarding construction and a. City will modify the a signal at the intersection of South 141st PI. and Interurban Avenue South and construct or have constructed the curbing and trail adjacent to Parcels A and E. b. City will revise or have revised the location of the fire hydrant now Located in the vicinity of stalls 91 and 92 so as to facilitate the proper _use of all stalls. c. Trust will construct or have constructed all other improvements depicted on Attachment 1; Provided, however, that Fairway will construct or have constructed landscaping called out by Attachment 1 for Fairway property and /or parcels transferred to Fairway by this agreement. Fairway's responsibility for payment shall be limited to 525,000. Reasonable expenses over that amount shall be reimbursed by Trust. Should Fairway complete such landscaping work for less than 525,000, the remainder will be paid to Trust to reimburse Trust's co: struction expenses. d. All construction under this agreement will be completed on or before one year after the execution of this agreement. Ln the event of default by any party, any other party may start and /or complete the construction for the account of the party or parties in default provided _ that it first gives the defaulting party reasonable notice of its intent to do so. e. Trust will maintain all parking stalls and landscaping. Maintenance shall include, but not be Limited to, daily picking up of trash, monthly sweeping of the parking stalls, and restriping and paving the parking . service as necessary. f. City will plant and maintain all trees required by the shoreline permit. If there is a conflict between this subparagraph f.and any other subparagraphs of paragraph 7, this subparagraph f. controls. Agreement for Exchange and Use of Real Property Page 4 g. P.8/20 City will release to Fairway $3,750.00 representing the proceeds of art econobloc bond. 8. Each party is given by this agreement the right to use and /or have used certain property. The recipient party shall forever defend and indemnify the others from and against all costs and claims arising out of or relating to the exercise of such right, except to the extent that the cost or claim arises out of or relates to the negligence of the indemnified party. 9. This document incorporates all terms of this agreement. Date: " Date: /4 7 q s� Date: Date: i l l Date: t " 11— Date: v ` —97' B.B.N. TRUST By: Title: Trustee Steve Dowen Title: Presh ° ' Louis A. Berg Lesly a •B'erga •z • • J U: U O'. co w: w =`. J �! wo Q'. =d 1- o: ,Z 1" U N' . • • DF W W. H V! id Z: • i U =. :O ~. •z . Agreement For Exchange and Use of Real Property Page 5 } Date: --_2 9 r" FAIRWAY CENTER ASSOC By David English Title: Partner Approved As To Form Office of The City Attorney F'. 9/22 Cou•IUC =CUE M A Y — 41•n./) •o.1.M n MACS IVAns /•1t h•ro11 rims <1 fM •V • "RIVERSIDE INII' 1. Mt Ct IAfIMt 4.9•4111 •, r / Ammo Itf 1f• It I• •1/ X 1 111.111 dell 1.1 li• oft ••t r/�fh )I• Ifr •• 4411C 1 "1" "Ii 11 1114 Ilt IN111• 1t MAME AVE 0 ISM MAN IM •1 II Mb U•11I.1 -� \ 1Y IM 1,,, tN 1.1 171 111. \){, 1•I/ r ) -I) 1+1 I/r 111 �.� •I. —•r;. 1. . �M �,'1 I� l V — _.. Ir1141 Mr 1+I 111 11• 1r/ IM • 41 lilt 14t I • t It• 1.,• c' ...._........_":2; -----4 Irt _ 1 J________._ milling wine, p • t .?!Ir.'• 1• I/te. •IIA ROM Ws 1AM Mel • Odn• - /Mrt 111.1111 /I 1 A PAS •- ••••�� ='Ii.� 'MCCAtltr I1tUR IN RIIf.RUR!)AII AVf 5 Inr - AO:gr. MI1 M11�IN1 ,1,.1 1N1'iIi11� 11rtr r011I111 VFW 10 ion \ •• mile 1'I ow f ' •1_ P t:JL1L..r(— 7YOJ?Ic: I_)J.�P7'. • lM/;IN�CRIHG • CTAPRIS • *1T17f • SRff11 • 1•II�)'S • 111h11d11/: I ' i. NIT M s�) M Cl/ PERATIV( PAIIKIIII: ARf.Cll D MMYING Vi - �1• IV them - s- xiJCd/° I/TACKI P.IArr rin w rC242M• tin. ...... .... .• n :: _ • 111 •••...•- _.� -_ - -� .r Mq.r m11n 1,1• f11r, '-tflpC /hl/1• A A< k\ {J •tt.1-0 v,a1 Oots . 7 CAAPIIIC WALE is la el VI • " ' • M Imo 11.4 • ta• n AlACS 11-411.01.• 611• a' 44110111111( 1614 WOO • . 0 A 40 1317"" 1,14).tsc - .-ITFis _ _ 1 OV: : t VI As& as Aso u s "RIVIRSIDE Ilelr VAC 01181 •1 1100 16004 --- •1...41 4.110 401 011. 11606 Ma a - ' ‘S. wave a.* AdsarIS sum) • -4.sf Z)7 ralteill, 44..1 1111.0141 • •••• • •ka Sol IP /4 to •-• .•••`..› , • 4. ,.., ,..■-I. .., ... ,,....:. 0.1.. •_...... „......, ... ,...„.„, ....1...,-, ___ ...- . .... vb 611 11100(111110.1 fill 0464 610081-... 1 1•4 411 • .,14:1kz. • est is/ •s• fru 1111 ass kW 4..s . . — - — MAUL( ANIC — ° • && DV ." ,j4 00 1• 81 tit Mit 1/1111111/1 .1. IDS In Ili &I 108 .1v 14 43.. se 18 ID •■ el 4s &I lab 111 41 • 61 li 11 111 610 t 1 kr_ut 0400 801 181 0 I.............■....... 444 ....... .....-.. , 4/4141 . .. - --- 1 ....--- --. - .--- . -- ......- . . • It41111111111/11 AV1 S .. .. -, .. - HO too Is! lei C c c •101...L1 1.•C•1111. •1111/1..K0 41. .P C.' TV 0 R.K.S. • isictrittsititc • 1411.1S • 'MIN • St Rill • YASUO; • 111/11L1f4C • •••■••••••••411•Moi.6 !At •isocarte 146444 PI 11.111M)C11.4,614t4E111U pem7.1...v.,• ....•••• ••••••••• In.. .1.011 1 ••4•■•1111•...11 •••• ■••••• •••••;•:: • all.*••••• ••••■•••••• •■••• 11.0 ....Ail • MO 6••• •. 1,V 6110 els& oil ID.11.4.14 411 1.?..114Lis •• .81 niraime 111 LLLJ COID &au' _11 \ 880.48 VIOLA •-• 0 4.11A. 114, ../.•••• (. RECEIVE;)' . SUP 1 olgli _ (.1)11.1wIl WHY Do/1 I.0pm 1.11' s1191!ELIK .11.14141! LIKAWIUG PaMs4.111 We 4 Cksliss 1441.14•■1 stilseh sic is( - - nALe tool 1 • S••• .1•LEL "4 t Z . .A'•.4', p• iftwassemm