Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-231-84 - INN VENTURES - BROCK RESIDENCE INNBROOK RESIDENCE EPIG231 -84 City of Tukwil Fire Deportment Gary VanDusen Mayor July 24, 1984 v Hubei H. Crawley Fire Chief Mr. Greg Al lwi ne Johnson Brand Design Group . '304 Main Avenue South, Suite 200 Renton, Washington 98055 Re: Brock Residence Inn Dear Mr. Allwine: Per your request of'July 20, 1984, please let this letter serve as notice that the Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau requires that the proposed project to be known as the "Brock Residence Inn" be protected by automatic sprinklers designed, installed, and tested per.NFPA Standard 113. Please note that this requirement was stated during meetings with your firm on both January 18 and May 17, 1984. Please give us a call if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Hubert H. Crawley Fire Chief cc: TFD file City of Tu'r.w;la Fire Department. 444 Andover Para•, East. Tukwila.- Washington 98188 (206) 575.4404 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM TO: BLDG. M PLNG. PROJECT P.W. 1 1 FIRE :ADDRESS /6 ,3 d DATE TRANSMITTED £ 4/ r (/ 15 - Q P. & R. C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE • ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS- IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: al R(44.1 f"+t_ SrcY2-1-- Ca..\-ar zLo' yvt&-k) Pnk.11- puzsr • DU c>sr ,PiPIR(k>Nmo p2 l 1.& c, g. �`� ►i1 . �i►_ y� i t�!Z it !�.al_ varz �y • -1If it • O : I,(T \WWI t (3102Q0 O (KAPIZ UN(QM /MC W M 4' :/ V u $ L .*1 o A_l■ Lt. 1a 0 LC Q 12clko 1- 0(e )10(1, Y IN •m2M t\t, O P thiteLEM,e0 Rate. acs_LopAkk, . CI c0 PLiy0 -ra 13 Q amAP fq- (s� of • Q • ()t t sx 0 v k3.. 1 1c .'sasMnwn Pkgakl<1 Imo Z•5 pus P'82 Looms Q _arQ2 E p`' ~'�'ZL�p ,� LS i� J 'fr ?4UO MOST jOC\.L10- 4QMK5<1 40% ❑ • o t 11 012 .4- IVI -VEc U1 P,st2 0Li �,8t_LU� 1,0IUS e � S tL po c c sue, teaSS . :saws D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED yl PLAN APPROVED %D PLAN CHECK DATE Sle COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 _NTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM TO: I _ BLDG. [l PLNG. ita P.W. FIRE ❑ , SCE [i P. & R. PROJECT PM5 A .ADDRESS / ( , DATE TRANSMITTED C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: 17' -1-311 IS Off-St-M.- i El ❑ 0 ❑ D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED ❑ PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED ❑ PLAN APPROVED .0 PLAN CHECK DATE 'COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 October 26, 1984 Linda Rankin Permit Coordinator Shorelands Division Department of Ecology PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 Re: Shoreline Management Permit #N 590 -14 -3561, Inn Ventures, Inc. (City of Tukwila No. 84- 14 -SMP) Dear Ms. Rankin: Enclosed are plans for revisions to this permit which are hereby approved by the City per WAC 173 -14 -064. Please incorporate the revised plans into the permit. Based upon the existing documents contained in this permit we determined the revisions are within the "scope and intent" of the permit for the following reasons: 1. The storm water system originally planned for the site featured boring under Strander Boulevard to connect to the existing storm sewer system running along the south side of the street. This existing system has an outfall into the Green River and limited capacity. Final drainage calculations and evaluation of the size of the existing system determined that the undesirable result would occur of flooding of the intersection of Strander Boulevard and the West Valley Highway. Therefore, the engineer and City agreed that the proposed revised system is preferable. Instead of adding water to the existing system on the south side of Strander Boulevard, a new system will be installed along the north side of the street. This is within the "scope and intent" of the existing permit. 2. Along the shoreline of the Green River is an existing dike under the jurisdiction of the King County Hydraulics Division. From the concep- tion of the proposal the City and applicant were aware of the County's requirements to repair and /or construct additional portions of the dike } '∎ Page -2- Linda Rankin October 26, 1984 • to conform to flood control regulations. At the time of issuance of the shoreline permit the survey of the dike topography was not completed, therefore the permit was issued with the condition of "...site plan revision per King County Hydraulics Division and City requirements." It was known and recognized by all parties and stipu- lated in the Planning Commission's review that the County would require work on the dike to perhaps raise its level but certainly to establish the customary "dike maintenance road." Once the field survey results were evaluated with the County the final configuration of the dike was determined. The County and City Fire Department required widening the dike from 15' to the needed 20' to accomodate maintenance and emergency access and completion of the dike around the property. This involved approximately 320 cubic yards of landfill. Based upon our knowledge of the needed improvement we feel this lies within the "scope and intent" of the "King County Hydraulics Division and City requirements." 3. The northerly border of the site abuts the existing Seattle Bowlake Water pipeline easement. The aforementioned dike improvement requires installation of a concrete retaining wall to protect the easement. Seattle does not want additional landfill over the pipeline. Recent conversations with Seattle clarified the need for the retaining wall to comply with County and Seattle requirements. The potential of this requirement over other alternatives was known when the shoreline permit was issued, but couldn't be determined at that time until the dike was surveyed. Now that all of the needed information has been pulled together, the retaining wall is clearly needed. This is within the "scope and intent" of the permit. If you have any questions call be at 433 -1845. Respectfully, Bradley J. Co' l ins. Planning Director 'RB /blk cc: Inn Ventures, Inc. Attorney General Tri Star Development ADDENDUM DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. FILE NO. EPIC - 231 -84 INN VENTURES, INC. NORTHWEST CORNER OF STRANDER BOULEVARD AND WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY. The attached addenda are hereby incorporated into the declaration pursuant to WAC - 197 -11 -625 for the following revisions to the Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit #N590 -14 -3561 (City of Tukwila No. 84- 14 -SMP), City of Tukwila building permit or any other required permits pursuant thereto: 1. Expansion of the existing dike along the waterfront perimeter of the site and construction of a 20 foot maintenance and Fire Department access road on top of the dike. 2. Construction of a concrete retaining wall along the north property line. 3. Construction of a storm sewer system oil -water separators and outfall into the Green River at the southwest corner of the property. Brad Collins Responsible Official • JohnsonBraund design group p.s., inc. architecture, engineering & planning consultants October 26, 1984 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Brock Residence Inn Update to Environmental Checklist Per our discussion, I request that the environmental checklist be revised to reflect two proposed construction items that were unforeseen at the time of submission of the original environmental checklist. tH Our Project #83 -51 Section II. Environmental Impacts, 1. Earth (c) Change in Topography There will still be some slight variations in the topography as indicated in the original checklist for building and parking lot construction. Not previously indicated is a retaining wall proposed along the north property line. The existing elevation of this line is approximately 18. A retaining wall will be constructed on the Brock site to enable a road to be placed at approximately elevation 27.0. Approximately 420 cubic yards of fill will be required behind this wall to bring the road to the required grade. A cross section is attached for reference. Also required will be some filling to widen the existing dike maintenance road from approximately 15 feet to 20 feet. This dike maintenance road will also serve as a fire lane providing access to the west side of the development. Fill required for this widening will be approximately 300 cubic yards. Section II. Environmental Impacts, 16. Utilities (e) Storm Water Drainage The present proposal for releasing storm water requires a new outfall to the Green River. The past proposal called for a connection to an existing storm sewer line on the south side of Strander Blvd. west of the bridge. It was discovered that this line is not capable of handling the required flows due to inadequate size of the existing storm pipe. A drawing has been prepared depicting both plan and profile for this new proposed outfall to the river. It will involve clearing brush and trees from the existing bank for approximately a 60 -foot wide path. A trench must then be excavated for the new line. A concrete headwall will then be placed at the point of discharge. The storm sewer line will then be placed in the trench at the specified elevation. Backfilling of the trench will then take place. The trench will be backfilled in small lifts and compacted to 95% of its maximum density. A soils technician must be on -site to ensure this backfilling is accomplished properly. Upon completion of the backfill operation, the bank must be rip- rapped with heavy stone to prevent erosion or scour of the recompacted soil and bank. A State Flood Control Zone Permit will be required in addition to approval by the City of Tukwila for this construction. Architecture, Engineering & Planning Consultants Lawrence S. Braund, P.E. Thomas A. Johnson, AIA Greg L. Allwine, ARCH. 304 Main Avenue South, Suite 200 Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 271 -7200 (206) 623 -5732 Rick Beeler Brock Residence Inn -2- . October 26, 1984 Hopefully, this update to the checklist will enable you to continue processing our application for Building Permit. As I understand it, you will now submit this updated information to the Department of Ecology for their review. Also an amended Substantial Development Permit (Shorelines) must be processed by both the City and the Department of Ecology prior to issuance of any building permits. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, AUND DESIGN GROUP, P.S., INC. A. iener, P.E. GAD:sm cc: L. Culver Enclosures RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 2 4. 1984 BUILDING DEPT. 20' HIDE LANE 2' ZBA (TY!?) .... 2.a.0(TYt P OPRTY l-INIf 2 =— 4 o� : - .�s bO' GITY or OATYLz • if/ .• LA E.pI -- LIN bA5t 27-4 I2I7TERINCa TC 4 NOT DTL I5,5H 7 LIFT - �. (-) PIT 1U1-i TAIHIHG WAI -I-- 5 EARGHrEGTUizAL PLANS . _ ? _ r O K 1 . 3 1 AIL.5 5HT A- 15 • .2E XISTINC-I Cir.ADE N 8 MI k.AFI rILTri. rAbiz IG : : - , : 1-1 • .• or.AI 0 tAYLIGHT ACA JA(..it FjL1 IA Gl E AFIF19 1.4. SECTION B -'B id N/65 E-bIz SCALE: HORIZ. 1'= 10 . VERT. 1'= 4' (TYP.) FIRE LANE SECTION WITH RETAINING WALL 13 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 2 4. 1984 BUILDING DEPT. I'EVI51'P{5: MOVED HOTE5 ATJOED. E.4 "445 MAIN ;ADDED• "HA'N71LAP " k4Mix ADDITIoH.SPGT E1EvgrIAYS AND SHEET FEfTI(E: ' ' Fog 5 CTIONS A -A 717121.1•F-P. • a10-84 CLIw RCVISCD PIPC D15MCrCRS OUV;OP .YARD DEl EYEO NOTE 3, G0NGFpJ1IN(q '-5 18284 OJW DRAINS - 4 9,15; !2S ' 9 -12 -b4 LEL : 2EVI5E.D. PARK NCC C.oNFI(UR4,TIOM,EtLOCATED YARD DR &IN541.5 x"I4, Amer) •: Rsv15ED LA-DANA, SP2RT000RTACEA HOED YARD ,DRASI't%D .'t. .� .e. ... 40r. .2 *54 5R6 45TALL5 F OW 514 PANG LOT TO W. CF GATEHOU5E 9 -13'84 21W :REVIOEb PIPt: DIA- bEYWF_FN cIEdD 6.5TO2I- +'.MAH OLD" 10 -Z-84 9R3 • :ADDED NOTE r e g . '5' GC'ic '5/14, , P.0ITE : CCL1?FD °_TP'1-lEFC EL \I• °_G INS `T C1 i 1PCOVEMENT ALON4 5. `'POYETY -UNE ' I0-5 84 DJW �LIIE C AIJ.. •Tt-s-iT tiLlrz -;?LL :1.'• �i: ZM RE\ 22L 1.j° 1C Il:I Ud•:Y- Act. ;. ,JNE C.`'_31 To- RtsfEg. ALL °:LL C'Cx . .I; II:, -L -'4 RP' N:"'E_- K::.- 4 RF N 03- 13_02 -E YARD DRAIN. SCHEDULE I ' NO. RIM INVERT YD 01 27.0 : 2314 YD 02 26.5 '23.98 YD 03 26.5 24.3 YD 04 26.5 23.3 YD 05 26.5 24.5 YD 06 26.3 24.5 YD 07 26.5 23.8 YD 08 27.0 25.0 YD 09• 26.5 21.21 YD010 26.5 - 22.19 • YD 011 26.5 23.34 YD 012 26.5 24.5 YD 013 .26.5 23.96 •YD. 014 .26.3 24.5 -YD 015 26.5 22.41 YD 016 26.5 23.22 . YD 017 26.5 -24.13 YD 018 27.0 25.0. YD 019 26.5 23.04 .YD 020 26.5 24.5 YD 021 .'26.3 23.9 YD 022 27.0 25.0 YD 023 26.5 23.57 YD 024 26.5 ' 24.30 YD 025 . 27.0 YD 141-26 263 • 25,05 CDyE TO 6E D ST POSTS LANG- 3' MIN. '48' TYPICAL 8:1 SLOPE • OR FLATTER 436_TYPI 30 J36'TYP . (.2 M-7 of5A Nn,EZ SEE SNT. C4A FOR STORM UHE PROFILE , MAILS , SPECS_ MAICH ASPHALT 10 50D 6:1 SLOPE 02 FLATTER • HANDICAP RAMP • • x, cp. 2•b.0e \. h+ /;,:;743(=) \ oN , =r= :50(w) • li . I .'15.00' °(2 20115 NOTES I. ALL BUILDING TO HAVE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS = 28.0. 2. ' DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE .TIGHTLINED WITH 4" PVC (ASTM 2729)TO NEAREST 'YARD DRAIN, UN-ESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. EXISTING. ELEVATION OF SITE VARIES BETWEEN 26.0 AND 26:5 EXCEPT FOR ..'DIKE- ALONG RIVER. SEE SPOT ELEVATIONS. 4.: NO FOOTING DRAINS ARE REQUIRED. 5. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN CURB /CUT /ACCESS PERMIT ($25.00) 24 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING :CONSTRUCTION. "- 6 CONTRACTOR. TO PROVIDE AS BUILTS PER NOTE SHEET C -& FSIeLF RETAINING WALL 17 ftrruel SIDEWALK DT OTI-it �1t III °.o-UNE (60') ,II C" -1 1 MOTE: FOR SECTIONS A -A , B -D, CL, 0-13; 1.11 SEE DETNLS:K3,IS,W�1S ; sFI5ET CI rok -r RE LANE ISARRICADE .5EE LANDSCAPE PLANS. SEE SHEET 1/5 ' :25:2 ti e IZ114 = 24.66\ ♦ 1 I■NV =21.67 . \C._ EXIST UOrIr`T � .fiF. ;1,. °_ STAfiI2AP.0 � -�. - - - - 112 - . Cx B. 5° ``WEP. V.12 N ,, 3.86 8.76 eY. S510K' PH. EWATE,2- MA!N_-� ( "TA 4T +08 b0 5TRANDPJF BLVD. _ .TA I(AS +5197 WEST VALLEY HWY.' WEST VALLEY EX- °OAS rl•TION) CFIEID RIFT L r iund JohnsonB HIGHVI AY Iii ----. � _III �pRE55FA 14e 11. I 1 ': cpe()1h TM15 AREA , 1`'11 _ LEGEND LANE wID[NINy (PAvM5), CUKD_ --- . AND (UTTER, SIDEWALK PLANS TO DE PROVIDED 6Y WASHINGTON • STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION design group p.s., inc. EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION OF SLOPE PROPOSED CONTOUR, YARD. DRAIN & 6" PVC LINE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN 122lNSPOUT Wee%TIGHTUNE PLANTER SCALE I " =30' CGT 2 n 19M '1 CITY Vr EPT. P 1ArIWNG U •arc)litec"ture.. engineering & planning consLiltants BID SET ONLY 1 • ( • .THESE DRAWINGS ARE SUBS :T TO REVISIONS. . -, PENDING LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL REVIEW 20' mE LAND �z84 (Tr!?) 28.0(TY t'�or'��TY DIME . 2-8 5 0. 12 • �__= ___===== .Do CITY or \ ntAT?LF, 2 ON LAKE III1 -UHF 2-6--` boD c Ov>=1< b4 _IGHT of WAY 2 4 121- 1TT{ZINCa ~ n NOrT OTL 15,5HTC / G LIT - e. (-) PIT SUN 2 2- -' �TAIHIHG WAIL. SEEARGHITEGTUIZAL PLANS . - 20 N lroK U± I AILS 5HT A —I5 I 201 , N 18 . fXISTINc C,I ADE 18 MIiz.Afl FILTL.1Z • AI TO DAYLIGHT i T P5Ai V FILI IA GLEANt97 14: - SECTION B—B _ -._ .. .. 14 WASHED ' SCALE: HORIZ. V= 10' _ _- - _ . . V E R T . r= = 4' (TYP.) FIRE LANE SECTION WITH RETAINING WALL 13 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 2 4 1984 BUILDING DEPT. JohnsonBraund design group p.s., inc. architecture, engineering & planning consultants October 26, 1984 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 P -q TL-Pg OC T 2 6 1984 PLANNING DInPT. Re: Brock Residence Inn Our Project #83 -51 Update to Environmental Checklist Per our discussion, I request that the environmental checklist be revised to reflect two proposed construction items that were unforeseen at the time of submission of the original environmental checklist. Section II. Environmental Impacts, 1. Earth (c) Change in Topography There will still be some slight variations in the topography as indicated in the original checklist for building and parking lot construction. Not previously indicated is a retaining wall proposed along the north property line. The existing elevation of this line is approximately 18. A retaining wall will be constructed on the Brock site to enable a road to be placed at approximately elevation 27.0. Approximately 420 cubic yards of fill will be required behind this wall to bring the road to the required grade. A cross section is attached for reference. Also required will be some filling to widen the existing dike maintenance road from approximately 15 feet to 20 feet. This dike maintenance road will also serve as a fire lane providing access to the west side of the development. Fill required for this widening will be approximately 300 cubic yards. Section II. Environmental Impacts, 16. Utilities (e) Storm Water Drainage The present proposal for releasing storm water requires a new outfall to the Green River. The past proposal called for a connection to an existing storm sewer line on the south side of Strander Blvd. west of the bridge. It was discovered that this line is not capable of handling the required flows due to inadequate size of the existing storm pipe. A drawing has been prepared depicting both plan and profile for this new proposed outfall to the river. It will involve clearing brush and trees from the existing bank for approximately a 60 -foot wide path. A trench must then be excavated for the new line. A concrete headwall will then be placed at the point of discharge. The storm sewer line will then be placed in the trench at the specified elevation. Backfilling of the trench will then take place. The trench will be backfilled in small lifts and compacted to 95% of its maximum density. A soils technician must be on -site to ensure this backfilling is accomplished properly. Upon completion of the backfill operation, the bank must be rip- rapped with heavy stone to prevent erosion or scour of the recompacted soil and bank. A State Flood Control Zone Permit will be required in addition to approval by the City of Tukwila for this construction. Architecture, Engineering & Planning Consultants Lawrence S. Braund, P.E. Thomas A. Johnson, AIA Greg L. Aliwine, ARCH, 304 Main Avenue South, Suite 200 Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 271 -7200 (206) 623 -5732 Rick Beeler Brock Residence Inn -2- October 26, 1984 Hopefully, this update to the checklist will enable you to continue processing our application for Building Permit. As I understand it, you will now submit this updated information to the Department of Ecology for their review. Also an amended Substantial Development Permit (Shorelines) must be processed by both the City and the Department of Ecology prior to issuance of any building permits. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, J�h NS,;�;C• AUND DESIGN GROUP, P.S., INC. A. iiener, P.E. GAD:sm cc: L. Culver Enclosures PlZ313ff_ _ S _ 6er eCOL LiQe5 N)eu) es-Te c_40\J su c--PsK) 00 tix_e_kaDovi&---: 1i7 9 z5 ppsy_wgr (kid_r_w_ C 144Q 1.bKA fXM 1T (SSLY2D . _ _res mitrotEgms-L) --k:■ectotatia. 451 -6d2.80 motn. iawo (thiS1 aot-- LL 2 , VsZIN -4 .4.1....0141•1111101! r V 4 tqith: • To IGZ SP 38d JIrLeOgga From Subject F.0 tU`.°k -8"-- . 2M1184 Date tMfO ' ,k MNS • c 1 Gtli s®ndl.ortes GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART G983 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. WAC 197 -11 -1350 DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal 144 unit motel with recreation facilities Proponent Inn Ventures, Inc. Location of proposal northwest corner Strander Blvd & West Valley Highway Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 231 -84 This proposal has been determined not to have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.210.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. Responsible official Brad Collins Position /title Planning Director Address and phone 6200 Southcenter Blvd 433 -1846 Date Mav 24, 1984 Signature Rick Beeler - Acting for the Responsible Official SUBJECT MESSAGE s `ta Pbs o i oti a&..) '' +S 1/ W tat '► li SIGNED a SIGNED MECgi404,S 472 POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472 n cu c- crib erlr.r rnu. ,n MAY 1 7 1984 a I e vi i i l i <�.•I? PLANNING DEPT. NDEPENDENT ATER SYSTEM In su v.. , l'qouv 8t� 2, cor•s, GCS 570✓ O. CITY OF SEATTI PSI •1•11b.11111M MIN. MINIM ______ 9 0 2 /ON, i/i/d/,61 Speed Letter® 4 4 - Gra Line," ti was 1 /17 i v4-17111_ „ To Speed Letter® From Subject tL ce_ t\N ?TT -99 99 10FOLD MESSAGE 7-71 C_014\) ALAIN c\A Sj 11 44-t_ • ts c-J3N)F-tnt\T- TtANT- LT-r\ ft1N-t:)S ? rnAcyk, iza'&cv u_ 3 0 mcrcrs‘, -A7) \A_Ialc. 1\1 blz H-ILC y 4S T&Q)9tsk1 -) 'D'aJvu3WUNZ • • Ills oT YvI P \\s„,mc_dm>\--K kw'M 6-\)46k REPLY 17 SUPtC\ (XC, rat t-) Lb U9 ci-k\on rp.. 1-\/1 Q-cr \-t -1)-io • c.o-N\P -No 9 FOLD - No 10 ;OLD Date Signed WilsonJones GRAYLINE FORM 44-902 3-PART 41963 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. RECIPIENT—RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY 583 ............ ••• • •••• • • ....... • .. • • • • •• .. • . •• ............................. ••• ............. -•---•• ...... •-- ..... ••■••• ........................................................................................... ..................... . ....... . . .... ... . .................... . . . ... ..... :11.1 . '1 11. 11. ....... 1. . . ... .1 . . . . . . . . • • • • : . . . . :.• . • •::: . • • • .................................. ... .• •• . .............. • ... •• . .. .. . . 7,1 717 • .................................................................................. • ........... ............................. ..• • • •• • ••• .• ••• ...... ...••■•••••■••••••,••••••• ••••• •. •.•. • .....•• . ............... .. ■••• ... • .. ......... .• • ..... • :••••••••• . . ............................................... .............. .... • ..... ••• .• ....... ••• . •■• ... ................ • - • ■•• • .... ... . ••• •• . • • .. • .• • .... • . . .. • • .. •••• •. ••,• ............................ • • " • •• • • • •• •• • .. • • ... •• • ••• ... • ... •• ......... • • •• • • ••• • • •• • • • • . • • • •.• • ...... ••• . .• ••• • .. • • • . • •• • • •• • ..... • •••• •••• ............... ..... ... • • .... • ••• • .•: • . •• . • • :• •• ••• . . . . • • • • • • • ..... • .... • ••• .............. . • . . . . : : : .. . . : .. --.-:1•.7 ... . : . . . -.•:- ...... •-. ..... .• .. .. . .•.: : JohnsonBraund :design group g p p. s., inc. architecture, engineering & planning consultants May 17, 1984 Rick Beeler Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 1 71984.E ii Re: Brock Residence Inn: EPIC- 213 -84 Our Project #83 -51 Rick Beeler: The following information is provided in response to your May 10 letter addressed to Larry Culver, with regard to the above referenced project: 1. Traffic data and explanation of impacts of the proposal on access to and from the site as well as on the intersection of Strander Blvd. and the West Valley Highway is provided by the traffic analysis and graphics attached hereto. This traffic analysis was prepared by Centrac Associates. Mr. Terry Gibson can be contacted at 542- 9474 if there are additional questions with regard to traffic. 2. Relative to King County Hydraulics Division requirements for dike maintenance along the river and the impacts upon the proposed site plan, we have contacted Mr. Jerry Creek (255- 2531), King County Public Works Department (Renton office). According to Mr. Creek, dike maintenance requirements are as follows: a. An area 20 feet wide, measured landward from the top, outside edge of the existing dike, shall be maintained as an access easement for heavy equipment and mowers. b. A planting plan (or proposed landscaping plan) of the 20 feet described above, must be approved by King County Public Works. c. There shall be no excavation or disturbance to the existing dike. In order to comply with the above requirements, the pool, spa and deck area shown on Drawing SM -1 may require revisions to allow the 20 -foot wide clear area between the edge of the pool deck and top of bank. In addition, the viewing platforms indicated on SM -1 will not be allowed by the County. Also, it appears that the location of Building B and the sport court will require minor revisions. Compliance with these requirements will not significantly alter the proposed site plan design. 3. With regard to water availability for the proposed project, according to Mr. Alan Meyers with Horton, Dennis & Associates, water is available to the site in sufficient Architecture, Engineering & Planning Consultants Lawrence S. Braund, P.E. Thomas A Johnson, AIA Greg L. Allwine, ARCH. 304 Main Avenue South, Suite 200 Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 271 -7200 (206) 623 -5732 • Rick Beeler Brock Residence Inn -2- May 17, 1984 quantities to provide adequate fire flow and domestic pressure. Improvements to the water system for this site development will include: a. Waterline connection between the 60 -inch City of Seattle main and the 10 -inch main in the West Valley Highway. Location of the tie is as shown on the attached water schematic as Point "A ". b. Construction of a 12 -inch main either along the street frontage on West Valley and Strander or a 12 -inch main through the site on the main drive as depicted on the preliminary site plan. This proposal is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the availability of water pressure or fire flows to the higher ground properties in the city. 4. With regard to storm drainage, the final plans and specifications for this project will adhere to the following storm drainage parameters: a. The development will provide grading and drainage provisions such that elevations of the parking and buildings will be above the 100 -year floodplain. As indicated on the proposed site plan, the highest elevation of the 100 -year floodplain is elevation 25.00. All parking areas will be set to a minimum elevation of 26.0 and all buildings will be set to a minimum of 28.0. b. All King County requirements will be met with regard to dike maintenance and access. c. The storm drainage discharge from the project will connect to a public manhole on the south side of Strander Blvd. as indicated on the proposed site plan. In the event that this connection is not approved by King County, an alternate route will be provided for discharge into the Green River. This may include additional permits and further review processing. I trust that this information will be adequate for the City of Tukwila review and will assist you in your analysis precedent to the environmental threshold determination. If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, JOH ON B ESIGN GROUP, P.S., INC. ho as A. Joh r, son, AIA TAJ:sm cc: L. Culver Attachments • "lam(. 414419s INTRODUCTION This report summarizes our traffic analysis of the proposed Tukwila Retail Development and is intended as a technical supplement to the site development plans and SEPA checklist. The purpose of this analysis and documentation is to identify the traffic impacts and access /ROW requirements of the proposed development, as well as appropriate physical improvements (or policies) to mitigate the effects of these impacts on the existing transportation system. The proposed development site is located just north of Strander Blvd. between the West Valley Road (SR -181) and the Green River. The site development layout consists of: approximately 23,000 square feet (gross floor area) for specialty retail shops; 144 resident -motel units (Brocks' Residence Inn, with each 2 -story 8 -plex building containing 4,000 square feet) and manager's residence /clubhouse; and, either a fast -food restaurant with a drive -up lane or a branch bank with drive -up lanes (approximately 3,000 square feet for either scenario). Access to the site would be provided via single driveways onto W. Valley Road and Strander Blvd. The proposed retail /residence motel complex is scheduled for construction in the fall of 1984, with occupancy by early 1985. The site location is currently undeveloped although the existing zoning is C -2, regional retail, with the land use designated as commercial. Approximately 110 parking spaces would be provided on -site for the retail shops and fast -food restaurant (or bank) on the east portion of the site. Parking spaces would also be provided for Brock's Residence Inn and clubhouse between the retail and residence -motel complexes. The site location and vicinity are shown in Figure 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing street /highway system in the vicinity of the Tukwila Retail Development is shown in Figure 2. Access to the site would be provided primarily by the West Valley Road (SR -181) via I -405 and a full interchange 1/2 -mile to the north, with secondary access via Strander Blvd. connecting the site with the greater Southcenter commercial - industrial district. I -405 is a 4 -lane limited access freeway and provides access to Renton and the Eastside and connects with I -5, I -90 and SR -520 freeways. West Valley Road provides access to the Green River Valley and is a 5 -lane roadway (2 lanes southbound and northbound plus a center two -way left -turn lane) from the I -405 interchange to south of Strander. Strander and Southcenter Blvds. are the primary east - west arterials connecting West.Valley /Interurban to the City of Tukwila, Southcenter regional shopping center and Andover Business Park. Strander Blvd. is a 4 -lane arterial, but widens Ili r i:"1AY 1 7 1984 PI - A.Nikifnm - fFPT -- McOlna Port Blakey Seattle- . 7I W, 5,.7. .5a.8 Ethan Boy • Bell vu • t• ..9...070. • .ILou..a •It l NA. 7 .sots••.• Mercer Island 2 " YrLon 12. 16u • Colby Hobo, South Colby Harper / 9 Southworth Sw 5MLS79L Qi 3• +F Bryn Mara Huth 1. Pines St u•rrr ». I 9R -Rent Maplem 87 . Bo.. L. 1a915 ST Sw 4350 58. Orillia PROJECT 182980 7 5t 192980 Pon,ne, Lair Inor.n•roy 6..01 Des Moines a Beach Robinson H. S•nwa,e, S,a,e Pa.. •ouerty Hay Woodmont Beach Redondo 67. Thomas Buenna elaide I. x > • Gig Harbor Pt &Amoco 5 99878 57 Lob. Douon 800. Grown . R.w. 5, m. 97.0 S1 51 3771. 5r 3701. lr 9610 5 NW Fort NMOVety Browns Pt. "7:t"` c e•/.. n.e, Commence/runt Boy 5. 34815 Algona ATM ST. 15T AV M. 3 Trout Labe 40•55351l A Milton 11 Figure 1 VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP •EIO S3Fi0VDNOI 13,700 15,400 A N CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND 15,400 Estimated Daily Traffic Volume (2-Way AWDT -1984) Traffic Signals Stop Signs Figure 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS • • to 5 lanes to accommodate left -turn movements at intersections with north -south arterials such as Andover Park E and SR -181. Traffic control in the vicinity of the project is.provided by traffic signals at major intersections, including Strander /SR- 181, Strander /Andover Park E and SR -181 /I -405 NB ramps nearest to the site. Stop sign control is utilized at all other nearby intersections, with the exception being the SR- 181 /S. 158th St. intersection. Since 158th Street is the main entrance to Longacres Race Track, the Washington State Patrol assigns officers to control traffic between I -405 and 158th during the racing season (April to October) from 2:00 - 3:00 PM Wednesday through Friday and from 11:00 AM to Noon on Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Speed limits in the immediate area are posted as 40 mph for SR -181 and 30 mph for Strander. The existing geometric configuration of SR -181 and Strander Blvd. in the vicinity of the proposed site development are shown in Figure 3. South of Strander, SR -181 is a 4 -lane section with a left -turn pocket at the intersection approach.. Between Strander and 158th, SR -181 has four lanes plus a two -way left -turn lane except where left -turn acceleration lanes* are provided at the Strander and 158th intersections. Strander Blvd. widens from four to five lanes east of the Green River bridge to accommodate a two -way left -turn lane. At the SR -181 intersection, single left and right -turn lanes are separated from two westbound lanes by a raised traffic island. This intersection is controlled by a fully- actuated, 3 -phase traffic signal. Current average weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) on roadways in the vicinity of the proposed development are shown on Figure 2. Estimated daily volumes vary from nearly 50,000 on I -405 to 1,100 on S. 158th (6,000 during racing season) and are derived from 1981 counts by Washington State Department of Transportation, City of Tukwila records and recent intersection turning movement counts by Centrac (see Appendix). Existing AWDT volumes on SR- 181 directly adjacent to the site are approximately 26,000 vehicles per day, with 15,400 on Strander Blvd. just west of SR- 181. Based on recent turning movement counts at the SR- 181 /Strander intersection, the most critical peak -hour of traffic occurs during the PM commute peak between 3:45 and 4:45 PM. The AM peak hour (7:15 - 8:15 AM) and the noon peak hour (11:30 AM - 12:30 PM) represent about 80% and 85% of PM peak -hour conditions at this intersection adjacent to the project site. During the PM peak - hour, which represents about 12 percent of average weekday traffic volumes, the dominant traffic flows are eastbound on - Strander and northbound on SR -181 toward I -405 (with 60 %/40% *The "refuge lane" was required to permit safe left -turn movement from Strander to SR -181 northbound prior to full signalization in 1981 by WSDOT. it TIT SCALE 1' = 80' DRIVEWAY 1 -1 / ANDrS TUKWILA DINER DRIVEWAY • 2 0 0 CC w J J I w STEAK AND ALE RESTAURANT CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Figure 3 EXISTING GEOMETRICS AND RIGHT -OF -WAY 1 directional split in hourly traffic volumes). The highest levels of congestion and longest delays to motorists will generally occur during the PM peak period. A measure of the relative congestion levels can be made by comparing the level -of- service (LOS) at intersections. Level -of- service relates traffic volume demand to capacity and can range from LOS "A" (free -flow conditions) to LOS "F" (forced -flow or jammed conditions), with LOS "E" being capacity conditions. LOS "D" (tolerable delays at intersections) is generally considered adequate for urban intersections. The estimated PM peak -hour LOS for 1984 at the four most critical intersections, using "Transportation Research Board's Circular 212 ", are summarized in Table 1 below. All of the intersections currently . operate at an acceptable LOS, although the SR- 181/Strander intersection is near capacity conditions (LOS D /E). Intersection TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS (1984) PM Peak Hour Level of Service Comments SR -181 @ Strander Blvd. D/ E (C) SR -181 @ S. 158th St. A (D /E) Signalized (LOS improves to "Cu if dual LT lanes provided on Strander approach). Stop sign control on 158th (LOS at or near capacity during Longacres racing season) . SR -181 @ I -405 NB Ramps C Signalized. Strander @ Andover Park E. C Signalized. During 1980 and 1981, accidents were not a serious problem at any of the four intersections. The highest accident location is the SR- 181 /Strander intersection, which has experienced 4 accidents per year for the 1980 -81 period. This intersection was signalized during 1981 and had experienced 6 -9 accidents per year (1977 -79) prior to signalization. All other intersections in the vicinity have experienced less than 4 accidents during either calendar year. Metro Transit provides peak -hour transit service along SR -181, including Route 154 (Seattle- Auburn) and Routes 158/159 (Seattle -Kent East Hill). These routes connect to Seattle via • • Interurban Avenue (north of I -405) and I -5. There are several other routes which provide express and local service into the Southcenter area via Southcenter Blvd. and Tukwila Pkwy., which are beyond a reasonable walking distance for patrons or residents of the proposed development. 1 Mira EVANS —BLACK DR. r 0 Z O m CD 0 BAKER BLVD. 1835 51% 151 1585 48% 189 755 21% 82 825 25% 99 850 790 18% 155 24% 98 1010 28% 85 890 27% 108 900 25% 78 1090 33% 130 LEGEND /% OF TOTAL TRAFFIC AWDT i P.M. PEAK SCENARIO A SCENARIO B 900 25% 78 1090 33% 130 TRAFFIC IM • A N PACT STUDY Figure 4 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION 0' SOUTHCENTE 28,500 30.300 30,100 3690 EVANS -BLACK DR. 0 S38OV0NOI BAKER BLVD. 26,700 28,500 8.300 26,700 27,400 27,500 3470 15,700 16,500 16,500 15,700 16,600 24,800 2970 25.800 3055 25,700 3075 16.800 CENTRAC Associates TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY LEGEND AWDT P.M. PEAK 15,700 1810 16,600 1885 16,800 1940 W/O PROJECT W/ SCENARIO A W/ SCENARIO B Figure. 5 PROJECTED 1985 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED PROJECT • • TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE CONDITIONS (1985) W /PROJECT PM Peak Hour Level -of- Service (V /C Ratio) W /Existing Geometrics W /proposed St. Inpvts. Intersection (See Note) SR -181 @ Strander E (0.94) B (0.63) Blvd. SR -181 @ North B (0.64) Driveway Strander Blvd. @ Sowtft A (0.33) Driveway SR -181 @ S. 158th St. C* SR -181 @ I -405 NB C* Ramps Strander @ Andover C (0.72) Park E. B (0.64) A (0.33) C* C* C (0.72) * LOS estimates based on prior traffic studies (Tukwila Hotel, EIS and Tukwila Bend Traffic Impact Study). NOTE: Proposed Street /Driveway Improvements(Assumed) 1. Add Southbound Right -Turn Lane from North Driveway to Strander 2. Provide Dual Left -Turn Lanes on Strander Approach to SR -181 3. South Driveway on Strander would align with Steak & Ale Driveway and include one Exit lane & one Entry lane. 4. North Driveway on SR -181 would be located 80' north of Andy's South Driveway and include two Exit lanes and one Entry lane. Engineers • Architects • Planners PROJECT TVK'« Rifi"J 1L PEVVt1Pri I SUBJECT EXISTING eA1,./ 4 G£011�TTUC� + Pp.o P 05.1) 5712 t- /PICGeSl .71 PAVE+"t • SHEET' OF BY TLC— DATE 3-27 CHECKED' DATE JOB NO Vv"! :' it) anus iwt e-17 2 -3 LT i s drives-h../ +i S 7fl r lz 1 Brdck`r 1p% gV G. (15,2 5.91 r ACCe4S -it for f3y04 8r Re,S. Tk;s Drv,...,1 wo,JL ►..i- c.�low Le f4- ,...4 1 . er 0k� `" s Drvc4.41 Ls- Ofc 150. g (Apr r'X ) ANDY'S TUK 'IIA DINft- ZS1 Ah.../ RAC./ - ( 541 .-(81) I _sue P S: W (L: 5 -off - W� 1 2.-3' Cse.,, 2.5') b-ek & N w +0 P +•.i-f Lc.c{- Tuveki w.,1. � +� y►.r W rte °SP's =�. EY'5T. Rom/ (M IR) 3.) 501 4 4 5 `R / STRftt'J P STEA k iJ�frJT .5 CAV V. 1": 80' �t'rwal V� TS I t.,Q 4c.c.•,.1 od. 2''a C�J e A 1,1 esaute PROJECT SUBJECT r444o.e1"4 e,Q Engineers • Architects • Planners Fitt I 1- of .BY' % DATE CHECKED: DATE JOB NO r11`1"-- 3 —IS -9- 0 25j a _ 114 0 14- c�--- '14� X435 � 1 17 . �y 45 4-U 6x1s11 ►/5c0,42..+o f4 440 q Sva...,,ro t3 0 2¢ 5.1 1 /060 I0 /30 1080 -u -5 0 91 0 21 73 7a 3b 655- G e o o 51RAND 8wU 4-z5 44.5" 440 Se-fp/1/4 0 ©' — 1), 7- 1020 f,GV = z +- (2-1-4-2-3) = 581 `r 1 Ey. + e �° lc 5 goo = 0.31- O 2- El-IA-L:4 -v %in- = "%8o° = 6.31 SGT AfL a B ECv= '''l % +C314 -k)= 511-7L Y /1 -(,u� Vic .7- S-517/20o = 0.33 2- E, 4— ✓/c =5-1A0o 0.31- 10 10 4j/ 910' 93$ 9 -o 23S- 2:70 290 f 2060 i 2.065- 1 2065 i j 1o( 14 5 SF.6n/ 1.Z4 0 ®- No D► .= E-C / : _ 4- (62.4 -14) f 19 vet, E A ; 4- Lc. c. v / c . = I f I q /18 Oo = 0.6 2 2 6'4-1+�.- ✓�L 1 o g s /Boo 0. G I' S ( m i0 B ` D"A/ _ ZCV = _ - C -14 -.-3 -) = t 1 1-51- 0 l 6x; 4- VA- _ i t 44-/S00 - D , 61- Z Ex14- Le/ = SCA/A 21 o -Ea) = 93r +5z-o ----a- — 1-270 k (040 /4.$2 'TL ✓ t� s -(5142 _ .13�i w�s8�rL. -d /�_. 0.7 C 64 _ c IbSg� C66o� 3:=1; - �, / 1 tOO c ' /fj�li. A -b�f = 4-27o4. I8�u = OLI j3 C E),rs-4 . 1c = O. F9 pU) 5 1(210 13 - St-181 Sci-o +SS5 Eck/ = . 4-2.,5 o4- 660= Ilii8vPL Es j -b ✓h = IcsB /boo = G. `j 4- 0 " /56 04- L�. lc_ = CcSY / -� ssi) -1800 = 0..7 y ''%E -6 D t�T-• '/C - C(.5$ -1Co 4- 3LS)=I2 o 0._78 I 6A -1- - 7v/'c= '21-4: 4- 290 +3C1 —= _ 0 -C3 ti/c = o. 85 2_06 2-1 CODAPILED DATE BY J---CIZAVES 3//9/84- CHECKED -DATE 8Y ciDsced _yzokci_ iocRT. - &tTy Qe TYg_411-4 _ P R o e-c-r :TUE k/14 DE VELO an J 3 -1 cobraz i1d41ciale4, 1,ce, • INTEIRSEcTIoN W- VALLEY RD. (5a.—i's) 5772,m4Deit Loc. No 1 v 114 Di cATE NORTH WITH RRRoW -- 1 -JI I • Engineers • Architects • Planners -riZAJCKS . -- —1 r- C 4-0 1 1319 SHEET ______ of FOR M -cm - 4 TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM .317 PM PEAK to/0 PRojEc TIE PERIOD 3: 4-:4-5- PM AY DATE. THUS.) V2-/84- 371W 5‘) C31 tcri 1 14-06 ?ED. L: r 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 L - J 4X 11_,uce-4- ) cu 805e-s) TIMEPERIOD PM PEA-I; w/PR.0,3-Eu- ZAY DATE STVAIJD6R_ <1 1 2..077 1 (4-91 .J Fo Ssc--egAtzio . ( WO R S T- CASE) ComPILED DATE 13? G ITV ES 3L1il8 CHECKED -DATE By T. GA/550J 3/ioh 4- LOC/RTION • • PR of ec-r •'Jot3 No, • . -1 INT>=RSEcT1oN W. VALLEY KC.. (512-181)- @ STR.ANDI2 BLVD. Loc. No. 1 V iWDICATE NORTH WITH ARROW os, it _GITy_OF TUKWI� -r4 - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _T_UKU/IC -A- DEVFLOPMEIVr 8414 e4KLLQe 11'x. %ce. Engineers • Architects • Planners OUSES 0,0UcS ct I. 726 1303 -1 SHEET FORM TM -4 TURNING • .MOVEMENT DIAGRAM NEWl1L 9/7; 4M PEAK TIME PERIOD -MS-- 8.= /s Awl DAY DATE. MOlJ.) 1/20/84- 79 N F 594- 1194 PED. L 1279 --P- 915 2% Thu cK-S NoorJ PERK TtmE PERIOD 11 :3D'4M- n. :30Pm FR1., 3/6/84- DAY DATE COMPILED DATE BY trcvbS 918¢ CHECK D -DATE 13'' L osod _ �2of 844- • L.ocRTjoN G1 TY_0F TVJ�WILA PR TUKWIL.A iE✓ELVPMEIJT . 305 N 0. 89-14-- INTERSECTION STR.A-rJ DE,2 8LV D. @ /}ND&VER. PARK a Loc . No. 2- INDICATE NORTH W%Tt{ ARROW _ utoeiate4. %.ce. - .Engineers • Architects • Planners . - -i.PED. 1 SHEET oF� FORM TURNING MOVEMENT -DIAGRAM N L-421L PM PEAK w4 PkOJB TIME PERIOD 3 4 5 - — 4 - 5ll DAY 4 DATE Fe.1.J 3//6fR1- 517240 Df 2 r-, r ao ; . � t PED. i J 449 3114871 rn 03 TIME PERIOD PM Pf- AK w /P, 3 DAY 4 DATE Fog. 5-CE9A-1210 CWorQST GASe) .57741-0Dek t11I �I V 1 538 1 104-0 N O 1 , 1 r 1 L� 2139) 11011 COMPILED ' DATE BY .-3//9/84_ CHECKE=D DATE BY T 01 Q5o4J - shoh _ LocATtoN _ CI TYLO F_m Kw c.A • PRoJC-G -r _ TULWJat_ DEL/ ELI) PII -Joe, No.. _ _8414= -- __ r co-buzz 144445414te41. Tote. Engineers • Architects • Planners I NTERSEcT ION W. VAu,EY R.D. (5(-IBI)- r — - - - - -- PRoPo•t D2JVEwAY Loc. No 3 INDICATE NOR1I-I WITH ARROW J NTERSECTIoN SrrAn1 DEk 13L11 D. PRI)PosE'P p,JVEWAY Loc. 140. 2075 N 0 1 14-921 SHEET 4- of ± FORM m-4 TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM NEVZ,L ,/7 -TIME PERIOD DAY DF+TE, NEW DRIVEWAY 37 7+ 4. r L. I I I 1 L-J v .r-- cl gcrt I tn 1 1520 PED. 1139 0 0 N PM PEAK tfourz Fo z . 5CENRQIO (woksr GRsE_) TIME PERtoD PM PEAK Ifou DAY >s DATE Fog- SGMA -K-! o (B� (wo 2s T CASE) NEW D21VEwAY 31 21 b. rL l 1 1 I t I I L_J SHEET: I -• OF eaLz44 /1a4oc %•cc. BY: 71-4- DATE 317/91- Engineers • Architects • Planners CHECKED' DATE PROJECT TUKW1(. Df /t4 Ph fiJ I JOB NO $<I-1g.-- SUBJECT 7724 JER 1 Fo RacA--fTJ' •o ?POMP P SQv , r F107A- = 155 2-0 1) Pr2 1- 7 7SQ FT 1 U3 o ?YLc P J P-Aie4 : ?E A- (S c--/) 0/J F)¢-) CPS to oo AN C-- . W K- Pte( +0,7 t✓F- E,t -F-�JD CsAi) T(ZIP = ¢�.a �►:�wo�r �� Amt L -14 vR- .t✓ = (2- rrE _ /. 5 �' Ph P N0vt� -- „ — P = 2.2S" pK, OF G �.#i�clL v DAtui 7 1 PS D= 4-0.7 ->c 23 - 936 Th-rpl o ti P I r21 Pr fir✓ A' ,7 = 2 x 1.9 ? k 23 %i1 o Ph PE4it q2.4 Pf = 2 c 2,ti3 )c 1,3 P,`71 ' ` K A 5 . 5 - 1 1 K , £ r Wo i2- rr G f r 5 t Coo D 1 n oN1- -6 Dona ('F-D ,W{ iitri— V 'N Grj Pk, ice, 7i pi' _+ OSf) PEW- o F U57 U- C-7R t"' W1 C44 1 s Nn2r► A 1.0.1 M'I 64 A_ 'J ' *- 14 S'ii2-6 E Pict/ 0 FM P ° p - ! , ,i Cot W,Jckt DEta -#141c TV PJ V-1sIT-»w,J r) • PP-DP 1).m 59U Fa 3� 000 F j (21 go o • Th P GfT% two r,) , x -+ 5cT o►J 733 (pm_ room . F) (.31tA-10-tj 32,) A J w c-r)A41 6-5-3 (I6' -) Pn P1L A 1 = 17. o (9.9) Ph PF- /?'jC• �� :��jkNfV = N-. G (4. o) Si1R�- (!�-0iL -� 7-.00-coo pry . Now . f f c- / i, t- _ 1-44-00. l) EteieFolt- 6'K .�, Z- o� - 1: oc et, tua . fi x-- pE rp exur/4 = 11.1 C5•5) r-vAr. •.. 13„0 Gi Fin rt✓ ' is --4 C: op — 7 ! 0 P"t SHEET: Z OF C l e q� Atdoeiat�! %cc. • • BY �— DATE 3 /.le,¢ Engineers • Architects • Planners CHECKED' - DATE PROJECT JOB NO 84-i 17--- SUBJECT S P. o - Dktc 1f III P S = S )c '(2.31:7-7-------- _o I t 5S T PJ /11✓D7- PK„ - - - - (q. 9) .:: J 6 . Ph h eTkp a vFiZ p --b 7-W = 17. 0 x 3, = (7 T1 I f �: Ph Z) Ova = I4() >c 3,a = ¢4- T-�PI� Qpi our ((o. 4) . ° NON) PA i✓t PI Gnstr F7 rl'I 7-o,/ — 4¢. 9—x 3. G - OUT = 4- 1.5>c3,3 — 12 T .1VaU,J 0 v O riA)c. Pfrigf(--- TRIP 1 r-f44�..f 's) --fr T✓ - I3- )Zrr = 3 C ,;Dc.':-.1. :Do 000-7tui a. DP.t 1/- 1 " Wit- t t wF -- 5, 00o G-,5.5 ) (1 PI Pc d y F£d' r 3 DRi ✓E T�/ t- wS.c- -is; ham._ C,,- -;s.vJ -'- (3e u o -3, 5.3 v .-..t lz k,.I 7) 1 o PgirPot'0 - u- Fa °h 5, 000 F-,.1' C 3 DP✓r-qxJ J). o Tei P G J,J , . PL y; F 6 o,-) 9,9 ; (('f -( too() trsF.) Abv,✓ TA) NG\ t,,rf-fip Pry i DEPI1(2-E- _ 12,3 Pri C . S PG c----b 51- 00 - 6 ..0O Ph F1 A)C . PEAK - 140 = 13, 3 pF7Rc---b ou — pr (Cufr►c n Pf-10- 2F-PAP-Of >�NE _ iv. 8 Po at.) /5.3 2 r✓oo,J 12-oo ou Ph (AP ) 1J0'►� PRA -y-- 1112-E = IS. 3 D/I-KAI 7 PI D — t qz x o Th TP1 Pf ., Tr./ = `. c,c SID _ OIJ = (1,3>c P01 • N)64-)1TY, P1' GC-A-P;cf/P T-0 = (S 3 k S n= 00-7— S1 _ o h t)c. Pi'- f-rkt Pf i: n -; / — t? ,3 ,c 5, S: o = 960 pfrkJ Ph OJT- 1,1D1.) �oari/ d J i 3:00 — -:oofr ; T ro- V o3Ni 01 SHEET: OF rf� %cc. BY:-- DATE 3134 Engineers • Architects • Planners CHECKED' - DATE PROJECT JOB NO 'ill cfr- SUBJECT ?'I o C MA- h o ift ll 017f PP-o Pot' f D) • .18 Bw DI 00-S P19-0 -tuft /) w/ 8 uWrTI Burc-Pt4J -70/ occv? (J lmhuit) G2F, n 8 6, occo y X4 60-f. . a 112i p otj (2 P 51 rt r C 5 PAC-X-(5 Co r-t? max r s.l 7 pr p ,,17- o.,91tp 3 ti -1` /4-1 P Floc._ Hp vj - O. T- ti 4 t- *cpt-k rfiA- - DE PWV = 0,7-5" k a c *M'r)c P APiUrP - = 0.5 4 t, *t7f94 PJ 1c- AO/ vet- = 0.' ,, C9 =oo -coo 3:0a-4:0J I v�2 6 ;co -7 =c Ph o D "tL-`l 1 P1' GrpPtF- tfir.� - 8. I x 6,7 x j44'Uwrri _ (81(0) ✓ O. PC 14 4- u ►/ = 10 03 871 (o.20 / 4-- /5?-7 (-112-1P f Gf- fifM' ---6 Tt.% Q4-X 0.1 >c 144 - �4-0) C O OUT= 0.'-r x o. i = 27�) (0,86) - U ti Ac. 1 L ` -1-Pi G ; a k i ) ' i = 0.53)c 0 fl c 14-4- Ot = 0.3x0.'?›.. _l44- $. l 1c e4r4aac fit94e. • SHEET' 52- OF BY' 7 DATE Engineers • Architects • Planners CHECKED' PROJECT "TV ✓1(,fj AEUc,oPM r JOB N0 SUBJECT Ti2.1 P (r-t) F421).1' I Di St rvrt A4"1 3 -t - - DATE g-c1'1 frri TROP G -of- \C) S PECc A,1r1 i-A-1t._ CI ( 2-3,00o 5. F-657- Fv00 I? -Arai oo ss, I. D -'t' -00 131 2'4 C WOG/A- T F (.I (-2_,500 3 .) PRATE cTF.D T Pf PftiEf'21 t DT (s5 Air.) ' P> i A"A1L(SVCC)r) M AK.. 4--A-r-4 BP c - 13hiIL ) (5;a S.Fi q 3 bk.IvE-TIt 4s D.ouc ./ P-E-s 11)51.1 � 04* AM 11 v/ 7o% oGGUP 81C (73s°1t 61 /d otcu1? .;15 4 --b ► o 0 3 C9t 44- 3553 4-10 (170) ZS. 1 -0- 960 ( 50) 33 62 Max Ptc.1Ht- woo- oo- r oo P� SG�,1 �(2I 0 TD ►h t-f 3= oo–Y =oo� — Sc, �A (3, 7"-P1 -f 3,1-11 (A 30) 3,S92 b,S2s) 3, 122(1, 921) 3,505 (2o%) 50 T-tri ovc 62 r 7•�' 1531. l�gX2191131'l: (44 :231 ' 137 E.S'►1 h iEU PD R- ArfPv4515 . U S f tJ t: Sir I i.ore- i7T Sf.tT NF M1G 18tH; h tDD P / (✓Noo,J) --hc Hivt- . 4" ? N, t5Juhc) P-T q-.oa -6 =to Ph, 1341- 1PFP��- �`iy`' @ S2 -.t81 �S iS 3 -�; -r 4- : rth w�►c, N IS C.tJ J£. ?-- Imo- o{�- 1'1 f C. p - (3 : o o -� t': o c Pn) f bit./n 1Tti4r fit RrtSF-S vfn>40 sP,-,£ aJ LKOt> 1 T ' i - - Sc%4. AO 3/ n L. mil l C O- I.' /J of `• 1, - q) S -nt./C- -r(u c- sl-ww fpp- MLA1 `N WEf7 1n (wv) DOAv�wk�! SJ,.c,E % . ) I •1(. iS 15s. 11 4- PGGc*,e0P O .Dtr SrTS.' :/41-.J1t D;- . -Slit . TOW -1Yt -{ 'flt. 'T0 (fs -)►- • 1- rr 51140,0 E c 1 VIA 5174 /t- (S) D21vi /. 71) s 12 -f-F -i W %L4 4 City c0 Tukwila 1908 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Gary L VanDusen, Mayor May 10, 1984 LARRY CULVER Inn Ventures, Inc. 2115 N. 20th Ave. Suite 202 Tacoma, WA 98403 RE: Brock Residence Inn - EPIC - 213 -84 Dear Mr. Culver: Our initial review of the environmental checklist you submitted indica- tes the following additional information is needed: 1. Traffic data and explanation of impacts of the proposal on the access to and from the site as well as on the intersection of Strander Boulevard and West Valley Highway. 2. King County Hydraulics Division requirements for dike maintenance along the river bank and the impacts upon the proposed site plan. 3. Water availability analysis per Public Works Department require- ments (Phil Fraser - 433 - 1850). 4. Storm drainage plan acceptability to the Public Works Department (Phil Fraser - 433 - 1850). As soon as this information is submitted we will complete our analysis and make the threshold determination. If you have any questions call me at 433 -1847. Respectfu� / / -- Rick reeler Associate Planner RB /blk cc: Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer Brad Collins, Planning Director 6-ict84J • teRO ccwt s c 1CL - -0Qs cvkilvieractAL use ?) .. 2, . poL ��. (NAILVN-sts *1 S IB NA L tL / _ 1. o • JohnsonBraund design group p.s., inc. architecture, engineering & planning consultants October 24, 1984 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Brock Residence Inn Our Project #83 -51 Update to Environmental Checklist Per our discussion, I request that the environmental checklist be revised to reflect two proposed construction items that were unforeseen at the time of submission of the original environmental checklist. Section II. Environmental Impacts, 1. Earth (c) Change in Topography There will still be some slight variations in the topography as indicated in the original checklist for building and parking lot construction. Not previously indicated is a retaining wall proposed along the north property line. The existing elevation of this line is approximately 18. A retaining wall will be constructed on the Brock site to enable a road to be placed at approximately elevation 27.0. Approximately 420 cubic yards of fill will be required behind this wall to bring the road to the required grade. A cross section is attached for reference. Also required will be some filling to widen the existing dike maintenance road from approximately 15 feet to 20 feet. This dike maintenance road will also serve as a fire lane providing access to the west side of the development. Fill required for this widening will be approximately 300 cubic yards. Another changed condition regarding earth involves some additional import of earth backfill around the buildings. The buildings in the original configuration were slab -on- grade construction with fill around the buildings to the finished floor elevation of 28.0. The proposed plan provides some berming around the exterior of the building. This additional berming will mean approximately 1,600 cubic yards of import not previously considered. Section II. Environmental Impacts, 16. Utilities (e) Storm Water Drainage The present proposal for releasing storm water requires a new outfall to the Green River. The past proposal called for a connection to an existing storm sewer line on the south side of Strander Blvd. west of the bridge. It was discovered that this line is not capable of handling the required flows due to inadequate size of the existing storm pipe. A drawing has been prepared depicting both plan and profile for this new proposed outfall to the river. It will involve clearing brush and trees from the existing bank for approximately a 60 -foot wide path. A trench must then be excavated for the new line. A concrete headwall will then be placed at the point of discharge. The storm sewer line will then be placed in the trench at the specified elevation. Backfilling of the trench will then take place. The trench will be backfilled in small lifts and compacted to 95% of its maximum density. A soils technician must be on -site to ensure this backfilling is accomplished Architecture, Engineering & Planning Consultants Lawrence S. Braund, P.E. Thomas A. Johnson, AIA Greg L. Allwine, ARCH. 304 Main Avenue South, Suite 200 Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 271 -7200 (206) 623 -5732 Rick Beeler Brock Residence Inn -2- October 24, 1984 properly. Upon completion of the backfill operation, the bank must be rip- rapped with heavy stone to prevent erosion or scour of the recompacted soil and bank. A State Flood Control Zone Permit will be required in addition to approval by the City of Tukwila for this construction. Hopefully, this update to the checklist will enable you to continue processing our application for Building Permit. As I understand it, you will now submit this updated information to the Department of Ecology for their review. Also an amended Substantial Development Permit (Shorelines) must be processed by both the City and the Department of Ecology prior to issuance of any building permits. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, UND DESIGN GROUP, P.S., INC. GAD:sm cc: L. Culver Enclosures • • ADDENDUM DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. FILE NO. EPIC - 231 -84 INN VENTURES, INC. NORTHWEST CORNER OF STRANDER BOULEVARD AND WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY. The attached addenda are hereby incorporated into the declaration pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -625 for the following revisions to the Shoreline Management Substantial - Development Permit #N590 -14 -3561 (City of Tukwila No. 84- 14 -SMP), City of Tukwila building permit or any other required permits pursuant thereto: 1. Expansion of the existing dike along the waterfront perimeter of the site and construction of a 20 foot maintenance and Fire Department access road on top of the dike. 2. Construction of a concrete retaining wall along the north property line. 3. Construction of a storm sewer system oil -water separators and outfall into the Green River at the southwest corner of the property. Brad Collins Responsible Official CITY, OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM 41/ CN EPIC FILE -(32 TO: pig. BLDG 1 PLNG 1 P.W. j FIRE 1 POLICE P & R PROJECT f5MICAL 11 10 LOCATION 1.0a (pAISYa2 j( 12 Z '1 ,V , IUJ.'( FILE NO . DATE TRANSMITTED 24v18+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 611-(81r 81' STAFF COORDINATOR `lAL ^-MR11 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART - MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ')(2-t, DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN EPIC FILE -(3z 231-4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: (i BLDG pyl PLNG P.W. [j FIRE POLICE ( ( P & R PROJECT 15.(2 C. gt- A[91CMCe.: (t L 0 CAT ION \61. (ple_t to 6jl � L £ ,`[ , % ( DATE TRANSMITTED i-j 2101 e9E STAFF COORDINATOR (. - I^1s�N2 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED. REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 61+184- ITEM COMMENT /// AtAlki 1 / r � i��� � ��� �.(�/ � I�� �. /fir A _ - ■1-..c! DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 Control. Number pct.- — CITY OF TUKWILA Et1 RONMENTAL CHECKLI ST FO M r_ iL��51i) { 1 '.PR 2 1884 C'. t ' .. (Jr i�, :.1lLA This questionnaire crust be completed and submitted with the app_�;jcga;.tigncfpr. permit: This questionnaire must be completed by all persons — applying for -- permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official' that the permit is exempt or unless' the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of.S60.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to. cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Inn Ventures, Inc. (Larry Culver) 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2115 North 30th Ave., Suite 202 Tacoma, WA . 98403 (206) 383 -2000 3. Date Checklist Submitted: April 23, 1984 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Rrnck Recidenre inn :6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): The proposed project will Consist of a 144 unit hotel project housed within (16) - 8 -plex buildings on approximately 4.5 acres with support facilities which includes a gatehouse, cabana, swimming pool spas,-and,_ a sport court. And a proposed future commercial development on 2.12 acres. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): The proposed project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of,the West Valley Highway and Strander.Blvd.. The site is relatively flat and is bound on the west by the Greenriver. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: February 1985. 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES X NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YESX NO X (c) Building permit YES X NO (d) Puget Sound It Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit (f) Sign permit (g) Water hook up permit (h) Storm water system permit (i) Curb cut permit. (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) -Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: A short plat. YES NO X YES x NO YES x NO YES X NO . YES X NO YES NO X YES x NO YES X NO tikstt 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Yes, a short plat will follow up to segregate the southeast corner of the property to allow a- future commercial development. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: Yes, a commercial development is planned for the southeast corner of the property by a different owner. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None. II. ENV I RONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) 1, Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any YES MAYBE NO X X X X. • • YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, . deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: (b,.c, e) This proposal will require paved parking surfaces. Construction of these features will result in disruption and.overcovering of soils as well as slight variations in the topography. Erosion potential will increase temporarily as the vegetative covering is removed. However, the resulting disturbance to the topography will be minimal. (f) X 2. Air. Wiil..the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? (b)' The creation of. objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: (a) The increase in local traffic will introduce a minimal amount of additional emissions. The volume of suspended particulates will temporarily increase during construction only. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water • in any water body? . (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? • (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either • through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an_ aquifer by cuts or excavations?. r X X X X X • (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (1) .Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? YES MAYBE NO 1 Explanation: (b) The impervious parking areas and roadway surfaces will reduce absorption.rates and in turn will incrase surface water runoff. 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or . endangered species of flora? X (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X Explanation: (a, c) Construction of this project will eliminate a portion of the existing vegetation. Upon completion, however, new species of flora will be introduced on the site. X 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: (a). Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X Explanation: (a, c, d) This proposal will reduce a small amount of the existing wildlife habitat And may slightly alter migration patterns of rcrtain farina • • YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation:. Introduction of people and vehicular activity will increase overall noise levels. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Explanation: Artificial lighting is proposed for - building entries, landscape and parking areas.. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? • Explanation: The parcel of property is currently vacant and the proponent proposes to construct a 144 unit Hotel complex on a portion of the site. And a small future commercial project is being considered for the remaining parcel of property by a separate owner. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X • Explanation: To the extent that the site itself is a natural resource. 10. Risk of. Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: 11. Population. Explanation: • • YES MAYBE NO Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing,. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) (b) (e) (f) Generation of additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X *X X X X X Explanation: (a, c, d, f) Approximately 1000 ADT's will be generated by the Hotel proposal using a Avenue vehicular trip per "Trip Generation" An Informational. Report Institute of Transportation Engineering. The impact on present transportation systems will be_minimA14, Additionally, the increased potential for traffic hazards will be slight. '14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for'new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? Police protection? X Schools? X Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including X • • (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: (a, b, c, d, f) Police, fire protection, and governmental services will be required for the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants. YES MAYBE t;0 X Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources.of energy? X Explanation: This project will add slightly to the demand upon existing sources of electrical energy. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: 17. Human Health. Explanation: Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X X X X X X 1 • • 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon.this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Signature an itle Date •v..111. 12 1111 TOQTM10N TO tt METYLtti LAST SAME O► 000 *M 01010 100. 10.0. < r Li_Mte.11e ••• 1.0.1 1 70A■1 ■ VICINITY MAP YDA TERM& HIOP1•••a 'LAT u1Ja 3* LEGEND l—'> 110. wet Cl10w �• 1-07.0 CO0TOPl -- 13. LIMIT t/ •••.1 01 S_1 ftC110I IRKS 1- . K34 UfRIfY 34/ 1100.1 * iZ� 00 1001 MINION I3_S IR* 1007 C1CVATON GOM1 CATCH OA3M 5134 011 [ RUSTING (DIN 130 -L04 NV. LISA All TO MATS A FINISHED BLOOM ELEV . E0.0' PLAIT LIST *ce1 I WRUY O IIONOAM *131ST - *CmVA 11[17000 011!1000 *C1- 000101 101000 R *341 0011 OU1 -CUS COCCNLA SC AILIT 001 OtTUL* /AITItPLRA CANOE IMCO CLICIMINYLUM S *0OH1CUM -*7301* 7X11 • 100 3401 FLORIDA oOc.000 *110110* TI1C.WT)OSIN1}MO NMIS'IOCUf1 r01IRw *11* w1AMro*av ROY MORAL oy^� y ?IISSOCr0AXn LLYLAMOO LLru00OCYfESS r LTASI000IA CIYITOSTIO•000 D *0*01O 0000 PONS CONTD. TA f0001 MM I*U0A N1T1101NYLL* utol341R010C11 7310* MIITIOwwA 3T0N IRMLOCR 0 *C1R 870730000 7011 M *011 ACU GRIMM 0*01R DAM 50011 OXr010000U *1[01101 300000000001 00II34us 370.0[m11* X10 DX 000•000 1,1.1• ...ill TAT 34000.01 HOLLY AU* RA4 C10ATOL1* 00034711 LAUREL (MX* C*LR00NIC* 0 *11X1 •A• (VITLL wN01*1 OOSISTCA HEAVENLY 1 *01 0 LMTRL* UTIW* SM *13111 000001 10113 1101 010- *OIST.LIILIAIM' L *011 101011 Rt100001N01 -ON 1000(3 UI1C *001(3 *3011 ■10pO 11C*OH SAICOCCCCA 1000111034* 000010 SAICOCOCC* 71101340 001701 EVERGREEN MK uClOfr*MY1M 0100!31 -IMMI*1MIM:X (,1`34/311 GAUL T*uIA sluatON MRRICUM C *10(10)5 ST. 3 01111 3100 7 OXALIS 0 -1COO* 4100000SO0(1* PACHYSANDRA 110MNAIO U0 *M15L SPURGE C11CO-1 RM- t5 4 534- LLD .773'77' LOCATION 10111 MITS. 134 00•340 ITAW 130 CULT 2 ...novel/ IM TOTK R7CIL*T0H ASO.TRS foot 1 f1*3 3.0(7 C011•T i STATISTICS 8 �0 1.•1 4 f— DS twI1 i/1t, • �_p10I /1_ III � � r joi�r� I X(•1 Y rat N [AMT 501 M• MARL f-!1 AtfOXIMAtttT IM. IT 10R RI 00 NILIYC1(OM OI 0131 MOM AT • 1TX11NOLR *00-1X34 70. M. 1 OF VLSI LLI/1.GMM. 0*TL04 ELI ARM. 001E11 or ••••••101 BENCHMARK no 0%L sp a &.ORT[D sp DRC DICER l (000334 MY. NOTES O Irmo! � f9ok- - i JohnsonBraund design .group p.s.,inc. r NEM I Imo^ IIn�1rl �IU�C ii ;`!11'2; architecture, angt ring: -$: panning''. sultalts 1PPR 2C 1984 .1sw. T11w hI1 Ili IOW-IMPS C ad 111(111 11!111 d lDWIMP •CT A0. IMO 150111011- MINT 110111 ( 11111 L NMI 51011 •AT11 ■A11 1 H 0 sorry, 1AM111111 P pay rod- Strs/era Ise MOAN 0100 MATH ra1O 11 ��II 1111 Ii i ►dill( GATEHOUSE 4.111~ sows n *1 °scut Iw. 1.♦ — ...a I. 1 rM0. 0 0 -t Ws ZAC 0 O 0 c •N • ▪ • 3 • 3 - I- e C • ae. • • _: 3• Q � e OD Rl(. IS TIP. MEAN 11O5 WAT11 MAIN Meaty NION ••TEA ••l 1d LOW-IMPACT A9itbAAl d 1nll N /NT d tow•IMP1cT •d 11011 11011 NI 11 GATEHOUSE p • ry .,„ „ M. w...r v_•� n _ .n f +Ir�i��l 1.� JohnsonBraund design group p.s.,inc. architec I re, englneerlrig & pla lrlg Itant /T R 2 C 1984 .. _DEPT._ _.1 CITY OF TU4(ILA Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM - . ' • . . - • - . - : . . I ) GENERAL. LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The northwest corner of intersection , - of the West Valley Highway and Strander Blvd. • . . NW wimirl -- (1/4 SEC . ) OF SECTION ' -" 45 OF TOWNSHIP : 23 ' RANGE .., .. , . . :;`, .. SCHEDULE. SHORELINE MANAGEMENT • ' • . • • • • • • • - ". '4 E W M I N TUKIV I LA ;: 'k1NG COUNTY * WAS I-3 NGTON . - • • • • - - - • . • - • NAME OF WATER AREA AND/OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED: Adjacent : to the Green River. CURRENT USE OF, THE PROPERTY WI,TH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: The property is currently • • • : .• , , • : • •L.,•• • • • ' "* -* • - • • • :f • • ' • 4)% PROPOSED USE OF opEWry To tOnstruct'a144 unit hotel complex alonO:the Green Rier• • frontage and develop a commercial office complex on the corner by -a different owner.'. TOTAL. CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL - DEVELOPMENTS CONTEMPLATED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION: 3,775,000 Motel Complex-- • CONSTRUCTION DATES (MONTH AND YEAR) FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT IS REQUESTED: BEGIN As soon as possible COMPLETE 10 months later • „ • • TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL. OFFICIAL: 7) DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE: 8) APPROXIMATE LOCATION ANDNUMBER OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL HAVE A VIEW OBSTRUCTED BY ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.,: CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: n BLDG I PLNG 'P.W. • CN EPIC FILE 64 —(3Z FIRE 1 POLICE I I P R PROJECT f5imilcAL (z DOE Cam. /Mk) LOCATION f (0,03.2 .A.--tzeidctea. DATE TRANSMITTED i-j ?lol 81" STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED • THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED. REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART - MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY6' 611-(81r ITEM COMMENT F L n o 0 o% 4 0_,fimrYCt\ka 1)-Ll )bv\, tM ot-,4 14, RE9, U( A i/VP- \c S c t c k FL A. / C-r3S TL/-1- TZ-r vt.tT s i� tYrO N 2/ s t St-tit -1. lam' M � '� c'i * v NO IN, s- r- KA -NDAV -- V U 7`1 o t -Nn AtLoN.",cf U3u'C ta, DATE AD1 L/ 4 ke ozac - a -TA)) u 11-4 C w / s,t, / -t-1 P L- r-f 1 N6� 1 St ( 1MP A6--r X11 j-L COMMENTS PREPARED BY 'p_opcc � fl� LAN E N571-0 C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM •cN 64-(32. EPIC FILE r rig: f TO: n BLDG n PLNG I ] P.W. FIRE [1 POL1C' i P- &L R Id PROJECT p ��% > D MCJE: N BY �_.APR..2..6 0:4 �' ' Y 1 ION BUREAU LOCATION ■j, (pl y rwl∎ i� _ 4 w e`[ , Jai DATE TRANSMITTED �j ?col ei- STAFF COORDINATOR `.Z. __N RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ITEM COMMENT Va' P kiiiichhy 5 •7 6e ' r o,/ �l x tv,'72-�, `'0,n 4 74,•C s per/„ 41 e r /24-o f e c/ M DATE Pi° 7"-- pld, c c e55 driv wq ?to COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM. T0: [—I BLDG. PLNG CN EPIC FILE P.W. I I FIRE POLICE [i P & R . PROJECT f5 P,kbCEMC 1■k) :LOCATION 7L (plei 6jk-12,0ki L W/\/,t4iIN DATE TRANSMITTED i-j 2101 81- • STAFF COORDINATOR _ U.E RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED'ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED. REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING 'COMMISSION, BOARD OF.ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM. • FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ITEM COMMENT The traffic flow will be somewhat of a problem. The driveway located on the Westvalley.Hiway presents a problem for traffic exitting to. go northbound. During peak times this will be next to impossible as southbound traffic is such that there will not be a break to allow egress in that direction. The traffic will back-up from Strander Blvd. due to the signal light. The driveway on Strander Blvd. will present somewhat of a similar problem. This is ue to, a curveture o t e •ri•ge w is units t o visa.•i ity o traffic. Peak times will create a .traffic flow problem forexitting traffic to eastbound on ttrander Blvd. t east•oun • 13 -F The amount of vehicular traffic generated would not be-such as to create an extreme traffic flow problem. DATE 4 -29 -84 COMMENTS PREPARED BY Sgt. M.E. Baskett C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • •CN fd�f" (3 EPIC FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: [j BLDG PLNG n P.W. FIRE 1 POLICE \ P & R PROJECT 1312r.C. (t 3 LOCATION li■(L C��2D3 .-\--riesoveyzq DATE TRANSMITTED �-j 24,i elf- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR ` ICC ^ -\S RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART - MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR.. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. FILE NO. ITEM COMMENT DATE Gf 6' —zr-‘ COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: 17/1 BLDG `Q PLNG P.W. •CN EPIC FILE 4 -13z .r -sy FIRE ( POLICE Pj P & R PROJECT f5 P-----11-AOCEKSCi INIU LOCATION X\tst (0klyZN2 6j l ' ve,(L 44A,IA,J.i DATE TRANSMITTED �-j 210` e`F- STAFF COORDINATOR ILL(iCliEN.1.4 RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR, COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ' Cor) of . Number (32- • CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLI ST FORM, This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the _f_r. permit.- This questionnaire must be completed by all person p y g or T permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official-that the permit is exempt or unless' the applicant and Responsible Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed. A fee of.S60.0O must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to. cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: Inn Ventures, Inc. (Larry Culver) 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2115 North 30th Ave., Suite 202 Tacoma, WA 98403 (206) 383 -2000 3. Date Checklist Submitted: April 23, 1984 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Brock ResidPnre Tnn *6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): The proposed project will consist of a 144 unit hotel project housed within (16) - 8 -plex buildings on approximately 4.5 acres with support facilities which includes a gatehouse, cabana, swimming pool spas,:and_ . a sport court. And a proposed future commercial development on 2.12 acres. 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the proposal): The proposed project is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of,the West Valley Highway and Strander Blvd.. The site is relatively flat and is bound on the west by the Greenriver. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: February 1985. 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES X NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO x (c) Building permit YES X NO (d) Puget Sounder Pollution Control Permit (e) Sewer hook up permit (f) Sign permit (g) Water hook up permit (h) Storm water system permit (i) Curb cut permit ' (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) (k) Plumbing permit (King County) (1) Other: A short plat. YES NO__X_ YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES X NO YES -NO X YES x NO YES X NO 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Yes, a short plat will follow up to segregate the southeast corner of the property to allow a future commercial development. 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: Yes, a commercial development is planned for the southeast corner of the property by a different owner. 12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro- posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future date, describe the nature of such application form: None. II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X (b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover- ing of the soil? X _ (c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea- tures? X _ (d) The destruction, covering or modification of any • nninitn nnnlnnir nr nFwcirnl fnnttsrce? X. YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X (f} Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, . deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: (b,.c, e) This proposal will require paved parking surfaces. Construction of these features will result in disruption and.overcovering of soils as well as slight variations in the topography. Erosion potential will increase temporarily as the vegetative covering is removed. However, the resulting disturbance to the topography will be minimal. • 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? —�- (b)' The creation of. objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Explanation: (a) The increase in local traffic will introduce a minimal amount of additional emissions. The volume of suspended particulates will temporarily increase during construction only. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, nr the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? • (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations ?. X X X X • • YES MAYBE NO (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seepage of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail- able for public water supplies? X Explanation: (b) The impervious parking areas and roadway surfaces will reduce absorption.rates and in turn will incrase surface water runoff. 4. Flora. Will the proposal result in: •(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? X (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or . endangered species of flora? X (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X (d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X Explanation: (a, c) Construction of this project will eliminate a portion of the existing vegetation. Upon completion, however, new species of flora will be introduced on the site. 5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in: _(a). Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Explanation: (a, c, d) This proposal will reduce a small amount of the existing wildlife hai,itat And may slightly alter migration patteros.of certain fauna. • YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? 7• X Explanation:: Introduction of people and vehicular activity will increase overall noise levels. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Explanation: Artificial lighting is proposed for -building entries, landscape and parking areas. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera- tion of the present or planned land use of an area? Explanation: The parcel of property is currently vacant and the proponent proposes to construct a 144 unit Hotel complex on a portion of the site. And a small future commercial project is being considered for the remaining parcel of property by a separate owner. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: (a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X _ • Explanation: To the extent that the site itself is a natural resource. 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release �f hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi- ation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO , III 111 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X Explanation: 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X Explanation: 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? (d). Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 'X X X Explanation: (a, c, d, f) Approximately 1000 ADT's will be generated by the Hotel proposal using a Avenue vehicular trip per "Trip Generation" An Informational. Report Institute of Transportation Engineering. The impact on present transportation systems will be minimal. Additionally, the increased potential for traffic hazards will be slight. 14. Public. Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for-new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? •• X (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? X (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including C, • • (f) Other governmental services? Explanation: (a, b, c, d, f) Police, fire protection, and governmental services will be required for the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants. • YES MAYBE h0 X Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X Explanation: This project will add slightly to the demand upon existing sources of electrical energy. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? X (c) Water? X (d) Sewer or septic tanks? X • (e) Storm water drainage? X X (f) Solid waste and disposal? X Explanation: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: • • YES MAYBE NO 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc- tion of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically of- fensive site open to public view? Explanation: 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of exist- ing recreational opportunities? Explanation: 20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a signifi- cant archeological or his- torical site, structure, object or building? Explanation: CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Signature an. Title Date R 'TMO VEGETATION TO OR RETAINED EAST GARR OF OREEM MYRA 105.10.0' ••••1 et" A e. _ _ i 2 ■ VICINITY MAP AREA STORM YWC1L OSCMA LCZ IN1CI CAGE.. R. 1 �. • LOp LEGEND PLOW DIRECTION EKISTINO CONTOUR! EX. UTILITY W/ MANHOLE N 1-1 SECTION 004! NEW UTILITY W/ MANHOLE L LLA' 10. EMT ELEVATORS ..SL.Z NEW !POT ELEVATOR! C.OMH CATCH BASIN RAM 00LE CKISTII1 COMI 1101 • LOA IM./ LISA kin- RIM' LE RV.' LEO LE INN/- 10': ALL Woos. TO NAPE A FINISHED FLOOR ELEV . MO PLANT LIST O ACE0. RUBPUM RED MAPLC A NOAM00P STYRACNLUA (00 UAUM ANUS ACE0.IPOLIA DON PLANE *0 TA![ WEPCUS COCCINCA SCARLET OAR ® B[TULA rAPYRIP[PA FANG! RIRCN cucldvllVwM 3APDNrcuM AnuRA TREE coRNUS FLORIDA EASTERN DDC•ooD c[Ed: TCKANTNO3 wLRMD Ncnocusr IOPULUS AREA 9YRAYIWLI9 BOLLLANA POPLAR y�� CUPR[SSOCYPARD LEVLMIDII LLYLANdICVPR[y (\/',YJ }� YLTA3EO1AIA GLYPTOSTROe01DL3 DAWN 0[00000 NNW COMTO4iA SHOP[ NN! 0SUGA 010 NETEROTITLLA CST[0.N NEYLOCR i3lIGA uERTENSUNA ROUNTnIN M[OLOCR O �CYPDOPCwATUY VINE MARL EA �RI�XNI PAPER BARK YAPLe UY ARBOR-EOM bUR0000 TREE U f /�` YY %CRfIUTA Ybl0VEAA' JAPANESE HOLLY KnL umttu MOUNTAIN LAUREL AKA CALIr00NKA PACIFIC WAX MIA TLL MAMdNA DoOLLTKA UvLMLY 800000 pTLNTILLA P0.Ui1C0]A USURY CINWLPOIL wurlus LnwocuASUS ZAeeuANU xne[LUwn RM000D[MD[PON lOD[M WgTL' LO000.50OTC RHOOOD[NDPON 3ACINIUU CA NOOKfPANA MINIM Sn0.COCOCCA ACUOUM OvATUY . EVERGREEN MUCRICBLRRY MCTOSTAPNYL03 WA URY INNIKINNKK 'Ul GAULTNGIA SIIALLp O SALAL Mr[RIC.. 0LYCINUY f0.30HNS00RT OXALIS ORfGONA 0[00000 SORREL PACHYSANDRA i[RNWALD JAPANESE SPURGE SITE LOCATION MAP noTEL UNITS p3 PARKING STALLS I• PAST E EMPLOYER I TOTAL RECREATION AMLNMES POOL s0A1 SPORT COURT STATISTICS IOU -0 Y !RAE W EAST 5100 MF YAK[ TREE APPROXIMATELY IMO FT NdITN OP INTERSECT. OP WEST M.A.' • STIANDER aaro APPRO. 3E0 PEST OP WEST NKHOAV. 000110, 0.1 ARMY CORPS OP uKUUu BENCHMARK NO MU-TO K WsCRTCD 70 WC CRCCPT MR. 0L00SYN OAOC. NOTES' 2 z- i 8 [ %nrl[K C SANDRRY '11ER __ten\ S-I �j STUD LE �,pALLY MPRDVCMCNTt(�y� L\r PUTURC CIRLAT� RD'% FGR 113f6PHp� � � � 11i11��s1 5 8 ,aw? lill0 0 JohnsonBraund design .group p.s., inc. -• archit cture, eraLgineeiingL8; pfanningT1consultatIts APR 2 G 1884 CS! Y ii — t <o :LA PLANNING Q!T. KA PLANT LIST O ACE0. RUBPUM RED MAPLC A NOAM00P STYRACNLUA (00 UAUM ANUS ACE0.IPOLIA DON PLANE *0 TA![ WEPCUS COCCINCA SCARLET OAR ® B[TULA rAPYRIP[PA FANG! RIRCN cucldvllVwM 3APDNrcuM AnuRA TREE coRNUS FLORIDA EASTERN DDC•ooD c[Ed: TCKANTNO3 wLRMD Ncnocusr IOPULUS AREA 9YRAYIWLI9 BOLLLANA POPLAR y�� CUPR[SSOCYPARD LEVLMIDII LLYLANdICVPR[y (\/',YJ }� YLTA3EO1AIA GLYPTOSTROe01DL3 DAWN 0[00000 NNW COMTO4iA SHOP[ NN! 0SUGA 010 NETEROTITLLA CST[0.N NEYLOCR i3lIGA uERTENSUNA ROUNTnIN M[OLOCR O �CYPDOPCwATUY VINE MARL EA �RI�XNI PAPER BARK YAPLe UY ARBOR-EOM bUR0000 TREE U f /�` YY %CRfIUTA Ybl0VEAA' JAPANESE HOLLY KnL umttu MOUNTAIN LAUREL AKA CALIr00NKA PACIFIC WAX MIA TLL MAMdNA DoOLLTKA UvLMLY 800000 pTLNTILLA P0.Ui1C0]A USURY CINWLPOIL wurlus LnwocuASUS ZAeeuANU xne[LUwn RM000D[MD[PON lOD[M WgTL' LO000.50OTC RHOOOD[NDPON 3ACINIUU CA NOOKfPANA MINIM Sn0.COCOCCA ACUOUM OvATUY . EVERGREEN MUCRICBLRRY MCTOSTAPNYL03 WA URY INNIKINNKK 'Ul GAULTNGIA SIIALLp O SALAL Mr[RIC.. 0LYCINUY f0.30HNS00RT OXALIS ORfGONA 0[00000 SORREL PACHYSANDRA i[RNWALD JAPANESE SPURGE SITE LOCATION MAP noTEL UNITS p3 PARKING STALLS I• PAST E EMPLOYER I TOTAL RECREATION AMLNMES POOL s0A1 SPORT COURT STATISTICS IOU -0 Y !RAE W EAST 5100 MF YAK[ TREE APPROXIMATELY IMO FT NdITN OP INTERSECT. OP WEST M.A.' • STIANDER aaro APPRO. 3E0 PEST OP WEST NKHOAV. 000110, 0.1 ARMY CORPS OP uKUUu BENCHMARK NO MU-TO K WsCRTCD 70 WC CRCCPT MR. 0L00SYN OAOC. NOTES' 2 z- i 8 [ %nrl[K C SANDRRY '11ER __ten\ S-I �j STUD LE �,pALLY MPRDVCMCNTt(�y� L\r PUTURC CIRLAT� RD'% FGR 113f6PHp� � � � 11i11��s1 5 8 ,aw? lill0 0 JohnsonBraund design .group p.s., inc. -• archit cture, eraLgineeiingL8; pfanningT1consultatIts APR 2 G 1884 CS! Y ii — t <o :LA PLANNING Q!T. Fes. 1, i uu I uuuuum r 111111 I h, e IIIIII _ 111111 a �large" ilil=liiiii ��i11� �N „L., Ed low•IIIPAC AO RIVER RIVER d LOW - IMP•CT ENVINO MMENT 0 RIVER INVIRON- NENT ( RIVER ( RIVER 8 -PLEX Ye". ro NN MEAN RION WATER MANN /541.r A. b.t 8PLEX •15P1.50 000i0 0 II fill "Miniiti ,ii.. it I I iii 1'iil iliT�liio 'Hnfi I liiluiium ii ii a:!'�ii i /111111 ' 4• MEAN 141011 MATER NARR A.aso•0•rnw 601 00 (•••.) 1 2 a 0 0 e • • d - - e 1` c • ea- 4 o_ .•s M o: u 0 • . 8 EI 91.1i Pads..P..N it., GK. .w . 1.0 p.o. M< t.K ••NL ELEV. EE TTP. • MEAN NOON MATER NARK r N[AN 51011 W•TER MARK .d low - IM••CT 40 RIVER 6NYI NVIN •N' R• "- MENT RIVER d LOW - IMPACT NTIRO NNENT •d NIVEA ENVIRON- MENT RIVER GATEHOUSE r' �„ JohnsonBraund design group p.s.,inc. � Sri �.rylt ��;I�'II�I� !li7VlIi architec re, erkjineermg &; planning consultant I APR 2G 1984 cif Y Ur r .1L-ii PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TU►IVILA Central Permit System. MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM 1) 84--132- GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: The northwest corner of intersection of the West Valley Highway and Strander Blvd. WITHIN NW (I /4 SEC.) OF SECTION .25 OF TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4E W M.. IN TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. NAME OF WATER AREA AND /OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED: to the Green Rivet".°' Adjacent. CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS: The property iS currently- vacant. PROPOSED.USE OFPROPERTY:" To construct a-144 unit hotel complex along the Green River 'frontage and develop a commercial - office complex on.the.corner by'a different owner. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF. PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS CONTEMPLATED, BUT NOT 1 NCLUDED 1N,TH1SAPPLICATION:.. 3,775,000 Motel Complex CONSTRUCTION DATES (MONTH BEGIN As soon as possible.: FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT 1S REQUESTED: COMPLETE 10, months later. - .: TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL: DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE: 8) APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL . HAVE A VIEW OBSTRUCTED BY ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 35 FEET IN HEIGHT.- '.i \ 2 ,98 • i 4 CITY Ur 1. ✓JI_L�, p