HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0057 - LPN ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS - SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTL94 -0057
505 BAKER BL.
(PRE 94 -017)
CITY OF TUKWILA
ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Adoption for (check appropriate box) 0 DNS Q EIS D other
Description of current proposal: The proposal is to demolish a
building containing approximately 15,000 square feet.
Location of current proposal: 505 Baker Street
Title of document being adopted: Determination of Non - Significance,
#L94 -0057
Agency that prepared document being adopted: City of Tukwila
Data adopted document was prepared: Issued October 14, 1994.
Description of document (or portion) being adopted: DNS was issued
for demolition of 15,802 s.f. bldg. and construction of a 31,924
s.f. retail office building.
If the document being adopted has been challenged (197 -11 -630),
please describe: NA
The document is available to be read at (place /time) City of
Tukwila Department of Community Development, M -F, 8:30 am - 5:00
pm.
We have identified and adopted this document as being appropriate
for this proposal after independent review. The document meets
our environmental review needs for the current proposal and will
accompany the proposal to the decision maker.
Name of agency adopting document: City of Tukwila
Contact person, if other than
responsible official: John Jimerson
Position /title: Associate Planner
Address 6300 Southcenter Blvd. - 1 'a WA 98188
Date 12/30/94 Signa
Phone 431 -3663
Direc or, Dept. of Community Development
I
A F F I D A V I T
INEZ LAMBERT
❑ Notice of Public Hearing
O Notice of Public Meeting
f Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
❑ Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
f Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
flShoreline Management Permit
a
Determination of Non -
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
fDetermination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
❑ Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other
Q Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on October 14, 1994.
FAXED TO SEATTLE TIMES (10- 14 -94, published)
MAILED TO DOE /SEPA
MAILED TO APPLICANT (LPN Architects and Planners)
SENT TO CITY CLERK AND MAYOR'S OFFICE
Name of Project 505 BAKER BLVD.
File Number L94 -0057
I,
A F F I D A V I T
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N .
INEZ LAMBERT hereby declare that:
fl Notice of Public Hearing
LJ Notice of Public Meeting
LI Board of
Packet
fl Board of
Packet
Planning
Packet
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
Commission Agenda
fl Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit..
Shoreline Management Permit
Determination of Non -
significance
JJ Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
O Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
LI Notice of Action
0 Official Notice
El Other
Q Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on October 14, 1994.
FAXED TO SEATTLE TIMES (10- 14 -94, published)
MAILED TO DOE /SEPA
MAILED TO APPLICANT (LPN Architects and Planners)
SENT TO CITY CLERK AND MAYOR'S. OFFICE
Name of Project 505 BAKER BLVD.
File Number L94 -0057
CHECKLIST: ENVIIWNEENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PhEMIT MAILINGS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X)
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
'(�OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
(4JDEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
-`(,.4 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
-( DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(J DEPT. OF FISHERIES
C.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV.
( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( )FIRE DISTRICT #11
( )FIRE DISTRICT #2
( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES
( ) RENTON LIBRARY
( )KENT LIBRARY
( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
(
)US WEST
)SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
)WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
)WATER DISTRICT #75
)SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
)GROUP W CABLE
)OLYMPIA PIPELINE
KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(17,1 TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS :
PUBLIC WORKS ( FIRE
( )POLICE ( )FINANCE
( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING .
( )PARKS AND ORECREATION
( )TUKWILA MAYOR
64DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES
40,04DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
._. )1EPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
(N):OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
*SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND
*SEND.SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS
( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT
( ORT OF SEATTLE
( UILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.-
SEPA INFORMATION CENTER.
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS
( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
UTILITIES
)PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
)WATER DISTRICT #20
)WATER DISTRICT #125
)CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
)RAINIER VISTA
)SKYWAY
CITY AGENCIES
( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( )CITY OF SEA -TAC
( )CITY OF SEATTLE
( )CITY OF BURIEN
( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
. MEDIA
( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS
( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV.
OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE
RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE
RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE
VHIGHLINE TIMES
EATTLE TIMES
PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS
SEPA MAILINGS
Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing)
Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section
Applicant
Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list)
Include these documents:
SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Drawings /Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Affidavit of Dlstribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper).
SHORELINE MAILINGS
Notice of Application:
Notice of application for a substantial development Permit must be
mailed to owners and to property owners within 300 feet of subject
property, prepare an affidavit of publication, and publish two
consecutive weeks with deadline for comments due 30 days . after last
newspaper publication date.
Shoreline Permit:
Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins
date received by DOE)
Department of Ecology Shorelands Section
State Attorney General
Applicant
Indian Tribes
Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list).
Include these documents:
Shoreline Management Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, if applicable)
Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant)
Drawings /Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's)
Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements
Cross- sections of site w /structures & shoreline
Grading plan
Vicinity map
SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline
Notice of Application
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper)
Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper).
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Request for demolition permit for a 15,802 s.f.
building and request for building permit to
construct a 20,888 s.f. retail /office building
with 11,036 s.f. of future expansion.
PROPONENT: TRI -LAND CORPORATION
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS: 505 BAKER BL
PARCEL NO: 022310 -0101
SEC /TWN /RNG: NE Section of 26, TWN. 23, RG. 4
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA
FILE NO:
L94 -0057,
The City :. has determined that the proposal does not have a probable, .
significant adverse impact on the. environment.,. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c)`,'
This decision was made after review ';of:a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency: This`
information is available to the public on request.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *, *, * * *, *, * *, * * *, * * * * * *, * * * * ** * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
This ' determination is final and signed thi."s.':
199.
4100111n1
R c .eeler, Responsible Official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
day of
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, =: WA.. 98188 •:no;:; later than 10 days from the
above signature date by written appeal stating-the basis of the appeal for
specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the
expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
A.
BACKGROUND
Contr lo.
Epic File No.
Fee $3225 7: Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 505 Baker Blvd.
2. Name of applicant: LPN Architects and Planners
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1201 Fnurth avenve So
Suite 102, Seattle, Washington. 98134, (206) 583 -8030 Royce A. Berg
4. Date checklist prepared: 6/9/94
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construction to begin Fall 1994
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Possible Phase IIt11,712 S.F. expansion south onto adjacent lot.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None Known
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. None Known
. 9 8
-2-
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Demolition Permit .
Mechanical Permit
Building Permit
Electrical Permit
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.
Demolition of existin +/- 15,802 's.f. industrial office building.
onstruction of new +F2-173.58 �— s.f. reta-il /office facilitt,,ddth•pos ihiP
future expansion of 11,036 s.f. onto ad.iacent south lot.
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.
505 Baker Blvd., Lot 10, bound on three sides by Andover Park East, Baker Blvd.,
and (68th Ave S. Christianson Road, Section Nt Zb, norm-R-457.4 Assessors
Tax No. 22310- 0101 -07
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
No.�.mept seismic conditions of valley floor
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
I.. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 4% at east edge of site
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.
Sand, Gravel on upper layers of site
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Green River Valley Drainage
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
None, Some structural fill will be needed to level
building pad. Source unknown at this time
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
No clearing
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
+/— 82%
No cha ge in amounts of impervious surface. New construction
rPtzl ac s existing jJ.dJj g,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if•any:
on
Ne required' — Open areas will comply with city Standards
for erosion control
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust,.' automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If .any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Construction — normal equipment emissions
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
None required
3. 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.
Green River east of site approx. +,L 400 ft-.
„; "'
,; Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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. No
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 affer�td. Indicate the
source of fill material.
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. N/A
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. Yes, most of site is above elevation 24.
Edges at street to east and north appear to be at
or below elevation 24
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
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged . t� ground water? Give. general
description purpose, - and . approximate . quan-
tities, if known.. No
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.
No, none
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe. on site
Storm water will go into existing storm water
_systems after oil water separator with
coalescing plates
•.`•,'
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
N /A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
None required except adding coalescing plate OTT
water separator.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
x deciduous tree:
e - • een tree: r, pine, other
aspen, other, cherry
pas ure
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? Center planters and areas around existing
building.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None known
..y
-8-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
£
:
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other .
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
Replacing existing building •
New planters and islands of tan gaoing_to_bE_addQd_
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
other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
None known
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: None . ,
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
Gas heating and electric cooling
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:
Project to meet 1994 current Washington State Energy
Code requirements •
7. 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.
None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
None required
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)?
Normal traffic noise from adjacent road
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.
Normal personal automobile traffic. Short term
construction equipment noise from demolition. of existing
building.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? Commercial, industrial & office buildings
b. Has the site e been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. o
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Existing +/- 15,802 s.f. building to be removed
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Yes, existing industrial /office building
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? C —M
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Same
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? 20 -25 workers
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? Approximately 100 by past office use
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
None
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
Project designed to be compatible with adjacent
buildings uses
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 required
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?
+/- 35 ft. metal Portal arch
"272B Tt.— building might
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
Building scale designed to be compatible with area
-13-
Evaluati.n for
Agency U e Only
:.._:. .- � -...�. •......
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?
Some reflection from normal exterior glass and
lighting for security •
b. Could light or glare from the finished project• be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
Not to our knowledge
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
_affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Night lighting will have cut offs -to control —Tight
cTis
ispersion
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
None
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:
None required
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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. No —
Historic cabin is in park to S.E. of project
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: None
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.
Andover Parkway East
Baker Blvd.
Christenson Road
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Transit at Southcenter Shopping Center
at Baker Blvd Andover Parkway West
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Approximately 105
125 stalls existing — eliminates 20 stalls
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).
No, sidewalks will be required
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
Phase I 450 tri s
PM Peak
Phase II (possible future) 600 trips
PM Peak 86
Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: none
g.
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.
No, existing facility approximates same services
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
-16-
•
16. Utilities
.
a. C c - utiliti curr tly a .able - e:
electrici
efuse • servic
er.
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.
Electric Telephone
Gas
Sewer
refuse
C. Signature
The above answers are tru- and complete to the best.of
my knowledge. I under: nd t t lead agency is
relying on them to make • d on
Signature: /// j . _ Mom,.
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
-17-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Arc;hit - ctura nnri Pl( inning, '
A gc.l A I A I;'(lllrnulr /w•
rl 1 l. ;t,,1V�) 1.,l � It1 i.•.''1,,,
11 October 1994
Libby Hudson
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: SEPA Checklist Amendment - SEPA L94 -0057
505 Baker Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Ms. Hudson,
The following information is an amendment to the original SEPA checklist dated 8 July
1994 for traffic improvements:
For 505 Baker, the mitigations are:
Southcenter Pkwy /Strander increase to 2010 is 954 trips and improvement cost is
$134,000. The prorated share is $140 /trip. Four peak hour trips mitigation is
$560.
Southcenter Pkwy /S. 168th St. increase to 2010 is 899 trips and improvement
cost is $250,000. The prorated share is $278 /trip. One peak hour trip mitigation
is $278.
Andover Park E. /Baker increase to 2010 is 663 trips and improvement cost is
$250,000. The prorated share is $377 /trip. Twenty peak hour trips mitigation is
$7,540.
Andover Park W /Strander increase to 2010 is 934 trips and improvement cost is
$296,000. The prorated share is $317 /trip. Six peak hour trips mitigation is
$1,902.
Interurban Bridge widening increase to 2010 is 1,114 trips and improvement cost
is $1,250,000. The prorated share is $1122 /trip. Four peak hour trips mitigation
is $4,488.
West Valley /Strander increase to 2010 is 883 trips and improvement cost is
$250,000. The prorated share is $283 /trip. Fourteen peak hour trips mitigation is
$3,962.
Andover Park E. /Strander increase to 2010 is 694 trips and improvement cost is
$94,000. The prorated share is $135 /trip. Twenty three peak hour trips mitigation
is $3,105.
•
pa e2
10711/94
Southcenter Pkwy /Minkler increase to 2010 is 907 trips and improvement cost is
$122,903. The prorated share is $136 /trip. Thirty four peak hour trips mitigation
is $4,624.
Andover Pk. W /Minkler increase to 2010 is 1360 trips and improvement cost is
$121,500. The prorated share is $89 /trip. Zero peak hour trips mitigation is $0.
S. 180th/SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and improvement cost is
$1,520,000. The prorated share is $475. Six peak hour trips mitigation is $2,850.
The sidewalk ordinance is triggered and sidewalks are required on Andover Pk. E. a •
developer agreement to reimburse the City's future construction cost. Additional costs
for widening exceeding the costs of installing sidewalks would be deducted from the total
mitigation payment.
The development is in two phases with 12 and a total of 40 peak hour trips projected.
The calculations are for the 40 trips; the development can be approved for both phases
with the mitigations provided with each phase. That is, 12/40 (30 %) with Phase I and the
remainder with the Phase II permits.
Water and Sewer have no deficiencies; routine permits are all that is needed with
appropriate designs.
Surface water needs biofiltration or coalesencing plate separator; drainage changes in
accord with King County Design Manual.
Respectfully,
TRI -LAND CORPORATION, Owner
Jac Link, Pr sident
Respectfully,
LP Architects and Planners
Ro e . Berg, esident
RECEIVEa.
RAB:amh OCT 1 11994
COMwium I Y
DEVELOPMENT
cc: Bill Rademaker
Frank Agostino
LPN Architecture & Planning Inc., Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 4th Ave. So., Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583 -8030
To: Rick Beer
From: Ron Cameron
Date: October 10, 1994
Subject: 505 Baker office conversion
Traffic impacts of cumalative development have been evaluated with
1989/90 existing volumes and projected 2010 volumes. LOS
defeciencies were identified, improvements to provide LOS
corrections and maintain an area average not exceeding E.
Projects in the current CIP are identified as locations for
mitigation by development based on the identified improvement from
the study, the cost estimate, and dividing the improvement cost by
the increase in trips.
In summary,
cumulative growth has been quantified in terms of the
increased water, sewer, and traffic demands that will
be created,
the infrastructure needs for the increased use have
been determined and are identified in Council adopted
plans.
fairshare or proportionate share costs for traffic have
Peen determined using the costs for current 6 year CIP
projects and th traffic increases,
and frontal improvements located based on the
Functional Arterial Classification are required by the
sidewalk ordinance.
For 505 Baker, the mitigations are:
SouthcenterPkWy /Strander increase to 2010 is 954 trips and
improvement cost is $134,000. The prorated share is
$140 /trip. 4 peak hour trips mitgation is $560.
SouthcenterPkWy /S 168 St increase to 2010 is 899 trips and .
improvement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is
$278 /trip. 1 peak hour trip mitgation is $278.
Andover Park E /Baker increase to 2010 is 663 trips and im-
provement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is
$377 /trip. 20 peak hour trips mitgation is $7,540.
Andover Park W /Strander increase to 2010 is 934 trips and im-
provement cost is $296,000. The prorated share is
$317 /trip. 6 peak hour trips mitgation is $1,902.
Interurban Bridge widening increase to 2010 is 1,114 peak
hour trips and improvement cost is $1,250,000. The prorated
share is $1122 /trip. 4 peak hour trips mitgation is $4,488.
West Valley /Strander increase to 2010 is 883 peak hour
trips and improvement cost is $250,000. The.prorated share
is $283 /trip. 14 peak hour trips mitgation is $3,962.
Andover Park E /Strander increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour
< ,
505 Baker
trips and imp h cement cost is $94,000. prorated share
is $135 /trip. 3 peak hour trips mitgatio'"is $3,105.
SouthcenterPkWy /Minkler increase to 2010 is 907 peak hour
trips and improvement cost is $122,903. The prorated share
is $$136 /trip. 34 peak hour trips mitgation is $4,624.
Andover Pk W /Minkler increase to 2010 is 1360 peak hour
trips and improvement cost is $121,500. The prorated share
is $89 /trip. 0 peak hour trips mitgation is $0.
S 180 St /SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and
i
improvement cost is $1,520,000. The prorated share is
$475. 6 peak hour trips mitgation is $2,850.
The Sidewalk ordinance is triggered and sidewalks are required on
Andover Pk E a developer agreement to reimburse the City's future
construction cost. Additional costs for widening exceeding the costs
of installing sidewalks would be deducted from the total mitigation
payment.
The development is in two phases with 12 and a total of 40 peak hour
trips projected. The calculations are for the 40 trips; the
development can be approved for both phases with the mitigations
provided with each phase. That is, 12/40 (30 %) with phase I and the
remainder with the phase II permits.
Water & Sewer have no defeciencies; routine permits are all that is
needed with appropriate designs.
Surface Water needs biolfiltration or coalescencing plate separator;
drainage changes in accord with King County Design Manual.
VJ ...•V is --, i1 •111'1'1 1 rye Ir'HI J`'it'U'LirO �.p ...
Tra:1sportstion sod Trsllic Engineer
fLANNING•DFSIG
MEMORANDUM
206 74? 3688 F . 01
RECEIVED ibe
SEP 3 0 1994 Transpo
UVIv, ILs VI fY
DEVELOPMENT
TO: Royce A. Berg DATE: September 30, 1994
FROM: James W. Maclsaac, P.E. TG: 94287
SUBJECT: 505 BAKER - TRIP GENERA ION ESTIMATES
The 505 Baker project would replace an existing office building which contains 15,802sf floor area.
The existing use would be replaced by a two -phase project providing either office space or retail space,
or some combination of both. Phase I would provide 20,888sf floor area; Phase II would add another
11,036sf floor area -- total project would be 31,924sf.
Any retail uses in the proposed project would tend to be tenants providing specialty retail services such
as computer sales and services, appliances, office supplies/support services, hair salons, dry cleaners,
electronics. They would tend to be fairly destination oriented, and not depend upon a high degree of
visibility. These types of retail facilities are much less traffic intensive than those typically found in a
small convenience retail shopping center.
Traffic Generation Estimates
Trip generation estimates for the proposed project, and for the existing site office use, were prepared
using Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 5th Edition). For existing and future
office uses, trip rates for General Office (Land Use Code 710) were used. For prospective specialty
retail services, LU Code #814 - Specialty Retail Center was reviewed, but has limited survey data. As
an alternative, trip generation rates for a sub - regional shopping center of about 450,000sf were selected
and applied to the project floor area. The rates were 40 trips/1000sf per day (similar to the limited
Specialty Retail Center rate), 3.5 trips /1000sf during the PM peak hour, and up to 25% " passby trips ".
Passby trips are trips passing by or near the site for other trip purposes which make a retail stop as
they passby. These trips would only affect turning movements into and out of the site driveways, at the
intersection of Andover Park East, and along Baker Street.
Attachment 1 provides estimates of traffic generation for the existing site use, for Phase I only, and for
Phases I+II with the proposal. Trip estimates are provided for an all- office option, and for an all - retail
option. Shown also are the net trip changes, with trips for the existing site use subtracted from trips
with the proposed site use. Net trip increases under the worst case use option would he as follow:
AWDT EM Pk Hr Noon iaur
Phase I 320 11 12
Phase 1 +1I 670 36 40
The TRANSPO Group, Inc. 14335 N.L. 24th Street, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98007 FAX: 2057747.3588 206/541-3981
09 -30 -1994 11:12AM Tr, "RAN6P0 Group
Royce A. Berg
September 30, 1994
Page 2
._'06 747 3688 P.02
Transpo
Group
In sources do not provide trip generation rates for the noon hour, as requested by the City. City.staff
concur with an assumption that noon hour traffic could be 10% higher than traffic during the PM peak
hour.
Trip Distribution Estimate
To estimate the project trip origin - destination patterns (trip distribution), a distribution established for
Southcenter Mail was used as a basis (Traffic Impact Analysis for Southcenter Mall Expansion, The
TRANSPO Group, April 19, 1991; Figure 9, page 40). The proposed project is expected to be less
regional in overall market area, and more oriented to other businesses and employees in the South cen-
ter arca. Hence, the proportions of regional trips approaching via the freeway routes for Southcenter
Mall were reduced by half; and the reductions were reallocated to trip end locations within the greater
Southcenter area of Tukwila
The resulting trip distribution estimate for the proposed project is shown in Attachment 2. It reflects
two -way project trips during the noon peak hour for Phase 1 plus 11 buildout under the highest case
traffic generation scenarios. We understand that the City of Tukwila will use these traffic numbers to
determine prorata cost shares of various street and intersection projects planned within the City,
ATTACHMENT
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES FOR: 505 BAKER RETAIL/OFFICE PROJECT
' Based upon 'General Office', Land Use Code 710,
** Based upon 'Shopping Center • Under 570,000 sr, Land Use Code 820, using rates for a 500,000 sf
a.. re ►ate retail area; Passb to r. 20% of AWDT and 25% of PM •eak hour tri es.
ers.
505BAKER.XLS
Land Use Floor Area
(Sq.Ft.)
Total
AWDT
Passby. Net New
PM Peak Hour
Total Passby Net New
Existing Site Use:'
Office 15,802
350
0
350
48
0
48
Proposed Project - All
Office Option:*
Phase!
Office 20,888
430
0
430
59
0
59
Phase 1+11
Office 31,924
590
0
590
80
0
80
Net Change:
Phase I
5,086
80
0
80
11
0
11
Phase l+11
16,122
240
0
240
32
0
32
Proposed Project • All
Retail Option:'"
Phase I
Retail 20,888
840
170
670
73
18
55
Phase 1 +II
Retail 31,924
1,280
260
1,020
112
28
84
Net Change:
Phase I
5,086
490
170
320
25
18
7
Phase I +II
16,122
930
260
670
64
28
36
Trip generation estimates are based upon "Trip Generation ". 5th Edition. Institute of Transportation Enaine
' Based upon 'General Office', Land Use Code 710,
** Based upon 'Shopping Center • Under 570,000 sr, Land Use Code 820, using rates for a 500,000 sf
a.. re ►ate retail area; Passb to r. 20% of AWDT and 25% of PM •eak hour tri es.
ers.
505BAKER.XLS
♦i :J ' "�li.i" " 1 J J•9 "1. 1 • 1 Jfll 1
Attachment 2: Peak Hour Traffic Distribution Estimate
505 BAKER
The TRANSPO Group, Inc.
94 267,00 JWM 9/29/94
f "Jl ^iJM.
i�;rfwr�ilirfi%F �1 j�Y.'Fk �fJii \`.,.. ∎,/•
Arc i utf •f fur( rn( 1 Plc 1 r r t, !n_
4
• A fl,•r,i A n I;'U1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Denni Shefrin, Associate Planner DATE:
Dept. of Community Development
City of Tukwila PROJECT::
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Copies of Past Correspondence
940057
ic:
PROJECT NO:
22 September 142fEcEIVED
505 Baker Blvd. 13 '
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
NW 94003
Attached are copies of letters to city relating to issues concerning this project per our
discussions on 21 September 1994.
Phil Fraser (1) Drainage
• Vernon Umetsu (2) Setback
Ron Cameron (1) Drainage
Rick Beeler (1) Setback
No written response to any of the above. Verbal approval on setback front yard half yard
issue. Verbal review with Rick Beeler on sidewalk street expansion issue where
redevelopment with new sidewalk on property would be determined "green" or part of
landscape.
R, visions and comments per staff comments for B.A.R. will follow.
Royce A. Berg
Enclosures
cc: Rick Beeler
Frank Agostino, memo only
Jack Link, Bill Rademaker, memo only
(_'0'Ufl rl)il',(.'ICIy I.C. In..!�:,I I� 1'i it
(1, A 1 A 112 l 1 if • , .:l t.I �'J'it' 303 c).•;)i.'e 1".). i
MEMORAND
. fit: • :......
TO:': Version. Urrietsu :. • DATE: •
• . Planning. Department
City 'of:.tukwila` :.. PROJECT:
6300 Southcenter. Blvd, Suite 100
Tukwila; Washington 98188 PROJECT NO:
•
RE: 505 Baker, PRE94 -017 .
Yard Setbacks for Corner Lots
•
•
15 Jurie,1994
505 Baker Blvd.
NW 94003
•
Per review of the above sections we are requesting an alternate interpretation of our pre-
application meeting of 26 May 1994 which indicated a 50 ft. setback off Christianson
Road. With Andover as the primary street and Baker as the secondary we request that
the second full front yard be Baker Boulevard versus Christianson Road.
Andover Require 50 ft. setback
Baker. Blvd. Require 50 ft. setback
Christianson Rd. Require 25 ft. setback (1/2 of required)
We believe this complies with Section 18.50.070, Section 5 A,B,C, & D and provide a
better site •relationship for opening yards than the graphic illustrations 18.7 would create
in this particular situation. The existing building currently sits with less than a 50 ft.
setback off Christianson Road which is a dead end street in this area.
Could you please review this and call me if this is an acceptable alternative for you.
R - • - ctfully,
Roy
9
Via Fax
cc: Frank Agostino
Jack Link
ql-e7/.q
eteA
Pl> Pateygo
clhe4KEKYlet3 949W
moavez ewoiN 417r
Ck*ScaYlai ge411.9
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE
•
(B) Setbacks. The setback .. the underly-
ing zone district shall apply, except that the Planning
Commission. may adjust the requirements where it
deems: necessary to insure, adequate light and air for
uses:: on ttie :: subject . property,• as well as adjacent
properties;; (C)
• Landsca e, Areas • In: its deliberations•
the:' Planning'.. Commission shall corisidel'the'visival
impact'of the :proposed . structural height from public
rights•of way: and may' require' such. additional land-
scaping as it may deem necessary to mitigate this
impact. • . •
• (D) Energy. The proposed development
shall be reviewed for solar access of adjacent proper-
ties.
(E) Community • Benefit. All develop-
ment authorized under this section should demon-
strate a concomitant community benefit not ordinarily
provided by development authorized .under the under-
. lying zoning district regulations.
• (F) Transportation. The Planning
Commission shall in its deliberations consider
transportation to and from the site, traffic and its effect
on the site and surrounding properties, and its effect on
access roads and surrounding highways.
(G) Seismic and Slope Stability. The de-
veloper shall submit to the Planning Commission a
report prepared by a qualified engineer or geotechnician
which details the proposed structure's seismic and
slope stability. Such report shall outline the effects
which may be caused by seismic disturbance as well
as any mitigating measures of building construction.
(H) F.A.A. Report. Any proposal for a
structure which exceeds two hundred feet in total
height shall be submitted to the Federal Aviation
Administration for an advisory report. The report of the
F.A.A. shall be submitted to the Planning Commission
as a part of the staff report.
(2) In authorizing a building height exception
under this section, the Planning Commission may
impose such additional requirements and conditions
with respect to parking facilities, site access, and build-
ing construction, design, maintenance and operation as
it may deem necessary after its deliberations here-
under, in order to promote the public health, safety and
welfare. •
(3) Public Hearing. Prior to acting on the appli-
cation for height exception, the Planning Commission
shall hold a public hearing. Notice of such hearing shall
be provided pursuant to Chapter 18.92 of this title.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
•
18.50.060 Building permits for structures exceeding
the basic height limits. •
No building permits for structures which exceed
the basic height limits may be issued until such time
as the Planning Commission has reviewed and
approved an application for height exception. All appli•
Page 18-60
cations for building p...iits for structures authorized
under this section shall conform strictly to the plans
approved by the BAR in Its grant of exception.
(Ord. 1247 51(part), 1982)
.18.50.070.. Yard regulations.
(1) Fences, walls, poles, posts, and other . cus-
toraary-yard accessoiies. ornaments, furniture' may be.
permitted in any yard subject to height limitations and
requirements limiting .obstruction of visibility to the
detriment of public safety..
(2) In the case of tlirou lots, unless the pre-
vailing front yard pattern ling lots indicates
otherwise, front yards shall be provided on all
frontages.
(3) Where the front yard that would normally
be required on a lot is not in keeping with the prevail-
ing yard pattern , the Planning Department may waive
the requirement for the normal front yard and substi-
tute therefor a special yard requirement which shall
not exceed the average of the yards provided on
adjacent lots.
(4) In the case of comer lots, a front yard of the
required dep�___h shall be pmyided in accordance with
the prevailin�gyard pattern, and a second front l d_'of
hai1'ihe de rrequired &ener41ly or ont yardsin,the
district •• be.provided on the .o ier` rontage.
n the case of cornerjots with mor_e_than
two fr ges, the Planning ep artment shall deter-
mine thilront..yard_req_uTrementst subject _
loilowuig conditions:
— "rAt least one front ard shall b
rovided havfn the e require generally in
e distnc •
(B) No other front ard on such lot shall
have less than h the full de required•generaliy;
n e case o tFi "rough lots and comet
lots, there will be no reararas but one wont- and side
— -
(D) In the case of through, Jots, si_ de yards
shall extend frQm.ihe rear lines of front yards e_quired.
n the case of comer lots ds remainin : after
- t -•e• on y• aye •een es• �, s all be
cons • ere. s . e yar . s., ee re =• .
(Ord 1247 §f(part), 1982)
18.50.080 Exemption of rooftop appurtenances.
The height limitations specified in this chapter shall
not apply to church spires, monuments, chimneys,
water towers, elevator towers, mechanical equipment,
and other similar rooftop, appurtenances usually
required to be placed above the roof level and not
intended for human occupancy or the provision of
additional floor area; provided, that mechanical equip-
ment rooms or attic spaces are set back at least ten feet
from the edge of the roof and do not exceed twenty
feet in height.
(Ord. 1247 51(part), 1982)
Printed September 14, 1993
CL
T1TLE18-ZONiNG
YARDS
Rear
Side
Front
Lot Lines
Yard Measurement.Lines
The illustration here assumes front yard depths required at 30' (hail-
depth front yards 15'), side yard widths lOcand rear yard depths'10'.
LOCATION&
MEASUREMENT OF
YARDS ON LOTS
411111111•11c
FIGURE 18-7
l (pox n PC :rnc rc,y I;ult “.1 r' r I, 'r;c n A Pt rc1, A I A . 117,' r • .1 Sut ' 303 '.':A 5101 (:'n(,)!
MEMORANDUM
1201 Fourth'Ave ''So:, Suite:.'
Seattle; WA 98134
TO: .Vernon Umetsu DATE: • 13 July 1994
Planning Department
City of Tukwila : PROJECT: 505 Baker Blvd.
6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite .100
Tukwila, Washington 98188 PROJECT NO: NW 94003
RE: 505 Baker
PRE94 -017
Per our conversation 11 July 1994 I have reviewed the criteria for setback on multiple
streets and believe the Planning Department has the authority to define which streets
have a full setback and which have a 1/2 half front yard setback subject to the
conditions.
We comply with all code conditions of Section 18.50.070- 5, A, B, C, & D and do not
believe the intent of the sample exhibit figure covers all cases. Areas C & D highlighted
on the exhibit attached are examples of similar corners but have different setbacks off
the same streets. I believe this adds some flexibility on how sites are configured or
oriented.
In our case all primary and secondary streets have more than a full front yard setback.
We are requesting that Christensen Road, which dead ends with a turnaround and one
way traffic out of the park, be defined as the 1/2 front yard setback. Our setback here is
over 40 feet as proposed.
The code indicates that the Planning Department determines the front yard requirements
in the case of a corner lot with more than two frontages. We feel that we comply with the
code and this approach affords better planning for the public and for this project.
This is an important issue in planning this site and I realize that you did not have the
previous background material available to discuss this during our call. Would you please
review this and call me.
Via Fax
Enclosures: Figure 18 -7
P. 18 -60 Zoning Code
Letter faxed 15 June 1994
cc:
Frank Agostino
Jack Link
Architecture and Planning, Inc.
•
Roy A hang. A I A 1701 I ()lath Av(r S Soho 102 St •attk • WA 9813.1 (,'O(,) `)8.i h l.iO I ,,. (;(;(,) .`sti.i 11 •1!9
11 August 1994
Mr. Rick Beeler
Director of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: 505 Baker Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. Beeler,
Per our review of planning staff's decisions on the specific front yards for this project we
would like to appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a different determination of front
yards for corner Tots with more than two frontages, specifically three streets.
Tukwila Municipal Code
18.50.070 Yard Regulation
Section 2: We understand this is through lot which requires front yards on all
frontages (normal, 2).
Section 4: We understand a full front yard is required with prevailing yard pattern and
a second front yard can be 1/2 a full yard (provided with proposed plan).
Section 5: We understand this as our situation and that items no. 2 and no. 4 above
have a relation but with three front yards our interpretation is that the
planning department can determine the full and half front yard requirement
as this situation has much greater impact on the usability of a parcel.
Planning department has determined they do not have the authority and
have to relate to the exhibit 18 -7 for determination.
We comply with all items of 5, A, B, C & D but do not conform to the example figure 18 -7
in Title 18 Zoning which we feel is an example but not an all encompassing illustration.
We are requesting an interpretation which provides 2 full front yard setbacks, at Andover
Parkway East and Baker Blvd.(versus Andover Parkway East and Christensen Road)
and the 1/2 front yard setback at Christensen Road. We feel that using a full setback at
Baker and Andover which are the primary streets is a better planning approach and
meets the intent and verbiage of this ordinance section.
page 2
There are very few sites in Tukwila which fall in this category. A decision would not
establish precedence for other sites but would allow the Planning department to make
the decision. It is our understanding that Planning does not have a problem with this
request and concur with the general planning aspect of our request. In this particular
case we have an existing site and facility which is being removed and perimeter
landscape and access points and grades which are being preserved. The City intends
to widen the street at Andover and add a 6 ft. sidewalk off that street which encroaches
on this property, further necessitating relief to adjust the building layout further to the
east reducing the setback off Christensen road to less than 50 ft.(but greater than the
minimum required 1/2 front yard of 25 ft.) assists us in accomplishing this.
We believe that interpretation of the code allows this and are requesting a review through
the Board of Adjustments.
Thank you for your time and staff's continued review of this issue.
pectf ly
oi'eA.B
RAB:amh
Attachments
cc: Jack Link, Bill Rademaker
Frank Agostino
LPN Architecture & Planning Inc., Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 4th Ave. So., Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583- 8030.
rchi ecturc and Planning
leason Pomeroy Northwest Inc Royce A Rory, A I A , 1121 I'd Streol, ulte 300 `.;(calk. WA 98101 (2O) `,83 e030
MR. PHIL FRASER
Senior Development / Surface Water Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Re: 505 BAKER BLDG.
Baker and Andover Park East
Tukwila, WA.
cile1-141
teAuvole) 'to J. A666
Dear Mr. Fraser,
We are currently reviewing reworking this facility and per our
preliminary phone conversation drainage requirements for this site would
relate to King Count Surface Water guidelines for redevelopment.
Proposal would remove the existing building and build a larger
building on the site utilizing the same parking areas except for the
new building area. Impervious areas of the site would remain about
the same as existing and less then the 5,000 S.F. noted as the exemption
amount, which we believe exempts the project from the King County Surface
Water requirements. The project would not increase the drainage problem
on this site. Actual roof surface increases from the existing facility
but the total of roof and ground impervious remains about the same.
Are there other requirements relating to drainage that would be
imposed by the city to build a new building on the existing
parking and landscaping. Existing drainage problems
at this intersection was also noted in our conversation.
Resp ctfully,
o
Presi.ent
c.c. Frank J. Agostino
et .t, e-.
Architecture and Planning
leaser) Poi-nerdy tJour'iwt st Ir c . Ru c A F',nrc1, A I A 1171 1'■v. `,'r(2r'I. Sulk' 300 Sc )11k V.A `)8 "01 (7(!6) 383 0030
LPN Architects & Planners
1201 ' Fourth Ave. So., Suite 102
MEMORANDUM Seattle, WA 98134
TO: Ron Cameron
City Engineer.
City of Tukwila PROJECT:
6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188 PROJECT NO:
DATE:
RE: 505 Baker, PRE94 -017
20 June 1994
505 Baker Blvd.
NW 94003
? S
o
not ,5
Dear Ron,
Per my notes in our meeting of 26 May 1994, storm drainage had no requirements
except adding an oil water separator with coalescing plates for this project, no
biofiltration swales, wet ponds or detention required. The note on the back of Public
Works requirement indicates storm drainage in accordance with King County Surface
Water Management manual and a coalescing plate oil water separator. The project does
not significantly change run off rates from existing and we are assuming no extensive
drainage review per King County standards would be required.
Could you please clarify our interpretation of these requirements.
R esp ctfulli
Roy a A. Be
Pr ident
Via Fax
Enclosures
cc: Jack Link
Frank Agostino
•
SEP 13 '94 07 45 LPN ARC
T,3nska atiGn and Tmlh'e En jneet'
PLANNING •DESIGN
.
Diu iiulWl U W UUU
TECTS (206)583 - 0708
M:E.:M:' 0..R .A. N.. D U M •
TO: . Royce A. Berg
FROM: • • James W. Macisaac, P.E. TG:
SUBJECT: .505 BAKER • TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES
2136 747 3E45; 3/?. 01
DATE: September 12, 1994
The 505 Baker project would replace an existing office building which contains 15.802 sf floor area.
The existing use would be replaced by a two-phase project providing either office space or mail space,
or some combination of both. Phase I would provide 7..0,888 sf floor area; Phase II would add another
11,036 sf floor area -- total project would be 31,924 sf:
The attached table provides estimates of traffic generation for the existing site use, and for Phase land
for Phases 1 +11 with the proposal. Trip estimates are provided for an all -office option, and for an all -
retail option. Shown also are the net trip changes with trips for the existing site use subtracted from
trips with the proposed she use. All trip generation estimates were prepared using guidelines set forth
in Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Traffic Engineers.
Small retail projects have a high proportion of" passby trips" -- trips passing by or near the site for
other trip purposes which make a retail stop as they passby. These trips would only affect turning
movements into and out of the site driveways, at the intersection of Andover Park East, and along
Baker Street
Phase 1 net nip increases under the worst case "retail" use option would be as follow:
AWUr PM Pk Hr
Phase I 271 S
Phase I +11 817 59
For office projects and small retail projects, the PM commuter peak hour represents the peak traffic
hour for these generators.
The TMNSPO Group, Inc. 14339 N.E. 24th Sueer, Saite'201 Beiievue, Wrs`ington 98007 FAX: 206/747.3686 206/54.1.3881
505BAKER.XLS
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES FOR: 505 BAKER RETAIL/OFFICE PROJECT
.4441V 1 11 a... 1 IYY.
P. 4/3
• • Land•Use. Floor Area
(SOL)
Total
AWDT
Pass Net New
Total
PM Peek Hour
Passby Net New
•E:dsttng Site Use: Office 15,802
348
• 0
348
48
•
0
•
• 48
Prepaid Project • MI Olfio• Option:
Phase I
Office 20,888
429
0
429
59
0
59
Phase t+tl
Office 31,924
592
0
592 •
80
0
80
Net Change:
Phase 1
5,086
81
0
81
11
0
11
P11801.11
16,122
244
0
244
32
0
32
Proposed Project - Alt
Reblll Option:
Phase I
" Retell 20,888
2,656
2,037
619
242
188
56
Phase 1+11
Retail 31,924
3.462
2,297
1,165
317
210
107
Net Change:
Phase!
6,086
2.308
2,037
271
194
186
8
Phase 1.11
16,122
3,114
2,297
817
269
210
59
SEP 13 '94 07:44 LPN ARCrECTS (206)583 -0708
4.
BAKER BLVD.
JAMES CHRISTENSEN, ROAD
P.2/3
•
•
ANDOVER PARK EAST
111111111
0 30
SITE PLAN
505 BAKER BLVD.
Tukwila, Washington
CORPORATE
Real Estate Inc.
CumareW 1Yr 4w. __
BCWi1VE I.1A *MO Aai n.
hart J. Ayoifm
(2a1) a42.a4a
0
-o'S..roorsoweit
SS SS S SS
er..-4102,NOTER 14°,4 k.
IV • -
t
DaSiNG
OJR5-0-rt
20,0.
iS•Cr
iv- 1 I 1
HIE .
,'''' • ./..'..••......,
LL-8
11,4"
1
20..
Dalt
unootiar
I I 3
a
4'.
1"
II '■
R
1 4.
11
I I
1
1
1
9
4)
606 BAKER BLVD.
Tukwila, Washington
FLOOR PLAN 11/8 1 1
MIN-
FLOOR PLAN
l2e:94o43\ .3
r-
I
Z06 BAKER BLVD.
Architecture and Planning
O
Leoson Pomeroy Northwest
Royce A. Bag. AJ.A.
1201 Fourth Ave. SSte. 102
Seattle. Washington 93134
(206) 583 -8030
\
1
L_
H
y
I
I
°
3
§�
16• -0•
R !r
1
1
I
O
r
1
rt
1
L _
SI
I.
q
!r -0•
rA•
76-0•
44,0.
ura•
4
'
_
a
w°
FLOOR PLAN
l2e:94o43\ .3
Z06 BAKER BLVD.
Architecture and Planning
O
Leoson Pomeroy Northwest
Royce A. Bag. AJ.A.
1201 Fourth Ave. SSte. 102
Seattle. Washington 93134
(206) 583 -8030
H
Tukwila, Washington
°
z
0
-i
X
m
m
m
a
-4
0
z
NOI1YA313 1SV3
Ul
NA
/N1
NA
N
0
c
X
m
r
m
0
z
1 I I
m
-4
m
m
m
0
z
balm
9.
_ 1
a
ELEVATIONS
iic94007 /A4
006 BAKER BLVD.
Architecture and Planning
O n
Leoson Pomeroy Northwest
Royce A. Bag. &LA.
tt27 Pine Sheet. Suite 300
Seattle. Was, Ungton 98101
(206) 583 -8030
6
Tukwila, Washington
H i
•
. •
BACKGROUND
Name of proposed project,
Name of applicant: LPN
Contro °'a. /-91-00s7
Epic File No_, .
. if: —Q /7 Fee $325';?.! Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.
if applicable: 505 Baker Blvd.' • •
Architects and Planners
Address and phone number
Suite 102, Seattle, Washington
of applicant and contact person: 1201 Fniirth Avenue,
98134, (206) 583 -8030 , Royce A. Berg
Date checklist prepared:
Agency requesting Checklist:
Proposed timing or schedule
Construction to begin
6/9/94
•
City of Tukwila
(including phasing, if applicable):
all 1994
Do you have any plans
related to or connecte
for future additions, expansion, or further activity
with this proposal? If yes, explain.
Possible Phase II111,7 2 S.F. expansion south onto adjacent lot.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly elated to this proposal. None Known
•
Do you know whether a plications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly a fecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. None Know
R E C E R.
JUL 2819'
COMMUNFY
DEVELOPM :NT
-2- •
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Demolition Permit .
Mechanical Permit
Building Permit
Electrical Permit 0
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.
Demolition of existin E +/- 15,802 .s.f. industrial office building.
onstruction of new +/-2n58 s.f. retail /office facility....with.poccih1P
uture expansion of 11,036 s.f. onto adiacent south lot.'
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.
505 Baker Blvd., Lot 10, bound on three sides by Andover Park East, Baker Blvd.,
and (68th Ave S.) Christianson oR as ,— Section Nt lb, TWW-21775IT 4 Assessors
Tax No. 22310- 0101 -07
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
No, exc=ept seismic conditions of valley floor
c
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 4% at east edge of site
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.
Sand, Gravel on upper layers of site
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
Green River Valley Drainage
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
None. Some structural fill will be needed to level
building pad. Source unknown at this time
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
No clearing
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
+/— 82%
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
No change in amounts of impervious surface. New construction
xstpdas..e..s_eadatimiadisling.
Evaluation for
�` Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if•any:
None required areas will comply wi _;ty standards
for erosion control
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If .any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Construction - normal eouipment emissions
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
None required
3. 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.
Green River east of site approx. +l 4OU ft.,
� Evaluation for
.Agency Use Only
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. No
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 affectd. Indicate the
source of fill material. Pi
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. N/A
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. Yes, most of site is above elevation 24.
Edges at street to east and north appear to be at
or below elevation 24
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
•
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.: No
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.
No, none
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe. on site
Storm water will go into existing storm water
,systems after oil water separator with
coalescing plates
-7-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
None required except adding coalescing plate STI
water separator.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
x deciduous tree:
e - • een tree:
pas ure
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? Center planters and areas around existing
building.
r crli , aspen, other, cherry
ed'ar, pine, other
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None known
-8-
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other .
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
Replacing existing building
New planters and islands of landlgaim_to_ha added
•
•
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
other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
None known
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.__
No`
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
.if any: None .
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
Gas heating and electric cooling
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:
Project to meet 1994 current Washington State Energy
Code requirements
7. 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.
None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
None required
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)?
Normal traffic noise from ad.acent ,pad
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.
Normal personal automobile traffic. Short term
construction equipment noise from demolition of existing
building.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? Commercial, industrial & office buildings
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. o
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Existing +1— 15,802 s.f. building to be removed
+ >�
�_.. Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Yes, existing industrial /office building
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? C -M
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Same
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.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? 20 -25 workers
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? Approximately 100 by past office use
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
None
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
Project designed to be compatible with adjacent
buildings uses
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 required
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?
t/- 35 ft. metal Portal arch
722B ft. TE-BUITETI g bight
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
Building scale designed to be compatible with area
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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?
Some reflection from normal exterior glass and
fighting for security • •
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or . interfere with views?
Not to our knowledge
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare* may
.affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Night lighting will have cut offs -to control —fig t
aspersion
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
None
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:
None required
�•...
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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. No •
Historic cabin is in park to S.E. of project
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: None
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.
Andover Parkway East •
Baker Blvd.
Christenson Road
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Transit at Southcenter Shopping Center
at Baker Blvd. and Andover Parkway West
c. How many parking spaces would the•completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Approximately 105
125 stalls existing - eliminates 20 stalls
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).
No, sidewalks will be.required
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
Phase I 450 trips
PM Peak 66
Phase II (possible future) 600 trips
PM Peak 80
g.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: none
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.
No, existing facility approximates same services
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
-16-
•
, .,', ;:
u541a14.0
I
Architecture and Planning
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A.
1127 Pine Street, Suite 300
Seattle, Washington 98101
(201) 583 -8030
Project: 505 Baker Blvd.
Subject:
V /�'/N /T7
Project No.: l ✓ Dote: S.-I/7 * By: .W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Sheet:
The north 175 feet of Tract 10, ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 2, as
recorded in Volume 71 of Plats, Pages 68 and 69, Records of King
County, Washington.
More particularly described as follows: Beginning at the
southwest corner of said Tract 10; thence N 01 °05'06" E along the
west line of said tract 332.99 feet to the true point of
beginning; thence continuing N 01 °05'06" E 1241.581 -feet; thence
along a curve to the right having a radius oft-59 feet through a
central angle of 90 °29'27" an arc distance of 78.97 feet; thence
88 °25'27" E 185.61 feet; thence along a curve to the right
having a radius of 50 feet through a central angle of 89 °36'52"
an arc distance of 78.20 feet; thence S 01 °11'25" W 125.34 feet;
L94 -0057
505 BAKER BL.
(PRE 94 -017)
SEPA
€,.M �,.t•p..,.. R,. 'i..rscr 1 -,.: ys,: �.,n,?..; ..f )! t;,l^.t St°' ;it,i ��• y�Yti +l l�,- yRK79c Y':F,`''ta v 'yt.. "��itu�4ir� V'•i �`.i•�.h �et:�2. 1:; 'T'Yirf �''w�'''
.5t
,
I I I I I FI +4 I I I I I I I I •I I I I�ryl I I I I I I I I I I I I I I•�I I IBt. i- I If1 I�IZ I I I I fi 1i�» . .e w fiY: -. 1�:�. .,.. ... .�. ,..'.. ..ry �Y: Sµ' n":�:i. A ,.t �. l'Li±�.12 �iRt V �:e atFi'. f� iGPtf ".��,.
0 16THS INCH 1 % ,'Z 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MAGI:INGrRMANY 12
SG ... LZ. 9G SZ' •7G EZ GL lZ O 61, 61 LL 91. GI. IA.
!. a�: %.� .r. Y ><. ... i.,.: ?. Yryra,?�r. ;. "�r:h,. %.. e..a'"'. L x.: •+, � `5�.. �.! ' 5 {3.i2"'�...`w .. x...gA .R .0 x',`l"+.+ rtx e. ` .e ,. l(!t.'i�.. �.A.J } .�:... •N Eftil L L O �
nii it i i \ IIII\ 111111111\ 111111111 \iiiilnI\ ilii 111 111111 ii 1 111111111) n I i hill n li ,u i i 6
�'>3.'.'..c�! !+: ti7l'.•�.'..
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS;
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TOi
'.THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT;
•
iii- --_EX; IJC�.TcL
5 /110U R•m� ••U ■0
glimmuummuuniss
ti7 P,se14ln6 STauV� TvV>L
4 fit 5‘4-1.-1
', NOr INGk /1 L -o N'y
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 1994
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ANDOVER PARK EAST.
r�orE,i hTRE T "uTll,rflf ;:Lcx PR:
611Y 'OF "Tuleu)1L P5'-6uI1,T, REe.4)F D
CR JIN�S c rgo U)L)T,l 2, MPRCti.:`I`iYvZ ,;
Pu616T: ic7 . .
ICI IjIII jl 1ljl Il!1ljljlllljl jl iIjll!1ljll!IIjI l!Ijljijl I Ijl.,...ta.;
Ltrl�e�hhl C ICI III I I�I�IjI I Ijl I!I Ijl Ijl I1I'Ijl Ijl Ijl Ijl III Ijl Ijl Ijl Ijl Ijl Ijl Ijl Ijl Iji Ijl III Ijl 11l ICI Ijl Ijl III
11111�IiI�I�III ►I�III�III�I
0 ,ETNSINCH 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M.IR.I,rc,aM.er 12
nab., a_ r.�. ,.
e
FLEXIBLE RULER -302
OE 6Z Bar LE 96 SE ve EZ LL lZ OZ 6l BIIl LIIl 9l SIL 9L m ZL ll of 5 BI 4 9 S V E ZI IL ww
I!!!!! nllnl�!!!!!!!!!!!. I Illndnulunlrnilnnlull niilnnll lll. !d !� 1J U!!J11JJ!�1li1�14 ! 11�41111I.11J.�1!JJ ll 11 ! !l l�l1J.!11 �l llllllJ1 1l1 IIIII,UJJU I J l� 1 Ill ;lll.�llll�l ! ll I�11ll�llp�l!!IU, �! I.lilllllfl,(l�.. ,
}c s n., t➢ 4 rr r t�
s ■
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS;
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT'
Architecture. and. Planning
Leason Pomeroy Northwest:
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A.:
1201 Fourth Ave. S.,Ste. 102:
Seattle, Washington 98134,.'
(206) 583 -8030
NO
DESCRIPTION
DATE
a
sEPP cFIr�K -I.J
0CI
JOB, NO.: ',84003
DATE: ` 6- 2744:
DRAWN:, .
CHECK:.:
agP:
Architecture and Planning
Leason Pomeroy. Northwest;,
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A.
1201 Fourth Ave. S.,Ste. 102'
Seattle, Washington 98134
(206) 583 -8030
NO
DESCRIPTION
hePO EGKI -r-4
DATE
7:3.957
RECEIVED
JUL .2 8,1994
CONINIUNI'I V
DEVELQPMENT ''
JOB N0. :94003
DATE: . 8-27-94
DRAWN:,
CHECK:
89P'
2 :i �yFYj 71CP� �'Le Srj t 5'� h�Y�
Ilillii111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ll1j1 1 Illl1 1 1111' 11Illlll1lll111111lllt 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�llll111111111111ll1111
0 16TNSINCN 1 2 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NAUCIN6IPNANY 12
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW
LE 9t SE Vc CZ LL LZ
I I I I 1 11 i l 111111111 1 1 11 1 11111 I I I 1 111111
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS!
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO!
THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
LL 9L SL VI. Cl EL
LL 0L 6
1.141.1lll:l,; ,I 11!1�11ll
8 9 S Y £ Z L 0
ull11111 !u l l u 111�11111111 �lll�l ��u�ll��a�u
1
Leason Pomeroy Northwest
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A.
1127 Pine Street, Suite 300,
Seattle, Washington 98101,
(206) 583-8030
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 1994
COMMUNI Y
DEVELOPMENT
./. ■
0 MT. NCH 1 2 4 11 m 12
pi11111111111111111011111110111111111111PITUPITOPOPHPITIIPUPONTOPITHP11111110111110PHPITHPITOPITITITH111111111011HPITHPOPITIII
5 6 7 8 9 10
•
o sz I3. L ee. sz ea e.d ta oz st 8L LL 9L st vt et zt LL 01, a 8 s z 0
ii)11111.1,11111111111111414.049,1111111111111j1k911411,11.11114,10.0.11,11441,1,1)104011111.11141,1,111.111k1,1611111111.11.11.1111)W1141.11[11.611!.11111,11.I.J1.11111.11,1t111[111k11.1,1.11.111,1iji,044.11111111111)11.R11,1111.1.1111.1411111.11illiqiilk,
FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW
•
• . .
IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS:
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO
:;THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
_ ....