The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 89-17-DR - GENCOR - NORTH HILL OFFICE BUILDING DESIGN REVIEW89-17-dr 5800 southcenter boulevard GENCOR / NORTH HILL OFFICE BUILDING City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor FILE NUMBER: 89 -17 -DR APPLICANT: Gencor, Inc. NOTICE OF DECISION REQUEST: Design Review for one story, 9,524 square foot office building. LOCATION: 5800 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA. 98188 The Planning Commission conducted a review of the above request on July 5,1990, to approve the request with conditions / recomendations in the staff report . (see attached conditions) The Commission adopted the Findings and Conclusions contained in the staff report dated June 21, 1990. Any party aggrieved by this decision may appeal the decision to the City Council by filing an appeal in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the above date and shall state the reasons for the appeal. 3d.pcn NAME: Jack Pace TITLE: Senior Planner DATE: July 6, 1990 HEARING DATE: FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: structure LOCATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: ATTACHMENTS: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor STAFF REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Prepared June 21, 1990 June 28, 1990 89 -17 -DR Gencor, Inc. Design Review for 1 story, 9,524 square foot office 5800 Southcenter Boulevard ACREAGE: Approximately 1.75 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Office P-0 (Professional Office) DNS issued on June 14,1990 A. Landscape Plan (L -1) B. Site Plan (A -1) C Floor Plan /Roof Plan (A -2) D. Elevations (A -3) E. Site Sections (A -7) F. Color Board (to be submitted) STAFF REPORT to the B.A.R. FINDINGS i VICINITY /SITE INFORMATION 89 -17 -DR Page 2 1. Project Description: Construction of a 1 story, 9,524 square foot office structure with a 33 stall parking lot. Project also includes landscaping and a storm water runoff control system. 2. Existing Land Use: Vacant. Currently, the site contains spoils from a nearby construction site (the apartments). 3. Surrounding Land Use: To the west is the Arco service station /Mini -mart and to the east is vacant land. To the north above the site is the North Hills Apartments and to the south is I-405 (and on the other side, the Southcenter Mall). 4. Terrain: Due to previous grading activities, the site contains two "separate level "benches" stepping up the hill with the northern portion of the site containing the steep slopes and remaining vegetation. The site contains an old paved road partially covered with earth along the west boundary of the site which parallels the existing access to the North Hills Apartments for approximately 150 feet and then traverses the northern portion of the site from west to east. 5. Vegetation: Previous grading activities on the site have stripped the vegetation except for portions of the site on the north which contain steep slopes. BACKGROUND On August 25, 1988, the Board of Architectural Review granted the same applicant approval for a 3- story, 16,821 square foot office building on the site. A new application was filed November 22. 1989. Since that time, based upon the environmental review and discussions with the City Staff the original plans for the 9,524 square foot building were revised and re- submitted on June 12, 1990. The project has vested for purposes of the Design Review approval and the Building Permit (and associated permits) and is exempt from the Sensitive Areas Moratorium. DECISION CRITERIA The applicable Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) criteria are listed below in bold, followed by pertinent findings of fact. STAFF REPORT to the B.A.R. 18.60.050 GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA 89 -17 -DR Page 3 (1) Relationship of Structure to Site. a . The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. c. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. Although the site is large, only a small portion is suitable for development and the frontage is relatively narrow. In order to avoid extending or otherwise disturbing the steeper portions of the site, the development is pushed forward (towards Southcenter Blvd). While the one -story structure can edge into the hillside somewhat, the parking must be level. These site constraints force the parking to the front and the building to the rear. The grading & storm drainage plan indicates that the south side of the parking lot is elevated approximately 6 feet above Southcenter Blvd. This slight rise of the lawn between the sidewalk and the edge of the parking lot will provide a soft transition from the street level to the developed portions of the site. Perimeter landscaping along the south edge of the parking lot will screen the vehicles and also soften the appearance of the front the office building. (2) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a . Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged. b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established neighborhood character. d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. e. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with should be encouraged. The northern boundary of the site (the steep slope portion adjoining the existing cedar fence) contains Alder. The section drawing (A -7) shows that the second and third stories of the North Hills Apartments will be able to view both the roof and mechanical equipment penthouse during the winter months when the Alder lose their leaves. Screening the view using an architectural feature integrated with the office structure would exceed the overall height of the building and be out of proportion. Planting large trees (approximately 30 feet) would be difficult to obtain and would require the use of equipment which would significantly impact the sensitive slopes and soils. The proposed solution is the installation of Douglas Fir trees behind the office structure. Although the size of the proposed trees (8 foot minimum at the time of planting) will not be of sufficient size to initially screen the view of the roof, the trees are evergreen and will become sufficiently large over time to screen the view. The applicant has also proposed a mechanical equipment penthouse to screen the view of the rooftop mechanical equipment. STAFF REPORT � - 89 -17 -DR to the B.A.R. Page 4 (3) Landscaping and Site Treatment. a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced. b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. f. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fendng, planting or combination. g. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials,such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used. h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. The Zoning code (Section 18.52.020) requires five feet of perimeter landscaping along the west, east and north property lines. Because of the need to minimize any disturbance to portions of the site with steep slopes, proposed landscaping has been concentrated on selected portions of the site. On the west, the applicant's plans show an expanded width of landscaping in the vicinity of the building to soften it's appearance from the street. On the east side, the width of landscaping has been expanded east of the parking lot and access area. As noted above, the placement of Douglas Firs together with the retention of the existing Alder accomplish the intent of the perimeter landscaping. The proposed height of the landscaping material for the screening the vehicles and headlight glare onto Southcenter Blvd from the parking lot is inadequate. The height of the shrubs at the time of planting in this location should be thirty-six inches. The required height may require a substitution of plant species. See Condition 4.a. The proposed dumpster enclosure is located at the east end of the parking lot (north side). No landscaping along the west side of the dumpster has been provided. In addition, the standard width stall next to the dumpster will not accommodate opening the vehicle doors. This area needs redesign. See Condition 4.c. The primary access to the site is from the private roadway along the west property line which also provides access to the North Hills Apartments. The easement is inadequate because it does not extend to the northern edge of the driveway access to the private road. A revised easement will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit. See Condition 1. STAFF REPORT C . 89 -17 -DR to the B.A.R. Page 5 The east driveway is not required for general circulation purposes, but emergency vehicle access at that point is necessary for turnaround purposes. However, emergency vehicle access can be accomplished by the use of a paving material which allows lawn to grow through and a modified curb cut which does not require the sidewalk to be lowered for the width of the driveway cut. See Condition 2.a. The front of the proposed office contains a covered walkway extending the full - length. A proposed stairway at the west end of this walkway which would connect the existing sidewalk along the east side of the private roadway. To make the connection however, would require a cut into the existing retaining wall. Another possible option might be avoid the cut into the retaining wall and bring the pedestrian walkway along the inside of the retaining wall to the driveway. See Condition 3. This existing walkway along the private road will be extended from the south edge of the driveway to the existing sidewalk along Southcenter Blvd. (4) Building Design. a . Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should x• based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. c. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components an ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. d. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. f. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. g. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest. The architectural character of the proposed office structure consists of a one -story structure utilizing painted concrete exterior walls and flat roof with parapet walls. The windows for the building are limited to the front facade and at either end of the building giving a "storefront" character to the front facade. The building is designed for multiple - tenants and separate entries are shown. Also incorporated in the design is the use of ceramic tile in two horizontal bands with formally spaced columns along the front facade. Standard storefront windows rising nine feet above finish grade are used along the front facade. The focal point for the building is in the center and has been recessed with a portion of parapet wall above raised to a peak. The peaked parapet wall and recessed area visually reinforce the location of the ramp /walkway from the parking lot. This ramp /walking connects to the walkway which runs along the entire front of the building serving the separate entries. STAFF REPORT to 3 89 -17 -DR to the B.A.R. �` , Page 6 The proposed color scheme (per color board) includes the predominant use of a warm gray medium (paint) for the exterior walls. A contrast of dark teal will be used as follows for other elements of the building: coping at the top of the parapet wall (paint); two wide bands (ceramic tiles) for the top portion of the facades; three narrower bands (paint) for the reveals on the remainder of the facades; columns and handrails. The windows will be anodized clear (aluminum). The mechanical penthouse which will house the mechanical equipment will be aligned (north /south) behind this elevated portion of the parapet wall. Because the structure edges into the hill, only a small portion of the rear facade will visible above grade. The side facades will also be only partially visible above the finish grade. The proposed penthouse does not appear consistent with nor integrated with the architecture of the building. The applicant will need to provided sufficient architectural detail for the Staff to determine that the mechanical equipment penthouse relates adequately to the overall architectural character of the office structure. See Condition 5. (5) Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture. a. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale, b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to the site, landscape and buildings. The dumpster enclosure is the only miscellaneous structure contained in the proposal. The color scheme of the dumpster enclosure will match the office building (warm gray medium for walls and dark teal for trim and gate). CONCLUSIONS A. No sign plans have been included in the proposal. All tenant sign packages shall be reviewed and approved per City's sign code and the compatibility with the approved architectural plans by the B.A.R. B. A required loading space must be provided and none is shown on the proposed site plan. C. The proposed development plans as conditioned will comply with the requirements of the City's Zoning Code. STAFF REPORT < 89 -17 -DR to the B.A.R. Page 7 D. The proposed development plans as conditioned comply with the Design Review Criteria as follows: 1. The height and sole of the proposed office structure is consistent with the adjoining structure. The project provides a 2 desirable transition from the steep slopes to the streetscape and provides for pedestrian movement. 2. The proposed project provides the appropriate landscape transition with other properties and the exterior design is harmonious with adjoining properties. 3. The proposed project respects the existing topography and with the exception at the height of the plant material along the parking lot provides the proper screening to adjoining properties. The landscaping also enhances both the natural and architectural features of the project. 4. The proposed project provides good quality development and avoids monitory. 5. The proposed accessory structure is compatible with the overall architectural theme. RECOMMENDATIONS i The Planning Staff recommends approval of the North Hills office with the following conditions: Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. the applicant must submit for review and approval the following: 1. Access easement for use of the private driveway along the west property line to modified so as to extend to the north edge of the on -site driveway. 2. A revised site plan must be reviewed and approved and contain the following: a. Deletion of the proposed standard driveway near the east property line. As a substitute the plans shall include a paving material which will allow the lawn to grow through it and curb cut which will allow emergency vehicles to safely use. b. Designation of loading space. 3. Design details for the walkway connection from the front of the office building to the sidewalk along the private access road (along west property line). The options mentioned on page of this report shall be reviewed with the Planning Staff before design details are submitted. STAFF REPORT to the B.A.R. 89 -17 -DR Page 8 Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. the applicant must submit for review and approval the following: 4. Provide a revised set of landscaping plans which provide the following: a. Shrubs to be used on south side of parking lot which will be thirty -six inches at the time of planting. (The proposed species of plant material may be changed if necessary.) b. Irrigation plans for required landscaping. (Ref. 18.52.050, TMC) The applicant shall include in the scope of the required irrigation the Douglas Firs on the north side of the office building or a three year maintenance (water) agreement. c. A minimum of a 3 -feet wide planting bed to be provided on the west side of dumpster enclosure with plant materials and sizes indicated. Revised architectural plans for review and approval by Staff which contain architectural details for the mechanical equipment penthouse which is consistent and integrated with the architecture of the proposed office. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit for review and approval the following: 6. The landscape architect shall provide the City with a letter indicating he has inspected the site and the installed landscaping complies with the approved landscaping plans. If there are any deviations, the landscape architect shall note them on either the City's approved drawings or document them in a letter which must then be accepted by the City. c 4 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor CONDITIONS The Planning Staff recommends approval of the North Hills office with the following conditions: 1. Access easement for use of the private driveway along the west property line to modified so as to extend to the north edge of the on -site driveway. 2. A revised site plan must be reviewed and approved and contain the following: a. Deletion of the proposed standard driveway near the east property line. As a substitute the plans shall include a paving material which will allow vehicles to safely use. b. Designation of loading space. 3. Design details for the walkway connection from the front of the office building to the sidewalk along the private access road (along west property line). Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the applicant must submit for review and approval the following: 4. Provide a revised set of landscaping plans which provide the following: a. Shrubs to be used on south side of parking lot which will be thirty -six inches at the time of planting. (The proposed species of plant material may be changed if necessary.) b. Irrigation plans for required landscaping. (Ref. 18.52.050, TMC) The applicant shall include in the scope of the required irrigation the Douglas Firs on the north side of the office building or a three year maintenance (water) agreement. c. A minimum of a 3 -feet wide planting bed to be provided on the west side of dumpster enclosure with plant materials and sizes indicated. 5. Revised architectural plans for review and approval by Staff which contain architectural details for the mechanical equipment penthouse which is consistent and integrated with the architecture of the proposed office. prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must submit for review and approval the following: 6. The landscape architect shall provide the City with a letter indicating he has inspected the site and the installed landscaping complies with the approved landscaping plans. If there are any deviations, the landscape architect shall note them on either the City's approved drawings or document them in a letter which must then be accepted by the City. PLANTING PLAN LANIXSCAPE NOTES PLANT LIST EVERGREEN TREE FLA/4mo DETAL LANDSCAPE PLAN site plan FLOOR PLAN GEM CMS preface title: HILL. roof plan SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVA ION EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION LIDO • archltocte consultants : project title : sheet title : site sections mF Z't41.DIt WAC 197 -11 -970 Description of Proposal Construct a one story, 9,524 square foot office building Date FM.ONS and a 33 stall parking lot. Project also includes landscaping and a storm water runoff system. Proponent Gencor, Inc. MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 5800 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, Washington; SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 4E Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -19 -88 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. 0 There is no comment period for this DNS This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5 P.M., JUNE 28, 1990 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Position /Title Address Rick Beeler Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tu i;.; "WA ' 8188 C) Signature r Phone 433 -1846 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. CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DECLARATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE North Hills Office DATE: June 13, 1990 PROPOSAL: 9,524 square foot, 1 story office building LOCATION: 5800 Southcenter Boulevard APPLICANT: Gencor, Inc. FILE REFERENCE: EPIC -19 -88 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD The environmental review consisted of analysis based on the following documents included in the environmental record: * Application for Design Review received 11 -22 -89 * Environmental Checklist (dated 3- 22 -90) * Letter from Geotech, James Eaton (dated 6- 24 -87) * Letter from Geotech, James Eaton (dated 6- 16 -89) * Letter from Geotech, James Eaton (dated 6- 21 -89) * Letter from Geotech, James Eaton (dated 5- 10 -90) * Letter from Geotech, James Eaton (Stamped 6- 12 -90) * Traffic Impact Study prepared by Entranco Engineers, Inc (dated 3- 28 -90) * Development plans (originals) * Revised development plans: L -1, A -1, A -2 and A -7 (dated 6- 11 -90) * Letter from Landscape Architect, Ken Loney (dated 3- 12 -90) * Preliminary Title Report ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BACKGROUND A previous environmental review was conducted for an office building on this site. An Environmental Checklist for a larger office project (3 story, 16,821 square feet) was prepared and dated July 1, 1988. A Determination of Non - Significance was issued by the City on August 18, 1988. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal includes the construction of a one story, 9,524 square foot office building and a 33 stall parking lot. Project also includes landscaping and a storm water runoff system -1- Threshold Determination /Gencor, Inc. /EPIC DESIGN FEATURES The proposal includes a painted concrete structure, asphalt paving for the parking area, and landscaping. Access to the site Southcenter Boulevard is via two driveways. PERMITS REQUIRED * Design Review * Grading Permit * Building Permit * Utility /Street Use Permits * Developer Agreement (for potential off -site improvements) CHECKLIST ITEMS A. EARTH The original Geotechnical Report prepared by James Eaton, PE., (dated 6- 24 -87) indicated presence of sandstone bedrock and several types of permeable and highly impermeable glacially associated soils. That Report concluded that the sandstone bedrock is hard enough to support conventional spread footings. The report also concluded that sand or pea gravel should separate the slab from the natural soils. The design of the proposed project was revised after the initial submittal. The revised design of the structure provides for the use of "Shotcrete" to construct in particular the north wall of the office. The use of this material (and technique) substantially reduces the amount of the bank to be cut. The Geotech of record has submitted documentation indicating that the hillside is stable. He has reviewed the civil plans and indicated that the short term impacts are properly mitigated and the long term impact of the proposal will not appreciably affect the hillside's stability. The revised proposal involves the excavation of cubic yards of soil and the removal of some spoils. The temporary impact of the spoils removal can be partially mitigated through the controls as a part of the issuance of a Street Use permit. During site grading activities there is potential for erosion. The civil plans contain mitigation measures to control such erosion. Additional mitigating measures, however, may be imposed as part of the Design Review approval process. -2- Threshold Determination /Gencor, Inc. /EPIC B. AIR Short term impacts to air quality would occur as a result of construction activity. These impacts include: dust generation and truck and equipment emissions. Although not evaluated for this proposal, there is substantial existing traffic along Southcenter Boulevard and within the Southcenter Mall area which generate emissions. The long term impacts to air quality for this proposal are not considered to be significant. Dust control measures; i.e., water spraying the site during hot and dry weather as well as sweeping and flushing the roadways would adequately mitigate temporary impacts to air quality. C. PLANTS The site is vacant, however, most of the site has undergone previous extensive grading except for the most northern portion of the site containing the steep slopes. Some storage of spoils from other parts of the nearby apartment construction has occured on the site so that little indigenous vegetation remains. The existing vegetation which consists largely of alder on the upland portion of the site. The grading activities necessary to construct the office structure may encroach into portions of the existing vegetation and steep slope. D. NOISE The project will generate short term noise impacts to surrounding residences during construction due to operation of construction equipment. Limiting construction activities to the week days as provided under TMC 8.22.160 will partially reduce noise impacts to the surrounding residences. E. TRANSPORTATION The site fronts on Southcenter Blvd. Access to the site is via a shared access easement along the west property line (shared with the North Hills Apartments) and from a driveway cut at the east end of the property. Turning movements to and from the site at this driveway location are restricted to "Right Turn" into" and "Right Turn" out of based on a previous condition of approval for the original 3 -story office building. -3- Threshold Determination /Gencor, Inc. /EPIC A Traffic Impact Study was prepared (by Entranco Engineers, Inc., and dated 3- 28 -90) for this project. The report indicated the project is expected to generate a total of 225 average daily vehicle trips with 27 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour and 18 trips during the noon peak hour. The report recommended that the following be accomplished to enhance safety and operational efficiency: o paint a crosswalk for the North leg of the Southcenter Blvd /North Hills driveway intersection; o repaint the existing striping on Southcenter Blvd to clearly identify the center left turn lane; and o monitor the Southcenter Blvd /North Hills driveway intersection with future development to determine the implementation of a traffic signal. MITIGATION PROVIDED BY PROPOSAL The mitigation provided as part of the proposal includes: 1. Use of filter fabric to control sediment from leaving the site (Storm drainage note # 4, Sheet 2 of 3). 2. Hydroseeding with rye grass of areas where sod is to be removed (Storm drainage note # 11, sheet 2 of 3). 3. Use of oil /water separation features on catch basin (storm drainage note # 5, sheet 2 of 3). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance is appropriate since the environmental review indicates no probability of significant adverse environmental impacts from the proposal. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION PROPOSED The Design Review process may require additional mitigation measures not included below. Additional Mitigation required of the proposal includes: A. EARTH 1. No heavy equipment shall be used for any grading /construction activities beyond the limits of disturbance limits for the shotcrete wall on the north -4- ' Threshold Determination /Gencor, Inc. /EPIC B. WATER C. PLANTS D. TRANSPORTATION side of the proposed building. Any construction activities in this area of the site shall be limited to hand work. 2. To mitigate adverse water quality impacts to the storm water system from sedimentation, tire cleaning provisions should be made and any existing catch basins where mud is likely to collect should be protected by filter fabric. 3. Proposed new trees should not be planted in compacted soil unless gravel drain sumps are installed under each tree or the subgrade soil is rototilled. 4. The following measures shall be required to mitigate the traffic impacts of the proposal: a. paint a crosswalk for the North leg of the Southcenter Blvd /North Hills driveway intersection; and b. repaint the existing striping on Southcenter Blvd to clearly identify the center left turn lane. WASHINGTON LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION PRELIMINARY COMMITMENT FORM Proposed Insured: Later PRELIMINARY COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE To: Gencor, Inc. 11801 N.E. 160th St., "G" Bothell, WA Attn: Leon Your Reference: Kato Our Order No.: NT027053 Effective Date: October 3, 1988 at 8:30 a.m. Policy or Policies to be issued: ALTA Owner's Form B -1970 Policy X Standard X Extended Amount: Premium: Tax: Rate: NO°THWESTERN Tin,. A A Minnesota Tide Company 250 Arctic Building 700 Third Moue Seattle, Washington 901041549 N agn 1.0 \ JUN 121990 CI' jY OF. 1 uKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. Later Later Later Includes easement charge 1t5q 1261002 TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA agrees to issue on request and on recording of any appropriate documents, its policy or policies as applied for, with coverage as indicated, based on this preliminary commitment that title to the property described herein is vested on the date shown above in MICHIO KATO and HISAKO KATO, his wife subject only to the exceptions shown herein and to the terms, conditions and exceptions contained in the policy form. This report and commitment shall have no force or effect except as a basis for the coverage specified herein. Harry Kinnee, Title Officer Phone: 625 -1952 SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" for LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ( CONTINUED ) 1. GENERAL TAXES, PLUS INTEREST AND PENALTY AFTER DELINQUENCY; 1ST HALF DELINQUENT ON MAY 1; 2ND HALF DELINQUENT ON NOVEMBER 1: For Year: Amount Billed: Amount Paid: Parcel No.: Levy Code: Land: Improvements: 1988 $934.31 $467.16 359700 - 0209 -02 2380 ASSESSED VALUATION PER KING COUNTY OFFICE OF FINANCE: $75,200.00 $ 0.00 2. Excise tax, if unpaid. NOTE: For purpose of determination of amount of excise tax due, said property is situate in: City of Tukwila Current rate of real estate excise tax as of the date herein is: .0159 NOTE 1: The language contained in the printed Exclusions from Coverage and Conditions and Stipulations of the policy committed for may be examined by inquiry at the office which issued the Commitment, and a specimen copy of the insurance policy form (or forms) referred to in this commitment will be furnished promptly upon request. NOTE 2: Investigation should be made to determine if there are any service, installation, maintenance, or construction charges for sewer, water or electricity. NOTE 3: In the event this transaction fails to close, a cancellation fee will be charged for services rendered in accordance with our schedule. NOTE 4: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B" FOR FURTHER EXCEPTIONS FM /lp 552 NT027053/552 Page 2 � NORTHWESTERN , '" A Minnesota fib Company EXHIBIT "A" Lot 2, of Tukwila Short Plat No. 81- 30 -SS, as recorded under King County Recording No. 8112100483, being a portion of Tract 11, Interurban Addition to the City of Seattle, according to the plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 55, in King County, Washington; 44OGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities over a 22 foot strip as described in instrument recorded under Auditor's File No. 8708270390. END OF EXHIBIT "A" NT027053/552 Page N ORTHWESTERN E • '" A Miw►son Title Company Covenant to maintenance Recorded: Auditor's No Improvement: Location: Between: And: Dated: Recorded: Recording No.: (Copy Attached) EXHIBIT "B" NORTHWESTERN C ALE A Minn.soti T7* Comprny A. Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, Easements, Dedication, Notes and Recitals, if any, contained on Short Plat recorded under King County Recording No. 8112100483. A copy of which is hereto attached. B. SHARE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR OF IMPROVEMENT: bear equal share of the cost of the construction, or repair of the improvement herein described; August 27, 1987 .. 8708270390 Ingress, egress and utilities easement An easement 22 feet in width located on the premises adjoining to the East C. RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS CONTAINED IN CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT, AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: Michio and Hisako Kato City of Tukwila July 7, 1987 August 27, 1987 8708270393 END OF EXHIBIT "B" NT027053/552 Page 4 • ' • : : • • '.gros and agree as Collages • • 4 If I •• 1 ..1. .t • • ' !•■•• : • , 3:,/ f .1. t .• ,” • c 42100047A , .1 • , 1,„ ..„ : . r • 4 . , . • ". 77 ORIGINAL •■••••••mooloS•4•,•4.41,4.1.4.-.41 ■ • . • .. • • . • � ' , .,•' STATE OE WASHINGTON •) )set COUNTY OT King , ) ' • i certify that I know or • have satisfactory •evidence tMt 1Sisako Kato signed this instrument and acknowledged it to ,be•h,r , free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned Is . .; • . • OR NORTHWESTERN TITLE A A Minnesota Tide Company 250 Arctic Building 700 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 981041849 / Li ) 5 P--VD SW2/0e,•ci . I #11 . 1 ,. -... mot._ — _ r t A,e •r w . - . [. • f �•'•• I �1 ir . t• •• ilk "I t : - s :i- .r dee'.'X 4tf.0 - e M ri t t �•; v I % % 4- ,I _ 1 fit V 1 U,i P t; tee Li t'I�if' Ito Ve ti A Acv r 1 • , ' © %•lt 0*AVSet 't ` 1 .L • 4 .0441 oft eft« two ;v t OP • • sr .. t t.7W -- -- • -- - • ;�� s' • • lei ttok. 1 ..•• •• Order No. /171 7t2� Plat. Vol Page ..ft..." . :• I.. 1 • ..•.3.' • : , .e• •�„ "a.. ., • • J Dimensions of subject promises are• This sketch does not purport to show all highways, roads or easements afNGing said propedy. No liability is assumed for variations in dimensions and location, and is not based upon a survey of the property described in this order, It is furnished without charge, solely for the purpose of assisting in locating the described premises. The Company assumes no liability lot inaccuracies therein. total Parcels Piled for record at the request of: aa.e nature tot Chas:nan Army A: J.rviewed and approved t :} Lb. Shc: t Sut•dsvassorI Cr•r*ntttre •roc hart•: •:•' certstaed for tiling t?,! day of 613. Jr dl Department of Assessments L'eamined and approved Ws s ` day of ►• v.v€. L 19 44 ri c11 Dspu *assessor That portion of the West 1S0 feet of the East 450.86 feet of Tract 11, Interurban Addition to the city of Seattle according to the plat recorded In Volume 10 of Fiats, page $S, le King County, Washington described as followst Beginning at the Southeast corner of the West ISO feet of the East 450.86 feet of said Tract 11, thence N01 "E along the East line thereof 124.53 feet, thence NK'S2 along a line parallel to the centerline of Southcenter Boulevard (Renton - Three Tree Point (toad) 162.68 feet to the West line of the, fast 1 S0.86 fret of said Tract 11, thence SOl'71'40'1t 165.17 feet to the Northerly Margin of PSN tio. 1 as tunreyed by deed under Auditors File No. 54711~99 thence 569'17'02'V along said highway margin 66.33 feet to Intersect the Suuth fine of said Tract 11. th "n.a SA8' 24'47 "f along said •.outh line 87.42 fret to the Point of Peginning, Planning Division 8l ••12 *0483. Ottiee of Community Development RECD F ►.tu. • 3O Southcenter boulevard CpSHSL 4 +4 Tukwila. Washington Seigle 22 : The Vest 1S0 feet of the East 650.86 feet of Tract 11, Interurban Addition to the City of Seattle according to the plat recorded in Volume 10 of plats, page SS, in King Cototty, Washington; Except that portion thereof conveyed to the State of Washington for Primary State Highway No. 1 by deed recorded under Auditors File No. S673Sl9.. lot 1 • That portion of the Vest 1SO of the East 450.86 feet of Tract 11. Interurban 'Addition to City of Seattle according to the plat recorded In Volume 10 of Plats,, •page SS, le King County, Washington described BEGINNING. ' ; . 4 L 4 LEGAL D1 :S ItUt'1'IO`.' vont inu'• :f f t un. 1•6ur• 1 ■51 4 Lot I Access L•ser+rn• 'That portion of tot 11, Interurban Addition to the City of Seatt1r, .rccordsno Iv 04, • recorded in Volume 10 of i'lats, prpe records of king Lountt t#shsngton. descr tt.l o l as volitive: lleginnine at the northeast corner of said Lot 11; thence NBt'75'!7''d the nort►. line thereof 5.00 feet to the west margin of . 62nd Avenue South •s conveyed to the City of Tukwila by deed recorded under King County Recording Na 790901. thence 601 *long said west margin 164.95 feet to the TOUC POIN1 Of BEGINNING; thence on a curve to the right having • radius of 20.00 feet thru • central angle of 90'00'00" an are distance of 31.62 feet; thence N80 1$3.15 feet to • point of curve; thence on • curve to the right having a radius of 37.S0 feet, thru a central angle of 64'00'00" an arc distance of 29.4$ feet; thence 1163 S3.33 feet to • point of curves thence en a curve to the right having • radius of 37.50 feet, thru • cancel angle 01 an arc distance of 29.65 feet: thence N01 S0.1S feet to a pint of curve; thence on • curve to the right having • radius of 277.50 feet, thru • central angle of !'S6'20', an arc distance of 67.96 feet; thence N11'16'00•E 12.95 feet to the port! line of said Lot 11; thence Nts along the north line thereof S3.86 feet to the west line of the east 300.06 feet of said Lot II; thence 601 "11 •long said west line 110.86 feet; thence 688 S.S0 feet to • point on • curve, the center which bears 488 79.50 feet; thence southerly Meng said curve to the left. thru • central angle of 65'00'00", an arc distance of 62.64 feet; thence $63'3$'20"E $3.33 feet to a point of curve; thence on a curve to the left having a radius of 79.50 feet. thru a central angle of 65 an arc distance of 62.64 feet; thence SS8•30'20"E 153e15 feet to • point of curve; thence on a curve to the right having a radius of 20.00 feet. thru • central angle of 90'00'00" an arc distance of 31.62 feet to • point of tangency on the west margin of said 62nd Avenue South thence N01 slang said west worsen 82.00 feet to the lIUE POINT Of BEGINNING. Jr, 7.. - •.t •1 Ave.►• 0 • F •E.q! • Chart P1et Number Pano of ;;CLAR:•110N; " know all men by these presents that we. the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple and contract purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make a short subdivision thereof pursuant to RCM 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said short subdivision shall not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of IN finallplat.•,The undersigned further declare this short plat to be the i graphic representation of said short subdivision and•that same is made';• with. the free consent and in accordance with the desire of.the owner(s). In witness whereof we have set our hands and seals. me em Rams PACir c DON DALLY, P Ens Name I. hams Name • i - i 1' are STATE OF WASHINGTON, County of On this day personally appeared berm so 71,a/ DA"' y to ws known to be t“ individual described 11 7717,1 who executed the with. in and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that A e signed the • 2 27 e1 Da eV . 1s s$ xc ts'ts A OfM oegri/ Land Surveyor's Certificates this short plat correctly represents a survey wade by we or under say direction in conformanc• with the requirewents of appropriate state statute and has been properly staked • ccordanc• with the Tukwila Subdivi o Code. C erti f ic a t• No. Short Plat No. • • .•....: ..• .. •••....• y• � F, • - • ; •• Hk is ti N C '. +.:1C- --- ,o • - •r 1 'kJ Vik(\t. ter• ► !1 1 r AKt UIJM' •ate . ct• f 31.l• t d r,. a' L'A.1 �1f fl •r rr V •.te L' tflJ r ?VW G, ,•„• I ea R'3 1 , i •ria 11'11 r PO' • I:'W Map on File In Vault Direction; Seta le • • � I page __4 of 7403040470 KNOW ALL MPN BY THESE PRESENCF. h1 • • !O 5th by of January, 1074, before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public in and for the State of Orogon, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared C. Robert Altman and Arlon Smith to me known to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of Restaurant Industries, Inc: the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed, of said corporation, for the uses and purpose■ therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they authorised to execute the said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate anal of said corporation. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. . Notary Publ �inand for the state of Oregon residing at :Salem. My. Commission expires Go z Mr. Phil Fraser City Engineer City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: North Hill Office Building Dear Mr. Fraser, Gencor has related to me your request for additional information on soils aspects of design on this office project. 1) Separate lines will carry surface and roof drainage from the system which collects "clean" water from footing and backwall drains. For the latter a six Inch line will coincide with the WEst, North and East perimeter lines. Surface lines will be sized by the civil engineer. The surface and subsurface systems can join at CB's off the Southwest and /or Southeast building corners. 2) The West end of the North perimeter wall and the NOrth end of the West perimeter wall will be of shotcrete construction for combined length of about 100 feet. Miradrain 6000 or equivalent will be laid against the cut face before shotcrete is applied. Two feet wide strips on six foot centers will be used•in permeable soils above the water table as determined at the time of excavation. There will be 100 percent coverage.below any water table of any soil of potential intermittent saturation as determined at the time of excavation. Thiasystem will assure that there will be no hydrotadc contribution to the lateral pressure against the wall. The shotcrete portion of the wall will hiva an "L" or modified "L" configuration. Non shotcrete portion will be conventionally backfilled with granular material and conventionally drained Into the six inch system. The sketch beilow was copied from a Miradrain publication and shows schematically how the Miradrain is Installed Pat is not represe, tative od the footing configuration.. 3 VERTICAL WALL AND UNDERFLOOR SLAB COMBINATION OPTION FOUNION WALL MIRADRAIN FILTER FABRIC 'w 1 4 PERT DISCM. PIPES JUN 121990 CITY PLANNING OPT. JAMES EATON, PE GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES (206) 682-6942 ityr Box 126 • Hobart, WA 98025 Today I have examined architectural sheet A -1 and Civil sheet 2, revised 8- 11 -90. With respect to geotechnical detail, I concur with These drawings. 4) i have been asked by Gencor to be available to make whatever inspections are required. I have so agreed and expect to make inspection trips on request. Exploration done in 1987 and 1989 revealed on evidence of part sliding or instability at any of the test location or at any visible features. Any existing fill will be removed and its stability is therefore irrelevant. No evidence of scarps or slide debris were noted and the soils types found and described are types not normally associated with Instability. The only groundwater we anticipate is a thin perched horizon above the bedrock or weathered bedrock. it is my opinion that there nothing unique or a hazardous nature about the slope condtion which would figure into the feasibility of safety of the project proposed. Subsequent to you meeting with Gencor last Friday the existing West property line retaining wail has been deleted. That modification has no bearing on any of my conclusions or recommendations. Yours very truly, April 24, 1990 C. MICHAEL AIPPERSBACH Consultant Development Perrnitsr APR 26 1990 Dale Johnson CITY Cir JK VwLA LDG PLANNING DEPT. 1836 Westlake Avenue North, SCi e `rD'6 """' ' """"— Seattle WA 98109 Re: Design Review Application (File # 89- 17 -DR) North Hills Office /Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Johnson: I have briefly reviewed the following resubmittal materials which I received on monday, April 23: o Environmental Checklist (dated 3- 22 -90) o Traffic analysis by Entranco (dated 3- 38 -90) o Landscape Architect's letter (dated 3- 12 -90) o Set of drawings: Architectural plans (Shts A -1 through 7), - Landscape plans (Sht L -1), and - Civil plans (Shts 1- 3) To my knowledge, the City has not yet received the following requested materials (based on the letter from Jack Pace and dated 2- 21 -90): o Preliminary Title Report o Current survey w/ database & topographic interpolations o Geotechnical /hydrological analysis The submittals will be reviewed again by the appropriate City departments and most likely another follow -up meeting with the DRC will be conducted. Please be aware that although many of the revisions which the Public Works Department had requested have been incorporated in the material received, these specific items are necessary for Public Works to complete their SEPA review of the project. I would urge you to have your the geotech consultant contact Phil Fraser (433 -0179) and review with him any issues raised in their comments. Sincerely, CM,e;Afka C. Michael Aippersbach cc. Jack Pace, City of Tukwila P.O. Box 95429, Seattle, WA 98145 -2429 • (206) ?4 g.52' ?,,744 -- C C. MICHAEL AIPPERSBACH`= April 3, 1990 Dale Johnson LDG 1836 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 106 Seattle WA 98109 Re: Design Review Application (File # 89- 17 -DR) North Hills Office /Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Johnson: This letter confirms our phone call today. The re- submittal material unfortunately has not arrived in time enough for the Public Works Department to review and comment and me to have completed a draft Threshold Determination on March 26. The Threshold Determination had to have been issued April 2 to make the April 26 public hearing. Sincerely, Ad4f4 Consultant Development Permits • Urban Planning C. Michael Aippersbach cc. Jack Pace, City of Tukwila P.O. Box 95429, Seattle, WA 98145 -2429 • (206) :329 -6290 March 28, 1990 Mr. Ron Cameron City Engineer City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 101 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed North Hills Office Building in Tukwila, Washington Entranco Project No. 90809 -06 Dear Ron: This letter outlines the traffic impact analysis performed for the North Hills Office Build- ing in Tukwila, Washington. The proposed site is located on the north side of South - center Boulevard west of the 61st Avenue South Bridge and adjacent to the existing Arco AM /PM Mini Mart site. The proposed development will consist of 9,000 square feet of general office space. Two access driveways are planned to ingress and egress the site. One driveway will access the site from Southcenter Boulevard and the other driveway will access the existing North Hills Driveway. EXISTING CONDITIONS ENTRANCED ENGIN1ER 3 1990 I ' LAKE WASHINGTON PARK BUILDING ( j2b6) 927 ) : >'•'J I I LA 5808 LAKE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD N.E., IRKLANQ A'98 Southcenter Boulevard will provide the primary access route to the proposed site. It is currently a five lane east -west minor arterial with two lanes in each direction and a cen- ter left turn lane. The speed limit is currently signed for 30 mph. The existing North Hills Driveway serves the 54 unit North Hills Apartments complex just north of the proposed office building site and the Arco AM /PM Mini Mart. The Arco facility operates with two other existing driveways along with the North Hills Driveway. A noon peak (12:00 - 1:00 p.m.) and p.m. peak (4:00 - 5:00 p.m.) hour turn movement count was conducted for the North Hills and Arco driveways on March 19th and 20th, 1990 by Entranco Engineers. The City of Tukwila Engineering staff provided the exist- ing traffic volume data for Southcenter Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the 1990 existing traffic volumes at the Southcenter Boulevard /North Hills Driveway intersection. Traffic flow operations were also observed during the noon and p.m. peak hours. The observations showed no significant operational problems except for the westbound queue from the Macadam Road /Southcenter Boulevard intersection which occasionally extends from the intersection back beyond the North Hills Driveway. This queue was observed during the noon and p.m. peak period, although the noon peak queue did not occur with the frequency or the length of the p.m. peak. No queues were observed in the center left turn lane during either peak period. EVERETT OFFICE 516 SEATTLE -FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING (206) 258 -6202 1602 HEWITT AVENUE. EVERETT. WA 98201 Mr. Ron Cameron March 28, 1990 Page Two The intersections of Southcenter Boulevard /61st Avenue South and Southcenter Boule- vard /Macadam Road are presently controlled by signalization. With a traffic signal lo- cated on either side of the North Hills Driveway, gaps are created on Southcenter Bou- levard which allow the outbound traffic from Arco or the North Hills Apartment to enter the traffic stream. The gap opportunities on Southcenter Boulevard, however, do not al- ways occur simultaneously for the eastbound and westbound direction, therefore, vehi- cles currently attempting a left turn eastbound from the Arco or North Hills driveways used the center left turn lane as a refuge before merging into the eastbound traffic. This behavior is not uncommon for driveways which access a five lane urban arterial facility. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Table 1 summarizes the total number of trips which the proposed office building will generate during the noon and p.m. peak hour. These p.m. peak hour trip generation values are based on the total gross square feet of floor area and the rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip Generation Manual", 4th Edition, Sep- tember 1987. The noon peak hour generation values were based on a 12 -hour (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) driveway volume count at an existing office park. The proportion of noon peak trips to p.m. peak trips of the existing office park was applied to the North Hills Office generation to determine the noon peak project volumes. Figure 2 shows the project - generated traffic volumes for the noon and p.m. peak hours. General Office (ITE Code 710) (9,000 sq. ft.) P.M. Peak Hour Noon Peak Hour Table 1 Trip Generation Summary Daily Enter Exit Total 225 4 23 27 — 9 9 18 The proposed North Hills Office Building will generate a total of 225 average daily vehi- cle trips with 27 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour and 18 trips during the noon peak hour. Trip distribution of the project generated trips were based on the existing turn move- ment volume counts conducted by Entranco for the Arco and North Hills Apartments driveways, and the reported trip distribution in the North Hills Apartments Traffic Study performed by Entranco in December 1987. The project generated trips were distribut- ed evenly (eastbound and westbound) on Southcenter Boulevard for the noon peak generated trips and approximately 60 percent westbound and 40 percent eastbound for the p.m. peak generated trips. Although the proposed project site has two planned ac- cess driveways, all of the project generated trips for either peak hour were assigned to the shared Arco and apartments driveway as a worst case condition since the planned Southcenter Boulevard driveway was designated for right -in /right -out access only. Fig- ure 3 shows the 1990 total traffic volumes with project generated traffic at the access driveway and study intersection. Mr. Ron Cameron March 28, 1990 Page Three TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted for the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard /North Hills Driveway during the noon and p.m. peak hours under existing and future conditions. All LOS calculations followed the methodology outlined in the 1985 "Highway Capacity Manual". Table 2 summarizes the results of the LOS analysis. Table 2 Level of Service Summary Peak Period 1990 Existing 1990 With Project Reserve Reserve Capacity Capacity Unsignalized LOS (veh. /hr.) LOS (veh. /hr.) Noon Peak E 71 E 83 P.M. Peak D 102 E 99 Delay Delay Signalized LOS (sec. /veh.) LOS (sec. /veh.) Noon Peak N/A N/A B 5.27 P.M. Peak N/A N/A B 7.02 The results of the LOS analysis shows that the intersection currently operates at LOS E and LOS D for the noon and p.m. peak hours, respectively. With the addition of the North Hills Office Building generated traffic, the LOS analysis indicates that the noon peak hour LOS will remain at LOS E. The analysis for the p.m. peak hour indicates that the LOS will deteriorate from a LOS D to LOS E with the project generated traffic. The LOS analysis for an unsignalized intersection, however, does not take into account the gaps created by the adjacent traffic signals on Southcenter Boulevard at Macadam Road and 61st Avenue South. The LOS was also analyzed assuming the intersection would be signalized. A LOS B was obtained for both the noon and p.m. peak periods. As a result of the LOS E obtained for the p.m. peak hour with project volumes, a signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection. Signal warrants I and II of the "Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices" (MUTCD) were analyzed for the intersec- tion. Since 24 -hour counts were not available for all approaches, the signal warrant analysis used the projected average daily volumes as the criteria for the analysis. The volume requirements for average daily traffic volumes were interpolated from the Wash- ington State Design Manual and the values given in the MUTCD. The analysis indicat- ed that the volume requirements for the major road would be met for both warrants, however, the projected volumes on the minor road (North Hills Driveway) with project generated traffic did not meet the volume requirements for either warrant. Therefore, signalization of the Southcenter Boulevard /North Hills Driveway intersection is not war- ranted nor recommended at this time. Mr. Ron Cameron March 28, 1990 Page Four A queue analysis was also performed for the Southcenter Boulevard /North Hills Drive- way intersection under stop sign control and signalization. The analysis was conduct- ed for both the noon and p.m. peak hours using the projected future volumes with the proposed project. The analysis of the intersection under stop sign control assumed a "wait interval" of two minutes for the critical turn movements. The analysis of the inter- section under signalization assumes a cycle length of 60 seconds with green time allo- cated proportionally to the approach volumes. Table 3 summarizes the results of the queue analysis. Critical Movement Peak Period Eastbound Left Turn Noon Eastbound Left Turn P.M. Southbound Left Turn Noon Southbound Left Turn P.M. Table 3 Queue Analysis Summary Queue Length Queue Length Unsignalized (ft.) Signalized (ft.) 44 44 • 66 66 22 22 44 44 The results of the queue analysis project that the eastbound left turn movement vol- umes from Southcenter Boulevard will create a queue of 44 feet for both the noon and p.m. peak hours under stop sign control. The southbound left turn movement volumes from the North Hills Driveway will create a queue length of 66 feet under stop sign con- trol during both the noon and p.m. peak hours. The queue analysis was also conduct- ed for the intersection assuming signalization. A projected queue of 22 feet will be ex- perienced for the eastbound left turn movement from Southcenter Boulevard during both the noon and p.m. peak hours. The southbound left turn movement from the North Hills Driveway will experience a projected queue of 44 feet for both peak periods. The planned access driveway from the proposed site at the North Hills Driveway is lo- cated 75 feet north of the intersection, therefore, the 66 foot queue created by the southbound left turn volumes will not interfere with the operations at the planned drive- way under stop sign control. The 44 foot queue projected for the eastbound left turn movement from Southcenter Boulevard will occasionally block left turning vehicles from Arco's East Driveway, however, the recent driveway counts conducted by Entranco for the Arco driveways indicate that 60 percent of Arco's customers use the Arco West Driveway, therefore impacts to the Arco East Driveway will be minimal. The Southcenter Boulevard extension to Grady Way will increase traffic on Southcenter Boulevard approximately 4 percent according to the "Southcenter Boulevard Environ- mental Assessment Study" conducted by Entranco Engineers, February 1983. This growth will occur with or without the proposed North Hills Office Building. Since the trip generation from the project is minimal, the Southcenter Boulevard extension will have negligible influence on the distribution of project - generated traffic. Mr. Ron Cameron March 28, 1990 Page Five SUMMARY The proposed North Hills Office Building will generate a total of 225 average daily vehi- cle trips with 18 and 27 trips occurring during the noon and p.m. peak hours, respec- tively. A level of service analysis was conducted for the Southcenter Boulevard /North Hills Driveway intersection during the noon and p.m. peak hours with the project generated volumes. A LOS E was obtained for both peak periods with the additional volumes. A signal warrant analysis was performed for both peak periods to determine if a traffic signal should be installed to improve the operations of the intersection. Signal warrants I and II were evaluated for the future intersection volumes. The analysis showed that neither warrant would be met. The queue analysis performed for the eastbound left turn movement from Southcenter Boulevard and the southbound left turn movement from the North Hills Driveway showed that these critical movements would experience a queue of 44 feet and 66 feet, respectively. These projected queue lengths will have negligible impacts to the adja- cent driveway operations. Based on the above analysis results, we suggest the following recommendations to en- hance the safety and operational efficiency of the intersection and adjacent driveways: • Paint a crosswalk for the North leg of the Southcenter Boulevard /North Hills Driveway intersection. • Repaint the existing striping on Southcenter Boulevard to clearly identify the cen- ter left turn lane. • Monitor the Southcenter Boulevard /North Hills Driveway intersection with future development.to determine the implementation of a traffic signal. We trust that this traffic analysis for the North Hills Office Building development will as- sist you and Gencor Development, Inc. in gaining approval for their proposed project. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the information in this document, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ENTRANCO ENGINEERS, INC. Sherman D. Goo Project Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 - 1990 Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 2 - Project Generated Volumes Figure 3 - 1990 Total Traffic Volumes with North Hills Office Bldg. x Z o c E tp S 1 7 1 D614NY� I j RC-O I Re A%) ,T aM /ran M�Nt -MART CO Cis O 13 1 ZS$- --> (t6) 5 ..i ( %ct) (A27°) WORTH 1 I pPFlce SrrE 54j> g March 13, 1990 Dear Mr. Johnson: ( C. MICHAEL AIPPERSBACH Consultant Development Permits • Urban Planning Dale Johnson LDG 1836 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 106 Seattle WA 98109 Re: Design Review Application (File # 89- 17 -DR) North Hills Office /Tukwila, Washington Per my conversation with Jace Pace yesterday, I wanted to make you aware of the critical nature of the environmental review step (and the deadline) which is necessary to complete in order to bring the application to the April 26 public hearing before Tukwila's Board of Architectural Review (B.A.R.). A Threshold Determination must be issued by April 2 to allow completion of the appeal period prior to the hearing. The City is asking me to submit a preliminary draft of the Threshold Determination for their review on March 19 and a final draft on March 26, a week prior to the April 2 deadline. In order to meet that schedule, I will need to have much of the information available to me by the end of this week. The most critical information is the soils and traffic data which needs review and agreement from the Public Works Department (Phil Fraser, 433 -1850) before I can complete my final draft. We can further review and discuss the data /information needs in terms of the staff report at the wednesday meeting. Sincerely, Michael flipper back cc. Jack Pace P.O. Box 95429. Seattle, WA 98145 -2429 • (206) 349-64% 523-3764- CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND (TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT) 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: North Hill Office Building 2. Name of applicant: Edi Linardic 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1836 Westlake Ave N 1204 Seattle WA 98109 283 -4764 4. Date checklist prepared: 3/22/1990 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start of Construction: May, 1990 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. North Hill Apts. North of this 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. No APR 2 3 1990 r .. ..., ':?h.iG DEPT. No. Epic File No. Fee $100.00 Receipt No. C TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. BAR Building Permit Electrical Permit Plumbing Permit Occupancy Permit 11. Give a 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 describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat answers on this page. The Project is a one story office building (9,524 sf) and 33 parking stalls. 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 by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 5900 Southcenter Blvd. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Map as environmentally sensitive ? No. Site does have steep slopes. 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL E EMENTS 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)? 45 %max. slope 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. sandy, gravely soil d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. The steep slopes to the north of the proposed building are presently stable and will not be disturbed during construction. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Balanced cut and fill with possible minor export. 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, concrete or building)? 45.0% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2. AIR Install filter fabric, ditches. 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 know. 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. Yes, automobile exhaust from cars driving on South Center Blvd. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During construction, use of good quiet machinery and spray water over site to keep dust to minimum. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2 3 4 5 6 ) ) ) ) ) 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. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. Will the proposal require surface withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities of known. Construction of new drainage system that will collect run -off, detaining it, and discharging to local storm drain system. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. Does the proposal involve any discharge of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated of discharge. No. b. Groundwater: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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 system, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if . any (include quantities, if known). Where will . this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 2 New storm detention system that will collect the run -off and discharge it to local storm drain system. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No, possibility exists though if any sewer pipes break. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Storm drainage system including catch basins, underground pipes and grassy swales. 6 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. PLANTS TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous trees 1' alder,, maple, aspen, other: evergreen trees:'f ir- cedar, pine, other: shrubs grass pasture crops 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? Addition of new landscaping, removal of existing ground cover. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Describe proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Proposed landscaping will meet City of Tukwila Zoning Code requirements.. 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 mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: none TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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: None 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. Gas /electricity for heating and cooling. No. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 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, walls and slab as required by energy code. 3 No. None. b. Noise TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic along South Center Blvd. 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: traffic, construction, operation,other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction between 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., traffic noise and usage of facility at peak hours. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Use of quiet equipment during construction. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is vacant, to the North is apartments, to the East is vacant lot, to the South is South Center Blvd.,to the West is AM PM Mart. b. Has the site been used for agriculture ? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structure on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished, if so, which ones? No. e. What is the current PO f. What is the current of the site? Commercial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None. zoning classificationtbe site? comprehensive plan designation h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmental sensitive" area? If so, specify. Part of the site is classified as steep slopes. i. Approximately how may people would reside or work on the completed project? 30 max. 10 Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT . Approximately how may 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 compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Building will be approx. 17' -4" high. It will be constructed of concrete and clear glass with ceramic tile feature strips and entry portico. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any would be 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 structures(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? High: 17' -4" Exterior: concrete, ceramic tile and clear glass 1 1 Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Use of modulation of the facade and landscaping. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Possible reflection from glazing at dusk. 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: None. 12. RECREATION I a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are on the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. 12 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 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. No. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidance of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No. 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 access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Southcenter Blvd b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 33 stalls, none. 13 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. No. No. 60 Peak volume would occur from 4 PM to 5 PM Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Traffic routes will not be impacted significantly by this project. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, recreational facilities, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, emergency only. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 14 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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. Hook-up of storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water and telephone. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and completed to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relyin• on hem to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted:3 /29/1990 15 Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO tE COMPLETED BY APPL ICAf 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 ?Offa . :S at 4 .0 lot StlZUC t c-g-8 r+-t- ,G[ziet l tw i td .4 1 etat4m a v+d .. P c-,4 t . Walt l I ♦ t t - 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? we +Ina r51 a eft )t- ' rV?eZa 1 044- o. The lAa5 cav,d uE /et cie it2i op wt e. a Her v1ct -ham 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: �a�� 'CZ air'\ 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? t,1 Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: ti110*. -23- Evaluation for Agency. Use Only KEN LONEY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 6869 WOODLAWN AVE. N.E. #208 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98115 (2061526 -1426 March 12, 1990 Mr. Jack Pace City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Pace: Sincerely, I `- Ken Loney 1 1 APR 231990 Ci'1'Y ol-. l'l.10...v,.L PLANK NG DEPT. In response to your letter of February 21, 1990, listing your concerns for the landscaping at North Hills Office Building, the following action has been taken: 1. I have reviewed. the Civil drawings and am satisfied that proposed plant material will not be negatively impacted in any way by proposed parking and /or vehicle or pedestrian traffic. 2. All storm water runoff is directed through swale to proposed catch basins. Potential erosion to planting beds other than in the swale areas should therefore be minimal. The erosion control hydroseed mix proposed will adequately protect the swale itself. 3. The existing trees on the upland portion of the site are primarily alder and can be retained insofar as they are not undermined by any new grading. It would not seem necessary to introduce additional planting other than erosion control mix. Within the mix it would not be unreasonable to introduce seeds of other native shrubs such as snowberry, mahonia, etc., but with the understanding that the germination rate in such a proceedure is typically very low. Please contact me if you have any further concerns or would like clarification of any of the above. A R C H I T E C T S LINARDIC DESIGN GROUP .-1836 WESTLAKE AVE. N. • SUITE 106 A SEATTLE, WA. 98109 TELEPHONE • 206- 283 -4764 November 20, 1989 Mr. Jack Pace Community Development Department City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: North Hill Office Building Dear Jack, As per our conversation, find attached statistics for the new submittal. Building area: Building height: Parking: Find attached color board for this project. If you have any questions do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, LINaj2DIC GROUP /ARCHITECTS Edi Lin rdic EL /jaw 9,524 sf 17' -3" 33 stalls NOV *2 21989 CaY .. r �. #:: . ,, nt, DEIGN REVIEW APK,... z. trdss »aetere,rica .Files: 1. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSAL L_ PROJECT LOCATION; (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or tax lot number, acceSS street, and nearest intersection) Quarter: Section :__ Township: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) 3. APPLICANT :* Name: ' - t Signature: Address: 1 ,3 _? ire• * The applicant is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent. unless otherwise stipulated by applicant, AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP 4. PROPERTY Name: Get\k_or, .� >J OWNER A � Address: ! 1 8 ) I . A E. 16 O i u :1&e . , r14- W, Phone : et// *rush. Range: Date:( 2o( c'! I /WE,Csignature(s)l swear that we a e e awn s or con aet purchasers? of tn4 property involved in this plication and that the foregoing statements and answers contained in this application are true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. Oat e: ,///; l The following criteria will be used by the BAR in its decision- making on your proposed project. Please carefully review the criteria, respond to each cri- terion (if appropriate), and describe how your plans and elevations meet the criteria. If the space provided for response is insufficient, use extra space on last page or use blank paper to complete response and attach to this form. 5. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE TO SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 2 A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping, and pedestrian movement. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed, and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to it site. RESPONSE: ,4 : t 1, t7 cd ,3uP . - ' - - t "tom -asp . L-18.31. Ida Ih ' v PeCA? LICE. -- tn.. - 4 , AQ444 e-1 : 44 t= •c. E . 2-0 V 1 =Cu T, ea < ldl_L laCc1C 13 TZ-`r i L..I►. N Deoc s. 1'+G. U : 091-171.1 0 nUe i7 W/ Cb nipoT q sl DG S . 01.17vm W I G4 ISGVViwip. SET WIT) rb f l u..SIQG 6. RELATIONSHIP OF STRUCTURE AND SITE TO ADJOINING AREA A. Harmony in texture, lines, and masses is encouraged. B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the estab- lished neighborhood character. D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. E. Compatibility of on -site vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. RESPONSE44612.1z.. .fit' r 01= vx -tNn V5 -- I N M1 0 .46I .- z . i 44Ao uo(Th -lt.l. StcG.. $ I 1 X 'G AARE- . L hour} -dcaorE GA40JLOYClIEWt. !sue v1,.tZloc40.7 _ ou a... lh 6� w1Pc -� h'124 —tuna ikk.D AwO App eo i ej.n.'rE - rb e e krina .T . 4 re ATI/DiIJ AzE 'Jr. .ts'PIGi ti µT 1 'el ou c) LY - D e.l V6 61-1AN1P_G.3, e,XtSr n.4 GI 'M+ 1 PA. L. 6NTt2-1' c" wOST . 7. LANDSCAPE AND SITE TREATMENT DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 3 A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized and preserved and enhanced. B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade. D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be un- sightly, should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and pavings of wood, brick, stone, or gravel may be used. H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. RESPONSE: . ` . -A4e. eve Co - oesa,.lfz . • �! .sRkliJ6 S`�•�►�� gTiZt c. 4 -r fQOw► wt r, perk r c l�.Aa)'rE1L (ai W1Awc • 5°7o . /06E, C- . � . -- '. Wen& 07 s.1 ten. t ,r - IS HCILE, 17 . Vex, W rDEt? Cq - PAC -14. t IV C01 -- to 061 46e. L'744' : l z )isr v& 1... - ,„//1/44 f✓ X &4U 26 wt Lt, P SGwt i (A A it) f36i ► A:T -4 4+ . `L. I co 1-1 yt tateotar.. - MR- A - t, 1‘70 a .c.. . 8. BUILDING DESIGN A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to surroundings. B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with per - ma•ient neighboring developments. C. Building components - such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets - should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. D. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. F. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fix- tures, standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form, and siting should be used to provide visual interest. RESPONSE: A,. LsZ,11410 11--4e. 6.0101167.N7r — a- 1%w4.It4; , 1- 4924zo k,. (2,6 eMPAS14 th wtl r APFRoPIZAA rE . 1 ; t &1&) faz it .Pr4 Lfa AN rte, &17 Krjr i ArTV&51760 ' 1;7. >7 o A0v6 I .-Er -- Yr k t IJ Dow ' Ve . 1+Gry n f t 'r U 'J t FO 2-Iv I T� (71 - . Lo LIG*: V "" - - r . o t\yr �. 6 1 T , IU%T 4 A.e_ - *&) -r. DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 4 -F. • ., G "1 N T JA-,. T Steikk .clE t tlL Tic e-otbt.le --r - tom ' Il &3 c- torus. AS 'rt-r U00P. l.o t1.i 14e4 -H t( ? L.ti36s 1�.£,yvutt.try LA Ztif eoY --Fi20^1 T ‘-t DEC, . 9. MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES AND STREET FURNITURE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 5 A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings, scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and pro- portions should be to scale. B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furni- ture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. RESPONSE: o.,, INTERURBAN SPECIAL REVIEW DISTRICT The following six criteria are used in the special review of the Interurban area in order to manage the development of this area, to upgrade its general appear- ance, to provide incentives for compatible uses, to recognize and to capitalize on the benefits to the area of the amenities including the Green River and nearby recreational facilities, to encourage development of more people- oriented use, and to provide for development incentives that will help to spur growth. Please describe how your proposed development relates to the goals for this District. Use additional response space, if necessary. 10. The proposed development design should be sensitive to the natural amenities of the area. 442s4.7 •G r..: 12, . 6p - IMP LI ut �►rLlLl �J G-� Aa G,v 446.t3s vex -L. , 11. The proposed development use should demonstrate due regard for the use and enjoyment of public recreational areas and facilities. " rs� . (29 /DSGN.APP1 -3) DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION Page 6 12. The proposed development should provide for safe and convenient on -site pedestrian circulation. TiZ Wt 17A2-4 M Gi Tea PJ1 S i dads E. t m wt E1 H all. , I &J o L1 N rz. Ap ,, eA✓1EOT .64,0•OC& "11-1t. T3C-1 Vao 01T. 13. The proposed property use should be compatible with neighboring uses and complementary to the district in which it is located. A A! - Ol 1 rz - et. IG, 'FiNErAGtvI t rvA'1'S l`1' t,c4' -1 10G 10 — 1 1 - 11 h vtGiJ r r 14. The proposed development should seek to minimize significant adverse environmental impacts. A:A - rE. wlUL .te, r' T'. �- CFT 1.X�b . �C Stvot_) .. t o TZ,+E 1►.a a "R- EWLDUe t1 1 &) CA- . 15. The proposed development should demonstrate due regard for significant historical features in the area. YLK t; ?e., , x ..,., ` � elevations secton b-b sencor planting plan landscape notes shield planting detail landscape plan