The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-335-86 - STRANDER JUNCTION - BUILDINGS (BULLS EYE TARGET RANGE)BULLS EYE TARGET RANGE (STRANDER JUNCTION) ONE STORY RETAIL BUILDINGS STRANDER & WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY EPIC 335 -86 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (208) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: DEVELOPMEMT REVIEW COMMITTEE FROM: Becky DATE: February 11, 1987 SUBJECT: DRC MEETING OF: 2 -11 -87 2:00 pm PRE - APPLICATION MEETINGS 2:00 - STRANDER JUNCTION 3:00 - DANIEL BOONE PAINTS 4:00 - BULLSEYE TARGET RANGE DRC AGENDA 1. NEW 2. FOLLOW -UP 3. OTHER Please be on time. We have a very full agenda with applicants scheduled to be here at specific times. MEETING ROOM:Police Training Room (Moira) (Jack) (Doug & Duane) A. FOSTER GOLF COURSE - RESTROOMS (Rebecca) - -Note: will be discussed B. COSTCO (Duane) prior to the pre -apps. C. RADOVICH FILL (Duane) 4. ADJOURNMENT Zo14-6/Aizeikfl u4A6. 5-)(17 anr gArl‘o /6r() CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM TO: [1LDG. PROJECT PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER P.W. C3 FIRE LICE J-P. ADDRESS /!‘;94V60 2)45,1,6 01� DATE TRANSMITTED 1,7-07-8,7 ✓ ✓RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR 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: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [[ PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [I PLAN APPROVED [J PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA Building Division BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Control # (206) 433 -1845 Site Address &Uil-lllwb 4 /(654/6D WEs7 IJA(1y Hyvy. Suite# Floor# Project Name /Tenant �Lcr C /A,z6� r i ? ,,4/6c' Valuation of Construction $ 00/ 000 Assessors Account# Property Owner A/1 /; i9 SS Phone 77 (/_ yS66 Address Pc B 6 36 yeaevwoou G). 926 Zip Applicant 1 v, 7;,-G14-711S Phone 7 gc ?(L'/ Address PO 136k 6 gG L 1> /vtvivps (AM Zip 9602c Architect/Engineer S i ucruR4 .. t ES /&.) /aSsc0C' , Phone Address �AAti Joot G( /4 Zip 80?6 Contractor 410+ .\, 'T S:4(C'T -cc.) License# Phone Address • Zip Class of Work: 0 New [l Addition ® Tenant Improvement 0 Remodel (residential) 0 Reroof 0 Demolition E Interior Demolition 0 Other Describe work to be done /9e)13 '4N C�7 r - P92TWC14.. -C 2t Type of Const. (UBC) Occ. Group (UBC) Square footage of entire building COO Square footage of tenant space 600 0 Building Use /!7ZZNT i✓c5/ �,,�� s &a,› Will there be a change of use? 0 Yes 0 No If yes, describe change of use, including square footages of changed areas /3 v) c. of w S ti&- ki <r- C —/o ty ,4r 7W-( 7;/y e: Will there be storage or use of flammable, combustible or hazardous materials on the premise or area of construction? ['Yes Q No If yes, explain / /7.07 JPe no k) /7 -A Few s4tc L.� /LL /36 $T6/1 &) I.0 jJLc L- Cc/iE(- Pc'iz F-02 CO E1, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT I HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S AAUUTHORIZ' 1 DO THIS WORK. Applicant /Authorized Agent (signature) Date /218'.7 (print name) .3-FF7"ZEV /). 7 )/'1 Contact Person (please print) ];:7Fer-i2c=y 1T6niii091 Phone 77/-50/ OFFICE USE ONLY FEES: Building Permit Fee (000/322.100) $ Receipt# Date Paid Plan Check Fee (000/345.830) Receipt# Date Paid Bldg Code Sur Charge (000/386.904) 1.50 Receipt# Date Paid Energy Sur Charge* (000/386.907) Receipt# Date Paid Other ( ) Receipt# Date Paid *New construction only TOTAL (OWES: $ ) SQUARE FOOTAGE /BUILDING USE INFORMATION Square Foota'e of Entire Building: 41 C 3i?U'. TOTAL FLOOD. USE Occ T s: SI.FT. LTC OAD USE Occ T •: OTC Ss.FT. LOAD USE Occ T •: Ss.FT. OCC oil SI.FT. TOTAL OCC. TOTA TRACKING DEPT. DATE IN DATE OUT COMMENTS BLDG Approved for Issuance Type of Const. To Mahan: Date Approved: FIRE Approved (Initials) Per letter dated Fire Protection: Approved (Initials) • Sprinklers ❑ Detectors ■BAR LJ LAND USE /SEPA.CONDITIONS PLNG Zoning Setbacks: N S E W Parking stalls required for: Site Tenant Space Parking stalls provided: Site Tenant Space ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS REQUIRED: PWD Approved (Initials) Per letter /plans dated • ate :. •,1. alY.Y�. !s vaM IWi . er - I . • - . _. 6= V- - - G t .,2„ 'l.YCa - S. 54th Q0 Sea•T_ ac international' Airport Ls-!./ St. • Southcenter'�/ `1` BIvd. U1 • Southcenter o. o. S t a` cre d a- • yl \S. 180th St Green River 3.1 VICINITY MAP Tukwila Park Brock Residen Inn OOOOOOOOO cc • • Longacres Race Track Andy's Tu wile Station Steak & Ale Restaurant SITE 4E1) TUKWILA TRADE CENTER WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY NEAR LONGACRES • Excellent exposure for bulk retail and service oriented tenants • Convenient access to 1 -405 & 1 -5 • Generous building signage CONTACT: FIRST WESTERN PROPERTIES P.O. BOX 58264 . TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 (206) 575 -1880 JOHN MYRICK I i 1 I I� 11 BLDG A 8000 SF i -- c c c c i ►111111111H. I.1 _. l f I. r L LI:1:L.1. L.LJ:I ::1 1 1..t BLDG B GRAVEL VARKING AREA — BLDG C 1 L 1 8000 SF PAIR jot 1I, 0 BLDG D 8000 SF WEST VALLEY ROAD (SR 181) 102' �— OVERHEAD DOOR SALES WHOLESALE TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN (BLDG D) Sales area may be increased or decreased to suit tenants' needs C. SITE PLAN BUILDING FEATURES • Retail sales or service area with storefront and glass entry door, suspended ceiling, heat and air conditioning • Wholesale area with 14' -0" clear height and forced air electric furnace • Overhead door for truck access CONTACT: FIRST WESTERN PROPERTIES P.O. BOX 58264 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 (206) 575.1880 JOHN MYRICK .) J( TA) Typ. 4/1Err 34F/ ES 13AFFES Typ. -a- Se,/ Typ rARc,Fr Tyr R AN v 6 3,900 sr Tyr. COorfE o OT/► seas 7 :�i yN 66 S 4' aOc NL c L C.. 8' 1 1°l i-, C. tell STsP 131 =W' kETH'C DIspc9y /0005/ B d' Doors SCrfCDULLE 0 00 NoN hocr,ii0v, So,- /O co4i , 3 -Q w1UrII, SAf Ty GLASS sfogE 410/4.4 #ypE1 3-ON fowl c.�rrN .s 4rrry %.>L4 -J Q N/A71Cl U7346t6 4'fl pi " 1n /ASI, b ooR O C o RG � 2.- 91 w.DTN� Kcy�� LOCI; 1,0CK,W(, /1412 01.444f /1/o ft-3 14/ALL I) z Tq /L o! • f .• . ° . • I 1 e Rot>F STRocrt1Zc S Tvpa o.()/uccrrow e LLD La S -RIVAL- r1ov (Nr or JQ o r, r. 2 x y sro u S /g" Gyp 1zJ• ' /yip(q( it PIw pRILLEt1 TNro t()wl. %CAreo SULE PL,ere ■ �oNc. SL_A3 1 i �) SpAiurLrA Sy StrM T,. tTALII . T4) U, (3.C' . ♦ Tv it u.j I L A Co r) S 7� P41r.11 b 4v41LAjLc 3) A,Wr ✓,vi ;If iv `I Egad.' -rc CON f ," WlrO NA 'DIr.o0 c'FS r er.0 5) Doti-DING 20# sp4CEs f o 136 s ro ante SN CO4f1. A!co. ?-" )(' " W.1M PO t LoclrCIZ tyP-vaC Sw ,1 REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING: The hearing was opened on Municipal Building. Parties The following exhibits were °C i0 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER woRKS Dtp.. CITY OF RENTON October 8, 1986 SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPMENT, INC. File No.: AAD- 095 -86 Northeast corner of the intersection of West Valley Highway and S.W. 27th Street. Appealing an administrative decision by the ERC requiring appellant to grant an easement allowing the widening of West Valley Highway and be responsible for additional improvements. After reviewing the Appellant's letter requesting a hearing on the above matter, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: September 30, 1986 at 9:10 A.M. in the Council Chambers of the Renton wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. entered into the record: Exhibit #1 - Yellow File containing application, proof of posting and publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit #2 - Site Plan. The hearing opened with testimony from Webb Reid, Vice President, SCD, Inc.. 2227 - 112th N.E., Suite 201. Bellevue, Wa. 98004. Mr. Reid wanted the record to reflect his company did not have any objection to the granting of an easement to the City of Tukwila for the widening of a portion of West Valley Highway, their appeal is the requirement that they be responsible for full street improvements. The City of Renton is in the process of annexing this property to the City of Tukwila. The appellant has been in discussions with Tukwila regarding the proposed road widening; the property will be annexed into Tukwila at some point in the future; the property of concern is a strip located in the northwest corner of the property and extending to the southwest corner, approximately 1 ft. wide and 4 -5 ft. wide at the southwest corner. He continued with a review of the background of the property stating it is part of a short plat for Glacier Park; at no time in discussions were costs for improvements to the highway discussed, but the appellant was agreeable to granting an easement for said improvements which included such things as widening the road, removal of power poles owned by City Light, and other improvements which would create costs they feel would be out of reason for their small project. Mr. Webb stated during meetings with officials from the City of Renton, those officials present stated they were not sure if the widening of West Valley was warranted due to the size of this project. The easement will be incorporated in the Short Plat, but was not a requirement of the Short Plat; they do not feel they should be responsible for additional improvements and associated costs. Responding for the City of Renton was Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator. Mr. Blaylock advised the position of the City and the ERC is that the development of the site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Renton, with the roadway in the City of Tukwila. He said Tukwila would control curb -cut access to West Valley Highway and both cities would require adjacent off -site improvements. Tukwila feels an additional 7th lane should be added to the highway which is a standard they have applied to other developments on the west side of the highway; the Renton ERC felt since the development was within the jurisdiction of Tukwila, and they had deferred to Renton ERC for the environmental review, that the commitment should be made to make the improvements; if the easement of 1 - 4 ft. was not granted the appellant would still have to submit an EIS; and stated because the property will be transferred to the City of Tukwila at some time in the future, the standards of that City were considered in the proposal and were taken into consideration by the Renton ERC. Testifying for the City of Tukwila was: Ross Earnst, City Engineer, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Wa. 98188. Mr. Earnst stated for the record that Tukwila believes SR -181 is a primary arterial in addition to being a State Highway. The City has just . completed the 6th lane from southbound I -405 to Strander Blvd. with the lane being partially paid for by the developer of a hotel north of this project, with a developer of a shopping center and hotel at the corner of Strander responsible for curb, gutter and sidewalks along with a dedicated right -of -way for the 6th lane. The developer was not asked to pave that portion as there was another project underway that would be doing that part of the project. The 7th lane is in the transportation program for the City of Tukwila but is not currently funded. Mr. Earnst stated when SCD came to Tukwila discussions were held regarding the additional lane and access SHOPPING CENTER DEVELENT, INC. AAD- 095 -86 October 8, 1986 Page 2 stated there was no traffic study required on the development; primary concerns now are the right and left turns that will occur into the proposed development; City ordinance requires sidewalks on all developments. In reply to a question from the Examiner, Mr. Earnst stated if the SCD project was not developed the City of Tukwila would end up developing the 7th lane at some date in the future. The Hearing Examiner explained to the appellant it was uncertain if his office could offer a remedy to assist them in their appeal. There are two jurisdictions involved and Renton would have no power over Tukwila requirements as they might effect their property and curb cuts within the City. He stated he could review the Renton requirement for dedication of 1 - 4 ft. and determine whether it was or was not related to the environmental consequence of the project. Mr. Reid set out several remedies the appellant could pursue regarding the future of the property; acknowledged Mr. Earnst's statement that at some point in time with or without this development the improvements would be completed by the City of Tukwila; referred to other small businesses that were not required to put in improvements; and closed stating the appellant just wants to move ahead and complete this project. Roger Blaylock testified again requesting the Examiner to analyze the issue of how appropriate it is for Renton to make a determination for Tukwila regarding environmental issues but was advised by the Examiner that he would have no right to intrude in the jurisdictional requirements set forth by Tukwila. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:40 A.M. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, Shopping Center. Development, Inc (SCD, Inc), filed for approval of an administrative site plan. Prior to the review by the Site Plan Review Committee of the City of Renton, an environmental determination was issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). A Declaration of Non - Significance (DNS) was issued by the ERC on August 13, 1986, with a publication date of August 18, 1986. An appeal date was established to expire on September 1, 1986. The DNS was mitigated by a condition requiring the dedication of certain property along the West Valley Highway, a condition which appeared to have been accepted by the appellant in a letter dated August 18, 1986. 2. While the appeal period for the DNS was running the Site Plan Review Committee issued its Findings, Conclusions, and Decision. That report was issued on August 20, 1986. Incorporated into that report was a condition relating to the appellant's frontage along the West Valley Highway. The condition generally required agreement between the appellant and the City of Tukwila for widening and improvement of West Valley. It appears from the record that the City of Tukwila required the construction of a seventh (curb) lane adjacent to the property. 3. In a timely fashion, the appellant thereafter filed this appeal of matters related to the widening of West Valley Road. While the appeal specifically mentioned the DNS, the timing of the appeal is such that it could serve also as an appeal of the Site Plan Review Committee's decision. At the Hearing it was unclear which decision was being appealed. When the appeal was accepted this office was not aware that the Site Plan Review Committee had issued a decision, and matters relating to that decision were not in evidence until the hearing commenced. Reading the appeal letter now, it is apparent that the widening of West Valley, at the appellant's expense, is the issue. While the widening issue is found in the Site Plan Report, it has as its basis the dedication required by the environmental decision. Therefore, for purposes of this decision, and in the interests of justice and expediency, both decisions will be reviewed. 4. The matter is complicated by cross, or interjurisdictional overlap. The property lies wholly within the City of Renton, while the frontage subject to this dispute lies along the boundary between the City of Renton and the City of Tukwila. The subject property is also one of a number of properties which may be exchanged between the two Cities in a mutual attempt to straighten out their common boundary. 5. The subject site is one lot of a two -lot short plat (File Short Plat 084 -85) which was approved by the City of Renton. The short plat required a combination of dedications and easements to the City to accommodate the potential development of S.W. 27th Street or the Strander Boulevard extension. The short plat has not been formally filed or recorded. The subdivision was reviewed together with a site plan for the subject site's companion lot. During those reviews there was no mention of any additional exactions for property along West Valley for either of the parcels. SHOPPING CENTER DEVELCRENT, INC. AAD- 095 -86 October 8, 1986 Page 3 6. In reviewing the current request the City of Tukwila was consulted during the environmental review and submitted comment sheets and a summary memorandum regarding that jurisdiction's concerns. It would appear that of the impacts and mitigation measures noted, Item 4 contains the basis which gave rise to the appellant's appeal. The portion of Item 4 at issue states: "Improve the east side of West Valley Highway with a seventh lane and sidewalk." 7. Apparently, the City of Renton determined that the dedication along West Valley, which measures approximately 245 feet long and between approximately 1 and approximately 5 feet wide, was an accommodation to the City of Tukwila, but not, according to the record, necessary for environmental mitigation. 8. The estimates for the improvements along West Valley, without redesigning the road, are approximately $4,500. With the redesign and widening the costs are approximately $18,000 and $22,000. The appellant maintains that the costs are disproportionate to the overall costs of the project and are not reasonably related to the environmental consequences of the proposal. 9. The City of Tukwila indicated that other improvements have been and are being installed in the vicinity of the subject site, which is a major intersection. They maintain that the improvements will have to be accomplished to provide a smooth transition in improvements and to accommodate traffic leaving the subject site. CONCLUSIONS 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of either the ERC or the Site Plan Review Committee was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provision, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 3010(B)(4)). While the issues are not easily resolved, nor even necessarily resolved by this decision, the appellant has demonstrated that one or both decisions should be reversed. 2. The record reflects that the dedication of the approximately 245 linear feet of property, which varied between 1 and 5 feet in width, was not necessary for a mitigated DNS. The exaction was an accommodation to the City of Tukwila. For this the City of Renton cannot be faulted. As noted above, this decision may not make much difference if the appellant still requires approval of Tukwila somewhere in the permit process, and that jurisdiction requires the improvement. That will be a separate issue, but in this forum, Renton the dedication does not appear reasonably related to the potential environmental impacts. 3. The exaction was not required during the platting process where a City is generally required to make provision for public rights -of -way. Renton required a considerable dedication and reservation during the platting process from the then entire, but relatively small parcel. The original parcel was located astride a proposed major intersection, and the benefits of the exaction accrued to the general public and were not necessarily related to the appellant's impacts. It appears again, rather than being related to site impacts, the currently proposed exaction is intended to serve the general public. 4. The record seems perfectly clear that the additional lane is associated more with the increased development pressure in the area than simply the development of the subject site. Tukwila indicated that in any event, the lane would eventually be developed. It is not reasonable to expect the relatively large prior exactions to be coupled with the current exaction, and then in addition require the adjacent property owner to foot the bill to develop a lane which is, in any event, already required by the combined developments around the intersection. 5. -The record does not clearly support the decision that the current development is the precipitating factor in requiring the lane improvement, only that the property is located adjacent to an improvement already necessary given the trend in the area. 6. The appellant stressed that they would work with both jurisdictions, and had already done so to accommodate the two cities. This office has no jurisdiction over the City of Tukwila, and while SEPA requires cooperation between jurisdictions and consultations, this does not necessarily convey any authority over other jurisdictions. This office will not intervene, other then to indicate where Renton may have possibly erred. The regulations of Tukwila are not before this office, nor should they be. This office has no familiarity with any of Tukwila's requirements. 7. Hopefully, the appellant and the 2 jurisdictions can accommodate each other in a reasonable fashion. It would appear that if the project became economically infeasible, Tukwila would not only have to build the lane itself, but it would also lose the benefit of the dedication which the appellant was willing to grant. If the appellant does not dedicate the property, it would appear Tukwila would have to condemn it. It 'would seem advantageous to all parties to reach an accord without making unreasonable demands. SHOPPING CENTER DEVEL1ENT, INC. AAD- 095 -86 October 8, 1986 Page 4 DECISION The determination of the City of Renton requiring the dedication and improvement of property along West Valley Road is reversed. ORDERED THIS 8th day of October, 1986. ‹cu,1„,, FRED J. K FMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of October, 1986 to the parties of record: Webb Reid, Vice Preident SCD, Inc. 2227 - 112th N.E., Suite 201 Bellevue, Wa. 98044 Ross Earnst, City Engineer City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa. 98188 TRANSMITTED THIS 8th day of October, 1986 to the following: Mayor Barbara Y. Shinpoch Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Richard Houghton, Public Works Director Larry M. Springer, Policy Development Director Ronald Nelson, Building & Zoning Director Glen Gordon, Fire Marshal Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.M. October 22. 1986. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Any appeal is governed by Title IV, Section 3011, which requires that such appeal be filed with the Superior Court of Washington for King County within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one -on -one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision - makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Roger Blaylock Moira Carr Bradshaw July 8, 1986 Commercial Design Associates Site Approval Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. The checklist and plans were circulated to each of the departments within the City. Enclosed are their responses. I have summarized the impacts and the requested miti- gating measures. 1. Dedicate 5 -lane 75 -foot right -of -way for Strander Extension dependent upon property lines. Improve Strander right -of -way to grades and design currently available. Improve Strander and West Valley Highway intersection with: a) rechannelization with left turn southbound. b) pedestrian crosswalks east /west and south /north. Improve east side of West Valley Highway with a seventh lane and sidewalk. Sidewalk widths would be a minimum 8 feet without landscape buffer or a 6 foot sidewalk with a buffer. 5. Revise landscape plan for swales instead of berms to provide a biofiltering system for surface water runoff. Redesign location of West Valley Highway access point to the north of existing location and restrict to right in right out only. 7. Underground electric power lines adjacent to property lines. 8. Install water and sewer lines in accordance with City of Tukwila Comprehensive Utility Plan. 9. Provide study of capacity of existing storm sewer system to handle site runoff. 10. Provide a minimum setback of 20 feet on West Valley Highway, which is the City's minimum setback requirement. Twenty feet would create a move uniform front along West Valley. • • Roger Blaylock Moira Carr Bradshaw July 3, 1986 Commercial Design Associates Site Approval -1 04 6 rWz o i rn ` &l,N elves &gW ntaiof ; e the kl i st and plans were cir` culate d, to each of the departments within the City. Enclosed are them' s. I have summarized the impacts and requested mitigating measures. • 1. Dedicate:5- laneVVright -of -way for Strander Extension ��'�✓G 1/0 a•`2AZ -- 2. Improve Strander right -of -way to grades and design currently available. 3. Improve Strander and West Valley Highway intersection•with: a) rechannelization with left turn southbound. b) pedestrian crosswalks east /west and south /north. �r4s: 1~ r-- i- c- t ,�,acce:s:s— to.= d�•�1'o'pme'nt t�a .- +!�•' 5. Improve east side of West Valley Highway with a seventh lane and sidewalk. Sidewalk widths would be a minimum 8 feet without landscape buffer or a 6 foot sidewalk with a buffer. , a i o 7_egsse pant 6. Revise landscape plan for swales instead of berms to provide a biofiltering system for surface water runoff. 7. Redesign location of West Valley Highway access point to the north of existing location and restrict to right in right out only. 8. Underground electric power lines adjacent to property lines. and 6e-utrA7 9. Install water lines in accordance with City of Tukwila Comprehensive —Water Plan ., 10. Provide study of capacity of existing storm sewer system to handle site runoff. 11. Provide a minimum setback of 20 feet on West Valley Highway, which is the City's minimum setback requirement. Twenty feet would create a move uniform front along West Valley. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: •CN -,-- 1 EPIC -33S -S 10 FILE TO: [] BLDG \ ' PLNG [j P.W. n FIRE ni POLICE El P & R PROJECT Strander Junction LOCATION NE corner Strander & West Valley FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6/27/86 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 74/86 STAFF COORDINATOR M. Bradshaw 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 Z■4.4 C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: •CN -8, -1 EPIC -33S-8&' FILE TO: Q BLDG ri PLNG n P.W. r--1 FIRE 0 POLICE P & R) PROJECT Strander Junction LOCATION NE corner Strander & West Valley FILE NO. 3 DATE TRANSMITTED 6/27/86 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/4/86 STAFF COORDINATOR M. Bradshaw 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 Aoir Aof DATE 4/7,r( COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF` TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • a- g1, -/q9 EPIC -33S-Slo FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: [] BLDG 0 PLNG 0 P.W. n FIRE POLICE n P & R PROJECT Strander Junction LOCATION NE corner Strander & West Valley FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6/27/86 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/486 STAFF COORDINATOR M. Bradshaw 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: 1. TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION AND STATE UPGRADE OF SR181. PRESENT CONSTRUCTION PATTERN OF NENDALS AND LANE WIDENING HAVE CREATED A MAJOR TRAFFIC BOTTLENECK...WILL THIS FURTHER DETERIORATE THE EXISTING POOR CONDITIONS. 2. PLACEMENT OF WEST ACCESS, POINT DIRECTLY ONTO SR181 AND WITHIN 100 FEET OF INTERSECTION GREATLY ENHANCES ACCIDENT PROBABILITY. 3. HAVE PROJECT DEVELOPER CONTACT CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER FOR LATEST INFORMATION AND TECHNIQUES RE: BURGLARY /ROBBERY PREVENTION, AND ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS OF SECURITY LIGHTING. 6/30/8A pjl DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ;CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: •CN-8c, -1 EPIC -33S-8 &' FILE TO: BLDG=‘ Q PLNG ri P.W. ri FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R PROJECT Strander Junction LOCATION NE corner Strander & West Valley FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6/27/86 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/1/86 STAFF COORDINATOR M. Bradshaw 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 6 DATE 30 �� COMMENTS PREPARED BY 11,0-0,-2 )6L-7) C.P.S. Form 11 ,CITY 9F TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: ,RECEIVED •CN- s, -1q9 JUN 2 7 1986 EPIC -;35-2 , TUKWILA FILE PUBLIC WORKS TO: 0 BLDG 0 PLNG P.W. (l FIRE El POLICE P & R PROJECT Strander Junction LOCATION NE corner Strander & West Valley FILE NO. 3 DATE TRANSMITTED 6/27/86 ;RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 74/86 STAFF COORDINATOR M. Bradshaw 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 C 5-4– &__4— fir f,---, I (tei dj ®�-I',c,o �'' It. al cvir k60 lob � " Au P . DATE 6/710 A$b COMMENTS PREPARED BY 7s1' C.P.S. Form 11 • OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: •CN -86 - 17? EPIC -33S-S 10 FILE TO: Q BLDG Q PLNG ] P.W. FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R PROJECT Strander Junction LOCATION NE corner Strander & West Valley FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6/27/86 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7/®/86 STAFF COORDINATOR M. Bradshaw 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. 0 ITEM COMMENT --4-e--5„4/);(-6 Ae A -e,f-4 / c aLQ f /�J?l/LPCc �QCY G%C eiw ail O-„ c) LL,4_42_cD —(2,LkA9 c.O 0P ,vhc"Ao -.�9 -� U r "YYlan,a.RaQ As A .P. DATE \ -2-7 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 •1908 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DRC Moira Bradshaw DATE: June 27, 1986 SUBJECT: Review of Project in Northeast corner of West Valley Highway and Strander Boulevard intersection. Area is proposed for annexation to City of Tukwila via the Tukwila /Renton Boundary Line Adjustment projected completion late Fall. Please note the due date for comments is July 8th. RENTOVUILDING & ZONING DE ENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 040 - 86 APPLICATION NO(S): SITE PLAN APPROVAL: SA- 041 -86 PROPONENT: COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC PROJECT TITLE: N/A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ONE STORY BUILDINGS HAVING APPROXIMATELY 11.688 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA ON A 1.03 ACRES SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION (S.W.27TH STREET) AND WEST VALLEY ROAD. TO: 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 0 ENGINEERING DIVISION ['TRAFFIC ENG, DIVISION El UTILITIES ENG. DIVISION fl FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU El PARKS &RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS: SCHEDULED ERC DATE: 6/25/R6 TENATIVE S.CI4E.DU.LED HEARING DATE: 7/22/86 COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5 :00 P.M, ON JUNE 19. 1986 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT /DIVISION: DAPPROVED O WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED NMEMED JUN 26 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 6/1982 Form 182 OF R4, o -55 co 09gT�D SEP.W4S34 BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR TO: BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT RONALD G. NELSON - DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE. SO. RENTON, WASH. 98055 • 235 -2540 MEMORANDUM Bradley Collins, Planning Director Planning and Building Department FROM: Roger Blaylock, Zoning Administrator q.?) Building and Zoning Department SUBJECT: Commercial Design Associates Site Approval DATE: June 25, 1986 1LL dJ5 JUN 26 1986 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Attached please find an Environmental Checklist Review Sheet and a Development Application Review Sheet. Please comment and return to this office before July 8, 1986 so that our Environmental Review Committee may review this project on July 9, 1986. Thank you. ARONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHE REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 5. 1986 COMMENTS DUE: JUNE 19, 1986 ECF - 040 - 86 APPLICATION NO(s). SITE APPROVAL : FILE SA- 041 -86 PROPONENT: COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES . INC PROJECT TITLE: N/A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ONE STORY BUILDINGS HAVING'APPROXIMATELY 11.688 SQUARE FEET (6,475 and 5,213.) OF FLOOR AREA ON A 1.03 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF'STRANDER BLVD EXTENSION (S.W. 27th STREET) and WEST VALLEY ROAD. SITE AREA: 1.03 ACRES (44, 987.5 SO FIBUILDING AREA (gross): 11. 688 SQ. FT. IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plant 5) Anima 6) Energ 7) Envir 8) Land 9) Housi 10) Aesth 11) Light 12) Recre 13) Histo 14) Trans 15) Publi 16) Utili COMMENTS: MINOR IMPACT MAJOR IMPACT MORE INFORMATION AN FLU) JUN 26 1986 CITY OF TUkVViLA PLANNING DEPT. RECOMMENDATION: El DNS [] MITIGATED DNS n EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: DATE: FORM 414 REVISED 9/10/85 s is y and Natural Resources onmental Health and Shoreline Use ng etics and Glare ation ric and Cultural Preservation portation c Services ties AN FLU) JUN 26 1986 CITY OF TUkVViLA PLANNING DEPT. RECOMMENDATION: El DNS [] MITIGATED DNS n EIS REVIEWED BY: TITLE: DATE: FORM 414 REVISED 9/10/85 if OF RENT0g. B DING & ZONING DEPARTNIMT MASTER APPLICATION FILE NO(S): NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only those items related to your specific type of applicotion(s) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attach odditionol sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT NAME Commercial Design Associates, Inc. 1 ADDRESS 4230 - 198th St. S.W. CITY Lynnwood, Wa 986 TELEPHONE (206) 771 -2300 CONTACT PERSON NAME Michael Meadows Commercial Design Associates, Inc. ADDRESS 4230 - 198th St. S.W. /1TY Lynnwood, Wa ZIP 98036 TELEPHONE (206) 771 -2300 1 OWNER NAME SCD,- Inc. ADDRESS 6000 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 250 CITY Seattle, Wa ZIP 98188 TELEPHONE (206) 243 -2300 1 LOCATION PROPERTY ADDRESS West Valley Highway at Strander Blvd. 1 EXISTING USE Vacant PRESENT ZONING B -1 /ROPOSED USE Retail Sales AREA: SQ. FT. 44,987.5 s.f. ACRES 1.10 acres TYPE OF APPLICATION REZONE *(FROM TO SPECIAL PERMIT* TEMPORARY PERMIT* CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT* SITE PLAN APPROVAL SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL No. of Cubic Yards: VARIANCE* From Section: * Justification Required SUBDIVISIONS: SHORT PLAT TENTATIVE PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT WAIVER (Justification Required) NO. OF LOTS: PLAT NAME: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: PRELIMINARY FINAL P.U.D. NAME: ED Residential aCommercial Q Industrial ED Mixed MOBILE HOME PARKS: cJ 0 TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY FINAL PARK NAME: NUMBER OF SPACES: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TOTAL FEES .. CITY OF s c�YON MAY 191986 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. 1.4 ,AFF USE 111 ONLY -- P.DMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: Accepted Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) '`ATE ROUTED i ROUTED TO: -5- ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: QAccepted Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) Building Police Design Eng. Policy Dev. Of-Fire !2n Traffic Eng. Parks Utilities Onnrcnn 1 .11 n. Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). AFFIDAVIT a M IAtY WS , being duly sworn, declare that I am ,authorized representative to act for the property owner, []owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the Information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS /5'64 DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT (Namgof Notary Public) (Signature of Owner) C.OMAIE/240L 1,I,&) /$SaG X 30 /g54h s-r s ) (Address) I YAJ iX W4r lBD3ro (City) (State) (Zip) Co) 11 —23C0 (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." INC. ,c- ?CIAL OCIATES l'2:31-1 '1981h ST j \/! LYNIN!\;,'0017D, \NA.>H!iN1C2 TC>N 98036 (206) 77,1 - 300 May 27, 1986 CITY OF RENTON Jeanette Samek Planning Department City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, Washington 98055 MAY 2 81986 BUILDING: ZOMNL DEr. r. SUBJECT: STRANDER JUNCTION. CDA #1186 Dear Jeanette: After reviewing our site approval application with the Owner. several minor ■modifications became apparent. They are as follows: 1. Delete two of the maple trees on the west side of Building A. As presently shown they would block the sign fascia, greatly hindering the leasibility of the project. 2. Delete the note on Sheet 3 of 3 "Painted accent band ". Because final decision has not been made on the color selections. we do not want to confuse you as to our intentions. We would like this to be considered as an addendum to our site approval package submitted on May 16. 1986. As you can see. these are minor but necessary modifications: We hope this will not hinder your review process and that a timely approval can be achieved. If additional documentation is required or if you have any questions please call me. Sincerely. 404492,s Michael Meadows COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES. INC. M M /sve -003 cc: Carl Pirscher, COA LOT 1 AND TRACT "X" OF GLACIER PARK CO. SHORT PLAT, AS DESIGNATED ON PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATED OCTOBER, 1985, BY ESM SURVEYING OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, BEING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMEIJT LOTS 2 AND 11 AND'"OF'THE HENRY MEADER DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 46, ALL IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY (ALSO KNOWN AS STATE ROAD NO 181) WITH THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 210 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 11, AND ITS WESTERLY PROLONGATION; THENCE SOUTH 87° 47' 19" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 40.76 FEET TO THE EAST'MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWAY AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 08° 51' 30" WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY HIGHWAY MARGIN, 808.08 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE'S BOW LAKE PIPELINE RIGHT -OF -WAY; THENCE SOUTH 87° 13' 12" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 273.28 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF A 100 -FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY CONVEYED TO PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 2629432 AND 2644020 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY); THENCE SOUTH 010 13' 24" EAST ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 791.76 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 210 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 11; THENCE NORTH 87° 47' 19" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 165.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTH OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 5 FEET NORTH, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE HENRY MEADER DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 46 AND THE CENTERLINE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY (ALSO KNOWN AS STATE ROAD NO. 181); THENCE NORTH 08° 52' 29" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 48.98 FEET ALONG SAID HIGHWAY CENTERLINE; THENCE SOUTH 85° 30' 26" EAST, 41.14 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIBED LINE; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 85° 30' 26" EAST 227.79 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY RIGHT -OF -WAY AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIBED LINE; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CITY OF jtir i Off'] rpnW1 fa MAY 191986 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. • *City of Renton 5p\- O4I-b(a �Jo4o -&,0 Ca; Cl2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKR m Ry 191986 Purpose of Checklist: e) III,D;NV ZONING' DE' The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer." and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: STRANDER JUNCTION ` 2. Name of applicant: COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4230 - 198th Street Southwest Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (206) 771 -2300 4. Date checklist prepared: May 2, 1986 5. Agency requesting checklist: Planning Department - City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction Start - Summer 1986 7. Do you have any plans Lure additions X lansions, or fur er activity related to or connected with thposai? if y pain. •No � g. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. To the best of our knowledge - none. 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. To the best of our knowledge there are none. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Short Plat Application Site Plan Approval Building Permit Plumbing Permit Electrical Permit 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project aedcertain aspects of your proposal. later You in do notcneedli y that ask you to describe to repeat those answers on this page. See attachment. 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 topography 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 applications related to this checklist. See attachment. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); 'flat ' rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Flat c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat. muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Top six to ten feet is fill material of light grey silty sand with gravel. Under that is two feet of peat and brown silty sand to sandy silt with organics. 2 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comment TO BE COMPLETED BY A•ANT • Adequate d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. The underlying peat in the able for construction until with preload and structural built on iles. Describe tie purpose, type, quantities of any filling or Indicate source of fill. area is not suit - it is compressed fill, or buildin and approximate grading proposed. See attachment. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No existing slopes less than 1 %. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 90% - buildings, walks, and asphalt. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: No erosion anticipated. Silt from construc- tion activities will be collected before storm water leaves site. 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. See attachment. b. Are there any off -site sources of emission? c. None identified. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Emissions generated are considered insignificant. 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. None. 3 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Inadequate Comments TO BE COMPLETED BY APPT 2) Will the project require any work over, In, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and Indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. See attachment 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 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comment! b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaximately quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No discharge 4 TO BE COMPLETED BY AANT 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. See Water (4) 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Install on -site storm water collection system. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other 6 evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs 6 grass o crop or grain o Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other O other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All existing vegetation will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comments d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native plants consisting of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs will be installed in new landscaped areas. 5 TO BE COMPLETED BY APP11151T S. 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 no endangered species Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other none Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other none • 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: 2% of site area will be designated as required wildlife mitigation area. It will be planted with fruit - producing shrubs. eb 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether It will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electric and natural gas for heating and cooking. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comment: b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Structures are one -story in height and will cast little shadow. c. Included in the the plans of of this pr op features List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy Impacts, if any: Building construction will meet or exceed standards of the Washi ngtor0 S'tat yEii@rgy Code TO BE COMPLETED BY APPI_ ANT 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. None 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Police, Fire, Medic, for normal protection. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No environmental health hazards anticipated. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comments b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Noise created by traffic on adjacent street and highways. Existing noise levels are not anticipated to adversely affect proposed project. 2) What types and levals of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. See attachment. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: During construction, work will be limited to normal working hours. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is vacant, surrounding uses are retail, restaurant use similar to what is proposed herein. b. Has the site describe. None that 10 years. been used for agriculture? If so, is apparent within the last -7- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPOINT 9. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the . current zoning classification of the site? 1?, -1 cornmeoctal f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Ndt known g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. J. No. 41. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comment Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 15 - 30 employed. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: See attachment. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing Impacts, if any: None. 8 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR 410 AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comments 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; 24 feet: Glass storefront, painted stucco, b. bainted (;MU at views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Maintain project scale to that of surrounding buildings and conform to convenants and restrictions on property. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? See attachment. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No - Lighting levels would be no higher than existing surrounding street lights. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Existing roadway and surrounding project lighting are not anticipated to adversely affect project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Use of non -glare cut -off type fixtures. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None close by. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. 9 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPtJT c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Site is not suitable for recreational activities due to its proximity to existing commercial development and traffic. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural Importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: • No impacts anticipated. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. See attachment b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? Metro Transit currently has routes running along West Valley Highway. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposal includes 58 new stalls, eliminating none. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Adequate Inadequate Comment! 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). Yes, curb and gutter will be required along West Valley Highway and the intersecti with Strander Blvd. Extension at the south property line with some improvement. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. - 10- TO BE COMPLETED BY AP•ANT • Adequate f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximately 200 - 300 trips per day - worst case situation. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No impacts anticipated that would require mitigation. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No, existing uses directly adjacent to site are currently served by the necessary public services. No increased demand is anticipated b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Police: Buiding security lighting will be installed and care will be taken to limit all potential "dark" spaces. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. All of the above except septic system. 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. Electricity: Puget Sound Power & Light Water: city of Renton Telephone: PNB Telep me Co. Sanitary Sewer: Metro Refuse: Rainier Disposal C. SIGNATURtural Gas: Washington Natural Gas co. I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may declaration of non - significance that it might issue in reliance upon should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full my part. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Proponent: Name Printed: )14/0-66e1.-- = W5 Inadequate Comments information is withdraw any this checklist disclosure on D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHER NONPROJECT ACTIONS (This sheet should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. 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 faster rerate than if the proposal, affect greater were not In activities likely implemented. a Respond intensity or at t a 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 sutstances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 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 sites. wetlands, f oodplainseor prime farmiands� species habitat, historic or cultural Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: • CDk INC C�T RC IAA C IATES 4230 198th ST. S.W. LYNINWOOP 98036 Attachment to City of Renton Environmental Impact Statement Checklist Strander Junction May 2, 1986 i 200 'j 2300 A. BACKGROUND 11 Construct and develop 6,475 sq. ft. and 5,213 sq. ft. one -story retail buildings on a ± 44,987.5 square foot site located on West Valley Highway adjacent to the Strander Blvd. Extension, northeast corner. 12. LEGAL DESCRIPTION - See attached B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth. e. The building area will need to be preloaded and structural fill provided. The preload will be approximately 760 cubic yards, and four feet deep. The structural fill 280 cubic yards 2 feet deep. The source of the fill is as yet undetermined. After preload is removed it will be returned to source. 2. Air. a. Emissions from heavy equipment should be generated during construction activities. The exact quantity cannot be determined at this time, but would be insignificant in relation to the emissions generated by traffic traveling on adjacent roads and highways. No significant emissions are anticipated after construction is complete. HVAC systems will be electrical heat pumps. 4. The site is presently pervious soil. Proposal will include City of Renton approved stormwater detention system to collect all storm water from new impervious areas and discharge the stormwater into the existing storm sewer in the adjacent right -of -way. Discharge will be slow enough to not overburden the downstream drainage pattern. No surface water withdrawals are anticipated. Attachment to City oon, E.I.S. Checklist Strander Junction May 2, 1986 Page Two ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2. Noise generated during construction operations will be limited to normal working hours only. There are no residential uses within 1,000 feet of site. After construction, the only noise generated will be from automobile traffic on. and off the site. The uses within the building will not generate significant noise. LAND AND SHORELINE USE 1. Proposed use is consistent with existing comprehensive plan and zoning. Although zoning is projected to be modified in the near future, to disallow some retail uses, a rezone will be requested at the opportune time to allow the uses to conform. LIGHT AND GLARE a. New building and parking lot lighting will be installed. This would be controlled by a timer to be on during evening and nighttime business hours. Security lighting on building would remain on during nighttime hours. Fixtures would be oriented so that glare is reduced to a minimum. TRANSPORTATION a. The site is bounded on the west by West Valley Highway and on the south by the proposed Strander Blvd. Extension. The only access to the site will be via a driveway at the northwest corner of the site which accesses West Valley Highway and a driveway long the south property line off of the proposed Strander Blvd. Extension improvement required for this project. END OF ATTACHMENT a psi MEM MEE ®is SO■ ENE MEM NISE MOS cr W O W U LEGAL', -.DESCRIPTION . , the proposal is for development and construction of two retail sales. • - - buildings; 6.475 square feet Ind 5,213 square feet. The buildings rill be one story. in .height (approximately 19') of concrete block and wood framed, stucco construction.: The site will be filled as" required to match road elevation at Nest Valley Highway: Construction. .' is slated to start mid -June. 1986 with completion mid - October. -1986. Applicant: - ' -. - - . Coemercial De sign_Assoc1ates, -Inc. ' 4230 -- 198th Street Southwest Lynnwood. Washington 98036 - -. -(206) 771 -2300. ' Owner: .. SCD. Inc.' - - — 6000 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 250 - . Seattle. Washington 98188. .. (206) 243 -2300_ - '- 'LOCATION:. ' RENTON:, WASHINGTON - ZONING: . ' 11-1: COMMERCIAL PROPOSED USE . RETAIL .. - OCCUPANCY GROUP: '.. B -2 -, • - - .. . :.SITE AREA:. .44,987.4 SQ. FT. ._ • .. .. BUILDING AREAS 11 ;688 SQ. FT. SITE COVERAGE:.' • - .- 26%- .. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: ' - VN UBC EDITION: .:.. 1985' -_ - SEISMIC:• - . PARKING REQUIRED:. .58 STALLS - 3Q : - .. PARKING PROVIDED: ' ' 58 STALLS - - - . . . . - PROJECT--. DATA ' = -LOT' 1 AND TRACT 'X' -.OF GLACIER. PARK CO. SHORT PLAT. AS DESIGNATED ON PRELIMINARY SURVEY DATED OCTOBER. 1985. BY ESN SURVEYING OF RENTON..'. WASHINGTON..BEING A. PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: . - -THAT PORTION. OF GOVERNMENT' LOTS 2 AND 111- AND OF'. THE -HENRY- HEADER •'- .. DONATIONN-LAND 'CLAIM N0. 46. ALL IN SECTION- 25. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH.. .. _ RANGE 4 EAST 6.M.,. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: .- ' -' - 'BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF NEST, VALLEY HIGHWAY , '(ALSO KNONN-AS STATE ROAD NO'181)- WITH' -THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH-.' : :210 FEET. OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 11. AND --ITS WESTERLY- PROLONGATION; " - -.THENCE.SOUTH 87' 47': 19' EAST •ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 40.76 FEET TO:" .THE EAST MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWAY AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 08' 51'. 30' WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY' HIGHWAY' MARGIN. 808.08 - - FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE Or THE CITY OF SEATTLE'S. BOW LAKE PIPELINE RIGHT -OF -WAY; THENCE SOUTH 87° 13' 12' " EAST ALONG SAID' SOUTH . RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE. 273.28 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF A 100 -FOOT ■ RIGHT -OF -WAY CONVEYED TO,PUGET -SOUND POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BY DEEDS. . RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 2629432 AND 2644020' (FORMERLY KNOWN - . AS PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY RIGHT -OF -NAY); THENCE SOUTH .,01' 13' 24' EAST ALONG-SAID WESTERLY - RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE; 791.76 FEET •"- TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 210 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 11 ;. -.. THENCE. NORTH 87' 47' 19' WEST' ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 165.55 FEET TO: - .THE POINT OF BEGINNING:. .. _ : -- - . .• ' ._EXCEPT THAT PORTION. LYING NORTH OF A LINE PARALLEL.WITW AND 5 FEET' NORTH. WHEN' MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES." FROM-THE, FOLLOWING. DESCRIBED' .- LINE: 'BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE 509TH LINE OF '- '- • THE HENRY MEADER 00NATI0N LAND'CLAIM N0.- 46-AND THE CENTERLINE OF • NEST'VALLEY HIGHWAY (ALSO KNOWN. AS STATE- ROAD. NO: 181); THENCE NORTH ,' 08' 52'' 29' WEST.' A DISTANCE' OF 48.98 FEET ALONG' SAID HIGHWAY ' - CENTERLINE:. 'THENCE SOUTH.85' 30' 26' EAST. 41.14 FEET TO THE EASTERLY. . •, MARGIN 'OF SAID HIGHWAY AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS'. -DESCRIBED LINE; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH. 85' - 30' 26' EAST '227.79 • _ ' FEET.. MORE OR LESS. TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC' - :- RAILWAY RIGHT -0F -NAY AND THE TERMINUS OF THIS DESCRIBED LINE ;. . - . SITUATE. IN THE CITY. OF REBTON.. COUNTY -OF KIN6..STATE OF WASHINGTON.. .' -. - VICINITY: MAP - SITE. A - aD • irpor _T . • .. SoulMl;el,Yi rY ` ' i' drover rood. (King .. p10i P' Tx ` I. OPVio' ' 7 ( 7 i o.'.'— 'bole,. 4'M'4A ' l� / _ h supportrng 3' mery /rwr t- • / K tae 23, / ' A L- /9/J0- • NO/ 2/'497W 456 :09' y s' n. petroleum' s pd. rre u s-Baep., _• 90/6'.' 1. - r0w,o'e • Pogei 5cu,,d Poorer and brot Company Eaxmuoi Raordrry MC- 74g1G/2064Z - • / h '/- 1$1 151 - 2 ° 25 knce down Clasier pooches - Ciyrut mutt e F !� /a ni marks rt fa er S L A.X post at.nertn end / Carp.rir 5-p4JC14Ros No pa4(i er. pate - 4230 198cH Street S.W. Lynnwood . Washington 98036 (206)771-=00 5/•14/88 JOB NO 1186 SITE PLAN 20' CITY of RE1410 MAY 161986 � iC Nu TJ-rf t�TANrcAL: NAr-i LoMMoN NAME Lsl?B SPAUNG AND RI.rNIAR1'h IO. ACE(t clRuwTUM VINE Pia .. 5'-�i'44- , Bk6 •,CIUMP.1cANri,sAOslb.+,1 _. 1 R: H L4r- 1'RED suHxT' Rao ' r T MoPL� 2° cALI ref, 15oc., I3 piNUti NImRP AU°f(RIAN FINrs 6-40 +fTS 3''!}' hPRD7 PL #ai . 10'•G. 8 PRuNuf YEDCENyI°� 1-0•!-.4-1-11-10 fLOV/ERINro c±!'cRRT lu. "cA'PER, p�sf6.,•�sfrceAhe+bµ/N, ro'6RAPT hfYRA�C �i¢bt1IGL1'O 3 PANE58' �aJov' oP -FREE I" c...4..1 PERi i'1 �, ■P Ay s1 {,v /rl i}1iu 65 MID loRouNOCoVF.IaS - .. I@ Ap6UA CcftAN OI A bLO'/� A6EL1fc I5 is H' ., Ti 5'O -G. sjo ARBLiT1A2 uNEDO ;TRM✓BERRY7RsE �IfRNb «- "_ 1`0".4"1", CONT, loo:G. /''yR 'D.. ARGTo�I'•PdYLO`a. uVA-uR -' KINNIKWNICK - .:..q• °F�Zi 12"p.G., 10 •. ALEA '}}INOG RI NI�O N' yAME ... n "- (°f'' gPfD., Co - 3 O.G ESCAworIIA ftuP� �.Ar IFi °_ Iv' iF —coN 4h'AC. - REIiF'D.' +FYP quM ..GAL�'CINUI•� 7o++rIhWOR—.. 9'' P'T", 11 SAG. - II I.IANI�INP pa-1 rflcA - _ vENLY 6� . . IV- IS "4Ii, CONT, M'- Ay hh (tp ,D ppG}iY,sA -JQt A .'(f%Rr'1 Ir+ALAGj . �A:PAN F% �' R(i ?•Y,1." r 1'7 I3' C, . . PRuNUh LANPoeI RA°It %'oTwLIaY e•w • QrToI uYKEN I huRcth 12..- Is': �Rp, �}h'O.e,0. Iyy.. R+idDODENfJfbN'TFr - yAME .Ig "' 1•" °PRa aid•, %PAE As srIowN VIBURNUM DAJIOII. S+cM�i r2.,_ K" clPRD,colrP, '}'O.t. VIBURNUM. PI.ICATu"'I TOMEM(0SuM DoNIgI.ErILP! VIP�URNUr'� - I5 "- IB "+i'ro Cc'Aay Go N"( -<. MILGN- •4-PINLt•i NIGRA la, ',sae . Midis 1E3 . poeT.EVta. Vey LiallgliMiLin rama.r Kowa.. hH+m IPOrgOeingt 1*".. • • •. 9 _ i a- PL% NTI'co.i ,Stk1 • 4t -Vo Co * LL w1 I`"ITU • T+i osaowv�L+O r 'p 'TrM •rrr• IL P+�r'►o.�. •,'_ - P/d41Y044NRr"-864-13.4" h gigr0H=AAT n 11' PEFH1 5 a -A?/iEh AAA� AAAA`A AAAAAAAA -V11I r VrVYYYV yews w '� � `' u•IarfilM �rl'. •' 4TREET ,- , lb" BERM /AGOVe Cuts -TTR v4AL.ti. Il,+••/N AND rt.A•NT. Per's PITRur1 FILL, DEPfiI- AS fzE4tuIRro. e-a.cAL.e 1t o'• A 'EU,6, C.42444IDIPt,a(ZA CDk� - -1Naiec L AU; G +Nh avHI C, +}AL1 'P I.MTe 0 L1511J(O - Tpv,N12 • °PPCI N&. • FLAL N.tToM7 IC If-PiCOA 6 IoN Al.-IMO-1 To Pk•G651lGNE0."NO PL uLT 3'r . - . c TP T ' • f P U I ReD .. FoR 1RNG710 H coNTr,•.GToft L rtr:(Aw F A-No o*IN "14.. PERMI-r httl PLPG 0.7 Dorm- mgOlur1 1,10 WI< IN Aw PLANT PEDro • " :: • Pa. - e DEPT* 3WO�(M) - TOP�II� IN PU, l.A■✓N 'AHD C^ROUNDCoVER -+HERS. pof�LL 3 -Wf•�' MIX - '1oPSolL "To ,. oa of - 2'' IM O. t><IS"f'N(o soil, FWD perrlIN(O '. • ygjq clegATIr-I(y dg of Loo�.6 ANtr1(o . MEDIUT•!. DaLOIN(0 4OIL f{ALL 5.. ''*H DY P Rui-I SOIL DEPT/1'i fze guiREP ,T0 "01- 1EVE- •.sERri t 1(0rT5 N. - .. . VERY"( M/ITii- I.INDC. fr, CTtITEC T)+E. LoCATION AND tleica+t1 ' or IBERM9 - r IoR .To PLAHTI.N(v• (o' DE S EIev -flaN of riP l F{fO oAILPLANTrH& - • &ftPOE. • .. . -' ALL 06e5CTIVS Cft OEAO. PLNiTLi `-- LL es f+EPV•L%D v✓IT+FIN'ONE FyRav /IN(O '0r4 PRa1•1. • 1_i CoMP1 -ETION DATE' or INSTp+LSC(IO 4. o I oN TtiE' Leers-poll a.. cor1TIULTGR To VEfzIPl' WIT-rf ov✓HeR A"o/ R . T. - TecT . o IATILIT'�.rRIOR to 04(/64,1(0} A411-?ear PLAN Ah ROiAIRM 11' P HP1-- P RTIL .2@ T S- [o NA, PLAN f. Loa.✓ f+ELAAcvS MU LAN 'PIT. -i+} U. Ps twice TrfeI ..be of R?dr s, +.1.51 sYFTAND.WI ; . '"xt pi.irJ-fIN(o DEFAIIh. II• •9?uRce of Soo Io be A(•PRovep H7 LANDSGPc .Nact}ITEcT}.PWOR 10.Pel -I!ER7 Y1• - f Ro-/IDE Al L 5 ectire aN Au. LAvJN • ogzkAs, . Imo. mix .1H- '�-"✓A mix 1'PoOIL,,14-14 -14 fCWTILI (Z.FTT+IE RATI:•oP 31.es.PEPt4' GUe�IG'fARDS. • 4 -, cEf''Rue,RuM IRED o3uNSE T'. 7. N N 4230199th Street S.W. Lynnwood . Washington 96036 (206) 771 -2300 AceR RulaRuM FRED 40N'SET, OPWG. i n +}oRri JOB NO 1186 !!� •tt '.TEG" � 1 It :.!S, FRED 1 L'�r . Jj .EN:NTATE NO 410 Sr eo=-* WEST ELEVATION` BLDG A SKIN FASCIA -(5 icE ��G ��•,�� 0 n SOUTH : ELEVATION BLDG A SION FASCIA PANTED ACCENT STRPE SPLIT FACd CIAO PAINTED `CMU,' srucco ALUM. STOREFRONT SYSTBd.TYP.. EAST ELEVATION BLDG A ) .. . 0X5 I. NORTH ELEVATION PANTED SPUR FACE °M WEST ELEVATION BLDG A BLDG B. SOUTH ELEVATION BLDG B BLDG B STUCCO FN SH PANTED ACCENT STRPE SPLIT FACE OMIT PAWED CMU S PANTED CIA) PANTED SPLIT FACE•CMU EAST ELEVATION ' NORTH ELEVATION 3,-0,. BLDG B SIGN FASCIA RECESSED: - JGHI1NG STUCCO: FINISH TYP. STUCCO COLUMN m ANOD. ALUM.: TYP :.CANOPY SECTION CRY OF£ zioN MAY 161986 0 c U 1 0 a CDA N. RCAF 1,050 IATES 4230 996th Street, S.W. Lynnwood . Washington 90036 (206) 771 -2300 DATE 5/14/86 DRWO HECK Joe NO 1188 SriEET PORTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 2 AND .ii'AND OF THE HENRY MEADER DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 46. ALL IN SECTION 25. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. N.M.. IN KING COUNTY WASHINGTON. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: NO/•2/'43 111' - 40 . SCALE. :. 1'- 40' • 80 COMMENCING.AT THE INTERSECTION . THE .CENTERLINE .OF WEST VALLEY.. 'HIGHWAY .ALSO KNOWN..AS-STATE ROAD NO. 181; WITH THE NORTH LINE OF • THE SOUTH-.210 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT -LOT 11.r AND, ITS WESTERLY PROLONGATION: THENCE S 87'52'29! E.ALONG SAID NORTH .LINE 31.37 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN'OF; SAID HIGHWAY:AND THE TRUE POINT OF. BEGINNING. THENCE N.07'42'24.' W ALONG SAID EAST-MARGIN B05.95 FEET .TO THE SOUTH,LINE OF THE CITY•OF SEATTLE'S BOW LAKE PIPELINE RIGHT -OF- WAY .THENCE S 87'06'30`: E.ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE. 265 .74� FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF A 100-FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY CONVEYED TO' PUGET SOUND..POWER AND :LIGHT COMPANY: BY'DEEDS%AECOROED-UNDER'- AUDITOR'S FILE NO- :.2829432 AND 2644020.. TORMERLY'KNOWN AS..PUGET - -`;- SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY-RIGHT 0E-WAY:'. - ' - .THENCE S 01'21.49' E ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE. 792 ,02 - FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 2f0.00 FEET OF SAID GOVEANMENT. • `LOT 11 . • .. TRACT 'X' (TO BEaP,YATEO "ae PUB/C USE ) 0,0" RECrtRO/AS% or rhys swag" PLAT % • 'OF- BEGINNING. EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTH OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 5.00 FEET NORTH. WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES. FROM :THE FOLLOWING`: 42 34.12- . _ COMMENCING AT THE POINT•OF NTERSECTX0N 01' THE $OUTH LINE OF.'THE - "HENRY MEADEA.DONATION -LAND: CLAIM NO'. .48 AND THE:CENTEALINE OF WEST': VALLEY 'HIGHWAY: ALSO KNOWN AS STATE ROAD-; NO 181:' • THENCE N 08'52'00" W A DISTANCE.OF"'48.98' FEET :.ALONG SAID HIGHWAY. CENTERLINE: TRACT 'Y' (ro.'BE- OED /CATED- ; FOR- Puauc USE.) . 'may. ; Uft2V<RECORD /N4 OF 77#5 5'AORT PUr • ' H: - THENCE S•85'29'57` E. 45..48 FEET-TO THE EASTEALY,MARGIN OFSAID.: -- ..:HIGHWAY AND THE:TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF•.THIS-OESCRIBED LINE:. . • THENCE CONTINUING S '85'29'57.- E.- `- 229.32. FEET MORE OR LESS TO. THE 'r WESTERLY.MARGIN'OF`SAID.PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY'RIOH.T -OF -WAY AND THE TERMINUS. OFI„THIS DESCRIBED LINE..: •• NO7.42'2.2"W 0 - z' Wf776i' /yVE fArEAiavr Na = " -Y HiG wH AY . (SF VALLEY WES T , ,08-52,001.w CERTIFICATE WE.. THE UNDERSIGNED,, HEREBY CERTIFY- •'THAT' WE ARE THE OWNERS :SIMPLE OF THE. LAND HEREBY PLATTED: - IN/THIS SHORT PLAT GLACIER .PARK COMPANY IN FEE- APPROVALS EXAMINED-AND APPROVED THIS 1987. vtCE 'Pt ESt't7'Et4.T ' TITLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING EXAMINED AND APPROVED • - ON-THE DAY OF 19 BEFORE ME. THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE.OF'WASHINGTON. PERSONALLY APPEARED J TO ME. KNOWN ,TO •THE CORPORATION THAT EXECUTED THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT. AND ACKNOWLEDGED SAID 'INSTRUMENT TO BE THE FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED OF SAID CORPORATION' FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN' MENTIONED AND. ON OATH STATED • THAT - WAS AUTHORIZED TO .EXECUTE SAID INSTRUMENT;' IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED MY.OFFICIAL SEAL THE .DAY 'AND YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. NOTARY. PUBLIC IN. AND FOR THE STATE OF . WASHINGTON,: RESIDING AT. • DIRECTOR DEPT. OF PUBLIC(AORKS THIS 30.6 DAY OF 1.a.,M/JaYtj TRAFFIC HNGINEER. EXAMINED AND APPROVED THIS t2 /7LJ DAY OF • HF.ARIN(a miNie SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This 'Mao correctly represents- .a survey made . by me or under .my direction in' conformance with the requirements of the :SURVEY -. RECORDING ACT at the: request of GLACIER PARK COMPANY in JANUARY , 1987 . p11 M4C' A RECORDING , CERTIFICATE. Filed for record this _day of 19 at . M. in Vol- of Surveys. on Page at the request of R. Scott Macintosh L S: Na 15651 1987. ESryl,Znc. Manager Supt. Of Records Recording No. - EXAMINED- AND APPROVED THIS SEE PAGE 2 OF 2 FOR ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATE:., AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS "DAY OF 1987. KING COUNTY:. ASSESSOR DEPUTY KING cowry ASSESSOR NA 451 S.W. 10th Suite 106 RENTON "WASHINGTON 98055 , Phone. I2061 228-5628 -- Joe NO. 331-01-870 DATE. JAN 1987 DRAWN PFH /SSB. 1 OF.. Z SHEETS A PORTION OF 'GOV:. LOTS 2 .:AND 11 OF SEC., 25, TWP . 23 N .. RGE:. :` 4 E W . M . CITY OF;RENTON, WASHINGTON DEDICATION 'KNOW' ALL PEOPLE BY THESE .PRESENTS THAT WE. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS OF INTEREST IN THE.LAND HEREBY.:SUBDIVIDED. HEREBY DECLARE THIS PLAT TO BE THE.- GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF Trig. SUBDIVISION MADE HEREBY. AND DO HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE. USE OF THE .PUBLIC FOREVER TRACTS 'X'.AND.'Y'.- HEREON AND . DEDICATE THE USE THEREOF FOR "ALL -PUBLIC- .PURPOSES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THEW` USE THEREOF -FOR PUBLIC. HIGHWAY- PURPOSES. AND ALSO THE RIGHT TO MAKE ALL . NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS .AND FILLS -UPON THE LOTS SHOWN THEREON IN THE .; ORIGINAL REASONABLE GRADING_ CF. SAID TRACTS.; AND FURTHER DEDICATE'T0 THE '•' USE OF THE PUBLIC.ALL'THE EASEMENTS -SHOWN ON - THIS PLAT.FOR ALL PUBLIC. PURPOSES AS INDICATED THEREON.•INCLUDING BUT-NOT LIMITED TO- UTILITIES... QUASI - PUBLIC.. UTILITIES AND" DRAINAGE- UNLESS SUCH-EASEMENTS .ARE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ON'THIS PLAT AS BEING: :DEDICATED OR CONVEYED TO•A PERSON'OR ENTITY OTHER THAN THE. PUBLIC. ! - ' • OHN BAKER SI DIANA K. BAKER-.. "ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (CONT . ): .:STATE OF WASHINGTON ) _ )SS.. :COUNTY •OF..KING ) - ' 22 TRACT. 'X': THAT'PORTION "OF:GOVERNMENT'Li N M „ IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, MORE" PARTICULARLY'DESCRIBEO A9•,FOLLOWS: fn ON THE DAY OF a .19 % BEFORE.ME,- THE UNDERSIGNED- 'DES CRIPTIONS` (TRACTS' "X NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE ',.OF • WASHINGTON, 'PERSONALLY APPEARED'. P67-0./7 7 'Tbe/FL.OS AND - 544' 4 ' Tet/NL'9S TO ME KNOWN TO BE THE INDIVIDUALS DESCRIBED IN AND WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT.- AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT -THEY.SIGNED THE SAME AS THEIR FREE AND VOLUNT-ARY.ACT. AND DEED. FOR THE USES .AND PURPOSES THEREIN: HIGHWAY :.. .MENTIONED -- "' • RANGE 4'EAST. COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION.- OF THE - 'CENTERLINE OF WEST :VALLEY HIGHWAY. ALSO KNOWNAS STATE-ROAON0.181. WITH THE`NORTHLINE':OF THE SOUTH 210 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 11;.. AND ITSi WESTERLY. PROLONGATION; - - " THENCE 5.87•-52 :29' E- ALONG. SAID NORTH LINE 31.37'. FEET. ,TO THE EA57:MARGIN;'0F SAIO .THENCE,N -W ,07.42'22' ALONG SAID , EAST 'MARGIN,,207,50.FEET YO -THE: TRUE' POINT OF 'BEGINNING; THENCE CONT•INUING.'N-07'42'22i W ALONG' SAIO 'EAST MARGIN. ..56,'98..FEET TO A.. POINT OF 'CUSP 1.' SAIIITOINT ALSO -BEING ON A -NON-TANGENT •CyRVE:- .r.. ••. THENCE SOUTHEASIERLY 40 49 FEET ALONG AN ARC OF SAID NON - TANGENT .CURVE HAVING A' RADIUS OF 54.50 FEET. THE-RADIUS POINT OF WHICH .BEARS' .N,6S'19'28'-E• THROUGH A.; CENTRAL ANGLE- OF42'34'18'.TOA POINT `OF.A -.NON- TANGENT._REVERSE- CURVE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 179.78.FEET:.ALONG AN.: ARC'OF SAID NON- TANGENT CURVE, - HAVING 'A RADIUS OF 1030.00. FEET, THE RADIUS -POINT OF:WHICH- BEARS'S -.O8' 26'06.'_ -E THROUGH A :CENTRAL ANGLE. OF 10 :00.03' 10:'A' POINT OF NON- TANGENCY ,,SAID POINT. BEING ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF F-A 100 '- FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY CONVEYED TO PUGET SOUND.P.OWER.AND LIGHT COMPANY 8YMEEDS RECORDED-UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NOS. 2629432.AND.2644020. - FORMERLY.KNOWN AS PUGET SOUND.ELECTRIC:RAILWAY: RIGHT -OF -WAY;' NOTARY :PUBLIC IN AND.FOR.THE STATE OF .. WASHINGTON:. RESIDING AT 8e•/ /G •dG STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING - ' • ON :THE .22#10/DAY OF ' jawwwwily 1911% -: BEFORE ME. THE UNDERSIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. PERSONALLY APPEARED TO.dN M• 444•teR 7l AND - 0/4N4 Ac..B.O/t•BR TO - WE - --KNOWN:TO BE THE INDIVIDUALS DESCRIBED IN AND WHO EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FOREGOING INSTRUMENT,- AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT -THEY' SIGNED THE SAME AS THEIR_ . FREE.AND:VOLUNTARY ACTAND DEED. FOR THE USES AND 'PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED•• • SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE. This tnop,- correctly'•represents .a survey by me: or_ under my direction ` in., conformance with the" requirements of ,thee SURVEY .. . RECORDING ACT at the request ._of • THENCE` 5. 01'21'49".E ALONG SAID•WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -NAY LINE,- 60.08 FEET- TO :A; POINT OF'A NON - TANGENT' CURVE:. THENCE. SOUTHWESTERLY 158.94 FEET ALONG "AN.ARC OF SAID NON- TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT :. HAVING A. RADIUS OF 970.00-FEET. THE RADIUS'.POINT :OF- WHICH'BEARS S 01.44 `50''W THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09' 23'17' 'TOA POINT,OF A:.COMPOUND.CURVE - THENCE.CONTINUING SOUTHWESTERLY "' 55.73 FEET ALONG AN ARC OF-SAID CURVE .10 THE LEFT.: HAVING.A RADIUS -OF "35.00 FEET. THROUGH "A.CENTRAL .ANGLE OF-91'13'327 TO A POINT.OF. CUSP;. ,•' THENCE N .08'52'00' -W. 71.37. FEET TO THE TRUE.POINT..OF- - BEGINNING. '= TRACT 'Y' • . THAT PORTION OF•GOVERNMENT LOTS 2-AND 11 IN SECTION 25. TOWNSHIP. 23 NORTH. M.M., INKING COUNTY: WASHINGTON. MOREPARTICULARLY,DESCRIBED AS'FOLLOWS:..: "NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR E -STATE OF WASHINGTON, RESIDING AT - �i'e ✓t/G • RECORDING CERTIFICATE. Filed for record this _day of 19 of 'M. in. Vol. of.'Surveys on Page nt the request of COMMENCING-AT THE INTERSECTION OF..T.HE:'CENTERLINE OF WEST VALLEY'HIOHWAY..-ALS0 ; KNOWNAS STATE-ROAD NO.:181. WIIH THE-NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 210 FEET OF 'SAIDGOVERNMENT•LOT 1.1_ :- AND ITS .WESTERLY... PROLONGATION; _- . THENCE S-67'52'.29' E ALONG SAID. NORTH LINE. 31.37 FEET TO THE EAST MARGIN. DE,. SAID. HIGHWAY AND :THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING :•. - THENCE .N1 07'42'22'- W'ALONG SAID -EAST MARGIN, :207.50 L FEET: . THENCE S 08.52'00'. E. 208 :27 -FEET, TO.4 POINT. ON SAID NORTH GOVERNMENT LOT 11; THENCE ".N 87'52'29':.W ALONG SAID•NORTH:LINE Supt. Of Records 4:28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF'BEGINNING.''• _ 451 S.W. 10th Suite'106 REIITON,WASHINGTON 98055 Phc•ne. 12061.228-5628 . JOB NO. 331 -01 -870 DRAWN R. WARD 2 OF 2 SHEETS