HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-304-85 - RADOVICH / LEWISON - SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD / INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH AMENDMENT AND ZONINGRADOVICH / LEWISON
AMENDMENT AND
ZONING CHANGE
SOUTHCENTER BLVD &
INTERURBAN AVE. SO.
EPIC - 304 -85
January 20, 1986
City Council
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Radovich /Lewison 85 -51 —CPA /R
Dear Mr. Chairman:
MEM
JAN 20 1986
CITY OF TU WK ILA
PLANNING DEPT.
The Council concerns regarding the rezoning of our property relayed at
the Committee of the Whole meeting last Monday were two —fold: First,
sympathy for our dilemma and secondly, an unwillingness to grant a
blanket rezone. The Planning Staff, Director, Commission and now City
Council all agree that our request for a rezone is one solution to our
problem.
The zoning code does not allow greater than 50% non — office use in the
C -2 zone even if the use is compatible with other present land uses. We
would like to build an office building but since the office market is so
thin in Tukwila we would like the ability to put some non — office users
in the building. High —tech industries do not require all office space
but could use up to two — thirds in non — office use. The non — office uses
are frequently laboratory, assembly and storage areas.
We feel it is necessary to have this latitude in order to develop high —
tech buildings on this property and we therefore recommend a second
solution to the problem; conditional use permits to allow greater than
50% laboratory testing, assembly and storage. - -The- ultimate solution would
be to modify these uses, but since time is of the essence in our dilemma,
we suggest the conditional use permit as the best solution.
Cordially,
tic- IPyt6/A-
John C. Radovich
JCR:jmw
GRadovicll
P im
00 -124th Ave. N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 454 -6060
Development Corp.
• •
January 8, 1986
City of Tukwila Planning Director
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attn: Mr. Brad Collins
Dear Mr. Collins:
p c�c��adE
JAN g �
CITY OF TUKWILA
KWILw
PLANNING DEPT.
Very simply, a market does not exist for the zoning that our property
at Tukwila Bend has. C -2 is an office — retail classification. Retail
is quite adequately handled by one of the most successful shopping
centers in the Pacific Northwest, namely: Southcenter, and the pre-
ferred area for strip retail is along Southcenter Parkway. The office
market in Tukwila is very thin, has never been successful and is faced
with a seemingly inexhaustable supply of available space in Bellevue
and Seattle.
In talking with owners of office buildings and real estate brokers who
concentrate on the Tukwila area, they state that the market is sparce
and overbuilt. Rental rates range from $12.00 to $14.00 per square
foot. For example, Southcenter Place, located opposite the Doubletree
Inn is currently 15% vacant and rates have never been raised above
$14.00 per square foot. The same is true for such buildings as: The
320 Building at Andover Park East, with 30% vacancy; the Riverview Plaza,
with 31% vacancy; Parkridge on Southcenter Boulevard, with 21% vacancy
and Parkside also on Southcenter Boulevard with 88% vacancy rate. All
have rental rates of $14.75 per square foot and below. (See attached
Exhibit A)
In todays economy, rental rates for office must be $16.00 to $18.00 per
square foot. Part of the problem is the oversupply of office space in
Bellevue and Seattle. Bellevue office developers are quoting $18.00
per square foot to $22.00 per square foot, but free rent and tenant im-
provement concessions lower the effective rental rate to $12.00 per square
foot. There is currently over 1,700,000 square feet of available office
space in Bellevue with a consumption rate of 105,000 square feet in the
third quarter of 1985. An end to rental concessions is not in sight.
Development Corp.
2000 - 124th Ave. N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 454 -6060
• _ 2 _ •
JAN8
JAN
8L.;
J
CITY OF TUKWILA
Our alternative is to construct a building that allows for non- ofPIIANNINGOEPT.
Unfortunately, in Tukwila, there is no zoning classification which a ows
for a greater percentage of non - office use or, what is known in the market
as "high tech" space. We feel there is a need to supply space for high
tech users. This type of building typically has 15% to 35% office and the
balance is assembly or service. The difference in construction is quite
subtle. High tech space would generally have a dropped ceiling with re-
cessed lighting as does office space but would have unfinished floors. By
that we mean vinyl asbestos tile or sealed concrete rather than carpet and
also would have large open spaces. High tech users are sometimes light
manufacturing, for example: electronic circuitry or testing, sometimes
research and design, and sometimes repair and service. These uses have
often traditionally been known as laboratory space.
Examples of high tech users in Redmond's Imperial Square are: Wescan,
which does color separation for the printing and advertising industry;
Telematic, manufacturers of electronic cash register components; Nintendo,
which manufactures among other items, Pacman and lastly, Texas Instruments.
There users employ technically trained people and their businesses are
conducted indoors. There is no heavy trucking, no outside storage and no
noise or fumes.
In the high technology corridor of Bothell and Woodinville, a few of the
new companies that have been attracted are: Advanced Technology Laboratories,
Tanaka, Ryan Instruments (who manufacture a low temperature monitoring device
for the frozen food trucking industry), Eldec, General Telephone and Biomedics.
None of these companies have chosen to locate in Tukwila. Possibly because of
the heavy trucking image and environment present, but also because of zoning.
Rocket Research and Physio Control each chose to locate in Redmond. They
specifically sought to have a pleasant outlook which enabled them to take
advantage of natural beauty and surroundings. Such an opportunity is offered
by the Fort Dent area. We feel that the City has recognized this potential
in re- zoning the property from manufacturing to C -2 in 1982. However, high
tech is the industry of the future. The Bothell- Everett, Kent Valley, and 1-90
corridors as well as cities of Woodinville, Issaquah, and Bellevue, are all
jumping on the "high tech" band wagon. Furthermore, bringing new industry to
the state is a high priority to Governor Gardner as indicated by his recent
trip to Japan.
Unfortunately, the C -2 zoning does not accommodate the requirements of the
market. Any building in C -2 must have 50% of the space devoted to office.
High tech users do not need 50% office. With the office market as scant as
it is in the Greater Seattle area, we feel a new zoning to enable Tukwila to
attract these kinds of companies is appropriate.
•
- 3 - U` [4.1/
JAN 81
cffywnyiNale
A solution to our problem could be a new zoning called prhav RAMC lJt
Tech." This zoning could be confined to river front properties and other
areas of the city which because of their view or surroundings, lend them-
selves to a research and development environment Perhaps this opportunity
is even now being addressed by the upcoming Tukwila 2000. We have no
knowledge of the direction or findings of this report, but would suggest
this problem as one which should be addressed and we feel the time to address
it is now.
An alternative to a new zoning would be to allow conditional use permits for
those types of uses which would be compatible with uses allowed by right in
the C -2 zoning. Appropriate "non nuisance" uses excepted from the C -M
zoning might be:
1. Manufacturing, processing and /or packaging pharmaceuticals and re-
lated products, such as cosmetics and drugs;
2. Industries involved with etching, film processing, lithography,
printing, and publishing;
3. Warehouse storage and wholesale distribution facilities limited to
perhaps 65% non- office;
4. Manufacturing, processing, assembling, packaging and /or repairing
electronic, mechanical or precision instruments such as medical and
dental equipment, photographic goods, measurement and control
dev cesy. and. reeordigg.,e:quipment;
5. Commercial, professional, and business offices and services.
These uses could be evaluated on a case by case basis. The planning commission
and /or city council would review conditional use requests at a public hearing
and specific conditions or restrictions could be placed upon each applicant.
Those uses that the city feels are too intensive to be allowed within the zone
would be denied. Those uses that would fit into the zoning without conflict
to present developments (including residential) could be approved. The condi-
tional use capability would allow for continued economic growth within the
City as well as to make the property more marketable to new businesses. This
process could be taken one step further by possibly implementing an adminis-
trative conditional use permit capability as well. This process would be
limited to those uses which,are compatible with uses allowed by right in the
existing zone but need a slight variation on some particular requirement.
We currently are working on a building design for parcel C of the Tukwila
Bend property. We propose a 30,000 square foot one story glass and stucco
building that will be marketed as office space. We are negotiating with a
particular tenant that would lease one -third of this building. This tenant
which deals in the photocopy machine industry requires approximately 40%
office space and 60% repair and storage. The present zoning does not allow
us to lease space to this potential tenant even though their business is com-
patible with other businesses that would locate within an office building.
To salvage this potential tenant and lease space in our new building our only
alternative was to request a rezone, and comprehensive plan change. The staff,
of course recommended denial. A rezone would allow for many uses that the city
• - 4 - •
simply does not want on this property.
D N.....-,
JAN 8
CITY OF TUKWILA .
PLANNING DEPT.
We feel a solution to our problem and others that must come up from time to
time would be the expansion of the conditional use permit. This would allow
for increased development while maintaining the city's control over allowed
uses.
We specifically request that a conditional use permit be granted to allow our
tenant to lease space in our proposed building and use greater than 50% of
the space for storage.
Please feel free to call me with any questions you might have or if you need
more information regarding our proposals.
Cordially,
Katie Greif
Development Manager
KG:jmw
Encl.
BUSINESS PARK
1. Koll Commerce Center
671 Strander Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington
2. Marathon
Andover Execut ive Park
500 Industry Drive
Tukwila, Washington
3. M -3 Business Center
Andover Park East
Tukwi 1 a, Washington
4. Upl and
Tukwi 1 a, Washington
5. Springbrook
7800 S. 180th
Kent, Washington
EXHIBIT A
1. AVERAGE OFFICE BUILD OUT FOR TENANTS 4,000 TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET
TENANT
(a) Telmn
(b) Knight International
(c) Madden Enterprises
(d) Danjay Music
(a) Sound International
(b) Camp ut i ng Resources
(c) Pacific Ind. Electric
(d). Air Sensors, Inc.
(a) Carlyle
(b) Jet Away
(c) ABM
(a) Convert Pac
(b) Systems Northwest, Inc.
(c) T. J. Carrot
(a) Universal Wire
(b) Mobile Television
(c) Woolrest
(d)
TOTAL SQUARE FEET
7,000 sq. ft.
5,700 sq. ft.
5,400 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
4,071 sq. ft.
5,631 sq. ft.
4,040 sq. ft.
9,500 sq. ft.
5, 400 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
5,400 sq. ft.
6,000 . sq. ft.
5,050 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
12,000 sq. ft.
OFFICE SQUARE FEET
1,400 sq. ft.
1,050 sq. ft.
1.600 sq. ft.
2,100 sq. ft.
700 sq. ft.
1,650 sq. ft.
750 sq. ft.
1,100 sq. ft.
1,700 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
2,000 sq. ft.
1,800 sq. ft.
1,500 sq. ft.
750 sq. ft.
1,400 sq. ft.
2,000 sq. ft.
4,700 sq. ft.
PERCENTAGE OFFICE
20%
18%
30%
18%
1 7%
29%
1
12%
31%
42%
33%
33%
25%
15%
28%
25%
39%
1 I . OFFICE RATES AND AVAILABILITY
OFFICE BUILDING TOTAL SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE SQUARE FEET PERCENTAGE VACANT PRICE PER SQUARE F007
1. Southcenter Place 66,000 sq. ft. 10,052 sq. ft. 15% $14.00 per sq. ft.
16400 Southcenter Pkwy.
Tukwila, Washington
2. 320 Building
32 0 Andover Park East
Tukwila, Washington
3. Riverview Plaza
4. 6300 Building
5. Parks ide
6. Parkr idge
7. 6000 Building
8. 6100 Building
24,492 sq. ft.
7,250 sq. ft.
30% $12.98 per sq. ft.
162,000 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft. 31% $14- $14.75 per sq. ft
30,000 sq. ft. -0- -0- $13.50 per sq. ft.
33,000 sq. ft. 29,000 sq. ft. 88% $14.50 per sq. ft.
18,700 sq. ft. 3,940 sq. ft. 21% $13.00 per sq. ft.
6,000 sq ft. 0 0
16, 383 sq. ft.
INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY COLDWELL BANKER
1,080 sq. ft. 7%
$13.00 per sq. ft _
$13.00 per sq. ft.
S88' 17'03E- 55.70'
NTJ•24'10'E-65.G8'
N66'39'371 -113.1
N 53'47'17 'E -15787'
N S5'39'531-64 93'
N 40'33' 58' E- 58.48'
N 3911'151- 9149'
FORT DENT PARK
ENTR:NCE MAO
(HNC COUNTY)
N 59'PA'45•n'(41'd-18362'
•
0' o EVERGREE14
MANA 'CEMENT
o PARCEL 2
176,621 5q. Ft.
u9
J
2
Nom.
PARCEL t
✓ / 45.459S'Ft.
a.
ca.
RADOVICH
95 23:
r(13
54�.� 1'' E o aja8 2 � 12 16
n) 34
S33 Ob 23 `0641 'Dz". a26y
5y` 535 SOS0
EVER 1REEN
MANAGEMENT
PARCEL 3
319. 505 Sg Ft.
RADOVICH.
N3o'0»"55•E- 529.33'
334.53. , 4•S
N38'15'12T-123.64'.
■
5
• Fous d rock In pavement.
• t'tronRpe.ntflooptobeset.
A
ec
Lv
547'32'59' W -3276'
S 72'08' 52'W- 585.92'
372.18'441V - 93.66'
564'02'45' W- 111.65'
I00
5 59'26'46' W - t 15.38'
Plat Boundary
S 47'20' 51' W - 271.21'
X28' p0
gyp.
‘21 ‘2�1,45
Sur ny •s Certific te:
Thj sher_ C o2a
t correctly represents a
emu: sic:' .:..:
3U cur. `r :::d ►'by e o- under ny direction
'z the re7u.ire: tints of
aop_odrsate stare statute.
Da
C.1 / :. fit•'
0
100 200
Portion of West 1/2, Section 24
TownsF+lp 23 North., Range 4 East.•W.Irt
nap on File in Vault
Direction:
Sc.27E'-
�.... °- 7
January 20, 1986
City Council
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Radovich /Lewison 85 -51 —CPA /R
Dear Mr. Chairman:
JIJ MI lJ E
JAN 20 1986
CITY OF TUkWA A
PLANNING DEPT.
The Council concerns regarding the rezoning of our property relayed at
the Committee of the Whole meeting last Monday were two —fold: First,
sympathy for our dilemma and secondly, an unwillingness to grant a
blanket rezone. The Planning Staff, Director, Commission and now City
Council all agree that our request for a rezone is one solution to our
problem.
The zoning code does not allow greater than 50% non — office use in the
C -2 zone even if the use is compatible with other present land uses. We
would like to build an office building but since the office market is so
thin in Tukwila we would like the ability to put some non — office users
in the building. High —tech industries do not require all office space
but could use up to two — thirds in non — office use. The non — office uses
are frequently laboratory, assembly and storage areas.
We feel it is necessary to have this latitude in order to develop high —
tech buildings on this property and we therefore recommend a second
solution to the problem; conditional use permits to allow greater than
50% laboratory testing, assembly and storage. The ultimate solution would
be to modify these uses, but since time is of the essence in our dilemma,
we suggest the conditional use permit as the best solution.
Cordially,
04L C-
John C. Radovich
JCR:jmw
Development Corp.
2000 -124th Ave. N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 454 -6060
WAC 197 -11 -970
Description of Proposal
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
rnmprehencive Plan Amendment frnm Commercial to
Light Industrial and A Zoning Change from C -2 Reginnal Retail to CM Tnductrial Park
Proponent John C. Radovich and Evergreen Management Company
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any north of I -405, east of
Interurban Avenue at the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and Interurban Ave. S.
Parcels 1,2,3 of Tukwila Short Plat 79 -7 -SS and Parcel C. collectively located around
the terminus f South entor Blvd.
Lead Agency: City of iuKwiia File No. EPIC- - 304 -85
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
121 There is no comment period for this DNS
This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Date 12- h — ' 5 Signature Pe-D( C re‘24:s -°
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
FM.DNS
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG [1 PLNG P.W.
PROJECT .& c/ 'v1 at/ 2.-0w, ?3)'(.J
LOCA -TION
DATE TRANSMITTED /L2--6)---
8�
STAFF COORDINATOR J 7 7 Z //2 ) oeC
•
CN 85 3( 7
EPIC Wt4-85-
FILE b5-57-R,
FIRE POLICE (� P & R
�(�. ?1�,4 �� �/
4-774/1t42.4; FILE NO. 05 '5/- < , 4
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /02--/3-K5-'
ol /,3- KS'
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
4,1A.L4/ CAA(.' //mi
L4 / t //',.. /'
artgirlh. t / _AI /
%
� id/ &AA Y
1
DATE 0
/e/gs'
COMMENTS PREPARED BY /f/%/
C.P.S. Form 11
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Contr..), No. 1557
Epic File No. ,?Q(-/-05
Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 1753
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: t ( P0 44431 i Y -fe7,0/W�
2. Name of applicant: John C. Radovich and Evergreen Management Company
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: John Radovich
2000 124th Avenue 1`l. E, B-103, Be 1 1pvuP !LA 9QR005 (910.64-L51.1.-60.60
4. Date checklist prepared:
Nnvemher
90, 1985
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): If rezonod,
construction, could begin in Summer of 1986. Conatrurtio■ will likely
take place in phases, although the timing is unknown at this time_
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An environmental checklist was
prepared for FI-T Evergreen Management property and submitted on October 17, 1984.
Nn information has been or tha Radavich property.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. A building permit has been applied for by FvergrPpr mp_nagem4at 3444
is known as Tukwila Bend.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
City of Tukwila• a••roval of,r -zone to / / Cj —M .,uildi/n�_. er/ /mites( /"and occu.ancy
permits. . 9 . Y ( /f 1 57
c r
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
• and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
• description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 15 acres of currently zoned C -2
property to C —M, industrial park.
n
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
The .subject property is located north of 1 -405 and east ofInrerurhan Avpnne Smith
at the intersection with So uthcenrer blvd, if extended.
Legally descrj.bed _as_parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Tukwi l &shorr play 79 -7 —SS rernrderi
under AF# 7906210370 SD Short Plat. and what the applicar1l` refers rn _a s Ala rre1
"C" which completes the "island" of. .:property comprised in'.thir.„appl;ratd:nn_
cMetes and bounds legal descriptions are attached)
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Yes the Green River surrounds the property on three sides.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. Yes, construction of parking
landscaping and proposed buildings will occur_
within 200 feet of the Green River.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
A new storm drainage system will be implemented
and will undoubtedly be channeled into the Green
River.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge. No. evergreen Management
does not propose any discharges and it is unlikely
that the Radovich development will either.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Parking and building lights will produce light at'night.
Low glare may occur during winter months when the sun
is lower.
• b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Low glare fixtures may be implemented.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational •oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
• Fort Dent Park
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? I.f so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
A river trail along Green River is proposed
pi 7a s, •
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.
ForLDent was constructed across the river from the
site
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
Fort Dent
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any:
None
14. Transportation,
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Interurban Avenue Snurh, Tnrarcrare
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
L05 and Rou *h- rarnter Boulevard
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Not directly. although there is a
bus route along Interurban Avenue.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Evergreen Management proposed approximately 300 parking spaces.
It is unknown at this time how many the Radovice proposal will
create. None will be eliminated.
r
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
Construction of a dual left turn lane on Southcenter
Boulevard
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
The subject property abuts the Green River
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
The Evergreen Management project could generate
approximately 250 trips mainly between 7:30 - 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. This information is not known
tor the Radovich parcels
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: _
Timing adjustments to the existing traffic light
could help accommodate extra traffic
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
Yes, emergency protection only
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
to BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAD' ( Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? The site is currently underdeveloped, storm
water will be channeled into the Green River. This
rezone /coma,plan change would no „f-£ec.tsLischarges.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Proper implementation of storm drainage systems
as site is developed.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
The current natural vegatation will be replaced with
planned lanscaping when the site is developed. This
rezone/comp plan request does not alter what -is
allowed in the C -2 zone.
. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
A setback is required for parking and building to
protect the existing nature of the Green River.
a'�v�
f(lov
IX� .41
0001/9„04, oulicA).,tovr,
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
The granting of a rezone to Industrial Park will not
affect the property any diffkrently than developing
the property according to the C -2 zone.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:
When developed, the structures will utilize insulated
walls, slabs, windows, and conservative H.V.A.0
systems. No natural resources are present.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
The rezone to Industrial Park would not affect any
of the above
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
Proper setbacks frnm the Groan River will be n.bsrved
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
The development of these parcels according to the
Industrial Park zone will not differ from development
in the C -2 zone. The Shoreline requirements remain
the same for C -2 or C -M zones. ✓
Evaluation ror
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
- Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
After reviewing the comprehensive plan, no poliriPs
were located that conflict with this proposal.
e -
Proposed measures to avoid. or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
If conflicts are discovered, the applicant will make
every effort to mitigate any adverse. impacts that the
proposal could create.
-23-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
auv
irdi�i�i��C
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
CN 85:3(7
EPIC 3O14-85- L{'8 S
FILE 55-51 -R1 J'5-5 /-CP f
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: ({BLDG 171 PLNG j P.W. (''/-( FIRE ri POLICE
PROJECT , ac/(ft, (c2.1
LOCATION &'ft 1('4! 46/ ) .
DATE TRANSMITTED
STAFF COORDINATOR /4)(2M- OCC,i
P & R
Tint- 4/, FILE NO. ?5-57-R, ( 'l4
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY / ,v-/3- yS
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
DATE %
/,L_ r3-------COMMENTS PREPARED BY o-
C.P.S. Form 11
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
CN 85-36)7
EPIC 3L -{-85
FILE 15 5 -4 251D9f
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: 11BLDG Ki PLNG ( P.W. KI FIRE ri POLICE F7.1 P & R
PROJECT 6ac/ y, aL / tCLt)/ 50Yt)
LOCATION ‘a017 ,G1 eK 41
DATE TRANSMITTED / L - 6 - I
4-Titt44c, FILE NO. 05 -%- .., 00,4
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /,2-/3- YS
STAFF COORDINATOR ,fr2 7 C, >I/i`(, ci6ec , 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
(46 (46r/n6tr-5 04:4 hm't
DATE /zoo /FIr COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORMM0
T0: 71[ BLDG ji PLNG P.W. [I FIRE POLICE �[ P & R
PROJECT 'aC/WICA/ LGL-e/ YLJ
LOCATION %uttl tte4 -- .31 T1/L -�ll, F I LE NO. O5�l - �, (;x%'14
DATE TRANSMITTED b:2-1.1)- 8� RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /0? /,3- ?-5--
STAFF COORDINATOR /22) )19/Lit///Gb o eC 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.
•
CN g5-3607
EPIC 3614-85-
FILE 255 2R1 5 5 /-CPf'
ITEM COMMENT
l4
ktL&g2t/41--
e)44/ S ,de 2v/L4,
DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: ( BLDG (�( PLNG 1745 P.W. 174:1 FIRE
PROJECT &2C/ './,-O / -Cwt/ %'ZJ
LOCATION ‘CL,C t2 t—L& 4/ } .
DATE TRANSMITTED );2-6,- 85"--
STAFF COORDINATOR % e7iKaA,4lli '(
CN 85-3607
EPIC 3N"8S
FILE 55-5]-R, i5 5/-CP p
P & R
Tyti#i-V, FILE NO. $5'51-%., CP/4
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 42-i3-y.5-
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
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONCERNS:
8L ADDRESSING LAND USE TO THE SOUTH AND COMPATIBILITY WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THAT
DIRECTION...I405 CUTS ACROSS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THIS SITE AND COMPATIBILITY IN THAT
DIRECTION IS OF LITTLE SIGNIFICANCE...THE THE NORTH AND WEST, NOT ADDRESSED IN
CHECKLIST...IT IS MUCH MORE CRITICAL...NORTH, A REGIONAL RECREATION FACILITY AND
TO THE WEST A TUKWILA RESIDENTIAL AREA.
•13B THIS SITE, ONE TIME MEETING PLACE OF THE BLACK & GREEN RIVERS, IS REPORTEDLY
WHERE THE TRIBAL COUNCILS OF THE ]7 -]800 WERE HELD FOR NW TRIBES.
14F TRAFFIC IMPACTS DURING THE PEAK HOURS...PROXIMITY TO ALREADY CONGESTED GRADY
WAY INTERSECTION...IMPACT ON TRACK TRAFFIC...
14F TRAFFIC LIGHTS PRESENTLY COMPUTER CONTROLLED BY THE STATE. LONGACRES HAS
BEEN TRYING FOR YEARS, UNSUCCESSFUL, TO GET SOME MINOR CHANGES.
15 AS WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT THIS WILL EXPAND THE PRESENT PATROL PARAMETERS TO INCLUDE
AN ADDITIONAL 5 BUILDINGS AND THE PEOPLE TO STAFF THEM. WILL INCREASE RESPONSE TIME TO
OTHER CALLS AND REDUCE NORMAL PATROL FREQUENCY TO OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY.
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
* ** *PLEASE HAVE DEVELOPER CONTACT CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER FOR C.P.S. Form 11
LATEST SECURITY INFORMATION ON LOCKS. ALARMS AND LIGHTING. 12/10/85 a.il
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
•
CN 85-3(07
EPIC SOk-8S'
FILE 35-5-1-R a5-5/-09,4-
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG j/1 PLNG I 17 I FIRE IC71.0LICE Imo[ P & R
PROJECT aQd 1 iCt(2/ l-GtO/ IU
LOCATION OQUj ,6f
DATE TRANSMITTED )2'40--B5
STAFF COORDINATOR . /4.1
4,27044S4r, FILE NO. $-5) "R, CPi4'
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /0q-/,545---'
0q /3 45---'
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
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name
•
1EI�IRO1EPIAL CHE KLIST
API.. ":.i Ni;':C, DEPT.
of proposed project, •if applicable:
Con. No. 12130
Epic File No.
Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 1763
2. Name of applicant: John C. Radovich and Evergreen Management Company
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: John Radovich
2000 124th Avenue N.E. B -103 Rell.Vlle WA
98005 (206) 454 6060
4. Date checklist prepared: Nmremher 90, 1985
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): If rezoned,
constructionucould begin in Summer of 1986. Conatruction will likely
take place in phases, although the timing is unknown at this time
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,. or will •
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. An environmental checklist was
prepared] for tie Everg{Q-�reen Management property and submitted on October 17, 1984.
No information h4s he..ei prepared -0q;the-04dovic,h property.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If eyes,
explain. A building permit has been applied for by Fvergreen Management and
is known as Tukwila Bend.
• •
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
City of Tukwila; approval of rezone to C —M, building permits and occupancy
permits.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not,
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
The applicant proposed to rezone approximately 15 acres of currently zoned C -2
property to C —M, industrial park.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
The'subject property is located north of 1-405 and east of_ interurhan Aveni,P Snrth
at the intersection with Southcenter blvd, if extended.
Legally described _as parcels 1,2, and 3 of Tukwil_a_g)-iort plat 79 -7 —SS rPrnrdPrl
under AF# 79015210370 SD Short P .(. .s. .- ... ..t.refers to as parrPl
"C" which completes the "island" oUproperty;:comprised-iinhfilj,isppppltion_
Metes and bounds legal descriptions are attached)
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Yes, the Green River surrounds the property on three sides.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICO
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): (Flat,)
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 1 -2�°
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Silt and sandy silt.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
Footing and structural fill may be needed for
future construction, quantities are unknown at this
time.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
No
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
About 78% may be covered on the Evergreen Management
parcels. It is unknown what he percentage will be
on the Radovich parcels.
Evaluation for.
Agency Use Only
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
Possible measures could be filter fabric,ditches
and rocked layed entrances.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Dust and vehicle emissions during construction.
Vehicle emission during regular use.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air; if any:
During construction. use of good operational
techniques such as watering of exposed area and
regular street cleaning may be implemented.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
Green River which eventually flows into ,i
Elliott Bay.
III Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. Yes, construction of parking
landscaping and proposed buildings will occur
within 200 feet of the Green River.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would' be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
A new storm drainage system will be implemented
and will undoubtedly be channeled into the Green
River.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. No
• 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge. No. nvergreen_ManagpmPnt
does not propose any discharges and it is unlikely
that the Radovich development will either.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
Nbcwaste, materials are expprrerl rn hp discharged
from the Fjyerg een Managpment nr Ra1nvich
proposal.
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Storm water will be collected via a new storm
drainage system and will be discharged into the
Green River: Quantities are unknown at this time.
4 • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
Some automobile related polutants may enter the
storm system from the parking area. Oil /water
separators may be utilize
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
The storm drainage system will include catch
basins, underground pipes and oil separator.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
-- deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir; cedar, pine, other
shrubs
xx grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
. skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil,other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? Existing..natural vPgar;nn will hp
removed with development and nerd landscaping
Will be used._
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None.
• •
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: A landscaping plan was submitted to
the City for the Evergreen Management property.
she Ki-dT5vc.h proposal will submitt a lan3scaping plan
during the building permit stage.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
crows, sparrows, robins. finches
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
none
fish: bass, salmon,'trout, herring, shellfish,
other: salmon, trout
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain. No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: A buffer area will be mainrainprl alnng rha
bank of the Green River
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electric or natural gas H.V.A.C. units
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any: Insulation of roof, slabs and walls
as well as windows may all be implemented during
construction.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. No
1) . Describe special emergency services that might
be required. Unknown at this time
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: Unknown
b. Noise
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise at
approximately 60 dba from Interstate 405.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short-
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Construction noise could occur between 7:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Long term traffic nnicP rnulri
occur between 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 or 6:00 p_m_
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: Limitation of construction to
daylight hours only.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? The site is currently underdeveloped. ThP
site north of the subject parcel is commercially
developed and the Green River is to the South & Easr�.
The hillside to the west is underdeveloped.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. No
ti
c. Describe any structures on the site.None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? C -2
f. What is the current comprehensive. plan designation
of the site? :ommercial
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Urban
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes, The Shoreline master program. The Green River
is adjacent to the property on three sides.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? Possibly 800 to 1000 people
Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? • None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: None
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: The property to the south is currently
zoned light industrial and has been developed
according to this zone. The rezone request to
U —M will be more.complimentary to the existing land
uses than to develop the property as regional— retail.
9. Housing
evaluation for
Agency Use Only (Left Out
of Checklist)
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
high, middle or low- income housing.
None
b. Approximately how many units would be eliminated? Indicate whether
high, middle or low - income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None _
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure (s), not
including antennas; what is the principal exterior building
material (s.) proposed?
The Evergreen Management buildings propose smooth, painted concrete
Walls and reflective glass. Tallest height is 19'.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Parking areas will be heavily ,landscaped.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Parking and building lights will produce light at night.
Low glare may occur during winter months when the sun
is lower.
• b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c.' What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Low glare fixtures may be implemented.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Fort Dent Park.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational. uses? If so, describe.
No
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by-the project or applicant, if any:
A river trail along Green River is proposed
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.
For Dent was constructed across the river from the
site
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural .
importance known to be on or next to the site.
Fort Dent
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any:
None
14. Transportation,
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Interurban Avenue South Tnterstnte 405 and Southcenter Boulevard
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Not directly. although there is a
bus route along Interurban Avenue.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? Now many would the project eliminate?
Evergreen Management proposed approximately 300 parking spaces.
•It is unknown at this time how many the a ovice proposal will
create. None will be eliminated.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
Construction of a dual left turn lane on Southcenter
Boulevard
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
The subject property abuts the Green River
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
The Evergreen Management project could generate
approximately 250 trips mainly between 7:30 - 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 - 5:30 p.m. This information is not known
9.
tor the Radovich parcels
Proposed measures to reduce or ,control transpor-
tation imppcts, if any:
Timing adjustments to the existing traffic light
could help accommodate extra traffic
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services '(for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
Yes. emergency prntactinn only
b. Proposed measures to reduce or, control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. Circ le u 4ties currently available at the site:
- (elect icit refuse service,
telephon, sanitary sewer; septic system, other.
Done
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Natural gas and telephone
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to mak its
l ecision.
Signature: ,7 `6 -4-
Date Submitted: //— /` 5�
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? The site is currently underdeveloped, storm
water will be channeled into the Green River. This
rezone /comp.plan change would not affect discharges.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Proper implementation of storm drainage systems
as site is developed.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
The current natural vegatation will be replaced with
planned lanscaping when the site is developed. This
rezone /comp plan request does not alter what is
allowed in the C -2 zone.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
A setback is required for parking and building to
protect the existing nature of the Green River.
iEvaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
The granting of a rezone ro Industrial Park will nor
affect the property any differently than developing'
the property according to the C -2 zone.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural recourses are:
When developed, the structures will utilize insulated
walls, slabs, windows, and conservative H.V.A.0
systems. No natural resources are present.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
The rezone to Industrial Park would not affect any
of the above
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
Proper setbacks from the nrPPn River 'will be observed
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans ?.
The development of these parcels according to the
Industrial Park zone will not differ from development
in the C -2 zone. The Shoreline requirements remain
the same for C -2 or C— M.zones.
III Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
•.. • •
use of setback areas.
mum
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
the Green River are consistent with the Tukwila
Shoreline master pain.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
. - • .. . • •
• • • II . •
. .t
alter the need for services. utilities or transportation.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:. Pevelopment of utilities in an organized manner to
best serve the property.
7.. Identify, if possible,' whether the proposal may conflict
with local,' state, or federal laws. or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
It does not
• •
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
After reviewing the policies, the p-p-1 r . 4A -40et
find conflicts that would oppose this request_
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
If conflicts arise, the developer will work with
city officials to mitigate any adverse 'impacts.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL IC.
•
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a. general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
•
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
The objective of the proposal is to obtain a rezone
to C -M; Industrial Park and a Comprehensive Plan
Change to light industry. By obtaining these changes
the property may be developed for the types of uses that
are.more in demand in the marketplace.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
The applicant is not aware of any alternatives.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
ThP prPferrPri rnurgp of artinn is to rprpivp rhp
rezone and comprehensive plan rhangc sn that the
developed property may allow a variety of naec_
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
- Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
After reviewing the comprehensive plan.,, no policies
were located that conflict with this proposal.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
If conflicts are discovered, the applicant will make
every effort to mitigate any adverse impacts that the
proposal could create.
-23-
CITY OF TUK .ILA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION F
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REOUESTtD-4NpORMATMN==tNCOMPLETE APPL1CAT1ONS WILL NOT BE
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
SECTION I: GENERAL DATA
i5 -5 / -GP g5 -5-1-,Q
TYPE OF APPLICATION: ❑ BSIP ❑ S ?LAT ❑ SUBDIVISION ❑SHORELINE PRO ❑ PMUD ❑ BAR
PERMIT INTERURBAN
❑CONDITIONAL ❑UNCLASS. (, VARIANCE
USE USE LL�J
CMG. OF
ZONING
COMM PLAN
AMENDMENT
APPLICANT' NAME John C. Radovich/ Don Lewison TELEPHONE (206 ) 454 -6060
ADDRESS2000 124th Ave. N.E. B -103, Bellevue, WA ZIP 98005
PROP. OWNER: NAME see back of page
TELEPHONE
ADDRESS
)
ZIP
PROJECT LOCATION: (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) Lots 1.2. &3 of City of Tukwila
Short Plat 79 -7 -SS Recorded under AF#7908210370 and a parcel referred to as "parcel C"
a metes and bounds legal is attached, all are within West of S -24, T -23, R -4E.
SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION
4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE Rezone of approximately 15 acres from
Regional Retail (C -2) to Industrial Park (C -M)
5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM
TO
WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED.IN PHASES? 'OYES ❑ NO IF YES, DESCRIBE: Radovich parcels
will be developed separately from the Evergreen Management parcels.
PROJECT STATISTICS:
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET
B) FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL1 /FLOORS
TOTAL GROSS
FLOOR AREA
SITE UTILIZATION:
ZONING DESIGNATION
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA
LANDSCAPE AREA
PAVING AREA
TOTAL PARKING STALLS:
- STANDARD Sf7E
- COMPACT SIZE
- HANDICAPPED SIZE
TOTAL LOADING SPACES
AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA
AVER. SLOPE OF SITE
GROSS 14• 84ac. EASEMENTS
n/a
INCLUDES: ❑ BASEMENT D MEZZANINE
n/a -INCLUDES: ❑BASEMENT ❑MEZZANINE
EXISTING PROPOSED NOTES
C -2 C -M
Commercial Light Ind,
n/a ❑ n/a ❑
it ❑ ❑
It
1 -2%
0
1_%
IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE
MAP ?? ❑ YES ❑ No The site is surrounded on three sides by the Green River & River Trail
CFf TIMN t 1 I' ADD! IrANT•C ecrInavtT
555'17'03E- 5170'
N73'24'101-650
N G4,3' 371 - 113 ID'
N 5347' 17E -15707
N 55'3913144 93'
N 403556*E- 5540'
N ura. Ire • SI O.
FORT OEN7 PARK
ENTRLNCE Roao
(lt% MOM)
N 591445'10110-153G2'
PLOT PLAN
()atIl 's
9.0:0•01541.kvt.045 .00:021 13.. 56
s'0
----"....- , • t. 0
s1°.61 %-53.01; sv,.stVt. 454 .t.OZT: e2.0V.,1
0 s ""-. 0, Cf• -
54r32.55-#4 -UM
5 71'00' 52*W- 389.92*
,
4 • 91u PARCEL
'7 45.459
a nr)
cc :" RADOVICH
$72'1844V- 93.GG'
564.'02'45* W- I t1.69'
5 5826'46'W-115.31Y
N 30%4'55T -5?).13'
—Pt at Boundary
—547 25.51'W-271.2V
I00
0
100 200
N 59191M-123 GC
•
found Sock In rovernent.
• 1' iron 1,iPe with cap to be set.
Land Surveyer's Certificte:
Thies sh,)rt pZat correctly reprenents
suzycy by
re o- under my direction
in confor::,Ance with the reguirente of
.approiyriate itate statute.
--
Date
Uo: e'
•
• •
1
Portion of West Vt. Section 24
Township 23 North., Range 4 Elo51'..W.
tlap on File in Vault
Direction:
$ cale:
wv.sw.0.14N,
s........ •
• •
•
.7
•
CITY OF TUKWILA.
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
„..P1 YcL1,
nv 2 5 1985
S C H E D U L E DEPT.
•
V
CHANGE OF ZONING•
EXISTING ZONING C -2
REQUESTED ZONING C -M
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION Commerical SITE IN CITY LIMITS? Yes
PROPOSED USE IF REZONE APPROVED Office - warehouse
EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONE COMP. PLAN DES1G.. USE
NORTH R —A Perkslnpen Spare Fnrt Tlant Park
SOUTH M -1. Tight Industry Tndtistrial R, rnmmerrial uses
EAST Green River is directly west. City limits end_
wEST R -3 Low density resid. Interurban Ave. is directly east then hillside
�ESCR1BE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOUR REQUEST FOR. CHANGE OF ZONING CLASSIFICATION SATISFIES EACH
OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN TMC 18.84.030 (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECES-
SARY).
1) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING. IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE AND LAND
USE POLICY PLAN, THE PROVISION OF THE CITY ZONING CODE AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
RESPONSE: The zone change to C- M'will allow for a continued economic growth by expanding
on the existing zone rather than changing it. Both the city and public should
benefit from the change.
2) THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONING IS APPROPRIATE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ZONING AND USE OF
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES (IN ADDITION TO THE FOLLOWING NARRATIVE, SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS SHOULD BE REFERENCED)..
RESPONSE: The zone change to C -M is consistent with various properties to the south which
are currently zoned light industrial.
IF THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING IS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE
POLICY PLAN, THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE IS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE NEED FOR THE REQUESTED •
RECLASSIFICATION.
It has been found that retail office space is not in demand nearly as much as
RESPONSE:,.
wdLelouse lndusLrlal space. the applicant wishes to develop the
property with buildings s. are needed The re7nne to C -M rjil1 allow the
types of uses that are .artl res7p,orjs
■•■•■••■
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION F
i-D r IP -q 11
2 f,' 195
..... ___
ucv (,Tikii.A
PI.P41:3 DEPT.
•
SCHEDULE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
EXISTING COMP. PLAN DEsiGNATIoNCommercial PROPOSED COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION Light Indust.
EXISTING zanr. G C-2 PROPOSED USE Light-Industrial Business Park •
EXISTING USE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONE COMP. PLAN DES1G. . -USE
NORTH R—A Parks/Open space Fort Dent Park
soUTH: M-1 Light Industry Tnrin_stry & Commerrial
EAST Green River isAtLersayeaser) agririlltni-al land
WEST R-3 Low dens. Res. Interurban Ave.
IDENTIFY THOSE POLICIES IN THE TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH YOU FEEL SERVE TO JUSTIFY
r7-THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND ANALYZE THOSE POLICIES AS THEY RELATE TO THE
'• SUBJECT PROPERTY.
FOL I CY 11 . PAGE 1)
, . RELEVANCE
SEE ATTACHED